Re dialogues final report by raluca ouriaghli

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s. with financial support from the European Union

Developing social dialogue appropriate to the needs of social firms â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Recommendations for European participants in social dialogue

Austria / Belgium / Spain / France / Italy / Romania / United Kingdom

Sommaire Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 European social dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

From industrial relations to social dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Social dialogue under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Participation and the social economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Social enterprise: the EMES definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Workplace participation: direct democracy,

empowerment and general interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The RE:DIALOGUES project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

One group, two types of partner and two kinds of enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Six themes, six meetings and a defined methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

From observations to European recommendations . . . . . 10 Know each other, recognise each other and work together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A voice for the social economy in social dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Establishing legal recognition of participatory management in the workplace 15

National reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s on the web Detailed information on the RE:DIALOGUES project can be found on the following websites: http://www.ensie.org http://www.terre.be http://www.bbsnet.at http://www.ideesasbl.be Note The content of this publication expresses the views of its authors only. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained in this publication.

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix 1: Questionnaire for the qualitative survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix 2: Table of observations and recommendations by country . . . . . . . . . 38

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Introduction

European social dialogue

European social dialogue can and must still find its bearings. Already, however, we find “processes for exchanging information, reciprocal learning opportunities and coordination”, which can “structure negotiations at a local level”. As a result, the partners in the RE:DIALOGUES project felt it was important to communicate with the key players in European social dialogue.

Participation and the social economy Social enterprise: the EMES definition The EMES (Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe) network is made up of university research centres and individual researchers. To date, its epresented 6.53% of paid aim has been to gradually develop a European corpus of theoretical employment in the European Union end empirical knowledge on the concept of the social economy. It has of 27 Member States in 2009-2010, established nine criteria that characterise a social enterprise. The social economy r

or more precisely, 14,128,134 jobs. This represented an increase of 26.79% compared with 2003. [CIRIEC, 2012]

: Korakanh Sychampan illeur akho rava ne

-©

20 12 -

Industrial relations are defined as “a set of phenomena, both inside and outside the workplace, concerned with determining and regulating the workplace relationship.” [SALAMON M., 2000] The field covered by industrial relations is not, therefore, limited only to the relationship between employer and employee. Indeed, industrial relations include “all the practices and rules within a business, branch, region or the economy as a whole, which structure the relationship between employees, employers and the state. Such relationships may be individual or collective, arise directly from those involved in the working relationship or their representatives, be rooted in custom or result in the production of formal rules (agreements, conventions, laws, etc.).” [LALLEMENT M., 1997] This definition also describes social dialogue and sets the context for the discussions between the partners in the RE:DIALOGUES project.

It is not, however, a “system of collective working relationships which, at a European level, would be comparable to that which exists in the Member States, in particular because European social dialogue does not have the capacity for action that characterises most of the national bodies, in particular in terms of salaries.” [LÉONARD E., 2012] Furthermore, whilst the role of providing information and ensuring consultation is fulfilled by the key players in European social dialogue, they are still struggling to truly fulfil their role in negotiation, as evidenced by the limited number of framework agreements entered into in recent years.

de t

————— 1. Definitions : In most of Europe a social enterprise is concerned with increasing the employability of, or offering short or long-term employment to individuals furthest from the labour market through severe disadvantage. In the UK, the term social enterprise can be much wider, and social firm is a specific term to describe social enterprises comparable to the European terminology – i.e. that are focussed on the employment and/ or employability of individuals facing severe disadvantage in the traditional labour market, and that adhere to the three pillars of enterprise, employment and empowerment (www.socialfirmsuk.co.uk). In the English text of this document, we use the term social firm as a general term to describe a social enterprise that is concerned with the employment, employability and empowerment of workers, trainees and volunteers. We retain the use of social enterprise in the national reports, or in sections which clearly refer to the European terminology. Enterprise is used in its usual meaning to refer to these business entities.

ait rtr Po

Introduction

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

From industrial relations to social dialogue

European social dialogue brings European employers’ and workers’ organisations together in bilateral discussions and in consultation processes set up by the European Commission. Together they develop collective relationships and contribute to the construction of the European Union’s social policy, in particular in relation to employment. It is also possible for them to enter into agreements which can, if they take the form of a European Directive, become binding on Member States. European social dialogue operates on three levels: on an inter-professional and sectoral level, and within individual businesses.

Le Re la

ome social firms1 approach the issue of integration and in some cases the entire management of the enterprise on the basis of workers playing an active role in decision-making. The innovative approach to operational issues adopted in these social firms implies a particular attitude to work and ownership, as well as specific structures, governance, human resources management, general management and employment policy. These are specific factors that influence industrial relations in these enterprises: on the one hand, in the way they think about, view and organise industrial relations as part of a participatory way of working, and on the other, in how they are aligned with formal employee consultation systems at a national and European level. Such enterprises face difficulties in both cases. Following their analysis of these difficulties and having identified a number of opportunities, the partners in the RE:DIALOGUES project are submitting their recommendations to the European Commission, the managers and members of European political and workers’ rights organisations and to the members of the European Economic and Social Committee.

Social dialogue under construction

Economic and entrepreneurial dimension

1. a continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services; 2. a significant level of economic risk; 3. at least one paid job (not precluding the presence of volunteers);

Social dimension 4. an explicit aim to benefit the community; 5. an initiative launched by a group of citizens; 6. limited distribution of profits; Participatory di- 7. a high degree of autonomy (not precluding certain subsidies); mension 8. a decision-making process not based on ownership of capital; 9. a participatory approach involving the various parties affected by the activity (paid workers, users, volunteers, local public authorities, etc.).

examine a situation critically, to develop opinions, to debate and to establish a position. Unless there is a culture that supports participation in entrepreneurial decisions, these skills have to be acquired through training and the day-to-day practice of participation. As is clear, empowerment is a useful tool in participatory management. Empowerment is also the objective of participatory management, however, as it places concern for the individual at its core. The world of work is an appropriate place to exercise citizenship through taking responsibility and making decisions. All workers, including those in operational functions, therefore have the possibility of adding a decision-making role to their role as a worker. This new role gives them a degree of power in relation to their job, which contributes to their motivation. Furthermore, participatory management encourages pursuit of the wider interest. Making use of collective intelligence helps to identify creative solutions that are sensible, acceptable and geared towards the interests of as many people as possible.

