COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed
Date: 2018-03-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European social policy, labour force, labour market, self-employed person, social security

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 13.3.2018  SWD(2018) 79 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation  on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed {COM(2018) 132 final}   
 
 
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Context - the European Pillar of Social Rights 

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. A European conference took place on 23 January 2017 to wrap up this 
consultation process3. How to ensure social protection for people in all forms of employment 
was a central topic in the consultation process. 

Stakeholder  stated  that  "adequate  and  sustainable  social  protection  should  cover  all  people 
regardless of their employment status, with due consideration for the most vulnerable, based 
on an integrated approach of benefit and service delivery, including accessible and sustainable 
healthcare that takes into account the national circumstances, and quality long-term care based 
in  particular  on  homecare  and  community-based  services,  as  well  as  adequate  housing  and 
support to the homeless towards their social reintegration. Adequate unemployment benefits 
of  reasonable  duration  as  well  as  adequate  minimum  income  schemes  should  provide  a 
resilient  social  protection  floor  capable  to  labour  market  reintegration.  Pension  systems 
should provide adequate protection against old-age poverty while assuring sustainability with 
a  view  to  protect  the  future  generation  and  provide  the  necessary  resources  for  a  childhood 
without poverty."4 

Other  EU  institutions  also  contributed  to  the  relevant  debate.  Whereas  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee5,  ("considers  it  imperative that  the  debate  launched  by  the 
European Commission on developing a European Pillar of Social Rights also encompass the 
situation of workers engaged in the new forms of employment and, above all, look at how to 
recognise  their  status  and  ensure  they  have  adequate  access  to  social  security  and  social 
protection  systems")  and  the  Committee  of  Regions6  ("believes  that  the  new  employment 
forms  or  the  introduction  of  new  common  EU  minimum  standards  must  always  allow  for 
appropriate  standards  of  social  protection")  brought  relevant  elements  into  the  debate,  the 
European Parliament7 went further  and called  for  a "recommendation  enabling all people in 
all employment forms and self-employment". 

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. 
4 SWD(2017) 206 final, available online. 
5 EESC SOC/542, available online 
6 COR opinion 2868/2016, available online. 
7 EP resolution 2016/2095(INI), available online. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The access to social protection initiative 

Several  stakeholders'  consultations  have  been  performed  to  inform  this  initiative.  This 
includes  a  two-stage  consultation  procedure  of  European  social  partners  as  stipulated  in 
Article 154 TFEU and an Open Public Consultation. 

1. Results of the inception impact assessment 

The  Commission  received  nine  items  of  feedback  to  the  inception  impact  assessment  from 
individuals/entities in the Netherlands (6), Belgium, Germany and the UK. The feedback from 
people/associations in the Netherlands stress subsidiarity and that self-employed would like to 
be  responsible  for  their  decisions  they  take,  including  for  insuring  risks.  The  contribution 
from  a  business  organisation  in  the  UK  considers  voluntary  schemes  easier  to  implement 
across Member States in the short- to medium-term (2-5 years), but require implementation at 
the  national  level  and  could  be  difficult  for  governments  to  agree.  The  feedback  of 
EuroHealthNet  focus  on  the  great  role  Social  Protection  has  in  the  goal  of  reducing  health 
inequalities and the umbrella associations of the German Social Insurance (DSV) supports the 
discussion on access to social protection and to make social protection systems future-proof in 
a changing world of work. 

2. Results of the first phase Social Partners consultation 

The first phase of social partner consultation was launched on 29 April and closed on 23 June 
2017. 

The  trade  unions  that  replied  to  the  consultation  were  the  European  Trade  Union 
Confederation  (ETUC),  Eurocadres  and  the  European  Confederation  of  Executives  and 
Managerial  Staff  (CEC),  the  European  Confederation  of  Independent  Trade  Unions  (CESI), 
the  European  Arts  and  Entertainment  Alliance  (EAEA)  and  the  European  Federation  of 
Journalists (EFJ). It should be noted that ETUC's reply also took into account the view of 10 
ETUC sectorial trade union organisations. 

