See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268356682

Impact of Globalisation on Industrial Relations

Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.15157/tpep.v17i0.914

CITATION READS

1 33,343

2 authors:

Kaia Philips Raul Eamets

University of Tartu University of Tartu
23 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   524 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Raul Eamets on 28 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IMPACT OF GLOBALISATION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Kaia Philips, Raul Eamets 1

University of Tartu

Abstract

Globalisation means intensified competition, the transfer of investments, production

relocation outside of Europe, job losses, unemployment and rapid structural
changes. European labour markets are characterised as relatively rigid, with high
social security and strong industrial relations (IR). The aim of this study is to find
out, how the social partners, governments and researchers interpret the challenges of
globalisation on future developments of industrial relations. The research is based on
expert foresight survey where IR experts from 34 countries were interviewed. The
project looked to the future, to the year 2025 and discussed on what industrial
relations and social dialogue would look like after fifteen-twenty years.
The main findings convinced that decentralisation of collective bargaining is
expected in old member states, while the situation will remain unchanged in
majority of the new member states. We can conclude that European level
convergence is expected in the area of industrial relations.

Keywords: globalisation, flexibilisation of labour markets, employment security,

social cohesion, industrial relations systems.

Introduction

Over the past years, Europe has had to deal with strong challenges stemming from
globalisation in the form of intensified competition, the transfer of investments,
production relocation outside of Europe, job losses, unemployment and rapid
structural changes. High expectations exist related to the competitiveness of the
European economy, which means that labour markets will have to become more
flexible as employers demand further deregulation of the labour market in order to
successfully cope with worldwide competition. At the same time, the European
social model underlines the importance of employment security and social cohesion
as workers seek greater job security in light of rapid structural change and job
relocation. The key issue is how to find a balance between an European social model
and the flexibilisation of labour markets while remaining competitive.

The importance of modernising industrial relations has been debated in Europe

already since the 1990s. Discussing on modernisation of industrial relations rises up
questions on problems of today and also challenges of future. Today’s problems
have been analysed in the numerous academic reports. But we have only few studies
analysing systematically what are the challenges of the future and what would be

1
We are very grateful to Estonian Science Foundation Grant No. 6479, “The Valuation of
Human Capital in the Estonian Labour Market: Issues of Over-education and Skill Mismatch”,
for support.

176
their impacts on industrial relations. How social partners, governments and
researchers see challenges and future development of industrial relations?
Developments in industrial relations systems will depend on the processes in
environment. For example, pressures of globalisation affect employment relations
and industrial relations at regional, national and international levels. These pressures
interact with national characteristics: the economic and political system; the type of
government; legislative developments; level of economic development; the exposure
to globalisation; the influence of labour and the state in each country; and different
policies regarding industrial relations. The effect of globalisation on industrial
relations procedures and their substantive outcomes depends on the conditions under
which industrial relations take place within a country. For instance how quickly will
change the structure of industries, what will be the share of informal sector, and so
one. It is obvious that the future of industrial relations systems will depend also on
political and economical developments in the countries: which party will be on
power; whether there will be shift towards right-wing policies, liberalisation, etc.

The aim of this study is to find out, how the social partners, governments and
researchers interpret the challenges of globalisation on future development of
industrial relations. Also we tried to test the hypothesis, whether we can find any
evidence of convergence within EU concerning industrial relations.

This paper is based on data collected by authors during European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions project on “Impacts of
globalisation on the European social dialogue models”. The purpose of the project
was to produce “Industrial relations foresight 2025 for the EU27 and Global7 2
countries”. The basic question of the study was: How industrial relations look like in
the respondents’ country in 2025 taking into account the ongoing process of
globalisation? Output of the project is an analysis on impacts of globalisation on
European industrial relations in the areas like industrial relations environment,
actors, processes, outcomes and impacts. In this paper we focus mostly to general
trends of globalisation, like working life flexibility, social security, flexible work
forms and economic liberalism. Also we look at respondents’ opinions about future
developments of industrial relations actors, processes and outcomes.

