Adapting to survive: The case of Danish employers' organisations

Abstract

Scholars often characterise Danish employers' organisations (EOs) as relatively stable, with a continuing role in the coordination of industrial relations and corporatist policymaking. This article shows that, beneath surface stability, Danish EOs have significantly adapted structurally and functionally to survive environmental pressures. However, rather than converging onto a liberal market trajectory, we find that Danish EOs have layered new functions onto traditional collective functions. We also find significant variations in functional adaptation depending on the employer constituencies' exposure to international competition and position in value chains. We argue that these adaptations imply that the provision of collective goods, especially in collective bargaining, is no longer sufficient for the survival of EOs.

Employer organisations transformed

“…EOs' main functions were once to counter trade union power and conduct collective bargaining, but the decline of these institutions raised concerns as to the continued existence of EOs. However, researchers pointed to the “strange non‐death of employer associations” (Brandl & Lehr, ) to debate the continuing relevance of EOs (Ibsen & Navrbjerg, ; Sezer, ). This article contributed to this debate by arguing that EOs adapted to changing socio‐economic contexts by evolving within and across three roles—as an IR actor, a political actor and a service provider.…”

“…The importance of commercial stimuli, such as intra‐industry competition, in driving change was also highlighted by You and Barry's () study of Australian retail EOs. Finally, Ibsen and Navrbjerg () used functional and structural adaptation (Traxler, ) to explain change in Danish EOs, finding that they layered new services onto traditional collective functions. Layering was driven by changes within employment relations, and although survival was linked to the continuation of some collective approaches, the provision of such goods within bargaining was insufficient to ensure EOs' survival and they were forced to offer new services to individual firms.…”

“…Another, more recent strand of research emerged to explain how EOs survived through adapting and expanding their service offered to members. Although only 16% of our sample focused on such activity, it emerged recently as an important area of study (e.g., Gooberman, Hauptmeier, & Heery, , ; Ibsen & Navrbjerg, ; Sheldon et al, ). Such research often built on Olson's () classic formulation of the collective action problem, the theoretical focus of 12% of our sample.…”

“…Although consistent cross‐national data on the type and volume of services provided by EOs to individual members were not available, some broad trends were identified by country‐specific studies. Ibsen and Navrbjerg () analysed Danish EOs, collecting data on 12 types of HRM‐related services, such as employment law helplines or advice on topics including equality and diversity, employee engagement, and managing conflict. EOs on average offered between 50% and 60% of these depending on their size, with larger EOs offering higher levels ().…”

“…Ibsen and Navrbjerg () analysed Danish EOs, collecting data on 12 types of HRM‐related services, such as employment law helplines or advice on topics including equality and diversity, employee engagement, and managing conflict. EOs on average offered between 50% and 60% of these depending on their size, with larger EOs offering higher levels (). In Germany, the gradual erosion of collective bargaining (Streeck, ) spurred some EOs to respond with a greater emphasis on services (Silvia & Schroeder, ).…”