Social dialogues—the state of the art a decade after Maastricht

Abstract

The article asks whether social dialogues, according the procedures of the Social Protocol and the Amsterdam Treaty, have proved to be valuable instruments able to make major contributions to the development of social integration. More recent developments at the inter-professional as well as at the sectoral level are evaluated. Furthermore, major trajectories for likely future trends at both levels are highlighted. The final part discusses the problem of whether social dialogues will profit from the introduction of new modes of governance, especially the more recently preferred open method of coordination.

Dealing With Uncertainties When Governing CSR Policies

“…policies have been criticized for not resulting in increased stakeholder participation (Smismans, 2006), to be incapable of instigating broad-sweeping changes (Dorf and Sabel, 1998), to be incompatible with existing juridical procedures (Scott and Trubek, 2002), but also to lack effectiveness because of the weak policy commitment, the lack of real sanctions and reliance on voluntary network participation (Bailey, 2006;Eberlein and Kerwer, 2004;Keller, 2003). Second, CSR is an issue that is treated by a multitude of institutions and public administration domains.…”

Explaining Implementation through Varieties of Capitalism Theory: The Case of the Telework and Work‐related Stress Agreements

“…Examination of this hypothesis also provides the opportunity to interrogate a controversy within the literature. Though scholars of the European social dialogue initially predicted that CME‐style systems would implement such agreements more effectively (Keller, ), doubt was cast on this by empirically informed accounts which emphasized the licence given to national actors by the procedures and practices implementation clause (Larsen and Andersen, ). According to these researchers, the vagueness of the clause meant that the relationship between implementation outcomes and the quality of social dialogue structures was far from straightforward.H2 Procedural implementations of the agreements will be more ‘correct’ in CMEs .…”

“…This hypothesis has indeed been articulated by a foremost scholar of the dialogue. In an article that discussed the prospects of the Telework Agreement, Keller (, p. 416) forecast that diverging collective bargaining coverage rates in Member States would lead to ‘regulatory patch‐work at national level’.H3 The content of the agreements will contribute more to regulatory standards in LMEs .…”

The European sectoral social dialogue: questions of representation and membership

“…Keller (2003; 2005) and Jacobi and Kirton‐Darling (2005) insisted on the role of European policies, which incite social partners to find common positions to address to the European Commission. Historically, the constitution of the joint committees and informal working groups since the 1960s was linked to common EU policies; such is the case, for instance, in transport and agriculture.…”