With the two decrees that came into force on February 26, 2026, the French Personal Training Account (CPF) has shifted to a capped funding model, with increased financial contributions required from beneficiaries and their co-funders, particularly employers.

From now on, training programs leading to certifications or accreditations registered in the Répertoire Spécifique (RS) are eligible for funding up to a maximum of €1,500, regardless of the amount available in the account holder’s CPF balance.

What if the real issue were not the CPF, but the place we give to skills development?

The real question may not be about the CPF at all. The fundamental question is the place we give to learning and development within our organizations and throughout our professional lives. As long as training is viewed as a cost, it will continue to be adjusted according to budgetary constraints. The day it is regarded as an investment, it will regain its full value.

It is precisely this conviction that continues to guide our decisions at ImpaQt.

The consequences of this reform are numerous and could significantly reshape the professional training ecosystem.

For companies

The co-funding model may become more fragile, leading organizations to rethink their training policies and the criteria they use when selecting training providers.

The temptation will be strong to favor lower-cost solutions: fully online courses or, at best, blended learning programs, regardless of the skills being developed.

For individuals

There is a real risk of widening inequalities in access to training between those who can afford the remaining costs and those who cannot.

One of the founding principles of the CPF—promoting access to skills development for all—is now being put at risk.

For training companies

The potential decline in revenue may lead some providers to reduce costs or even redesign their training offers. Such decisions could have a direct impact on the quality and effectiveness of the learning experiences delivered. For some organizations, the consequences may also include restructuring efforts and workforce adjustments.

For certification bodies

The expected decrease in the number of candidates could make certain certifications less financially viable, limiting both the creation of new certifications and the renewal of existing ones.

Any good news after all?

Perhaps this will finally move us beyond the narrative of “CPF as an opportunity” and bring us back to a more fundamental perspective: “CPF as value and usefulness.”

As Johann Vidalenc, a French expert in professional training, points out:

“Those who relied on windfall effects will struggle. Those who have worked seriously on their value, their impact, and their framework have an opportunity, because the market is likely to undergo significant reconfiguration in the coming months.”

The underlying issues

Beyond the immediate consequences, this development raises several fundamental questions.

1. Training is still viewed as a cost

Continuous learning is still too often perceived as an expense rather than an investment, both by public authorities and by many organizations.

Yet the challenges of employability, adaptability, and organizational transformation have never been greater.

2. The question of tools

The debate frequently focuses on formats and costs, and far less on the relevance of the tools being used.

Digital technologies and AI are powerful tools. They should not become ends in themselves. While technology can accelerate access to knowledge, the development of human skills remains inseparable from human interaction.

3. The role of the RNCP and the RS

The distinction between the RNCP (National Directory of Professional Certifications) and the RS (Specific Directory) is becoming more pronounced, at the risk of creating an imbalance between two approaches that are, in fact, complementary.

On the one hand, the RNCP supports a job qualification approach. On the other, the RS promotes skills development and adaptability—an approach that is particularly relevant in a world of work where jobs and professions are evolving at an increasingly rapid pace.

At ImpaQt: our conviction remains unchanged

At ImpaQt, we have always supported the principle of shared investment between employees and employers, and we have consistently viewed the CPF as a useful lever for financing meaningful professional development projects.

We have never wished to offer standardized training catalogs, which run counter to our tailored approach to learning and development.

Nor have we embraced CPF catalogs, whose logic can sometimes lead to responding to a request before identifying the real need behind it.

Many organizations saw the CPF as an opportunity and took full advantage of it. Today, some are discovering the limits of that model.

In recent months, several people have asked us the same question:

“Isn’t it time to rethink your training offer?”

Our answer remains the same: no, quite the opposite !

We remain convinced that human support and face-to-face learning will continue to make the difference, especially when it comes to developing interpersonal, behavioral, and communication skills.

We will therefore continue to offer in-person solutions to help individuals strengthen their soft and active communication skills.

Of course, we must adapt to this new environment. We will do so without compromising the pedagogical principles that have enabled us to support our clients for nearly 40 years in a market that is as demanding as it is unpredictable.

Géraldine Berruto