1. Globalisation and its dimensions

Globalisation can be defined as a process of increasing global connectivity,

integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural,
political and institutional spheres. Globalisation refers, for instance, to the processes
that reduce barriers between countries and involve greater integration in world
markets, thus increasing the pressure for assimilation towards international standards
(Macdonald 1997; Frenkel and Peetz 1998; Ali 2005). The economic aspects of
globalisation are the most visible and important ones. These include intensifying
economic competition among nations, rapidly expanding international trade and

2
Global 7 countries in this study are Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa and
the U.S.

177
financial flows and foreign direct investment (FDI) by multinational corporations
(MNCs), disseminating advanced management practices and newer forms of work
organisation and in some cases sharing of internationally recognised labour
standards. Globalisation enhances competitiveness, both at company level and
national level, which leads company management and governments to adopt
strategies designed to increase labour effectiveness in terms of productivity, quality
and/or innovation. In general, globalisation involves economies that are opening up
to international competition and that do not discriminate against international
capital. Therefore, globalisation is often accompanied by a liberalisation of the
markets and the privatisation of productive assets. At the same time, globalisation
has obviously contributed to raising unemployment, increasing casual employment
and weakening labour movements (Ali 2005).

The most important effects of economic globalisation include the following:

x increasing integration of global economic activities,
x rising competitiveness,
x relocation of economic activities,
x structural changes in the economy,
x rapid technological advancements and innovation.

Increased competition in global markets has created the demand for more specialised
and better quality items. This has led to a higher volatility in product markets and
shorter product life cycles which, in turn, requires companies to respond quicker to
changes in market demand. In terms of production organisation, new technologies
increase the scope for greater flexibility in the production process and resolve any
information and coordination difficulties which previously limited the production
capacity of enterprises in different locations around the world (Macdonald 1997).
Due to the growth in competitiveness, companies increasingly focus on the demands
of international and domestic niche markets in a way that contributes to a growing
individualisation and decollectivism of work. Moreover, new technology has made it
possible to produce the same level of production output with fewer workers. In both
situations, an increased emphasis is placed on workers having higher value
capacities and skills to perform a variety of jobs. This development has blurred the
functional and hierarchical distinctions between different types of jobs and between
labour and management in general. In addition, efforts to improve products through
innovation, quality, availability and pricing have led companies to set up cross-
functional development teams, thus transcending the traditional boundaries between
engineering, manufacturing and marketing. These developments have been
accompanied by the erosion of the standardised, segmented, stable production
process which had facilitated collective industrial relations (Macdonald 1997).
These changes are also associated with a continuing shift in employment from
manufacturing to service-oriented industries – in other words, jobs shift from
traditional manual occupations to various forms of white-collar employment.

178
1.1. Globalisation and labour market effects

In terms of the labour market, the most influential effects of globalisation include
the following:
x flexibilisation of labour markets;
x increasing labour migration;
x rising atypical and non-standard forms of employment;
x changes in work content and working conditions;
x skills mismatch, multi-skilling and the need for lifelong learning.

Employment issues are critical to every country. However, countries have

approached these issues in different ways and employment standards thus vary
widely across countries. Research partly attributes the differences between countries
to the stage of their development at a given point in time. Nevertheless, employment
standards continue to play a key role in determining a country’s competitive
advantage in terms of labour market development. Due to growing competitiveness,
many countries are obliged to relax their employment protection mechanisms in
order to increase their labour market flexibility. Therefore, a new balance between
labour market flexibility and social protection will have to be established (HM
Treasury 2005). Several countries propose labour market reforms as a way of coping
with the challenges of flexibilisation while providing an adequate level of job and
employment security. As a result of intensified competition, companies are now
being required to innovate to deliver ‘the right product at the right price and time’
(Macdonald 1997). Hence, company management should also focus on promoting
enterprise efficiency, both in terms of labour market flexibility and labour
productivity.

Overall, employment rates are increasing, but non-standard forms of work such as
part-time, fixed-term and self employment are also rising. Broad social
developments in many countries have also led to an increasing participation rate of
women in the labour market which, in turn, has augmented the demand for atypical
forms of employment. As a result of these developments, working conditions do not
improve for a lot of workers while their job security may decline. “Benchmarking
working Europe 2007” (ETUI-REHS 2007) raises the question of whether the
increase in employment is a trade off against the quality of employment. Moreover,
the study argues that building employment growth on sub-optimal solution, such as
involuntary part-time and other non-standard employment relationships, will only
undermine Europe’s efforts to become a knowledge-based society. In developing
countries, outsourcing and subcontracting are part of a global trend towards lower
employment standards, ‘casualisation’ of labour and permanent unemployment. The
real problem for developing countries relates to underemployment and disguised
unemployment.

