1 Introduction
A joint introduction precedes separate chapters on Central and East European region (CEE) and West European region since much of the developments over the last 30 years are common for them. Most importantly, they are united in the joint process of reforms, called the Bologna Process, and share the same set of principles of quality assurance, called the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). ESG Part I applies to higher education institutions, ESG Part III – to quality assurance agencies and ESG Part II is shared by all, thus is relevant for the set-up of entire quality assurance frameworks on national and/or regional levels. Aside from that, countries and institutions attributed to CEE (total 26 countries, 3136 tertiary education institutions, population of c. 436 million) and Western Europe (total 25 states, 1816 institutions, c. 432 million inhabitants) exhibit great diversity of sizes, educational traditions, languages, and cultures. This chapter is dedicated mainly to describing the policy contexts, existing tools and common features of both EQA and IQA and does not address the specificities of IQA systems in European tertiary education institutions. For major milestones in the Bologna Process evolution, please refer to Annex 9A.1.
In Europe two states stand out for their history of care for quality: the United Kingdom and France. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) as the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom was established by a royal charter in 1844, and the British Accreditation Council (BAC) dates to 1984. In France the Engineering Degree Commission (CTI)1 came into being in 1934; the foundations for the National Committee for the Evaluation of Research (CNÉ) were laid in legislation of 1985, the actual initiation following in 19892 (Walsh in ENQA, 2020).
European cooperation in quality assurance pre-dates the Bologna Process. In the early 1990s, CEE countries saw political movements seeking independence from Soviet-type regimes and radical social change. They motivated a shift in higher education policies towards autonomy, democratisation, and
Initially, in Western Europe a strong impetus for the definition of a practical approach towards implementation of external quality assurance came from the European Pilot Project “Quality Assessment in the Field of Higher Education”, funded by the European Commission (Kristoffersen in ENQA, 2010; Hopbach in EUA, 2014). By comparison, countries in the CEE found inspiration in activities of such international organizations as the Council of Europe, UNESCO/CEPES, and the Baltic Higher Education Cooperation Coordination Council (Rauhvargers, 2003).
Early 1990s witnessed a wave of quality assurance agencies popping up in different corners of Europe and there was no lagging behind in CEE when compared to the West. For example, in Czech Republic, the Accreditation Commission was formed as early as in 1990.3 In Denmark, the Evaluation Centre opened in 1992. In 1994, the Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) of the European University Association was officially introduced4 (EUA, 2014); the same year the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (MAB), German agencies ZEvA and FIBAA (the latter – upon an initiative of Swiss, Austrian and German industry) were established (Walsh in ENQA, 2020), SKVC in Lithuania was founded in 1995.
While in the early days of quality assurance arrangements accreditation was a preferred method in CEE and in the West European countries focus on evaluation was more prevalent, boundaries between those processes are blurred and almost impossible to clearly discern (Schwarz & Westerheijden, 2004). Notably, guidelines under ESG standard 3.1 list possible approaches to EQA being evaluation, review, audit, assessment, accreditation – but go on to add “or other similar activities at programme or institutional level that may be carried out differently” (ESG, 2015). In recent years, this inventory expanded with thematic evaluations, targeted reviews, excellence evaluations, metrics-based risk assessments and yearly monitoring and this list may still be evolving as we write. In focus groups, institutional representatives also noted increasing complexity of internal quality assurance arrangements in order to address a broader range of expectations across multiple missions and goals of higher education. So, increasing maturity in quality assurance comes alongside increasing complexity of systems at all levels.
Similarly, several iterations of the University Autonomy in Europe Scorecard demonstrated that frameworks, regulations, and governance implementation processes at universities in Europe remain greatly diverse, and while more CEE countries compared to those of the West are found in lower clusters of the autonomy ranking, as many as 1/3 of higher education systems experienced change6 (EUA, 2023). To recall Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the only constant in life is change.
2 Quality Assurance in the Bologna Process
Currently the Bologna Process is the single most influential factor shaping the entire higher education in Europe. This cooperation was (and still is) based on a shared concern to improve the quality of teaching and learning and goes
The Bologna Process, initiated in 1998 with the Sorbonne declaration7 and officially launched in 1999,8 is a collective effort to standardise and improve higher education, to enable cross-border cooperation and mobility, and to ensure Europe’s attractiveness as a study destination globally. While Bologna Process agreements are recorded in declarations and communiques9 issued on behalf of ministers in charge of education, the entire process is driven by the collective effort of countries and the European Commission which are full members of the process and consultative members – stakeholders represented by very strong sector organisations, such as EUA, EURASHE, ENQA, ESU, EQAR, and with input from the Council of Europe, UNESCO, BusinessEurope and Education International.10
Quality assurance has been a central pillar of this process, evolving significantly over the past two decades, together in a symbiotic relationship with other Bologna Process reforms, such as the creation of qualification frameworks, establishment of a common degree structure, the use of a common system for academic credits, and agreed processes for international recognition. To date, the Lisbon Recognition Convention11 on recognition of qualifications concerning higher education, concluded in 1997, remains the only legally binding agreement, associated with the Bologna Process. The rest of agreements on joint reforms, endorsed by education ministers of participating and ever-expanding circle of countries, are attributed to soft laws and viewed as voluntary commitments. Nevertheless, it is expected that all members of the Process fully implement all commitments, and indeed their implementation is regularly monitored by stakeholders, publicly reported,12 and promoted in a mutually supportive spirit.
Progress achieved with implementation of the Bologna Process commitments have led to announcing of creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in 2010.13 However, with every meeting of education ministers, more action lines or activities within them are added. This has led to coining a term of Bologna Process being “a moving target” (Kehm et al., 2009). This evolving nature of the Process has been both the source of fresh inspiration but also a point of criticism of moving too fast without properly reaching the earlier goals. To address these gaps, working groups dedicated to non-implementation have been instituted and peer learning activities reinvigorated.
