Tips for achieving WLA responsible gaming certification

Supporting members through the RG certification process

The WLA partnered with the DigitalRG platform to streamline and simplify the process in one space. In 2024, it became mandatory for members to complete all levels of certification on the Platform, which enables applicants to save time and focus on the submission itself.

Some features include:

• Simplified dashboard, including document management.
• Maximum 10 steps to certification in easy-to-follow sections.
• Simplified question and answer format at each stage, with extra guidance if required.
• Ability to upload proof and evidence at each stage, of RG work undertaken by the lottery.
• IAP report and result published on the dashboard.
• Translation feature allows submissions in languages other than English.

Additionally, the WLA covers the cost of lotteries undergoing level 2 certification for the first time, assumes the annual license fee, and has obtained a perpetual license for the IAP use of the platform to evaluate submissions.

Emphasizing continual progress

The Independent Assessment Panel (IAP) is comprised of international CSR experts who are tasked with reviewing all submissions and forwarding their certification recommendations to the WLA.

During the 2025 WLA RG webinar week, Anne Pattberg, Chair of the IAP, provided useful insights for RG certification applicants.

There are no submission failures in WLA RG certification, just opportunities to learn, improve and advance through the levels. The WLA Framework was designed to:

• Encourage steady refinement of player protection practices
• Assist lotteries in improving governance, accountability, and transparency
• Promote global consistency in responsible gaming standards

At each level, progress must occur, but the emphasis is on honing practices and building on progress made.

Choosing the recertification level

Recertification occurs every three years. When deciding whether to advance the level or not, applicants should:

• Consider governance maturity, system stability, operational readiness and organizational capacity.
• If maintaining a level is the right choice, submissions must show evolution, such as updated policies, programs, training, or strengthened monitoring, evaluation, or reporting processes.
• It is always helpful to revisit the previous IAP assessment to identify gaps, risks, and areas of strong progress and to consider strategic priorities, resources, and timing.

Demonstrating meaningful progress

There are many ways to show improvements across operations, for instance through:

• Enhanced player protection initiatives
• Staff expansion
• Retailer training
• Improved communication strategies and outreach
• Stronger internal controls or risk detection tools
• Evidence of deeper cross-departmental collaboration

The more details, explanations and evidence provided to demonstrate changes, the better. It is important to provide where possible:

• Examples showing before versus after improvement
• Reasons behind each change
• Include data, KPIs, or evaluation results where available
• Highlight lessons learned and their impact on decisions

Honesty is the best policy:

• Whatever the level it is important to identify any obstacles and capacity limitations and explain how issues are being addressed.

How does the IAP assess recertification?

The IAP does not expect perfection, it looks for continual evolution. Applicants must:

• Demonstrate ongoing improvements
• Not repeat previous submissions
• Show how RG is embedded across the organization with leadership support
• Include monitoring, evaluation, and learning processes
• Show the link between continual improvements and outcomes

Pattberg described the goal of recertification as the strengthening of responsible gaming sustainably, cycle after cycle. She noted that a strong submission requires applicants to have updated standards and player-protection measures in place for vulnerable groups. It should contain risk-mitigation tools. There should be engagement with stakeholders, including regulators, NGOs, researchers, and retailers. Decisions for improvement should be based on data and research, and finally, the content should be clean, structured, and concise.

‍