Unconscious Bias Test UK: Legal Guide 2026

Unconscious bias testing has become a common feature of workplace diversity strategies across the UK. Many employers now consider whether to introduce an unconscious bias test, often in the form of an Implicit Association Test (IAT), as part of recruitment reform, leadership development or broader inclusion initiatives. However, while the language of bias is widespread, the legal position is frequently misunderstood.

In UK employment law, unconscious bias is not itself unlawful. What is unlawful is discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. An employer may be liable for discriminatory treatment even where the decision-maker did not intend to discriminate. The absence of conscious intent does not prevent a successful tribunal claim. For this reason, organisations often explore unconscious bias testing as a preventative tool. The difficulty is that testing introduces its own legal and data protection risks if not handled properly, particularly where UK GDPR obligations are engaged.

What this article is about: This guide explains what an unconscious bias test means in a UK workplace context, including the role of the Implicit Association Test. It examines whether unconscious bias testing is legally required, how it interacts with the Equality Act 2010 and UK GDPR, and the risks of using test results in recruitment, promotion or disciplinary decisions. It then sets out practical guidance for employers on when testing may be appropriate, when it may create legal exposure and what compliance-first alternatives are more effective in reducing tribunal risk.

Before considering whether to implement an unconscious bias test in the UK, employers should understand three key points. First, there is no statutory requirement to conduct bias testing. Second, unconscious bias can still result in unlawful discrimination where it influences workplace decisions connected to protected characteristics. Third, the collection of bias-related data may involve special category personal data under UK GDPR, triggering strict compliance obligations. Any decision to introduce testing must therefore be framed as a risk-managed governance decision rather than a symbolic cultural initiative.

Section A: What Is an Unconscious Bias Test in the UK?

Unconscious bias tests are psychological assessment tools designed to identify automatic associations or preferences that operate below conscious awareness. In the UK workplace context, these tests are typically introduced as part of diversity and inclusion initiatives, leadership training or recruitment reform. However, they are not recognised as formal compliance mechanisms under employment legislation, nor are they endorsed as mandatory tools by regulators such as ACAS or the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Understanding what these tests are — and what they are not — is critical before integrating them into employment processes.

1. What is unconscious bias?

Unconscious bias, also referred to as implicit bias, describes automatic mental shortcuts that influence perception and judgement. These associations may relate to characteristics such as age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation. Many of these characteristics are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

In legal terms, bias itself is not unlawful. The Equality Act does not prohibit holding assumptions or stereotypes. What the Act prohibits is discriminatory treatment connected to protected characteristics. That includes:

• Direct discrimination (less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic)
• Indirect discrimination (a neutral provision, criterion or practice that disproportionately disadvantages a protected group without objective justification, applying the legitimate aim and proportionate means test)
• Harassment (unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, assessed in context and applying the reasonableness test)
• Victimisation (subjecting someone to detriment because they asserted their rights under the Act)

An employment tribunal does not require proof of conscious prejudice. If unconscious bias influences a recruitment decision, promotion decision or dismissal outcome in a way that disadvantages someone because of a protected characteristic, liability may arise regardless of intent.

This is why employers are concerned with bias in the first place. The legal exposure flows not from internal attitudes but from external treatment.

2. What is the Implicit Association Test (IAT)?

The most widely known unconscious bias test is the Implicit Association Test, developed through academic research led by Harvard University and collaborators. The IAT measures the speed at which individuals associate certain concepts with evaluative words such as “good” or “bad”.

Participants are asked to categorise words and images as quickly as possible using designated keyboard responses. The theory is that faster reaction times indicate stronger automatic associations between particular groups and positive or negative attributes. For example, in an age-related IAT, quicker pairing of “young” with “good” compared with “old” and “good” may suggest an implicit preference for younger individuals.

In the UK, the IAT is accessible online through various platforms and is sometimes incorporated into corporate training programmes. It can test associations relating to race, gender, disability, sexuality, weight and other characteristics.