European countries are open to share their experiences and maintain a keen interest in cooperation with other regions. Thus, starting 2009, in conjunction with EHEA Ministerial meetings, Bologna Policy Forums, involving many countries of the world, take place. With the EU support, the QACHE.14 Toolkit for Cross Border Quality Assurance was co-developed, and the experiences with the ESG have fed into the development and implementation of quality assurance frameworks in the ASEAN and in Africa, to name a few examples. It also inspired other discussions, such as the recently published comparison of the quality assurance reference frameworks of the European Higher Education Area and the Iberoamerican Knowledge Area.15
The common European framework for quality assurance is considered one of the key pillars of the EHEA and a foundational condition for society’s trust in higher education, and for student mobility and recognition of credits and qualifications. Indeed, the 2003 Berlin Communiqué16 underscored the necessity of developing shared criteria and methodologies for quality assurance. The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA17) was charged with overseeing this development, cooperating with the other main stakeholder bodies at the European level: European University Association (EUA), European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE18), and European Students’ Union (ESU), in the process. This led to the endorsement of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG)19 in the Bergen Ministerial Conference in 2005, marking a pivotal moment in European quality assurance. The adopted standards and guidelines were designed to ensure a coherent approach across the EHEA, covering internal and external quality assurance, as well as the quality assurance of external quality assurance agencies themselves.
The ESG underwent significant revision in 2015 to reflect the evolving landscape of higher education.20 The revised guidelines placed greater emphasis on learning outcomes, the role of students as active participants in their
3 Key Components of the European QA Framework
3.1 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (ESG)
The ESG are based on the subsidiarity principle (country’s sovereign responsibility over its education system) and fundamental respect towards academic freedom and institutional autonomy of higher education institutions, who primarily are in charge of quality. In terms of the level of application, ESG pertain to the European level (transnational nature of the agreement on common standards and guidelines on how the standards shall be interpreted), national levels (commitment of national authorities to regulate and organise their systems in line with these agreed principles), and institutional levels (pertaining to all higher education institutions and all quality assurance agencies regardless their type). In terms of scope, ESG apply to all higher education provision (programme or part of it, both leading to a degree and not) irrespective of the mode of delivery. Thus, ESG are truly comprehensive in their nature.
Without being prescriptive on concrete QA approaches and methodologies – reviews, audits, assessments and others – the ESG propose a set of common principles and a framework of generic standards. Procedure-wise, ESG-aligned quality assurance processes consist of four elements: a self-assessment or equivalent; an external assessment with a site visit (normally); a report resulting from the external assessment; and a consistent follow-up.
The ESG are built around two key concepts of quality: fitness for purpose and continuous enhancement. They emphasise that quality evades precise definitions, yet three components – students, teachers, the institutional learning environment – and their interaction are critical. The ESG also stress the importance of accountability and transparent and trustworthy information to the public, which is a joint responsibility of higher education institutions and QA agencies.
ESG have a strong impact on implementation of not only quality assurance but also more generally higher education reforms. Even though not designed
While the ESG are specific to the European context and should not be directly copied into other systems, they can be of inspiration also in other regions. The experiences with the ESG have fed into the development and implementation of quality assurance frameworks in the ASEAN – supported by the SHARE-project22 – and in Africa through three HAQAA initiatives.23
3.2 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR)
Another key feature of the European QA framework is the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR). The concept of the register was welcomed by European education ministers in the Bergen meeting (2005), and the concrete operational model proposed two years later in the London summit (2007). Finally, the register was founded by the main European stakeholder organisations (EUA, EURASHE, ENQA, and ESU, also known as the E4 group) in 2008. EQAR is the only legal entity born out of the Bologna Process. In addition to the four founding members and additional social partner members (represented by Education International and BUSINESSEUROPE), all EHEA member countries are eligible for membership of EQAR. Importantly, EQAR is not a representative body or a stakeholder organisation but operates in the public interest to support and enhance transparency and trustworthiness of quality assurance provisions in Europe by maintaining an independent register of quality assurance agencies24 that have demonstrated to operate in line with the ESG and housing the database of their reports, the DEQAR.25
QA agencies, wishing to be (re)listed on the EQAR, are subject to a rigorous external review process once every five years for their compliance to the ESG, i.e. with high standards of independence, professionalism, and accountability. This helps institutions and stakeholders identify reputable QA bodies, and, in turn, higher education institutions that have been subject to quality assurance by those QA bodies, in compliance with the ESG. The percentage of HEI s in EHEA which have been reviewed by EQAR-listed bodies over the last five years increased from 46.4% in 2021 (Szabo, 2021) to 61.4% in 2025; and at least 50% of HEI coverage is achieved in 32 countries compared to 23 countries in 2021.26
Effectively, EQAR is the transnational watchdog over agencies in Europe. Rigorousness of its approach is attested by the fact, that it is not guaranteed that once listed, the agency will stay on the EQAR; negative decisions are taken in case agencies fail to continue to operate in substantial compliance with the ESG.27
This demanding nature of the EQAR is very important to provide trust in agencies, as European ministers in 2009 agreed to open up their regulatory
Decisions by the register committee of the EQAR regarding applications from quality assurance agencies28
| Result | Initial applications | Renewal applications |
|---|---|---|
| Withdrawn | 16 | 2 |
| Rejected | 15 | 6 |
| Approved | 73 | 98 |
| TOTAL | 104 | 106 |
The progress over the last five years has been significant: there are now 60 agencies listed on the EQAR29 (compared to 50 agencies in 2021), they overall cover 46 out of 47 EHEA countries, and this represents and increase from 85% EHEA countries covered in 2021 to 95.7%30 in 2025 (as of 14 July 2025).
