EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2169 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the   
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
"A renewed commitment to social Euro pe: Reinforcing the Open Method of 
Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion" 
  
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 418 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2170} 
 
EN 2   EN  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Executive summary.............................................................................................................. ...... 4 
Modifications following the Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.................................... 5 1. Historical Background on the Origins a nd the Evolution of the Social OMC............. 5 
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. .... 6 
1.2. The origins ............................................................................................................... .... 6 
1.3. The main features of the streamlined Social OMC...................................................... 7 2. Institutional and Policy Developments calli ng for continued Evolution of the Social 
OMC............................................................................................................................ .8  
2.1. Lisbon Reform Treaty from 2009 – social mainstreaming requirement...................... 8 2.2. Social Reality Stocktaking a nd the revised Social Agenda ......................................... 9 
2.3. Making 2010 a European Year of comb ating poverty and social exclusion................ 9 
2.4. The Active Inclusion initiative – anticipat ed implementation of Common Principles 
through the Social OMC ............................................................................................ 10 
3. Consultation of main Social OMC partne rs and the wider Publ ic, and Input from 
Experts ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 
3.1. Overview.................................................................................................................. .. 11 
3.2. The position of Member States .................................................................................. 11 3.3. The views of networks active in the fight  against poverty and social exclusion ....... 12 
3.4. Results from the public consultation for preparing the renewed social agenda......... 13 
3.5. The recommendations of the Network of I ndependent Experts on Social Inclusion. 13 
3.6. Additional elements emerging from academic literature and debates ....................... 14 4. Problem Definition..................................................................................................... 16 4.1. Context setting ........................................................................................................... 16 
4.2. Trends in social protecti on and social inclusion ........................................................ 19 
4.3. Weaknesses in the Open Method of Coordination..................................................... 19 5. Specification of the Objectives and of the Options considered ................................. 21 
5.1. General and intermediate objectives .......................................................................... 21 5.2. Policy options............................................................................................................ . 21 
5.3. Legal basis and the prin ciple of subsidiarity.............................................................. 25 
 
EN 3   EN 6. Analysis of Impacts.................................................................................................... 25 
6.1. Methodological premise............................................................................................. 25 6.2. Assessment of impacts and feasibility ....................................................................... 26 7. How do the Options compare?................................................................................... 32 8. Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements................................................................. 34 8.1. Monitoring ................................................................................................................ . 34 
8.2. Evaluation ................................................................................................................ .. 35 
8.3. Indicators of success .................................................................................................. 36 9. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 3 6 
A
NNEX 1 – LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 38 
ANNEX 2 – THE SOCIAL OMC:  OBJECTIVES , TOOLS AND STRUCTURES ..................................... 39 
COMMON OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................... 42 COMMON INDICATORS ...................................................................................................... 40 NATIONAL STRATEGY REPORTS..................................................................................... 42 JOINT ASSESSMENTS.......................................................................................................... 42 PROGRESS....................................................................................................................... ....... 42 
THE SOCIAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE........................................................................ 43 
 
EN 4   EN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
This impact assessment will accompany the Communication on 'A renewed commitment to 
social Europe: reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social  Protection and Social 
Inclusion', which is part of the set of Commission initiatives accompanying the 
Communication on the Rene wed Social Agenda. 
From 2000 the Open Method of Coordination has successively been applied to social 
inclusion policy, to pension pol icy and to health a nd long-term care polic y. In 2006 the three 
separate OMC's were streamlined into one inte grated OMC for Social Protection and Social 
Inclusion (hereinafter “Social OMC”).  
The open method of coordination comprises an  agreement on EU common objectives, setting 
out high-level, shared goals to drive the entire  process, the definiti on of a set of common 
indicators to enable monito ring of progress towards the co mmon objectives, the preparation 
by Member States of national strategic reports translating these agreed objectives into 
concrete policies, and the joint assessment of  progress and of policy efforts by the European 
Commission and the Member States in the fr amework of the Social Protection Committee. 
The overall assessment of the results of the Social OMC by the different actors involved in 
the process has been largely pos itive. The method has supporte d mutual learning, promoted 
wider involvement of stakeholders, increased awareness of the multi-dimensional nature of 
exclusion and poverty, given impulse to the m odernisation of social protection systems, 
forged a shared approach to the common ch allenges and brought to the fore emerging 
common issues. However, outcome indicators clearly point to insufficient delivery on the 
common social objectives and, on  the basis of consultation of  various stakeholders and 
experts, one has to conclude that there are w eaknesses in the Social OMC. The analysis points 
to a lack of political commitment and visi bility and a need for better horizontal policy 
coordination and mainstreaming of  social protection and social  inclusion concerns in all 
relevant policy areas. Furthermore, there is a need for stronger anal ytical underpinning of 
policy and more involvement of regional and local actors in the So cial OMC process. 
Participation of stakeholders can be greatly  improved and mutual learning can be further 
strengthened. The need for reinforcement of th e Social OMC is supported by a number of 
institutional and policy developm ents, like the Lisbon reform treaty (with its mainstreaming 
requirement), the social reality stocktaking consultation, the prosp ect of the European Year of 
combating poverty and social exclusion and the active inclusion initiative.  
If the expectations of EU citizens regarding so cial protection and social  inclusion are to be 
met, significant strengthening of the Social OMC is necessary. 
In order to assess the merit of reinforcement of the method and to identify the most effective 
ways to achieve it, three po licy options have been retain ed for in depth examination1.  
The first option is described as the “status quo”. This takes into account the fact that the 
Social OMC is by nature an evolutionary pro cess and that, even in the absence of major 
                                                 
1 Two policy options - complete abandonment of the Social OMC and full integration of the Social OMC 
in the Growth and Jobs Strategy – have been considered but have not been retained for in depth 
analysis. The reasons for this are explained in section 5.2. 
 
EN 5   EN changes, it will continue to evolve through in cremental changes and gradual improvements in 
working methods.  
The second option is described as a “fundamental overhaul” of the process. In this option the 
scope of the Social OMC is widened and the process is remodelled to embrace all dimensions of EU social policies, to ensure effective ma instreaming and to become a sort of 'Social 
Lisbon'.  
The third option is defined as “comprehensive and ambitious reinforcement within the present 
structure”. This option builds on the approach used so far in th e Social OMC, of consensual 
and incremental progress, but is at the same  time “strategic” and “forward-looking”, as it 
introduces a new dynamic into the system. It pr oposes to explore new tools and new working 
methods that would be tested and introduced in close cooperation with Member States, with a 
view to reinvigorating the process and optimising its implementation.  
The impact assessment concludes by highlighting th e third option as the best choice. It is the 
option which best addresses the problems iden tified without excessively disrupting current 
ways of working in the Commi ssion and the Member States. In fact, such an option should be 
implemented gradually, not only because of its re source implications, but also because of the 
need to properly discuss and “anchor” the envisaged reforms with Member States and with stakeholders. 
M
ODIFICATIONS FOLLOWING THE OPINION OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT BOARD  
Following the opinion of the impact assessment boa rd several changes have been made to the 
impact assessment. 
The report more clearly disti nguishes between the overall progr ess on social policy outcomes 
and progress that can be linked directly to the implementation of the Social OMC. A new 
context setting section (section 4.1)  has been added to the probl em identificati on chapter and 
references have been included to  recent analysis that has sh own the bottlenecks the method is 
confronted with.  
Two extra policy options have been brought into the picture, that is, full integration of the 
Social OMC in the Growth and Jobs strategy and the possibility of abandoning the method. 
The reasons why these options have not been analysed in detail are provided (see box in 
section 5.2). 
A paragraph indicating the legal basis of th e communication and a comment on subsidiarity 
have been added (section 5.3). 
As regards the comparison of the options retained  for in-depth analysis, a new table has been 
added that allows comparison of the options over the four objectives  proposed both on the 
rating of their impact on the problems addresse d and on their feasibility rating (table 6 in 
section 7). An overall assessment of the th ree options has been added (bottom row). 
The report more clearly explains that in view of the nature of the communication no elements 
are available to cal culate precise impacts of  the proposed measures on administrative costs in 
the Member States (only a very rough assessment can be provided as part  of the feasibility 
rating). However, as regards the impact on the community budge t, in terms of human and 
 
EN 6   EN financial resources, more prec ise indications are now given for each policy option (section 
6.2). 
Finally, a new section has been adde d (section 8.3) to illustrate th e indicators that will be used 
or elaborated to assess the success of the measures proposed. 
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON THE ORIGINS AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL 
OMC   
1.1. Introduction  
The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is a relatively new instrument in the history of 
European integration. Its implementation in the so cial field belongs to the more structured and 
institutionally based examples. The OMC comp rises agreement on common objectives setting 
out high-level, shared goals to drive the entire  process, the definiti on of a set of common 
indicators to enable monito ring of progress towards the co mmon objectives, the preparation 
by Member States of national strategic reports translating these agreed objectives into 
concrete policies, and the joint assessment of  progress and of policy efforts by the European 
Commission and the Member States in the fr amework of the Social Protection Committee.2 
The OMC for social protection and social incl usion has proved its worth by supporting mutual 
learning, by promoting wider i nvolvement of stakeholders, by increasing awareness of the 
multi-dimensional nature of exclusion and poverty, by giving impulse to the modernisation of social protection system s, by forging a shared approach to the common challenges and by 
bringing to the fore emerging common issues.  
However, even though the simplified and integr ated Social OMC as applied since 2006 has 
further strengthened EU capacity to support Member  States in their efforts to reform social 
protection systems and promote greater social  cohesion, the potential of the method to 
contribute to making a real im pact has not been fully tapped. There are, for example, 
weaknesses in the EU's capacity to assess accurately both the soci al situation prevailing in the 
Member States with respect to the range of social issues, and the action taken to address them, 
and this hampers the cap acity to drive the process in the mo st effective way. Opportunities for 
coordinated policies and mutual l earning could also be further e xploited. Member States have 
recognised the scope for further developing cooper ation in the framework of the Social OMC.  
This initiative sets out, ther efore, to build on the achievement s to date and see in what way 
EU action could contribute to strengthening de livery on the shared social objectives of the 
Union.  
1.2. The origins 
The roots of the Social OMC go back to the mid-1970s when the first EU Poverty Programme 
was launched. It financed pilot sche mes and studies to tackle poverty.  
                                                
 
2 For a more detailed description of the OMC on Social Protection and Social Inclusion and its main 
constitutional elements, see Annex 1.  
 
