Accredible's 2026 State of Credentialing report, based on nearly 200 credential issuers and 1,000 learners, found that demonstrating programme value is now issuers' top priority, having doubled in a year from 22% to 44%. The harder finding sits behind it: issuers are far more likely to know whether a credential was viewed or shared than whether it helped anyone get a job or a promotion. Closing that gap takes two things: credentials that record enough to count as evidence, and a consented way of asking learners what happened next.
What did the 2026 State of Credentialing report find?
The central finding is that pressure to prove value is rising faster than the evidence issuers hold. Accredible's launch materials describe demonstrating programme value as issuers' number one and fastest-growing strategic priority, doubling year on year from 22% to 44%. City & Guilds spoke at the launch alongside CredLens and Accredible.
Wendy Palmer, who contributed to the report, picks out several more figures in her write-up:
- 55% of issuers report increased pressure to demonstrate outcomes.
- Six months after issue, issuers typically know whether a credential was viewed or shared, but not whether the earner used it at work, changed job or was promoted.
- 93% of learners would share their career outcomes with the issuer if expectations around privacy and transparency were met.
- 88% of learners feel confident explaining their credential to employers, but 79% think issuers could make its value easier to communicate.
The 93% is the figure worth remembering. Learners are willing to tell issuers what happened, yet the report finds almost half have never been asked.
Why can't issuers see what happens after a credential is issued?
Because most measurement stops at events a platform can see: a badge claimed, viewed, shared or verified. Those events show reach and engagement, which matters, but they are not outcomes. Whether someone used the skill, got the job or earned the promotion happens with the learner and their employer, outside any badge platform.
That is true of every platform, ours included. The Certify analytics dashboard reports claims, shares, views and reach for each credential, which tells you whether a programme is being noticed. It does not tell you whether it changed a career, and any dashboard that claims to is measuring something else.
There is a second, quieter problem: many credentials say too little to be evidence of anything. A badge with a title, a logo and a date shows that something happened. It doesn't tell an employer, a funder or the issuer's own board what the person can now do.
What should a credential record if you want to prove outcomes later?
At a minimum, a credential should record clear earning criteria, the evidence that those criteria were met, the skills it covers mapped to a recognised framework, who issued it, and an expiry date where the skills go out of date. A credential that records these can be compared, verified and linked to later outcomes. One that records only a title and a date can't.
The Open Badges standard, maintained by 1EdTech, has fields for all of this, including criteria, evidence and alignment to external skills frameworks. Open Badges 3.0 builds on the W3C Verifiable Credentials data model, which makes credentials easier for other systems to read and check. Certify's credentials are Open Badges 2.0 compliant, with Open Badges 3.0 coming soon.
Before investing in outcome tracking, check your most-issued credential against three questions:
- Could someone who has never heard of your programme tell from the criteria what the earner had to do?
- Is there evidence attached, or a description of how it was assessed, rather than just "completed"?
- Are the skills named and, where possible, aligned to a framework your sector recognises, such as an occupational standard or a professional body's competency framework?
If any answer is no, fix the credential first. Better tracking of a vague credential only produces vague evidence.
How do you find out what happened after the badge?
Ask the learner, with their agreement, at set points after issue. A short check-in at six and twelve months, asking whether they have used the skills, whether the credential played a part in a new role or promotion, and whether they would recommend the programme, turns a badge into outcome evidence you can report to a board or funder.
Under UK GDPR you need a lawful basis to contact learners and use their answers, and you should tell them at the point of issue that you will be in touch and why. Keep the questions few, make opting out easy and report results in aggregate. If almost half of learners have never been asked, simply asking well already puts you ahead.
What does this mean for UK issuers?
Expect "what difference did it make?" from boards, funders and corporate clients, and expect it this budget cycle. Awarding bodies, professional bodies and training providers that can answer with criteria-rich credentials and follow-up data will be in a far stronger position than those that can only point to share counts.
Three steps you can take this term: audit your highest-volume credential against the three questions above, add a line about follow-up contact to your issuing emails, and set a six-month reminder for the first check-in. If you run corporate training, our article on building the L&D budget case with digital badges shows how to put claim, share and completion data in front of finance.
