Over the last two decades, research on training in enterprises has grown, in particular due to the availability of comparative data in Europe. Following the emphasis of policy on increasing training participation rates, the main focus of this research thus far has been the extent of firm-based training, its various determinants and funding aspects (Brunello et al., 2007; Markowitsch & Hefler, 2007; Markowitsch et. al, 2013). Today we know more or less accurately how much training is provided by enterprises; how it is organised; how much it costs, and so on. Furthermore, we have some evidence about external training providers, training markets, and also about (external) trainers (Kirpal & Wittig, 2009; Kirpal, 2011). In contrast, we know surprisingly little about the people who provide training inside the companies. However, if the argument that most skills needed at work are acquired through the work process holds true, it is high time to ask: Who is facilitating learning processes at work?

Despite some recent activities (Cedefop, 2010; 2013; 2014), in-company trainers have received little attention so far (Käpplinger and Lichte, 2012). Hence, their potential multiplier and leverage effect on participation in and quality of training remains unrealised. This paper aims to answer some basic questions on in-company trainers, who are defined as persons employed by the company providing internal training, i.e. training organised and carried out in and/or by the company for their staff members. These questions include: How many in-company trainers exist (per company and overall)? How can they be characterised? What are their main tasks and activities? What sort of skills and formal qualifications do they have?

The paper builds on (i) an employer-employee linked survey conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in eight EU member states and four sectors (see below) and (ii) an analysis of CVTS and PIAAC data (see below).

The research indicates that providing training to colleagues is a frequent phenomenon: about 20% of all employees regularly provided some form of training to their colleagues. Although only a minority of these individuals were full-time trainers, they are more numerous than, for instance, teachers in schools or at universities. This indicates that in-company trainers play a decisive role for a country’s national skill formation system despite their rather shadowy existence in policy and research.

Based on the survey, the average in-company trainer is male, aged between 30 and 44 years, holds a tertiary level or at least ISCED 3-4 qualification and belongs to the occupational group of managers, professionals or skilled workers. Despite these common characteristics, in-company trainers differ considerably in terms of their training tasks and activities. Three major groups could be distinguished: (1) Managers with training functions, (2) employees with training functions occasionally providing training to colleagues, and, finally, the small group of (3) in-company trainers in the narrower sense for whom providing training and facilitating the learning of others is their main responsibility taking up most of their working time. This group is still very heterogeneous and can hardly be termed as ‘training professionals’ as some researchers claim (e.g. Germe, 1991, Cedefop 2013). For example, no common occupational profile or collective awareness of being part of a community of practitioners could be identified (Meyer, 2008; Käpplinger and Lichte, 2012). Hence, the main criteria to be considered professionals are not fulfilled (Larson, 1977; Freidson, 2001). A way forward seems therefore to observe the more complex relationship between professionalism of in-company trainers in the sense of ‘good practices’ in their day-to-day work instead of movements towards professionalization in the sense of forming a new occupational group (Hodson and Sullivan 2008).

Arts, A. W. and Gelissen, J. (2010). Models of the Welfare State. In: Castles, F. G.; Leibfried, S.; Lewis, J.; Obinger, H.; Pierson, C.; (eds). The Oxford handbook of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 469-484. Brunello, G., Garibaldi, P. and E. Wasmer (2007). Education and Training in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press Büchter, K. (1998). Betriebliches Weiterbildungspersonal. Qualifikationsanforderungen, Aufgaben und Arbeitsbedingungen. Handbuch Personalentwicklung. Köln: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst. Busemeyer, M. R. and Trampusch, C. (eds) (2012). The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cedefop (2010). Professional development opportunities for in-company trainers: A compilation of good practices. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Working Paper No 6. Cedefop (2013). Trainers in continuing VET: emerging competence profile. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cedefop (2014). EU, be proud of your trainers: supporting those who train for improving skills, employment and competitiveness. Guiding principles on professional development of trainers in VET. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: the third logic. Cambridge: Polity. Germe, J.-F. (1991). The training profession in enterprises: synthesis report. Cedefop. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC. Hodson, Randy, & Sullivan, Teresa A. (2008). The Social Organization of Work (4st Edition ed.). Käpplinger, B. and Lichte, N. (2012). Erhöhung der Weiterbildungsbeteiligung durch professionelles Weiterbildungspersonal. [Increase of participation in further education through professional further education personnel]. In: WSI Mitteilungen, 5/2012. Kirpal, S. (2011b). National Pathways and European Dimensions of Trainers Professional Development. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kirpal, S. and Wittig, W. (2009). Training Practitioners in Europe: Perspectives on their work, qualification and continuing learning. Bremen: University of Bremen/Institute Technology and Education. ITB Research Paper Series No 41/2009. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Markowitsch, J. and Hefler, G. (eds) (2007) Enterprise Training in Europe: Comparative Studies on Cultures, Markets and Public Support Initiatives, Vienna: LIT-Verlag, pp. 23-60. Markowitsch, J.; Käpplinger, B. and Hefler, G. (2013). Firm-provided Training in Europe and the Limits of National Skills Strategies. European Journal of Education, Vol. 48, pp. 281-291. Meyer, R. (2008). Professionalisierung als Konzept der Qualitätssicherung: Perspektiven für das Berufsbildungspersonal und –forschung. [Professionalization as concept of quality assurance: Perspektives for the vocational education personnel and -research]. In: bwp@Spezial, Vol. 4.