In the framework of the EZA educational programme European social dialogue 2022/23, HIVA prepared a research report that focused on the socio-economic governance of the EU and the institutional management of three key political projects: the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), the European Green Deal (EGD), and the Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP) to be implemented in the Member States in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the basis of this political background, the report sought to identify venues as well as opportunities and barriers for social dialogue involvement and trade union participation. This approach allowed the development of recommended actions that can be used by workers’ organisations as part of the social dialogue to pursue sustained effective actions in the European governance framework as well as strategically contributing with their knowledge and experience to the key political projects listed above.
This brochure explains the political framework of the research work and summarises the resulting recommendations for action for workers’ organisations.
Social dialogue is an important feature of the European social market economy. An important milestone in the recognition of social dialogue at the European Union (EU) level was set in 1985. EU level social partners – the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne (UNICE, renamed BusinessEurope in 2007), and the European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services and Services of General Interest (CEEP, renamed SGI Europe in 2020) – met at the Château of Val-Duchesse in the south of Brussels, under the leadership of Jacques Delors, then president of the European Commission. At the time, social dialogue at the EU level was seen as a necessary instrument to counterbalance the European Committee’s strong economic focus and as a critical cornerstone of the social dimension (Lapeyre 2018). By inviting the social partners as organisations, rather than inviting their leaders on an individual basis, Delors aimed to promote social partners’ legitimacy and role as key players on social issues (Lapeyre 2018). This important role was once again confirmed by the Juncker Commission, which brought social dialogue back to the foreground with a high-level conference in March 2015. The conference discussed ways to strengthen social dialogue at the EU level and in the EU Member States, while also improving the articulation of social dialogue between these levels. This high-level conference was followed by a joint declaration adopted by the EU level social partners in January 2016. The aim of the declaration was among other goals to achieve a more substantial involvement of social partners in EU policymaking, notably in relation to the European economic governance and the European Semester.
EU social dialogue and social dialogue in the Member States nowadays have to deal with at least two main features of EU politics. First, the governance architecture of the EU in its relationship to the Member States is now based on the European Semester. Secondly, the current policymaking style in the EU is characterised by the development of “key political projects”, or policy packages encompassing a range of objectives, measures and instruments to tackle current societal challenges: social inequalities, climate change, and more recently, the economic recovery in the aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic. These three key political projects are linked to each other in their ambition to build a resilient EU and in their governance through the semester.
These key political projects obviously impact the core topics of social dialogue: employment, working conditions, etc. Despite the increased attention and efforts to foster social dialogue, questions were raised about the participation and role of social partners and of social dialogue in key political projects set at the EU level. In addition, these developments occur in a context of major economic and societal changes, driven by global trends such as technological transformations, globalisation, demographic change and climate change, and these are accelerated due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Contributions from trade unions to key political projects in the European Union are not self-evident. Previous research on the topic established a rather pessimistic diagnosis regarding trade unions’ involvement in EU affairs. When analysing the social dimension within the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020 Strategy, Hyman concluded in 2011 that trade unions are “manifestly marginalised within EU policymaking” (Hyman 2011, p. 25). More recently, Sabato found out that national trade unions feel they have little influence on the outcomes of the European Semester process (Sabato 2020). This raises the question of whether similar conclusions could be reached in the case of more recent key political projects adopted at EU level such as the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the European Green Deal, and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.