Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda" (COM(2002) 89 final)
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European social policy, dissemination of EU information, employment policy, social change

C 241/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda’

(COM(2002) 89 final)

(2002/C 241/20)

On 19 February 2002, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 June 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Bloch-
Laine and the co-rapporteur Mr Koryfidis.

At its 392nd Plenary Session of 17 and 18 July 2002 (meeting of 17 July), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 127 votes to two, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

2. Assessments

1.1.
At the time of the adoption of the European Social
Agenda, both the Parliament and the Council underlined the
importance of drawing up annual ‘scoreboards’ to keep track
of developments and verify the commitment and contributions
of the different actors. An initial ‘scoreboard’ was adopted in
March 2001. A second, drawn up by the Commission in
February 2002, was adopted at the Barcelona Summit on 14
and 15 March 2002. The Committee welcomes the fact that a
process of regular assessment has begun, as regular follow-up
is essential in an area such as this.

1.2.
The European ESC has already issued an opinion on
the Agenda and certainly intends to be involved in the
assessment scheduled for 2003.

In the present instance the Committee has sought to
1.3.
avoid two pitfalls: one would be not to make any comment on
the second stage of this ongoing process for which it has
pressed so hard; the second would be to make premature and
repetitive comments. The implementation of the Agenda is
still at an early stage. It would therefore have been pointless to
reiterate, in almost identical and unchanged terms, views that
had been expressed during previous consultations.

2.1.
Any interim assessment is an arduous exercise, such is
the difficulty of properly distinguishing long-term trends from
data relating to the immediate economic context (which is
currently pointing to a downturn). In this respect, it must not
be forgotten that there is always a time lag between a return
to higher growth rates and the impact of this on employment.
Given this delay, the temptation to call
into question the
effectiveness of active employment policies under the Agenda
must be resisted. On the contrary, its guidelines and scope
must be strengthened.

2.2.
The Committee would have liked the document in
question to prioritise its comments more effectively and, as
well as listing existing or planned measures and decisions, to
provide more and better information about the practical reality
and about visible and tangible changes. In this respect, the
assessment exercise to be conducted in 2003 will need to have
more comprehensive and enlightening information at
its
disposal if it is to assess the actual repercussions of the Social
Agenda on the social and economic structure of the EU
Member States.

1.4.
The Committee will therefore draw up a more detailed
and in-depth opinion mid-term in this process. In the mean-
time, it has drafted a brief and targeted document, which aims
to:

2.3.
This said, the Commission document has the unargu-
able merit of being clear in that it highlights the contrasting
results of the period, e.g.:

— make a few assessments (II), and then

— formulate a few recommendations (III).

a)

There has been a considerable increase in the number of
new jobs created but, even if it is of course too early to
say whether the intermediate targets of Stockholm and

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/105

Lisbon will be achieved,
progress on issues such as older workers.

there has been hardly any

posal for a Council Recommendation concerning the
application of legislation governing health and safety at
work to self-employed workers),

b)

The number of new full-time jobs is rising, the unemploy-
ment rate is falling, and the number of jobs offered to
low or medium-skilled workers has increased. However,
structural weaknesses remain, such as gender gaps in
terms of pay, a still very high rate of unemployment
(especially among young people, where it is almost twice
the general average), and considerable regional differences
in employment and unemployment.

c)

Poverty and social exclusion continue to be widespread,
but the extent of the problem varies significantly between
Member States.

Appropriately the ‘scoreboard’ concludes by calling for the
commitment of all actors to take up their responsibility.

3. Recommendations

3.1.
In drafting this opinion, the European ESC did not
want to raise scoreboard-related issues on which the debate
has already been closed or not yet opened.

However, it wishes to point out that it has taken a very clear
standpoint on issues such as:

— guidelines for employment (Opinion on the Proposal for
a Council Decision on Guidelines for Member States’
employment policies for the year 2002, OJ C 36,
8.2.2002);
for a Council
Decision on guidelines for Member States’ employment
policies for the year 2001, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001),

(Opinion on the Proposal

— quality of work (Opinion on Improving the quality
dimension of social and employment policy, OJ C 311,
7.11.2001),

— social indicators (Opinion on Social Indicators),

— health and safety at work (Opinion on the Communi-
cation from the Commission – Adapting to change in
work and society: a new Community strategy on health
and safety at work 2002-2006.); (Opinion on the Pro-

— pensions and retirement (Opinion on the Communication
from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee:
Supporting national strategies for safe and sustainable
pensions through an integrated approach, OJ C 48,
21.2.2002. Opinion on Economic Growth, Taxation and
Sustainability of Pension Rights in the EU, OJ C 48,
21.2.2002.Opinion on the Elimination of tax obstacles
to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions,
OJ C 36, 8.2.2002),

— governance (European Governance),

— employment at local level (Opinion on the Communi-
cation from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions: Acting Locally for Employ-
ment A Local Dimension for the European Employment
Strategy, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001); (Opinion on the Com-
munication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Com-
mittee and the Committee of the Regions - Strengthening
the local dimension of the European Employment Strat-
egy, OJ C 149, 21.6.2002),

— not-for-profit social services of general interest (Opinion
on Private not-for-profit social services in the context
of services of general
interest in Europe, OJ C 311,
7.11.2001),

— older workers (Opinion on Older Workers, OJ C 14,

16.1.2001), and

— youth (Opinion on the European Commission White
Paper: A New Impetus for European Youth, OJ C 149,
21.6.2002).