3.3 DEQAR
The Database of External Quality Assurance Results (DEQAR), launched in 2018, is an essential resource developed by EQAR. It aims to enhance transparency and accessibility of information regarding higher education institutions and programmes evaluated by ESG compliant agencies (and thus, by default, against the requirements of the ESG). DEQAR provides a centralised platform where external quality assurance results and reports, conducted by recognised QA agencies, can be accessed.
Currently, out of total 60 listed agencies on the EQAR, there are 57 agencies with reports in DEQAR, out of which 4 are suspended or no longer registered, meaning that 53 of registered agencies have their reports published in the DEQAR,31 totaling to ca. 115 thous. uploaded reports. This is almost a double increase from 60 thous. reports in 2021 and a very remarkably increased transparency.
The database serves various stakeholders, including students, higher education institutions, policymakers, and employers, by offering reliable data to support e.g., informed decisions related to academic recognition, or choice of international cooperation partners. Interoperability schemes are gradually being established between QA agencies, supplying their external QA reports to the DEQAR on the one hand, and the ENIC-NARIC centres, taking into
3.4 European Approach for QA of Joint Programmes
The European Approach for quality assurance of joint programmes (EA) was set up in 2015 and is a specific quality assurance process and a set of standards, fully and exclusively based on the ESG, that can be used for the evaluation of joint programmes in Europe. The purpose of the EA is to avoid joint programmes needing to go through a number of different – sometimes even conflicting, and always burdensome – national quality assurance processes. In addition, the EA looks at a joint programme as a whole, rather than the separate evaluation of its components by national/regional quality assurance agencies. The approach is thus better suited for these specific types of programmes and ensures a comprehensive and unified evaluation of the programme in its entirety. The use of the European Approach allows institutions to go through one single quality assurance or accreditation process which is then recognised in all the partner countries of the joint programme in question. The intention is that a joint programme consortium can choose any agency registered in the EQAR to carry out this kind of evaluation.
While the European Approach32 was adopted by the 2015 EHEA Ministerial Conference, so far, the take up of the scheme has been slow and many countries in the EHEA still do not allow for its use, leading to persistence of problem and “red tape” for institutions wishing to deliver joint programmes. While the question is indeed not a new one, the emergence of the first European University Alliances in 2019 has brought the issue back to the forefront33 giving new momentum to this important Bologna Process commitment. Currently, higher education institutions from all countries of Western Europe and CEE region are part of European University Alliances, except for ten (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom34). Thus, the relevance and urgency of the European Approach’s implementation strategy.
4 Key Characteristics of Quality Assurance in Europe
Quality assurance in the EHEA is characterised by several features, that while not necessarily unique to Europe, form together the ethos for quality assurance in this continent. These aspects contribute to the overall effectiveness, transparency, and coherence of quality assurance systems across Europe. They are discussed in greater detail below.
4.1 Student and Other Stakeholder Involvement
European QA practices emphasise the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, including students, academic staff, other university staff, policymakers and the labour market. This inclusive approach ensures that the perspectives and needs of all relevant parties are considered, leading to more comprehensive and effective QA processes.
The stakeholder driven approach is visible and detectable through the policies and practices of quality assurance: the ESG were written by stakeholders, and only then adopted by the ministers of education; the EQAR was founded by the stakeholders; external peer review panels cover all main stakeholder groups with the requirement of student involvement in all QA processes on an equal footing with other peer-reviewers; stakeholder participation in quality assurance agencies’ governance is a requirement; and there is a strong culture of stakeholder consultation in all reforms and changes related to quality assurance processes and criteria both at the European level, and within the EHEA member states.
In addition, the entire Bologna Process and associated developments in recognition of qualifications, promotion of ethics, integrity, fundamental values, and digitalisation are supported by input from multiple supra-national organisations, such as the Council of Europe, the European Commission, UNESCO, and the OECD. This leads researchers to talk about quality assurance in Europe and the entire Bologna Process as multi-actor and multi-level playing field (Enders & Westerheijden, 2014). Most recently, the resolution has been made to establishing the independent, internationally staffed secretariat serving the entire Bologna Process.35
The wide and equal stakeholder participation is considered important to ensure and maintain the independence of quality assurance agencies and the related decision-making processes, but also to enable the emergence of a quality culture where the entire higher education community is involved in and feels responsible for quality and quality assurance. The strong involvement of stakeholders in shaping the QA systems is also necessary to ensure wide acceptance and agreement with the used processes and standards. This shared interest in and contribution to internal and external QA contributes to relevance and acceptance of their results. What is perhaps most remarkable,
4.2 Focus on Teaching and Learning
The Council of Europe’s recommendation on public responsibility for higher education36 (2007) lists four equally important missions of higher education, including:
- –preparation for sustainable employment;
- –preparation for life as active citizens in democratic societies;
- –personal development; and
- –the development and maintenance, through teaching, learning and research, of a broad, advanced knowledge base.
In association with the last, innovation as an objective was recently added.
While connections to other missions are important, the specific focus of the European QA framework and the ESG is on the quality of the learning and teaching processes. Naturally, elements such as good institutional governance and management, sustainability, and respect of fundamental academic values have an impact on the quality of learning and teaching and the overall student experience. However, they are not specifically addressed in the current (2015) version of the ESG.
In 2015, a then new standard on student-centred learning, teaching and assessment was introduced. This led to a renewed focus on considering and evaluating learning outcomes and ensuring that educational programmes are successful in delivering the knowledge, skills, and competencies that students need – as promised in programme descriptions and described in the qualifications’ frameworks. Relevant teaching techniques and assessment methods need to be consequently designed so as to be able to evaluate the degree to which the learning outcomes have been achieved.
Till now, research as a theme appeared in the Bologna Process context rather sporadically. Instead, the reform of research assessment and other research-related topics fall within the parallel development of the European Research Area (ERA)37 under the aegis of the European Commission. Despite the repeated calls for closer alignment of the EHEA with the ERA, the progress leaves to expect more. One of the most recent contributions is by ENQA’s working group which explored the state of the art of the assessment of research-based learning, institutions’ research policy and quality assurance processes of research, and offered a concept of EQA of research.38
The twin purposes of accountability and enhancement are strongly present in the European QA framework. Both are considered crucial in ensuring the effectiveness and continuous improvement of higher education institutions. Accountability refers to the obligation of the institutions to demonstrate their performance and compliance with established standards to external stakeholders, including governments, funding bodies, and the public, as well as internal stakeholders such as students and staff. This aspect of QA ensures transparency and is expected to foster trust and confidence in the education system, both nationally and internationally.
Enhancement, on the other hand, focuses on the continuous improvement of educational practices and outcomes. It involves a proactive approach where institutions not only meet the required (minimum) standards but also strive to surpass them. This aspect of QA encourages a culture of self-reflection and innovation, aiming for excellence in teaching, learning, and research. Within institutions, which are subject to regular external evaluation (either at institutional or programme level, or both), the external quality assurance processes should not only check on compliance with minimum standards, or set conditions for their achievement, but support and encourage a cycle of enhancement by identifying areas for development. Institutions can then use the suggestions gathered from the external evaluation to revise their strategies, policies and processes.
Together, accountability and enhancement create a dynamic QA system that balances the need for regulatory compliance with the pursuit of academic excellence. Accountability ensures that institutions are answerable to stakeholders and maintain standards, while enhancement drives the internal motivation for ongoing improvement. This synergy is vital for maintaining the credibility and quality of European higher education, fostering both trust and innovation. By integrating these twin purposes, the European QA framework drives to support robust, transparent, and forward-looking educational environments that benefit students, educators, and society at large.
4.4 Independence of Agencies
ESG are based on the premise that autonomous higher education institutions need equal counterparts in quality assurance agencies. Independence of quality assurance agencies from third parties – defined as higher education institutions, governments, and other stakeholder organisations – is a key feature of agencies which are aligned with the ESG. Independence shall be guaranteed in all aspects of their work starting from their setup and all the way through
- –organisational arrangements where agencies have official documentation which stipulates their independence from third parties;
- –operational independence, which means that agencies have their own work procedures and methods, and the ability to choose and appoint external experts who serve for them;
- –independence of formal outcomes whatever they may be – advice or formal decisions, from those who helped to reach them (experts).
From all the standards of the ESG, applicable to quality assurance agencies, expectations for independence appear to be among the hardest to fulfil. This in part stems from a variety of national/regional legal frameworks which in their turn might be restrictive – something not solely decided by the agency. Other aspects which bear a big impact on the agency’s ability to work independently relate to their governance structures and funding. The issue of independence called repeated attention of stakeholders and has been the point of heated discussions both within ENQA39 and the EQAR.40 Yet the principle of independence is acknowledged as a valuable one to safeguard trust in the external quality assurance outcomes.
4.5 Diversity and Inclusion
The EHEA is a vast geographical area that covers nearly 50 higher education systems and even more academic traditions. In addition, the diversity of the types of higher education providers, of students, and of modes of higher education delivery have only been increasing in the past decades. Growing diversification of QA activities, driven by maturity of agencies, Covid-19 pandemic, European Universities Initiative as a trend was clearly discerned in a meta-analysis of external quality assurance agency reviews (Dakovic, Gover, in ENQA, 2021).
While in some systems QA reaches maturity, there still are others in early developmental phases, estimated to encompass 20% of EHEA countries (Blackstock, 2024). It is thus not only desirable, but necessary, that quality assurance – particularly at the continental level – respects, includes and encourages such diversity.
In practice this means for example that the shared set of standards (the ESG) need to provide a sufficiently robust common framework but also be usable and adaptable across very different higher education systems. They also need to be applicable to different types of provision (such as e-learning, micro-credentials, interdisciplinary learning, service learning etc.) and ensure
In other words, the European QA framework aims to respect the cultural diversity of the EHEA countries while promoting shared values and principles. This balance ensures that QA practices are relevant and effective in diverse educational contexts, fostering inclusion and equity.
4.6 Higher Education as a Public Good
The idea that higher education should primarily be considered a public good distinctly characterises Europe. Obviously, the benefits of higher education to individuals are well appreciated, however, its value first and foremost lies with the societies and their social, economic, and cultural development.
Therefore, starting 2007, when the definition of a social dimension was agreed41; European policies on higher education and quality assurance explicitly encompass social aspects. In 2020, the definition of social dimension was further expanded.42
While funding models of both higher education studies and research vary across Europe, in most countries (UK is a notable exception), public sources account for the largest part of contributions. This goes in line with the aforementioned Council of Europe recommendation (2007) on public responsibility of and for higher education. Conversely, funding of external quality assurance is most often shared by the public authorities and higher education institutions themselves.
4.7 Transparency
The level of transparency within the EHEA and quality assurance in particular is radical.
Firstly, ESG expect higher education institutions not only to ensure they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes and other activities, but also to publish information about their activities, including programmes, which is clear, accurate, objective, up-to date and readily accessible.
Secondly, as pertains to the setup of the quality assurance systems, it is expected that both quality assurance processes and criteria for outcomes are predefined and published.
Thirdly, quality assurance agencies are required to publish full (unabridged) reports together with decisions taken, including the negative ones. The later provision is not an easy pill to swallow. While talking about external quality assurance contributing to enhancement of activities might sound nice, this level of accountability before the public is rather hard.
The next level of transparency relates to external reviews of QA agencies themselves. ENQA, as the main reviewer of agencies in Europe publishes a complete set of documentation,43 including terms of reference of the review, the agency’s self-assessment report, the statement on validation of the external review report by ENQA’s advisory body, and the panel report on how the agency aligns to the ESG. All this information openly shared provides ample opportunities for mutual learning between agencies, also information for public authorities, and researchers.
In its own turn, ENQA voluntarily is subject to the independent external review and so far has gone through this procedure twice.44 Likewise, the EQAR has undergone its external review twice as well.
