COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report of the public consultation Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights
Date: 2017-04-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy, economic policy, euro area, labour market, social dialogue (EU), social integration, social rights, social security, working conditions

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.4.2017  SWD(2017) 206 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report of the public consultation  Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights {COM(2017) 250 final} {SWD(2017) 200 final} {SWD(2017) 201 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2 

I. The public consultation at a glance .................................................................. 3 

1. A far-reaching process ........................................................................................... 3 

2. Main stakeholders involved ..................................................................................... 4 

3. The most pressing priorities identified ...................................................................... 6 

II. Discussions on the role and the nature of the Pillar ........................................... 8 

1. The purpose ......................................................................................................... 8 

Fostering convergence towards higher social standards, improving fairness and equal 
opportunities, bringing together social and economic considerations… ............................ 8 

… while addressing competitiveness considerations, and ensuring a well-functioning single 
market and EMU .................................................................................................... 8 

2. The scope ............................................................................................................ 9 

The thematic scope: "societal" principles beyond employment and social issues .............. 9 

The geographical scope: a Pillar for the euro area ..................................................... 10 

3. The legal nature .................................................................................................. 13 

The debate on the binding versus non-binding nature of the Pillar ............................... 13 

The difference between rights and principles ............................................................ 14 

The importance of broad political commitment regardless of the final legal framework 
chosen ............................................................................................................... 14 

4. The implementation ............................................................................................. 15 

A mix of tools, respecting subsidiarity and involving different players .......................... 15 

Legislation: gaps identified and the importance of stepping up implementation ............. 17 

Driving reforms and convergence through the European Semester, benchmarking and 
monitoring .......................................................................................................... 20 

Involving the social partners .................................................................................. 21 

Financing the Pillar implementation ......................................................................... 22 

III. Discussions on the principles of the Pillar ................................................... 24 

1. Equal opportunities and access to the labour market ................................................ 26 

2. Fair working conditions ......................................................................................... 35 

3. Adequate and sustainable social protection ............................................................. 42 

List of acronyms .......................................................................................... 52 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

In  his  2015  State  of  the  Union  address,  President  Juncker  announced  the  determination  to 
develop a European Pillar of Social Rights which takes account of the changing realities of the 
world of work and can serve as a compass for the renewed convergence within the euro area. 
On 8 March 2016, the European Commission adopted a Communication putting forward a first, 
preliminary  outline  of  what  should  become  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights1.  The 
Communication set out the rationale behind the initiative and its role, scope and nature2. 

On  this  basis,  the  Commission  launched  from  March  until  31  December  2016  a  broad  public 
consultation  to  gather  feedback  on  the  proposed  outline  to  feed  into  its  final  proposal.  The 
consultation  aimed  at  discussing  existing  social  rights,  the  changing  realities  of  the  world  of 
work  and  societies,  and  the  role  of  the  Pillar  as part  of  the  social  dimension  of  the  Economic 
and Monetary Union (EMU). A European conference took place on 23 January 2017 to wrap up 
this consultation process3.  

During the consultation the Commission sought feedback on the following ten questions: 

On the social situation and EU social "acquis": 

1.  What do you see as most pressing employment and social priorities? 
2.  How can we account for different employment and social situations across Europe? 
3.  Is the EU "acquis" up to date and do you see scope for further EU action? 

On the future of work and welfare systems: 

4.  What trends would you see as most transformative? 
5.  What would be the main risks and opportunities linked to such trends? 
6.  Are  there  policies,  institutions  or  firm  practices  –  existing  or  emerging  –  which  you 

would recommend as references? 

On the design of the European Pillar of Social Rights: 

7.  Do you agree with the approach outlined here for the establishment of a European Pillar 

of Social Rights? 

8.  Do  you  agree  with  the  scope  of  the  Pillar,  domains  and  principles  proposed  here?  Are 

there aspects that are not adequately expressed or covered so far? 

9.  What  domains  and  principles  would  be  most  important  as  part  of  a  renewed 

convergence for the euro area?  

10. How  should  these  be  expressed  and  made  operational?  In  particular,  do  you  see  the 
scope and added value of minimum standards or reference benchmarks in certain areas 
and if so, which ones? 

This report presents the consultation process and summarises its main findings.  

1 COM (2016) 127 final. 
2  It  was  accompanied  by  two  Staff  Working  Documents:  the  first  one  describing  key  economic,  labour 
market  and  societal  trends  on  which  the  Pillar  builds  and  which  it  should  contribute  to  address;  the 
second  one  recalling  the  most  relevant  legal  acquis  at  EU  level.  Commission  Staff  Working  Documents 
"Key economic, employment and social trends behind the European Pillar of Social Rights" (SWD (2016) 
51), and "The EU social acquis" (SWD (2016) 50) of 8 March 2016. 
3 Conference website. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
I. The public consultation at a glance 

1. A far-reaching process 

Throughout the public consultation, active discussions took place with national authorities and 
parliaments, other EU institutions, social partners, civil society, academic and policy experts as 
well as citizens.  

The process was very wide and far-reaching: it included in-depth input through dedicated work 
streams, meetings and events at EU and national level, written input through position papers, 
an  online  survey  and  social  media  outreach.  All  in  all,  the  number  of  dedicated  meetings 
and  events  at  EU  and  national  level  amounted  to  over  60,  involving  beyond  2,500 
participants. Social partners and civil society were given a prominent role in the consultation 
process, through targeted hearings and strategic dialogue meetings. 

The Commission organised targeted seminars and structured  exchanges through three 
work  streams  bringing  together  experts  and  stakeholders  to  stimulate  in-depth  discussions 
and gather specialised feedback with a focus on:  

1. The EU social acquis: taking stock - Work stream 1 discussed whether existing rights 
remain  relevant  in  a  changing world  of  work,  whether  there  are  gaps  in  the EU  acquis  and  if 
yes, how they could be bridged.  

2.  The  future  of  work  and  of  welfare  systems:  challenges  and  opportunities  -  Work 
stream  2  touched  on  the  impact  of  automation,  changes  in  the  workplace,  ways  to  make 
labour markets more flexible and to increase job quality, as well as the adaptation of working 
conditions to new digital work and to the collaborative economy. 

3. The role of the Pillar as part of a deeper and fairer Economic and Monetary Union 
(EMU) - Work stream 3 looked at how the Pillar would fit into the process of deepening the 
EMU,  notably  its  social  dimension,  and  what  principles  would  be  most  relevant  for  the  good 
functioning of the EMU.  

Feedback  received  in  the  expert  consultation  through  work  streams  is  included  in  sections  II 
and III of this report, as relevant4.  

At  national  level,  Commission  Representations  organised  consultation  events  in  27  Member 
States  (all  except  the  UK)  and  listened  to  national  specificities.  Target  audiences  included 
social partners, civil society and researchers. 14 of these events took place in cooperation with 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)5.  At  the  request  of  social  partners,  6 
additional  meetings  exclusively  for  employers'  organisations  and  trade  unions  were  set  up  in 
some Member States for an even closer exchange6.  

Special  Adviser  Allan  Larsson  was  continuously  involved  in  talks  both  in  Brussels  and  at 
national level. His role was important to engage with stakeholders on a regular basis, promote 
the  Pillar  and  deepen  the  reflection  both  on  the  challenges  to  be  addressed  and  the  way 
forward.  

4 See page 19 for work stream 1, page 25 for work stream 2, and page 12 for work stream 3. 
5  In  Austria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg, 
Malta,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  In  parallel  with  the  Commission’s  public  consultation,  the  EESC 
launched a series of national debates in the 28 Member States. 
6 In Spain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK.  

4 

 
 
                                                            
In  total,  stakeholders  provided  around  200  position  papers7.  Input  arrived  also  online 
through  a  questionnaire,  with  more  than  16,560  replies  received.  The  vast  majority  of 
online  replies  (more  than  15,500)  were  a  standard  text  in  a  campaign  launched  by  the 
European  Trade  Union  Confederation  (ETUC)8  and  similar  actions  organised  by  Spanish  and 
Italian  organisations9.  The  rest  -  almost  1,000  replies  –  were  unique  responses  from 
organisations (400) and individuals (555) (see Figure 1).   

Figure 1 - Who replied to the online questionnaire 

Source: ICF analysis, online public consultation as of 03/01/2017 

A high level conference on the Pillar 'Going forward together' was held in Brussels on 23 
January  2017.  This  conference  was  the  first  sounding  board  after  the  10  month  public 
consultation. The conference was an important milestone in wrapping up the consultation and 
defining  the  future  direction  of  the  Pillar.  It  brought  together  over  600  participants,  of  which 
26  national  Ministers  or  Secretaries  of  State,  140  other  national  representatives,  100  social 
partners,  200  stakeholders  and  40  experts;  and  from  EU  institutions  the  President  of  the 
European  Commission,  one  Vice-President  and  8  Commissioners,  the  President  of  the 
European  Parliament,  several  MEPs,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the 
Committee of the Regions and the European Central Bank. 

Finally,  the  Commission  actively  promoted  the  debate  on  social  media:  90,000  users  were 
reached via Facebook, and there were almost 1 million views of #SocialRights dedicated 
to the Pillar. The Conference's social media coverage was also significant, with 1,200 tweets 
from about 500 users and a total estimated reach of about 2.5 million users. 

2. Main stakeholders involved 

Citizens 

The Pillar featured in so-called Citizens' Dialogues, open discussion fora taking place across 
the EU where people have a chance to talk directly with members of the European Commission 
about  policies  and  decisions  being  made.  In  addition,  the  Commission's  Communication 
department  trained  50  Europe  Direct  Information  Centres  which  organised  local  outreach 
events on the Pillar, directly targeting citizens. The consultation also reached out specifically to 
young  people,  in  particular through  two events:  in  Sofia  on  16-18 October 2016,  organised 
by  the  European  Youth  Forum  in  cooperation  with  the  Friedrich  Ebert  Foundation,  to  discuss 

7 The position papers are available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1235&langId=en 
8  The  ETUC  campaign  was  especially  successful  in  Austria  and  Belgium:  together,  almost  60  %  of  the 
standard replies originated in these two countries.  
9 The Spanish Fundación Cepaim and Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL). 

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
young people’s access to social rights; and a dialogue meeting with young people organised by 
the Commission on 8 December 2016 in Brussels. 

Member States 

Member  States  engaged  actively  in  the  consultation.  The  Commission  received  contributions 
from  21  national  governments  or  their  responsible  ministries:  Austria,  Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the 
UK.  Moreover,  five  national  parliaments  (the  German  Bundesrat,  the  French  Assemblée 
Nationale, Italy's Camera dei Deputati, the Czech Senate and Romania's Camera Deputaților) 
and a number of regional governments and authorities handed in their replies.  

The  Council  of  the  EU  was  involved  too.  Employment  and  social  affairs  ministers  held 
discussions  several  times  and  generally  endorsed  an  opinion  on  the  Pillar  in  October  2016, 
prepared by the Employment Committee and the Social Protection  Committee. The Pillar  was 
also  addressed  by  ministers  responsible  for  economic  affairs  in  the  competitiveness  Council 
formation.  On  the  economic  side,  the  Economic  Policy  Committee  took  a  stand,  which  was 
discussed at the Economic and Financial Committee.  

EU institutions  

The  European  Parliament  adopted  a  Resolution  on  the  Pillar  on  19 January  201710.  The 
Committee  of  the  Regions  adopted  its  opinion  on  11  October  201611,  and  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee on 25 January 201712.  

Social partners 

EU  level  social  partners  played  a  special  role  in  the  consultation:  the  Commission  organised 
two  hearings  (on  6  June  and  14  October  2016)  with  delegations  of  each  side  of  industry 
representing  EU  cross-industry  secretariats  (ETUC,  BusinessEurope,  CEEP13  and  UEAPME14), 
national cross-industry organisations and EU sectoral federations. Leaders of EU social partners 
had two exchanges at political level on the Pillar (on 11 April and 9 December 2016). Since the 
launch of the consultation, the Pillar was also addressed at all meetings of the Tripartite Social 
Summit, the Social Dialogue Committee, the Liaison Forum and many Sectoral Social Dialogue 
Committees.  

Civil society 

A  wide  variety  of  both  EU-level  and  national  NGOs  contributed  to  the  consultation,  ranging 
from anti-poverty activists to youth organisations and persons with disabilities' organisations. 
Civil society organisations were consulted through the Annual Convention for Inclusive Growth 
(21  March  2016),  which  brought  together  close  to  400  participants,  and  strategic  dialogue 
meetings on the "EU Social Acquis" (8 June 2016) and on the "Future of work and welfare" (6 
July  2016).  The  Pillar  was  discussed  in  many  other  events  organised  by  civil  society 
organisations  directly,  including  a  meeting  with  people  experiencing  poverty  (on  15-16 
November 2016), organised with the Commission's support.  

10 2016/2095(INI). 
11 CDR 2868/2016. 
12 SOC/542-01902-00-01-ac. 
13  The  European  Centre  of  Employers  and  Enterprises  providing  Public  Services  and  Services  of  general 
interest. 
14 The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
The European research community  

The  Commission's  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  organised  a  one  day 
seminar on 'Work, Welfare and Inequalities in Europe – The Research Perspective' (10 October 
2016 in Brussels) to present scientific evidence in the frame of the public consultation on the 
European Pillar of Social Rights15. The seminar brought together leading European researchers 
in  the  fields  of  welfare  policies,  labour  markets  and  employment,  social  investment  and 
poverty  with  EU  policy  makers,  international  experts  and  other  relevant  stakeholders.  During 
the  seminar,  a  Policy  Review  entitled  "Fighting  poverty  and  exclusion  through  social 
investment:  A  European  research  perspective"  was  also  presented.  The  Review  presents 
evidence from twenty research projects on issues pertaining to employment and social policies 
funded  by  the  EU  through  the  7th  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological 
Development16.  

Other organisations 

International  organisations  like  the  Council  of  Europe,  the  International  Labour  Organization 
(ILO),  the  International  Monetary  Fund,  the  World  Bank,  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-
operation  and  Development  (OECD)  as  well  as  experts  from  academia  and  think  tanks 
provided  written  contributions  or  were  consulted  in  dedicated  meetings.  Other  stakeholders, 
like managers' associations or chambers of craft trades, shared their views.  

3. The most pressing priorities identified 

During  consultation  events  and  work  streams  discussions,  four  key  priority  trends  emerged 
which the Pillar should address:  

  The social consequences of the financial crisis, with increasing poverty, social exclusion, 
inequalities  and  unemployment,  particularly  long-term  unemployment  and  among 
young  people,  and  the  long  period  of  economic  stagnation,  with  low  growth  and 
competitiveness;  

  Technological progress and automation; the future of work, the emerging digital labour 

market, education and reskilling;  

  Demographic developments, with the ageing of Europe's population; the modernisation 

of social protection and welfare systems; and 
  Economic divergence across Member States.  

In  the  online  consultation,  tackling  unemployment,  including  youth  unemployment,  was  put 
forward as the most important priority overall, and there was also a clear focus on the socio-
economic  integration  of  younger  generations,  with  youth  employment  and  education  being 
identified as priorities. An overview of the 10 most frequent priorities to be addressed by the 
Pillar as resulted from the 955 single replies in the online consultation is provided in Figure 2. 
The  most  pressing  priorities  identified  by  the  campaign  launched  by  trade  unions  included 
improving  job  security,  job  quality  and  living  standards,  and  ensuring  access  to  essential 
services for all. 

15 Presentations and the conference report are available at  
http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/index.cfm?pg=newspage&item=160901 
16http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/fighting-poverty-and-exclusion-through-social-investment-
pbKI0116761/ 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 2 - 10 most pressing priorities (% of single replies, N=955) 

Source: ICF analysis, online public consultation as of 03/01/2017 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
II. Discussions on the role and the nature of the 
Pillar  

1. The purpose  

Fostering convergence towards higher social standards, improving fairness and 
equal opportunities, bringing together social and economic considerations… 

The Pillar was broadly seen as an opportunity to deliver 
on  a  more  social  Europe,  rebalancing  economic 
policies  with  social  considerations,  and  reconnecting 
with  European  citizens,  while  at  the  same  time 
addressing key issues related to changes in the world of 
work  and  society  more  generally.  The  consultation 
confirmed  the  expectation  that  economic,  social  and 
employment policies should work together coherently.  

