Impact case study database

The impact evidence shows how different EU institutions used the research to: (a) make disability equality more visible in the European Semester, (b) implement new disability equality monitoring methods and indicators, and (c) justify support for new policies of mutual recognition and harmonisation among the Member States, including new legislation.

Mainstreaming disability equality in EU analyses of Member States’ social policies

European Commission staff used the research on employment and social policies to mainstream disability equality in the European Semester (the process co-ordinating the Europe 2020 strategy).

• They used the findings to raise disability issues in their annual Country Reports and in Recommendations to Member States. Consequently, by 2019, all 28 of their country analyses raised disability issues, twice as many as in 2012. The number of Country-Specific Recommendation fiches referring to disability increased from three in 2012 to 18 in 2019. As a result, visibility in the EU’s high-level Joint Employment Report also rose, from just seven references to disability in 2013 to 57 in 2019 (increasing each year).

• As the responsible civil servant affirmed, ‘ Through mainstreaming, for the first time, we managed to make disability issues more visible in the main European policy, in Europe 2020’ [A]. The Commission’s 2017 Progress Report on the European Disability Strategy identified this ‘ Mainstreaming of disability issues in the European Semester process and policy publications’ as one of its ‘Main progress’ achievements, citing the research as its evidence-base. Its final evaluation in 2020 confirmed that ‘the European Semester has increasingly aligned its provisions with the aims of the [Disability] Strategy’, because of this [B].

Adopting new monitoring mechanisms and indicators

The EU institutions adopted new methods of monitoring disability equality arising from the research, either qualitative or quantitative. Three examples since 2013 evidence this.

• The EU statistical office (Eurostat) launched a disability database, including measures piloted in the research to demonstrate the feasibility of disability equality indicators in Europe (proposed by Priestley and Lawson, populated by Grammenos). In 2018 the EU Social Protection Committee adopted a disability indicator in its Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM) and Eurostat agreed to include a disability variable in all of its major social surveys. The methods shaped national disability indicators too. For example, the Danish Institute for Human Rights acknowledged in 2015 that their Gold Indicators were ‘inspired by…the proposals for Indicators of Disability Equality in Europe developed by the Academic Network of European Disability experts (ANED) [and] have also drawn inspiration from the Disability Online Tool of the Commission (DOTCOM) published by ANED in 2012’ [C].

• The European Parliament began to monitor disability issues in citizens’ petitions. The Petitions Committee held a televised public hearing in 2015, at which the European Ombudsman, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Disability Forum, European Commission, and a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were invited to respond to Priestley’s report [D]. A consequent Resolution of the European Parliament, drew ‘ attention to the importance of the findings’ and resolved that: ‘ the Committee on Petitions continues to organise events focusing on petitions in the field of disability; calls for the capacity of the Committee on Petitions and its Secretariat to be enhanced…; calls for the establishment of a designated officer responsible for the processing of disabilities-related issues', and noted 'the Committee’s significant follow-up action' to the research [E].

• The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) used the indicators on political participation to frame Opinions, for example that, ‘ EU Member States should amend national legislation depriving people of the right to vote based on a disability’ [F]. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) also referred to this research in developing new international electoral participation guidance [G]. Such Opinions added weight to existing civil rights claims by disabled people denied the right to vote. The combination of research evidence, political influence and citizens’ voice achieved significant change. For example, in the 2019 European Parliament elections, 85,000 disabled people in Germany, and 350,000 in France, gained voting rights for the first time.

*New policies for mutual recognition and harmonisation of rights:

Finally, the research strengthened the case for new EU policy initiatives, both in soft and hard law. Two examples illustrate its impact on harmonising standards among European countries:

• The European Commission used the research on mutual recognition of disability benefits (Waddington and Priestley) to propose a new ‘European Disability Card’. This allows persons recognised as disabled in one country to access selected rights in reciprocating countries, without reassessment. The card was launched in eight countries in 2016, targeting access to cultural, sports and leisure services and consumer discounts. For example, Finland reported that ‘ during the first 6 months around 5000 persons have applied for the card. We have around 150 committed partners, for example the national railway company, a nation-wide cinema company, museums, theatres, local bus companies and many more’ [H]. In 2020, the European Parliament called for its extension to disability benefits in all EU Member States.

• Priestley’s findings on accessibility standards were key to the Commission’s 2015 business case for a new ‘European Accessibility Act’. This EU Directive improves access for disabled people through design standards for computers and operating systems, ATMs, ticketing and check-in machines, smartphones, digital TV equipment, television broadcasting, transport services, banking services, e-books and e-commerce (regulating standards throughout the European single market and global imports to that market). The Impact Assessment justifying this legislation contained 22 references to the research, evidencing how ‘ differences in national legal requirements and the variety of practices used by contracting authorities, including on accessibility, constitute a barrier to cross-border public procurement'. Consequently, the primary case for legislation, adopted by the EU in 2019, was that, ‘ economic operators are confronted with divergent, and often contradictory, national accessibility requirements’ [I].

In both cases, change arose from sustained lobbying by civil society but decisions required an evidential business case, in which the research proved instrumental. According to EU data, ‘ 7 in 10 Europeans believe better accessibility of products and services would very much improve the lives of people with disabilities, the elderly and others with accessibility needs’. The market costs of divergent accessibility requirements were estimated at EUR20,000,000,000 in 2020 and the Act was estimated to reduce this by 45-50% [J].

In summary, as attested by the European Commission, ‘ ANED has been an important resource for us. It really made an additional contribution to our work level and data collection and the intelligence that we can use as an input to policy. ANED has been instrumental to achieve the disability mainstreaming, both in policy and legal matters’ [A].