In contrast, the majority of developed countries face serious labour and skill
shortages which threaten their sustainability of economic growth, productivity
performance and international competitiveness. In the EU, rising labour shortages

179
will put a push on increasing labour migration within the EU and also from non-EU
countries. “Employment outlook 2001” (OECD) already highlighted that ‘while
admissions of new permanent foreign workers are currently very few in number,
especially in the European OECD countries, the temporary employment of
foreigners appear to be becoming more widespread’. The temporary employment of
foreign workers introduces flexibility into the labour market while also increasing
competition between foreign and domestic labour with varying implications for the
countries sending and receiving workers. The latter countries have introduced
several policy measures to restrict labour market access for migrant workers, thus
limiting competition for work between foreign and domestic workers.

Another area of enterprise activity to be affected by globalisation concerns the

organisation of work. To achieve the flexibility and productive efficiency required to
respond quickly and effectively to market changes, the need arises to reorganise
work; for example, to put greater emphasis on team-based activities or to improve
connections across business units within a company. Related changes have seen a
‘flattering’ of management hierarchies and the transfer of greater operational
responsibility and authority to lower level managers, supervisors and work teams.
All of these changes aim to increase workers’ commitment to the company and its
business goals, as well as to establish closer relationships between managers and
workers based on consultation and cooperation (Macdonald 1997). The European
Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health and Safety (ETUI-REHS)
argues in its 2007 benchmarking working report that while globalisation and rapid
changes in economies demand that workers become proactive, adaptable, multi-
skilled, responsible and competent, these demands put additional pressure on
workers, thus exacerbating their difficulties at a time when working conditions are
deteriorating and wages are compressed. The result of these changes will be at an
unbearable price, notably a growth in ill-health associated with a decrease in quality
of life and unfair costs for individuals and society.

1.2. Globalisation and industrial relations

Globalisation impacts directly and indirectly on industrial relations systems and its
actors. The European economy is a good example of illustrating the different effects
of globalisation on industrial relations. This is due to the fact that, over the past
years, Europe has had to deal with strong challenges stemming from globalisation in
the form of intensified competition, the transfer of investments, production
relocation outside of Europe, job losses, unemployment and rapid structural
changes. Europe’s performance has diverged from that of its competitors in North
America and Asia: in this regard, the productivity gap has widened and the
investments in research and development (R&D) have been inadequate (Sapir 2003;
HM Treasury 2005). Therefore, European labour markets are currently facing major
challenges. On the one hand, high expectations exist related to the competitiveness
of the European economy. This means that labour markets will have to become more
flexible as employers demand further deregulation of the labour market in order to
successfully cope with worldwide competition. The casualisation of labour is also
growing due to economic liberalisation, changes in ownership and technology, in

180
addition to cost-cutting competitive strategies of employers. On the other hand, the
European social model underlines the importance of employment security and social
cohesion as workers seek greater job security in light of rapid structural change and
job relocation outside of Europe. The key issue is how to find a balance between a
modernised European social model and the flexibilisation of labour markets while
remaining competitive.

Pressures of globalisation affect employment relations and industrial relations at

regional, national and international levels. These pressures interact with national
characteristics of: the economic and political system; the type of government; legislative
developments; industrial stages; the exposure to globalisation; the influence of labour
and the state in each country; and different policies regarding industrial relations.