EN 7   EN In 1992, two important Council Recommendations  were adopted, one identifying the 
modernisation of social protection as an i ssue of common concern warranting convergence 
across Europe; the other establishing as a common objective the guarantee of a minimum 
level of resources.  
With the entry into force of the Amsterda m Treaty in May 1997, the fight against social 
exclusion became one of the obj ectives of the Union, and wide r powers were granted at EU 
level to tackle it, although w ithin a framework where the primary responsibility for achieving 
those objectives remained with  Member States. A strategic goal was set in Lisbon 2000 of 
becoming the "most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of 
sustainable economic growth w ith more and better jobs and greater social cohesion." The 
European Council also agreed on the objective of  making a decisive impact on the eradication 
of poverty by 2010. Stemming from these comm itments a comprehensive process of 
coordination at EU level was launched. Common objectives for so cial inclusion were defined 
at the Nice summit in December 2000 and Member  States were invited to present national 
action plans (NAP social incl usion), underpinned by indicators  and monitoring mechanisms.  
On the basis of reports from the High Level Gr oup on "Social Protection" on the evolution of 
pension systems and from the Economic Polic y Committee (EPC), the Nice European 
Council also agreed to exchange  experiences in the area of pe nsions on the basis of national 
strategies and in cooperation with the Europe an Commission. One year later, the Laeken 
European Council (December 2001) launched the OM C on pensions with a three-year cycle 
on the basis of 11 common objectiv es under three overall headings  relating to the systems' 
capacity to attain their social objectives, to financial sustai nability and to their responsiveness 
to the evolution of societal needs.  
In 2004 the European Council agr eed to start an OMC to s upport Member States’ reforms 
aimed at promoting universally accessible, high -quality and sustainable health and long-term 
care for all citizens. 
1.3. The main features of th e streamlined Social OMC 
An evaluation of the three soci al strands of the OMC conducted in 2005 formed the basis for 
streamlining the processes that started between  2000 and 2004 - social inclusion, pensions and 
health and long-term care - in to one single Social OMC.  
The overall assessment of the Social OMC among Member States has been largely positive: 
all of them credit it with having promoted a sh ared understanding of the issues and challenges 
in the field of social protecti on and social inclusion. Civil soci ety and social partners have 
started to be involved in the preparation of na tional strategies and modernisation of social 
protection. Also, there are signs of better ad ministrative coordination across government 
ministries. Considerable scope nevertheless remains for developing and consolidating the 
process, not least as regards the implemen tation and follow-up of national strategies.  
In a Communication published in December  2005, entitled "Working together, working 
better: A new framework for the open coordinati on of social protection and inclusion policies 
in the European Union" (COM(2005) 706 fi nal), the Commission set out its proposals to 
create from 2006 onwards a streamlined framew ork for further development of the Social 
OMC. It took account of experien ce gained to date, in particul ar of how the Member States 
and other actors assessed the three social strands  of the OMC, but also of wider developments 
 
EN 8   EN such as the ongoing process of refocusing the Lisbon Strategy. It aimed to create a stronger 
Social OMC with a heightened focus on po licy implementation, which would interact 
positively with the Strategy for Growth and Jobs, while simplifying reporting and expanding opportunities for mutual learning. 
In concrete terms the earlier OMCs in the fiel ds of social inclusion and pensions, and the 
process of cooperation in the field of health a nd long-term care which had been initiated, were 
brought together under common objectives and simplified reporting procedures. It was 
decided to structure the process as a three-year cycle, with full reporting and preparation of 
national strategies in the first year and no reporting in the two intermediate years, the latter 
being devoted to in-depth analysis a nd mutual learning on priority themes.  
Common objectives to underpin the newly integr ated framework for the social protection and 
social inclusion process were adopted by th e European Council in March 2006. The continued 
validity of these objectives was confirme d by the European Council in March 2008.  
In September 2006 Member States presented th eir first National Reports on Strategies for 
Social Protection and Social Inclusion with an integrated coverage of the three policy strands 
of social inclusion, health and long-term care and pens ions. These Reports from EU-27 
thereby launched the first full cycle of th e streamlined and simplified Social OMC. The 
streamlined method OMC is designed to encourage Member States to take a more strategic, 
comprehensive and cross-cutting approach in th eir reporting while still allowing the specific 
characteristics of each strand to be taken into account. The 2007 Joint Report assessed the 
national reports and concluded that joint consideration of the full set of common social 
objectives was helping to improve consistency a nd effectiveness of policies. In general, the 
national reports were more strategic than in pr evious years, focusing on a limited selection of 
priorities and presenting a global stra tegy for achieving the common objectives. 
2007 was the first year under the streamlined OM C for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 
without full reporting. Following the approach already taken in the area of pensions, this 
allowed an in-depth examination of a set of issues identified in the Joint Report of the 
previous year for all three strands. The focus on those selected themes – i.e. child poverty, for 
the social inclusion strand; acces s to health care a nd evolving long-term care needs, for 'health 
and long-term care'; and longer working lives  and privately managed pensions, for the 
pensions strand – provided an opportunity for deep ened analysis of the issues concerned and 
of the policy responses. A preliminary assessmen t of that experience sh ows that this method 
has served the purpose of creating a shared understanding of the issues at stake while 
providing Member States with helpful indications of the specific challenges to be addressed in 
order to achieve the common goals.  
2. I
NSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS CALLING FOR CONTINUED 
EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL OMC 
2.1. Lisbon Reform Treaty from 2009 – social mainstreaming requirement 
The Treaty of Lisbon, due to enter into fo rce on 1 January 2009, strengthens the social 
provisions of current Treatie s in several instances.  
First, the new Article 2 on the objectives of the Union contains a much stronger commitment 
to social justice and solidarity than the current one: " The Union shall combat  social exclusion 
 
EN 9   EN and discrimination, and shall prom ote social justice and prot ection, equality between women 
and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child ".  
A new horizontal "social" clause  (Art. 5a) stipulates that, " in defining and implementing its 
policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirem ents linked to the promotion 
of a high level of employment , the guarantee of adequate social protec tion, the fight against 
social exclusion, and a high level of educa tion, training and protection of human health ."  
The incorporation of a legally binding reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which 
enumerates under Title IV "Solidarity" a certa in number of rights a nd principles, including 
"the right of access to social security and social assistance ", is also relevant for the Social 
OMC.  
Finally, and particularly signifi cant in this context, Articl e 140 of the Lisbon Treaty gives 
explicit recognition to the Open Method of Coordination as an EU tool for fostering 
cooperation between Member States in the area of  social policy, and introduces an obligation 
to regularly inform the European Parliament  about developments under the Social OMC.  
2.2. Social Reality Stocktaking and the revised Social Agenda 
Following on from its May 2006 Communication "A n Agenda for European Citizens" and on 
the basis of a mandate by the European Counc il, the Commission launched in February 2007 
a broad consultation to examine the dynamics of current social changes. This stocktaking of 
the social realities3 launched a debate aiming to build consensus on the common social 
challenges facing the EU. Views were sought on social trends, on the main factors driving 
Europe's transformation, on "well-bei ng" and what contributes to it.  
In November 2007, as part of th e Internal Market Review pack age, the Commission presented 
a Communication "Towards a new social vision for the 21st century" to enrich the ongoing 
consultation and broaden the debate from analys is to response. It outlined the main changes 
which the EU is experiencing in society, related to the economy as well as in lifestyles and values, and proposed a social vision based on "life chances".  It suggested that tapping 
Europe's full human potential and broadening life chances for all would re quire investment in 
youth, in fulfilling careers, in longer and healthie r lives, in gender equality, in active inclusion 
and non-discrimination, in mobility and successful  integration, and in civic participation, 
culture and dialogue. While delivering on this would mostly be a matter for local, regional 
and national authorities, the Co mmunication pointed out that there is scope for the EU to 
contribute, notably through the reinforced use of existing mechanisms for policy coordination.  
Replies to the consultation would feed into th e mid-term review of the Social Agenda and 
contribute to the preparation of a shared ag enda on access, opportunities and solidarity. As a 
number of elements emerging from the replie s to the consultation are relevant to this 
initiative, a partial summary is  provided in Section 3.4 below. 
2.3. Making 2010 a European Year of comb ating poverty and social exclusion 
As stated above, Member States and the Comm ission were invited by the European Council, 
at the launch of the Lisbon strate gy in March 2000, to take step s to make “a decisive impact 
                                                
 
3 http://ec.europa.eu/citizens_agenda/index_en.htm  
 
EN 10   EN on the eradication of poverty by  2010”. Subsequent European C ouncils have reaffirmed this 
objective. Under the Social Agenda 2005-2010 the Commission announced its intention to 
propose designating 2010 as the Eu ropean Year for Combating P overty and Social Exclusion 
(EY2010), thereby reaffirming and strengthening the po litical commitment made at the start 
of the Lisbon strategy, knowing that European Years have proved to be a valuable instrument 
for putting European political issues  at the top of the EU agenda.  
The Commission delivered on this commit ment in 12 December 2007 by adopting its 
proposal for a Decision on the EY2010; Counc il adoption is expect ed by July 2008. The 
EY2010 will complement action under the Social  OMC in particular by raising public 
awareness and reaffirming the importance of bo th individual and collec tive responsibility, by 
putting emphasis on the particip ation and involvement of all actors concerned, especially 
giving voice to people experiencing poverty a nd social exclusion, and by restating the 
commitment of the EU to fight poverty worldwide.  
The EY2010 will thus reaffirm the Union’s comm itment to solidarity, social justice and 
greater cohesion, and will promote consiste ncy and boost support for the overarching 
objectives of the Union. A parallel procedural reinforcement of the Social OMC could help 
maximise synergies between the overall pr ocess and the Year, thereby improving actual 
delivery. 
2.4. The Active Inclusion initiative – anticipated implementation of Common 
Principles through the Social OMC  
In 2006 the Commission carried out  a first public cons ultation on the “Activ e inclusion of the 
people furthest from the labour market”, underp inned by an integrated strategy based on three 
pillars, namely adequate income support, acc ess to inclusive labour markets and to quality 
social services. On the basis of the results the Commission presented a second consultation in 
October 2007 on "Modernising social protecti on for greater social justice and economic 
cohesion: taking forward the activ e inclusion of people furthest from the labour market".  
In this latter Communication the Commission pr oposed to deepen th e Social OMC through 
the adoption of common principles in the thr ee strands of active inclusion by means of a 
Recommendation, which would constitute the ba sis for Council conclusions and a European 
Parliament resolution. The December 2007 E PSCO Council invited the Commission to 
proceed along those lines on the understanding that the Social OMC would be used, in full 
compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, to monitor and evaluate the implementation of 
the common principles according to modalitie s to be agreed in the Social Protection 
Committee. The Commission Recommendation is e xpected to be adopted in September 2008 
(and will be subject to a specific Impact Assessment). 
This process provides both an illustration and a test-case of how the Social OMC can be 
enhanced through the elaboration of common prin ciples, which could gi ve new substance and 
strength to the Social OMC tools, i.e. monitoring, benchmarking and peer reviewing.  
 
EN 11   EN 3. CONSULTATION OF MAIN SOCIAL OMC  PARTNERS AND THE WIDER PUBLIC , AND 
INPUT FROM EXPERTS  
3.1. Overview 
For the preparation of this initiative DG EMPL  utilised several channels for dialogue with 
stakeholders which constitute regular and established features of the process itself. Continuous exchange and interac tion with the Member States is  ensured through the Social 
Protection Committee. As far as  other actors are concerned, one overall objective of the 
Social OMC commits the Comm ission and Member States to ensuring "good governance, 
transparency and the involvement of stake holders in the design, implementation and 
monitoring of policy". In particular under the so cial inclusion strand, gi ven the decentralised 
nature of policies to fight pove rty and exclusion it s hould be ensured "that social inclusion 
policies are well-coordinated a nd involve all levels of govern ment and relevant actors, 
including people experiencing pove rty". Accordingly, both the dia gnosis of the problems to 
be addressed and the inventory of  possible solutions take into account the input received from 
representatives of Member States, civil so ciety organisations, independent experts, 
institutional actors at EU level and the wider public. 
3.2. The position of Member States  
The March 2007 European Council c onclusions called for the comm on social objectives of 
Member States to be better taken into acco unt within the Lisbon agenda. The Social 
Protection Committee responded to this in its 2007 work programme by setting up a working 
group with the mandate of looking into the mutual interaction between economic, 
employment and social policies  as well as the coordination and integration between the 
Social OMC and the “Partnerships for gr owth and jobs” under the Lisbon strategy.  
At its October 2007 meeting the SPC unanimously  adopted a report including a wealth of 
suggestions for how to improve polic y interaction and policy consistency
4: 
• Need to reinforce interaction and coordinati on at national and Europe an level for further 
improved delivery of Lisbon and Social OMC objectives.  
• Coordination of policies as a key tool for progress in the EU on em ployment and social 
issues. 
• Well-designed social protection systems and so cial inclusion policies as productive factors 
that interact in a positive way with  economic and employment policies. 
• Improved mainstreaming of social objectives an d more evidence-based policies, including 
on the basis of strengthene d analytical underpinnings of the Social OMC.  
• Social impact assessments in non-social po licy areas; large scope for enhanced mutual 
learning.  
• More intensive use of existing or newly-commissioned research. 
                                                 