On  the  side  of  the  employers,  replies  to  the  consultation  were  sent  by  BusinessEurope,  the 
European  Centre  of  Employers  and  Enterprises  providing  Public  Services  (CEEP), 
EuroCommerce,  the  European  Association  of  craft,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(UEAPME), the Council of European Employers of the Metal, Engineering and Technology-
Based Industries (CEEMET), the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), 
the  European  Chemical  Employers  Group  (ECEG),  the  Hotels,  Restaurants  and  Cafés  in 
Europe (HOTREC), the Retail, Wholesale and International Trade Representation to the EU 
(EuroCommerce),  the  Employers'  Group  of  the  Committee  of  Agricultural  Organisations  in 
the European Union (GEOPA-COPA) and the World Employment Confederation (WEC).  

Identification of issues related to access to social protection 

The  social  partners  agreed,  largely,  that  there  are  problems  related  to  access  to  social 
protection for workers in non-standard forms of employment and for the self-employed. 

However,  employers  stressed  that  grouping  very  different  types  of  employment  forms 
together  under  the  heading  of  'non-standard'  is  not  appropriate  as  it  ignores  the  diversity 
between these different forms and the need and desires of those working under them, also in 
terms  of  access  to  social  protection  (BusinessEurope).  WEC  highlighted  in  addition  the 
heterogeneity within the self-employed. UEAPME called for a solid mapping exercise of the 
national policies, the availability and offer of tailored social protection schemes, and the take-

2 

 
 
up broken down by different groups. CEEP highlight the different labour  market and social 
models, which explain different levels of protection. 

On  the  other  hand,  trade  unions  found  that  the  identification  of  issues  goes  in  the  right 
direction,  but  could,  nevertheless  be  improved  upon  by  specifying  that  new  forms  of  work 
entail  poor  job  quality  and  insecure  conditions,  which  lead  more  to  a  lack  of  protection 
against  life  risks  than  to  real  job  opportunities  (ETUC,  Eurocadres).  The  issues  could  be 
extended to a right to collective bargaining, fair remuneration for all and the right to freedom 
of association for all workers (EFJ). Trade unions further underlined that consistency should 
be  ensured  with  proposals  about  information  on  the  social  security  system  in  the  Written 
Statement Directive. (ETUC, Eurocadres). 

Most relevant branches of social protection and employment services 

Trade  unions  consider  all  branches  to  be  equally  important  and  promote  an  integrated  and 
holistic approach to social protection, notwithstanding the points above about the distinctions 
between the policy fields, including all branches covered by the ILO convention 102 (and the 
Regulation  on  social  security  coordination).  If  a  prioritisation  has  to  be  made,  CEC  would 
favour those who are not universal. Access to related employment services should be granted 
to all. 

The picture at the employers' side is mixed. BusinessEurope considers that the question pre-
supposes  that  there  will  be  an  EU  initiative  in  this  field  (which  the  organization  is  not  in 
favour  of).  EuroCommerce  questions  the  feasibility  of  the  classification  of  social  protection 
strands, while COPA prioritises accident at work and occupational diseases. HOTREC refers 
to  social  protection  as  a  national  level  competence,  but  stresses  that  skills,  education  and 
training should be easily accessible to all citizens. 

Personal scope of an EU initiative 

In general, trade unions are in favour to have a wide personal scope and to include all workers 
in  non-standard  forms  of  employment  as  well  as  the  self-employed  in  an  EU  initiative. 
However,  some  call  in  the  first  place  for  the  definition  of  principles  to  set  a  common 
understanding  at  EU-level  of  the  legal  nature  of  the  different  forms  of  employment  (CEC, 
CESI). 

Employers are rather reluctant to reply the question on the personal scope of the EU initiative 
because  they  are  not  in  favour  of  an  EU  initiative  (BusinessEurope)  or  they  refer  to  the 
principle of subsidiarity (HOTREC) or they consider that the personal scope would depend on 
the  nature  of  the  respective  initiative  (EuroCommerce).  CEMR  emphasizes  on  the  need  for 
more clarity in the definition of the legal nature of the different forms of employment whereas 
COPA  would  include  all  workers  in  non-standard  employment  in  an  EU  legal  initiative  but 
would include the self-employed only in a recommendation. 

