This article addresses current issues and relevant prospects of EU social dialogues at sectoral level. It examines fundamental difficulties ‘post-Lisbon’, especially as regards implementation, including procedures for follow-up and monitoring. The article also deals with the Commission’s most recent Staff Working Document on sectoral social dialogue, raises major caveats and elaborates on various prospects of most recent voluntary results (‘autonomous agreements’ and ‘process-oriented texts’).

This article deals with recent developments in EU social dialogue, namely so-called 'new generation texts', which are non-binding legally, but 'implementation-oriented'. Aspects of their follow-up, implementation and multi-level characteristics are therefore discussed. Findings from two sectoral dialogues indicate that follow-up procedures can vary considerably. Furthermore, the implementation or impact of such 'new generation texts' seem hard to prove. It is argued that characteristics of national industrial relations systems are insufficient to explain implementation results, since both the interests and attitudes of the actors involved and the specific topic of a given 'new generation text' must be taken into account. The main difficulty is found to be the lack of adequate implementation structures due to missing inter-and intraorganizational 'level linkage'. Ré suméCet article traite de récents développements du dialogue social européen, à savoir les « textes de la nouvelle génération », qui ne sont pas légalement contraignants, mais « orientés vers la mise en oeuvre » (implementation-oriented); il analyse certains aspects du suivi et de la mise en oeuvre et les spécificités d'une problématique à niveaux multiples. L'observation de deux dialogues sectoriels montre que les procédures de suivi peuvent considérablement varier. D'autre part, la mise en oeuvre ou l'impact d'un « texte de la nouvelle génération » semblent difficiles à déterminer. L'auteur estime que les caractéristiques des systèmes nationaux de relations professionnelles ne suffisent pas pour expliquer les résultats de mise en oeuvre: il faut tenir compte à la fois des intérêts et des attitudes des acteurs impliqués et de la thématique spécifique d'un « texte de la nouvelle génération ». La principale difficulté réside dans le manque d'adéquation des structures de mise en oeuvre dû à l'absence d'articulation des niveaux entre et au sein des organisations. ZusammenfassungDieser Beitrag befasst sich mit den jüngsten Entwicklungen des sozialen Dialogs auf EU-Ebene, insbesondere ,,Vereinbarungen der neuen Generation'', das heißt Vereinbarungen, die zwar nicht rechtsverbindlich, aber dennoch ,,implementationsorientiert'' sind. In diesem Zusammenhang werden verschiedene Aspekte von Folge-und Implementationsmaßnahmen und Merkmale der Beziehungen zwischen den verschiedenen Ebenen erörtert. Die Untersuchung des sozialen Dialogs in zwei Branchen zeigt, dass Verfahren für Folgemaßnahmen äußerst unterschiedlich sein können. Die Implementation bzw. Auswirkungen einer ,,Vereinbarung der neuen Generation'' sind nur schwer zu belegen. Neben Merkmalen der nationalen Systeme der Arbeitsbeziehungen müssen die Interessen und Strategien der beteiligten Akteure sowie die spezifische Thematik der betreffenden Vereinbarungen in die Erklärung einbezogen werden. Das Hauptproblem besteht in fehlenden adäquaten Implementationsstrukturen, da häufig weder innerhalb noch zwischen den betreffenden Organisationen die relevanten Ebenen miteinander verknüpft sind.

This article highlights the importance of organizational resources and individual capabilities for interactions and relationships among social partners in European sectoral social dialogue committees (SSDCs). We use an actor-centred approach to investigate work programme setting in the hospital and metalworking SSDCs. Our research reveals differences in how European social partner organizations coordinate and integrate members in SSDCs. In hospital, European Union (EU)-social partners build bridges that span otherwise separate actors or groups. The findings suggest that the absence of bridging efforts can lead to the dominance of a few actors. In metalworking, small cohesive groups are more effective in forming close networks and determining work programmes. While work programmes in hospital represent issues which are on national agendas, in metalworking, they focus mainly on EU policy areas.

No abstract

Drawing on pragmatism and systems theory, this article analyses how participants in the European Sectoral Social Dialogue in the metal and hospital committees understand its effectiveness. We find that the participants have a broad understanding of effectiveness compared with the European Commission and existing research. Participants do not dismiss the importance of direct effects on working conditions in member states but downplay it in comparison with indirect effects from, and effectiveness in, European Sectoral Social Dialogue. That is, horizontal learning, knowledge sharing and pragmatic bottom‐up work to reach consensus are emphasised as more prominent than top‐down regulatory effectiveness.