The RE:DIALOGUES project Workplace participation: direct democracy, empowerment and general interest As explained above, social firms are characterised by a participatory approach and a specific decision-making process, amongst other things. By combining both these aspects, the enterprise develops participatory management. The Terre Group defines this as “the organisation of strategic, policy and operational decision-making, involving workers directly in discussions and decision-making with a view to serving the general interest”. [TERRE GROUP ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 2012] Two practices are fundamental to this type of management: 1. direct democracy, which allows every worker to become a joint decision-maker; 2. the identification of clear areas for discussion and decision-making, to allow every worker to distinguish their productive work from their joint decision-making

This project has been made possible as a result of the coincidence of two factors. The first was the interest, availability, motivation and level of maturity of the various participants, including those invited to the round-table discussions, which enabled them to address the sometimes delicate question of social dialogue. The second was securing funding from the European Union for one-year projects related to industrial relations. These two factors meant that it was possible to organise meetings at a sufficient level of frequency to achieve the level of partnership and quality of debate required.

One group, two types of partner and two kinds of enterprise The group that brought this project to fruition was made up of two types of partner. The first was seven groups/networks of social firms or enterprises experimenting with various types of innovative industrial relations in their respective countries and the second, four groups of experts working in the fields covered by industrial relations. The partnership between the two groups meant it was possible to take advantage, on the one hand, of a grass-roots approach and on the other, of experienced advice and pertinent analytical frameworks.

Introduction

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

“RE:DIALOGUES” as in

In this sense, participatory management is an innovation in terms of governance1. It has repercussions on all areas of the enterprise, and particularly on its human resources management policy2. Participatory management encourages workers’ empowerment3: taking binding decisions on behalf of the enterprise, particularly when these are strategic in nature, is neither easy nor commonplace. It involves the ability to understand, to step back and

a tangible “REsponse”

Two types of enterprise were found amongst our partners: those working with a view to long-term integration and those acting in the short or medium term as a “springboard” to the mainstream encountered by social firms, through labour market. For the former, participation is a key element at a constructive “DIALOGUE” every level of decision-making and incorporates ongoing training with key players in workplace on participation in the form of a series of supplementary meetings. consultation. For the latter, participation is organised as far as possible based on the rotation of people integrated into the social firm.

to the industrial relations difficulties

————— 1. Corporate governance is “the set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions affecting the way people direct, administer, or control a corporation”. (Haidar, 2009) 2. Human resources management consists of all the practices implemented to administer, motivate and develop the enterprise’s human resources in order to achieve its objectives. 3. “Empowerment is the process of enhancing the capacity of individuals or groups to make choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.” (The World Bank)

Partner enterprises Social Firms UK

Activities: Network of social firms Vision: Everyone has the opportunity to be employed Workers: 1,751 FTE > http://www.socialfirmsuk.co.uk

Le Relais

Activities: A group of social enterprises active in recovering, sorting and selling secondhand clothes and producing thermal insulation Vision: To preserve dignity through work Workers: 1,200 FTE > http://www.lerelais.org

Federación Castellano– Leonesa de Empresas de Inserción Fundación Lesmes

Groupe Terre

Activities: A group of enterprises active mainly in waste recovery, construction and international solidarity Vision: To contribute to the creation of a democratic world based on social solidarity, in which every human being has the right to live in dignity and fulfil their potential based on mutual respect and mindfulness of the needs of future generations Workers: 300 FTE Beschäftigungsbetriebe Steiermark > http://www.terre.be Activities: A network of work-integration social enterprises in the Styria region of Austria Vision: To bring together all not-for-profit organisations in Styria aiming to reintegrate unemployed people into the workplace. Workers: 200 permanent FTE and 900 temporary FTE each year > http://www.bbsnet.at

Ateliere Fara Frontiere

Activities: A work-integration social enterprise active in recycling and reusing computer equipment Vision: To combat exclusion, protect the environment and develop solidarity projects for education and local development Workers: 20 FTE > http://www.atelierefarafrontiere.ro

Activities: A network of work-integration social enterprises in Castille and Léon Vision: To work with other economic and social agents to promote and develop social inclusion measures, work-integration enterprises and access to employment for people who are victims of or at risk of social exclusion. Workers: 85 FTE including 50 FTE on integration contracts > http://www.feclei.org

Experts Centre of Social Economics – University of Liège Specific role: Academic expertise > http://www.ces.ulg.ac.be

European Network of Social Integration Enterprises

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Specific role: European representation and expertise in work-integration social enterprises http://www.ensie.org

Institut de Développement Européen des Entreprises Sociales

Consorzio Sociale Abele Lavoro

Specific role: research centre with trade-union links http://www.ideesasbl.be

Introduction

Activities: Network of work-integration social enterprises mainly active in recycling Vision: Social and workplace integration of disadvantaged people Workers: 700 FTE > http://www.csabelelavoro.it

Solidarité des Alternatives Wallonnes et Bruxelloises Specific role: consultancy http://www.saw-b.be

The responses to the questions were collected via a number of channels: 1. sharing of experience between partners; 2. a qualitative survey1 carried out by each partner with social firms in their country, looking at their participatory practices and the current status of their social dialogue: - Austria: AMSEL, BAN, Chance B, Heidenspass, Kultur in Graz, Ökoservice - Belgium: Damnet, Les Grignoux, Terre Group, La Poudrière, Socomef - Spain: Ceislabur-GRM-Reusad, La Encina Servicios Integrados, Todos Servicios Múltiples, MiraverIntegración Puente Ladrillo - France: Le Relais Bretagne, Le Relais Nord-Est Île-de-France, Le Relais Nord Pasde-Calais, Le Relais Val-de-Seine - Great Britain: HAO², Lambeth Accord, Orchardville Company, Pembrokeshire Frame, Pluss Organisation - Italy: Agridea, Arcobaleno, Otre Il Muro, La Rosa Blu - Romania: Ateliere Fara Frontiere, Atelierul de Panza, Concordia, Alaturi de Voi 3) visits to social firms in countries that hosted a meeting: Terre asbl (BE), CSAL cooperatives (IT), RE:Social Club (IT), Ateliere Fara Frontiere (RO), Sacoza de pansa (RO), Projectul Mozaic (RO), Concordia Bakery (RO), Gredo San Diego “Las suertes” (SP), Asador AMAIA (SP), Le Relais Nord-Pas-de-Calais (FR), Métisse (FR).

Portrait de travailleur : Yvonne Kouassi - 2012 - © Le Relais

Six themes, six meetings and a defined methodology

Introduction

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

The partners opted for a bottom-up approach to gather useful information, target and analyse the issues and develop joint observations followed by recommendations1. They addressed the following topics: the quality of employment, the effectiveness of their particular form of management, relationships between employers and employees, the kind of human resources management arising from them, relationships with key players in traditional workplace consultation, and relationships with the public authorities, mainly in respect of the wider social interest mission that these enterprises fulfil. Six two-day meetings were organised in five of the eight countries around the table. The project methodology was agreed on a consultative basis. Each meeting was structured around the following questions: - What is the status of social dialogue in each partner’s country? - What are the organisational conditions for ensuring participation? - What should the role of the current key players in workplace consultation be in terms of developing social dialogue that meets the needs of social enterprises? ————— 1. A ‘bottom-up’ approach characterises the general operational principle of a procedural process in which one starts from the detail on the bottom rung (in a hierarchical or operational sense), gradually consolidating data and building up to a summary.