German Federal Government:  
“We should … aim for a European social 
market economy that is highly 
competitive and has high social 
standards." 

For experts, the debate should not be about ‘more or less Europe’, but about putting ‘citizens-
first’  to  provide  security,  opportunity  and  resilience  in  times  of  change.  The  consultation 
highlighted  that  the  challenges  of  societies  and  the  world  of  work  are  often  similar  across 
Member States. Therefore, the Pillar was seen as a means to set the conditions for sustainable  
convergence  towards  better  employment  and  social  outcomes,  by  creating  a  common 
consensus on social goals against which reforms can be pursued.  

However, it was underlined that national specificities should be respected and the purpose of 
the Pillar should not be to harmonise social policy across the Union, or create a supranational 
European Social Union.   

… while addressing competitiveness considerations, and ensuring a well-functioning 
single market and EMU 

Especially  among  employers,  stakeholders  put  forward  the  need  to  address  the  lack  of 
competitiveness and the productivity deficit as pre-conditions for the success of inclusive 
social policies17.  

In  particular,  some  Member  States  feared  the  Pillar  would  pose  a  threat  to  competitiveness, 
and  that  too  high  standards  may  lead  to  countries  opting  out  from  the  initiative.  Some  also 
pointed to fiscal sustainability concerns. The focus of the Pillar should not be on social rights as 
such,  but  on  increased  productivity  and  job  creation  as  the  primary  means  to  ensure  a 
sustainable economic and social model.  

According to employer organisations the Pillar should help 
shape  a  comprehensive  economic  and  social  strategy  for 
increased  competitiveness  and  social  cohesion  by 
supporting  reforms  and  better  coordination  of  national 
policies. Convergence towards higher living standards will 
be achieved through policies that restore competitiveness, 
increase productivity and foster employment and growth.  

Business Europe:  
"Our social challenges will only be 
tackled through economic growth, 
creation of new wealth and expansion 
of employment… The objective is to 
create in all member states the 
framework conditions for companies to 
provide the best possible opportunities 
for employment for all" 

17 This issue was raised by Member States as crucial in the Competitiveness Council. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
2. The scope  

The thematic scope: "societal" principles beyond employment and social issues 

The  consultation  confirmed  overall  agreement  with 
the  approach  proposed  for  establishing  the  Pillar  and 
its  thematic  scope,  which  extends  to  areas  beyond 
employment  and  social  matters  in  a  strict  sense,  to 
cover  broader  "societal"  considerations  such  as 
education  and  health,  to  address  issues  of  both 
competitiveness  and  social  cohesion,  and  not  one 
dimension at the expense of the other.  

Social Platform:  
"The Pillar of Social Rights needs to be 
about so much more than just jobs. Social 
inclusion means creating an environment 
where everybody can realise their 
potential and can contribute to society." 

However,  contrasting  views  emerged  as  regards  the 
balance  in  the  Pillar  between  economic  and 
social  considerations.  This  discrepancy  related  to 
the  perception  -  mainly  among  the  NGOs  and  trade 
unions  -  that  the  Pillar  focused  too  much  on 
employment to the detriment of the social dimension. 
While  less  critical  overall,  employer  organisations 
tended  to  believe  that  the  Pillar’s  approach  did  not 
sufficiently  focus  on  areas  that  can  generate  growth 
and improve competitiveness, and that more consideration could be given to free enterprise as 
a driver of inclusive growth, for instance by emphasising the need for a regulatory framework 
that reduces administrative burden. 

UEAPME:" The better integration of 
economic and social dimensions is a key 
priority for a fair and inclusive labour 
market and well-functioning welfare 
systems since the two dimensions are 
interdependent." 

Stakeholders  generally  noted  that  the  issues  of  free  movement  (intra-EU  mobility  of  EU 
citizens)18,  migration  and  the  inclusion  of  third-country  nationals19  were  not  properly 
addressed, and more emphasis could be given to discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin 
or the rights of undocumented migrants as well as social rights and fair treatment of EU mobile 
citizens.  In  particular,  civil  society  organisations  argued  for  more  attention  on  creating 
inclusive  and  not  just  well-performing  labour  markets,  and  a  strong  focus  on  inclusion  of 
people who are out of work and in most vulnerable situations.20  

Among  the  consulted  stakeholders,  trade  unions  and  NGOs  were  active  in  suggesting 
additional principles for inclusion in the Pillar, namely: fair taxation21, social investment and 
the social economy, collective workers' rights such as collective bargaining in enterprises, more 
protection  for  vulnerable  groups  (children,  persons  with  disabilities,  migrants  and  refugees), 
and informal care.  

18  Fair  labour  mobility  was  one  of  the  priority  areas  highlighted  by  ETUC  in  its  position  paper,  and  was 
mentioned in several other contributions. 
19  Mentioned  for  instance  by  Italy,  Sweden,  the  European  Anti-Poverty  Network,  European  Social  Policy 
Network.  
20 This was mentioned, among others, by the Social Platform and the European Youth Forum. 
21 The European Social Policy Network noted for instance that insufficient attention is given to taxation as 
the essential element of redistribution in EU welfare models. Tax justice was raised by the European Anti-
Poverty Network. For UEAPME labour taxation is the main missing dimension and represents a barrier to 
make work pay and encourage enterprises to hire new workers. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
the 

A  common  view  was  that  gender  equality,  equal 
opportunities  and 
rights  of  persons  with 
disabilities should be mainstreamed across the Pillar, 
and not be limited to labour market considerations or 
access  to  benefits.  According  to  trade  unions,  social 
dialogue  could  also 
form  a  horizontal  principle 
applying  to  both  fair  working  conditions  and  equal 
access to the labour market22.  

The geographical scope: a Pillar for the euro area  

European Disability Forum: "The 
rights of persons with disabilities are 
not adequately expressed and covered 
as they are limited to disability 
benefits." 

In  the  initial  Commission's  proposal,  the  Pillar  was  conceived,  first  and  foremost,  to  support 
the deepening of the EMU, targeting the euro area, while being applicable to all Member States 
that wish to be part of it. 

In the consultation, it was recognised that more in-depth action to stimulate convergence 
towards better employment and social outcomes in the euro area would be key to make its 
single monetary policy suitable for all its members, to improve its functioning, and to reinforce 
the  EMU's  economic,  social  and  political  resilience.  The  European  Parliament  for  instance 
considered  that  the  constraints  of  euro  area  membership  call  for  additional  specific  social 
targets  and  standards  to  be  established  and  relevant  financial  support  to  be  considered  at 
the  euro  area  level,  while  remaining  open  to  non-euro  area  Member  States  on  a  voluntary 
basis23.  

Some Member States, in particular Hungary, Poland, Germany, Portugal and the UK, supported 
the  idea  that  non-euro  area  Member  States  should  have  the  flexibility  to  choose 
whether to be part of the Pillar.  

On the other hand, a number of stakeholders argued that the Pillar should be a cohesive goal 
and  avoid  creating  gaps  between  the  euro  area  and  the  rest  of  the  Member  States  in  social 
policies and standards, or cause uncertainty about the application of the EU social acquis. They 
saw a mutually reinforcing relation between the Pillar and the Single Market. On the one hand, 
increased convergence in working and social conditions across the Union would contribute to a 
more  level  playing  field  and  a  better  functioning  market,  including  by  preventing  social 
dumping. On the other hand, the Single Market is seen as an engine for convergence towards 
higher  living  standards  through  better  utilisation  of  skills,  increased  competitiveness, 
productivity  growth,  job  creation,  and  cohesion  across  the  EU,  thereby  contributing  to  social 
progress in Europe24.  

The role of the Pillar as part of a deeper and fairer EMU was discussed in-depth with experts 
and  stakeholders  through  specialised  discussions  in  work  stream  3.  The  main  points 
highlighted in those discussions are summarised in the section below. 

22 This view was shared by CEEP. 
23 2016/2095(INI), para 2. 
24 See for instance the joint statement of 18 January 2017 by BusinessEurope, UEAPME and the following 
sectors:  CEEMET,  COPA/GEOPA  (agriculture),  ECEG  (chemical),  EFCI  (cleaning),  Euratex  (textile), 
Eurocommerce,  FIEC  (construction),  HOTREC  (hotel/catering),  Insurance  Europe,  IRU  (road  transport) 
and World Employment Confederation (agency work). 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Feedback  from  Work  Stream  3:  The  role  of  the  Pillar  as  part  of  a  deeper  and  fairer 
EMU 

Work  stream  3  drew  on  the  input  of  a  number  of  experts  from  academia,  international 
organisations  and  think  tanks,  in  particular  through  three  dedicated  hearings  (on  10  and  23 
May, and 17 June 2016). 

Experts claimed that for the EMU to be sustainable, its member countries, in the absence of an 
autonomous  monetary  policy,  need  to  have  in  place  economic  structures  and  institutions 
similarly  resilient  to  economic  shocks.  This  means  that  the  effects  of  a  shock  are  short-lived 
and  do  not  leave  lasting  social  scars  such  as  widespread  and  long-term  unemployment.  In 
addition, a good functioning EMU would require some degree of upward convergence in terms 
of growth potential and living standards.   

Three  aspects  were  identified  where  the  Pillar  could  play  a  specific  role  to  improve  the 
functioning and sustainability of the EMU.  

First, the Pillar would help to build up a consensus on the key features of social policies 
that are especially relevant for the EMU, and this would be essential to the political legitimacy 
of the EMU itself.  

Second,  the  implementation  of  a  number  of  principles  in  the  Pillar  would  help  to  enhance 
resilience  and  support  upward  convergence  in  employment  and  social  outcomes  by 
contributing  to  the  development  of  well-designed  labour  market  and  social  policies 
together  with  growth-friendly  and  fair  taxation.  This  can  happen  either  by  promoting 
institutional  convergence  in  labour  market  and  social  policy  settings,  or  by  developing  a 
weaker  form  of  convergence  based  on  shared  values  and  objectives  while  keeping  different 
systems.  Many  pointed  out  that  different  models  -  including  ways  of  funding  these  policies  - 
can  be  equally  fit  for  purpose,  and  that  what  matters  for  upward  convergence  in  living 
standards  is  the  quality  of  institutions  and  of  governance,  and  their  cost-effectiveness  in 
delivering the desired outcomes.  

Third, there was broad agreement that the Pillar (or at least some of its elements) could help 
prepare  the  ground  or  serve  to  define  the  conditions  for  setting  up  and  accessing  a 
possible  supranational  automatic  stabilisation  mechanism.  Its  primary  function  would 
be  to  provide  some  forms  of  risk  sharing  and  a  strengthened  macroeconomic  stabilisation 
capacity for the euro area in case of asymmetric shocks. In case such a mechanism took the 
form  of  an  EMU-wide  unemployment  benefit  scheme,  it  would  require  some  degree  of 
convergence and Member States’ cooperation in the design of labour market policy settings, in 
particular of the relevant components of national systems, such as unemployment benefits and 
active labour market policies, to help tackle moral hazard, ensure its effectiveness and build up 
mutual trust among the countries joining the scheme. In this context, the Pillar could be seen 
as providing a 'quality insurance' framework and paving the way for the criteria necessary for 
joining such a scheme.  

While many if not nearly all of the principles proposed in the Pillar were considered as equally 
important  for  both  the  EMU  and  the  EU  as  a  whole,  a  number  of  dimensions  emerged  as 
particularly relevant for a good functioning EMU. Specific reference was also made to the 
need  for  labour  market  settings  conducive  to  a  good  labour  market  adjustment  capacity 
through  an  efficient  allocation  of  human  resources  and  wages  smoothly  responding  to 
economic  change.  There  was  consensus  on  the  role  played  by  national  automatic  stabilisers, 
including  unemployment  benefit  systems  (and  where  relevant  minimum  incomes  or  other 

12 

 
 
benefits)  as  well  as  policies  supporting  job  matching  to  ease  adjustment,  and  hence  on  the 
importance of their design. Skills, education and lifelong learning, and more generally  human 
capital  development,  were  seen  as  favouring  the  adaptability  of  the  labour  force  to  demand 
shifts,  and  were  considered  key  drivers  of  long-term  growth,  and  necessary  for  more 
sustainable  upward  socio-economic  convergence.  Finally,  it  was  widely  acknowledged  that 
labour  mobility  is  a key  channel  of  adjustment  within  the  EMU; the  importance of  ensuring  a 
fair  degree  of  portability  of  social  rights,  both  within  and  across  countries,  was  underlined  in 
this respect. 

Experts  identified  benchmarking  as  a  possible  tool  to  support  convergence  in  the  design  of 
labour market and social policy systems in the euro area towards better outcomes. The main 
objective  of  benchmarking  is  to  support  the  reform  process  in  the  Member  States  by  cross-
examining  relative  performance,  identifying  challenges  and  promoting  convergence  towards 
good  policy  practices.  The  comparative  examination  of  Member  States'  performance  and 
policies in different areas would further support the identification of reform needs in individual 
countries  and  help  formulate  appropriate  policy  responses,  drawing  from  the  examination  of 
different practices and their results.  

13 

 
 
 
 
3. The legal nature  

The debate on the binding versus non-binding nature of the Pillar  

The choice of the legal instrument for establishing the Pillar was left open in the Commission 
Communication  launching  the  public  consultation  on  8  March  2016.  This  point  was  much 
debated during the consultation, with many questions arising on the final form that the Pillar 
will take, and contrasting positions on whether it should have a legally binding nature.  

Stakeholders  generally  shared  the  view  that  discussions  on  the  choice  of  instruments  for  the 
Pillar  itself  should  follow  from  an  agreement  on  the  substance  of  the  initiative.  This  is 
because the preliminary draft Pillar consisted of a broad range of principles, with each of them 
reflecting a different nature and degree of EU competence25. As a result, the final form of the 
Pillar  will  have  to  reflect  such  diversification,  in  full  respect  for  the  division  of  competences 
between the EU and Member States, and subsidiarity.  

Support for a binding Pillar was strongest among trade unions and NGOs. On the other hand, 
national  government  representatives  in  a  majority  of  Member  States  and  employer 
organisations  expressed  their  disagreement  over  the  potentially  prescriptive  nature  of  the 
principles and favoured the use of soft policy. 

A number of parameters were identified for consideration in the choice of the instrument, 
including  political  visibility,  the  involvement  of  the  different  Union  institutions  and  social 
partners,  possibilities  for  application  to  the  euro  area  only,  the  degree  to  which  it  can 
encompass  both  a  legislative  and  non-legislative  agenda,  and  the  links  to  the  European 
Semester. 

Box 1: Instruments to establish the Pillar  

Concrete  ideas  on  how  the  Pillar  itself  could  be  established  were  raised  during  the 
consultation and included:  

  An  instrument  of  primary  law:  for  example  a  Treaty  change,  or  a  social  progress 

protocol to be included in the EU Treaties26; 
  Enhanced cooperation to build a social Union27;  
  An  agreement  between  the  Commission,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Member 

States / European Council with the full involvement of the social partners28; 

  An  instrument  of  secondary  law,  including  binding  tools29  such  as  directives  and 

regulations, or non-binding ones such as a recommendation30; 

  Other instruments such as an Action Plan, a Communication or a Green Paper;  
  A package including multiple instruments.  

25  For  instance,  Article  153  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  does  not  provide 
competence of the Union to legislate on “pay”. 
26  For  example  suggested  by  the  Austrian  Federal  Chamber  of  Labour  (AK)  and  the  European  Pact  for 
Social Progress. 
27 For example suggested by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.  
28 Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL). 
29 For example suggested by the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB). 
30  Germany  rejected  a  regulation  or  a  directive  as  the  legal  form  of  the  Pillar,  and  suggested  that  a 
recommendation under Article 288 TFEU would be suitable. 

14 

 
 
                                                            
 
The difference between rights and principles 

Stakeholders raised questions about the distinction between rights and principles in the initial 
Commission's draft, and how they relate to values and rights that feature in the EU acquis. A 
common  view  was  that  this  relationship  could  be  further  clarified,  and  that  alignment  of 
individual  principles  with  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European Union could improve legal certainty31.  

The  importance  of  ensuring  consistency  with  international  law  instruments  such  as  the 
Council  of  Europe  Social  Charter  and  ILO  Conventions  and  Recommendations  was  also 
underlined.  Concretely,  EU-level  social  partners  asked  for  clarification  around  sources  of  law 
and areas of EU/Member State competence for each of the 20 principles proposed, to identify 
possible options for policy action. 