4 The summary above is a shortened and somewhat edited version of the full report on the SPC website:
  
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/spc_opinions_en.htm  
 
EN 12   EN • Coverage of “feeding in” and “feeding out” in Lisbon and Social OMC reporting from 
Member States and in joint assessments, including the country ch apters. Inclusion of 
assessment of social impacts in Commissi on evaluations of the Lisbon strategy.  
• Further development of indicator s measuring "feeding in / out". 
• Development through PROGRESS of "mutual interaction" activities including peer 
reviews. 
• Wider publication/dissemination of the key messages in the Joint Report.  
• Exploration of social impact assessme nts under PROGRESS and within the SPC. 
• Improved cooperation with other committees or high-level groups, e.g. joint examination 
of the National Reform Programmes.  
• Joint seminars in national capita ls gathering officials from a ll "Lisbon" Ministries in order 
to foster coordination and true integration. 
The SPC also devoted considerab le attention in 2007 to explori ng ways to further improve the 
working methods under the Social OMC . Agreement was reached on a range of actions, as 
summarised in the 2008 Joint SPSI Report: 
• A shift to a more context- and process-orie nted approach, also l ooking at unsuccessful 
policies and the continuous adju stment of policies in response to obstacles encountered. 
• A more integrated and strategic use of all available instruments to support the 
implementation of the Social OMC (notably PROGRESS). 
• More systematic incorporation of key results in policymaking, resultin g from strengthened 
monitoring. 
• A reinforcement of the analytical framewor k, including the social impact element of 
integrated impact assessments. 
• Further governance improvements by ensu ring the continuous involvement of 
stakeholders, including local authorities, throughout the Social OMC policy cycle. 
• Improved dissemination of results. 
3.3. The views of networks active in the fi ght against poverty and social exclusion 
Civil society organisations’ views tend to converge on several poi nts. In general, the Social 
OMC is seen as a very relevant  tool for EU action in the social field prioritising needs, 
embracing big issues, promoting connections between various policy fields and urging 
reforms where needed. However, there is a wide spread perception that the Social OMC is too 
weak to deliver convincing resu lts in reducing poverty and reinforcing social cohesion. The 
perceived reduced emphasis on the social dimens ion after the mid-term review of the Lisbon 
strategy is seen as a major explanation fo r weak implementation and impact. Among the 
elements most strongly advocated are:  
• a reconfirmation of the political commitment to the process; 
• greater emphasis on the “feeding out” dimens ion (the contribution of reforms for growth 
and job creation to social cohesion); 
 
EN 13   EN • a stronger commitment at nati onal level, driven by tighter European guidance as well as an 
intensified mutual learning proces s between actors and countries; 
• improved quality of national strategies, in  terms of both substance and methodology.  
Civil society organisations also advocate active participation of Parliaments, local authorities 
and other relevant stakeholders in th e definition of national strategies.  
3.4. Results from the public consultation for preparing the renewed social agenda  
Following the consultations on the “social stoc ktaking” and on the “new social vision”, 
almost 150 replies were received from a wide range of stakeholders (from 13 Member States, 
regional/local governments, national parliame nts/individual MPs, social partners, NGOs, 
universities/research institutes, religious groups, individual citizens of 10 different MS). Most 
contributions conveyed a firm belief that the c onfidence of citizens in the European project 
relies on credible social polic ies at European level. A number of contributors expressed their 
conviction that Europe still remains the region of  the world with the strongest welfare states 
and public services, with the social well-being and the fundamental rights of its people at the 
centre of its political, social and economic life. In this vein, several re spondents underlined 
the role of Europe’s functio ning social systems as a fact or conducive to productivity and 
competitiveness and, as such, a preconditi on for successful economic policies.  
While many contributions expressed continuing confidence in the welfare state, there was 
widespread concern that globa lisation might undermine social  standards. A number of 
respondents also stressed that economic grow th might not automatically reduce social 
exclusion and poverty. With reference to this, some  contributors felt that the EU tended to be 
perceived as a part of the probl ems stemming from globalisation rath er than as a part of their 
solution. Virtually all contributo rs pointed to the need for a ne w impulse in terms of social 
policy at European level. In particular, the challenges arising from globalisation made a 
fundamental re-assessment of social policies indi spensable. Most of the contributors appeared 
to take the view that the key lies in striking the right balance between social policies on the 
one hand and the drive for economic grow th and competitiveness on the other.  
As regards the wider political process in the field of economic and social policies, some 
contributors insisted that the Lisbon Strate gy remains the appropriate platform. Other 
contributors, however, argued that  its current focus on growth and jobs is too narrow. One 
contribution even suggested expanding the Li sbon Strategy towards a renewed social and 
sustainable development strategy.  
3.5. The recommendations of the Network of Independent Experts on Social 
Inclusion 
The Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion was asked to submit practical ideas 
on how the impact of the Social OMC, in part icular the social inclusion strand, could be 
strengthened in their country. Experts' reco mmendations can be summarised as follows: 
• Focus more on results (room to adapt obje ctives to national circumstances, promote 
targeting, better monitoring, strong c ountry-specific recommendations); 
 
EN 14   EN • Increase the political status of the Social OMC process, social in clusion policy at the 
national level (integration in na tional political process, invo lvement of parliaments, high-
level responsibility for SPSI pr ocess, link to budgetary process); 
• Increase horizontal coordinati on and mainstreaming of social  inclusion objectives in all 
relevant policies (horizontal coordination e .g. through central coordination structure, 
especially to bett er link Social OMC/Lisbon/SDS at all government levels, increased use of 
structural funds for social inclusion); 
• Involve all levels of government  (vertical coordination, also  from bottom-up perspective; 
scope to define and disseminate regional good practice); 
• Ensure effective and high-quality participa tion of stakeholders (involvement throughout 
policy cycle, focus on quality / impact, two- way communication with more feedback and 
transparency, financial support for particip ation and capacity-bu ilding, recognition of 
social partners' role also in Social OMC); 
• Work more on common indicators and introd uce impact assessment at EU and national 
level as mainstreaming tool;  
• Communicate more effectively on the Social  OMC / SPSI policy (national Social OMC 
websites, using all media, avoid jargon, focus on subjects people can relate to); 
• Strengthen mutual learning (strengthened a nd expanded Peer Reviews, higher political 
profile to outcomes, comparative analysis as basis, more contextualisation, opening up to 
regional and local policymakers, nationa l/sub-national/within organisations). 
3.6. Additional elements emerging from  academic literature and debates 
There is a recent substantial body of empirical resear ch on the operations of the Social OMC 
at national and sub-national leve ls, drawing on a wide range of official a nd unofficial sources. 
Most of the literature focuses on the oldest, most  developed OMC processes, i.e. the European 
Employment Strategy and to some  extent the Social OMC.  
In terms of strengths of this tool Zeitlin (2007) highlights three forms of positive influence 
stemming from the Social OMC. The first is su bstantive policy changes. He argues that the 
method has helped to raise the ambition of na tional employment and social inclusion polices 
in several Member States and has stimulated changes both in national policy thinking and in 
national policy agendas. An example is the add ition to domestic agendas of issues such as 
child poverty, homelessness, pension reform , childcare provision, gender equality and 
integration of immigrants. In some cases Member  States have seen specific policy shifts in 
areas such as tax-benefit reforms, active ageing/lifelong learning and pension reform. The 
second positive influences are procedural shifts in governance and policymaking 
arrangements. There has been enhanced verti cal coordination between levels of governance, 
and increased consultation with stakeholders and involvement of NGOs . The Social OMC is 
seen as a promising governance instrument fo r EU policymaking as it is well suited to 
pursuing common European concerns while  respecting national diversity. Some 
commentators highlight the potential of the Social OMC for building a consensus around a 
distinctive European Social Model. A third pos itive influence exerted by the method is mutual 
 
EN 15   EN learning, for example in the identification of co mmon challenges, and in fostering statistical 
harmonisation and capacity-building. 
However, the literature also highlights some sh ortcomings of the Social OMC. The first is 
lack of openness and transparency since the required participation of all stakeholders 
concerned is often not really achieved. Another perceived weakne ss is the lack of integration 
into national policy of the strategies presente d at EU level with National Reports and Action 
Plans serving more as reports to the EU than  as operational policy-st eering documents. De La 
Rosa (2005) has even commented  that reports and action plan s from Member States are 
simply legitimising reforms already made. Na tional plans have been  described as purely 
administrative exercises, not de monstrating genuine commitment. 
The fact that the Social OMC bypasses both the European Parliament and, in most cases, the 
national parliaments, has led to the democr atic legitimacy being questioned (Hatzopoulous 
2007). Some analysts regard the Social OMC as  a threat to the 'community' method of EU 
policymaking whereby the Commission proposes le gislation, which is adopted by the EP and 
the Council, and the ECJ has the power to  impose sanctions on MS for non-compliance 
(Hatzopoulus 2007). However, Hix (2006) argues that competition among Member States is 
fiercer under the social strands of the OM C than under the traditional community method. 
De La Rosa (2005) defines th e OMC as different to prev ious 'soft' economic policy 
coordination due to the institutionalised dime nsion and increasing scope of application. 
Indeed OMCs have mainly been introduced or proposed in policy areas where the Treaty 
provisions are limited due to lack of consensu s among Member States to  enact legally binding 
directives, or in policy areas where there is much diversity (employment and social 
protection). Therefore the Social  OMC should not be seen as a threat but an alternative to 
inaction (Daly 2004, Bache and George 2006).  
Borras and Jacobsson (2004) have identified seve n features that they say constitute evidence 
that the Social OMC is a new form of governance: 
(1) It is mainly based on intergovernmental  cooperation, where th e Council and the 
Commission play a dominant role. 
(2) It is based on mechanisms of political monitoring rather than administrative 
monitoring. 
(3) It is an iterative proce ss based on clear procedures. 
(4) It provides for systematic linking across policy areas. 
(5) It links EU and national public action. 
(6) It seeks the participa tion of social actors. 
(7) It aims at enhancing learning processes. 
On this basis, they argue that it has been a 'bre ath of fresh air' to th e mechanisms of the EU 
and that it could lead to new dynamics in  the process of European integration. 
 
EN 16   EN 4. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
4.1. Context setting 
As illustrated in the previous chapter, ther e is a rather general agreement among Member 
States, relevant stakeholders and researchers that the OMC for Social Protection and Social 
Inclusion has produced important value added over the years. It is perceived as a useful and 
politically acceptable way for Member States to  work together on often similar challenges. 
The OMC has kept the issues of poverty and soci al exclusion and social  protection on the EU 
policy agenda in a way it had not  been previously. This has le d to a more balanced policy 
approach aimed at simultaneously reaching eco nomic and social policy objectives. The OMC 
has also contributed to building a consensus ar ound what the key policy priorities are and it 
has played a role in shaping general social policy approaches across member states (e.g. the 
active inclusion approach, pension policies ba sed on the recognition that sustainability and 
adequacy need to go hand in hand).  
Because of the reporting requirements many of  the Member States have started producing 
more integrated policy strategi es and action plans. In severa l countries the OMC has led to 
better policy coordination across different policy sectors and leve ls of government. This has 
been particularly evident in the new Member  States as a result of the Joint Inclusion 
Memorandum process.  
The Social OMC has promoted the mobilisation of a broad range of actors, especially civil 
society and including the partic ipation of those experiencing poverty and social exclusion. It 
has also undoubtedly led to be tter data collection and to the developm ent of appropriate 
indicators. It has facilitated better and more comprehensive analysis of the situation in relation to social protection and social inclusion at bot h EU and national levels . There is now a better 
basis for developing evidence based policy. The commonly agreed indicators have made it 
possible for Member States to compare their performance. Over time there has been a 
growing exchange of learning and good practice. 
Although there is a high degree of consensus around this largel y positive appreciation of the 
value added that has been produced  by the Social OMC so far, ther e is an equally high degree 
of consensus around the recognition that there sti ll is a long way to go when measured against 
the common objectives regarding social protectio n and social inclusion agreed by the Member 
States. 
Of course, there are limits to what can be achie ved using an instrument like the Social OMC 
that is based on voluntary coopera tion and the principle of subsidiarity. The method doesn't 
provide sanctions that can be applied if Memb er States do not make progress towards the 
agreed objectives and, unlike the Growth and Jobs process,  there is no basis for making 
formal Council recommendations to individua l Member States. It also has to be 
acknowledged that some of the required pol icy changes and governance reforms will not 
produce results overnight. The next two sections present the problem definition that is at the 
basis of this initiative on st rengthening the Social OMC.  
First, some information on trends in social protection and social inclusion outcomes is 
presented as measured on the basis of the comm only agreed indicators. The trends described 
provide an eloquent picture of th e challenges ahead and of the need to boost efforts towards 
the achievement of th e common objectives.  
 
