Hi, i don't know the answer from the CIPD viewpoint, but i guess that arranging for our qualifications to be recognised by EU countries after Brexit, itsn't something that is within their power to do. The decision whether to recognise a qualification from another country is down to that country.

It may be that continuing to recognise qualifications could be something that the Government agree as part of whatever agreement they come to with the EU in terms of our relationship with the EU after Brexit. I would hope that CIPD would be lobbying the Government on this, but at the moment, it looks like the Government are wanting to cut ties and there is not much that we can do about that (other than to put pressure on Government as individuals)

1. Are you intending on moving to somewhere within the EU in the future?
2. CIPD qualifications as professional qualifications are looked at abroad more as academic than need to have, in any case, they are not needed to "practice" exactly the case as in the UK. If your were a Doctor or Nurse, then I could understand the concern.
3. If you do move to the EU, chances are an employer will expect you to undertake their own HR qualifiactions.
4. If your not intending moving then a pointless conversation as the CIPD qualifiactions will still be assessed against QCF or whatever its replacement is/will be
5. Can you speak a foreign language fluently? I've spent working time in Belguim and Germany, particulary in Germany, if you don't speak German then you won't get a job

Hi Paul,

I'm not sure there is *automatic* recognition anyway, but have asked colleagues who I know will post a response v shortly.

Hello Paul

Thank you for your comments and questions, Brexit is certainly at the top of our agenda.

As we work internationally, it is important for us to establish links across the world and we are recognised by individuals and employers in a number of countries. We also have a high number of non EU students who are able to use and be recognised for their CIPD qualifications in non EU countries. In terms of our qualifications in Europe, we will not be able to ensure blanket acceptance in EU27 post Brexit as we are unable to do within the EU now. At the moment, we offer comparisons to the EQF and will continue to do this post Brexit. An individual with a CIPD qualification who wishes to work in Europe is required to apply for recognition/comparability within the country concerned and also to understand individual employer requirements. Automatic recognition ties in more with licence to practice qualifications where common minimum training conditions exist and this is not relevant to our qualifications.

As we are a UK based recognised and regulated Awarding Organisation, it would not be possible for us to issue or reissue certificates from Ireland.

We are of course very mindful of the implications of Brexit for the profession and will ensure that we continue to engage with policy makers on this, relaying what our Members tell us as we do.

I’m not sure if you are aware but we also have a Brexit hub - www.cipd.co.uk/.../brexit-hub which provides resources for our Members to help plan for Brexit.

I hope this is helpful.
Annie

In reply to Annie Matthews:

Thanks, Annie.

In reply to Teresa:

Lol, it's almost as if CIPD qualifications aren't the number one priority for the government!

In reply to Annie Matthews:

Thanks Annie for the detailed and helpful reply.

As a person who has spent the greater part of their life working outside of the UK and on HR issues across and within at least 50 countries, and having operational HR in 4 non-UK countries, I would like to add my grain of sand to the debate.

To be honest I would be extremely worried if CIPD qualifications were granted semi-automatic recognition in countries outside of the UK. I clearly accept that there are some generic approaches to HR issues that will be relevant (to some degree) across borders. However, the underlying core HR skills sponsored and promoted by the CIPD relate to the acquisition (and applied use of)  knowledge that is highly UK specific. When we look across different countries we can quickly see some very important differences that will affect how HR is practices

• Firstly there are major differences in the areas of legislation that touch on HR - company law, employment law, tax law, social security law
• Secondly the structuring of the benefits that are provided by the state will dictate to a strong degree the type of benefits that a company may choose to offer - in France for instance there is very little in the way of company pension plans because the state scheme is one of the most generous in the world
• These first two factors, coupled with differences in national culture, play a major role in determining what will be an attractive package to staff in each country
• Having recruited technicians and engineers in several countries, I had to very quickly come to terms with not only the differences in the technical content of their training, but also the fact that there are different legal norms under which they must operate - what is compulsory in country A may well be forbidden in country B. Similarly, in some countries engineers can obtain the equivalent of chartered status without actually having undertaken engineering work in a company - the academic qualification is sufficient. Assuming that they will be operationally useful from day one would create major problems.
• Employee relations with formal staff/union bodies vary massively, and in some countries failure to respect formal procedures can have very serious consequences - not long ago an employer in Europe had to re-employ about 100 staff who had been made redundant, and reinitiate a six month dismissal process, simply on the basis of a technical error in the procedure. In this type of environment applying the UK pragmatic approach of "acting reasonable within the law" can have disastrous consequences

At a managerial level, it is probably easier to make the international transition, provided that the team the person in charge of possesses a high level of technical skills and the manager is there to manage and set strategic direction

As someone who teaches on an MBA in International HR (with Comp & Ben speciality), all I can realistically give to my students is an overview of the types of differences they are likely to encounter across different countries. As an illustration the notion of Bismarckian vs Beveridgian national pension systems is a fundamental differentiator and understanding how and why they are different, can help give keys to gaining a proper understanding of Indonesian, Swedish, French and Dutch national pension systems - on the other hand it is not possible on a one-year course to provide inside knowledge of all the different national pension systems around the world to a point where someone could move from country A to country B as a pension plan specialist.