It  was  also  noted that the  draft  text  of  the  Pillar  combined  rights  directed at  individuals  with 
principles targeting employment and social systems. Therefore, many considered that the final 
Pillar  should  draw  a  clearer  distinction  between  individual  rights  and  systemic 
principles.  

The personal scope of application should also be clarified, with some arguing that the rights 
should  apply  to  everyone in  the  EU,  while  others  being  in  favour of  a distinction  between EU 
citizens and third-country legal residents.  

Certain  stakeholders  put  forward  that  more  clarity  on  access  to  and  enforceability  of  rights 
would be important to make the Pillar more visible and operational for citizens and all players 
involved in implementation.  

The importance of broad political commitment regardless of the final legal 
framework chosen  

Regardless  of  the  legal  form  finally  chosen  to 
establish the Pillar itself, the consultation emphasised 
that  this  initiative  should  first  of  all  mark  a  strong 
political  commitment  to  a  renewed  agenda  for 
the 
that  benefits 
inclusive  growth 
economy and society at large.  

individuals, 

In  order  to  respect  subsidiarity,  the  Pillar  will  need 
to  ensure  ownership  at  all  levels  of  governance 
and  mobilise  broad  support  for  its  implementation 
through joint efforts by all players involved, from EU 
institutions  to  Member  States  and  authorities  at 
regional  and  local  levels,  social  partners  and  civil 
society.  

European Anti-Poverty Network:  
"The EU needs a new vision and a new 
plan […] This should demonstrate that the 
EU is committed to developing an 
economy that can deliver shared 
prosperity and sustainable development, 
underpinned by social rights and social 
and environmental standards." 

The European Parliament in its Resolution 
on the Pillar "considers that the Pillar 
should be adopted in 2017 as an agreement 
between Parliament, the Commission and 
the European Council, involving the social 
partners and civil society at the highest 
level." 

31 For ETUC, the Pillar should enforce the rights elaborated in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the 
European Social Charter and the European Convention of Human Rights. Both SOLIDAR and the European 
Trade  Union  Institute  criticised  the  draft  Pillar  for  blurring  the  distinction  between  social  rights  and 
principles. During consultation meetings, trade unions in several countries held the view that principles as 
opposed  to  legal  rights  would  be  less  effective  in  achieving  upward  convergence  in  employment  and 
social outcomes. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
4. The implementation  

A mix of tools, respecting subsidiarity and involving different players 

The  consultation  confirmed  the  need  for  the  Pillar  to 
be  accompanied  by  concrete  deliverables  and  that  its 
success will ultimately depend on how it will be made 
operational.   

European Parliament:  
The Pillar should “not be limited to a 
declaration of principles or good 
intentions" 

There  was  agreement  that  the  Pillar  should  be 
implemented by a mix of appropriate and effective 
deliverable  tools,  deployed  at  the  appropriate  level,  involving  all  relevant  dimensions  of 
governance, and avoiding duplications.  

A strong point coming from the consultation was the 
need  to  respect  the  distribution  of  competences  at 
EU,  national  and  sub-national  levels,  subsidiarity, 
and  the  autonomy  of  social  partners32.  The 
instruments  deployed  should  reflect  the  primary 
responsibility  of  national  governments  and  social 
partners  in  making  social  rights  and  principles 
operational on the ground. There were also concerns 
about  a  “one  size  fits  all”  approach,  arguing  that 
national  social  policy  specificities  should  be  taken 
into account in the Pillar's implementation.  

central 

function  of 
the 
Another  point  was 
stakeholder  dialogue  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Pillar  and  of  multi-stakeholder  cooperation33  to 
improve  the  relevance  of  social  policies.  The  EESC 
and  NGOs  called  for  a  stronger  role  for  civil  society 
and  civil  dialogue  to  ensure  that  everyone,  including 
young  people  and  those  in  vulnerable  situations  or 
facing discrimination, can participate in policy-making34.  

The Committee of the Regions 
“highlights the need for closer 
cooperation between the different levels 
of government, sectors and stakeholders, 
including a stronger role for social 
partners and the introduction of an 
efficient instrument for civil dialogue, 
which would strengthen the democratic 
legitimacy of the Union.” 

Social Platform: “Now is the time to 
empower civil society and to give us an 
active role. It will be difficult to deliver 
on Europe’s ambitious social agenda 
without us.” 

When  it  comes  to  the  preferences  for  concrete  instruments,  national  government 
representatives  in  a  majority  of  the  Member  States  and  employer  organisations  favoured  the 
use of policy tools, such as benchmarking based mainly on policy learning to achieve upward 
convergence  in  employment  and  social  outcomes.  On  the  other  hand,  support  for  binding 
instruments was strongest among trade unions and NGOs. 

32 Denmark, Hungary and the Netherlands made it clear that a prescriptive and uniform Pillar would fail 
to deliver on its objectives. This view was echoed by BusinessEurope and UEAPME. 
33 Raised for instance by the Committee of the Regions. 
34  Mentioned  for  instance  by  the  European  Association  for  the  Education  of  Adults,  Social  Platform,  the 
Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (COFACE), the European Youth Forum, the 
Commission  of  the  Bishops'  Conferences  of  the  European  Community  (COMECE),  the  REVES  network 
(European Network of Cities & Regions for the Social Economy) and the European Disability Forum. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Box 2:  Tools to implement the Pillar 

Various tools to implement the Pillar were put forward in the consultation, including: 

  Legislation to update the EU acquis in light of new realities, fill some gaps and step up 

enforcement;  

  A strengthened European Semester covering the Pillar’s principles; 
  Policy coordination (e.g. Open Method of Coordination); 
  The establishment of social investment targets for the Member States; 
  Benchmarks, including stronger policy guidance and monitoring; 
  A more targeted use of EU funding instruments to support reforms at national level; 
  A sanctioning mechanism for Member States if social criteria are not met, or a link to 

structural funds which could be shortened in that case; 

  An inclusive social dialogue process, and a specific role for the EU/national social 

partners; 

  Systematic assessments of social impacts and other evidence-based methods (ex-ante 

and ex-post) for better social and employment 'proofing' of actions; 

  Mutual learning and exchange of good practices. 

Certain  stakeholders35  put  forward  that  the  coherent  application  of  social  rights  across  all 
policy areas, especially in the economic and monetary fields, but also in external action and 
trade  agreements,  was  needed  for  the  Pillar  to  have  a  real  impact.  The  logic  used  in  the 
context  of  the  proposed  European  Accessibility  Act  was  highlighted  as  a  possible  good  model 
for  mainstreaming  to  facilitate  the  advancement  of  social  rights  through  internal  market 
instruments. Other stakeholders argued that the modernisation of social protection and welfare 
systems  would  help  to  increase  the  resilience  of  labour  markets  to  economic  shocks,  while 
increased efficiency of policies aimed at facilitating business creation and upscaling would help 
to improve the efficiency of resource allocation, fostering employment growth. 

In its resolution on the Pillar, the European Parliament invited the Commission to put forward a 
clear roadmap for implementation. Box 3 summarises the main requests made. 

Box 3: The European Parliament resolution on the European Pillar of Social Rights 

The European Parliament called for36:  

  A framework Directive on decent working conditions in all forms of employment to 
ensure relevant existing minimum standards in particular as regards internships, 
traineeships and apprenticeships; work intermediated by digital platforms; and limits 
regarding on-demand work; 

  More effective and efficient implementation and control of existing labour standards in 

order to improve the enforceability of rights and tackle undeclared work; 

  A Recommendation on the establishment of national wage floors informed by a 

regional living wage calculation; 
  An action plan on long-term care;  
  A recommendation on social protection in all forms of employment as well as in self-

35 NGOs such as the Social Platform and experts consulted in the work streams.  
36 This list is non-exhaustive. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
employment;  

  Legislation on maternity, paternity, parental and carers' leave;  
  An appropriate level of social investments; 
  A Skills Guarantee as a new right for everyone, at every stage of life, to acquire 

fundamental skills for the 21st century; 

  The extension of the Youth Guarantee to all young people below the age of 30;  
  A Child Guarantee in all Member States; 
  Best practice analysis for the calculation of minimum pensions; 
  Specific social targets and standards for the euro area; 
  Transparent use of the key employment and social indicators in formulating country 

specific recommendations and a potential Convergence Code. 

Legislation: gaps identified and the importance of stepping up implementation 

The consultation on the Pillar, and more specifically work stream 1, provided an opportunity to 
revisit  the  EU  social  acquis37  and  its  relevance  in  the  light  of  new  trends,  and  to  identify 
possible areas for future action, at the appropriate level. 

In  the  online  consultation,  about  half  of  the  respondents  (52%)  believed  that  the  EU  social 
acquis needs updating, with views changing according to stakeholder type (see Figure 3).  

Figure 3 - Stakeholders' positions at a glance on the EU social acquis  

NGOs 

National 
policy  
makers 

EU/Int. 
bodies 

Trade 
unions 

e
p
o
c
s

e
h
t

d
n
e
t
x
E

t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
e

r
e
t
t
e
B

Employers 

Up to date 

To update 

Source: All stakeholder contributions 

37 See Commission Staff Working Document "The EU social acquis", SWD (2016) 51 final. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
The  main  conclusions  from  the  consultation  can  be 
summarised as follows:   

  The  EU  social  acquis  is  broadly  relevant  and  well 

developed;  

  However,  there  is  significant  scope  for  action  to 
improve  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of 
existing rights;  

  In  addition,  some  gaps  were  identified  in  terms  of 
coverage of all forms of work, and areas outside labour 
law; 

  Views were divided on the need for new legislation. 
Trade  unions,  NGOs  and  some  experts  called  to 
complete  the  EU  acquis  in  light  of  new  realities,  and 
address  gaps  through  legislation.  Others,  especially 
employers, pointed to the extensive body of legislation 
protecting  workers,  and  warned  against  increasing 
administrative  burden  on  companies  and  hampering 
their  competitiveness.  For  them,  the  focus  should  be 
on  better  enforcement,  which  should  mean  cutting 
red  tape  and  reducing  administrative  burden  on 
companies,  especially  SMEs.  Member  States  were 
divided: while some expressed scepticism to additional 
legislation,  others  pointed  out  that  the  acquis  has  a 
dynamic 
to 
development38.  

should  be  open 

character  and 

ETUC:  
“A key goal of the [Pillar] must be 
to tackle the problems that 
workers experience when they try 
to exercise their already existing 
EU employment rights. […] 
Stronger rules and better 
enforcement are needed." 

Social Platform:  
“[…] new legislation is needed. […] an EU 
Directive on adequate minimum income; 
[…] a coherent framework for all types of 
parental leave […]; the rapid adoption of 
the Equal Treatment Directive". 

BusinessEurope:  
“The focus should be on ensuring 
proper enforcement and 
application of existing EU 
legislation and cutting 
unnecessary red tape."  

All  these  questions  were  discussed in-depth with  experts  and  stakeholders in  work  stream  1. 
More details on those targeted discussions are presented in the section below. 

Feedback from Work Stream 1 – The EU social acquis  

Work  stream  1  gathered  specialised  feedback to  ensure  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the EU  social 
acquis and provided a sounding board for ideas raised  elsewhere in the consultation process. 
Meetings with academic experts were organised on 23 May, 29 June and 28 September 2016. 
The  work  stream  also  held  a  meeting  of  Directors-General  for  Industrial  Relations  (20  May 
2016),  a  roundtable  with  think  tanks  and  international  experts  including  from  ILO  and  the 
Council  of  Europe  (1  June  2016),  and  a  structured  dialogue  meeting  with  civil  society 
organisations (8 June 2016).  

Scope of the EU social acquis  

Five main areas were highlighted for improvement, especially in light of new forms of work as 
well as technological and societal changes.  

A  first  gap  identified  is  the  insufficient  protection  of  those  in  new  forms  of  work.  In 
particular  it  was  noted  that  the  current  definition  of  "worker",  which  is  based  on  a  more 
traditional  concept,  does  not  necessarily  cater  for  new  types  of  work  relationships.  Experts 

38 This point was made for instance by Greece, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Luxembourg. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
argued that the EU definition of “worker” should make sure no one is left without protection39 
40.  An  example  is  the  protection  from  unfair  dismissal.  Currently,  workers  enjoy  protection 
from unfair dismissal, but only if they have a proper employment contract. As a result, those 
workers who are already in a more precarious position because of their unclear status are also 
not  protected  against  unfair  dismissal.  In  this  context,  ILO  pointed  out  that  increased  legal 
clarity  on  workers’  employment  status  and  employers’  responsibilities  is  not  only  beneficial 
from  a  workers'  point  of  view,  but  also  essential  to  promote  fair  competition  among 
businesses. 

The  announced  revision  of  the  Written  Statement  Directive  was  highlighted  as  one  of  the 
opportunities to revisit and modernise the existing acquis with regard to new forms of work.  

One way of addressing these challenges could be via measures to strengthen social dialogue, 
both  at  EU  level  but  also  within  Member  States.  This  is  particularly  relevant  as  in  many 
Member States social dialogue has been weakened as a result of the crisis. Some saw the need 
to  increase  the  coverage  of  the  right  to  collective  bargaining  through  capacity  building  and 
measures  to  extend  collective  bargaining  to  workers  in  precarious  situations  and  self-
employed.  

Secondly,  experts  saw  the  need  to  fill  gaps  arising  from  changing  technologies,  by 
proposing for instance to include the right to privacy or the protection of personal data in the 
employment relationship, and an update of health and safety rules.  

Thirdly,  the  changing  nature  of  the  labour  market  also  means  that  people  are  faced  with 
multiple  transitions  during  their  career,  for  example  from  regular  to  irregular  contracts. 
Action  was considered  necessary  to ensure  access  to  and  portability of  social  protection 
so  that  people  in  all  forms  of  employment,  standard  and  non-standard,  as  well  as  the  self-
employed  have  access  to  adequate  social  protection  and  the  possibility  to  accumulate 
entitlements and consult them through the life-course. Measures in this area would also have 
beneficial effects in terms of equality between men and women, as women generally undergo 
more of such transitions during their professional life than men.  

Another challenge, which will become even more critical in the future, is the focus of the acquis 
on  the  workforce,  thereby  omitting  a  whole  range  of  other  persons.  It  was  argued  that  in 
addition to rights pertaining to workers, the EU acquis should better protect other categories 
of  people  such  as  the  unemployed  and  those  most  vulnerable,  particularly  by  extending 
protection  against discrimination  beyond the  field  of employment,  and  through additional 
initiatives in social protection.  Ideas included legislation  to better address the socio-economic 
determinants  of  health  inequalities,  and  a  coherent  legislative  framework  for  parental  leave. 
Some called for the establishment of a European framework for minimum income schemes41. 

Finally,  social  and  employment  rights  should  be  better  mainstreamed  across  all  policy 
areas.  In  some  cases,  social  protection  and/or  social  rights  can  be  promoted  via  other 
instruments and policies whose primary purpose lies elsewhere, for example as regards access 
to essential services, such as energy. 

39 This point was also confirmed by ETUC who called for widening the scope of the definition of a worker 
so  that  it  is  not  restricted  or  interpreted  to  apply  to  the  more  limited  category  of  ‘employee’,  and 
removing unfair exemptions that leave some workers outside the scope of protection. 
40 Inspiration could be drawn from the ILO recommendation on employment relationships. 
41  The  European  Parliament  invited  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  evaluate  the  how  an 
adequate  minimum  income  could  be  provided  in  all  Member  States.  See  Resolution  2016/2095(INI), 
para. 15. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
Stepping up implementation and enforcement 

There  was  consensus  that  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  existing  acquis  should  be 
reinforced. Very often, citizens could not enjoy existing rights due to a lack of implementation 
and enforcement. In the context of EU labour law, unlike in other areas, there are very few EU 
rules directly concerned with enforcement of rights. 

Experts  highlighted  various  ways  to  close  the  enforcement  gap,  through  legislative  and  non-
legislative action.  

One  idea was to  ensure  that  existing  or  future  legislation  in  the  field  of  labour  law  contained 
procedural  provisions  for  enforcement,  and  to  complement  existing  instruments  with 
enforcement  provisions,  where  necessary.  The  objective  would  be  to  provide  for  access  to 
justice,  support  in  litigation,  protection  against  victimisation,  basic  rules  on  remedies,  and 
dissemination of information. Inspiration could be drawn from existing instruments e.g. in the 
field on non-discrimination or free movement, where a range of enforcement tools have been 
adopted in recent years. Others asked for more and better labour inspections.   