It is important to emphasise that the IAT is a psychological research tool. It is not a diagnostic instrument and does not determine whether a person is discriminatory in a legal sense. Academic debate continues regarding its predictive value and reliability. Employment tribunals do not treat IAT results as determinative evidence of discriminatory intent.

3. Is the IAT recognised in UK employment law?

There is no statutory recognition of the Implicit Association Test in UK employment legislation. Neither the Equality Act 2010 nor its accompanying Codes of Practice require employers to conduct unconscious bias testing. ACAS guidance on equality and discrimination focuses on fair processes, objective decision-making and proper training rather than psychological testing.

This distinction matters. Employers sometimes assume that implementing unconscious bias tests strengthens their legal position automatically. In reality, testing is neither required nor sufficient on its own to establish a defence to discrimination claims.

Employers can be legally responsible for discriminatory acts carried out “in the course of employment” and will only avoid liability if they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination. While training may support that position, tribunals scrutinise whether steps were meaningful, current, communicated effectively, reinforced in practice and backed by action when issues arise. A single bias test or generic awareness session will not in itself demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken.

Accordingly, unconscious bias testing should be understood as a voluntary awareness tool rather than a compliance obligation. The legal question is not whether testing has occurred, but whether workplace decisions are objectively fair, transparent and free from unlawful discrimination, supported by properly designed recruitment and people management processes under recruitment law and wider employment governance.

Section A Summary: An unconscious bias test in the UK is a voluntary psychological assessment tool, most commonly delivered through the Implicit Association Test. It is not required by law, nor is it formally recognised as a statutory compliance mechanism. While unconscious bias can contribute to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, liability arises from discriminatory treatment, not from holding internal associations. Employers considering bias testing must therefore treat it as one potential awareness measure within a broader, legally grounded equality framework rather than as a standalone solution.

Section B: Are Unconscious Bias Tests Legally Required in the UK?

Employers frequently ask whether conducting an unconscious bias test is necessary to comply with UK equality law. The short answer is no. There is no legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010, nor under any other employment legislation, for organisations to implement unconscious bias testing or to require employees to complete an Implicit Association Test.

The legal obligation is not to test for bias. The obligation is to prevent unlawful discrimination.

Understanding this distinction is essential for risk management.

1. What does the Equality Act 2010 require?

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination, harassment and victimisation connected to protected characteristics, including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

For employers, the most relevant legal risks typically arise through:

• Recruitment and selection decisions
• Promotion and career progression decisions
• Performance management and disciplinary action
• Redundancy selection
• Dismissal

Discrimination can occur even where no conscious prejudice exists. If an unconscious bias influences a decision and that decision results in less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic, liability may follow.

Employers are also responsible for discriminatory acts carried out by employees in the course of employment. A key feature of this risk is that liability can arise even where the employer did not know about the discriminatory conduct. This is why employers should treat discrimination prevention as a governance issue rather than an individual manager problem, supported by clear policies, training and process controls, and reinforced through effective grievance handling such as a compliant grievance procedure.

2. Does unconscious bias testing strengthen the “reasonable steps” defence?

Testing may contribute to an employer’s argument that it has taken proactive measures to address discrimination risk. However, tribunals assess the quality and effectiveness of prevention measures rather than the mere fact that they occurred.

To rely on the statutory defence, an employer must show it took all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination. Tribunals consider whether measures were current, specific to the organisation’s risks, properly communicated, reinforced in practice and supported by action when problems arise. Outdated or superficial equality training may carry little weight, particularly where decision-making processes remain subjective or poorly documented.

A one-off unconscious bias test, without structural safeguards such as objective scoring systems, diverse interview panels or documented recruitment criteria, is unlikely to be persuasive evidence of robust prevention measures. In practice, tribunals are more concerned with:

• Whether recruitment and promotion processes are structured and transparent
• Whether managers are trained in practical, lawful decision-making
• Whether complaints are taken seriously and investigated properly
• Whether discriminatory behaviour is addressed promptly and consistently

Testing may support awareness, but it does not replace procedural fairness. Employers should focus on creating documented, job-related decision-making frameworks and reducing subjectivity, particularly where interviewer bias may arise during selection processes.