To complete this loop of transparency, the entire Bologna Process and its achievements are regularly scrutinised and recorded in the so-called Bologna Process implementation reports published in relation to ministerial conferences and stakeholder submissions.
5 Key Trends in European Higher Education Impacting Quality Assurance
European QA practices are designed to be adaptable and responsive to changes in the higher education landscape. This includes addressing new challenges such as digital education, internationalization, and the need for lifelong learning opportunities. The ESG were written with the intention of making them “future proof” i.e. applicable not only to different systems, but also to different types of institutions and higher education provision – including types not yet in use at the time of their writing.
The ESG 2015 are applicable and can be meaningfully used to quality assure also e.g., e-learning, micro-credentials, or joint and/or interdisciplinary education provision as well as to evaluate different types of providers, including non-higher education providers, or university alliances.45 However, several recent developments within and surrounding higher education have made it necessary to initiate a new revision process to clarify the applicability to the diversity in the sector, and to provide more guidance on how to use them and
5.1 Digitalisation of Higher Education and of Quality Assurance
While quality assurance of e-learning had been a topic for discussion and development in Europe already before 2020, the digital transformation of higher education accelerated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the need to address and reconsider quality assurance processes and criteria. This involves principally two aspects: quality assurance criteria for e-learning itself (i.e. how can the ESG be used as a basis for the evaluation of digitally enhanced education) and digitalisation of the quality assurance processes themselves. ENQA report on quality assurance of e-learning (2018) underscores the relevance of the ESG and presents some practical considerations of the appropriate use of the standards in the specific context of e-learning.46
The relationship between the digitalisation of QA and higher education itself is symbiotic. As higher education becomes more digital, QA processes must evolve to ensure that the new modes of delivery and interaction maintain high standards of quality. Conversely, robust digital QA systems can accelerate the adoption of digital education by providing assurance of its effectiveness and reliability. This mutual reinforcement ensures that the benefits of digital education – such as increased accessibility, flexibility, and personalised learning – are realised without compromising educational standards.
Particularly since 2020, QA agencies in Europe have been increasingly incorporating digital tools and platforms to conduct evaluations, audits, and accreditations. This trend enhances efficiency and accessibility while also raising new challenges related to data security, and integrity, in addition to the better-known challenges of the evaluation of online and hybrid learning environments themselves. The digitalisation of quality assurance is an evolving process that mirrors the broader trend of digitalisation in higher education. As educational institutions increasingly integrate digital technologies into their teaching, learning, and administrative processes, QA mechanisms must also adapt to effectively monitor and enhance these digital environments. Digital QA involves the use of advanced technologies, such as data analytics, artificial intelligence, and online platforms, to assess and ensure the quality of education and to make the results of those evaluations more accessible to wider audiences and interest groups.
As indicated above, digital QA facilitates accessibility and thus can lead to greater transparency. Stakeholders, including students, teachers, university management, QA agencies, recognition authorities etc. can access QA reports and dashboards online, and potentially in other formats than traditional long narrative reports, promoting a more inclusive and participatory approach to quality assurance. Additionally, digital tools can support peer reviews and virtual site visits, making the QA process more efficient and less resource intensive.
5.2 Internationalisation of Quality Assurance
As higher education becomes more globalised, QA processes are increasingly focusing on transnational education and different forms of international collaboration. The development of joint degrees and cross-border partnerships, such as the European university alliances instigated by the European Commission in 2018, necessitate robust QA mechanisms that ensure consistent standards and mutual recognition of qualifications across different countries. Internationalisation of higher education has thus a strong impact on the applied QA mechanisms but also makes the shared basis of trust ever more important.
Internationalisation of quality assurance itself covers several levels of international cooperation, that are becoming more common across Europe: from use of international experts in peer review panels, engagement of international members in agency governance structures and decision making bodies, to agencies carrying out joint evaluations with other agencies e.g., for joint programmes, or agencies carrying out quality assurance activities outside of the own system (i.e., across border), within Europe or outside. Quality assurance agencies may engage in such international activities for various reasons: international credibility, diversity of views in review panels, financial revenue (for on-payment services), international experience of their own staff, and learning
Integration of quality assurance principles recorded in several international documents – OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education (2005),47 the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015), INQAAHE’s Guidelines of Good Practice in Quality Assurance (GGP 1999) followed by International Standards and Guidelines of Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (ISG s) 2022, Chiba Principles of Asia-Pacific region – laid the foundation for the so-called QACHE48 Toolkit (The Cooperation in Cross-Border Higher Education: A Toolkit for Quality Assurance Agencies, 201549). It was inspired by the premise that ensuring the quality of cross-border higher education provision is the joint responsibility of all its stakeholders, including governments, higher education providers, quality assurance agencies, and academic, professional, and student bodies of sending and receiving countries. This Toolkit is the result of a project co-financed by the Erasmus Mundus Programme of the European Commission and coordinated by ENQA, in partnership with the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) and the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE), as well as a number of national quality assurance agencies (in Europe and Australia) with different experience with cross-border higher education. QACHE Toolkit is a good example of policy dialogue important to European stakeholders with an aim to find practical solutions to joint challenges around the globe.
5.3 Incorporation of the Social Dimension of Higher Education and Academic Values into QA Processes and Standards
In some countries QA standards have expanded to include elements of the social dimensions of higher education, such as equity, inclusion, and social responsibility. Indicators such as access for underrepresented groups, promotion of diversity within institutions, and fostering environments that support all students’ success are used. Also, the inclusion of fundamental values, not only as underlying principles, but as standards requiring monitoring, is under debate in the EHEA. As is noted in the Bologna Process Implementation Report 2024,50 even if fundamental values have been present from the beginning of the Bologna Process as an underlying framework for the development of the EHEA, only the Rome Communiqué (2020)51 has for the first time specifically put forward the respect of fundamental values as the key element of the EHEA vision and made certain that they are perceived as universal, even if not absolute, values.