EU legislation and EU level instruments 

BusinessEurope,  UEAPME  and  EuroCommerce  do  not  consider  that  changes  to  EU 
legislation in this field are needed or appropriate. The open method of coordination and the 
European  Semester  process,  including  benchmarks,  would  be  the  right  tools  for  mutual 
learning  and  exchanges  of  good  practice.  The  aim  should  be  to  improve  national  policy 
responses by learning from relevant other national practices. Other employers' organisations 
draw  the  attention  to  sectorial  social  dialogue  (COPA),  Member  State  competences  and  the 

3 

 
 
principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  (CEEMET,  ECEG,  EuroCommerce,  WEC  and 
CEEP).  

The trade union side considers that improvements should be made to EU legislation. ETUC 
and  CESI  see  the  need  for  better  enforcement  of  existing  legislation,  especially  at  national 
level.  CEC  mentions  that  the  need  for  reducing  the  administrative  burden  that  can  be 
associated with the provision of information concerning an individual's employment situation 
and ensuring an effective transferability of all entitlements. 

Willingness to enter into negotiations 

All of the trade unions have indicated their willingness to enter into negotiations. However, in 
the event that the EU social partners do not agree to negotiate, or in case negotiations do not 
lead to a successful outcome, trade unions urge the Commission to come up with a legislative 
proposal. 

Employers are not considering initiating a dialogue under Article 155 TFEU because they do 
not  see  the  need  for  EU  level  action,  apart  from  peer  learning  and  exchange  of  practices 
(BusinessEurope)  or  because  subsidiarity  prevails  in  this  topic  (HOTREC,  UAPME)  and  it 
can  be  better  dealt  with  by  national  governments  (EuroCommerce)  or  in  sectorial  social 
dialogue (COPA). CEEP underlines that valid indicators have to be defined in the first place. 

Scope of the consultation 

ETUC missed clear proposals on the creation of quality jobs – with agreed indicators to track 
them, including for access to social protection. Therefore, ETUC considered the identified key 
aspects  of  insufficient  access  (gap  in  access  to  social  protection,  lack  of  transferability  of 
rights as well as lack of transparency about their social protection entitlements) as important 
challenges to be tackled, but would put the emphasis on challenging divergent social rights of 
people with respect to social protection and employment services. 

Additional consultation of social partners 

DG  Employment  and  Social  Affairs  has  conducted  bilateral  meetings  with  all  16  social 
partners  who  submitted  a  contribution  to  the  first  phase  social  partner  consultation.  These 
meetings took place between 14 July and 5 September. The purpose of the bilateral meetings 
was  to  focus  on  technical  clarifications  and  gathering  additional  information  where  ever 
possible. The information received is presented in the relevant chapters of this document.  

3. Results of the second phase Social Partners consultation 

The second phase of social partner consultation was launched on 20 November and closed on 
5 January 2018. 

The  trade  unions  that  replied  to  the  consultation  were  the  European  Trade  Union 
Confederation  (ETUC),  Eurocadres  and  the  European  Confederation  of  Executives  and 
Managerial  Staff  (CEC),  the  European  Confederation  of  Independent  Trade  Unions  (CESI), 
the European Arts and Entertainment Alliance (EAEA) and UNI global union europa and the 
World Employment Confederation (WEC).  

On  the  side  of  the  employers,  replies  to  the  consultation  were  sent  by  BusinessEurope,  the 
European  Centre  of  Employers  and  Enterprises  providing  Public  Services  (CEEP), 
EuroCommerce,  the  European  Association  of  craft,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(UEAPME), the Council of European Employers of the Metal, Engineering and Technology-

4 

 
 
 
Based  Industries  (CEEMET),  the  European  Chemical  Employers  Group  (ECEG),  and  the 
Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés in Europe (HOTREC).  

The objectives of coverage, transferability and transparency 

Trade  unions  share  the  initiative's  objectives  of  coverage,  transferability  and  transparency. 
Formal  and  effective  coverage  is  of  utmost  importance  for  ETUC  and  access  to  adequate 
social  protection  should  be  added.  Contributions  and  benefits  (for  self-employed  and  non-
standard workers) should be as equal as possible to those for standard work contracts (CESI). 
Tying social protection rights to individuals should not lead to an individualisation of social 
protection  and  the  collective  dimension  must  remain  (EAEA).  Full  transferability  and 
accumulation of these rights, benefits and entitlements should be ensured, no matter the form 
or  duration  of  employment  (UNI  Europa).  The  importance  of  access  to  training  and 
employment services was also highlighted (Eurocadres). All trade unions agree with the need 
for higher transparency.  

The picture at the employers' side is rather mixed. Most employers' organisations agree with 
the three objectives to a large extent but highlight the Member States' competence in this field 
(BusinessEurope, EuroCommerce, CEEMET, CEEP and UAPME). 

ECEG  does  not  share  the  view  that  non-standard  workers  and  self-employed  have  limited 
access to social protection and sees no need to explore a common definition of a worker at EU 
level. 

HOTREC  agrees  on  the  need  of  increased  transparency  but  argues  that  the  subsidiarity 
principle prevails and favours therefore a mapping of transferable systems at national level.  

The options of mandatory or voluntary formal coverage 

All  trade  unions  favour  mandatory  formal  coverage,  equalised  to  those  of  standard  workers 
(ETUC, EAEA) but national traditions should be taken into account (CEC). 

Employers  expressed  different  views  on  these  options.  ECEG  agrees  that  social  protection 
should  be  mandatory  but  employees  should  have  the  right  to  choose  the  form  of  coverage 
(public or private). BusinessEurope highlighted the freedom of choice for the self-employed. 
CEEP and EuroCommerce favour voluntary formal coverage in order to take into account the 
diversity of forms of employment of the heterogeneity within the self-employed. HOTREC, 
CEEMET and UAPME referred to subsidiarity that should prevail. 

The appropriate action to ensure effective coverage  

Trade  unions  and  employers  have  opposite  views  on  the  appropriate  action.  Trade  unions 
favour  extending  and  adapting  existing  schemes  to  people  in  all  forms  of  employment 
(ETUC), by going as far as possible under the Treaties (CESI). An EU directive with binding 
minimum  principles  and  requirements  is  mentioned  (Uni  europa,  eaea)  but  it  should  not 
undermine existing EU acquis, nor  lower existing national standards, nor lead to  downward 
harmonisation of rights. 

On  the  other  hand,  employers'  organisations  are  opposed  to  legally  binding  actions  in  this 
field  as  they  argue  that  the  subsidiarity  principle  prevails  (ECEG,  HOTREC)  but  would 
welcome  the  use  of  the  OMC,  the  European  Semester,  an  exchange  of  best  practices, 
benchmarking  and  the  social  scoreboard  (BusinessEurope).  Some  employers'  organisations 
(CEEP and EuroCommerce) consider a Council Recommendation to be suitable. 

The minimum requirements appropriate to ensure transferability and transparency 

5 

 
 
According to trade unions, labour market trends call for a certain common minimum standard 
in the field of social protection (CESI). Full portability should be guaranteed by tying social 
protection  entitlements  to  individuals  through  an  equalised  calculation  and  aggregation  but 
without leading to an individualisation of social protection (ETUC).  

Some  employers  agree  with  the  principle  of  transferability  of  rights  but  call  for  an  impact 
assessment before creating legally binding realities (ECEG) or argue that subsidiarity prevails 
and that a mapping of existing transferable systems should be favoured (HOTREC). 

Others  recommend  the  EU  to  limit  itself  to  general  provisions  (UAPME)  or  would  like  to 
limit transferability to minimum social protection rights (EuroCommerce). The administrative 
cost  of  transferability  should  be  kept  at  a  minimum  and  no  additional  costs  for  the  new 
employer to take on the provision of the transferred rights should occur (CEEP). 

Willingness to enter into negotiations 

All of the trade unions have indicated their  willingness to enter into negotiations. However, 
ETUC  was  convinced  that  the  conditions  for  formal  negotiations  no  longer  exist  and  other 
trade  unions  urge  the  Commission  to  come  up  with  a  legislative  proposal  before  the  2019 
European  elections.  Employers  are  not  considering  initiating  a  dialogue  under  Article  155 
TFEU because they do not see the need for EU level action. 

4. Results of the public consultation  

The  open  public  consultation  (OPC)  was  open  from  20  November  2017  until  15  January 
2018.  119  respondents  replied  to  the  OPC  of  which  62  organisations,  7  administrations,  37 
citizens  and 13 others (e.g. research institutes, networks). Most replies came from  countries 
with well-developed social protection systems like Germany (18), Belgium (16), France (15) 
and Sweden (14).15 position papers were received, mainly from Germany (5), Belgium (4), 
France (2) and the UK (2), and covering regional and central governments, social protection 
providers,  cooperatives,  organisations  of  self-employed,  a  trade  union,  a  non-governmental 
organisation and a company.  

