What does Europe need from its universities in a world where people may need to learn, unlearn and relearn throughout increasingly long working lives?
This was the central question explored at eucen‘s Policy Talks 2026 in Brussels on 17 September, bringing together European policy makers, universities, employers, learners and lifelong learning networks around the theme “Enhancing Europe’s skills ecosystem for competitiveness: The strategic role of University Lifelong Learning.”
The timing could hardly be more relevant. Lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling are now explicitly linked to Europe’s competitiveness agenda through the European Commission’s Union of Skills.
But the discussion in Brussels went beyond the question of how many more people need to acquire particular skills. How do we create a system in which people can continue learning throughout their lives and have that learning recognised and valued?
Stefaan Hermans, representing the European Commission’s DG EAC, set the scene by connecting the discussion to the Union of Skills and Europe’s competitiveness agenda. His message was clear: as technologies, economies and labour markets change, people need opportunities to continuously update their skills. This requires more than training provision. It calls for stronger connections between universities, employers and other actors, as well as greater portability and recognition of skills.
Lyndsey El Amoud, presented emerging evidence from the MESHE project, challenging a familiar assumption: that the main problem is persuading adults to learn.
Many adults are already motivated. In the MESHE questionnaire, 82% of respondents identified improving professional skills as a motivation, while 61% said they would definitely take another micro-credential.
The obstacles often come later: Time, work commitments, cost and caring responsibilities can make participation difficult. And “flexible” learning does not necessarily mean flexible learning from the learner’s perspective. And if learners have to do that “extra” effort, they want to know very practical things:
How much time will it take? When do I need to attend? Can I study around work and family? How much will it cost? Will the learning be recognised?
In other words, the question is not only whether learning is available. It is whether people can realistically make use of it.
The session explored VPL (validation of prior learning) as one of the strongest themes of the day. A learner may complete a micro-credential or acquire substantial skills through work, but what happens next? Can the learning contribute to another qualification? Can it be transferred? Will another university understand it? Will an employer recognise it? This is why VPL needs to be thought about from the beginning of a learning pathway, rather than added afterwards.
Benoit Berthou’s presentation on the French experience of validation of prior learning provided a powerful illustration. In this model, the starting point is not a curriculum that the learner has to follow, but the learning and experience that the individual already possesses. The direction is effectively reversed: from experience and skills towards a qualification.
The examples from the Netherlands and England reinforced another message: lifelong learning cannot be organised effectively by institutions acting alone.
Manda Broekhuis presented a Dutch regional approach in which universities, employers and other actors work towards a shared responsibility for skills development. The ambition is to connect learning opportunities with regional needs and develop tools such as a skills passport.
Darryll Bravenboer showed how developments in England are exploring modular learning, credit recognition and stronger connections between work and learning.
Both examples illustrate a wider shift: from thinking about lifelong learning as something an institution provides to thinking about lifelong learning as an ecosystem.
The panel discussion with Ricardo Espinoza (OECD), Larisa Panit (Eurochambres) and Therese Zhang (EUA) explored what different actors bring to such an ecosystem.
Larisa Panit emphasised the importance of involving employers in the creation of learning, rather than simply asking them what skills they need once programmes have already been designed.
Examples from chamber-university cooperation showed how emerging needs in areas such as AI and machine learning can lead to programmes developed jointly by companies, chambers, training providers and universities.
Such cooperation is not only about making programmes more relevant. It can also build trust in the learning and in the credentials that result from it.
Ricardo Espinoza highlighted another important dimension: adults’ interest in learning is generally strong, but time is a major constraint. Responsibility therefore cannot sit entirely with the individual learner. Providers, employers and public authorities all have a role in making learning compatible with working and family lives.
The discussion did not place all responsibility outside universities. Therese Zhang highlighted evidence showing that lifelong learning is already widespread in European higher education. Yet it is often organised and funded differently from mainstream education and may receive less recognition in academic career assessment. This raises a difficult but important question: If lifelong learning is strategically important for Europe, can it remain marginal inside universities?
The answer requires more than creating new programmes. It means considering university governance, funding, staff incentives, academic recognition and institutional strategy.
Pascal Paschoud, President of eucen, summarised the challenge by emphasising the strategic role of University Lifelong Learning. Universities have distinctive strengths: research, knowledge creation, innovation, quality assurance and connections with society. But they need to become faster, more flexible, excellent — and, above all, more connected to employers, public authorities., communities, other parts of education and training but also more connected to learners.
This is closely aligned with the European Commission’s current approach, which places lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling, skills portability and cooperation across education and employment at the centre of the Union of Skills.
Perhaps the strongest message from the Policy Talks was that Europe does not lack innovative examples.
There are already many ways of:
.
The challenge is to connect these experiences and create the conditions in which they can become part of the mainstream.
For eucen, this is an important moment for University Lifelong Learning. The question is no longer whether universities have a role in Europe’s skills ecosystem. They clearly do. The question is what needs to change (in policy, funding, institutional structures and partnerships) so that they can fulfil that role fully? That conversation has only just begun.
The presentations delivered during the event are now available here.