Figure 1 highlights some of the effects and challenges that globalisation has on
industrial relations systems. As already mentioned, globalisation increases the
competitiveness and inequality among countries. Productivity growth constitutes the
key element of the economic convergence process. It is therefore important to note that
productivity growth should be higher than wage growth; otherwise, it could harm
employment growth. Over the past 20 years, the process of globalisation has accelerated
as the internationalisation of trade, services, communications, transportation and
investments has increased. Under globalisation, investments are easily made worldwide,
and industries and services move from one country to another, thus restricting
opportunities for permanent employment relationships to the benefit of economic
performance. Driven by further technological advances, production processes are
becoming increasingly fragmented, which enables economic activities to become more
international, specialised and tradable. To improve their competitiveness, many MNCs
sought to relocate their business operations to countries where labour is cheaper and
workers are less protected. In an effort to attract investments, many countries have bid
against each other in order to be able to lower wage levels and working conditions. As a
result, living standards have been stagnating or even declining in these countries.
IR S Y S T E M S
A c to rs P ro c e s s e s O u tp u ts Im p a c ts

IM P A C T S O F G L O B A L IS A T IO N C H A L L E N G E S O F G L O B A L IS A T IO N

• ris in g c o m p e titiv e n e s s x p ro d u c tiv ity in c re a s e

• in c re a s in g in te g ra tio n o f e c o n o m ic x d e re g u la tio n o f m a rk e ts
a c tiv itie s x m ig ra tio n
• jo b re a llo c a tio n a n d o u ts o u rc in g x e n tre p re n e u rs h ip a n d e m p lo ya b ility
• in c re a s in g la b o u r m o b ility x fle x ib ilis a tio n o f la b o u r m a rk e ts a n d
• ra p id te c h n o lo g ic a l c h a n g e s ris e o f a typ ic a l e m p lo y m e n t fo rm s
• c h a n g e s in w o rk c o n te n t a n d x e d u c a tio n , m u lti- s k illin g a n d life lo n g
w o rk in g c o n d itio n s
le a rn in g
• s k ill m is m a tc h

Figure 1. Effects and challenges of globalisation on industrial relations systems

181
In addition to the effects of globalisation, Europe, as well as some other
economically more advanced countries, must also meet the combined challenges of
low population growth and an ageing population. In light of these challenges,
countries will have to improve labour productivity, employ more people and
guarantee long-term growth and social cohesion. In this context, it appears to be
impossible for developed countries to handle their current demographic situation
without allowing for labour migration originating from developing countries; in
particular, the migration of skilled workers is encouraged. At the same time,
developing countries, especially China and India, are facing further population
growth and a labour surplus. At least over the next 20-30 years, these countries will
have a relative advantage over the more developed countries assuming they are able
to control labour costs, since most of the labour intensive production will be
concentrated in these countries and their neighbouring regions.

Although the current phase of globalisation facilitates the free movement of capital,
as well as of goods and services, restrictions on cross-border movements of people
have not been eased. Therefore, it remains a challenge for developing countries to
overcome visa requirements and other restrictions regarding the free movement of
labour. However, since labour migration raises competition between foreign and
domestic workers with varying implications for countries sending and receiving
labour, the latter countries have implemented legal measures to restrict labour
market access for migrant workers, thus limiting job competition between foreign
and domestic workers. Like any of the developed countries, the developing countries
also fear losing skilled workers who were educated and trained at great public
expense. At the same time, the developing countries will have to establish a reliable
system for providing literacy and vocational skills training to all potential candidates
in the labour market together with a support system to guarantee basic health and
social security cover for workers. Nonetheless, the main problems that developing
countries are currently facing relate to underemployment and disguised
unemployment.

Globalisation has a contradictory impact on industrial relations. On the one hand, it

is accelerating economic interdependence between countries on an intraregional and
interregional basis and encouraging similar business approaches of individual
companies in competitive markets. This may lead to some convergence in industrial
relations arrangements worldwide. On the other hand, evidence exists that industrial
relations in some countries resist the convergence trend; such resistance from
industrial relations actors is based on particular national and regional circumstances,
such as in Europe and Asia (Macdonald 1997). The effect of globalisation on
industrial relations procedures and their substantive outcomes depends on the
conditions under which industrial relations take place within a country. For instance,
the pressure for greater flexibility in the use of labour is omnipresent, but the
outcome is constrained by cultural norms valuing hierarchy and security. Countries’
strategies vary due to historical circumstances, resources and internal political
dynamics, including the influence of trade unions. Thus, the extent and impact of
globalisation differs between countries, resulting in similar concerns for
policymakers yet leading to variable responses and industrial relations outcomes

