31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/31 
Opinion on the social aspects of the internal market (European social area) 
(87/C 356/08) 
On 24 September 1987 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph 
of Article 20 of its rules of procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 November 1987. 
The rapporteur was Mr Beretta. 
At its 250th plenary session (meeting of 19 November 1987), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by 97 votes to 44, with 13 abstentions. The 
Opinion was based on the findings and conclusions set out in the information report 
forwarded to the Community Institutions subsequent to the majority decision taken at the 
plenary session on 24 September 1987. 
1. Making a success of the internal market and Euro­
pean social area 
1.1. The Committee reiterates its earlier endorse­
ment (*) of the need to create and consolidate a single 
market which it sees as a major stepping-stone towards 
European political unity as well as economic unity — a 
prerequisite for fostering future development, boosting 
employment and enhancing prospects for Community 
exports on the world market. A Community-wide single 
market is therefore the key component of a broader 
plan for revitalizing the Community economy so that 
firms will reap the benefits of economies of scale and 
sharpen their competitive edge. 
In addition, the Committee would also point out that 
since economic and social policies are intertwined the 
internal market's aims can only be attained if the requi­
site industrial, commercial, financial and tax measures 
go hand in hand with social action to preserve and 
improve the existing balance. 
1.2. In present circumstances, the Committee also 
notes that the Member States do not seem wholly 
convinced that Community development is a vital 
element in their national interests. Hence their failure 
to provide the Community institutions with adequate 
resources and the political authority to promote and 
press ahead with the development process. 
The resulting contradictions and uncertainty are 
seriously undermining the decision-making process and 
delaying the phased creation of a single market when 
what is actually needed, with such vital aims at stake, 
is speedier action. 1.3. Further, current far-reaching upheavals, and the 
high level and structural pattern of unemployment, 
seriously complicate pursuit of the internal market's 
economic and social goals. Consequently, the Com­
munity institutions have justifiably opted for a prag­
matic approach laying stress on consensus. 
1.4. As the Single Act formally declares, social dia­
logue is the key instrument of consensus. To give practi­
cal encouragement to the development of this, the Com­
munity institutions must shoulder their individual 
responsibilities for the framing and implementation of 
growth strategies. 
1.5. The problems to be tackled include employment, 
restructuring of the labour market, redistribution and 
length of working time, work organization, firms' 
capacity to adjust to technological change and improve 
competitiveness, and organization of social welfare 
schemes. Closely tied up with these is the need to secure 
convergence of national laws to meet the requirements 
of the internal market, including its social dimension. 
All this brings a pressing need for basic social rules 
which can be adapted to the entire Community. Such 
rules are necessary to avoid market distortions and 
provide industrial and economic decision-makers with a 
stable basis making it possible to extend social dialogue. 
1.6. Adoption of Community legislation guarantee­
ing basic social rights immune to competitive pressures 
is therefore a key stage in the creation of the single 
market. 
(!) OJNoC344, 31. 12. 1985. 1.7. The Community institutions must avail them­
selves of the Single Act's provision for qualified 
majority voting, thereby altering the legal basis for 
No C 356/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
proposals on a number of social matters which, as 
proposed by the European Parliament, should be based 
on application of Article 118A of the Single Act in its 
broadest sense. The perplexity that continues to reign 
in some Member States and Community circles regard­
ing use of this legislative instrument could be dispelled 
since Article 189 of the Treaty clearly stipulates that 
although a Directive 'shall be binding, as to the result 
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is 
addressed', 'the choice of form and methods' for achiev­
ing the desired result shall be the responsibility of the 
national authorities. 
2. Proposals 
2.1. Weighing the case for social policy framework 
directives the Committee feels that in the present situ­
ation the adoption of a framework Directive setting 
out inalienable basic social rights is both feasible and 
necessary to infuse Community policy as a whole with 
fresh momentum and meaning. These provisions — 
which would be inspired by existing Commission pro­
posals, bearing in mind relevant European Parliament 
and Economic and Social Committee Opinions, the 
fruits of social dialogue and declarations by the Inter­
national Labour Organization (ILO) and the Council 
of Europe — would be designed to secure: 
— the right of all workers, irrespective of contractual 
status and thus including part-time and fixed-term 
contract workers, (a) to negotiate and be covered 
by collective bargaining agreements or professional 
agreements, (b) to be protected by health and safety 
measures at the workplace, and (c) to contribute to 
and benefit from social security schemes, 
— a ban on repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts, 
— the right of workers to be informed and consulted in 
decision-making bodies on technological innovation 
and on changes which affect business structures, the 
organization of production, and employment. 
Such rights would provide a firm basis for smoother 
relations between labour and management in their tra­
ditional sectoral negotiations on wages, work organ­
ization and the flexibility which firms will need in 
adapting to new market dictates—while avoiding 
uncontrolled deregulation. 
