FinComp and OECD/INFE: which reference to cite

Kinship, not competition

Project documents sometimes cite the European framework and the OECD one on financial competence as alternatives. They are not. FinComp was developed in 2022 by the European Commission together with the OECD: the joint authorship is in the document itself.

Knowing that avoids the mistake of presenting them as two opposing choices. A legitimate practical question remains, though: in a given context, which one should you cite?

The criterion: scope of recognition

The useful distinction is not about content, but about where the reference is recognised.

European context. In an EU call, in a document addressed to a member state administration, in Erasmus+ project design, the reference to cite is FinComp. It is the framework adopted at European level, and the one evaluators recognise.

Global or comparative context. If the work compares countries inside and outside the Union, or addresses non-EU interlocutors, the OECD reference has broader reach. The OECD has worked on financial literacy since long before a European framework existed, and its measurement methodology is used internationally.

Mixed context. Cite FinComp while noting the OECD co-authorship. It is the most accurate formulation, and it costs nothing.

What FinComp adds for a European user

Three concrete elements make FinComp preferable when the context is European.

The financial landscape area. It includes consumer protections and complaint channels, which in the European context rest on a common legal basis. A global reference cannot be equally specific on this point.

The three-dimension structure. Every competence is described across knowledge, behaviours and attitudes. It is the most valuable methodological inheritance from the OECD contribution, and in FinComp it is applied systematically to all 22 competences.

Integrability with the other European frameworks. FinComp shares the scaffolding of DigComp, GreenComp and LifeComp: areas, competences, descriptors. Anyone working with several European frameworks finds a coherent structure instead of four different logics.

The mistake worth avoiding

Building a pathway on one reference and reporting it against another. If learning objectives are anchored to FinComp competences, assessment and reporting must use the same identifiers. Changing vocabulary halfway makes the work unverifiable, which is the most effective way to waste a well-made design.

Explore the 4 areas, 22 competences and 367 descriptors on the FinComp portal at ExplorerHub.