182
(Frenkel and Peetz 1998). No common understanding exists in research concerning
the influence of globalisation on industrial relations; the viewpoints of the social
partners mainly reflect two directions (Thelen and Wijnbergen 2003).
1. Globalisation pushes all countries towards economic liberalism based on the
interests of a free market and minimal government interference, namely
neoliberalism and deregulation. Globalisation processes thus encourage
companies to lower labour costs and increase labour market flexibility while
undermining the power of trade unions to prevent this trend.
2. The impact of globalisation varies considerably according to the institutional
setting within each country, since the institutional framework influences
employer strategies and business interests. Therefore, a stronger emphasis on
economic growth based on free market forces and reduced government
regulation will emerge in the liberal market economies but not in any of the
coordinated market economies where companies have a stake in preventing
deregulation.

The “Benchmarking working Europe 2007” report argues that ‘much depends on the
nature of the process of globalisation. If for example, a new sector, such as ICT, is
driving the expansion of global trade and world exports, then the economy needs to
rely more on external flexibility in order to shift employment to new companies and
sectors. In the first half of the present decade, however, the expansion of global trade
has been dominated by the existing industries, such as steel, chemicals, machinery
and transport equipment. In this case, the process of change can rely equally on
internal flexibility of workers and jobs moving inside existing firms’ (ETUI-REHS
2007: 7). In the long term, the first scenario will probably be more realistic, at least
for developed countries.

Research about tensions and challenges associated with globalisation focuses mainly
on international issues, namely on: labour standards and trade; the problem of
adjusting to international competition; the cross-cultural management of work and
the transfer of ‘best practice’ examples; and the prospects for transnational trade
unionism and collective bargaining. Giles (2000) argues that the majority of studies
look at globalisation as an ‘external’ factor which affects industrial relations. In
other words, globalisation is examined in terms of its ‘impact’ on what lies within
the field. Globalisation is also commonly perceived as being external to individual
countries and national labour legislation, thus originating ‘above’ the national level.
In this context, globalisation is regarded as a pressure that comes from ‘outside’ the
country. Since globalisation is portrayed as emanating from the outside, it is
frequently reduced to a small number of relatively discrete changes or trends which,
like other transformations in the industrial relations environment, represent
challenges to or pressures on national industrial relations systems and institutions.

2. Research method and data collection

Foresight method has been used very much in technology studies even it has its
roots already in the 1940s. For example from the Swedish technology foresight
(2000) we can read that “We cannot plan the future but we can plan for the future.”

183
This includes one of the key principles of the foresight studies. We can visualise and
discuss on different futures but we cannot plan that any of them will surely happen.
In sociological research we can find many famous foresight reports. They have had
great impact on societal decision-making even if their foresight visions have never
materialised as such. For example Alvin Toffler’s books on Future Shock (1970) and
The Third Wave (1980) include foresights on possible futures and aroused world-
wide discussion on future shocks and crises which are waiting for us if we don’t do
anything. John Naisbitt helped us to understand on Megatrends: Ten New Directions
Transforming our Lives (1982). The book was two years on the best seller list of the
New York Times. Already in 1967 Herman Khan and Anthony Wiener published
The Year 2000 which arouse much discussion especially on the future of Western
World. Eleonora Masini was a leader in two very influential UNESCO projects: The
Futures of the Cultures and Women’s International Network, Emergency and
Solidarity. The reports had great impact on women position and entrepreneur policy
in the developing countries. Aurelio Peccei set up a Club of Rome in 1968, which
published later a book on the Limits of Growth. Even if most of its predictions were
not correct the book was very much discussed and had great impact on debate on
nature resources and the rise of the green movement. This is a very short description
of some of the most influential foresight reports. They have shortcomings but
influence on people’s behaviour and decision-making has been worldwide. Essential
in all writings is critical thinking on the future. That is followed by intensive debate
in favour and against.

Foresight exercises are ways of obtaining opinions about future developments.