4) organisation of a round-table discussion with entrepreneurs and key players in social dialogue at each meeting: Marcel Bartholomi - FOSODER (BE), William Wauters - Terre Group (BE), Diego Dutto - Consorzio SELF (IT), Giovanni Porquier – Arcobaleno Cooperativa Sociale (IT), Piero De Rosa- Agridea Cooperativa Sociale (IT), Mimmo Lacava - Confédération des syndicats CGIL (IT), Tito Ammirati - CSAL (IT), Mihaela Darle - Confédération nationale syndicale Cartel Alfa (RO), Alexandru Borcea - Aries- association professionnelle de l’industrie électronique et software (RO), Maria Nieves Ramos - FAEDEI (SP), Miguel Angel Martin - A-Lavar EI (SP), Gemma Ramón Vallecillo Syndicat UGT (SP), Pierre Duponchel and Roger Pouillaude - Le Relais (FR).

Each country reported results based on three levels: an enterprise level, a sectoral level and a national level, sometimes adding a European level2. These were then compared, analysed and summarised with a view to putting forward joint recommendations to key players in European social dialogue. ————— 1. Cf. Questionnaire in appendix 1 (p. 32). 2. Cf. Table of observations and recommendations by country in appendix 2 (p. 38).

From observations to European recommendations Work-integration social enterprises and trade unions should develop a strategic partnership to align their essential values, share skills and jointly pursue their common objectives. (Michele Rigby - SFUK/ United Kingdom)

(Charlotte Gruber - BBS/Austria)

(Xavier Roberti Terre Group /Belgium)

Even though there are trade-union delegations in social enterprises, they don’t feel represented in social dialogue.

(COEUGNIET Michel Le Relais/France)

(Georges TABACCHI - CSAL/Italy)

The most important thing for us is to have more security in legal terms. For that, we would like to carry more weight and engage in more dialogue

We are trying to find a place in the current system, without being marginalised.

Special status could help us avoid the constraints we face through having to operate as a purely commercial enterprise, which is ill suited to our needs. .

In Italy we run a very high risk of producing a new group of poor people. We could really go into battle on this, with the trade unions at our side.

Know each other, recognise each other and work together

(Guillaume Treguer - FECLEI/Spain)

Observations Social firms have developed very specific participatory structures and educational initiatives for decision-making, geared towards the pursuit of their social objective: the development of a responsible economic environment that respects the needs of future generations, access to high-quality work for all, regardless of their career path or training, industrial assets as a source of employment and a place where people can exercise their rights as citizens, and the pursuit of the wider social interest through innovative democratic practices. In this sense, they contribute directly to the objectives of workers’ rights organisations, in particular those of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) whose primary objective is to “promote the European social model and to work for the development of a united Europe of peace and stability where working people and their families can enjoy full human and civil rights and high living standards”. [ETUC, 1973] By the European social model, the ETUC means “a society combining sustainable economic growth with ever-improving living and working standards, including full employment, social protection, equal opportunities, good quality jobs, social inclusion, and an open and democratic policy-making process that involves citizens fully in the decisions that affect them”. Whilst they have identical objectives, social firms face difficulties in engaging in constructive discussions with workers’ rights organisations. Several reasons why such dialogue is difficult have been identified during the RE:DIALOGUES project. Firstly, the partners observed a lack of contact between social firms and workers’ rights organisations, which prompted a lack of understanding and in some cases indifference, often on both sides. Consequently, some enterprises are unfamiliar with how social dialogue works. Under the cover of avowed objectives of supporting the general interest, they get caught up in a “unitarist frame of reference” [SALAMON M., 2012],, with the risk of giving priority to an authoritarian and paternalistic form of conflict resolution.

We don’t want to replicate the “assistance” model that is too often developed in Romania. We want to really focus on active inclusion. By getting involved in solidarity projects on a voluntary basis, workers become key players in solidarity. (OURIAGHLI Raluca - AFF/RO)

Secondly, within social firms, there is a difference of approach, linked to ownership of the enterprise, in how the relationship between employers and workers is conceived and organised. Indeed, participatory management based on direct democracy blurs the traditional dichotomy between “bosses” and “workers”, which consists of differentiating the former, who own the productive assets (or capital) and the latter, who constitute the labour force, with the two groups viewed as having divergent interests. In social firms, the same people fulfil both roles.

Thirdly, the practice of direct democracy also involves a different approach to the conception and organisation of protecting workers’ collective and individual rights within the enterprise. The current structure adopted by workers’ rights organisations is based on delegating monitoring, discussion or decision-making roles to one or more representatives. This makes sense in conventional businesses. In participatory management, the wider interest is guaranteed by an annual general meeting that takes strategic decisions, at which there are equal voting rights and which workers who wish to are entitled to attend. As all workers may be involved in making joint decisions on key issues, they receive ongoing training in participation. The learning process involves developing their ability to express themselves, understand the issues at stake and decide on their own position. It is clear to the partners that there needs to be cooperation between social firms and workers’ rights organisations. This would provide an opportunity to bring together two key players in the world of work who are pursuing the same objectives and who need to find creative solutions to the phenomena of offshoring and impoverishment linked to competition and the pursuit of profits. Participatory management would then be accepted as a pertinent management model in response to the challenges of long-term jobs and access to work. The enterprise would be seen as somewhere that supports education in decision-making and in which citizenship could flourish. Workers’ rights organisations, which have developed their operational structures and ideology based on an assumption of divergent interests, could adopt a different approach from social enterprises based on participatory management, without necessarily abandoning their traditional system of protecting workers’ rights in conventional businesses. They would then have a clear view of their role in participatory management and could promote and use it, in particular in relation to taking over enterprises threatened with closure.

From observations to European recommendations

A voice for the social economy in social dialogue Observations

Recommendation

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Portraits de travailleurs: Luis Lahdo - © José Constant 2013 -Groupe Terre

We recommend an ongoing dialogue with workers’ rights organisations based on respect for the purposes of social firms and the method of collective decision-making inherent in participatory management based on direct democracy.