3. Is there any regulatory requirement to conduct bias testing?

There is no obligation under ACAS guidance or the Equality and Human Rights Commission Codes of Practice to conduct unconscious bias testing. Regulatory guidance focuses instead on promoting equal opportunities, eliminating discrimination and embedding fair processes into workplace decision-making.

For public sector bodies, the Public Sector Equality Duty requires due regard to equality impacts when exercising public functions, including the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. Even in that context, unconscious bias testing is not mandated, and public bodies usually meet their duties through policy design, impact assessment and equality monitoring rather than psychological testing.

Private sector employers have no statutory duty to conduct unconscious bias tests. Any decision to introduce testing is therefore a strategic choice rather than a compliance requirement.

Section B Summary: Unconscious bias tests are not legally required in the UK. The Equality Act 2010 requires employers to prevent unlawful discrimination, not to administer psychological assessments. While bias testing may form part of a broader equality initiative, it does not automatically satisfy the “all reasonable steps” defence and is not recognised as a statutory compliance mechanism. Employers must focus on fair, structured and objective employment processes rather than relying on testing alone to mitigate tribunal risk.

Section C: Legal Risks of Using an Unconscious Bias Test in the UK

While unconscious bias testing is not legally required, introducing it into the workplace can create legal exposure if handled incorrectly. The primary areas of risk arise under data protection law, discrimination law and employee relations principles.

Employers considering an unconscious bias test in the UK must treat it as a regulated data processing activity rather than a neutral cultural exercise.

1. UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 implications

Many unconscious bias tests, including the Implicit Association Test, involve processing information connected to protected characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or disability. These categories often fall within “special category data” under Article 9 of UK GDPR.

Processing special category data requires:

• A lawful basis under Article 6 UK GDPR
• An additional condition under Article 9
• Clear transparency notices
• Data minimisation
• Secure storage
• Purpose limitation

In the employment context, reliance on consent can be problematic because of the imbalance of power between employer and employee. Consent may not be regarded as freely given, which weakens its reliability as a lawful basis. Employers often need to consider alternative lawful bases carefully and ensure that any processing aligns with their obligations under GDPR for HR compliance principles.

If testing involves profiling, automated scoring or systematic evaluation of personal aspects, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) may be required. Where decisions are based solely on automated processing that produces legal or similarly significant effects, Article 22 UK GDPR restrictions may apply. Employers should therefore avoid using automated bias scores as determinative inputs into recruitment or promotion decisions.

Best practice is to ensure that:

• Participation is voluntary
• Results are anonymised wherever possible
• Individual scores are not retained on personnel files
• Data is not used as part of formal employment decision-making

Without these safeguards, an unconscious bias test may create compliance problems that outweigh its intended benefits. In addition, employees may exercise their rights to access personal data through a subject access request, requiring employers to disclose stored bias-related information.

2. Risks in recruitment, promotion and performance management

A significant legal risk arises where employers attempt to use unconscious bias test results in employment decisions.

If test outcomes are used to:

• Screen candidates
• Influence promotion decisions
• Inform disciplinary action
• Assess suitability for leadership roles

the employer may inadvertently engage in discriminatory treatment or unfair processes. Employment decisions must be based on objective, job-related criteria supported by evidence. Reliance on psychological profiling or bias scores may undermine the transparency and defensibility of selection decisions under recruitment law.

Tribunals assess whether decisions were based on legitimate business criteria and whether they were applied consistently. Psychological bias scores are unlikely to meet that threshold and may be viewed as arbitrary or disproportionate.

In practice, employers reduce exposure more effectively by addressing structural recruitment bias through objective scoring frameworks, documented selection criteria and consistent application of standards.

3. Harassment, employee relations and trust and confidence risk

Mandating unconscious bias testing can create employee relations concerns. Some individuals may object to participating in psychological assessments on privacy, ethical or philosophical grounds. Others may perceive testing as accusatory or stigmatising.

If participation is compelled and handled insensitively, employees may argue that the employer has undermined the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. In serious cases, this could contribute to claims of constructive dismissal.

