CEPS欧洲政策研究中心-Stakeholders-views-on-and-experiences-with-the-articulation-of-social-dialogue-and-its-effectiveness-_8211-CEPS_76页_2mb

Summary of the EESDA Project: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Social Dialogue Articulation in Europe

Core Content

The Enhancing the Effectiveness of Social Dialogue Articulation in Europe (EESDA) project, funded by the European Union and implemented from 2017 to 2019, aimed to deepen the understanding of how social dialogue functions at the European and national levels, and how it influences decision-making and outcomes. The project examined the effectiveness of social dialogue through stakeholder perspectives, including both EU-level and national actors, across 27 EU member states and six selected countries with diverse industrial relations models.

The project used a mixed-methods approach, combining desk research, an EU-wide online survey, and semi-structured interviews with social partners and stakeholders. It also employed network analysis to map the relationships and interactions among social dialogue actors, revealing both strong and weak ties.

Main Findings

1. Social Dialogue at the European Level

• Social dialogue is a key component of the European social model and has evolved significantly since the 1980s.
• The Val Duchesse social dialogue (1985) marked the beginning of formal European-level social dialogue, initiated by Jacques Delors.
• The Single European Act (1986) established the legal basis for social dialogue, leading to the creation of the Social Dialogue Committee (SDC).
• The Treaty of Maastricht (1991) allowed social partner agreements to become legally binding through Council decisions.
• The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) introduced the 'Agreement on Social Policy', creating a unified framework for social dialogue across the EU.
• The European Pillar of Social Rights (2016) emphasized the importance of social dialogue in shaping employment and social policies.

2. EU-Level Social Partners

• The main actors in European-level social dialogue are the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and employers' organisations such as BusinessEurope, CEEP, and SMEUnited.
• These organisations engage in bipartite and tripartite social dialogue, with the latter involving governments.
• There are differences in representativeness among social partners, with some having stronger influence due to larger memberships or broader geographic reach.
• Cross-sectoral dialogue involves confederations, while sectoral dialogue is conducted between trade union federations and their employer counterparts.

3. Social Dialogue Topics and Outcomes

• The most frequently discussed topics at the European level include:
  • Skills, training, and employability
  • Health and safety, well-being at work
  • Working conditions (e.g., working time regulation, types of contracts)
• Binding outcomes are preferred by employee organisations, while non-binding outcomes are more common and preferred by employers.
• The European Semester and other policy processes increasingly involve social partners, especially in shaping employment and social policies.
• Social dialogue is seen as a tool for best practices and raising awareness, especially when topics are not legally binding.

4. National and EU-Level Interactions

• The study highlights the vertical and horizontal articulation between national and EU levels.
• Bottom-up articulation is possible but often limited to information exchange, without leading to binding outcomes.
• Network analysis shows that cross-border strategic partnerships are mainly formed between parallel organisations (e.g., trade unions with trade unions, employers with employers).
• There is regional clustering in some countries, such as the Visegrad, Baltic, and Scandinavian regions.
• The affiliation network is relatively dense across Europe, with trade unions being slightly more connected than employers.

5. Case Studies: Six Member States

• The project analyzed six countries: Estonia, France, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Sweden, each with distinct industrial relations models.
• In each country, the study looked at four sectors: construction, commerce, education and healthcare, and a specific occupation in each sector.
• National social partners generally perceive European social dialogue as important but see it as more informative than consultative.
• There are divergent priorities among social partners, depending on the sector and organisation type.
• The study also provides country-specific recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of social dialogue.

6. Key Factors for Effective Social Dialogue

• Coalition building and cooperation are essential for inclusive and effective dialogue.
• Informal ties and capacity building are identified as important for strengthening social dialogue.
• Digital tools help maintain communication between national and European-level actors, especially when physical attendance is not possible.

Conclusion

The EESDA project underscores the importance of multilevel governance and the interconnectedness of social dialogue at the European and national levels. It highlights the diversity of social dialogue structures and traditions, as well as the need for capacity building and more inclusive participation. The findings suggest that while European social dialogue is well perceived, its effectiveness remains dependent on stronger collaboration, greater representativeness, and more binding outcomes. The project also offers practical insights and recommendations for improving social dialogue in Europe and its member states.