Focus of work This dialogue could begin with a series of meetings between workers’ rights organisations and social firms, not only at a European but also at a national level and within individual enterprises. This should give them the opportunity to get to know each other, understand their respective fundamental features and build a constructive relationship. Specifically with regard to social firms that apply participatory management practices based on direct democracy, these meetings should consider possible specific ways of recognising the model of participatory management based on direct democracy and identify the particular role that workers’ rights organisations could play within such enterprises, in particular in relation to the individual protection of workers and guarantees of compliance with labour law. Universities could be involved in these meetings with a view to helping to model current and future practices. 12

European social dialogue is also built on the assumption that there is a divergence of interest between “bosses” and “workers”. There is no provision for the specific approach adopted by social firms that apply participatory management practices. In order to participate in the development of social and economic policies whilst ensuring that their innovative management style remains intact, these enterprises want to be involved in social dialogue but without having to “pick a side”. The presence of a new actor in the field, who is not part of a confrontational dynamic associated with protecting the interests of a specific group of key players within the enterprise, could help to identify original responses to social and economic challenges. The debates and negotiations that take place in social dialogue could be enhanced by this new way of thinking. This would enable solutions to be implemented based on a form of collective intelligence.

Recommendation We recommend that social firms should be systematically represented on formal consultation bodies as a key player alongside the traditional participants, namely employers’ and employees’ representatives.

averIntegración

de t

rav ail leu rs: Ti

Observations

riu be

M ir 2013 -

Portraits

Establishing legal recognition of participatory management in the workplace

r Rod

z ígue

aote sF

nció

P. M

el nu

Gravot Haeberli 2013

Trav aille urs d e Mi ra ve rI n

A t el ier eF ar

on Fr

tie

Focus of work Two avenues have been addressed in the context of the RE:DIALOGUES project: the role of the participatory social economy in European consultation structures via the European Economic and Social Committee, and in European consultation structures via sector-specific social dialogue.

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

From observations to European recommendations

Within the EESC, there could be greater involvement in group III, where the social economy is already represented. This group “brings together a wide range of social, occupational, economic and cultural organisations that make up civil society in the Member States. The shared goal of Group III members is to achieve real economic, social and participatory democracy in the EU.” [EESC, undated]. In so doing, it could contribute to this group’s positions on entrepreneurial matters, in particular through the ECO1 and SOC2 sections. At a sectoral level, social firms could drive the creation of a new committee in one of the areas in which it is very active, such as textile recovery. This would require social firms to work together by area of activity and achieve the requisite level of representativeness. Once these conditions have been met, it will be for them to find a solution to fulfil the condition of being recognised as social partners at a national level, which will require them to work on the theme of this second recommendation at their respective national levels.

————— 1. The ECO section covers coordination of economic and monetary policy, broad economic policy guidelines, the stability and growth pact, enlargement of the euro zone and other issues relating to economic governance. In the field of economic and social cohesion, the remit of the ECO section embraces regional and structural policy and cohesion policy. 2. The SOC section deals with a broad range of policy areas: employment and working conditions, social policy and poverty, education and training, justice and home affairs (including immigration and asylum), health, gender equality, disability issues, demography, family, culture, sport, citizenship, volunteering and the Roma.

Participatory management is not currently covered by legislation at either a European or national level. This contributes to the fact that enterprises that adopt it are rejected by some of the traditional key players in workplace consultation. For the latter, the absence of a legal framework for participatory management means that it automatically lacks legitimacy, even if it fulfils the obligations of any enterprise in respect of labour law or even attempts to go further in terms of informing and consulting workers and enabling them to participate in decision-making. In addition, participatory management must be framed in a way that secures its objective of pursuing the general interest and avoiding the possibility of enterprises who do not share this perspective from using it misguidedly. This step is essential in securing official recognition for participatory management as a possible management method within an enterprise, and would prevent any aberrant use and support its existence and development on the basis of a good relationship with the current key players in workplace consultation. It would contribute directly to the primacy of workers’ rights to information, consultation and participation, which is supported by the European Union.

Recommendation In terms of social dialogue, we recommend encouraging the introduction of legal frameworks to allow participatory management in the workplace based on direct democracy.

Pistes de travail One avenue could be recognition by the European Commission and the European Parliament of participatory management in social firms as an innovative example of workers’ participation in managing their enterprise through a democratic decision-making process, which includes the strategic direction of the enterprise and the distribution of its profits. The European Parliament takes the view that workers should not only enjoy a right to information and consultation but also a right to participate in decision-making power. This is in line with articles 5, 114, 115, 151 and 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, through which the European Union aims to “support and supplement the activities of the Member States in respect of employee participation, in order to contribute to achieving the main objectives of social policy set out in article 151 of the TFEU, namely and in particular, the improvement of living and working conditions, adequate social protection, a high level of employment and combating exclusion.” [SCHMID-DRÜNER M., 2013] 15

Austria

National reports

lthough the RE:DIALOGUES project has resulted in a series of observations and joint recommendations at a European level, it has also provided an opportunity for each partner to address and examine in detail questions related to social dialogue at a national level. This is a complementary process insofar as the questions and expectations of social firms also operate at a national level. Moreover, actors involved in national social dialogue carry influence and play a specific role or even have a particular project in each country. The same applies to the legislation, organisation and practice of workplace consultation in each country. The following pages set out each country’s observations and recommendations, along with any initiatives instigated or supported by the RE:DIALOGUES project at a local, regional or national level.

Observations and recommendations National level Observation Explanation Recommendation

Social dialogue has a practical impact on all areas of Austrian social and economic policy. The Public Employment Service (AMS) is managed by a board of directors made up of employers’ and employees’ representatives (the Economic Chamber, the Federation of Industry, the Chamber of Labour and the Austrian Trade Union Confederation). Some enterprises are self-managed but these do not play a significant role. The AMS’s Board of Directors is involved in managing employment policy and it has a significant influence over policy development in respect of employment. Introduce a new form of social partnership, combining the interests of employers and employees.

Sectoral level

d vice Ser

e bro

-B nce

itst rai nin g Eingliederung Arbe

he uflic Be r

The possibility of participation in work integration enterprises is related to type of contract under which workers are employed. All work-integration enterprises organise general meetings in which all employees are entitled to participate. Two types of contract exist within work-integration enterprises: permanent contracts and temporary contracts. Participation is more possible with workers on permanent contracts, however they tend to be in the minority. The number of employment contracts in work-integration social enterprises should be fixed in line with the unemployment rate (e.g. 10%) to allow a majority of workers to participate.

Enterprise level Observation Explanation Recommendation

b o i s - © 20 0 9 - Ö KO-s ervi ce

yage du

-C

Observation Explanation Recommendation

Work-integration contracts vary in length from three months to one year. This has increasingly become shorter over time and is a factor in making it more and more complicated for people on workintegration contracts to participate. Individualise the length of integration contracts based on each worker’s profile (from a few months to a permanent position) to ensure they are integrated into the world of work and to promote more participatory and democratic management.

Opportunities and approaches BBS has included plans to raise the awareness of social partners about the importance of the social economy participating in organised consultation processes.