In addition, poorly facilitated discussions around bias may give rise to complaints of workplace harassment if conduct related to protected characteristics has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating or hostile environment, assessed objectively and in context.

Employers must therefore manage communications carefully and avoid framing bias testing as a mechanism to identify “problem employees.” The purpose should be awareness and education, not categorisation or discipline.

4. Scientific reliability and evidential limitations

The Implicit Association Test remains the subject of academic debate. While it may identify automatic associations, research does not conclusively establish that IAT results reliably predict discriminatory behaviour in workplace settings.

From a legal perspective, this matters because tribunals focus on actions and outcomes, not internal associations. A poor IAT score does not prove discriminatory conduct, and a favourable score does not disprove it. Evidence of discrimination is assessed through comparators, treatment patterns and documented decision-making, not psychological metrics.

Section C Summary: The primary legal risks of unconscious bias testing in the UK arise from data protection compliance, misuse of results in employment decisions and employee relations issues. Tests such as the Implicit Association Test are not prohibited, but they must be implemented carefully. Participation should generally be voluntary, data handling must comply with UK GDPR and results should not be used as a basis for recruitment, promotion or disciplinary outcomes. The legal focus remains on fair decision-making processes rather than psychological assessment scores.

Section D: Should UK Employers Use an Unconscious Bias Test?

Whether an employer should introduce an unconscious bias test in the UK is ultimately a governance decision. The answer depends on organisational objectives, risk appetite and the maturity of existing equality processes. Testing should not be adopted simply because it is fashionable or widely referenced in diversity discussions. It should be assessed against its legal value and potential exposure.

For most organisations, structural safeguards and process reform will reduce discrimination risk more effectively than psychological testing alone.

1. When unconscious bias testing may be appropriate

Unconscious bias testing may be useful where it is positioned as an educational or reflective tool rather than a compliance mechanism. Appropriate contexts may include:

• Leadership development programmes
• Voluntary diversity awareness workshops
• Culture audits designed to identify broad trends
• Aggregate-level reporting to support inclusion strategies

In these settings, the focus is on self-awareness rather than evaluation. Testing should be clearly communicated as voluntary and developmental. Anonymised, group-level insights are generally safer than retaining individual scores.

Where properly facilitated, testing can encourage discussion about assumptions in recruitment, performance review and succession planning. It may prompt managers to reflect on whether informal networks or affinity bias influence opportunity allocation.

However, its value lies in conversation and awareness, not in measurement of suitability or competence.

2. When unconscious bias testing should be avoided

Employers should exercise caution in the following scenarios:

• Using test results as part of recruitment screening
• Incorporating scores into promotion decisions
• Linking outcomes to performance ratings
• Requiring participation as a condition of employment
• Retaining identifiable bias data within HR systems

In these contexts, testing may create more legal risk than benefit. Objective selection criteria, structured interviews and documented decision-making are far stronger indicators of compliance than psychological profiling.

Testing should never replace robust governance measures such as:

• Transparent recruitment scoring frameworks
• Diverse interview panels
• Clear competency-based criteria
• Written justifications for promotion or dismissal decisions

Tribunals scrutinise process integrity. They do not assess whether employees have undertaken psychological exercises. Employers should instead focus on reducing subjectivity and strengthening procedural fairness, particularly in areas where employment discrimination claims commonly arise.

3. Safer alternatives to unconscious bias testing

From a compliance-first perspective, the following measures are typically more effective in reducing discrimination risk:

• Structured interviews with predetermined scoring matrices
• Blind CV screening at shortlisting stage
• Standardised performance review templates
• Clear documentation of decision rationale
• Regular equality training linked to practical case studies
• Periodic review of workforce data for disproportionate outcomes

These structural safeguards address the external manifestation of bias rather than attempting to measure internal cognition. They are more defensible in tribunal proceedings because they demonstrate objective, repeatable processes. Where technology is used to support hiring decisions, employers must also consider governance risks linked to AI in recruitment, particularly in relation to automated profiling and indirect discrimination.

4. Balancing cultural objectives with legal exposure

Some employers view unconscious bias testing as a visible commitment to diversity and inclusion. While cultural signalling may have internal value, it should not be confused with legal protection.

