From Stakeholder Analysis to Policy Recommendations: The 2nd EUFutures Policy Development Lab

The second session of the 1st EUFutures Policy Development Lab took place on May 18, 2026, at the University of Bologna’s Department of Political and Social Sciences. Building on Dr. Donato Di Carlo’s lecture on the transformation of EU industrial and skills policy, the session invited students to move from analytical reflection to policy practice.

The workshop, led by Proff. Benassi and Tassinari, focused on the European Commission’s 2025 Union of Skills strategy, asking students to assess whether current EU skills policy is sufficiently “future-proof” to address the combined pressures of decarbonisation, digitalisation, demographic change, territorial inequality and geoeconomic competition.

A stakeholder-based policy simulation

Students were divided into four groups, each assigned to represent a real stakeholder involved in the European skills policy debate: the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), BusinessEurope, the European Committee of the Regions, and SMEunited. Before the session, each group read real policy positions and institutional statement produced by its assigned stakeholder.

During the workshop, students were asked to reconstruct their stakeholder’s perspective on the Union of Skills by identifying its main diagnosis of the skills problem, the measures it supported, the weaknesses or risks it perceived, and one concrete amendment it would propose to improve the strategy.

The task required students to think not as neutral observers, but as policy actors. Each group had to ask: Whose interests are we defending? What kind of skills problem matters most to us? Who should pay for training? Who should govern skills policy? And what would make the Union of Skills more effective, fair and implementable?

From group discussion to policy positions

The group representing ETUC focused on workers’ rights, paid training time, social dialogue and the need to ensure that upskilling and reskilling do not become an individual burden placed on workers. The BusinessEurope group approached the Union of Skills through the lens of competitiveness, strategic sectors, STEM shortages, employer-led training and better alignment between education systems and labour market needs.

The Committee of the Regions group highlighted the territorial dimension of skills policy, stressing the risks of brain drain, uneven regional capacity and the need for place-based implementation. Finally, the SMEunited group drew attention to the needs of small firms, crafts and local employers, arguing that EU skills initiatives must be accessible to SMEs and should give greater recognition to vocational education, apprenticeships and practical middle-level skills.

Each group produced a concise stakeholder position and proposed one amendment to the Union of Skills strategy. These included ideas such as a right to paid training leave, employer-led sectoral skills partnerships, a territorial skills impact test, and simplified training support for SMEs.

Key tensions in Europe’s skills agenda

The discussion highlighted that skills policy is far from a purely technical issue. Instead, it raises important political and institutional tensions.

One central tension concerned competitiveness versus social rights. While employers tend to frame skills as a condition for productivity, innovation and industrial renewal, trade unions emphasise access to training as a worker right linked to job quality, fair wages and collective bargaining.

A second tension concerned mobility versus territorial cohesion. Skills portability and qualification recognition can help address mismatches across the single market, but they may also intensify brain drain from peripheral or less-developed regions unless accompanied by regional investment and retention strategies.

A third tension emerged between high-tech STEM priorities and everyday green transition skills. Students noted that Europe needs engineers, researchers and digital specialists, but also workers in construction, retrofitting, installation, repair, care, logistics and local services. A future-proof skills strategy therefore cannot focus only on universities and strategic high-tech sectors.

Finally, the discussion raised the question of EU coordination versus national and regional diversity. The Union of Skills sets common European ambitions, but skills formation systems remain deeply embedded in national institutions, social partnership arrangements, VET systems and regional labour markets.

Future-proofing EU skills policy

The session concluded by linking the stakeholder simulation back to the broader theme of the EUFutures module: how the European Union can adapt its growth model to the pressures of the green and digital transitions.

Students’ discussions showed that thinking seriously about the “skills of the future” also means confronting difficult questions of power, governance, voice and distribution. Who defines which skills are needed? Who pays for training? Who has access to reskilling opportunities? Which actors are represented in decision-making? Which firms, workers and regions benefit — and which risk being left behind?

In this sense, the lab highlighted the limits of treating skills policy as a purely technical exercise. While skills formation is essential to Europe’s green and digital transitions, its political sustainability depends on openly addressing the tensions it generates: between competitiveness and workers’ rights, mobility and territorial cohesion, high-tech sectors and everyday vocational skills, and EU coordination and national diversity.

The policy lab therefore showed that a future-proof EU skills strategy must be not only economically effective, but also politically and socially sustainable. As a final output, students will now transform their stakeholder positions into individual one-page policy briefs, proposing concrete amendments to the Union of Skills from the perspective of their assigned stakeholder group. These will feed into the first EUFutures Student policy recommendations report.