European level

Enterprise level

Constat The economic model as conceived by social enterprises applying participatory management practices does not follow the “capitalist” approach. Explication It is this “capitalist” approach that has influenced structures and attitudes in the current consultation system. Moreover, it represents a prevailing consensus that the majority of political and economic decision-makers do not conceive of challenging. It does not tolerate the existence of an alternative approach. Recommandation Recognise the “social participatory” economic model as a real economic alternative that is well suited to addressing problems of employment, marginalisation and the environment and encourage its development based on an appropriate legal framework (ensure more widespread awarding of contracts based on the social, environmental, participatory and local nature of the contractor).

National level

- Gro

20 1 3

e an ph té

a ap Ar

ait sd

Por tr

The purposes of the social economy are not taken into account by joint (employer/employee) committees. The only criterion guiding the remit and organisation of joint committees is the type of economic activity. Ask the government and the National Labour Council to take account of the specific characteristics of social enterprises applying participatory management practices in each joint committee, or at worst have a single joint committee.

National reports

The Terre Group has launched a working group made up of around ten social enterprises applying participatory management practices. The aim is to extend the approach taken by the European project at a national level. Simultaneously, the same participants have joined forces around the project to secure recognition for SCOP (cooperative and participatory company) status, with a particular emphasis on the participatory aspect. The Terre Group’s NGO, Autre Terre, has also instigated a project to discuss participatory management with partners in the South. Over the course of a week, partners from Burkina Faso, Mali, Peru and Senegal shared their experiences and best practices in relation to participatory management. This provided an opportunity for them to challenge or refine their processes. rs

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Opportunities and approaches

leu

Sectoral level Constat Explication Recommandation

Social enterprises applying participatory management practices have a specific decision-making process. Decisions taken on the basis of direct democracy do not allow for the use of representation but it is important that there are real guarantees as to compliance with regulations. Ensure deeper and more systematic dialogue with the trade unions to identify a way of working that includes direct democracy for certain decisions.

upe Terre

Constat Social enterprises applying participatory management practices suffer from a lack of identity and visibility. Explication There are no precise constraints in terms of participation in the articles of social enterprises and their characteristics are not clearly delineated. Recommandation Create a National and European Council of social enterprises applying participatory management practices, whose role would be to clarify their participatory principles, mainly through their articles of association, and to protect them.

Constat Explication Recommandation

et ra va il

Belgium

Observations and recommendations

National level

ge de résidus chez G.R.M, S.L. recycla us de 201 1© cess pro

Observation Explanation Recommendation

Spain

Constats et recommandations

Social enterprises are likened to traditional businesses: they are not seen as sufficiently different to be recognised as a distinct player in social dialogue. Currently they have no access to it. The traditional players in social dialogue, in particular the trade unions, are not aware of the identity or specific way of working of such enterprises, including work-integration social enterprises. Ask the government to include the social economy as the fourth player in Spanish social dialogue.

Sectoral level

Fun dac iòn

LE SM

Observation The opinions of representatives from four types of social enterprise (cooperatives, workers’ companies, sheltered workshops and work-integration enterprises) are taken into account within the Social Economy Council of Castille and León. Work-integration enterprises, however, find it difficult to influence the debate. Explanation Sheltered workshops enjoy greater authority in terms of influencing the views of the Council. Work-integration enterprises are still not represented in these views. Recommendation Ask the government and the National Labour Council to give the same level of importance to sheltered workshops and work integration enterprises.

La c

p pa de te ec

i er G.R chez

.M, S.L. - 2011 © F

und aci òn

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

National reports

Trade unions tend not to be represented in work-integration enterprises insofar as they are small organisations. If a decision by the Board of Directors is contested by the workers, a dialogue is established with the aim of reaching a joint solution. Worker participation is relatively direct thanks to the involvement of an industrial relations liaison officer, whose role is to facilitate internal dialogue. Ask the regional government to support the role of industrial relations liaison officers within work-integration enterprises.

Observation Explanation Recommendation

Enterprise level

Opportunities and approaches At a regional level, FECLEI is taking advantage of the momentum created by this project to emphasise awareness-raising for social partners on the specific characteristics and challenges of integration. At a national level, FAEDEI has been approached by the trade unions to support them in combating the dismantling of welfare provision.

France

Observations and recommendations National level

Observation Explanation Recommendation

In the absence of any specific status or incentive to create one, EPs are cumbersome to manage and unattractive. EPs have to indicate the specific nature of the enterprise by adopting identities such as work-integration enterprises and SCOPs. They must provide evidence that they are operating correctly in accordance with both sets of rules. Furthermore, appointing staff representatives when the enterprise reaches particular thresholds in the size of the workforce does not take account of its participatory way of working. A way forward would be to introduce relevant criteria for EPs following a period of observation, experimentation and harmonisation. These criteria could, for example, include the frequency and content of meetings, training, remuneration, etc.

Opportunities and approaches Le Relais participated in the RE:DIALOGUES discussion group in order to share its experience as a social enterprise that has applied participatory management practices for 30 years, and to contribute to benchmarking with European partners. Workplace participation must be part of a continuous improvement approach. In addition, the majority of Relais in France are SCOPs; the unions of SCOPs, as part of the national federation, represent expert local contacts for addressing the theme of workplace participation, based on the same economic concerns.

Observation There is no recognition of participatory enterprises (EP). Explanation EPs have no specific representative body, unlike work-integration enterprises (EI) or cooperative and participatory companies (SCOP), or any specific status, unlike associations. The label “solidarity enterprise” is awarded on the basis of criteria such as a limited scale of remuneration or the existence of integration-related activities. There are no particular requirements in respect of consulting with employees beyond those imposed on mainstream businesses. The Social and Solidarity Economy Act, introduced by the Ministry of the Economy and Finance under Benoît Hamon, organises support at a public-policy level and relies on a juxtaposition of entities with different statuses. EPs carry little weight in it. Although SCOPs and EIs have managed to secure recognition for themselves, this is not the case with EPs. Recommendation Ensure a place for EPs in the economy, in particular through assigning them specific status. As a first step, securing a substantial legal framework on a trial basis would provide an opportunity to o serve the internal functioning of EPs and their relationships with s pervisory authorities and social partners. A legal framework of this kind could include measures and controls to determine the “ compliance” of the EP with current law. It could also define an appropriate way of working in terms of social dialogue within the enterprise, since the current operation of staff representation bodies is organised solely on the basis of defending employees from shareholders.

Enterprise level

1©

la Re

1 20

National reports

Portrait de trav ailleu r

The same observation applies at the sectoral level: the specific characteristics of EPs are not taken into account. In general terms, the collective agreement that specifies the relationship with employees depends on the economic activity concerned. Integration associations have had their own collective agreement since 2011 but this does not include any criteria with regard to participation. There is therefore no provision for the EP’s particular way of working. Encourage sectoral representatives to recognise the EP, particularly in sectors that lend themselves well to a combination of economic, social and citizenship-based approaches.