While fundamental values – academic freedom, institutional autonomy, stakeholder participation, inclusion of students in governance and quality
5.4 Connecting Quality Assurance and Recognition
Robust quality assurance is a prerequisite for trust in and acceptance of qualifications. In the LRC, Article VIII.1 explicitly obliges to provide clear information with a view to enabling the competent authorities of other parties of the LRC to ascertain whether the quality of the qualifications issued by these institutions justifies recognition in the party in which recognition is sought.
The existence of a common set of European standards and structures supporting them is essential for a smooth transfer of credits and recognition of qualifications, a sine qua non condition for mobility of students, staff and the labour force. Automatic recognition is already happening in Europe based on legal treaties or other agreements among several countries, or unilaterally, or de facto.54 Two specific instruments have been created to connect external and internal QA and recognition and improve – the LIREQA55 recommendations, addressing four target audiences (higher education institutions, quality assurance agencies, the ENIC/NARIC centres56 and stakeholders) and the Spotlight57 tool primarily used by higher education institutions, but also others monitoring how recognition is done by HEI s (e.g ENIC/NARIC centres).
6 European Commission Policies and Priorities for Quality Assurance
EHEA includes all member states of the European Union. While the main framework for quality assurance in Europe is that within the Bologna Process and the EHEA, the policies of the European Commission, directly applicable to EU member states (27 countries), have also an impact on higher education and QA across the wider Europe. In addition, many EU programmes and funding mechanisms are also available and benefit, directly or indirectly, countries beyond the EU, with North Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Turkey, and Serbia counted among them, Switzerland as partner country and with specific programme for countries in the EU neighbourhood (Southern Mediterranean, Western Balkans, Eastern Neighbourhood, and the Russian Federation).
While the ESG and the EHEA QA framework in general are intended not only as a tool for international cooperation and in support of mobility and
In March 2024 the European Commission published its latest “higher education package”58 i.e. a set of documents setting the way forward for the next steps in European Union support for higher education.
In terms of quality assurance, despite the existence of a solid quality assurance framework within the EHEA, the European Commission considers that somehow more should happen, and faster, to ensure that the Commission’s ambitions for the European university alliances and a European degree (a new concept currently being explored) can be realised. Or, in other words, to further deep international cooperation for education delivery, quality assurance should also change in order to not be an obstacle to such cooperation. Indeed, detailed regulations on programme content, credit allocation, teaching language and others have made international cooperation, including recognition of mobility periods and foreign qualifications, and the establishment of joint education provision such as joint programmes cumbersome, if not impossible.
The most recent EU Council Recommendation on a European Quality Assurance and Recognition System in Higher Education of 12 May 202559 emphasises several key features aimed at further enhancing and standardising quality assurance across Europe. These include digitalisation and interoperability of quality assurance tools and results; measures to ensure that QA systems promote sustainable practices and inclusivity, addressing social dimensions and equitable access to quality education; and calls for processes and standards to be more flexible and adaptable to various educational contexts and open to innovative teaching methods, including online and hybrid learning environments. The elements highlighted by the Commission are in no way in contradiction to the EHEA framework and the ESG but rather invite for a faster and more thorough implementation of the EHEA commitments to ensure that international cooperation is not hindered. In addition, however, the EC calls very specifically for a shift from programme-based external quality assurance to institutional approaches and introduction of self-accreditation procedures as part of the IQA as a way to reduce additional external quality assurance and accreditation burden for e.g., joint programme and other collaborative education provision. The latter proposal at the preceding consultative phase was met by a rather lukewarm feedback from Member States who, in line with EU Treaty and the subsidiarity principle, maintain primary responsibility for education and training policies, guided by the principle of fitness for purpose and
7 Instead of Conclusion
This introduction provides an overview of common and important developments in quality assurance within the Bologna Process setting. Research warns that there is no final list of “EHEA principles”, but rather an open and evolving process, a “Bologna agora” – a place which enables to formulate challenges, exchange ideas, test and debate, and take action (Zgaga, 2012).
ESG have had a major impact on the quality assurance of higher education within the EHEA. They have provided a focus against which agencies can assess their own activities and standards and, importantly, society’s expectation of how higher education across Europe can provide reassurance/ accountability for what it (says it) offers. It is a trite but true statement that “quality assurance is (or at least should be) a journey and not a destination” but the judgements against the standards do provide a ‘destination’, albeit an intermediate one. (Crozier et al., 2011)
Today, there are no doubts in the validity of the ESG for both internal and external quality assurance. Today the discussion is about evolving and diverse expectations, maximising the added value and the next iteration of the ESG to reinforce its relevance, continued acceptance and success. The project under which key considerations for the revision of the ESG were explored and summarised bears a symbolic title of QA-FIT: Quality assurance fit for the future.60
- –On 18 September 1988 the Magna Charta Universitatum was signed in Bologna (Italy) on the occasion of the 900th celebration of the oldest European university. Some 500 university leaders had been invited to join, not only among the EU at the time, but also among all nations of the continent. The document was signed by all the 388 Rectors who attended. The Magna Charta laid down fundamental principles, namely: university autonomy; unity of teaching and research in response to the demands of society and advancement of scientific knowledge; freedom of research and training; a vision on the university as the trustee of the European humanist tradition, transcending geographical, political and cultural divisions. It also underscored the importance of safeguarding student rights and engaging in information exchange and cooperation. At present, 975 universities from 94 countries in the world have signed either or both of the Magna Charta Universitatum drafted in 1988 or in 2020; and additional 4 universities in 4 countries have been accepted to sign the Magna Charta Universitatum 2020 version.61
- –On 25 November 1991 Conclusions of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting on quality assessment in higher education were issued [Official Journal C 321, 12/12/1991 P. 0002 – 0002].62 They called for investigation of methods used in quality assessment in higher education in a comparative study and strengthening of cooperation at European level; it also invited for cooperation between the Member States, a working group to be composed of representatives of the Member States and of relevant European organizations active in higher education.