EN 17   EN The second section looks into th e method as it currently operate s and identifies a number of 
weaknesses that should be addressed if Member States are to be adequately supported in their 
efforts to ensure social protection an d social inclusion of EU citizens.  
4.2. Trends in social protecti on and social inclusion5  
In 2005, 16% of EU-25 citizens lived under the poverty  threshold defined as 60% of their 
country's median income, a situation likely to hamper their capacity to fully participate in 
society. This rate ranged from 10% in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic to 20% or more in Latvia, Greece, Spain, Italy and Lithua nia. Women are more exposed than men, with 
the gender gap particularly acute for si ngle parents and elderly living alone. 
Children  are often at greater risk of poverty  than the rest of the population (19% in the EU-
25). This is true in most countries, except in  Belgium and Slovenia where the poverty risk for 
children is the same as the overall rate, and in Denmark, Germany, Cyprus and Finland where 
children are at lo wer risk than th e general population. 
In the last 10 years, there have been no signs  of an overall reduction in poverty rates at EU 
level, but situations differ acr oss countries. At-risk-of-poverty rates have even increased in 
some countries (DE, SE, FI), but have decreased in others that have boosted their strategies to 
fight poverty (IE, UK), givi ng reason to believe that EU Memb er States can learn from each 
other about how to make a deci sive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion. 
In 2007, some 9.3% of EU-27 working-age adul ts (aged 18-59; not students) lived in jobless 
households . This rate has not improved since 2000 in the EU overall, despite the general 
improvement in employment rates observed in a ll EU countries, illustrating that new jobs do 
not necessarily go to those families that need them most. This rate ranged from less than 4.5% in Cyprus, to just below 12% in Hungary a nd Poland and more than 12.5% in Belgium.  
Joblessness of parents also a ffects children. Living in a household where no-one works affects 
both their current living conditions and future development. In 2007 9.4% of children in EU-
27 lived in jobless households. However, families with children are more affected by joblessness in some countries  than in others. The share of children living in jobless 
households varies greatly across Member Stat es, ranging from 2.5% in  Slovenia and 4% or 
thereabouts in Cyprus, Greece and Luxemburg, to  13% in Belgium and Bulgaria and up to 
16.7% in the UK. In the EU as a whole, the si tuation has not improved since 2000 and in half 
of the countries, the general incr ease in employment rates has not  benefited those families that 
are furthest away from the labour market. BG, EE, EL, ES, IT, LT, and to a certain extent 
DK, LU and the UK are the only countries to have shown signs of improvement. 
Having a job does not always protect people from the risk of povert y. In 2005, 8% of EU-25 
citizens in employment (aged 18 and over) li ved under the poverty thre shold. National data 
indicate that in-work poverty  has increased over the last ten y ears, as a result of factors such 
as an increase in precarious employment, low wages and low work intensity of families. The 
rate ranges from 3-4% in the Czech Repub lic, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and 
Finland to 13-14% in Greece and Poland. On average in the EU the impact of social 
                                                
 
5 This section is based on Eurostat data and on the indicators commonly agreed in the context of the 
Social OMC (Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions and health 
portfolios. See: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/common_indicators_en.htm  ). 
 
EN 18   EN transfers  other than pensions (such as family  and unemployment benefits) produces a 
significant reduction of the povert y risk for the overall populat ion (by 38%). The impact of 
social transfers is higher on child poverty than on overall poverty for the EU as a whole 
(42%) as well as in most of the countries. In  DK, DE, FR, AT, SI, FI and SE, these transfers 
reduce the risk of poverty for children by 55% or  more. In EL, ES and LV this reduction is 
less than 20%. 
With respect to the pensions strand, in the EU as a whole 19% of the elderly (aged 65 and 
over) are at risk of poverty, against 16% fo r the overall population. Among them, elderly, 
often single, women face the highest risks (21%).  The picture differs across the EU since the 
at-risk-of-poverty rates of people aged 65 or more range from less than 10% in CZ, LU, HU, 
NL, PL and SK to 25% or more in EE, IE, EL, ES, CY, LV, PT and the UK.  
Overall, the situation of the elderly has signif icantly improved over the last 20 years, thanks 
to pension systems that have in general mana ged to achieve widespread reduction of poverty 
among older people, and those ag ed 65+ have an income aver aging 85% of the income for 
younger people, ranging from 57% in Cyprus to  more than 100% in Hungary and Poland.  
However, recent reforms in many Member States have led to d ecreases in the average pension 
compared to the average wage of an averag e worker at a given retirement age (replacement 
rates). According to estimates by the Indi cators Sub-Group of the Social Protection 
Committee, by 2050 the share of income from public  retirement provision is  expected to fall, 
to be compensated by private provision and working longer.  
One of the ways to ensure both sustainability of pension systems and an adequate level of 
income for pensioners is by extending working lives. The Lisbon target is to reach a 50% 
employment rate of older workers by 2010. In 20 06 the employment rate of older workers for 
the EU-27 was 43,5% compared to 37% in  2001, and Sweden, Denmark, UK, Estonia, 
Finland, Ireland, Cyprus, Portugal ha ve reached the 50% mark. Howeve r, the target is still far 
away for a group of countries where the employment rate of older workers remains around 
30%. 
With respect to healthcare and long-term care, life expectancy has increased spectacularly in 
the last half century. On average, from 1995 to 2005 it increased by three years for men and 
two years for women. However, there are currentl y wide disparities across the EU, with men's 
life expectancy ranging from 65.4 (Lithuania) to 78.4 years (Sweden) and that of women from 
75.4 (Romania) to 83.9 (Spain).  
Data indicate that all EU countri es are faced with subs tantial inequalities in health within their 
populations. On average disadvantaged social gr oups are shown to have shorter lives, suffer 
more disease and illness and feel their health to be worse than more well-off groups. Health inequalities are not randomly distributed, but reflect systema tic differences between people 
depending on social group, physical and social environments, material conditions, exposure to 
positive and negative factors, and differences in access to health services. 
Against this background, the 2008  Joint Report on Social Prot ection and Social Inclusion 
emphasised the need to step up implementation efforts: "In recent years social protection 
reforms and active inclusion policies have contribut ed to higher growth and more jobs. Still, 
 
EN 19   EN more needs to be done to ensure that the be nefits of an improved economic framework reach 
those at the margins of society and enhance so cial cohesion. Preventing and tackling poverty 
and social exclusion, and mode rnising social protection, co mbining both social adequacy and 
economic sustainability in a fram ework of sound fiscal policies, is therefore fundamental to 
Europe’s sustainable development. Policy consistency and coordination, including 
mainstreaming gender equality and solidarity between generations  are essential to achieve 
the objective of fully in cluding the most vulnerable in soci ety. Sustained efforts will be 
required during, and beyond, the next cycle of the Lisbon strategy." 
4.3. Weaknesses in the Open Method of Coordination  
The experience of recent years, the literature reviewed and the inputs received from various 
stakeholders (section 3) point to a number of weaknesses of the Social OMC that can be 
summarized as follows: 
– Lack of political commitment and visibility 
The political commitment to the common objec tives both at EU and at national level is 
perceived to be low, not least because of lack of clarity as regards the objectives to be achieved. In most of the Member States the Natio nal Strategic reports tend  to be treated as an 
administrative reporting exercise, not the resu lt of strategic polic ymaking and the common 
objectives have not been consistently translated  in country-specific targets. Ownership of the 
process at national level and integration in th e national policy process is limited. The common 
objectives have insufficiently been translated into concrete short a nd mid-term objectives. 
Monitoring of progress is weak and failure to implement the strategies or to reach the set 
objectives tends to go unnoticed (let alone be sa nctioned). Coordination units that support the 
Social OMC do not have the resources or the political clout needed for effective policy 
coordination. Both at the EU and at the nationa l level, Parliaments ar e insufficiently involved. 
The visibility of the Social OMC is generally low. 
– Need for stronger horizontal coordination ac ross policy areas and ma instreaming social 
protection and social incl usion concerns in all relevant policy areas  
Because of the multidimensional nature of the challenges of social protection and social 
inclusion, they need to be addressed through in tegrated approaches a nd with the contribution 
of many policies (economic, e ducation, competition, etc.). Th erefore, the common social 
objectives should be mainstreamed in all rele vant policy areas. Policies aimed at economic 
and employment growth do not automatically lead  to strengthened social cohesion. Both at 
the EU and at the national level at present there is insufficient mainstreaming of social objectives and the tools that coul d contribute, like ex-ante social  impact assessment, are often 
lacking. This is both a reflection of weak co-ord ination at European level and of a too slow 
learning process at national leve l, where appropriate structur es and procedures for policy 
integration are needed. 
– Need for stronger analytical underpinning of policy 
In order to deliver results on  the ground, strategies not only need to be backed by strong 
political commitment, they also need to be evidence-based. There has been considerable 
progress since the start of the social strands of the OMC and work on the thematic priority issues during 2007 clearly demonstr ated the potential usefulness of the combined efforts of 
the Commission, the Member States, various stak eholders and researcher s. But data sources 
 
EN 20   EN and analytical capacity need to be further de veloped, both at national and at EU level, to 
improve the analytical underpin ning of policies so as to reinforce implementation. A recent 
SPC report on child poverty an d wellbeing has reviewed st rengths and weaknesses of 
Member States with respect to the extent to which policies are evidence based and data sources and analytical capacity are in place
6. It came to clear-cut conclusions that countries 
which found their policies on robust analytical bases, large da ta sources on children at special 
risk, analytical tools, multilevel monitoring syst ems etc..) are more successful in reaching the 
objectives. 
– Need to better involve the regional and local level in the Social OMC 
Social protection and social in clusion policies are often implem ented at the regional or local 
level. The current process in sufficiently involves regional a nd local decision-makers and 
stakeholders in planning, policy implementation and mutual learning. Mechanisms for vertical 
coordination are still too weak in a large majority  of Member States. Hence, in Member States 
where important responsibilities lie at these levels of government , nationwide strategies risk 
not being fully operational. Some Member States are already implementing OMC-like 
mechanisms to coordinate action at sub-nationa l level. Stronger involvement of the regional 
and local level could boost delivery on the common objectives. 
– Participation of stakeholders leaves a lot to be desired 
The involvement of stakeholders in the policy process is both a question of democracy and a 
pre-condition for the efficiency and effectiven ess of policies. Howeve r, this only rarely 
internalised in national decision making pro cesses, and a culture of partnership and 
cooperation is often at an embr yonic stage. Although progress has b een made in recent years, 
there is still a lack of transpar ency and openness of the Social OMC process, also linked to its 
limited visibility. Much more attention needs to be given to the quality of stakeholder 
participation, which needs to be both supported (capacity building) and sustained. Today, it is 
often limited to the first stages of the policy process (information, cons ultation). Stakeholders 
are less involved in policy implementation, mo nitoring and evaluation, and often receive no 
feedback on the impact of their input.  
– Need to strengthen mutual learning  
Mutual learning is at the core of the Social OMC. Results have  been obtained, but a lot needs 
to be done to strengthen it. The scale of the e ffort both at the level of  coordination and on the 
ground is too limited. Much more opportunities s hould be provided and the results should be 
used in a more strategic manner. The methodol ogy of mutual learning instruments like peer 
reviews can still be improved a nd the potential usefulne ss of other tools need s to be explored. 
The results of mutual learning are not suffici ently disseminated or used in policymaking.  
                                                 