Observation Explanation Recommendation

ust a p h aB ou ta leb

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Sectoral level

Italy

Observations and recommendations National level Observation Explanation Recommendation

Whilst the law recognises certain categories of social enterprise, problems still persist with compliance. Furthermore, the general legal framework remains vague and new laws do not systematically include these specific cases. Act 25/2007 is an update of Directive 2002/14/EC, establishing a framework for “informing and consulting employees” in businesses with fewer than 50 workers. This provides for the existence of staff representatives, but does not take into consideration the specific case of businesses applying participatory management practices. Article 12 of Act 155/2006 on “Social Enterprises” provides for involving workers in order to guarantee their right to exercise “influence” within the decision-making process. Act 144/2001 on the status of “associates/workers” in a cooperative explains in article 2.1 that the exercise of trade-union rights “must be applied in a way that is compatible with the status of associate worker in accordance with the collective agreements entered into by the national associations of the cooperative movement and the most representative trade-union organisations.” Implement Act 144/2001, defining the role of trade unions in enterprises owned by their workers.

Recommendation

Establish a dialogue between work-integration social enterprises applying participatory management practices and the trade unions and define the role of the latter within these types of enterprise, whilst ensuring respect for direct democracy. Amongst other things, the trade unions’ role could consist of dealing with health and safety problems and identifying “false cooperatives”, where the traditional mechanism of trade-union representation is necessary.

Opportunities and approaches The project has provided an opportunity for the Consorzio Sociale Abele Lavoro to make contact with other work-integration social enterprises (primarily via the survey) and to ease the relationship with workers’ rights organisations to make them more constructive. Work-integration social enterprises that work closely with the public authorities could join forces with workers’ rights organisations to identify solutions and negotiate with the administration, for example over late payments, fulfilment of contractual obligations, etc.). Adopting a common stance would bring them closer together and could transform them into allies on certain issues. Together, they could reflect on the new activities they could develop. As markets change and public resources diminish, it is necessary to rethink the idea of “enterprise” to guarantee universal access to high-quality work.

Sectoral level

The representatives of work-integration social enterprises (social cooperatives) are likened to the category of “employers”. Social dialogue is also built on the assumption that there is a divergence of interest between “owners” and “workers”. Provide for a specific role in social dialogue organisations for enterprises owned by their workers.

p tri Le

ie ap ’Arc r d

oba

leno © C. Ca

Observation Explanation Recommendation

rta 2011 - Consorzio Soci ale

National reports

Observation Explanation

The trade unions are unfamiliar with the specific characteristics of work-integration social enterprises, particularly in respect of management and participation. The classic mechanism of trade-union representation is not appropriate for enterprises that apply participatory management practices based on direct democracy. In addition there is a risk that, in the absence of any control, “false cooperatives” will appear in which workers have neither voting rights nor protection.

Abel e La vor o

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Enterprise level

d its tra

Ha e -

a ra eF er eli At

ere nti Fro

Observation There is no sectoral committee to regulate collective agreements in the social and solidarity economy sector. Explanation Act 268/2009 adopting OUG 28/2009 provides for the creation of sectoral committees to negotiate collective labour agreements by sector. Whilst, on the one hand, the social economy can be active in all sectors, on the other – in social enterprises in general and in work-integration social enterprises for disadvantaged people in particular – there is not the traditional dichotomy between employer and employee, as these enterprises often apply participatory management practices and empowerment of all workers. Recommendation Create a sectoral committee dedicated to the social and solidarity economy based on the model of joint committees for civil servants. Create space for the social and solidarity economy on the social dialogue committees working with Romanian government ministries.

The social and solidarity economy sector is neither well known nor recognised and social enterprises that develop forms of participatory management and empowerment of workers are not involved in tripartite consultation. The Social Dialogue Act provided for the creation of a tripartite Economic and Social Council (CES) made up of trade unions, employers’ organisations and civil-society organisations; the CES must be consulted on initiatives to introduce legislation. The social and solidarity economy sector is not represented. Organise a transparent public consultation with all stakeholders to appoint representatives from the social and solidarity economy sector and thus enable it to take part in social dialogue as part of the Romanian CES and the European EESC.

Observation Explanation Recommendation

Sectoral level

Enterprise level Observation Explanation Recommendation

There is no legal basis for recognising the views of workers participating directly in social dialogue (through voting in a plenary meeting); only staff representatives or trade-union representatives are recognised. In enterprises with a social purpose and involving all stakeholders, however, the employer-employee dichotomy often does not exist. There is no trade-union presence in social enterprises. As collective labour agreements at a national level no longer exist and no longer apply to all employees, the obligation to organise collective negotiations with an employee representative no longer exists either. Until recently, the law provided that only the opinions of an elected employee representative were valid; the views of other workers had no legal value. Even now, the opinions of the employee representative no longer apply in sectors that do not have a collective labour agreement in place. Ensure legal recognition of the possibility of direct participation by all workers by establishing a legal framework for the decisions taken by all employees. Recognise the added value of this model of social enterprise and work-integration social enterprise for new forms of social dialogue.

Opportunities and approaches The meeting between Ateliere Fara Frontiere and the representative of the employers’ federation revealed a significant reduction in social dialogue compared with that of the previous regime. They are currently discussing the priorities for addressing this situation. In addition, a new area of activity – collecting and recycling medical X-rays – has been set up by AFF, inspired by the project run by the Terre Group.

National reports

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

National level

be rli 2

Romania

r Po

Observations and recommendations

United Kingdom

Observations and recommendations

Observation Explanation Recommendation

Social Firms and work integration organisations are committed to empowering people. They do this in a variety of ways, including through employee participation in decision making. In our survey of Social Firms only 28% of respondents said their employees belonged to a trade union, and only 19% of managers were trade union members. Less than 20% of social firms/WISEs adhere to collective labour agreements. 80% of respondents considered that the culture of their businesses varied significantly from that normally associated with “mainstream” business. Social Firms are” grass roots” organisations developed from communities, or communities of interest to redress particular types of labour market disadvantage experienced by their employees, trainees or volunteers. In most cases the community/beneficiary involvement is an essential element of the organisation. This low level of trade union involvement reflects the lack of awareness of UK trade unions of the Social Firm model. Collective labour agreements are not as common in the UK as they are in other parts of the EU. Trades unions should become aware of the social firm model and consider how the goals of trades unions and social firms coincide, and where working together would strengthen the achievement of these goals. Trades unions and Social Firms UK should work together to evaluate and include the social firms empowerment model into social dialogue modes.