- –On 11 April 1997, the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (ETS No. 165) was signed in Lisbon (Portugal) by a group of 27 countries, of those 24 were members of the Council of Europe; it thus gained the short title being called the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC). At present, a total of 58 countries (46 members of the Council of Europe and 12 non-members) plus the European Commission are parties to the LRC.
- –On 25 May 1998 the Sorbonne Declaration, a Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System by the four Ministers in charge for France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in Paris, the Sorbonne University, was concluded.63 They committed to encouraging a common frame of reference, aimed at improving external recognition and facilitating student mobility as well as employability. Also called on other members of EU and other European countries to join in this
objective and on all European Universities to consolidate Europe’s standing in the world. - –On 24 September 1998 the [EU] Council Recommendation on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education (Official Journal L 270, 07/10/1998 P. 0056 – 0059) called for cooperation between the Member States’ authorities responsible for quality assessment or quality assurance in higher education and promote networking and requested the Commission to present triennial reports to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on progress in the development of quality assurance systems. As a response to the monitoring requests, Bologna Process Implementation Reports are issued at intervals coinciding with EHEA Ministerial Meetings; these provide authoritative and comparable data and analysis per entire EHEA. In addition, other stakeholder organisations compile their reports, such as Bologna through Student Eyes by ESU, Trends reports by EUA, ENQA occasional papers and reports.
- –On 19 June 1999 a group of high-level representatives of 31 countries, both members of the European Union and not, in Bologna (Italy) signed the Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, so-called Bologna Declaration. This declaration is at the heart of cooperation and joint reforms which culminated in establishment of the EHEA in 2010, and further work encompassing several major themes and ever enlarging scope endorsed by Ministers gathering every second or third year, including fundamental values, quality assurance, recognition, qualification frameworks, credits systems, mobility, social dimension, teaching and learning, internationalisation. At present, the Bologna Declaration is signed by 49 countries and the European Commission. As of 11th and 12th of April 2022, because of the war in Ukraine, it was decided by the BFUG members to suspend the rights of representation of the Russian Federation and Belarus in the EHEA.
- –The year 2000: ENQA was first established as the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education to promote European cooperation in the field of quality assurance in higher education. In 2004, it became the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education with the aim to contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of European higher education, and to act as a major driving force for the development of quality assurance across all the Bologna Process signatory countries. ENQA is the main coordinator of external QA agency reviews against their compliance to the ESG, which is a condition to gain both ENQA membership and listing on the EQAR. As of April 2025, ENQA has 61 member agency64 representing 32 of the 49 EHEA member states; in addition,
a further 41 affiliate entities65 from 14 European countries and 6 countries outside of Europe; 4 suspended members (all from Russia). - –On 13 October 2001, CEENQA (the Network of Central and Eastern European Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education) was founded in Krakow, Poland, after a first meeting in Budapest, Hungary the year before. CEENQA was legally registered in Düsseldorf, Germany on July 4, 2011. As of May 2024, CEENQA has 46 members (42 full members and four members with observer status).
- –19 September 2003, in Berlin Communiqué the Ministers of the Bologna Process invited ENQA, in cooperation with other stakeholders, to develop “an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance” and to “explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies.
- –On 19-20 May 2005, at Bergen conference by the Communiqué of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) as proposed by ENQA were adopted. It also contained a commitment to introduce the model for peer review of quality assurance agencies. In addition, the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies based on national review was welcomed, and ENQA in cooperation with EUA, EURASHE and ESIB66 was asked to develop the practicalities of it. The importance of cooperation between nationally recognised agencies with a view to enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions was underlined.
- –On 4 March 2008, the EQAR Association was established by four founding members (ENQA, ESU, EUA, and EURASHE). In addition, there are two Social Partner Members (BUSINESSEUROPE, Education International). All parties to the European Cultural Convention, signed in Paris on 19 December 1954, that are full members of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), may become Governmental Members of EQAR; at present there are 47 of these. EQAR maintains the register of trustworthy quality assurance agencies in EHEA, currently there are 58 in 30 countries.
- –On 29 April 2009, for the first time, in conjunction with the EHEA Ministerial meeting, a Bologna Policy Forum was held in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). It gathered 46 EHEA members and additional 15 countries from Africa, Asia-Pacific, and North America. Among the topics of common interest, quality assurance and recognition of qualifications were specifically highlighted. To date, six Bologna Policy Forums took place (in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2024); subsequently three coordination groups on global policy dialogue were established (2018-2020, 2021-2024, 2024-2027).
CTI – Commission des Titres d’Ingénieur, https://www.cti-commission.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CTI_depliant_FR_2022_mai-1.pdf
CNÉ – Comité national d’évaluation des établissements publics à caractère scientifique, culturel et professionnel; Decree No. 89-294 of May 9, 1989 relating to the National research evaluation committee https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000522932
By by Act No. 172/1990 Coll. https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1990-172
see H. van Ginkel https://www.iep-qaa.org/downloads/publications/20year_contribution_to_institutional_change.pdf
See stakeholder perspectives gathered under QA-FIT project aimed at evidence gathering and reflection on the current EHEA and framework of the ESG https://www.enqa.eu/projects/quality-assurance-fit-for-the-future-qa-fit/
the University Autonomy in Europe Scorecard is a comparative analysis of the state of play of university autonomy in 35 higher education systems in Europe
Council of Europe and UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region https://rm.coe.int/168007f2c7
see the latest https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/european-higher-education-area-2024-bologna-process-implementation-report
QACHE was the acronym of the project within which the toolkit was developed, it stands for Quality Assurance of Cross-Border Higher Education
the document in English and Spanish is available at https://www.enqa.eu/publications/comparison-of-the-quality-assurance-reference-frameworks-of-the-european-higher-education-area-and-the-iberoamerican-knowledge-area/
https://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf
ENQA is the main membership organisation and representative body of quality assurance agencies in the EHEA. www.enqa.eu Together with EUA, EURASHE and ESU it forms the so-called E4-group.