6 See: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/2008/child_poverty_en.pdf 
 
EN 21   EN 5. SPECIFICATION OF THE OBJECTIVES AND OF THE OPTIONS CONSIDERED  
5.1. General and intermediate objectives 
The ultimate objective of the Social OMC is to contribute to  progress with respect to the 
shared social objectives of the EU. By definitio n, any initiative that effectively reinforces the 
Social OMC in its “ modus operandi ” will have a positive impact  on the achievement of the 
common social objectives.  
As illustrated in the previous sections, while there is wide consensus on the need to reinforce 
the Social OMC, there are quite different views as regards the m eans to be used and the issues 
to be tackled as a matter of priority. Therefore, it is important to specify a set of “intermediate 
objectives” that appear to be particularly rele vant in relation to achievement of the general 
objective. This will help in identifying the op tions available and assess ing them in terms of 
impact and cost/benefit ratio. 
Having regard to the analytical and policy inputs described in the previous sections and the 
Commission’s internal deliberations, the following intermediate objectives have been identified: 
• Increase political commitment an d visibility of the process  in order to enhance delivery; 
• Strengthen the positive interaction with other EU policies , through better 
mainstreaming of social objectives in other policy areas and particularly through better 
interaction with the “growth and jobs” strategy; 
• Reinforce the analytical tools underpinning the process , with a view to moving towards 
the definition of quantifie d targets and more evid ence-based policymaking; 
• Increase ownership in Member States, boost implementation and enhance mutual 
learning , through better monitoring mechanisms, greater stakeholder involvement and 
more effective horizontal and ver tical governance arrangements.  
5.2. Policy options 
In relation to the objectives identified three pol icy options have been considered. They can be 
briefly described as follows:  
• Status quo: the Social OMC continues to evolve through incremental changes, on the 
basis of gradual improvements in working methods (Option 1)  
• Fundamental overhaul: the Social OMC is remodelled to embrace all dimensions of EU 
social policies, to ensure eff ective mainstreaming and to become a sort of “Social Lisbon” 
(Option 2)  
• Comprehensive and ambitious reinforcement within the present structure : a number 
of substantial improvements and adjustment s are identified and "phased-in" over the 
current Social OMC cycle, according to preparedness and resource availability (Option 3) 
 
EN 22   EN In addition to these three options, which have undergone an in-depth examination, 
consideration has also been give n to two other options that for the reasons specified in the box 
below have not been retain ed for further examination. 
Policy options not retained  for in depth analysis: 
• Complete abandonment of the Social OMC : In view of the subs tantial consensus around 
the positive results of the Social OMC describe d in section 4.1 this cannot be considered to 
be a real option. The abandonment of the met hod would result in the loss of an important 
'acquis ', for which no viable alternative seems to be available. At the moment, the Social 
OMC seems to be the only tool that strike s an acceptable balance between subsidiarity 
concerns and the need for coordination at EU level. 
• Full integration of the Social OMC in the Growth and Jobs Strategy : This option has 
not been retained for three main raisons. Firs t, full integration of the Social OMC would 
risk overburdening the Growth and Jobs Strate gy. Due to the multidimensionality of social 
protection and social inclusion issues, policy coordination in this area is already very 
difficult to achieve. Full integration of th e Social OMC into the Lisbon Strategy could 
make the process unmanageable. Secondly, such a move would lead to excessive 
instability of policy processe s, given that the Lisbon strategy was re-focused only a few 
years ago. There is a need for stabilisation. Thirdly, the reflection on what will happen with 
the Lisbon strategy afte r 2010 is just starting and any de cision of modifying the Lisbon 
architecture should take place in that contex t. Therefore, such an option could only be 
considered as part of that broader reflection.  
The methodology for defining the three options retained for in-depth examination is 
essentially based on a "clustering" of the various measures suggested to increase the 
effectiveness of the Social OMC, taking into account how much they represent a departure 
from current arrangements and procedures a nd how much “consensus building” they would 
require. 
For example, the definition of national quan titative targets in relation to European 
benchmarks would represent a departure from th e status quo (hence, would not appear in the 
first option). On the other hand, a generalisa tion of the “target-based” approach would 
represent a “fundamental overhau l” of the system (option 2) . Finally, a gradual introduction 
of quantified targets in areas where the analytical capacity justifies such a move would 
correspond to the option defined as “comprehensive and ambitious reinforcement within the present structure” (option 3). 
Very often, the direction of the m easures suggested is the same in  the three scenarios, but they 
entail a different degree of commitment and a different investment in terms of resources. For 
example, gradual reinforcement of the analyt ical capacity based on ex isting resources would 
belong to the “status quo” (option 1); a massive and concentrated effort in data collection and 
development of analytical tools in all areas emerging within the Social OMC would belong to 
the “fundamental overhaul” (optio n 2); a focused but substantia l effort of statistical and 
analytical capacity-building in priority areas would be consistent with option 3.  
Table 1 provides an overview of the three op tions considered with reference to the four 
intermediate objectives. The measures listed u nder the three options are a selection of the 
proposals emerging from the liter ature or from the input prov ided by various stakeholders. 
 
EN 23   EN TABLE 1 - Overview of the three option s retained for in depth analysis 
Objective to be achieved  Option 1  Option 2  Option 3  
 Status quo : the Social OMC continues to 
evolve through incremental changes, on the 
basis of gradual improvements in the working methods   Fundamental overhaul:
 the Social OMC is 
remodelled to embrace all dimensions of EU 
social policies and to become a sort of “Social Lisbon”  Comprehensive and ambitious 
reinforcement : within the present structure, 
a number of substantial improvements and adjustments are identified and "phased-in" 
over the current cycle, according to 
preparedness and resource availability  
Increase political commitment 
and visibility of the process  More systematic incorporation of key results 
in policymaking, resulting from 
strengthened monitoring. 
Improved dissemination of results Targets at EU, national and possibly sub-
national level 
Annual implementation reports 
Strong monitoring of progress by the 
Commission with adequate resources 
Individual recommendations and points to watch for Member States 
Strong involvement of the European 
Parliament Strong communication strategy at EU and 
national level backed up by the necessary 
resources 
 Gradually translate the common objectives 
into quantified targets, in line with the 
development of analytical capacity  
Sharpen monitoring of progress 
Make more use of (general) Commission 
recommendations based on a diagnosis of countries' key challenges 
Improve the inter-institutional process and 
provide for better information and participation of the European Parliament 
Devote more resources to communication 
and dissemination  
Strengthen the positive 
interaction with other EU 
policies 
 Continue current work on “feeding-
in/feeding-out”, developing relevant 
indicators and endeavour to achieve better mutual interaction between the Social OMC 
and other relevant EU processes under the 
Lisbon Strategy Better assess the "social impact" of non-
social policies on the basis of existing tools. 
 Make the Social OMC a central tool to 
coordinate social policies and to analyse, 
assess and implement the “social dimension” of non-social policies.  
Effective mainstreaming based on social 
impact assessment at EU and national level, backed up by the necessary resources 
Develop the Social OMC as a powerful 
process, modelled on the Growth and Jobs strategy and standing on an equal footing 
with the Growth and Jobs Strategy (see also 
previous point) Give the Social OMC a prominent role in 
the implementation of the social agenda 
Reinforcing the role of the Social OMC in addressing cross-cutting issues  
Better coordination with the Growth and 
Jobs Strategy, based on greater political commitment and visibility of the common 
social objectives.  
 
EN 24   EN Objective to be achieved  Option 1  Option 2  Option 3  
Reinforce the analytical 
underpinnings of the process  Gradual reinforcement of the analytical 
framework, including the social impact 
element of integrated impact assessments Limited use of the available social data in 
which the EU has invested (EU-SILC, 
ESSPROS, etc) No or limited investment in new EU 
statistical capacity. 
More integrated and strategic use of all 
available instruments to support the 
implementation of the Social OMC (notably 
PROGRESS).  Major boost in resources leading to strong 
analytical work on all relevant areas of the 
social protection and social inclusion strategy  
Full use of new social data. 
Expansion of statistical capacity on all social issues not covered by current EU data 
sources 
Large-scale support to Member States for 
conducting social impact assessment  Develop a common analytical framework on 
core themes, following the example of "child 
poverty"  Enhanced use of existing social data in 
which the EU has invested (EU-SILC, 
ESSPROS, etc) Enhance statistical capacity on priority 
themes emerging within the Social OMC  
Launch a concentrated effort to develop the 
methodology for social  impact assessment, 
in cooperation with Member States  
Increase ownership in 
Member States, boost 
implementation and enhance mutual learning  Progressive governance improvements, with 
better involvement of stakeholders, 
including local authorities, throughout the Social OMC cycle. 
A shift to a more context-oriented approach, 
also looking at unsuccessful policies, to facilitate adjustment of policies in response 
to obstacles encountered.  A strong structure for horizontal and vertical 
coordination in MS, chaired by a high-level 
"social coordinator" (similar to the Lisbon coordinator) 
National strategies complemented with 
regional and local strategies Mandatory guidelines on stakeholders' 
involvement 
Validation of national strategy reports by national parliaments 
Range of effective mutual learning 
mechanisms in place ensuring substantial participation at all levels of government  Improve vertical and horizontal coordination 
(voluntary guidelines on governance 
arrangements and on stakeholders' involvement)  
Facilitate differentiation along pathways 
Have more peer reviews and experiment 
with new tools for more intensive mutual 
learning  
 
EN 25   EN 5.3. Legal basis and the principle of subsidiarity 
The legal basis for the OMC and for this initiative can  be found in articl e 137 of the treaty, 
complemented by article 144. None of the options that have been examined are contingent upon the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, but as expl ained in section 2.1, the Treaty reinforces 
the need for strengthening the working methods of the OMC. 
All the options examined fully respect the principle of subsidiarity. The OMC builds on the 
voluntary political commitment of the governments of the Member States to coordinate their 
policies based on a consensus around broad co mmon goals regarding social protection and 
social inclusion in order to achieve a greater policy convergence in policy outcomes. It is up 
to the Member States to pursue and implem ent the common goals at the national level, 
choosing measures suitable in th e context of their respective  circumstances. The expected 
integration effect is supposed to result from the information and learning process regarding different strategies and their success and not from explicit legislati on. None of the proposals 
contained in any of the policy options departs from this prin ciple. Any guidelines proposed 
will be developed on a voluntary basis. No sanc tions are foreseen in case a Member State 
does not respect them. 
6. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
6.1. Methodological premise  
Before evaluating and comparing the three options  considered, it is important to clarify the 
scope of such an evaluation. In fact, there are several ways to evaluate the impact of a policy 
tool such as the OMC (Kohl and Vahlpahl, 2005). One could assess the impact on national 
policymaking: for example, do MS engage in reforms or adopt measures, i.e. in the field of 
pensions, which they would not have consider ed without the OMC? Alternatively, one could 
assess the impact of the OMC in terms of policy outcomes: for example, has the Social OMC 
led to the implementatio n of policies that have effectivel y reduced poverty? Furthermore, one 
could assess whether the Social OMC has led to policy convergence: have Member States 
developed common approaches to certain policy issues? 
Although there is an increasing in terest in and some tentativ e empirical research on these 
kinds of evaluations, it is still extremel y difficult to provide robust evidence of causal 
linkages between the operation of the OMC and developments in terms of national 
policymaking, policy convergence or, more impo rtantly, in terms of policy outcomes.  
One should therefore distinguish between the procedural and the substantive impacts of the 
changes proposed. This proposal is mainly concerned with procedural and governance 
aspects . In this context, the pertinent questions are: Will the measures proposed contribute to 
making the Social OMC an adequate and viab le mechanism of coordination between the 
national and European level? Will they make it a better tool for pursuing the common social 
objectives?  
In other words, the appraisal of th e measures considered is more a qualitative evaluation  of 
their potential effects on the OMC than of their immediate consequences on policy 
outcomes. For this reason, this chapter does not present a separate assessment of the overall 
social and economic impact of the options identified.  
 