Building Lives CiC

Sectoral level

Observation The majority of Trade Unions are not aware of the Social Firm model. Some of those that are aware of social enterprise generally see it as a threat. A high proportion of Social Firms have no links with Trade Unions. Explanation Over the last 30 years the Trade Union movement in the UK has b come less prevalent. It is strongest in larger organisations: the public sector and in major manufacturing industries. The Social Firm sector itself is small and there is relatively little general awareness of it. In the wider UK social enterprise sector Trade Unions are most aware of, and sceptical of, the new mutual organisations being set up to deliver public services through externalisation of public sector staff. They perceive it risks privatisation and a deterioration in the terms and conditions of their members’ jobs. Recommendation Social Firms UK should take steps to raise awareness of and explain the Social Firm models to Trade Unions. Trade Unions should cascade this information to all their representatives.

rm sU

National reports

National Level

-©S ocia l Fi

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Enterprise Level Observation a) Purpose of participatory management Social firms rated the importance of different reasons for adopting participatory management. The 3 most highly rated were that it underpins the social purpose of the business;, it drives business development; it drives social and professional development of employees. b) Representation and structures Social firms support worker participation in decision-making about the direction, processes and culture of their companies through encouraging involvement and “voice” in, and “ownership” of the business. These include representation on the board of directors; employee/beneficiary consultative groups and employee involvement in focus groups to make recommendations on particular issues; employee representation in recruitment and formal employee ownership of the business d) External assessment of participatory management practices. Approaches include Social Audits, Investors in People, EFQM (European Forum of Quality Management), Star Social Firm e) Encouraging and facilitating participation. A key message from Social Firms managers, especially those employing people with learning difficulties, is the importance of taking steps to ensure that employees are able to participate such as making adjustments to take account of low literacy levels, intellectual challenges, shyness and social withdrawal. f) Several respondents highlighted that participatory management was time consuming and contributed to the challenge of balancing business and social missions.

Explanation Recommendation

This low level of trade union involvement reflects the lack of awareness of UK trade unions of the Social Firm model. Collective labour agreements are not as common in the UK as they are in other parts of the EU. The labour market disadvantages that employees, trainees and volunteers in Social Firms can vary. Methods to encourage involvement in, and achievement of, participatory management need to be developed that take account of these. Many organisations are working with people with learning disabilities and for some, new methods and training can be time consuming. The sharing of good practice needs to be facilitated and encouraged by Social Firms UK and trades unions through a range of methods and channels including written or video case studies; toolkits; social media discussion groups. Mechanisms should be developed by Social Firms with the support of Social Firms UK and trades unions that encourage employees to participate, such as buddy schemes; training in assertiveness, how to give presentations; virtual modelling, adapting participation processes to meet the needs of employees, beneficiaries and the wider community as appropriate.

Opportunities and approaches Social Firms UK has begun to explore relationships with trade unions, thus paving the way to closer cooperation.

i Bu

n ldi sC ive gL

iC -

United Kingdom

Conclusion Social firms are a response to the difficulties surrounding access to high-quality employment, particularly for people who find themselves far from the labour market through severe disadvantage. This could mean a lack of technical or specialist skills, social skills, work experience and a learned lack of ambition and of motivation. Social enterprises are also a response to the lack of democratic participation in businesses, although these represent fertile ground in which citizenship could flourish. It is a tried, tested and conclusive, but curiously not yet fully approved response, which is struggling to find its place in the labyrinths of a legislative framework and social dialogue that are tailor-made for a conventional entrepreneurial model.

Over the course of a year, the RE:DIALOGUES project brought together people from the world of enterprise, politics, the trade unions and academia to examine this question. It has resulted in a set of joint recommendations aimed at key players in European social dialogue. Far from being an end in itself, this project can and must be the starting point for a new relationship and furthermore, cooperation between social enterprises run on a participatory basis and the traditional key players in social dialogue, particularly workers’ rights organisations. This needs to be done not only at a European but also at a national and regional level, in accordance with the way social dialogue is structured in each country.

National reports

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s.

Change is driven by innovation. The social economy is a pioneer in this respect, putting forward credible and original responses. As a distinct economic model, it must now be accepted in the formal structures in which social dialogue takes place in Europe. It represents a formidable tool for the development of ‘Europe 2020’, which advocates a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy.

RE:D.i.a.l.o.g.u.e.s. QUESTIONNAIRE

Contacts : Xavier Roberti - xavier.roberti@terre.be / 0032 478 512 722 Salvatore Vetro - salvatore.vetro@terre.be / 0032 497 74 53 68 Target: a minimum of 5 companies by participating country (if possible, opt for companies that have different approaches to participatory practices for diversity) Use of the questionnaire: please help each company to complete the questionnaire (by an interview face-to-face or by phone) Date: to return before Tuesday, June 11, 2013 Instructions : 1. in the case of multiple choice, delete the answers that do not apply; 2. for answers requiring figures, an approximation is sufficient; 3. by ÂŤworkersÂť, we mean employees, trainees and volunteers.

Person(s) questioned Name and first name Function Year of commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Comments 1.1. Was the questionnaire difficult to fill out? > If Yes: why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Is there anything else we need to know to understand any participatory practices of your company? > If Yes: what? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Other comments: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Characteristics of the company

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7.

Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal form / status: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of years in existence: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business sector(s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of workers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of full-time equivalents: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jobs offered to workers in work experience: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32 Appendice 1

2.8. 2.9. 2.10. 2.11.

What types of labour market disadvantage does your company focus on? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What proportion of the total number of workers face labour market disadvantage? . . . . . . . Annual income: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source of revenue by percentage:

Sales revenue: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Government grants: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Donations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Membership dues: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % 2.12. 2.13. 2.14. 2.15.

Are there many competitors in your sector? Does your company have a formal hierarchy in place? Do you have Trade Union representation or membership in your company? Does your business adhere to collective labour agreements?

Participatory business practices

3.1. What would you say are participatory practices (worker participation) in business in general? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Does your business have or encourage any kind of participatory practices (worker participation) in decisions about direction, process or culture of the business? > If Yes: Quelles sont ces pratiques participatives ? â&#x20AC;Ś > If No: 1. Would you say that your business has developed a different culture of management than that generally associated with mainstream business? Yes/No > If Yes: How would you describe the management culture in your business? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Are there any specific barriers or challenges to a more participatory practice in your business? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. How do you define participatory business practices (tick as many as apply)? Can you rank your answers in order of importance?

A driver for the business development A driver for the social and professional development of workers The underpinning social purpose of the business A human resources management policy A way of exploring social and industrial relations A way of motivating the workers

Management mode

4.1.

What are the different decision-making bodies in your business? For example, these could be Board of Directors, Management Team, General Staff Meetings, Task and Finish Groups. Please specify the number and type (workers, employees, managers, external) that make them up: 1. Strategic decision: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Decision management: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Operational decision: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Welfare/Health and Safety issues: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 Appendice 1

O O O O O O

. . . . . .