Redress mechanisms were also  seen as important for the protection of working conditions, 
including  through  additional  channels  such  as  Ombudspersons,  equality  bodies  and  one-stop 
information points.  

Significant  progress  could  also  be  achieved  by  ensuring  higher  awareness  of  rights  and 
enforcement mechanisms in case of violations. Setting out clear concepts, for example through 
guidelines,  was  seen  as  crucial  to  ensure  a  more  consistent  implementation  of  the  acquis  on 
the ground. Other suggestions included increasing the awareness of labour market institutions 
and  labour  inspectorates  about  new  employment  forms  and  their  potential  implications;  or 
establishing  codes  of  conduct  and  certification  to  incentivise  fairer  employment  practices  at 
company level. 

Driving reforms and convergence through the European Semester, benchmarking and 
monitoring 

Stakeholders,  notably  employer  organisations,  argued  that  the  Pillar  should  use  as  first 
delivery  mechanism  soft  policy  instruments  to  support  national  reforms  and  provide 
Member States with a tool to track their progress in comparison to each other. This would be 
done  through  coordination  of  national  policies  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester, 
benchmarking,  mutual  learning  and  good  practices  exchange.  With  this  approach  the  Pillar 
would  build  on  existing  instruments  that  take  different  national  situations  into  consideration 
and allow for tailor-made implementation.  

In  particular,  there  was  overall  consensus  for  the  need  to  further  strengthen  the  European 
Semester  in  becoming  an  economic  and  social  governance  framework  and  for  giving  more 
visibility  to  social  considerations  and  social  fairness  when  promoting  structural  reforms, 
investment and responsible fiscal policies. Some stakeholders argued that the principles of the 
Pillar  would  need  to  be  integrated  into  the  employment  policy  guidelines  that  underpin  the 
country-specific recommendations. However, others saw a need to avoid diluting the Semester 
which  should  continue  to  address  economic,  fiscal  and  employment  policy.  Implementation 
should be fully pursued, evaluated and if necessary sanctioned42.  

42 Evangelical Church in Germany, Diakonie, Kommissariat der Deutschen Bischöfe, Caritas. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
The development of benchmarking was generally considered essential to support the reform 
process specific to each Member State and to achieve upward convergence in employment and 
social outcomes43. Such benchmarking could provide a fresh approach, based on precise policy 
guidance  and  assessment  of  national  progress  towards  quantitative  or  qualitative  criteria  in 
order  to  increase  the  quality  of  governance,  the  cost-effectiveness  of  public  policies  and 
support  the  diffusion  of  best  practices.  Certain  stakeholders  suggested  that  benchmarking 
could be further developed to underpin a stronger degree of institutional convergence in labour 
markets  and  social  policies  in  the  euro  area,  while  employer  organisations  and  a  number  of 
Member States argued that the Pillar should not set binding standards44.  

A  further  proposal  was  to  devise  an  appropriate  mechanism  to  measure  and  monitor 
progress  in  the  realisation  of  social  rights  through  indicators,  data  collection  and  monitoring 
systems.  Suggestions  included  the  development  of  a  social  scoreboard  mechanism  linked  to 
the  Pillar.  The  European  Parliament  called  for  a  potential  new  Convergence  Code.  The 
Committee  of  the  Regions  suggested  adding  regional  disparity  indicators  to  the  EMU  social 
indicators scoreboard to support greater convergence and improve the social dimension of the 
EMU.  At  the  same  time,  many  underlined  that  the  monitoring  of  the  Pillar  should  be  done 
primarily  through  the  European  Semester,  and  draw  on  the  tools  which  are  already  used  to 
analyse  the  situation  of  Member  States  and  their  progress,  such  as  the  Joint  Employment 
Report  and  existing  monitoring  tools  such  as  the  Employment  Performance  Monitor  and  the 
Social Protection Performance Monitor.  

Involving the social partners  

The  consultation  highlighted  the  crucial  contribution  that  social  partners  should  have  in 
implementing  the  Pillar.  This  results  from  their  role  as  key  contributors  to  economic 
developments  on 
bargaining powers.  

the  ground  and  collective 

In particular, social dialogue was widely recognised 
as  a  core  component  of  a  well-functioning  social 
market economy to address the challenges related 
to  labour  market  and  social  developments:  the 
Member  States  that  proved  most  resilient  during 
the crisis could often rely on labour market policies 
that  had  been  co-designed  by  workers'  and 
employers' 
representatives,  or  on  collective 
bargaining  structures  that  had  gradually  adapted 
to the challenges of a changing economy.  

The  joint  statement  on  a  new  start  for  social 
dialogue  signed  on  27  June  2016  by  the 
European  social  partners,  the  Commission  and 
the  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  the  European 

CEEP, the European Centre of Employers 
and Enterprises providing Public Services 
and Services of general interest: “The role 
of the social partners will be … critical and 
should … be integrated in the pillar in a 
transversal way, making it clear that social 
policies cannot achieve their goals and deliver 
sustainable effects if social partners are not 
fully involved in their shaping and 
implementation." 

ETUC: the Pillar "should promote social 
dialogue and collective bargaining as the 
right way to design and implement the 
policies and rights within it'. 

43 Benchmarking was particularly discussed in work stream 3. See page 13 of this report. 
44  Employer  organisations  in  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Denmark,  Finland,  Ireland,  Malta, 
Sweden and Slovakia argued that the Pillar should not set binding standards, but rather be a broad guide 
for development of the economic and social systems in the Member States. This position is shared by a 
number  of  Member  States,  including  the  UK,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands,  Latvia  and  Sweden  who 
considered  that  any  EU  initiative  would  need  to  carefully  take  into  account  different  national  starting 
points, challenges and institutional set ups.  

22 

 
 
                                                            
Union  confirmed  a  shared  commitment  to  strengthening  social  dialogue.  All  sides  also 
committed  to  a  number  of  concrete  actions.  The  joint  statement  is  considered  by  EU  social 
partners as a common roadmap to design and implement policies for growth and job creation, 
and could thus support the Pillar's implementation. 

Financing the Pillar implementation 

Feedback  from  the  consultation  highlighted  that  the  Pillar's  final  proposal  should  include 
considerations  about  the  financial  means  that  could  support  its  implementation,  covering 
different levels, from national budgets to the EU budget.  

several 

stakeholders, 

The  importance  of  efficient  and  productive  public  and  private  investment  to  support 
economic  growth  and  job  creation  was  emphasised.  Delivering  on  the  Pillar  would  require 
better directed and - in several countries - additional public funding targeted at quality public 
services, education and training, infrastructure (for example in transport and energy sectors), 
innovation and research, which could be used as leverage to foster private investment. In this 
context, 
especially 
among  trade  unions,  public  employers  and 
NGOs, 
focussed  on  the  notion  of  social 
investment,  which  relates  to  the  use  of  public 
funding to achieve positive economic and social 
outcomes  thus  delivering  returns 
for  the 
economy  as  a  whole.  Some  asked  for  binding 
targets  for  social  investment  in  areas  like 
education,  Early  Childhood  Education  and 
Care/childcare,  health  services,  vocational 
training and activation measures. 

"The EESC calls for renewed efforts to 
promote the concept of social investment 
throughout all relevant policy fields. The EESC 
[…] has called for a European Social 
Investment Pact, which would support social 
reforms and social investments and help to 
bring about renewed economic, social and 
territorial convergence." 

This  idea  is  linked  to  the  broader  debate  over  the  quality  of  public  expenditure  and  the 
growth-enhancing dimension of social policies: rather than being a burden on economic 
activity,  well-designed  labour  market  and  social  policies  can  be  a  productive  factor  that 
underpins  economic  performance.  It  was  suggested  that  the  Pillar  could  provide  guidance  on 
how  to  design  reforms  in  a  way  that  improves  the  cost-effectiveness  of  social  policies,  thus 
reducing the need for spending cuts as a means to consolidate public budgets in bad economic 
times,  and  supports  the  modernisation  of  social  spending  leading  to  a  stronger  economy, 
better social outcomes, intergenerational equity, while reinforcing fiscal sustainability. 

In terms of its fiscal impact, some underlined that the implementation of the Pillar needs to 
take  into  account  the  budgetary  position  of  the  Member  States,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the 
sustainability  of  their  public  finances  and  compatibility  with  the  EMU.  Other  stakeholders 
advocated  for  more  flexibility  in  the  Stability  and  Growth  Pact  to  allow  for  more  social 
investment45  and  called  for  exempting  parts  of  investment-related  social  expenditure  from 
fiscal rules under the Stability and Growth Pact.  

Targeted  and  coherent  use  of  EU  funds  was  seen  as  a  necessary46  support  from  the  EU  to 
underpin  the  implementation  of  the  Pillar  at  national  level,  for  instance  by  deploying  the 

45 For instance, ETUC, the EESC, Italian Camera dei Deputati, CGIL and NGOs such as the Social Platform 
and European Anti-Poverty Network. 
46 For instance NGOs like the European Anti-Poverty Network, SOLIDAR, COFACE, Save the Children, the 
Social Platform, SOS Children's Villages International, as well as the European Social Policy Network and 
the European Pact for Social Progress (Vienna, 29 November 2016). 

23 

 
 
                                                            
European Structural and Investment Funds. Various EU-wide NGOs called for both a more 
targeted and wider use of EU funding instruments to fight poverty and social exclusion across 
Europe.  The  Pillar  could  drive  the  new  generation  of  funds  post-2020  according  to  some 
stakeholders.  The  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  could  also  contribute  to  a 
smarter use of new and existing public and private resources.  

Box 4: How the EU budget could support the Pillar 

New  ideas  raised  throughout  the  consultation  on  how  the  EU  budget  could  support  the 
implementation of the Pillar included:  

  Setting up a dedicated fund to support the implementation of reforms and to boost upward 

convergence in employment and social outcomes; 

  Developing a new comprehensive EU funding programme to combat poverty and inequality, 
to  support  innovative  grass-roots  projects  and  enable  the  direct  engagement  of 
beneficiaries; 

  Creating a new fund to repair economies most hit by the crisis47; 
 
Introducing conditionality in EU funding linked to compliance with the Pillar principles;  
  Extending  the  scope  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  to  better 
address the challenges brought about by new forms of work and digitalisation, particularly 
in favour of SMEs, and make its deployment quicker48;  

  Expanding  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  most  Deprived  (FEAD),  supporting  EU 
countries  to  provide  material  assistance  to  the  most  deprived,  to  cover  access  to  basic 
services in addition to consumer goods under the definition of ‘basic material assistance’;  
  Establishing  public  social  investment  rules  and  targets  for  the  Member  States  to 
complement  the  use  of  EU  funding  instruments;  Creating  a  new  instrument  to  support 
intra-EU  mobility  and  young  mobile  jobseekers  who  accept  an  offer  in  another  Member 
State,  in  order  to  compensate  some  extra  costs  related  to  mobility  (language  training, 
relocation etc.)49.  

The  idea  of  setting  up  a  common  fiscal  stabilisation  function  at  euro  area  level,  for 
instance in the form of a EU-wide unemployment benefit scheme50, was also raised51 52. 

47 Proposed for instance by Portugal for the euro area. 
48 Proposed by France. 
49 Proposed by France. 
50 Proposed for instance by Italy. 
51 The Committee of the Regions called for the Commission to propose a fiscal capacity for the euro area, 
open to all Member States, which could also allow for a European coordination of anti-cyclical policies. 
52 For more details, see page 12 of this report, as part of the feedback gathered through work stream 3. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
III. Discussions on the principles of the Pillar  

The  preliminary  outline  of  the  Pillar  included  twenty  principles  structured  around  three  main 
headings:  

1. Equal opportunities and access to the labour market;  

2. Fair working conditions; and 

3. Adequate and sustainable social protection.  

This chapter presents evidence and feedback received from stakeholders on the content of the 
draft  principles,  including  from  expert  discussions  held  in  work  stream  meetings.  It  also 
features highlights from relevant practices.  

Among the three work streams organised by the Commission, work stream 2 provided a forum 
for expert discussions on challenges and opportunities of transformations in the world of work, 
welfare systems and society more broadly, and looked in detail at the most relevant aspects of 
the twenty principles. A summary of those discussions is presented in the section below. 

Feedback  from  Work  Stream  2  -  The  future  of  work  and  of  welfare  systems: 
challenges and opportunities 

Work  stream  2  organised  expert  hearings  on  the  "Future  of  work"  (30  May  2016),  "Labour 
market transitions - revisiting flexicurity" (16 June 2016), and the "Future of welfare systems" 
(30  June  2016).  A  strategic  dialogue  meeting  with  civil  society  organisations  took  place  on  6 
July  2016.  On  18  October  2016,  the  work  stream  organised  a  high  level  expert  seminar  in 
Paris on "The Future of Work and Welfare" together with France Stratégie. 

The world of work is rapidly changing, opening new opportunities to skilled workers 
and requiring swift adaptation to the digital labour market… 

Automation,  digitisation  and  global  value  chains  are  leading  on 
the  one  hand  to  more  employment  opportunities  with  flexible 
working  arrangements  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  frequent 
transitions  between  jobs  and  more  varied  forms  of 
employment. First estimates of the extent of job losses due to 
automation  and  mass  technological  unemployment  might  have 
been  over-blown.  However,  many  jobs  involving  information 
exchange,  selling,  using 
fingers  and  hands  will  change 
considerably.  

OCCUPATIONAL 
DISLOCATOIN DUE TO 
AUTOMATION AND 
ROBOTISATION 

9% of jobs in developed 
countries are at a high risk 
of being automated. For 
another 25% of jobs, more 
than half of the tasks will 
significantly change  

As  the  pace  of  technological  innovation  is  accelerating,  more  people  will  need  a  new 
combination  of  soft  and  technical  skills  essential  for  navigating  digital  labour  markets53. 
Investment  in  human  capital  is  not  adequate  for  responding  to  the  current  rhythm  of 
change.  

Making  skills  pay  is  crucial  for  filling  skill  gaps,  and  decent  pay  is  a  major  concern  in  the 
aftermath of the crisis. New dimensions of job quality emerge, such as increased expectations 
for autonomy at work and better work-life balance. As working lives become more varied, 

53 This point was also highlighted by the European research community in the seminar on 'Work, Welfare 
and Inequalities in Europe – The Research Perspective', 10 October 2016. 

25 

 
 
                                                            
with  people  changing  jobs  more  frequently,  many  workers  are  likely  to  face  increasing 
difficulty  in  building  up  and  maintaining  social  security  entitlements  –  notably 
occupational entitlements including pensions. 

… while an ageing population is confronted with increasing inequalities. 

Addressing  the  challenges  of  demographic  change  may  require  more  people  to  work 
longer  and  more  productively.  Inter-generational  divides  are  rising  in  the  type  of  jobs  on 
the  labour  market,  but  also  in  access  to  assets  and  social  protection.  During  the  crisis, 
pensions were more protected compared to other social benefits. For young people especially, 
access  to  housing  remains  problematic  particularly  in  large  cities.  This also has  an  impact on 
poverty, as housing-related costs account for a large share of consumption. 

Income  inequality  has  increased  on  average  in  the  EU  since  2010.  Both  globalisation  and 
technological progress are benefiting highly skilled workers more than low-skilled ones, leading 
to increased wage inequality.  

Catch-up and convergence require more efforts 

Increasingly  uneven  opportunities  between  high  tech  innovation  hubs  and  regions  relying  on 
lower  productivity  models,  the  ageing  of  the  population,  and  the  legacy  of  public  debt  are 
threatening  to  further  deepen  divergences  across  the  EU.  In  digital,  highly  competitive 
economies, convergence and catch-up can be difficult, and many regions risk lagging behind. 

The Member States more vulnerable to economic shocks are also those where the quality of 
institutions  and  the  delivery  of  social  and  labour  policies  need  to  be  improved.  Poverty  and 
exclusion  continue  to  be  high,  in  spite  of  high  social  spending  in  the  EU.  The  efficiency  of 
social  spending  could  be  increased  by  investing  early  in  people  in  a  life-course 
perspective and by targeting support to critical transition points in the working life such 
as  moving  from  education  to  work,  caring  for  children  or  relatives,  changing  jobs  or 
occupation.  