I hope these limited illustrations serve to illustrate the point that in many HR roles, the technical knowledge and skills we acquire via CIPD qualifications are in no automatically transferable to another country.

That doesn’t mean that all the skills certified by CIPD are not relevant, but anyone seeking to apply them in a context for which they were not designed, is likely to make some very serious mistakes if they don't spend the necessary time learning and understanding the different legislative and cultural context of another country.

Apologies for the long post, but IMHO assuming the automatic transferability of HR skills/knowledge across more often than not leads to disaster

In reply to Ray:

Thanks, Ray - terrific post!

In reply to Ray:

Absolutely Ray, thank you. An understanding of the local law and culture will always be essential.

Thanks for the comments everyone. So far there seems to be input about specialisms and qualification in employment law.

However, what about that adequate slice of CIPD alumni who are not specialists in employment law and wish to continue to port their CIPD qualifications across the EU27?

Given that both the US and the UK will essentially be a 3rd country from an EU27 standpoint, there is no longer much difference in recognition between a CIPD qualification or a US-issued ATD qualification. Each are just as non-recognized as the other. Same for an AHRI qualification etc...

Example: I'm a manager in a multinational with substantial EU27 coverage, post- Brexit why should I choose to authorize training budget for UK-issued CIPD qualification studies for my staff, when I already know there will be obstacles in qualification recognition and portability throughout our company?

I would have thought CIPD would at least be curious about prospective students who could "defect" to alternative qualification providers, and how that could be proactively mitigated from within and without. Or am I wrong?

^ I should have also mentioned: In many EU countries, study course costs and membership costs can be deducted from tax liabilities (often personal tax declarations) SO LONG AS the course of study is from within the EU.

Once the UK leaves the EU, that tax advantage for a UK-issued CIPD course of study most probably will be lost :-(

In reply to Paul:

Hi Paul,

I'm struggling to see how that example scenario differs to now?

I thought Annie explained it very well;
"As we (CIPD) work internationally, it is important for us to establish links across the world and we are recognised by individuals and employers in a number of countries. We also have a high number of non EU students who are able to use and be recognised for their CIPD qualifications in non EU countries. In terms of our qualifications in Europe, we will not be able to ensure blanket acceptance in EU27 post Brexit as we are unable to do within the EU now. At the moment, we offer comparisons to the EQF and will continue to do this post Brexit. An individual with a CIPD qualification who wishes to work in Europe is required to apply for recognition/comparability within the country concerned and also to understand individual employer requirements. Automatic recognition ties in more with licence to practice qualifications where common minimum training conditions exist and this is not relevant to our qualifications."

In reply to Laura Fazackarley:

When it comes to financing, there is quite a difference.

In reply to Paul:

What is your question relating to finance then?

How is the loss of a tax advantage you claim, following the UK decision to leave the EU, something that can be managed by the CIPD?

Has your question changed after being robustly challenged by peers, when pointed out that 'blanket acceptance' doesn't exist now?

In reply to Paul:

I too have to admit to some confusion regarding exactly what you might expect to be done here, Paul?

You suggest that replies given so far have focused upon employment law, but all HR practice must be compliant with (local) employment (and related) law. Policies and procedures are derived from and within (local) law, and while generalities such as HR practice being aimed at fairness, safety and equalities of treatment when securing human productive effort might be considered universal, applying these generalities too must recognise the constraints of legislation and differing social values internationally; which are most certainly not so universal! The proposition that any HR practitioner can be totally ignorant or dismissive of relevant employment law, in any location or any aspect of practice, is therefore unsustainable. Hence, as in Ray's clear and comprehensive examples, our needing to recognise that no CIPD (or other) certification can be instantly and unquestionably transferable or indeed, by that same token, recognised as having similar value within local financial legislation regarding taxation etc.

Just as now, the transferability of CIPD certifications will continue to depend on the practitioner identifying how and where these are relevant to the role(s) they are seeking to fill, be that nationally or indeed within the UK; because anyone who claims to know everything about HR as a profession based on their Certifications or qualifications alone, or hopes to convince an employer into believing this to be so, in any language or national legislative framework , is fooling themselves!