The social policy preferences of EU employers’ organizations: An exploratory analysis

Abstract

Despite decades of European social dialogue, little is known about the social policy preferences of EU employers’ organizations (EEOs). Building on the literature on industrial relations and the role of business in welfare state development, this article explores the preferences of key EEOs (BusinessEurope, SGI Europe and SMEunited) in vocational education and training (VET), active and passive labour market policies, pensions and work–family reconciliation. Software-based qualitative content analysis of 75 position papers and 19 joint declarations, triangulated with four elite semi-structured interviews, is employed to assess employers’ preferences along four national and two European dimensions. Largely in line with the power resources theory, EEOs favour cost containment and social investment, by strengthening labour market flexicurity and reducing skills mismatches through VET. Conflicting logics of membership and influence guide the actions of EEOs: members are wary of legislation impinging on national social policy traditions; yet, greater European assertiveness makes lobbying efforts unavoidable.

Digital labour platforms and social dialogue at EU level: How new players redefine actors and their roles and what this means for collective bargaining

“…For instance, the traditional companies that form their core membership may face unfair cost competition from platforms resorting to regulatory arbitrage, but they may also benefit from lower transaction costs and from generalised downward pressures on wages. The need to reconcile the heterogeneous interests of members with the apparent intent to also attract platform companies may hamper the ability of the employers' organisations to act consistently and speak with one voice, potentially limiting their influence (Guardiancich et al, 2023).…”

“…However, the relationship between traditional social partners and an increasingly differentiated labour market structure with powerful disruptors such as digital labour platforms is still under construction. The consultation process around the proposed platform work directive has only further accentuated the contradictions between capital and labour, effectively blocking the European social dialogue on the issue (compare Guardiancich et al, 2023; Keune & Marginson, 2013). While their polarised views have nevertheless fed into the legislative process through consultation, the influence of the social partners risks becoming more dependent on the political agenda and proposals emanating from the European institutions.…”