In February and April 2026, Generation 2004 members of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) worked closely together to set out a broad series of recommendations for the European Commission’s Large-Scale Review (LSR). Across all workstreams, the recommendations support the objectives of the exercise of making the Commission more effective, attractive, agile and future proof.
At the same time, we insisted that this should be achieved within the current staff regulations and without undermining staff rights, working conditions, job security, or career prospects. We repeatedly stressed that the Commission’s greatest asset is its staff, and this exercise should therefore protect institutional memory, expertise, and equal treatment across all staff categories. We also underlined that social dialogue must take place before any crucial decision affecting staff is adopted, and not merely after policy directions are already set.
State of play
Commissioner Serafin, DG HR and the workstream leaders presented the LSR recommendations of the workstreams leaders on 13 July. We note that some of the recommendations we raised in the beginning of the year were included, but we also read new recommendations, and this matter needs further discussions.
Generation 2004 and Staff representations proposed recommendations, in a nutshell
A central theme running through the staff representations’ contributions is that the LSR workstreams are deeply interlinked and should not be managed in isolation. Themes such as careers, leadership, collaboration, AI, simplification, service models, compliance, and resource allocation form part of a single institutional ecosystem. We called for staff inclusiveness in this exercise and a stronger coordination between workstream leaders, as well as for draft recommendations to be shared in writing, so that staff and staff representatives can contribute meaningfully. We also warned that social dialogue is both a legal obligation and a core value that the Commission should exemplify internally if it wishes to promote it externally.
On purpose, values, and leadership, we argue that the Commission’s values should not remain abstract principles in strategic documents, but should be reflected in everyday working procedures, promotion decisions, workload management and managerial behaviour. We propose a structured “values test” for future reforms, stronger mechanisms for staff feedback, and explicit recognition of social dialogue, wellbeing, health and safety, multilingualism, and fundamental rights as core institutional values.
On leadership, we place particular emphasis on people management, accountability, and inclusive leadership. We recommend formal leadership programmes open to motivated staff, regular 360-degree assessments, mandatory management training, and clearer consequences where leadership standards are not met. We also strongly called for the recognition of “technical leadership,” so that experts can progress without necessarily moving into management. We welcome very much that this recommendation is accepted by DG HR and the work stream leaders’ recommendations.
Career development and talent retention are for us strategic institutional priorities, rather than narrow HR matters. We call for transparent and consistent career pathways, clearer promotion and rotation criteria, more structured pre-management pathways, and stronger recognition of mobility, upskilling, and additional responsibilities in career progression. We highlighted the structural barriers affecting Contract Agents, AST and AST-SC staff, and temporary agents, including limited mobility, underused screening mechanisms, restrictive certification procedures, and insufficient access to internal competitions. To address these issues, we propose more regular and predictable internal competitions, wider access across staff categories, and the creation of a “Senior Professional Programme” for experienced staff. In the area of talent acquisition, we also advocate evaluation of the new EPSO competition model, faster recruitment processes, more specialist competitions, stronger action on employer attractiveness, and more flexible teleworking arrangements, in order to improve recruitment and retention, Commission’s attractiveness, including for the underrepresented Member States.
We are equally attentive to how structural and organisational reform could affect staff. On Directorates-General, service models, Offices, agencies, and the Commission’s presence in Member States, we consistently argue that reorganisation, centralisation, decentralisation or externalisation must be preceded by genuine social dialogue and must include explicit staff impact assessments. Staff representatives are particularly sceptical about outsourcing core services, warning that it can weaken quality, increase long-term dependency on external providers and result in the loss of valuable institutional knowledge. We also highlight governance weaknesses in agencies and Joint Undertakings, including insufficient involvement by parent DGs, inconsistent social dialogue and difficulties in applying Commission rules. In response, we call for stronger governance, fairer career opportunities in agencies, broader access to common Commission services, and better mobility between agencies and institutions. For Representations in Member States, we support strengthening policy, communication, and HR capacities, improving support for staff in difficult locations, and better valuing the professional experience gained in Representations.
As regards collaboration, we argue that it should be embedded through better tool consolidation, cross-DG mobility, joint project teams, regular unit meetings and stronger managerial accountability for information-sharing.
On simplification, we support reducing unnecessary bureaucracy but strongly insist that staff must be active participants in the process and that simplification should not become a pretext for insecurity, permanent disruption, or hidden workload transfers. We identified staff-facing procedures such as leave, mission requests, training, and appraisals as priority areas for streamlining.
As regards discontinuation and de-prioritisation of services, we recommend that resources freed up should as a rule remain with the service concerned, and that affected staff should receive redeployment opportunities, reskilling support, and clear transition pathways.
We are similarly cautious on compliance and financial management: while we accept the need for more proportionate and risk-based approaches, we insist that reduced controls must not expose staff to greater personal liability, arbitrary pressure, or weaker safeguards. We therefore call for transparent criteria, proper training, staff involvement in designing new frameworks, and explicit protection for staff working in financial and compliance-sensitive roles.
Innovation and artificial intelligence are among the areas where we are also vigilant. We accept that AI, IT, and data management can help modernise the Commission, but we strongly insist that AI should support staff, rather than replace them. We advocate for a single Commission guide on AI, a Commission-wide AI code of conduct, structured job-screening before deployment and broad digital upskilling for all staff categories. We also proposed the creation of a joint committee for Digital Workplace and ICT (CODIGICT), bringing together administration and staff representatives to oversee digital tools, AI deployment, and ethical issues. Most importantly, we draw clear lines for increased caution: AI should only be used under Human-in-the-Loop and Human-on-the-Loop models, autonomous agentic AI should be excluded, and systems must remain explainable, auditable, and traceable. We also call for firm safeguards on privacy, data protection, workload, and wellbeing, and argues that productivity gains from AI should not be used to justify workforce reductions.
Concisely, our contribution to the recommendations presents a coherent vision of reform centred on sustainability, fairness, and institutional credibility, while advocating for staff inclusiveness in this exercise. We are aware of the need for change and modernisation. In this sense we expressed support for a stronger, more efficient, and more attractive Commission. We strongly argue that the LSR will succeed only if staff are treated as participants rather than as variables in an organisational exercise.
Across the workstreams, our message is consistent: the Commission should modernise through transparency, strong governance, investment in staff, responsible use of technology and genuine social dialogue, while remaining firmly anchored in the Staff Regulations and in the values, it seeks to promote.
Next steps
To further discuss the LSR recommendations, part of the social dialogue, Generation 2004 and other staff representatives from the Central Staff Committee will meet with Commissioner Serafin at the end of September 2026 to ensure that staff are well represented in this exercise.
We are inviting staff to let us know their views and comments in relation to the LSR and the proposed recommendations of the workstream leaders.
Please send your views to Generation 2004
More information available in our article on Contract Agents and the Large Scale Review and in Commission en direct article Commissioner Serafin met staff representatives.
