The European Participation Index (EPI) and inequality: a multi-dimensional cross-national comparative measure of worker participation

Abstract

Is worker participation becoming more prominent or less? Furthermore, what is the impact of worker participation on economic performance? This article introduces a tool designed by researchers at the ETUI to help answer these questions: the European Participation Index (EPI), a country-level summary measure of the strength of workers’ voice in companies. The EPI is based on (i) union density and collective bargaining coverage, (ii) workplace representation and (iii) board-level representation. This multi-level index provides an alternative to existing cross-national measures by taking into consideration two levels at which worker participation can take place: the workplace and the board. The article shows first that worker participation has become less prevalent in the EU over the past decade; and second that the EPI is robust and has superior explanatory power in relation to income inequality compared with traditional measures of collective bargaining.

‘Human resource management and the worker’: employee voice in management

“…First, financialisation increases the distance between firm owners, managers and workers, resulting in decision-making at the top of the company in which workers’ interest is far from being a key criterion (see Gouzoulis et al, 2024). Those decisions can also be made far from where collective bargaining takes place, leaving little or no space for trade unions to discuss or negotiate (Appelbaum et al, 2013; De Spiegelaere and Vitols, 2024). In addition, when it is not the firm’s owners who define its orientation and goals but rather financial intermediaries, managers themselves cannot get a real mandate to implement coherent and long-term human resource policies.…”

“…De Spiegelaere and Vitols (2024), clearly show that the degree and forms of worker participation not only vary from one country to another because of national institutional characteristics – such as the system of collective bargaining – but also because firms use different types of governance. Their study demonstrates how company-level mechanisms give or leave more or less room for worker participation.…”