26 

 
 
 
 
1. Equal opportunities and access to the labour market 

The  chapter  on  equal  opportunities  and  access  to  the  labour  market  in  the  draft  Pillar 
included  principles  on  skills  development  and  life-long  learning  and  active  support  for 
employment,  to  increase  employment  opportunities,  facilitate  transitions  between  different 
statuses and improve the employability of individuals.  

Evidence  

As  a  result  of  fast-going  globalisation  and  technological  change,  education  has 
become  an  increasingly  important  determinant  of  access  to  quality  jobs.  While 
employment  rates  have  always  been  higher  for  those  with  higher  level  of  educational 
attainment,  the  crisis  has  sensibly  accelerated  the  process  of  economic  change  and  the 
deterioration  of  labour  market  outcomes  for  low-qualified54  individuals  (especially  younger 
ones) relative to their medium- and high-qualified peers.  

Figure  4:  Share  of  low-qualified  and  employment  rate  by  level  of  educational  attainment  for 
young adults (25-39) in the EU28 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Source: LFS 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

% Low-qualified (rhs)

ER low-qualified (lhs)

ER medium-qualified (lhs)

ER high-qualified (lhs)

A  rapid  process  of  upskilling  of  young  generations  is  being  witnessed  in  Europe  in 
response to these trends. The early school leaving rate (age group 18-24) has declined by 
almost one third over the past decade, and the share of low-qualified young adults (age group 
25-39) has declined by one fourth over the same period and is still going down. Still in 2015, 
in some countries the share of low-qualified young adults remains worryingly high, as it ranges 
from 6% in the Czech Republic to 25% or more in Malta, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Romania.  

While  the  pace  at  which  jobs  and  their  skills  requirements  are  changing  is 
accelerating, participation in lifelong learning remains relatively low and stagnant for 
the EU as a whole (10.7% for age group 25-64 in 2015 versus 9.6% in 2005), and continues 
to  be  biased  towards  those  who  are  already  high-skilled  and  in  stable  employment.  While 
digital skills are becoming increasingly important for employment and participation in society, 
24%  of  all  Europeans have no  or  low  digital  skills  in  2015.  This figure  remains  high  even  for 
the youngest generations, at 20% of those aged 25 to 34.  

Equal  opportunities  and  access  to  the  labour  market  are  particularly  weak  for 
persons  with  disabilities  and  migrants.  People  with  disabilities  make  up  13%  of  the  age 
group  15-64  in  the  EU,  and  their  employment  rate  is  27  percentage  points  (pps)  lower  than 
that one of those without disabilities. At the same time, the employment rate gap for persons 
born  outside  the  EU  (age  group  15-64)  compared  to  native-born  is  at  8.4  pps.  It  is  sensibly 

54  Low-qualified  individuals  are  those  without  an  upper  secondary  degree;  medium-qualified  are  those 
with at most an upper secondary or a post-secondary non-tertiary qualification; high-qualified individuals 
hold a tertiary qualification. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
higher for women than for men (11.3 pps versus 4.7 pps). 

Important inequalities in the labour market remain between women and men. In spite 
of  the  fact  that  women  tend  to  be  higher-qualified  than  men,  their  careers  are  often  more 
interrupted, they have lower pay and their careers are flatter. As a consequence, women earn 
less than men over their life cycle, and their pensions are lower. The gender pay gap stood at 
16.3% in 2015 and the gender gap in earnings, which comprises inequalities resulting from the 
gaps in pay, working hours and employment, stood at 39.8% in 2014. Part of this is due to the 
unequal  uptake  of  family  care  responsibilities  between  men  and  women:  women  work  less 
often than men, and if they do so, it is more often on a part-time basis. In 2015, the gender 
employment rate gap (in full time equivalents) stood at 18.1 pps for the EU on average.  

28 

 
 
 
What people told us 

Investing in skills and education should be a top priority … 

Social partners, think tanks and governmental authorities ranked skills, education and lifelong 
learning  as  top  priority  areas  for  convergence.  In  this  context,  the  European  Parliament 
supported  a  Skills  Guarantee  as  a  new  right  for  everyone,  at  every  stage  of  life,  to 
acquire fundamental skills for the 21st century. 

Investing  in  relevant  skills  and  human  capital,  including  entrepreneurship,  as  well  as 
strengthening  the  quality  of  education  and  training  systems  were  considered  salient  to 
address the emerging challenges in the labour market. Concrete proposals raised in this area 
included  the  creation  of  a  European  quality  framework  for  apprenticeship55,  the  definition  of 
statutory  minimum  standards  for  education  and  training  at  EU  level,  and  increasing  the 
proportion of workers participating in continuous vocational training and education56.  

Highlight – Promoting entrepreneurship and skills:  

The "Slush" annual start-up event in Finland 

In November 2008, 300 people attended the first annual "Slush" event, organised by leading 
Finnish  entrepreneurs  to  promote  entrepreneurship  as  the  future  of  Europe.  By  2016 
attendance  had  risen  to  more  than  17,500  people,  from  120  countries,  and  1  million  live 
stream viewers, making it Europe's leading start-up event. 

Slush is a student-driven, non-profit movement originally founded to change attitudes toward 
entrepreneurship.  The  very  core  of  the  event  is  to  facilitate  meetings  between  start-ups  and 
investors and to build a world-wide start-up community. The annual event contributes to help 
the growing number of successful European tech firms, including start-ups, to go to market. 

... as it contributes to job creation and growth … 

Governments  and  employers57  emphasised  skills  as  a  driver  of  job  creation  and  growth.  A 
more  comprehensive  approach  to  re-skilling  should  build  on  skills  anticipation,  strengthened 
vocational  education  and  training,  life-long  learning,  support  for  entrepreneurship  and 
increased employer responsibility58. 

In  particular,  adapting  education  and  training  to  the  needs  of  the  labour  market  was 
seen  as  a  top  priority  among  national  authorities  in  many  countries59,  particularly  to  tackle 
youth unemployment. International organisations60 also recognised the crucial role of skills and 
saw  scope  for  the  benchmarking  of  re-training  and  re-skilling  programmes  in  the  Member 
States to improve their quality and outcomes. 

55 European Parliament, ETUC, see also the French government's proposal on "statut du stagiaire". 
56 UNI Europa (the European services workers union), Diakonisches Werk Baden, ETUC. 
57 UEAPME and CEC European Managers. 
58 UNI Europa, German government. 
59 Austria, Germany, Finland, Hungary, and Lithuania. 
60 OECD, the World Bank, ILO 

29 

 
 
                                                            
Highlight – Social inclusion through business-learning:  

The Rotterdam Business Case 

Rotterdam is taking a novel approach to support its 3,500 self-employed citizens living below 
the poverty line. Instead of receiving just a payment  to meet today’s emergency needs, they 
are  learning  business  skills  that  will  help  them  rise  out  of  poverty.  Practical  support  ranges 
from  writing  a  business  plan  to  organising  financial  administration  and  preparing  annual 
reports.  If  they  need  advice  on  business  vision  and  strategy  they  can  work  with  an  expert 
coach  from  the  Entrepreneurial  Sound  Board  foundation.  If  their  most  pressing  need  is 
financial support, they can arrange a meeting with the Regional Bureau for the Self-Employed. 

Over  550  small  business  owners,  from  hairdressers  to  artists  and  restaurateurs,  have 
benefited from up to six-month help learning business principles and addressing their business 
problems. 

… with a focus on lifelong education and support for the disadvantaged … 

A  number  of  trade  unions  and  NGOs 
shared the view that equality of access to 
education  and  lifelong  learning  is  of 
primary  importance  in  the  fight  against 
social  exclusion  too.  Social  economy 
initiatives  were  mentioned  as  good 
practice  for  up-skilling  persons  excluded 
from the labour market61. 

Swedish Government: "Access to lifelong learning 
creates good conditions for a flexible labour market, 
which is a prerequisite for the EU’s global 
competitiveness." 

Highlight – Fostering the skills needed for entrepreneurship:  

One of Gothenburg's entrepreneurial hub 

Gothenburg developed  the Entrepreneurial West Hisingen  project as a means of breaking the 
cycle  of  disengagement  and  poverty  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  to  help  citizens  acquire  skills 
and knowledge for employability.  

The project, running in 2012 – 2014, had three strands: stimulating start-ups, increasing the 
survival  rate  and  growth  of  existing  businesses,  and  embedding  entrepreneurship  education 
into  schools.  The  project  held  some  600  start-up  talks,  leading  to  the  creation  of  100  new 
businesses.  

One  of  the  most  challenging  aspects  of  the  project  was  working  with  schools  to  implement 
entrepreneurial  education  as  part  of  the  mainstream  curriculum.  This  meant  persuading  local 
politicians  of  the  value  of  prioritising  entrepreneurial  and  business  learning  over  traditional 
subjects. Ten schools have since created plans to systematically work with entrepreneurship.  

… with an increased role for social partners. 

It was generally perceived that social partners have a key role to play for improving the skills 
of  the  labour  force,  and  there  was  agreement  on  the  need  for  cost  sharing  arrangements 
between employers, employees and the governments to extend training provision.  

61 European Association for the Education of Adults, REVES Network. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
favoured  more 

Proposals  from  trade  unions  included  a 
right  to  training  leave,62  while  employer 
organisations 
financial 
incentives  for  employers63  as  well  as 
systems. 
stronger 
Employer  organisations  argued  for  joint 
responsibility  of  the  companies  and  the 
individual  employees  when  it  comes  to 
training.64   

anticipation 

skills 

ILO: “Employers are also centrally placed in terms of 
offering apprenticeship and internship places, as 
well as providing on-the-job training and skills 
training overall. The institutional settings should 
facilitate constant dialogue with the private sector, 
to allow for assessments of current and anticipated 
skills needs to be fed into employment and 
educational policies.” 

A more fine-grained research65 was suggested on the implementation of training clauses in 
collective agreements and cost-sharing arrangements.  

Other suggestions included the creation of a legal status for interns to prevent abuses and 
encourage mobility66 and the establishment of EU-wide mechanisms for the recognition of 
informal skills67.  

Inclusive growth can be further enhanced by broadening equal opportunities …   

NGOs  and  certain  national  trade  unions  argued  that  equal  opportunities  should  be 
mainstreamed  across  the  principles  of  the  Pillar  and  that  segregation  and  discrimination 
based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability should be addressed more explicitly in the 
Pillar.  Others  pointed  to  an  implementation  gap  and  to  the  need  for  more  proactive 
enforcement of existing legislation. 

… and supporting gender equality and appropriate work-life balance. 

Others called for the mainstreaming of gender equality as it was seemingly limited to the 
issue of work-life balance68.  

Except  for  employers,  there  was  wide  consensus  that  gender  equality  and  work-life  balance 
should  be  supported  through  a  revised  and  coherent  legislative  framework69  covering 
maternity leave, paternity leave, parental leave and carer's leave, encouraging equal take-up 
of  leave  arrangements  by  men  and  women  across  all  categories  of  workers  and  self-
employed  in  order  to  improve  women's  access  to  and  position  within  the  labour  market70. 
Finally, various NGOs71 agreed that work-life balance should not be limited to labour market 
considerations.  

62 ETUC. 
63 BusinessEurope 
64 CEEP, BusinessEurope. 
65 OECD. 
66 French government. 
67 ATD (All Together in Dignity) Fourth World NGO. 
68  Among  others:  European  Parliament,  European  Confederation  of  Independent  Trade  Unions  (CESI), 
Swedish association of Regions (SKL), Bulgarian Fund for Women. 
69 Social Platform, UNI Europa. 
70 European Parliament. 
71 European Anti-Poverty Network, Social Platform, Eurochild, FEANTSA (European Federation of National 
Organisations Working with the Homeless), Eurodiaconia and others. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                            
Highlight – Promoting work-life balance in the workplace:  

The Family audit certification in Italy 

The  Family  audit  is  a  certification  granted  to  private  companies,  public  institutions  and  any 
other  organisation  which  develops  and  implements  plans  to  promote  and  facilitate  work-life 
balance  arrangements  in  the  workplace.  Such  arrangements  can  cover  work  organisation, 
family services, expertise of management, etc.  

The  audit  is  based  on  a  well-developed  methodology:  a  working  group  is  set  up  with  the 
organisation, advised by an external consultant. After carrying out an audit, each organisation 
develops  a  work-life  balance  plan.  Its  implementation  is  monitored  by  an  external  valuator. 
The  process  of  certification  is  a  management  tool  that  improves  the  well-being  of  employees 
and their families while also increasing productivity.  

The  project,  initiated  by  the  Italian  Province  of  Trento,  started  in  2012  at  regional  level, 
followed by a pilot at national level. So far 194 organisations have been involved in the Family 
Audit  process  (122  public  and  72  private),  and  143  have  been  awarded  the  Family  Audit 
Certificate, benefitting more than 100,000 workers. 

Striking  the  right  balance  between  flexibility  and  security  of  employment  remains  to  be 
addressed with a renewed holistic approach … 

The consultation pointed to the need to strike the right balance between flexibility and security 
of  employment.  Indeed,  some  claimed  that  during  the  crisis  the  focus  was  on  flexibility, 
advocating for a renewed focus on security in the future.  

In  particular,  social  partners  dedicated  ample  space  to  discuss  the  principle  on  flexible  and 
secure labour contracts.  

EU-level trade unions72 as well as certain NGOs argued for more focus on secure employment. 
ETUC  stressed  the  need  to  better  support  secure  transitions  between  education  and  work, 
between  work  and  periods  of  unemployment  and  career  advancement  in  work  by  providing 
appropriate  social  security  support  so  that  workers  remain  secure  during  periods  of 
unemployment, along with steps to increase worker employability. 

EU  level73  and  national  employer  organisations74  highlighted  the  importance  of  flexible 
employment and asked for a renewed flexicurity strategy75.  

The new focus could be among others on achieving fair, dynamic, mobile and inclusive labour 
markets;  ensuring  that  social  rights  can  be  adapted  to  remain  up-to-date  with  current  and 
future  framework  conditions  and  new  and  more  diverse  career  paths;  ensuring  continued 
employability; making sure that companies have enough flexibility to adapt their workforce 
to  changing  economic  circumstances;  and  putting  in  place  the  conditions  to  smooth  workers’ 
transitions  on  the  labour  market  between  jobs,  sectors  and  employment  statuses,  while 
respecting the diversity of industrial relations practices across Europe76.  

72 ETUC, Uni Europa. 
73 BEERG (Brussels European Employee Relations Group), BusinessEurope. 
74 Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ireland, Poland, and Spain. 
75 BusinessEurope, UEAPME. 
76 BusinessEurope. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
... based on modern active labour market policies and secure professional transitions that are 
comprehensive and focussed on upskilling.  

In  national  events  and  in  the  expert  consultation  the  question  emerged  whether  access  to 
employment  activation  could  become  a  new  social  right77.  In  this  context,  some 
organisations saw a clear added value of the EU defining minimum service delivery standards 
along the lines of the Recommendation on long-term unemployment and the Youth Guarantee, 
which  could  be  further  strengthened  and  made  legally  binding78.  The  French  Government 
argued for activation rights linked to the individual in every Member State. 

Highlight - Supporting activation:  

Centres for Lifelong Career Guidance (CISOKs) in Croatia 

In  Croatia,  eleven  Centres for Lifelong  Career Guidance  (CISOKs)  provide  free  lifelong  career 
guidance services to all citizens with a special focus on youth, including inactive NEETs who are 
not  registered  with  the  public  employment  services.  A  total  of  22  centres  are  foreseen  by 
2020.  

110,717  people  used  CISOK  services  between  July  2013  and  January  2016,  95.6%  of  which 
were satisfied or very satisfied with the services received. 

The services' financing and delivery are based on a broad partnership involving municipalities, 
chambers,  NGOs,  youth  organisations,  employers,  social  partners  and  schools.  CISOKs  are 
built  on  a  flexible  service  delivery  model,  where  services  are  adapted  to  the  local  context, 
labour  market  needs  and  partner  organisations.  Counsellor  support  provides  differentiated 
services tailored to the profile of individual clients. Originally established in 2013 and financed 
through  an  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance,  the  project's  sustainability  has  been 
assured through national funding and the ESF for 2014-2020. 