2.2. Industrial relations account for a large pro­
portion of the social aspects, but they do not embrace 
all the guarantees needed to maintain the Community's 
social fabric. The following measures are therefore 
needed: — emphasis on individual and joint social responsi­
bility to underpin support for the most vulnerable 
and disadvantaged groups outside the labour 
market, 
— support measures to help safeguard family unity 
and family values which can be beneficial to society 
as a whole, 
— provisions to guarantee free movement of Com­
munity citizens, with particular reference to migrant 
and frontier workers; determination of conditions 
for the recognition of educational and vocational 
qualifications obtained in another Member State, 
— measures to protect the rights of ethnic minorities, 
— more positive action to guarantee women more 
tangible equal opportunities in education, training 
and employment, 
— confirmation fo consumers' and users' right to help 
define plant and product safety standards and their 
potential effects on health and the environment. 
2.3. The Community and most of the Member States 
are discussing and initiating social security reforms. In 
view of the development of the internal market and 
the Community governments' wish for 'economic and 
social cohesion', the Committee recommends a more 
coordinated Community policy on any changes in social 
security schemes. Such coordination must not lead to a 
downward alignment of allowances. 
Apart from being an expression of solidarity with the 
most underprivileged sections of society such as persons 
unable to find work, social security is also a 'sine 
qua non' for maintaining an acceptable level of skills, 
efficiency and motivation in the economic system, there­
by providing significant support for industry. 
2.4. As far as the possibility of quantitative and 
qualitative growth is concerned, the Commission has 
forecast a growth rate of some 2% for 1988 and an 
annual 2,5 % growth rate is expected for the years 1987 
to 1991. 
The Community unemployment rate should be about 
12% in 1988, dipping slightly by 1991. The trends 
which the Commission would like to have seen and 
which were set out in its 1985 scenario for a 'cooper­
ation growth strategy for more employment' have 
clearly not materialized to any great extent. 
^1.12.^ COfficialjournal of the European communities l^oC^DA^ 
2.4.1. It is therefore obvious that the market alone 
cannot offer concrete short or medium^term prospects 
of restoring the employment balanced the technological 
progress which affects all sectors combined with demoD 
graphic and sociolo^icaltrendsmal^eit impossible to 
use traditional ways to absorb redundancies in declining 
industries. 
In addition to supportfor economic^rowth through 
appropriate supplyand demand policies such as those 
formulated by the commission, it is essential to propose 
other measures to speed up jobcreation and qualitative 
growth. 
fhe committee therefore feels that it is necessary^ 
d^ to devote a proportion of productivity ^ains to 
negotiated reduction of worl^in^ hours, tal^in^ into 
account the specific features of individual sectors^ and 
di^o^ive greater attention to problems of qualitative 
growth with the intention of developing new economic 
activities to meet chan^in^ demands. 
Attempts to improve the quality of life must meet 
specific requirements. By implementing these according 
to an agreed, planned order of priority, it will be 
Loone at Brussels,!^ November l^A possible ^a^to launch new economic activities capable 
of mobili^in^ public investments whichwill be profit 
able in the lon^ term, ^b^ to provide— by stimulating 
ancillary sectors — attractive opportunities for private 
investors and entrepreneurs. 
Investment should preferably be channelled into areas 
such as protection and enhancement of the natural and 
cultural heritage, optimum land use, the environment, 
the safeguarding of the ecological balancegclean^ tech 
nolo^y,and the safety ofnatural and technical products. 
2.4.2. Such prospects may enhance the validity of 
the five priority areas set out by the commission in 
its communication 5A new frontier for Europe^ and 
strengthen the case for increasing, and even doubling, 
EC^ structural funds. 
Finally, closer scrutiny of the qualitative aspects of 
community support and initiatives could be an import 
tant element in the shift from aid focusing on isolated 
projects towards programmes r^spreadover a number 
of years^ which encourage the involvement of the two 
sides of industry and the local authorities. 
^oC^BOD^ C^thci^ljourn^lotrhcLuron^nC^ornrnuninc^ ^11^^ 
to the L^p^nion of the ^conom^c and social L^omm^ttee 
The following amendments were defeated during the debatebut obtained at leastone quarter of the votes 
cast^ 
tn line ^,replace ^basic social legislation^by ^general guidelines whereby the differences which currently exist 
in the community can be dealt with effectively^. 
ttisnotappropnatetoproposeastrategy of uniformeommunity rules orlegislationwithoutbeforehand 
carrymgoutthenecessary andcomplexanalysis of vanoushighly diverse situations, withoutdefming the 
content, scope and object of the laws, and without evaluating the direct and indirect effects they are likely to 
produce in different areas ^legal, economic, social^.The differences existing within the community make the 
type of commission legislation proposed here both unviable and inappropriate. 
r^or^^, against, ^abstentions^. 
Delete. 
tt is contradictory tofirst question the possibilityofsocialpolicy framework Directives,andthento state 
that such Directives are both^feasible and necessary^ 
tt is also contradictory to call foraDirective setting out unalienable basic social nghts^and then to call for 
the securing of the three concrete areas of labour law set out in this passage. 
Lastly, this point is unacceptable for the reasons set out in the second amendment. 
^or^O, against. ^^, abstentions tn. 
^o^nt^.t, third t^ne 
^.eplace^is both feasible and necessary^ by^could prove helpfu!5 
laying thata frameworkDirectiveshouldbedrawnupisabitmmpmgthegun,butit wouldhardly be 
realistic to rule out the possibility for ever. 
f^or^ ^, against ^,abstentions^^.