In 2024 EURASHE was renamed as The European Association for the Applied Sciences in Higher Education, while maintaining the same acronym.
The ESG text adopted in 2005 is available here, in the 2009 publication by ENQA: https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ESG_3edition.pdf
Information provided by the Director of EQAR in July 2025.
information on former entries to the EQAR is published https://www.eqar.eu/register/agencies/former-entries/. Notably, some agencies, failing to satisfactorily pass through the ENQA-coordinated review process against their compliance to the ESG are prevented from applying to the EQAR in the first place.
https://www.eqar.eu/register/decisions/, data retrieved in April 2025
news item of 14 July 2025 https://www.eqar.eu/register-lists-60-agencies/
these agencies also conduct activities outside of EHEA, so the total coverage of countries is bigger. Some of recently admitted agencies have not been uploading the external QA reports onto the DEQAR yet, so it is difficult to say which exact countries they cover.
More information on the European Approach and its use across Europe can be found on the website of EQAR: https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/#:~:text=The%20European%20Approach%20for%20Quality,EHEA%20%2C%20without%20applying%20additional%20national
More about European University Alliances initiative is here: https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/f0e0e83a-47ec-11ef-aea6-01aa75ed71a1
see commitments of Tirana Communique https://ehea.info/Immagini/Tirana-Communique.pdf
Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states of the Council of Europe on the public responsibility for higher education and research https://rm.coe.int/16805d5dae
https://www.eqar.eu/register/precedents/ and https://www.eqar.eu/assets/uploads/2025/01/EQAR-UseInterpretation-v4.0.pdf
see 2007 London Communique of Ministers of the European Higher Education Area countries https://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2007_London_Communique_English_588697.pdf
see 2020 Rome Communique of Ministers of the European Higher Education Area countries https://ehea.info/Upload/Rome_Ministerial_Communique.pdf
The E4 submitted a statement to this effect in 2020, in response to calls for revision caused partly by the shift to online learning due to Covid-related measures and other policy priorities such as academic values and their role in the QA framework. The statement can be found here: https://www.eua.eu/publications/positions/the-esg-in-the-changing-landscape-of-higher-education.html
See relevant chapter: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Chapter_3_Fundamental_values.pdf
Only very few countries have developed relevant tools, e.g., see Academic Integrity Guidelines by Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) and National Academic Integrity Network (Ireland), NAIN
More about ways to implement automatic recognition in „A Short Path to Automatic Recognition – 4 models“ (February 2018) by Nuffic, full text here: https://www.nuffic.nl/sites/default/files/2020-08/a-short-path-to-automatic-recognition-4-models.pdf
ENIC – the European Network of Information Centres, supported by the Council of Europe and UNESCO as co-secretariats; NARIC – National Academic Recognition Information Centres in the European Union, supported by the European Commission; both working as information centres on academic recognition of qualifications of in total 56 countries, which are operating under the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (1997), see https://www.enic-naric.net/
the National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB – European Student Information Bureau) is a predecessor organization of the current European Student Union (ESU) https://esu-online.org/about/our-history/
References
ENQA. (2021). Dakovic, Goran; Gover, Anna. Diversification of external quality assurance in the EHEA – Reflection following the analysis of ENQA agency reviews conducted in 2020–2021. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/Diversification-of-EQA_final.pdf
ENQA. (2024, May 29). Blackstock, Douglas. ENQA president speech for the 2024 EHEA ministerial conference. Tirana. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/DB-speech-to-EHEA-Ministerial-Conference_final-.pdf
ENQA. (2011). Crozier, Fiona; Grifoll, Joseph; Harris, Nick; Kekäläinen, Helka; Malan, Thiery. Evaluation of the reports on agency reviews (2005–2009). ENQA Occasional papers 16. 2011, Helsinki.
ENQA. (2010). ENQA: 10 years (2000–2010) A decade of European co-operation in quality assurance in higher education. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education 2010, Helsinki. (Online publication). https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/ENQA-10th-Anniversary-publication.pdf
EUA. (2014). Twenty-year contribution to institutional change EUA’s institutional evaluation programme. European University Association (EUA). https://www.iep-qaa.org/downloads/publications/20year_contribution_to_institutional_change.pdf
EUA. (2023). University autonomy in Europe IV: The scorecard 2023 (E. Bennetot Pruvot, E., T. Estermann, & N. Popkhadze, Eds.). European University Association (EUA). https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20autonomy%20scorecard_2024%20update.pdf
Kehm, B. M., Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B. (2009). The European education area: Perspectives on a moving target. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087907143
Rauhvargers, A., & Bergan, S. (Eds.). (2006). Recognition in the Bologna process: Policy development and the road to good practice. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/recognition-in-the-bologna-process-policy-development-and-the-road-to-/168075ddd1
Scott, P. (2012). Going beyond Bologna: Issues and themes. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and national reforms (pp1-14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_2
Schwarz, St., & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.). (2004). Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area. Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium.
Szabo, Melinda in EUA Expert Voices. (2021, July 12). Gauging external quality assurance frameworks in the European Higher Education Area. https://www.eua.eu/our-work/expert-voices/gauging-external-quality-assurance-frameworks-in-the-european-higher-education-area.html
Walsh, Padraig in ENQA. (2020). 20 years of ENQA. Advancing quality in European higher education: Celebrating 20 years of ENQA. Brussels, Belgium, 2020. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/Advancing-quality-in-European-higher-education-celebrating-20-years-of-ENQA.pdf
Zgaga, P. (2012). Reconsidering the EHEA principles: Is there a “Bologna philosophy”? In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and national reforms (pp. 17–38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_2