4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

How have collective disputes been managed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How have individual disputes been managed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In case of individual and collective disputes, are there any appeal procedures other than those laid down by law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.4. Are there paid meetings with workers? > If Yes: 1. what are these expectations? 2. Are these expectations clearly expressed or communicated? > If Yes: in what format?

Relations with the trade unions

5.1. 5.2.

Do you know how Trades Unions perceive your management culture or the management culture of social enterprises in general? Please tick up to three. (E.g. interest, indifference, incomprehension, Utopia, threat, opportunity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do you have anything to add about your relationship with Trades Unions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.1. Is there an expectation on workers to participate in decision making? > If Yes: 1. what are these expectations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Are these expectations clearly expressed or communicated? > If Yes: in what format? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. Workers are assessed on their participation? > If Yes: Is the degree of participation of workers measured? > If Yes: which of the following are true for which workers (Disadvantaged Workers, Managers, All Workers)? a. It affects advancement in the company b. It affects remuneration in the company c. It affects retention in the company 8.3. Are workers informed about the management culture of the business? > If Yes: 1. do you use mentoring, coaching, or similar practices to support this? 2. Do you use to specific training courses (e.g. public speaking, verbal and non-verbal communication, assertiveness, understanding a balance sheet, etc.)? > If Yes: a. do you use internal trainers? b. do you use external trainers? 3. Quelle est la frĂŠquence de ces formations ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fois/an

Follow-up to the survey only for companies which have participatory practices.

6. Ownership 6.1. Does the company issue share capital in the form of shares or co-operative shares? > If Yes: 1. Do workers have an ownership stake in the business (shares or formal co-operative structures? > If Yes: a. Do workers hold the majority of the capital? b. Do workers hold the whole of the capital? c. Is ownership concentrated in the hands of a small proportion of workers? 2. Is there a principle of one member = one vote (for example at the AGM)? > If No: what is the voting structure? (e.g. proportional to the number of shares?) 3. Do General Meetings (e.g AGM) have members who do hold shares? If workers do not hold shares, how was the original capital (start-up funds) of the company acquired? 6.2. What is the proportion of workers are members of the company? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. What are the requirements to become a member of the company? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Formalization and follow-up of participatory practices

7.1. Are your participatory practices formalized? > If Yes: in what form ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Procedural Rules - Constitution - Job Descriptions - Other forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Your participatory practices are formally assessed? > If Yes: 1. How often is this assessment carried out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. How is this assessment carried out? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. By whom is this assessment carried out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Do you have unpaid meetings with the workers? > If Yes: 1. What are the meetings about? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. What percentage of workers attend? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 Appendice 1

Monitoring of staff: expectations, training and evaluation

Difficulties related to participatory practices

9.1. 9.2.

What difficulties are faced by your company in the implementation of participatory practices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What potential solutions are/could there be? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Motivation 10.1.

In your opinion, what motivates the workers to contribute to the development of the business processes and culture?

Their formal ownership of the business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Just being a worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Just being a worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal relationships - they do it because their mates do it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

O O O O O

10.2. How does the company reinforce the motivation of the workers to participate in the management of the company? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 Appendice 1

11. Funding 11.1.

Does the company have a budget line for participatory practices?

Activities in working time: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In meetings (information, discussion, decision): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In providing infrastructure: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communication: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2. 11.3.

€ € € € € €

The company regard it as a cost or an investment and why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Does the company want to devote more budget to participatory practices?

12. Social dialogue 12.1. 12.2.

How are, or could be, relations with Trade Unions an opportunity for your participatory practices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How are, or could be, relations with Trade Unions an obstacle for your participatory practices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 Appendice 1

Country

Objective: 1. 2.

Based on the surveys you have conducted with social enterprises, check whether social dialogue in its current form is «suitable» at the national level, the sectoral level and at the enterprise level. Outline potential areas of improvement in the form of recommendations (specifying to whom they are addressed).

Method: 1. Each country completes the table. 2. The results will be compared during our meeting in Madrid.

Enterprise Level

Constat Explication Recommandation

.g. A decision or an opinion of the Works Council must have the approval of a worker representative to be valid. So a decision taken by the whole of the workers in a Works Council, without the approval of a workers’ representative, is not valid. E.g. only the representative of workers can convey the views of the workers. A joint decision by all the workers doesn’t have any validity E.g. The mechanisms for social dialogues and the traditional players must recognise that a decision taken, or view given, jointly by all workers within a Works Council is valid.

National Level E.g .Workers who own the company do not have a place at the table in discussions about national agreements. E.g. social dialogue is organized with a traditional cast of three: representatives of worker representatives, employer representatives, and the State. This format doesn’t fit where workers can also be employers. E.g. The traditional players must be requested accept a fourth partner at the table, who represents the ‘employer-workers

P or il va tra de ts ai tr

rs leu

:M n Va a r ia

Constat Explication Recommandation

Sectoral Level E.g. Joint committees do not take work integration and the social economy into account. E.g. The only factor guiding the make-up and interest of sector agreements is the type of economic activity. E.g. Traditional social dialogue players must be asked to take into account the particular nature of social firms in sector agreements , or to develop specific sector agreements for social firms

38 Appendice 2

Fro nti e

Constat Explication Recommandation

39 Appendice 2

Bibliography Books and articles • RCQ E., CAPRON M., LEONARD E., REMAN P. (dir), Dynamiques de la concertation sociale, Ed. du CRISP, 2012. • INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ON THE PUBLIC, SOCIAL AND COOPERATIVE ECONOMY, The Social Economy in the European Union, EESC, Brussels, 2012. • EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Industrial relations: Summary, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2010. • EMES, Focus area: Social enterprise, undated. Website accessed 20 November 2013. • FOX A., Industrial sociology and industrial relations, HMSO, London, 1966. • FOX A., Beyond contract: work, power and trust relations, Faber & Faber, London, 1974. • GROUPE TERRE, La gestion participative en entreprise: définition, postulats, logique et application dans le groupe Terre, Liège, 2012. • FOX A., Beyond contract: work, power and trust relations, Faber & Faber, London, 1974 • HAIDAR J.I., Investor protections and economic growth, in Economics Letters, Vol. 103, Elsevier, 2009. • LALLEMENT M., Sociologie des relations professionnelles, La Découverte, Paris, 1995. • SALAMON M., Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, Pearson education, Edinburgh, 2000. • SCHMID-DRÜNER M., Fiche technique sur l’Union européenne: le droit des travailleurs à l’information, à la consultation et à la participation, 07/2013.

Sites web • http://www.emes.net • http://www.etuc.org • http://go.worldbank.org