The core compliance question remains: are employment decisions fair, consistent and objectively justifiable? If testing is introduced, it must complement, not substitute, procedural safeguards.

Employers should also consider reputational implications. Public debate around the scientific validity of bias testing means that poorly implemented programmes can attract criticism as well as internal resistance. A governance-led approach that prioritises fairness in decision-making will usually deliver stronger and more defensible outcomes.

Section D Summary: Unconscious bias testing in the UK is a voluntary governance choice rather than a legal requirement. It may support awareness where delivered carefully and voluntarily, but it does not reduce liability on its own. Employers seeking to minimise tribunal risk should prioritise structured, transparent decision-making processes over psychological assessment tools. Testing, if used at all, should sit within a broader compliance framework grounded in the Equality Act 2010 and UK GDPR obligations.

Section E: How Unconscious Bias Leads to Discrimination Claims

Although unconscious bias is not unlawful in itself, it can influence workplace decisions in ways that result in unlawful discrimination. Employment tribunals do not examine whether a manager intended to discriminate. They assess whether the claimant was treated less favourably or subjected to unjustified disadvantage because of a protected characteristic.

Understanding how unconscious bias translates into legal risk is essential for employers who are considering unconscious bias testing in the UK.

1. Recruitment and shortlisting decisions

Recruitment is one of the most common sources of discrimination claims. Bias may arise where decision-makers favour candidates who feel familiar or a perceived “good cultural fit,” particularly where that assessment is not tied to objective criteria.

Examples of risk include:

• Preferring candidates from certain educational backgrounds without business justification
• Discounting applicants with foreign-sounding names
• Assuming older candidates are less adaptable
• Making assumptions about commitment based on gender or parental status

If a rejected candidate establishes facts from which a tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that discrimination has occurred, the burden of proof may shift to the employer to demonstrate that treatment was unrelated to a protected characteristic. Poorly documented or subjective decision-making processes make that defence difficult.

Employers reduce exposure by addressing recruitment bias directly and implementing consistent, documented selection criteria under recruitment law principles.

Unconscious bias may explain how the decision was reached, but it does not excuse it.

2. Promotion and progression decisions

Bias frequently manifests in decisions about who is given stretch assignments, leadership exposure or client-facing opportunities. Affinity bias can result in managers mentoring individuals who resemble them in background or personality.

Where promotion criteria are informal or inconsistently applied, employees from underrepresented groups may argue that they were denied progression because of a protected characteristic. Claims may arise under the Equality Act 2010 for direct discrimination or indirect discrimination, depending on how the disadvantage occurs.

Tribunals examine whether promotion processes were transparent, based on legitimate aims and proportionate in their application. If decisions rely on subjective impressions such as “fit” or “gravitas,” the employer may struggle to demonstrate objective justification.

3. Performance management and disciplinary action

Unconscious bias may influence how behaviour is interpreted. For example:

• Assertiveness may be viewed positively in one employee and negatively in another
• Communication style may be assessed differently depending on gender or ethnicity
• Absence patterns linked to disability may be misunderstood

If disciplinary sanctions or performance ratings disproportionately affect individuals sharing a protected characteristic, this may give rise to discrimination claims. Employers should ensure that processes for managing poor performance are structured, evidence-based and consistently applied.

Where conduct amounts to repeated negative treatment connected to a protected characteristic, this may also give rise to harassment claims. The assessment will consider the claimant’s perception, the surrounding circumstances and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

4. Redundancy selection and dismissal

Redundancy scoring exercises that rely on subjective criteria such as “attitude,” “flexibility” or “team contribution” may be vulnerable to bias. If scoring results in disproportionate impact on a protected group, the employer must demonstrate that the criteria pursued a legitimate aim and were a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Clear documentation and consistent application of a defensible redundancy matrix can help reduce exposure. Employers should also ensure that redundancy selection processes are transparent and supported by evidence.

Similarly, dismissal decisions influenced by stereotypical assumptions may expose the employer to both unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

The financial consequences of successful discrimination claims can be significant. Unlike unfair dismissal compensation, discrimination awards are uncapped and may include injury to feelings.