Foresight is different from forecast, prognosis or prediction, which are based on the
assumption that the future is pre-defined as a linear continuation of present trends.
Time dimension in forecasts is a short term future. Prognosis and predictions are
looking a bit further into the future and they are using an in-build simplification of
the actual dynamics of social, economic and technological developments. In reality,
future developments underlie reciprocal influences which cannot be assessed
exhaustively in advance, thus not predicted. A new understanding of foresight
gaining acceptance in the 1990s (starting with Irvine and Martin 1984) made clear
that a targeted shaping of future developments is strictly limited and that the
potential impacts of decisions can only partially be estimated. Hence, the foresight is
striving for relatively “realistic” objectives and for example, in the context of
policymaking, the most important intentions are:
x to identify a choice of opportunities, to set priorities and to assess potential
impacts and chances,
x to discuss desirable and undesirable futures,
x to focus selectively on economic, technological, social and ecological areas as
well as
x to start monitoring and detailed research in these fields.

An electronic expert survey concerning industrial relations situation in year 2025

was carried out in EU27 and Global 7 countries. The questionnaire consisted from
16 questions, which investigated respondents’ opinions about future of industrial

184
relations actors, processes, outcomes and general trends in environment. The survey
questionnaire allows compare main features of the industrial relations in 2025 to the
existing industrial relations country profiles in 2004 and/or with present situation in
the countries under observation.

Respondents of the survey were the representatives of trade union organisations,

employer organisations and governments and also academic experts on industrial
relations. National experts were selected by the European Foundation and
Foundation’s national centres assisted in finding experts and taking contacts if
needed. Respondents, who participated in the survey, were experts in their field and
as result we obtained specific, local knowledge and inside information from each
country, which is quite reliable. Also different actors – trade union, employer
organisations, government representatives and academic experts – participated in the
survey and therefore more balanced opinions about future developments can be
drawn. National experts were intensively involved in this project and the project
seminars can be characterised as thought provoking open discussions with mutual
learning.

The target was to collect four responses from each group of representatives in EU27
countries and at least 3 responses from academic experts from Global 7 countries. To
meet abovementioned respondent rates, two rounds of the survey were conducted:
the first took place from the middle of October to the beginning of November 2007
and the second round was conducted from the end of November to the end of
December of 2007. In January 2008, there was follow-up of the survey in some
countries, in order to meet agreed minimum response rates in all countries. In each
country there was Foundation nominated local country expert who contacted
respondents in order to help to get responses. The role of country experts was
especially important during the second round and follow-up of the survey. In total
we received 346 fulfilled questionnaires from 34 countries (respondent rate 76.4%).

However, this expert survey has some limitations. As this survey is dealing with
foresighting the levels of different industrial relations’ indicators for long-run period
then many respondents expressed their doubts about scientific value of such
exercise. They claimed that industrial relations are reflecting also political and
economic changes, that simply cannot be predicted that far ahead. There is no doubt
about that but it is worth to remember that foresight is not prediction of the future
but it is a vision which should be discussed and which is in continuous change. Each
of us have right to tell our vision and put it into discussion. That is good to
remember when looking at criticism on foresight method. One respondent
commented that these answers reflect simply optimism or pessimism about future
developments.

3. Results
3.1. Foresight on trends in society and working life

There is a clear trend towards liberalism and individualism in EU Member States by

2025. This a joint view of industrial relations experts. Trend covers also Global 7

185
countries. Experts in the United Kingdom and in Estonia said that their system is
already very liberal and that situation will remain the same. Very few had a foresight
that trend would change against liberalism and individualism by 2025.

Another clear trend is towards labour market flexibilisation. Majority of respondents

propose also that both, self-employment and atypical employment will increase and
job security will decrease by 2025. Only majority of respondents from India claim
that the share of self-employment will remain at the current level. In EU15 countries
social security is expected to be as it is today but there are also plenty of those who
foresee a decline in social security, while among EU12 there is general trend
towards increase in social security.

According to experts’ views, equal opportunities in EU labour market will increase

in the future but this will not lead to income equality. Majority of respondents in all
countries, expect that the gender wage gap will decrease by 2025. Thus overall
picture is for increase of general inequality in incomes and decrease of gender wage
gap in the future.