EN 26   EN It is assumed that, to the extent that they lead  to a stronger Social OMC, all options identified 
will contribute to positive social  impacts, i.e. strengthened soci al cohesion. It is also assumed 
– in line with the spirit of the common social objectives – that such progress feeds positively 
into the Growth and Jobs Strategy and to su stainable economic development. For example, 
active inclusion policies can not only reduce pove rty but also increase labour supply. Pension 
reforms can not only help intergenerational equi ty but also increase activity rates and public 
finance sustainability. Similarly, good health care systems are not only good for individual 
well-being but also have positiv e externalities on labour supply and on labour productivity.  
In view of the nature of the Communication, no direct impact on the environment is expected. 
The microeconomic aspects (administrative cost s, resource implications), however, are duly 
taken into consideration in the impact analysis , while assessing the “feasibility” of the various 
options.  
6.2. Assessment of impacts and feasibility  
As a precise quantification of the economic and social impacts is not contemplated, for the 
reasons explained above, the three options consid ered have been assessed on the basis of their 
impact on the objectives  to be achieved and on the basis of their feasibility. 
The concept of feasibility refers to: – political acceptance; 
– availability of human resources; 
– availability of financial means; 
– administrative burden; 
– basic tools developed and at our disposal. 
Hence, the feasibility rating includes a rough assessment of resource constraints and the 
potential administrative burden for the Member  States. In this regard no elements are 
available to calculate precise impacts. As regards the impact on th e community budget, in 
terms of human and financial resources, prel iminary indications are given for each policy 
option. 
The ranking of impact and feasibility is defined as in the table below: 
Table 2 – Ranking criteria 
 +++ ++ + 0 - -- --- 
Impact big positive 
impact positive 
impact small positive 
impact  neutral impact  small negative 
impact negative 
impact very negative 
impact 
Feasibility  highly feasible feasible  more or less feasible feasibility difficult to 
assess slightly 
difficult difficult  highly 
difficult  
 
An overview of the estimated impact  and feasibility  of each option is pr ovided in the tables 
below. 
 
EN 27   EN Option 1 : Status quo - The Social OMC continues to evolve through incremental changes, 
on the basis of gradual improvements in the working methods  
Table 3 – Impact and feasibility of Option 1 
Objective to be achieved Rating of 
impact on 
the 
problems 
addressed Rating of 
feasibility Comments 
Increase political commitment 
and visibility of the process  + +++ Some increase in political visibility due to 
use of the results of monitoring in 
policymaking and better dissemination of 
results. 
Strengthen the positive interaction with other EU 
policies  + + Some improvement in coordination with 
the Growth and Jobs Strategy. Feasibility 
depends on factors external to the Social 
OMC.  
Reinforce the analytical underpinnings of the process  0/+ +++ Limited reinforcement of the analytical 
underpinnings of the process and 
development of social impact assessment. 
A wealth of social statistics in which the 
EU has invested will remain under-
utilised. A lack of investment in statistical 
and analytical capacity in emerging areas could weaken the Social OMC in the long 
run. 
Increase ownership in Member 
States, boost implementation and enhance mutual learning  0/+ ++ A more strategic use of mutual learning 
tools is already in the pipeline. It would be feasible for MS to provide for better 
stakeholder participation and greater 
involvement of local authorities, but this is unlikely to happen in the absence of 
stronger political commitment, support 
and pressure at EU level. Impact on 
ownership is unlikely to be significant. 
 
Impact on problems identified 
Incremental changes by implementing a number of improvements agreed in the previous 
years are likely to have a positive but limited impact  on the problems identified. Moreover, 
the risk attached to the “statu s quo” option is that the Social OMC falls victim to “process 
fatigue” and progressively loses credibility and the confidence of its act ors and supporters. In 
any case, it seems unlikely that the improve ments envisaged under the “status quo” option 
will be sufficient to give the Social OMC the strength and the effectiveness that are needed to respond to citizens’ expectations as re gards the European social model.  
Feasibility 
 
EN 28   EN On the other hand, the measures envisaged under this scenario are, to a large extent, 
feasible . Most of these measures have alread y been agreed by the Commission and the 
Member States (see Joint Report 2008). The ( limited) increase in human and financial 
resources that is needed (increased monitoring,  better dissemination of results, reinforcement 
of the analytical framework, etc…) can be accommodated through efficiency gains and higher 
reliance on external expertise. As rega rds the costs for the community budget, the Social 
OMC is supported by two units in DG Empl oyment and one strand of the PROGRESS 
Programme (approximately 30 m illion euro per year). Ther e is no obvious impact on 
administrative burden for the Member States. 
 
EN 29   EN Option 2 : Fundamental overhaul: Social OMC is remodelled to embrace all dimensions of 
EU social policies and to become a sort of “Social Lisbon” 
Table 4 – Impact and feasibility of Option 2 
Objective to be 
achieved Rating of 
impact on 
the 
problems 
addressed Rating of 
feasibility 
 Comments 
Increase political 
commitment and 
visibility of the process  ++ -- Implementing this policy option may lead to a 
substantial reinforcement of the Social OMC, 
significantly increasing its political visibility and 
putting it on an equal footing with the Growth and Jobs Strategy. Strong monitoring and individual 
recommendations to Member States should have a 
significant impact . It is doubtful whether enough 
political support will be found to implement this 
option in the short run. Tools will need to be 
developed and analytical wo rk will be necessary to 
support target setting. Resources have to be 
mobilised and there will be an increase in the 
administrative burden for MS (reporting). 
Strengthen the positive interaction with other 
EU policies  +++ - The characterisation of th e Social OMC as a strong 
coordination process, similar to the Growth and 
Jobs Strategy, would certainly pave the way for a 
better interaction with other policies, including the Growth and Jobs Strategy. 
However, it is unlikely that in the short run there 
will be enough political support among MS to move in this direction.  
Reinforce the 
analytical 
underpinnings of the 
process  +++ -- Strong action on the de velopment of data sources 
and analytical capacity at EU and national level 
will boost evidence-based policy and targeting. 
Substantial investment in the development of social 
impact assessment will make this an effective mainstreaming tool. Feasibility in the short term 
seems low because of the need to substantially 
increase resources and to implement quality social impact assessment (administrative burden). 
Increase ownership in 
Member States, boost 
implementation and enhance mutual 
learning  ++ -- Substantial increase in good governance 
mechanisms at the level of the Member States will 
lead to strong ownership. Full involvement of the regional and local level is likely to lead to real 
impact on the ground. Important steps forward in 
the democratic legiti macy of the process 
(involvement of stakeholders and national 
parliaments). Strong investment in mutual learning 
instruments, with a real im pact on effective mutual 
learning. Low feasibility in  the short term because 
of the need for extra resources. 
 
 
EN 30   EN Impact on problems identified 
The measures envisaged under option 2 are like ly to go a long way towards solving the 
problems identified , as indicated in the table. In most cases, they aim to achieve an almost 
“ideal” working of the system by means of a co mbination of considerably tighter procedures 
and massive investment in resources.  
There are, however, downside risks. First of all, the Social OMC works on the basis of 
consensus and the principle of subsidiarity. A considerable tightening of the procedures 
proposed by the Commission may be rejected by MS and fail to produce the expected impact in terms of ownership. A radical reform of th e method, only a few years after the restructuring 
and "streamlining", may not be understood and ma y alienate the actors that have supported 
and helped design the Social OMC in its present configuration.  
Feasibility 
The feasibility of this policy option in the short to medium term seems low . As stated 
above, political acceptance by Memb er States is far from guara nteed. Although there is strong 
recognition that Europe has a role to play in  helping Member States tackle the important 
social challenges, MS are very attached to th eir prerogatives and powers in the social field, 
and would probably be reluctant to accept some (or most) of the measures envisaged under this scenario. At present, there are no Treat y provisions on the basi s of which individual 
recommendations could be i ssued. Moreover, this policy option presupposes a strong 
investment in human and financial resources. It will also lead to an increased administrative 
burden on governments because of the additional reporting that will be required, the internal 
coordination effort and the requirements as far as  participation of stakeh olders is concerned. 
In terms of impact on the community budget, a remodelling of the OMC as suggested in this option, may require at least a redoubling of staf f and financial resources, which may be very 
difficult given current administra tive and budgetary constraints.  
 
EN 31   EN Option 3 : Comprehensive and ambitious reinforce ment within the present structure: a 
number of substantial improvements and adjust ments are identified and "phased-in" over the 
current Social OMC cycle, according to preparedness and resource availability 
Table 5 – Impact and feasibility of Option 3 
Objective to be 
achieved Rating of 
impact on 
the 
problems 
addressed Rating of 
feasibility Comments 
Increase political 
commitment and 
visibility of the process  ++ ++ Increased use of quantified objectives will 
contribute positively to visibility and commitment 
if based on a common analytical framework 
supported by a policy theory (how will targets be reached). Increased monitoring and better 
exchange with the European Parliament will 
increase the democratic nature and the visibility of the process. Greater use of general Commission 
recommendations based on a diagnosis of key 
challenges in each country will strengthen the Social OMC. Stronger communication effort 
should make the process more visible. Feasibility 
seems quite high because of the gradual approach, although allocation of more resources will be 
necessary.  
Strengthen the positive 
interaction with other EU policies  ++ + A strong role of the Social OMC in the 
implementation of the renewed social agenda and better interaction with the Growth and Jobs 
Strategy will certainly help policy consistency and 
integrated approaches to social challenges. This 
option seems feasible, but implementation 
depends on factors outside the Social OMC. 
Reinforce the 
analytical 
underpinnings of the 
process  ++ ++ Increased investment in a common analytical 
framework, data sources and analytical capacity is 
likely to significantly reinforce the process. 
Development of a strong social impact assessment toolbox will contribute to mainstreaming social 
protection and social inclusion concerns. Looks 
feasible because of gradual approach, but additional investment will be needed. 
Increase ownership in 
Member States, boost 
implementation and enhance mutual 
learning  + ++ Development of voluntary guidelines for 
coordination and participation can lead to 
increased ownership and better implementation. Increased number of peer reviews and stronger 
evidence-based assessment can lead to stronger 
mutual learning. Testing of new instruments for mutual learning can bring additional benefits and 
lead to a broader impact. There are some 
additional costs involved. Implementation of guidelines may bring additional administrative 
burden, but implementation is voluntary. 
 