5. Vicarious liability and organisational exposure

Even if bias operates at an individual manager level, liability rests with the employer. Employers are legally responsible for discriminatory acts committed in the course of employment unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct.

This means that organisations must focus on systems and safeguards. Identifying bias through testing is less important than ensuring that decisions are documented, objective and consistently applied across the organisation.

Section E Summary: Unconscious bias becomes legally relevant when it influences employment decisions connected to protected characteristics. Recruitment, promotion, performance management, redundancy and dismissal are all areas where bias can translate into unlawful discrimination. Tribunals assess outcomes and process integrity, not internal intent. Employers must therefore prioritise structured, transparent decision-making to reduce the risk of costly and reputationally damaging claims.

Unconscious Bias Test UK – FAQs

Are unconscious bias tests legally required in the UK?

No. There is no legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010 or any other UK employment legislation for employers to conduct unconscious bias testing. Employers are required to prevent unlawful discrimination, but there is no statutory obligation to administer an unconscious bias test or an Implicit Association Test.

What is the Implicit Association Test (IAT)?

The Implicit Association Test is a psychological assessment tool designed to measure automatic associations between concepts, such as age or gender, and evaluative words like “good” or “bad.” It is commonly used in diversity training. It is not recognised in UK employment law as a compliance requirement and does not determine whether someone has acted unlawfully.

Can employers require staff to take an unconscious bias test?

Employers can request participation, but mandatory testing carries legal and employee relations risks. Because unconscious bias tests may involve processing sensitive personal data and psychological profiling, participation should generally be voluntary. Employers must also ensure compliance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Can unconscious bias test results be used in recruitment or promotion decisions?

Using individual bias test results to make recruitment, promotion or disciplinary decisions is legally risky. Employment decisions must be based on objective, job-related criteria. Reliance on psychological bias scores may expose the employer to discrimination claims and undermine procedural fairness.

Does unconscious bias equal unlawful discrimination?

No. Holding unconscious associations is not unlawful. Discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favourably or subjected to unjustified disadvantage because of a protected characteristic. Liability arises from treatment and outcomes, not from internal thoughts or attitudes.

Is unconscious bias training enough to prevent discrimination claims?

Training may form part of an employer’s prevention strategy, but it must be meaningful, current and properly implemented. A single training session or one-off test will not automatically protect an employer from liability. Tribunals assess whether processes and decision-making systems are fair and objective.

Are unconscious bias tests scientifically reliable?

The Implicit Association Test remains the subject of academic debate. While it may identify automatic associations, it does not reliably predict discriminatory behaviour in the workplace. For legal purposes, tribunals focus on evidence of treatment rather than psychological metrics.

Do unconscious bias tests involve special category data?

They often do. Tests that explore attitudes relating to race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or disability may involve processing special category personal data under UK GDPR. Employers must ensure they have a lawful basis for processing and comply with strict data protection requirements.

Should employers use unconscious bias testing?

It depends on the organisation’s objectives and governance framework. Testing may support awareness in voluntary, anonymised settings. However, structured recruitment processes, objective performance criteria and documented decision-making are typically more effective in reducing discrimination risk.

Conclusion

Unconscious bias testing in the UK is a voluntary governance tool, not a statutory compliance requirement. While awareness of implicit bias may support broader equality objectives, the legal focus remains firmly on treatment, outcomes and procedural fairness.

Employers are legally responsible for discriminatory acts carried out in the course of employment unless they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct. The most effective protection against tribunal risk lies in structured recruitment processes, transparent promotion criteria, consistent performance management and documented decision-making.

If unconscious bias tests are introduced, they must be implemented carefully. Participation should generally be voluntary, data protection obligations under UK GDPR must be met and results should not be used to determine employment outcomes. Used cautiously, testing may encourage reflection. Used improperly, it can create additional legal exposure.

The compliance priority is clear: focus on fair systems first. Testing, if used at all, should sit within a legally grounded equality framework rather than acting as a substitute for it.

Glossary

Useful Links