In  particular  the  European  Network  of  Public  Employment  Services  argued  that  the 
performance  and  cost-effectiveness  of  activation  measures  need  to  be  monitored, 
particularly  for  young  people,  while  for  others79  the  focus  should  be  on  up-skilling  initiatives 
rather than subsidised employment. 

Trade  unions  argued  that  the  specific  needs  of  marginalised  and  disadvantaged  groups 
should  be  duly  taken  into  account.  Antipoverty  organisations80  expressed  disagreement  with 
the emphasis on conditionality and disincentives to work.  

Highlight – Activation support through public-private cooperation:   

The Project 100 in West Sweden 

Projekt  Hundra!  brought  together  the  public  and  private  sectors  to    match  companies'  needs 
with the labour available in the city districts of Bergsjön and Kortedala in Göteborg.  

The  matching  was  done  through  structured  collaboration  between  companies  or  in  business 
associations,  from  the  identification  of  recruitment  needs  and  participants'  skills,  and  the 

77 European Political Strategy Centre. 
78 ATD (All Together in Dignity) Fourth World, Diakonisches Werk Baden. 
79 European Association for the Education of Adults. 
80 European Anti-Poverty Network and affiliates. 

33 

 
 
                                                            
matching  to  employment  with  support  to  businesses.  The  activities  worked  as  a  bridge 
between the companies and the project participants.  

Among the project's strengths were the combination of education and training, a high level of 
service,  collaborations  with  employers  and  sector  organisations,  and  a  feeling  of  community 
and  relationship  with  employers.  Participants  had  a  concrete  job  opportunity  and  received 
support including health prevention measures.  

The  project,  co-funded  through  ESF,  was  run  by  the  city  of  Göteborg  through  Arbetsforum 
from April  2010 to March 2013. As a result, 54% of the participants found a job, 1% season 
employment,  1%  went  onto  studies,  1%  went  on  parental  leave,  32%  went  back  to 
Arbetsforum and 11% went back to the social services. 

Stakeholders underlined the potential of the social economy, including social enterprises, for 
labour  market  integration  of  vulnerable  groups  and  social  cohesion  while  helping  towards 
innovation,  growth  and  employment,  and  providing  essential  services81.  The  notion  of 
collective  entrepreneurship  was  put 
innovative  model  where  risks, 
responsibilities,  knowledge  and  skills  are  shared  within  a  community  of  entrepreneurs,  while 
contributing to inclusive labour markets82.  

forward  as  an 

Close  to  activation  is  the  need  to  secure  professional  transitions,  which  are  considered 
central  to  address  the  changing  world  of  employment  and  as  such  should  be  supported.  This 
requires  comprehensive  and  transparent  portability  of  social  security  and  healthcare 
entitlements  which  should  follow  workers  during  their  career  across  employers  and  Member 
States83. 

Transitions could be supported through the establishment of individual welfare and training 
accounts  (see  example  of  France84  in  the  box).  Such  an  account  could  include  an  initial 
financial  support  for  continuing  education,  start-up,  transition  into  self-employment  etc.85  At 
EU  level  such  initiative  could  be  supported  and  interlinked  in  the form  of  a  European social 
security card.86  

Employer  organisations87,  in  general,  favoured  using  benchmarks  in  broad  areas  related  to 
labour market transitions88.  

Highlight – Securing professional transitions:  

The French "Compte Personnel d'Activité" (CPA) 

On 1 January 2017 France introduced a system of web-based, personal accounts with activity-
related rights (Compte Personnel d'Activité, CPA). In its current design, it aims to allow people 

of 

summary 

81 European Parliament, EESC, Social Platform, International and European Association of Mutual Benefit 
Societies (AIM), Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE). 
82 REVES network. 
83 German and French governments, European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (CESI). 
84A 
at 
CPA's 
http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/note-cpa-trois-questions.pdf,  and  a 
more 
at 
http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs_rapport_cpa_final_2.pdf.  
85 German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 
86 European Parliament. 
87 Business Europe, UEAPME. 
88 Areas include: reducing labour cost, attractiveness of employment contracts, access to unemployment 
benefits, entrepreneurship, active labour market policies, etc. 

description 

objectives 

expected 

detailed 

the 

is 

is 

34 

 
 
                                                            
to  use  "points"  accrued  on  past  jobs  for  training,  or  for  early  retirement  following  strenuous 
work conditions and taking into account voluntary activities. Conceivably these could even be 
used to receive support to create a start-up into self-employment. Initiated for jobseekers and 
private  sector  employees,  the  CPA  will  be  gradually  opened  to  independent  workers  (2018), 
normally with similar training rights, and civil servants.  

The  CPA  would  not  only  ensure  more  continuity  in  rights  across  job  types  and  enhance 
mobility.  It  also  aims  to  achieve  a  fuller  take-up  of  social  rights  and  to  empower  people  to 
choose the benefits and services that fit best with their needs. Advice will be offered on how to 
make the best use of one's CPA. 

35 

 
 
2. Fair working conditions 

The chapter on fair working conditions in the draft Pillar included principles designed to set an 
adequate  and  reliable  balance  of  rights  and  obligations  between  workers  and  employers,  as 
well as between flexibility and security elements, to facilitate job creation, job take-up and the 
adaptability of firms, and promoting social dialogue.  

Evidence  

Jobs  are  becoming  more  interesting  and  challenging.  Over  the  past  decade,  there  has 
been  an  increase  in  the  cognitive  dimensions  of  work,  more  autonomy,  more  scope  to 
influence work decisions, more access to training and increased use of ICT89.  

In  the  years  to  come,  technological  change  will  continue  to  drive  the  structural 
transformations  of  the  labour  market.  The  potential  scope  of  automation  has  expanded 
beyond  routine  work.  Based  on  calculations  in  selected  EU  countries,  about  9%  of  jobs  on 
average  are  estimated  to  be  at  a  high  risk  of  being  automated.  Another  larger  share  of  jobs 
(20%-35%) has low risks of full automation, but an important share (between 50% and 70%) 
of  automatable  tasks.  These  jobs  will  not  be  substituted  completely,  but  radically  reformed 
requiring  workers  to  reskill  and  adapt.  At  the  same  time,  the  share  of  workers  receiving 
employer-provided and/or -paid training increased from 26% in 2005 to 38% in 2015, and the 
share of workers who declare that they face complex tasks at work increased by 50%.  

In addition, the world of work is becoming increasingly task based: full time permanent 
contracts  co-exist  with  other  forms  of  employment  and  several  new  types  of  work  are  not 
being captured by traditional regulatory and social systems90.  

Minimum  wages  -  either  set  by  law  or  negotiated  by  the  social  partners  for  all  or  a 
number  of  sectors  -  exist  in  all  Member  States  to  protect  pay  at  the  bottom  end  of  the 
wage  distribution,  by  establishing  a  wage  floor  that  provides  a  fair  compensation  for  work, 
fosters labour supply and reduces the risk of in-work poverty. Twenty-two EU Member States 
have  a  national  statutory  minimum  wage,  but  its  level  varies  widely  across  countries  as 
compared to both the average and the median (Figure 5).  

Figure 5: Ratio of statutory minimum wage to average/median wage (%) 

n
a
i
d
e
m
/
e
g
a
r
e
v
a

r
e
v
o

e
g
a
w
m
u
m
i
n
i
M

)

%

(

e
g
a
w

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SI FR LU LT EL MT PL HU BE PT LV NL IE DE BG UK RO HR SK EE CZ ES

MW over average wage

MW over median wage

89 Based on the 6th European Working Conditions Survey by Eurofound. 
90  OECD  (2016),  Automation  and  Independent  work  in  a  Digital  Economy,  Policy  Brief  on  the  Future  of 
Work, OECD. 

36 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the minimum wage over average wage data concern 2015, except for Belgium, France and 
Latvia data concern 2014 and for Greece data are adjusted on the basis of 2011 data. For the 
minimum wage over median wage data concern 2014, except for Germany (2015). 

Source: Eurostat 

The proportion of low-wage earners varies considerably across countries. In 2014, it 
ranged from below 10% of all employees in the Nordic countries, Belgium, France and Italy, to 
close to 25% in Latvia, Romania and Lithuania. Low-wage earners are overrepresented among 
women,  young,  low-skilled  and  those  with  part-time  and  temporary  contracts.  For  temporary 
contracts, the incidence of a low wage is twice as high as for permanent contracts (32% versus 
15% in the EU in 2014). On average almost one out of two employees who were earning a low 
wage in 2012 experienced upward mobility and manage to escape low-wages within two years. 
This  upward  mobility  was  frequently  the  result  of  a  change  of  job  or  of  achieving  higher 
education levels. 

Collective  bargaining  can  play  a  key  role  for  ensuring  fair  working  conditions,  and 
has  come  under  pressure  in  many  Member  States  since  the  crisis  of  2008.  The  crisis 
has  indeed  reinforced  a  longer-term  decline  in  coverage  of  collective  agreements  already 
observed  since  the  1990s (see  Figure  6).  The  same  is  true  for union  membership,  which has 
been gradually decreasing since the 1980s. Collective bargaining coverage is typically lower in 
countries  where  firm-level  bargaining  prevails,  and  higher  where  sector-  or  national  level 
bargaining  dominate.  The  emergence  of  new  forms  of  work  besides  traditional  employment 
relationships  is  creating  new  challenges  and  calling  for  a  modernised  approach  to  social 
dialogue.  

Figure 6: Collective bargaining coverage and trade union density 

100

80

60

40

20

0

T
L

V
L

L
P

U
H

E
E

K
S

G
B

K
U

O
R

E
I

L
E

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

U
L

R
H

T
M

I
S

T
P

S
E

T
I

K
D

L
N

E
S

I
F

E
B

T
A

R
F

Bargaining coverage (latest)

Bargaining coverage (pre-crisis)

Union density

Note: Union Density is calculated as net union membership as a proportion of wage and salary 
earners  in  employment.  Bargaining  coverage  measures  the  %  of  employees  covered  by 
collective  wage  bargaining  agreements  as  a  proportion  of  all  employees  with  the  right  to 
bargaining. 

Source: Visser (2016) ICTWSS database 

Health  and  safety  at  the  workplace  has  overall  slightly  improved  over  the  past  ten 
years91.  However,  conditions  have  not  improved  uniformly.  There  has  been  a  marked 

91  According  the  physical  environment  index  developed  by  Eurofound  based  on  European  Working 
Conditions Survey, which measures the physical risks people encounter in their workplace. They include: 

37 

 
 
 
                                                            
reduction  since  2005  in  the  exposure  of  employees  to  powder,  dust,  fumes  and  smoke.  In 
contrast,  exposure  has  increased  to  chemical  products  and  potentially  infectious  materials 
(from 9% of the workers in 2005 to 14% in 2015). In 2015, 11% of the workers report being 
"not well  informed"  and  "not  at  all  well  informed"  about  health  and  safety  risks  at  work. The 
proportion  of  not  well  informed  workers  is  larger  among  those  more  exposed  to  risks  or 
working in small companies.  

What people told us 

Fair working conditions are needed … 

A number of national-level social partners and government representatives expressed the view 
that  working  conditions,  including  occupational  health  and  safety,  should  feature  more 
prominently  in  the  Pillar  and  be  better  linked  to  new  forms  of  work.  As  regards  working 
conditions,  some  argued  that  undeclared  and  informal  work  were  not  sufficiently 
addressed92. Enforcement of existing rights should also be a priority93.  

… to address the rising challenges of new forms of work … 

Trade  unions  at  the  EU  and  national  level  along  with  the  EESC  and  some  NGOs94  were  in 
favour of adapting legislation on working conditions given the growth in new, atypical forms 
of  employment  resulting  from  digitalisation  and  the  so-called  “platform  economy”.  Trade 
unions,  both  at  EU  and  national  level,  were  particularly  proactive  in  suggesting  additional 
social rights for inclusion in the Pillar to guarantee fair working conditions (e.g. the right to 
dignity at work, the right to reasonable working time etc.). In this context, for instance, trade 
unions asked for legislation to provide the right to privacy, improved protection of personal 
data  in  the  employment  relationship95  and  an  obligation  for  employers  to  provide 
employees  with  regular,  full  information  on  which  digital  data  is  being  collected,  and  to  what 
end96.  CESI  advocated  for  a  right  to  disconnect  in  order  to  prevent  increasing  or  unpaid 
working hours. This applies in particular to mobile and digital workers. 

The  European  Parliament  called  for  the  enactment  of  a  Directive  on  fair  working 
conditions97. The European Youth Forum supported this proposal and saw a new role for the 
EU in creating intermediary platforms particularly for the gig economy guaranteeing more 

exposure  to  noise,  dust,  chemicals  or  infectious  agents;  lifting  heavy  loads;  and  repetitive  hand 
movements. 
92 European Social Policy Network, COMECE, European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade 
(EFFAT),  European  Social  Insurance  Platform  (ESIP)  and  representatives  from  Central  and  Eastern 
Europe in consultation meetings. 
93  European  Parliament,  EESC,  Scottish  Government,  ETUC,  CESI,  Irish  Congress  of  Trade  Unions,  and 
others. 
94  The  European  Youth  Forum  called  for  a  Directive  on  fair  working  conditions,  and  a  Framework  on 
minimum standards for all internships and apprenticeships. 
95 ETUC. 
96 CESI. 
97 The proposed Directive should ensure for every worker a core set of enforceable rights, including equal 
treatment,  social  protection,  protection  in  case  of  dismissal,  health  and  safety  protection,  provisions on 
working  time  and  rest  time,  freedom  of  association  and  representation,  collective  bargaining,  collective 
action, access to training, and adequate information and consultation rights; the directive should apply to 
employees as well as to all workers in non-standard forms of employment, such as fixed-term work, part-
time work, on-demand work, self-employment, crowd-working, internship or traineeship. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     
transparency on working conditions and contractual arrangements and helping Member States 
and businesses develop new regulatory models. 

Highlight – Guaranteeing employment conditions in the new forms of work:  

Gig  intermediaries  -  SMart  Belgium:  access  to  social  security  for  the  collaborative 
economy 

SMart Belgium offers  employee status by transforming the service contracts of self-employed 
into  short-term  temporary  contracts.    The  organisation  converts  (against  a  fee)  the 
independent/self-employed  contracts  into  employment  relationships,  taking  the  role  of 
employers  and  ensuring  access  to  social  rights  and  security.  It  also  acts  as  salary  guarantee 
insurance,  smoothing  income  flows  and  providing  a  buffer  against  late  payments  and 
contractor default. In addition, SMart Belgium offers administrative support with invoicing and 
payment of social security contributions, and/or accounting as well as fringe services, such as 
individual  guidance,  insurance  pooling,  co-working  spaces,  rental  of  equipment,  training 
provision  –  particularly  entrepreneurship  skills,  professional  networks,  and  platforms  for 
creating tendering consortia. 

… with a new focus on a safe and inclusive working environment … 

The need for upholding existing standards in occupational health and safety and to support 
their enforcement was highlighted by some respondents98. Some put an emphasis on gender 
aspects99 and on the ageing workforce,100 on mental health and health promotion services at 
work101 and on extending protection to the self-employed102. 

In  the  view  of  NGOs  and  trade  unions,  the  Pillar  should  explicitly  support  reasonable 
accommodation for people with disabilities103. 

Highlight – Making the workplace inclusive for people with disabilities:  

Hungary's experience 

Hungary is working on improving people with disabilities' inclusion into the labour market with 
accredited employment and by promoting reasonable accommodation.  

Accredited employers can receive grants and subsidies to employ people with disabilities, with 
explicit preference given to expenses to adapt or transform workplaces. They have to provide 
accommodations such as rehabilitation advisors, rehabilitation mentors and personal assistants 
if needed, and must have an occupational rehabilitation programme and a rehabilitation plan. 
Employers  have  to  arrange  the  work  tools,  equipment,  technology  and  the  physical 
environment to the working abilities of the employees with disabilities.  

The  support  also  includes  personal  subsidies  such  as  wage  costs  and  support,  a  job  creation 
subsidy,  or  the  so-called  single-expense  support.  In  addition  a  rehabilitation  card  was  put  in 
place  in  2012  to  ensure  reliefs  in  the  social  contribution  tax  for any  firm  employing  a person 

98 Member States, EQUINET (European Network of Equality Bodies), the EESC and others. 
99 Swedish Government, EQUINET. 
100  EFFAT  (European  Federation  of  Food,  Agriculture,  Tourism  and  Trade),  ESIP  (European  Social 
Insurance Platform). 
101 Uni Europa, EuroHealth Net. 
102 ESIP. 
103 Autism Europe, European Blind Union, European Disability Forum, CGIL. 

39 

 
 
                                                            
with disabilities who has such a card, up to the amount of 27% of the minimum wage twice for 
the  entire  duration  of  the  employment.  The  number  of  people  with  the  card  is  increasing 
(5,574 in 2012, 31,608 in 2014).  

… while avoiding an increase in administrative burden. 

Conversely,  some  EU  level104  and  national  employer  organisations105  were  more  sceptical  of 
the  principles  put  forward  in  the  field  of  employment  conditions.  Issues  were  raised  around 
subsidiarity  as  regards  the  introduction  of  minimum  standards  on  notice  and  probation 
periods106,  and  the  introduction  of  new  legislation  covering  new  forms  of  work  as  this  could 
potentially 
further 
circumventions of labour law107. It can also negatively impact innovation in the labour market 
and the related job  creation. Some Member States also expressed scepticism with regards to 
uniform standards in employment protection. 

increase  administrative  burdens  for  employers  and 

lead  to 

Wages should provide for a decent standard of living while respecting the national traditions of 
wage setting. Adequate minimum wages… 

Several  trade  unions  and  employers  organisations  opposed  any  EU  intervention  on  wage 
formation,  which  should  be  left  to  the  national  level  respecting  the  autonomy  of  social 
partners.  ETUC  and  some  national  trade  unions  advocated  increasing  the  number  of  workers 
covered by collective agreements and coverage of collective bargaining including for vulnerable 
workers.  

The  European  Parliament  recommended  the  establishment  of  wage  floors  in  the  form  of 
national  minimum  wage,  where  applicable,  with  due  respect  for  the  practices  of  each 
Member State and after consulting the social partners. The European Parliament also called on 
the Commission to help to exchange best practices in this regard. 

ETUC,  some  national  trade  unions108  and  NGOs109  were  in  favour  of  introducing  a  minimum 
wage threshold based on 60% of the median wage in each country. The Friedrich Ebert 
Stiftung argued for a minimum wage between 55 and 60% of national median wages. The S&D 
MEPs and the European Anti-Poverty Network requested the threshold for the minimum wage 
as 60% of the average wage.  

Some  governments  also  supported  the  setting  of  national  minimum  wage  levels110.  Minimum 
wage floors, without a quantification, were requested by the European Youth Forum, CGIL, the 
French  Economic  Social  and  Environmental  Council.  The  EESC  argued  that  the  adoption  of  a 
common  approach  to  minimum  wage  policy  at  the  EU  level  could  help  to  limit  the  extent  of 
poverty  in  the  enlarged  Union  and  limit  the  proportion  of  people  on  low  pay  within  national 
contexts. 

104 BusinessEurope, UEAPME. 
105 Germany and Czech Republic. 
106 German employer organisation (BDA) 
107 Czech trade associations. 
108 For example in the Czech Republic and Lithuania. 
109 For instance the Social Platform and Solidar. 
110  The  French  authorities  supported  the  threshold  of  60%  of  the  median  wage.  The  Portuguese 
government supported a discussion around a European reference level for minimum wages. 

40 

 
 
                                                            
In  others  countries,  trade  unions  argued  that  setting  a  minimum  wage  would  harm  their 
respective national collective bargaining models111. 

Both  the  British  and  Polish  government  mentioned  the  ‘living  wage’112  concept  as  a  good 
practice example in this area. 

The Committee of the Regions pointed out that some local and regional authorities have used 
their  public  procurement  policies  to  encourage  and  require  contractors  to  pay  fair  wages  to 
their staff.  

… should address in-work poverty through quality jobs. 

Certain  EU113  and  national-level 
trade 
unions114 highlighted that the current priority 
is  to  reduce  precarious  employment  and 
to guarantee fair pay for all workers, notably 
through an ambitious industrial policy for the 
creation  of  sustainable  quality  jobs.  Other 
trade  unions115  emphasised  the  importance 
of preserving the European social model as a 
way  of  guaranteeing  quality  employment. 
Some called116 for a reference framework to 
assess the quality of jobs.  

ETUC: “Building a strong social dimension in Europe 
means ending the unacceptable levels of 
unemployment Europe is facing, especially among 
young workers and women. (…) Public investment 
for quality job creation and higher wages for 
sustainable and more equal growth are the 
fundamental pillars of a new economic strategy.” 

Social dialogue should be promoted and workers' participation strengthened. 

EU117  and  some  national  level  trade  unions118,  employer  organisations119  as  well  as  the  ILO 
expressed the view that social dialogue should be more prominent in the Pillar. According to 
ETUC, the Pillar should promote social dialogue and collective bargaining as the right way for 
its implementation.  

Highlight – Supporting atypical workers through social dialogue: 

The example of Italian trade unions 

In  Italy,  all  major  trade  union  federations  have  established  specific  trade  union  sections  in 
order  better  to  organise,  recruit  and  support  atypical  workers,  including  specific  branches  in 
the General Confederation of Italian Workers (Nidil Cgil), in the Union of Italian Workers (Uil-
Temp) and in the Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions (FeLSA Cisl).  

111 In Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Germany. 
  Living  wages  are  calculated  according  to  the  cost  of  living  based  on  a  basket  of  goods  and  household 
services. 
112 Living wages are calculated according to the cost of living based on a basket of goods and household 
services. 
113 For instance ETUC. 
114 Belgium, Germany, France. 
115 For instance UNI Europa. 
116 European Social Policy Network. 
117 ETUC, the European Trade Union Institute and UNI Europa. 
118 France, Finland, Germany, Italy and Portugal. 
119 UEAPME, CEEP. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                            
These  organisations  sign  collective  agreements  with  employer  organisations  representing 
temporary  work  agencies  and  provide  atypical  workers  with  specific  services,  such  as  fiscal 
counselling, information on their rights and support in disputes. 

Most trade unions saw the need to improve the EU framework for information, consultation and 
board-level representation of workers. More generally, most trade unions and social economy 
representatives  argued  in  favour  of  stronger  participation  rights,  which  become  more 
important in the digital economy120. The EESC called for  new rights of association for the 
self-employed.  

Highlight – Upskilling and work-life balance through collective agreements: 

 An example from Denmark  

A  collective  agreement  between  Danish  social  partners  in  the  industrial  sector  combines  up-
skilling and adult learning with provisions for an improved work-life balance. It affects approx. 
230,000 employees for a 3-year period (March 2017 - March 2020). 

The  agreement  envisages  a  200  million  DKK  (27  million  EUR)  investment  in  up-skilling  and 
adult  learning,  mainly  targeted  unskilled  workers  and  workers  with  low  reading  and 
mathematical  literacy.  Work-life  balance  initiatives  include  full  salary  during  parental  leave, 
improved access to sick child leave and more flexible arrangements for older workers.  

The  agreement  also  includes  a  system  for  accumulating  rights  related  to  job  tenure  for 
temporary  workers  and  pay  rises  for  apprentices.  It  covers  approx.  6,000  companies  in  the 
Danish industrial sector. 

120 ETUC, REVES Network and Smart Europe. 

42 

 
 
  
                                                            
3. Adequate and sustainable social protection  

The chapter on adequate and sustainable social protection in the draft Pillar included principles 
on  access  to  social  protection  as  well  as  high  quality  services,  including  childcare,  healthcare 
and  long-term  care,  to  ensure  dignified  living  and  protection  against  risks,  and  to  enable 
individuals to participate fully in employment and more generally in society.  

Evidence  

After a surge during the crisis, poverty and social exclusion have recovered in most 
recent years, driven in particularly by a reduction in the proportion of people  suffering from 
severe  material  deprivation,  which  reached  in  2015  the  lowest  level  of  the  past  decade.  The 
other  components  of the  at-risk  of  poverty  and  social  exclusion  rate remained fairly  constant 
over the past ten years. Yet, in some countries poverty is still increasing.  

Figure 7: At-Risk of Poverty and Social Exclusion (AROPE) and at its components 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
p
o
p
e
h
t

f
o

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

At risk of poverty or social exclusion

At risk of poverty

Severe material deprivation

Living in households with very low work intensity

Note  EU27  for  2005-2014;  EU28  for  2015.  For  the  people  living  in  households  with  very  low 
work intensity the population consists of those younger than 60 years; for the other indicators 
the entire population is considered. 

Source: EUROSTAT 

Large  disparities  exist  in  the  level  of  protection  ensured  by  minimum  income 
schemes across European countries. In 2014, the level of minimum income fell below 60% 
of  the  median  household  disposable  income  of  the  respective  country  in  almost  all  Member 
States and below 40% in about half of the Member States (Figure  8). In only four countries, 
minimum  income  recipients  received  an  income  that  is  higher  than  60%  of  median  income. 
Similar divergence between countries can be observed when considering minimum incomes as 
a  percentage  of  low  wages.  In  eight  countries  the  minimum  income  was  below  50%  of  the 
earnings of a low-wage earner, while in two other countries the minimum income exceeded the 
earnings of a low-wage earner.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Minimum income as a percentage of poverty and low wages (2014) 

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

MI as % of poverty line

Mi as % low wages

Note:  *  Greece  and  Italy  had  no  national  minimum  income  schemes  at  the  time  of  data 
collection;  **  no  OECD  tax-benefit  model  calculations  on  Cyprus;  low  wages  are  defined  as 
50% of the average wage.  

Source: DG EMPL elaborations based on OECD indicators based on the tax-benefit indicators. 

Unemployment  benefit  coverage  also  varies  greatly  across  Member  States.  In  2013, 
less  that  one  out  of  two  (38%)  of  those  unemployed  less  than  12  months  (short-term 
unemployed)  received  unemployment  benefits.  Coverage  of  the  short-term  unemployed 
receiving  unemployment  benefits  ranged  from  82%  in  Germany  to  less  than  20%  in  Italy, 
Romania,  Malta,  Poland  and  Slovakia.  For  long-term  unemployed  (12  months  and  more), 
coverage is much lower (around 25% at the EU-level). Unemployment insurance is not accessible 
for  the  self-employed  in  10  Member  States,  is  compulsory  for  them  in  12  and  voluntary  in  6. 
Finally,  almost  a  third  of  people  on  temporary  full-time  contracts  in  the  EU  do  not  qualify  for 
unemployment benefits, ranging from >70% to <3%, depending on the Member State. 

Figure  9:  Distribution  of  people  in  employment  aged  15-64  at  risk  of  not  being  entitled  to 
unemployment benefits by type of employment, 2014 (% of total in employment) 

Source: Matsaganis et al. 2016 

44 

 
 
 
 
Access  to  quality  and  affordable  early  childhood  education  and  care  is  key  to  give 
children  the  best  chances  in  life  and  eases  their  parents'  integration  in  the  labour 
market. The share of children in early childhood education and care in the EU increased for all 
age  groups  over  recent  years.  Of  those  younger  than  three,  one  out  of  four  (26%)  was  in 
formal childcare in 2007, increasing to almost one out of three (30%) in 2015. However, while 
in countries such as Denmark and Sweden coverage exceeded 60% in 2015, less than 10 % of 
children  under  three  years  are  enrolled  in  formal  care  in  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Lithuania, 
Poland,  Romania  and  Slovakia.  This  can  reflect  shortfalls  in  the  provision  of  formal  childcare 
services,  but  also difficulties  in  access  (distance,  opening  hours,  and  strict  eligibility  criteria), 
high cost and poor quality. For those aged three years and older, the coverage increased from 
80% in 2007 to 83% in 2015.  

Ensuring universal and timely access to high-quality healthcare can prevent that the 
need  for  care  leads  to  poverty  and  financial  dependency.  In  the  past  five  years,  the 
share  of  the  population  that  reported unmet  need  for medical  care  in  the  EU  decreased  from 
7% in 2010 to 5% in 2015. However, in some countries, such as Estonia, Greece, Poland and 
Latvia, the proportion of people reporting unmet needs was considerably higher in 2015. The 
most  common  barriers  for  access  to  healthcare  resulted  from  patients’  inability  and/or 
unwillingness to pay for medical goods and services, while in some countries waiting times or 
travelling distance were an issue. Some groups face more problems with unmet health needs 
than others. For example,  in 2009 self-employed in the EU reported a rate of  unmet medical 
needs  that  was  35%  higher  than  the  one  reported  by  employees.  In  2015  this  difference 
increased  to  55%.  In  the  coming  years,  European  health  systems  will  face  the  challenges  of 
population  ageing,  a  rise  of  chronic  diseases,  increasing  costs  of  innovative  technology  and 
medicines,  and  shortages  and  uneven  distribution  of  health  professionals.  Overall,  a  further 
increase in the share of public health expenditure on GDP by 0.8 pp is projected from now until 
2060.  

Pension  systems  are  facing  the  dual  challenge  of  remaining  financially  sustainable 
and  being  able  to  provide  with  an  adequate  income  in  retirement  while  remaining 
financially sustainable. In 2015, 14.1% of those aged 65 and over were at risk of poverty 
compared to 18.1% for the rest of the population. Differences in poverty rates across countries 
are  large,  ranging  from  5%  in  Hungary  to  36%  in  Estonia.  There  are  also  significant  gender 
gaps  in  pensions,  with  a  gender  gap  in  pension  level  at  38.3%  in  2015.  During  the  past 
decade,  the  income  of  older  people  was  better  protected  than  that  of  the  working  age 
population. However, the intensification of population ageing over the next 3 to 5 decades will 
increase  the  challenges  with  respect  to  adequacy  and  sustainability  of  pension  systems  and 
therefore  intergenerational  fairness.  In  most  Member  States,  the  medium  and  long-term 
sustainability  of  public  pension  expenditure  has  markedly  been  improved,  but  remains  a 
concern in several EU countries. Some countries may also face sustainability problems already 
in the short to medium term perspective.121  

Access  to  adequate  and  affordable  housing  is  an  important  step  in  reducing  social 
exclusion  and  poverty.  Since  2010  the  percentage  of  the  population  living  in  a  household 
where  the  total  housing  costs  (net  of  housing  allowances)  represent  more  than  40%  of  the 
total  disposable  household  income  (net  of housing  allowances)  increased  slightly  from 10.7% 
in 2010 to 11.3% in 2015.  

121  European  Commission  –  Economic  Policy  Committee:    Joint  Report  on  Health  Care  and  Long-Term 
Care Systems & Fiscal Sustainability (October 2016). 

45 

 
 
                                                            
What people told us 

Adequate  and  sustainable  social  protection  should  cover  all  people  regardless  of  their 
employment status …  

The  prioritisation  of  principles  relating  to  adequate  and  sustainable  social  protection  was 
recurring  among  EU  and  national-level  NGOs,  in  keeping  with  their  emphasis  on  the  fight 
against poverty and inequality.  

Civil  society  organisations  emphasised  the  importance  of  guaranteeing  equal  access  to 
essential services and integrated benefits. Some respondents called for universal access to 
quality welfare systems and public services122 as well as for the protection of the specific 
character  of  social  services  of  general  interest123,  while  respecting  Member  States 
competences  in  this  area.  Services  should  be  better  protected  through  adequate  levels  of 
investment124,  and  should  be  person-centred125,  age-friendly,  accessible  for  people  with 
disabilities, and portable across the EU126.  

Highlight – Access to services for students and portability cross-borders:  

The European Student Card 

The  European  Student  Card  aims  to  promote  cooperation  among  institutions  and  allows 
reciprocity  of  rights  for  certain  student  services  such  as  student  accommodation,  cafeteria, 
library, etc. It has an electronic chip that allows for access across countries and campuses.  

The  European  Student  Card  project  is  the  result  of  cooperation  between  European  student 
services  organisations  from  Italy,  France,  Germany  and  Ireland.  The  project  is  supported 
through  the  framework  of  the  Erasmus  +  programme  and  started  in  fall  2016  in  select 
campuses. 

For  people  in  new  forms  of  work  as well  as the  self-employed  there  was  convergence  on  the 
need  to  improve  the  coverage  of  social  protection  and  labour  market  services  thus 
safeguarding human capital investments, improving intergenerational fairness and contributing 
to  upward  social  convergence.  In  particular,  integrating  self-employed  workers  into  statutory 
social  insurance  schemes  was  highlighted  as  a  key  dimension  of  the  adaptation  of  welfare 
systems  to  the  future  of  work,  with  an  emphasis  on  the  rights  of  young  entrepreneurs127. 
However,  there  were  also  considerable  concerns  on  the  impact  that  action  in  this  area  could 
have on public finances, job creation and business development. The participation of the self-
employed in statutory pensions schemes was a matter of debate. 

With due consideration for the most vulnerable … 

A  number  of  contributors  mentioned  that  the  protection  needs  and  social  rights  of  specific 
vulnerable groups should be set out as separate principles in the Pillar.  

For  example  there  should  be  a  principle  relating  to  the  integration  of  third-country 
migrants  and  refugees  with  comprehensive  policy  solutions  on  education  and  employment 

122 For instance the Committee of the Regions. 
123 REVES Network, European Association of Mutual Benefit Societies. 
124 CEEP. 
125 Social Platform. 
126 AGE Europe Platform, European Disability Forum. 
127 European Youth Forum. 

46 

 
 
                                                            
as  well  as  more  specific  actions  to  tackle  discrimination  and  social  exclusion128.  For  similar 
reasons,  others  called  for  the  recognition  of  the  protection  needs  and  rights  of  the  Roma 
community129  or  for  the  inclusion  of  guarantees  protecting  disabled  persons  from 
exploitation and forced labour130.  

…based on an integrated approach of benefit and service delivery …                                                                   

Integrating benefits with services was seen as key131. One-stop-shops, or single points of 
contact,  were  highlighted  as  a  good  example  to  improve  cost  efficiency,  effectiveness  of 
delivery  and  the  capacity  to  tackle  complex  personal  situations.  They  can  also  help  reduce 
bureaucratic hurdles, administrative costs and unnecessary overlaps, and ensure better take-
up by those who need support. 

Highlight – Integrating social services:  

Ohjaamo Youth Guidance Centre - Finland 

One-Stop-Guidance Centre is an easy access service point for young people below the age of 
30  and  is  a  part  of  the  implementation  of  the  Youth  Guarantee  in  Finland.  Support  can 
encompass  several  stages  such  as  social  rehabilitation  and  health  care  services,  getting  onto 
the path towards education or employment, and provide help with administrative procedures. 
The  One-Stop-Guidance  Centre  also  functions  as  a  link  to  the  business  community  through 
local  companies  and  trade  associations  and  promotes direct  contacts  between  employers  and 
young people. 

More than 30 One-Stop-Guidance Centres are currently operating in different parts of Finland. 
The majority of them is being financed with the support of the ESF. 

 One  suggestion  was  to  develop  policy  benchmarks  to  support  convergence  of  performance 
between Member States related to the effectiveness of one-stop-shops for public employment 
services132.  There  were,  however,  doubts  about  the  attempt  to  standardise  and  provide 
integrated services, and some advocated instead for the advantages of diverse and well-tried 
offers which take into account the specific situation on the ground133.  

…including  accessible  and  sustainable  healthcare  that  takes  into  account  the  national 
circumstances … 

Employer  associations  as  well  as  the  Dutch  Government  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions 
emphasised the need to take account of various national systems and not impose an EU-wide 
one-size-fits-all  solution  for  the  principle  on  healthcare  and  sickness  benefits.  Some 
employer organisations134 argued that sickness benefits coverage across all contract types can 
create  undue  burdens  on  employers  to  finance  sick  leave.  Others  were  in  favour  of  action  in 
this  domain  and  argued  that  healthcare  contributions  should  be  abolished  or  reduced  for 
people with low financial resources135, asked for legislation on rehabilitation to work after 

128 European Anti-Poverty Network, European Social Policy Network. 
129 Swedish Association for Vulnerable Citizens, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. 
130 European Disability Forum, Autism Europe, European Blind Union. 
131 The European Trade Union Institute called for a right to effective integration of all social benefits and 
services ensuring a decent standard of living for the persons concerned. 
132 CEC European Managers. 
133 Diakonisches Werk Baden, Deutsche Rentenversicherung. 
134 Business Europe and affiliates. 
135 European Anti-Poverty Network. 

47 

 
 
                                                            
illness,136  or  proposed  the  introduction  of  legislation  to  better  address  the  socio-
economic determinants of health inequalities137.  

…and quality long-term care based in particular on homecare and community-based services … 

On  long-term  care,  it  was  argued  that  the  draft  Pillar  focused  too  much  on  formal  care 
provision and did not sufficiently consider the socio-economic value of informal care138, nor did 
it consider independent living as a factor of social inclusion for the disabled and the elderly139. 
In this context, stakeholders asked for an explicit reference to “deinstitutionalisation”140. It 
was  also  proposed  to  develop  a  common  European  standard  on  the  right  to  quality  and 
professional  long-term  care  including  provision  of  care,  leave  entitlement  for  carers  and 
compensation in respect of care leave141. Furthermore, the European Parliament called for an 
action plan that would include targets on care for elderly persons, persons with disabilities and 
other dependants, similar to the Barcelona targets, with monitoring tools that should measure 
quality, accessibility and affordability. 

Highlight – Creating community-based services as alterative to institutional care: 

The example of Bulgaria 

Structural  funds  have  been  supporting  the  process  of  deinstitutionalisation  in  Bulgaria, 
securing investments both in infrastructure (ERDF) and in newly-established services and staff 
training (ESF) for 80 million Euro in 2007-2013.  

As  a  result  of  these  operations,  more  than  5,000  children,  formerly  accommodated  in 
specialised  institutions,  were  provided  with  community-based  services.  Bulgaria  managed  to 
close all institutions with children with disabilities, replacing them with small group homes. The 
ESF  also  financed  the  development  of  services  for  provision  of  family-based  or  family-like 
environment  and  care,  training  of  staff,  the  assessment  of  individual  needs  and  the 
development of a new model of foster care for children at risk of abandonment.  

The process continues in the programming period 2014-2020 with a provisional  budget of 50 
million Euro and a special attention to prevention of institutionalisation and support to families 
as well as support to people with disabilities and elderly people currently placed in institutions. 

… as well as adequate housing and support to the homeless towards their social reintegration. 

Participants  in  the  consultation  saw  scope  for  ensuring  access  to  quality  and  affordable 
housing,142  appropriate  levels  of  investment  in  social  housing143,  scaling  up  social 
innovation to deliver on social housing and homelessness144 and greater use of  European 
financial  instruments  to  support  affordable  housing145.  Increasing  monitoring  of  housing 

136 The European Trade Union Institute. 
137 EuroHealthNet. 
138 Dutch Government. 
139 Such as Eurocarers, European Federation for Services to Individuals and Autism Europe. 
140 European Network on Independent Living, AGE Platform Europe, Eurodiaconia. 
141 ETUC. 
142 European Parliament. 
143 For instance by adapting deficit rules for investment in social infrastructure as mentioned by Housing 
Europe. 
144 FEANTSA pointed to Housing First as innovation in homeless service provision. 
145 European Parliament. 

48 

 
 
                                                            
policies,  through  new  and  existing  indicators  in  the  framework  of  the  Semester,  was  also 
proposed146. 

Adequate unemployment benefits of reasonable duration … 

There  was  strong  support  for  unemployment  benefits  that  should  be  adequate  and  of 
reasonable  duration,  providing  a  broad  coverage.  Others  argued  that  unemployment 
insurance should be transformed into an employment insurance that includes more preventive 
support147. Employer organisations called for benchmarks in this field.  

…  as  well  as  adequate  minimum  income  schemes  should  provide  a  resilient  social  protection 
floor capable to labour market reintegration. 

At  dedicated  hearings  gathering  trade  unions  and  NGOs,  minimum  income  and  benefits 
systems  were  often  considered  to  have  the  potential  to  foster  renewed  convergence  at  EU 
level.  

Minimum income protection was identified by some as a specific area for EU action through 
the  establishment  of  a  EU  framework  Directive  on  minimum  income148.  The  Social 
Platform  was  in  favour  of  a  framework  Directive  defining  adequacy  of  minimum  income  e.g. 
60%  of  national  median  income,  material  deprivation  or  reference  budgets.  COMECE  argued 
for  the  minimum  income  to  be  set  against  the  poverty  threshold  of  60%  of  Gross  National 
Income  (GNI)  per  capita  and/or  against  a  basket  of  essential  goods  and  services. 
EuroHealthNet  suggested  using  an  existing  index  –  the  Minimum  Income  for  Healthy  Living. 
The EESC also called for an appropriate European fund.  

The European Parliament invited the Commission and the Member States to assess minimum 
income schemes in the EU, including whether the schemes enable households to meet their 
needs; and to evaluate the manner and the means of providing an adequate minimum income 
in all Member States.  

Highlight – Minimum income support for those in the need:  

The Guaranteed Minimum Income in Cyprus  

Cyprus' social welfare system has undergone a major reform in recent years to better support 
an increasing number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion.  

At the core of the new social welfare system is the reformed public assistance programme, the 
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI). The scheme covers the basic needs of different household 
types defined on the basis of a new minimum consumption basket, and additional allowances 
for  housing  cost  and  tax  exemptions.  It  is  designed  to  incentivise  work,  as  beneficiaries  that 
are  able  to  work  must  be  registered  with  the  public  employment  services,  be  willing  to 
participate in active labour market programmes and accept an employment offer.  

146 Housing Europe, FEANTSA. 
147 German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 
148  EESC,  Portugal,  trade  unions  (ETUC,  UNI-Europa,  CGIL),  and  NGOs  (such  as  for  instance  European 
Anti-Poverty  Network,  European  Disability  Forum,  the  Friedrich  Ebert  Stiftung,  Solidar,  European  Youth 
Forum, AGE Europe). 148 German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 
148  EESC,  Portugal,  trade  unions  (ETUC,  UNI-Europa,  CGIL),  and  NGOs  (such  as  for  instance  European 
Anti-Poverty  Network,  European  Disability  Forum,  the  Friedrich  Ebert  Stiftung,  Solidar,  European  Youth 
Forum, AGE Europe). 

49 

 
 
                                                            
The  implementation  of  the  GMI  and  the  streamlining  of  benefits  with  specific  criteria  and 
control  processes  should  enable  a  more  effective  allocation  of  benefits  to  those  in  need.  The 
key  success  factor  for  this  reform  is  the  combination  of  increased  effectiveness  with  a  more 
efficient  use  of  public  resources.  The  number  of  GMI  applications  has  risen  steadily  since  its 
introduction, and the scheme is expected to help reduce the intensity of poverty in Cyprus in 
the coming years. 

France  supported  the  generalisation  of  the  minimum  income  to  all  adult  persons  in  each 
Member State. Germany was in favour of a gradual upward convergence with exchange of best 
practices as an initial step. Romania supported the establishment of common indicators on the 
adequacy of minimum income. 

Other  proposals  included  the  promotion  of  a  universal  social  protection  floor149.  Some 
advocated for the introduction of universal basic income to limit precariousness150.  

Employer  organisations,  however,  were  less  favourable  of  EU  intervention  in  this  area  and 
proposed benchmarks on efficient and effective social expenditure. 

Pension  systems  should  provide  adequate  protection  against  old-age  poverty  while  assuring 
sustainability with a view to protect … 

Participants to the consultation emphasised the importance of adequate pensions, including 
minimum  pensions,  to  protect  the  purchasing  power  of  the  elderly.  At  the  same  time, 
intergenerational fairness should be safeguarded by making sure that the pension systems are 
fiscally sustainable. The gender dimension of pension adequacy should also be addressed. 
There  appears  to  be  wide  consensus  among  stakeholders as regards  the  need  to remove the 
principle linking statutory retirement age to life expectancy on pensions. According to 
employers  and  national  government  representatives,  the  principle  on  pensions  is  not  easily 
enforceable  and  it  should  be  left  to  each  Member  States  to  decide  on  the  most  appropriate 
statutory  retirement  age.  From  the  perspective  of  trade  unions  and  academia151,  life 
expectancy is  mostly  irrelevant  and  should  be  replaced  by  other  indicators such as  “healthy 
life  years”,  “arduous  work”  or  general  arrangements  allowing  more  flexibility  for  older 
workers.  

… the future generation and provide the necessary resources for a childhood without poverty. 

The  European  Parliament  and  others152  called  for  the  creation  of  a  Child  Guarantee  in  all 
Member  States,  an  integrated  approach  for  tackling  child  poverty  and  ensuring  that  each 
child  in  Europe  who  is  at  risk  of  poverty  has  access  to  free  healthcare,  education,  childcare, 
decent  housing  and  adequate  nutrition.  It  could  combine  assessing  national  and  EU 
interventions  tackling  multi-dimensional  aspects  of  child  poverty  and  mapping  best  practices, 
with improved use of EU structural funds as well as monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. 

Several stakeholders pointed to the need to address children well-being and protection in a 
broader perspective, by paying due attention to preventing and combating poverty and social 
exclusion  through  a  range  of  policies,  in  particular  quality  childcare  and  early-childhood 

149  JUST  Fair,  CERMI  (Spanish  National  Committee  of  People  with  Disabilities),  ONCE  (Spanish  National 
Organisation of the Blind). 
150 Solidar. 
151 European Social Policy Network. 
152 For example Eurochild and Save the Children. 

50 

 
 
                                                            
education,  but  also  protection  of  children  through  adequate  social  safety  nets153.  The 
European research community underlined the importance of early interventions in the well-
being  and  competencies  of  children154.  During  consultation  meetings,  early  education  was 
indicated as crucial for both competitiveness and upwards social mobility155. Some asked that a 
reference  to  children’s  rights  should  be  included in  the  Pillar  to  break  the  intergenerational 
transmission of disadvantage156.  

Highlight – Leaving no child behind:  

Creation of prevention chains in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 

In 2012, the North Rhine-Westphalia state in Germany decided to focus its preventive welfare 
policy on the safe upbringing of children, to ensure every child has equal opportunities for the 
future, irrespective of social background. 

The  state  established  council-run  prevention  chains  to  provide  non-stop  support  to  children 
and  make  sure  different  sectors  at  local  level  –  such  as  health,  education,  child  and  youth 
welfare - effectively cooperate in providing support and services for children and families.  

The  prevention  chains  encompass  many  types  of  services,  ranging  from  health  screenings 
during pregnancy, language interpreters in kindergarten to overcome integration problems for 
migrants,  or  personalised  and  targeted  counselling  available  to  children  and  parents  in 
kindergarten, primary and secondary schools. An extra focus is on transitional periods such as 
from crèche to school. 

Following  a  four-year  pilot  project,  the  scheme  is  due  to  be  rolled  out  to  all  urban  and  rural 
areas across the state in 2017. The project is funded by the ESF, the State Government, the 
Bertelsmann Foundation and local authorities. 

153 Social Platform, Save the Children, Eurochild. 
154 Seminar on 'Work, Welfare and Inequalities in Europe – The Research Perspective', 10 October 2016. 
155 The World Bank. 
156 European Social Policy Network and Save the Children. 

51 

 
 
                                                            
List of acronyms  

AIM: European Association of Mutual Benefit Societies  

BDA: German employer organisation  

BEERG: Brussels European Employee Relations Group 

CEEMET:  Council  of  European  Employers  of  the  Metal,  Engineering  and  Technology-based 
industries 

CEEP: European Centre of Employers and Enterprises Providing public services and services of 
general interest  

CERMI: Spanish National Committee of People with Disabilities 

CESI: European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions 

CGIL: Italian General Confederation of Labour 

COFACE: Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union 

COMECE: Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community 

COPA/GEOPA: Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations / General Confederation of 
Agricultural Cooperatives 

CPA: Compte Personnel d'activité 

ECEG: European Chemical Employers Group 

EESC: European Economic and Social Committee 

EFCI: European Federation of Cleaning Industries 

EFFAT: European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade  

EMU: Economic and Monetary Union 

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund 

ESF: European Social Fund 

ESIP: European Social Insurance Platform   

Euratex: European Apparel and Textile Confederation  

Eurofound: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 

ETUC: European Trade Union Confederation 

FEANTSA: European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless  

FIEC: European Construction Industry Federation  

HOTREC: the Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés in Europe 

52 

 
 
ILO: International Labour Organization  

IRU: International Road Transport Union 

MEP: Member of the European Parliament 

NGO: Non-governmental organisation 

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  

ONCE: Spanish National Organisation of the Blind  

REVES network: European Network of Cities & Regions for the Social Economy 

UEAPME: European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

UNI Europa: the European services workers union 

53