EN 32   EN Impact on problems identified 
Although remaining within the current structure,  this option has the potential to make a 
significant impact on th e objectives identified , thanks to a mix of consolidation of ongoing 
improvements and a gradual “phasing in” of i nnovative elements. The gradual definition of 
EU or national targets, whenever justified on the basis of the e volution of the common 
analytical framework, would certainly lead to incr eased political visibility of the process. As 
illustrated by the example of countries that have  adopted them, quantified targets can raise the 
accountability of governments and help clarify pr iorities across all rele vant policy areas and 
all levels of government, provided that they are based on a strong analytical underpinning. 
Reinforced analytical capacity and mutual  learning would improve the quality of 
policymaking in the social area. The developm ent of a common analytical framework would 
help Member States identify the key shared chal lenges and learn from each other in the areas 
that are most relevant for them. It would al so feed into other Community policies, and 
through this channel there would be more evidence-based policym aking also in other areas of 
policy; in this way, the positive interaction with other policies, including economic policy, would be strengthened.  
Feasibility 
Most of the measures envisaged under this policy option seem feasible . Again, interaction 
with other policies largely depends on factors that are outside the Social OMC. Although the 
changes will be “phased in” onl y gradually, some reinforcement of the Commission structures 
in charge of the Social OMC will be necessary, but this could be achieved within the current 
financial framework, through reallocation and priori tization. As for financial resources, those 
allocated under the PROGRESS programme should be broadly sufficient. At national level, 
better coordination across policy areas (horizontal coordination and mainstreaming) and with 
different layers of government (vertical co ordination) will also entail some additional 
administrative burden, but should offer visible “returns” also in terms of efficiency and 
effectiveness. Improved ownership of the proc ess in the Member Stat es should lead to a 
reduction of the administrative burden at the national level.  
7. H
OW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE ? 
The table below compares the policy options with regard to the impact on the problems 
addressed and the ra ting of feasibility. 
 
EN 33   EN Table 6 - Comparing the policy op tions with regard to the im pact on the problems addressed and the rating of feasibility 
Rating of impact on the problems addressed Rating of feasibility  
Status Quo  
(Option 1)) 
BASELINE Fundamental 
Overhauling 
(Option 2) Comprehen-
sive/ambitious 
reinforcement in 
present structure 
(Option 3) Status Quo (Option 
1) 
BASELINE Fundamental 
Overhauling 
(Option 2) Comprehen-
sive/ambitious 
reinforcement in 
present structure 
(Option 3) 
Increase political commitment and visibility of the process  + ++ ++ +++  -- ++ 
Strengthen the positive articulation with other EU policies + +++ ++ +  - + 
Reinforce the analytical underpinnings of the process 0/+ +++ ++ +++  -- ++ 
Increase ownership in Member States, boost implementation and 
enhance mutual learning 0/+ ++ + ++ -- ++ 
Overall assessment 0/+ +++ ++ ++ -- ++ 
 
EN 34   EN Based on the analysis developed in  the previous section, the conc lusions that can be drawn as 
regards the three options considered are as follows:  
Option 1 (Status quo),  which is consistent with a scenar io of constant resources and full 
continuity of the process, would leave the problems identified substantially unanswered. It 
would also entail the risk of these problems getting worse in the medium or long term, calling 
into question the “raison d’être” of the process.  
Option 2 (Fundamental overhaul)  is in many respects attractive, and would have the merit of 
showing political leadership and determination on the part of the Commission. It could give a 
strong impulse to social reforms and reinforce the credibility of the Renewed Social Agenda. 
However, this option entails a substantial overhaul of working methods both for the 
Commission and for Member States, with a significant mobilisation of resources and 
reinforcement of administrative procedures. Al though it can be argued that  the costs identified 
could be balanced by potentiall y strong benefits in the medium  and long term, the feasibility 
of option 2 in the short run is doubtful. A Co mmission proposal to cons iderably tighten the 
Social OMC procedures may be rejected by MS  and fail to produce the expected impact in 
terms of ownership. A radical reform of the method, only a few years af ter the restructuring 
and "streamlining", may fail to be understood and may alienate the actors that have supported 
and helped design the Social OMC in its present configurat ion. Moreover, such a reform 
would pre-empt future decisions as regards the architecture and the scope of the Lisbon 
strategy after 2010. 
Option 3  (Comprehensive and ambitious reinforcemen t within the present structure) has the 
potential to address the problems identified without upsetting to any great extent current ways 
of working in the Commission a nd the Member States. It also builds on the appr oach used so 
far in the Social OMC, of consensual and in cremental progress, but is at the same time 
“strategic” and “forward-looking”,  as it introduces a new dynamic into the system. It proposes 
to explore new working methods and new tools th at would be tested an d introduced in close 
cooperation with Member States, thus rei nvigorating the process and optimising its 
implementation. Consequently the preferred option is Option 3. 
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ARRANGEMENTS  
8.1. Monitoring 
As indicated in section 6.1, th e results and impacts of the Social OMC can be monitored and 
evaluated in different ways, focusing on the impact on national policymaking , on policy 
convergence  and on policy outcomes . All of these aspects are c overed under the Social OMC 
process that is essentially self–monitoring and evaluating. 
For monitoring the impact of this Communicati on several instruments ar e already available. 
There is no need for new instruments. First, as far as the impact on national policymaking 
and policy convergence  is concerned: 
Regular monitoring will be ensured by the SPC. At its monthly meetings the Commission and 
the Member States continuously monitor progr ess on the different to pics included in the 
SPC's annual work programme. As an example: one  of the priority issues in the coming years 
 
EN 35   EN will be Active Inclusion, and implementation of this approach will be monitored within the 
Social OMC.  
Other instruments are the networks of indepe ndent experts. Experts report regularly on the 
impact of the Social OMC both in general a nd on specific policy and governance topics. The 
network of experts on social in clusion has supported the oper ation of the Social OMC for 
some years. A network of independent experts on social protection is being put in place and 
will start reporting later this year. 
Moreover, there are the EU stakeholder networks  that are constantly involved in the various 
activities of the Social OMC a nd are in a position to evalua te the results of the method 
through their members at the national level and their EU secretariats. 
Secondly, as far as the impact on social protection and social inclusion outcome s is 
concerned, the use of commonly agreed indi cators to monitor progr ess towards commonly 
agreed objectives is an esse ntial component of the Social OMC policy coordination process. 
The Indicators Sub-Group of th e Social Protection Committee is constantly working on the 
further development of the indica tors set, as well as the identification of priorities for the 
development of EU-level  statistical capacity. 
8.2. Evaluation  
Member States' National Strategy Reports on Soci al Protection and Social Inclusion provide a 
basis for the Commission to evaluate polic y outcomes and Social OMC impacts by Member 
State (reports will next be pr esented in September 2008). Conclu sions at the level of the EU 
are drawn in the Joint Reports on Soci al Protection and Social Inclusion. 
Peer Reviews and in-depth reviews in the SPC and the ISG allow Member State participation 
in evaluating each others' actions and progress in implementing effective and efficient policies. 
The PROGRESS programme provides funding for st udies and projects aimed at evaluating 
policy outcomes and governance arrangements. 
The Social OMC has been the subject of seve ral comprehensive evaluations. For example, 
during the mid-term review of the Lisbon strate gy Member States, other key stakeholders and 
independent experts engaged in an in-depth ev aluation of the Social OMC, which led to the 
“streamlining” of the process in 2005.  
Especially with regard to th e social inclusion strand 2010, the European Year of Combating 
Poverty and Social Exclusion will provide an opportunity to take stock of Social OMC 
achievements since the start of the Lisbon stra tegy. The evaluation will involve stakeholders 
at all levels of government.  
Further, the Commission intends to launc h an external evaluation study under the 
PROGRESS programme that should provide a detailed assessment of the impact of the Social 
OMC. The results of the study should be available in 2010. 
 
EN 36   EN 8.3. Indicators of success 
In the evaluation study that is to be launched a framework of indicators  of success will be 
developed for monitoring and evaluation purposes. It will cover the objectives retained in the 
communication. Several building blocks of this framework are already available. They have 
been developed over the years with in the Social OMC process.  
Especially the Joint Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion th at contain the lessons 
learnt over each reporting cycle provide a wealth  of analysis. Other instruments have been 
produced in the context of peer  reviews, studies and transna tional projects financed under the 
SEP and Progress progra mmes. A few examples: 
– On the visibility of the Social OMC in the Member States : in preparing for this 
communication at the start of 2008 the network of independent expert s on social inclusion 
did an internet search in an effort to dete rmine to what extent the method and its results 
have been mentioned in the natio nal media and among opinion makers.  
– On the use of quantitative targets  (evidence based policy):  in the Joint report on Social 
Inclusion 2004 there is a table s howing to what extent the Memb er States had set targets in 
their NAP Inclusion 2003-2005, also indicating whether targets were put on national or 
commonly agreed indicators and whether they  were outcome, interm ediate outcome or 
input targets.  
– On the mainstreaming of social incl usion concerns in other policy areas . A project funded 
under the Social Exclusion Programme inve stigated the concept and came up with 
proposals on how to measure the extent of main streaming of social in clusion concerns in 
public policy in a rang e of Member States7. 
– On the involvement of stakeholders in social inclusion policy : at the occasion of a peer 
review on the NAP Inclusion Social Inclusi on Forum organised in Ireland in November 
2007 a framework of actor involvement variable s was put forward. Variables are clustered 
around several dimensions: actors to involve, stages of the policy process, degree or 
spectrum of involvement, quality of the process, preconditions for involvement 8.  
– On the extent to which policy tran sfer takes place within the OMC . in analysing the 
national strategy reports presented by Member  States the Commission always examines the 
extent of convergence around policy approaches  that have been id entified as good practice 
in the OMC process. Indicators in this respec t are e.g. the number of Member States that 
implement pension or health policies that balance adequacy / accessibility with financial sustainability concerns or the number of Member  States that apply the three pillar active 
inclusion approach in their po licies for integrating people furthest from the labour market. 
– On the extent of mutual learning taking place through peer reviews : peer reviews are the 
subject of a double evaluation by partic ipants: immediate evaluation through 
questionnaires filled out at the end of each pe er review seminar and impact evaluation at 
                                                
 
7 See the results of the mainstream ing social inclusion in Europe project, notably a publication on the 
evaluation of mainstreaming so cial inclusion in Europe 
http://www.europemsi.org/evalua tion_evaluating_MSI_intro.php 
8 See the synthesis report of this peer review page 18 http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net/peer-
reviews/2007/the-napinclusion-social-inclusion-forum/pr-ie-synthesis-report-en .  
 
EN 37   EN least six months after the peer reviews.  The impact evaluation is done using a 
questionnaire that contains questions on the de gree to which further b ilateral contacts have 
taken place after the peer review and lessons learnt have been disseminated or used in 
policy development 
9. CONCLUSIONS  
The Social OMC has become an important tool  for fostering cooperation and coordination of 
Member States in the field of social inclusion and social prot ection. However, its potential is 
largely underused and a number of weaknesses need to be addressed. 
Three possible courses of action have been identified, discussed and compared. Of these, the 
approach that seems to strike a good balance be tween the need for refo rm of the system and 
innovation and the need to preserve th e Social OMC achievements is "the comprehensive and 
ambitious reinforcement and upgr ading of the OMC but within the present structure".   
This option builds on the approach used so far in the Social OMC, of consensual and 
incremental progress, but is at the same tim e “strategic” and “forward-looking”, as it 
introduces a new dynamic into the system. It is geared to exploring new working methods and 
new tools that would be tested  and introduced in close coopera tion with Member States, with 
a view to reinvigorating the proce ss and optimising its implementation.  
Such an option should be implemented gradually, not only because of its resource 
implications, but also because of the need to properly discuss and “anchor” the envisaged reforms with Member States and with stakehol ders. In practice, given that the new Social 
OMC cycle 2008-2010 has just started, the pref erred approach would be to implement 
gradually the proposals starting w ith those that are more mature  and less resource-intensive, 
and proceeding, after required pr eparatory work and consensus- building on exact modalities, 
with those that are more innovative  or require subs tantial changes. 
 