At this stage, the Committee wishes to stress the

3.2.
following concerns:

3.2.1.
Combating poverty and social exclusion is now an
essential component of European social policy. The image of
poverty portrayed in the national action plans for inclusion,
which the Member States submitted to the Commission in
June 2001, takes account not only of financial poverty, but
also of the spiral of difficulties, hardships and insecurity in
areas such as employment, housing, health, education, culture
and access to services. Such recognition of the multi-dimen-
sional nature of poverty is an important step forward. The

C 241/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

Committee still believes, however, that further progress is
needed in this direction. It is not enough for Member States
simply to draw up a list of existing policies, as they did in the
plans submitted in 2001; a more comprehensive and forward-
looking approach must be adopted, in accordance with the
targets set in Lisbon in March 2000.

second place; this would lead to a serious lack of solidarity
in the long-term in the European Union. We believe that
the Union should be more attentive and imaginative vis-
à-vis the right to asylum and immigration, and be more
concerned — while there is still time — about the social
impact of ‘enlargement’.

To this end, we must go further than the first generation of
plans in taking account of more than just labour market policy.
While employment is a major factor of social integration, it
is not the only one. The European strategy to combat exclusion
must not be reduced to an employment strategy, however
important employment may be. The ultimate target, however
far away it may be, must be access to all fundamental rights.

The European ESC welcomes the adoption at the end of
2001 of a programme of Community action to encourage
cooperation between Member States with regard to exclusion.
This programme was adopted for the period 2002-2006 and
was allocated funding of EUR 75 million over five years. Is this
sufficient in the light of the resources of the European Social
Fund, a financial
instrument essentially dedicated to the
employment
strategy, which has overriding importance?
Would it not have been better to widen the scope of the ESF
to support actions to combat poverty and exclusion?

3.2.2.
The document in question could suggest that the
‘social partners’ do not participate as effectively as they should
in implementing the Social Agenda. The European ESC has
two comments to make in response to this (1):

a)

Even if we can encourage the social partners to be still
more active, they are carrying out their difficult task with
continuity and determination.

b) We also recommend that in the ‘social dialogue’, the
defence of standpoints and acquired rights, whatever the
justifications on either side, should not result in the
suffering and concerns of
the most vulnerable and
underprivileged people in society being relegated to

For the Committee, this scoreboard does not always
3.2.3.
emphasise — or emphasise sufficiently - the role played in
‘organised civil society’ by ‘not-for-profit private social services’
that work for the general interest in Europe. In one of its
opinions, the European ESC pointed out in particular that the
Community authorities had not fully grasped the wide range
of actions undertaken by these services, or the ever-greater
responsibilities and difficulties that they have for a long time
faced in the health and social field in a number of EU countries.
There is a lack of indicators in our scoreboards to clarify the
situation. There is no doubt that the concept of the ‘non-
market sector’ or ‘third sector’ is still relatively vague. However,
this is no reason for not seeing more clearly right now the
tangible realities covered by this concept, in particular in the
form of associations, foundations, cooperatives and mutuals.
Not to address NGOs, or merely to pay them lip service, would
be to maintain a gap, another ‘vagueness’, in the European
social project, i.e. to skimp, waste time and delay optimising a
precious potential that is strong yet vulnerable. More recog-
nition must be given to the space between the ‘100 % public’
and the ‘100 % profit-making’.

Such an approach needs to be adopted in the current EU set-
up, but will be even more useful, with the prospect of
enlargement.

3.2.4. When it comes to implementing the Social Agenda,
everyone agrees on the need to consult and involve ‘organised
civil society’. But who does this term refer to? The ‘social
partners’ for sure, as well as the organisations mentioned in
the previous paragraph. However, consideration must also be
given to non-institutional groups set up and run by the so-
called ‘excluded’, and minority social groups; such key groups
are better placed than anyone to warn, inform and mobilise
people about the issues that affect them.

( 1) See also the Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive
establishing a general framework for informing and consulting
employees in the European Community, OJ C 258, 10.9.1999,
and the Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision on
Guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year
2002, OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.

3.2.5. With regard to regional discrepancies in terms of
unemployment and exclusion within the Union, the European
ESC stresses the need to improve synergies between employ-
ment policies and regional policies.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/107

3.2.6.
The European ESC reiterates the need to continue
with the difficult task of putting into place Quality indicators.

3.2.7.
The European ESC recommends working without
respite on the Adaptability pillar in relation to employment
and social inclusion, and stresses the need to make a major
and coordinated effort to develop an integrated and effective
European domain of lifelong learning (1).

to assert its identity. Beyond words and slogans, it is a difficult
path. However, the only alternative option was to disappoint
and fail.

4.2.
The use of ‘scoreboards’ is crucial. However, it may be
better to use the term ‘road maps’, as some people already do,
as this expression better reflects the idea of a path and
progression.

4. Conclusion

4.1.
By committing itself to coordinating as far as possible
economic and social policies, the European Union has sought

( 1) Opinion on the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, OJ C 311,

7.11.2001.

4.3.
All paths are periodically revised, if necessary, in order
to be confirmed, adjusted or corrected in response to reality. It
is still too early to talk about the mid-term assessment of the
Agenda in 2003. All we wish to say here and now is that the
European ESC intends to participate actively in this exercise,
which is not so far away. Its sole aim in issuing this opinion is
to set out its stall, to fix a timetable, and to show its willingness
to make the best contribution it can.

Brussels, 17 July 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS