Danilo Terra interviewed Robbert van het Kaar, Senior Researcher at the Hugo Sinzheimer Institute for Socio-legal research on Labour and Social Security (University of Amsterdam). Since 1997 Dutch correspondent for the European Observatory for Industrial Relations (EIRO) and since 2003 member of SEEurope, research network on employee participation at company level.

PART I) International context

1. Participation of workers to company represents a concept that has found different forms and levels of application in the international context; which value do you assign to this concept from a competitiveness and corporate social responsibility point of view?

First a point of clarification. In a legal context, the concept of participation is reserved for employee board level representation (EBLR, like the German system of Mitbestimmung). I assume the question takes a broader scope, incluing other forms of worker involvement/codetermination (like works councils or trade union presence).

It is hard to construct a direct link between worker involvement and competitiveness and CSR. A range of studies does not show negative effects, and suggest some positive effects (like a German study conducted by Dilger).

Of course one can say that a high level of worker involvement is a sign of good CSR, at least where the ‘people-aspect’ is concerned.

2. Do you think there is a positive correlation between high levels of socially responsible conduct and the codetermination’s forms by law in countries such as Netherlands, Germany, Austria and the scandinavian Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland?

Again, results show no negative correlation and some positive correlations (but also neutral results have appeared).

Codetermination is found more often in so-called high-trust countries, which also points to a positive correlation.

3. The German system of dual governance, in particular, institutionalizes the participation of workers (Mitbestimmung) both to the supervisory board and at production unit level. Compared to the Anglo-Saxon and Latin system of governance, which is the role of this institutionalization in terms of common finalization to the corporate interest (not of only one stakeholder such as shareholders or employees) and prevention of degeneration of interests’ conflict?

EBLR is only found in countries where the shareholder view of the company is not a dominant as in the Anglosaxon world. Especially in the larger German firms (2000+ employees), this institutionalisation is strong.

The fact that employees are represented at the center of power of course guarantees a strong stakeholder view and in all probability forms a barrier against extreme forms of short-termism.

Part II) Italian situation and development

1. How do you judge the level of workers’ partecipation in Italy?

Let me first make clear that I am not a specialist on the Italian system. I have some basis knowledge on the importance of the unions, The RSU and RSA issues, the problems at Fiat,  the predominance of bargaining and agreements, and –with regard to information and consultation, the fact that management is also strongly present (the joint bodies).

Seen from a distance, Italy is definitely an example of the South-European systems of industrial relations, which are more  conflict oriented than in countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

Worker involvement can not be seen in isolation: strong unions can go toghether with relatively weaker systems of participation and vice versa.

2. Some companies have voluntarily begun a path of institutionalization of workers’ participation, not only limited to the distribution (systems of participation to company economic results, share ownership), but also to the phase of value’s creation through procedures and committees of stable codetermination enterprise / workers of organizational and remunerative elements (supplementary contract of partecipation). Do you consider auspicable legislative proposals in the field of taxation and signing processes simplification in order to facilitate their consolidation and dissemination?

Legislative proposals may give the necessary boost to such voluntary systems, but can only be successful if they have sufficient backing from both the unions (and employees), and the employers.

I cannot judge whether this is the case. I doubt whether there is a strong link between taxation issues and worker involvement (although both are important from a labour point of view).

3. Another step could be represented by the instituzionalization of codetermination in the governance system (legislative decree No. 6 of 17 January 2003 introduces, within a wider reform of company law, the possibility to adopt two systems of governance alternative to the latin: the monistic and the dual, but without track of codetermination)?

According to my information companies can freely choose between the monistic or dualistic board systems. As such, there are neutral with regard to participation (in Germany the dualistic system is dominant, in Sweden the monistic system).

However, without specific legislation on EBLR, this will in all probability not come into existence by itself.

Follow