EN 38   EN ANNEX 1 – LIST OF REFERENCES  
Bache, I. and George, S. (2006) Politics in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 2nd edition. 
Borras, S. and Jacobsson, K. (2004) The Open  Method of coordinati on and new governance 
patterns in the EU, Journal of European Public Policy,  Volume 11, No. 2  
Daly, M. (2004) The possibility of an EU Social Policy – Lisbon and After. Paper presented 
at the lecture series on Europ eanization and Reform of Nati onal Welfare State, October 14, 
Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison 
De La Rosa, S. (2005) The Open Method of c oordination in the new member states – the 
perspectives for its use as a tool of soft law, European Law Journal , Volume 11, No. 5 
Hatzopoulos, V. (2007) Why the Op en method of coordination is bad for you: a letter to the 
EU, European Law Journal , Volume 13, No. 3 
Hix, S. (2006) The European Union as a Polity (I), in Knud-Erik Jørgensen, Mark Pollack and 
Ben Rosamond (eds) Handbook of European Union Politics , London: Sage, pp.141-158. 
Kohl, J. and Vahlpahl, T. (2005) The "Open Me thod of Coordination" as an Instrument for 
Implementing the Principle of Subsidiarity? WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”,  No. 62 
Zeitlin, J. (2007) Strengthening the social dime nsion of the Lisbon Strategy, Paper prepared 
for presentation to an informal meeting of the EU SPC, Germany 
Zeitlin, J. (2007) A Decade of  Innovation in EU Governance: The European Employment 
Strategy, the Open Method of Coor dination, and the Lisbon Strategy, La Follette School 
Working Pape r, No 2007-031, The University of Wisconsin 
 
EN 39   EN ANNEX 2 – THE SOCIAL OMC:  OBJECTIVES , TOOLS AND STRUCTURES  
COMMON  OBJECTIVES 
The overarching objectives  of the OMC for social protecti on and social inclusion are to 
promote: 
(a) social cohesion, equality between me n and women and equal opportunities for 
all through adequate, accessible, financiall y sustainable, adaptable and efficient 
social protection systems and social inclusion policies; 
(b) effective and mutual interaction betw een the Lisbon object ives of greater 
economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and with 
the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy; 
(c) good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the 
design, implementation and monitoring of policy. 
The following objectives apply to the different strands of work: 
A decisive impact on the eradication of po verty and social exclusion by ensuring:  
(d) access for all to the resources, rights and services needed for participation in 
society, preventing and addressing ex clusion, and fighting all forms of 
discrimination leading to exclusion; 
(e) the active social inclusion of all, both by promoting participation in the labour 
market and by fighting poverty and exclusion; 
(f) that social inclusion policies are well-coordinated and involve all levels of 
government and relevant actors, incl uding people experiencing poverty, that 
they are efficient and effective and ma instreamed into all relevant public 
policies, including economic, budgetary, education and training policies and 
Structural Fund (notably ESF) programmes. 
Adequate and sustainable pensions by ensuring:  
(g) adequate retirement incomes for all and access to pensions which allow people 
to maintain, to a reasonable degree, their living standard after retirement, in the 
spirit of solidarity and fairness between and within generations; 
(h) the financial sustainability of public a nd private pension schemes, bearing in 
mind pressures on public finances and the ageing of populations, and in the 
context of the three-pronge d strategy for tackling the budgetary implications of 
ageing, notably by: supporting longer wo rking lives and active ageing; by 
balancing contributions and benefits in an  appropriate and socially fair manner; 
and by promoting the affordability and the security of funded and private schemes; 
 
EN 40   EN (i) that pension systems are transparent, well adapted to the needs and aspirations 
of women and men and the requirements of modern societies, demographic 
ageing and structural change ; that people receive the in formation they need to 
plan their retirement and that reforms are conducted on the basis of the broadest possible consensus. 
Accessible, high-quality and sustainable hea lthcare and long-term care by ensuring:  
(j) access for all to adequate health and long- term care and that the need for care 
does not lead to poverty and financial de pendency; and that inequities in access 
to care and in health outcomes are addressed; 
(k) quality in health and long-term care and by adapting care, including developing 
preventive care, to the changing n eeds and preferences of society and 
individuals, notably by developing quality standards reflecting best 
international practice and by strengthe ning the responsibility of health 
professionals and of patien ts and care recipients; 
(l) that adequate and high quality health and long-term care remains affordable 
and financially sustainable by promoting a rational use of resources, notably 
through appropriate incentives for users and providers, good governance and coordination between care systems a nd public and private institutions. Long-
term sustainability and quality require th e promotion of heal thy and active life 
styles and good human resour ces for the care sector. 
COMMON
 INDICATORS 
Defining common objectives in terms of social  protection and social inclusion implies the 
definition of common indicators to compare best practices a nd to measure progress towards 
these common objectives. As such, common indicators do not mean common policies. 
The broad methodological framework consists of  a list of primary and secondary indicators 
for an overarching portfolio and the three stra nds (Social Inclusion, Pensions, Health and 
Long-Term Care). Primary indica tors are a reduced se t of lead indicators, which cover all 
essential dimensions of the defined objectives . Secondary indicators ar e designed to support 
these lead indicators by provi ding greater insight into the nature of the problem. 
These indicators are used for the overall National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection 
and Social Inclusion and the specific National Reports on the different strands (Social 
Inclusion, Pensions, Health and Lo ng-Term Care) as well as for the joint report presented by 
the European Commission and the Council. 
New common indicators from 2006.  In June 2006, the Social Protection Committee adopted a set of common indicators for the 
social protection and soci al inclusion process.  
 
EN 41   EN It consists of a portfolio of:  
• 14 overarching indicators (+11 co ntext indicators) meant to reflect the newly adopted 
overarching objectives (a) "social cohesion" an d (b) "interaction with the Lisbon strategy 
growth and jobs objectives";  
• and three strand portfolios for social inclusi on, pensions, and health and long-term care. 
The use of commonly agreed indicators to monitor progress towards commonly agreed 
objectives is an essential component of  the OMC policy coordination process. 
In this context, indicators have been agreed using a consensual approach and using a set of 
criteria which include comparability ba sed on sound EU harmonised data, policy 
responsiveness, clear normative inte rpretation, focus on outcomes, etc.  
The ISG also agreed on a new typology of indi cators which distinguis h between those that 
can directly be used for benchmarking, and thos e that can only be used to monitor progress 
within a single country. 
The report that presents the agreed list of indi cators identifies a number of areas for further 
development of indicators a nd statistical cap acity-building. 
In 2006 the decision was also taken to enhance the role of the ISG in developing common 
analytical frameworks for the use and interp retation of indicators on specific themes. One 
particular topic addressed in 2007 was the issue of child pov erty, and in 2006 the focus was 
on the adequacy and sustainabil ity of pensions. On these two issues, in-depth analysis has 
proved instrumental in drawi ng common policy conclusions and in fostering evidence-based 
policymaking at the national level. 
As relevant statistics become increasingly av ailable (full implementation of EU-SILC, EHIS 
and SHA9), the use of indicators will be enhanc ed both at EU and at national level. 
At national level, Member States will continue to use the EU agreed indicators and analytical 
framework in the preparation of their National Strategy Report. In doing so, they will be better equipped to compare their situation to that of other EU countries. This year, a new 
cycle for the years 2008-2010 has begun and the European Council conf irmed in March the 
continued validity of the Common Objectives  adopted in March 2006. Member States have 
been asked to report, in thei r renewed National Strategic Re ports on Social Protection and 
Social Inclusion, on progress with  respect to the priorities es tablished in the 2006-2008 NSRs. 
At EU level, the Commission and the Council w ill make increased use of the indicators and 
agreed analytical framework in order to asse ss Member States' progress towards the common 
objectives in the context of the preparation of  the yearly Joint Report. A yearly assessment 
will be published in the annual Social Situation Report. The Commission will also be in a position to contribute to the identification of policy priorities in the Member States by 
                                                
 
9 Instruments currently developed by Eurostat whic h are gradually coming to maturity: EU-SILC: EU 
harmonised Survey system on Income and Living Conditions; EHIS: European Health Interview 
Survey; SHA: System of Health Accounts. 
 
EN 42   EN providing a broad diagnosis based on international benchmarking on specific themes (such as 
was done on child poverty). 
NATIONAL  STRATEGY  REPORTS 
Following the streamlining of the three OMC st rands in the social field into one OMC on 
Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Member States are now charged with translating the 
common objectives into National Plans for each of the three areas of Social Inclusion, 
Pensions and Health and Long-Term Care. The first National Report on Strategies for Social 
Protection and Social Inclus ion (NSRs) were prepared  by Member States in 2006. 
As from 2008 the cycle is synchronised with th at of the Strategy for Growth and Jobs. This 
means that the renewed NSRs which Member States are due to submit by September 2008 
will cover a period of three years. They will be prepared on the basis of a Guidance Note 
proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the Social Protection Committee at its 
February 2008 meeting: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_s ocial/spsi/strategy_reports_en.htm  
JOINT  ASSESSMENTS 
On the basis of the national strategy reports, the Commission draws up an initial assessment 
which is summarised in a Commission communi cation: proposal for a joint report on social 
protection and social inclusi on, complemented by supporting doc uments, horizontal analysis 
and country profiles. On the basis of the Commission’s proposal th e Council then adopts a 
joint report on social protection and social inclusion which is submitted to the spring 
European Council. In the light years, Member States do not provide na tional strategy reports 
but supply ad hoc information on the specific th emes identified for work during that year.  
PROGRESS 
The Community Programme for Employment and So cial Solidarity was established to support 
financially the implementation of the objective s of the European Union in the fields of 
employment and social affairs, as set out in the Commission Communication on the Social 
Agenda, and thereby contribute  to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in those 
fields. PROGRESS supports the implementatio n of the open method of coordination (OMC) 
in the field of social protection and inclusion. 
PROGRESS is the EU’s new employment a nd social solidarity programme. Working 
alongside the European Social Fund (ESF) , it started in 2007 and will run until 2013. This 
programme replaces the four previous ones th at ended in 2006 covering anti-discrimination 
actions, equality between men and women, employm ent measures and the fight against social 
exclusion. The EU opted for a single programme to  rationalise and streamline EU funding and 
concentrate its activities to improve the impact. The EU set up PROGRESS to accompany 
Member States' efforts to promote more and be tter jobs and equal oppor tunities for all. The 
public are looking to the EU to strengthen social Europe so th at it can deliver growth and 
more jobs and fight poverty and social exclusion. Member States have set targets as part of 
the European Employment Strategy  and explained the paths they will follow to achieve them 
in their national action plans . The EU will support this policy development and its delivery in 
 
EN 43   EN five areas: Social inclusion and protection , Employment , Working conditions , Non-
discrimination , and Gender equality   
PROGRESS will ensure that EU social polic y remains on course to face the key policy 
challenges and concentrates on actions that need  a combined European effort. It will give 
support to Member States to en sure they deliver on their EU commitments and implement and 
apply EU laws uniformly. The work thus requi red will be carried out in partnership with 
governments, local authorities, employers , trade unions and the voluntary sector. 
PROGRESS will fund three types of actions: Analysis, Mutual learning, awareness and 
dissemination, Support to main actors.  
It will focus on activities with a strong Eur opean dimension to guarantee EU added value. 
These activities are designed to inform policy analysis and development. In this respect, 
PROGRESS differs from the ESF, which invests in the implem entation of employment and 
social inclusion policies in the Member States. 
PROGRESS has a global budget of €743,25 million for seven years (2007-2013), of which 
30% is assigned to Social protection and inclusion . 
THE  SOCIAL  PROTECTION  COMMITTEE 
In response to shared challenges with respect  to modernising social protection and fighting 
exclusion, and on the basis of Article 144 of th e EC Treaty, the Social Protection Committee 
(SPC) was established in 2000 to  serve as a vehicle for coope rative exchange between the 
European Commission and the Member States with a view to modernising and improving 
social protection systems. 
The Committee's work since the establishment of  this group of high-level officials has been 
largely determined by the strategic goal for th e EU's socio-economic progress set out at the 
Lisbon European Council of March 2000. 
In carrying out its tasks the Social Prot ection Committee works closely with other 
Committees dealing with EU-level social a nd economic policy, most notably the Employment 
Committee (EMCO) and the Economic Policy Committee (EPC).