Challenges 
"Do you agree with the identification of the challenges outlined in the background document?" 

Around 2/3 of the respondents agreed with the challenges identified by the Commission. The 
highest agreement was on gaps in effective coverage, followed by regulatory complexity. 

Gaps in formal coverage 
Gaps in effective coverage 
Insufficient transferability 
Insufficient transparency 
Regulatory complexity 
There are other challenges 

I agree (replies out of 119 replies) 
66 
78 
65 
69 
75 
62 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Principles 

"Do you think that the following general policy principles should be pursued by a possible EU 
initiative?" 

The great majority of the respondents largely agreed that the principles should be pursued by 
a  possible  EU  action  include  the  provision  of  adequate  social  protection  to  all  workers 
regardless  of  their  employment  relationship,  tying  rights  to  individuals  as  they  work  and 
making  rights  transferable,  making  information  transparent  and  simplifying  administrative 
requirements. Only 14 respondents did agree with the option that 'no action was required'  

Regardless of the type and duration of their employment relationship, 
workers,  and,  under  comparable  conditions,  the  self-employed,  have 
the right to adequate social protection 

Tying rights to individuals as they work (and not to the contract) and 
making rights transferable 

Making rights and related information transparent 

Simplifying administrative requirements 

No action required 

Options 

I  agree  (replies  out 
of 119 replies) 

85 

72 

86 

82 

14 

In  relation  to  the  options  listed,  69.7  %  of  the  respondents  said  that  social  protection  rights 
and obligations should be mandatory for every kind of job, irrespective of the type of contract 
and  56.3  %  of  the  respondents  consider  that  the  mandatory  protection  and  contributions  of 
non-standard workers should be aligned to the level of standard workers 

64.7  %  or  the  respondents  think  that  social  protection  rights  and  obligations  should  be 
mandatory  for  all  self-employed  and  47.1  %  of  the  respondents  think  that  mandatory 
protection and contributions  of the self-employed  should be aligned to the level  of standard 
workers. 

Finally 52.94 % of the respondents think that a single social protection scheme covering all 
people in employment would be the most appropriate way to ensure effective coverage. Even 
54.6  %  of  the  respondents  consider  a  single  social  protection  scheme  appropriate  for  self-
employed. 

Instruments 

Almost  three  quarters  of  the  respondents  (72.3  %)  highlight  the  need  for  an  EU  level 
action.54.6  %  of  the  respondents  consider  the  introduction  of  a  new  EU  legislation  (e.g.  a 
directive)  as  highly  effective.  Only  4.2  %  of  the  respondents  think  that  soft  EU  legislation 
(e.g. a Council recommendation) would be highly effective. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impacts 

According to the large majority of the respondents, the impact of making social protection 
rights mandatory to all forms of employment would be positive for the European society, the 
labour market, the workers, public finances and the economy 

"According to your assessment, the impact of making social protection rights mandatory in 
all forms of employment would be positive, neutral or negative for: The economy" 

Positive (replies out of 119 replies) 

Competitiveness 

Resilience and adaptability 

Economic growth 

73 

72 

72 

but rather neutral on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 

"According  to  your  assessment,  the  impact  of  making  social  protection  rights  mandatory  in 
all forms of employment would be positive, neutral or negative for: Small and medium sized 
enterprises" 

Neutral (replies out of 119 replies) 

Cost 

Competition 

51 

45 

On  the  other  hand,  the  impact  of  making  social  protection  rights  voluntary  where  gaps 
currently  exist  would  have  a  neutral/negative  impact  on  the  European  society,  the  labour 
market, the workers, public finances and the economy. 

"According to your assessment, the impact of making social protection rights voluntary where 
gaps currently exist would be: The economy" 

Negative (replies out of 
119 replies 

Neutral (replies out of 119 
replies) 

Competitiveness 

Resilience and adaptability 

Economic growth 

45 

49 

49 

43  

40 

41 

but rather neutral on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 

"According to your assessment, the impact of making social protection rights voluntary where 
gaps currently exist would be: Small and medium sized enterprises" 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost 

Competition 

55 

62 

Neutral (replies out of 119 replies) 

9