Flexibility in working life

Atypical employment Decrease

Remain the same
Individualism
Increase
Self-employment

Liberalism in economic policy

Inequality in incomes

Equal opportunities in labour market

Social security

Public support to trade unions

Job security

Public support to employers’ organisations

Gender wage gap

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2. Respondents’ opinion about general challenges of globalization.
(Industrial relations foresight 2025 survey)

In total this survey covered 75 trade union representatives, 75 employer

organisations representatives, 73 government representatives and 123 academic
experts. This allows make following observations on differences of opinions
according to groups by using Kruskal-Wallis statistically significant different test:
Liberalism in economic policy – among government representatives more than two

186
thirds propose that the liberalism in economic policy will increase in the future and
only one respondent from this group predict that liberalism will decrease by 2025.
There were more respondents in other groups, who predict that liberalism in
economic policy may decrease in the future.

Among academic experts, but also among representatives of employer organisations,

there are more respondents who expect fewer changes in the liberalism in economic
policy in the future.
x Liberalism in economic policy – majority of all groups has a view that liberalism
will be the future direction of economic policy. Two thirds of government
representatives have this view and much more than half in other groups.
Academic were the most critical.
x Flexibility of working life – almost all respondents among employer organi-
sation and government representatives expect that flexibility will increase in the
future. While there is majority among academic experts, who propose that
flexibility will increase, there is more respondents compared to other groups
who believe that flexibility will remain at the current level or even decrease
x Flexibility of working life – high majority of all groups had a view that
flexibility will increase. Almost all employers and strong majority of trade
unionist and government people saw flexibility to increase.
x Atypical employment – among trade union and employer organisations
representatives there are more respondents who believe that atypical employ-
ment will remain at the current level or even decrease, compared to the other
respondents groups. At the same time government representatives and acade-mic
experts are in favour that atypical employment will increase in the future.
x Inequality in incomes – among employer organisation representatives less
respondents expect that inequality in incomes will increase in the future and in
this group of respondents even more than one quarter believe that inequality will
decrease in the future. Representatives of trade unions and academic experts are
most pessimistic that inequality will decrease by 2025.
x Equal opportunities in labour market – most pessimistic in the sense that equal
opportunities in labour market will increase in the future are representatives of
trade unions, while most optimistic that equal opportunities in labour market
will increase by 2025 are representatives of employer organisations.
x Gender wage gap – while almost equal share of respondents among trade union
representatives believe that gender wage gap will either remain at the current
level or decrease, then from employer organisations’ representatives more than
four fifths propose tat gender wage gap will decrease in the future.

Respondents’ opinions in other aspects of working life environment – individualism,

job and social security, self-employment – are quite similar and no statistically
significant differences appear in their replies.

To sum up, answers show clearly, that most of respondents believe, that world is
moving towards more liberal and individualistic approach. Respondents foresee
significant effects of globalisation – labour market flexibilisation, the rise of atypical

187
employment forms and self-employment, as well as changes in work content and
working conditions – to happen in the near future. The key issue for the social
partners will be to establish a balance between labour market flexibility maintaining
workers’ social protection and companies’ competitiveness in the global world.

3.2. Foresight on social partner unionisation

The trade union density differs significantly among the countries examined, ranging
in 2004 from 80% in Denmark to 3-6% in India (for more detailed discussion see
Philips and Eamets 2007 and Van Gyes et al. 2007). The same variability is expected
to be in trade union density rates also in 2025, when according to experts’ foresights
the highest trade union density rates – over 60% - will be in Denmark, Finland and
Sweden and the lowest rates – 10% or less – will be in France, U.S and India (see
Figure 3). On average, the trade union density rates in Global 7 countries in 2025 are
expected to be lower than in EU member states.

In majority of countries respondents expect some decrease in trade union density

rates by 2025). In more than half of observed countries, the expected changes by
2025 compared to the level in 2004 are on average around -5 to + 5 percentage
points.
x In the majority of EU15 countries, respondents expect that the trade union
density rates will decline. The most remarkable decrease is expected in Sweden
and Denmark (16 percentage points). Social partners and experts from Germany,
France and Spain expect on average an increase in trade union density rates by
some percentage points. Greater changes in trade union density rates are
expected by respondents from EU12 countries.
x In the majority of EU12 countries, respondents expect that the trade union
density rates will decrease by 2025. The most dramatic decrease is expected in
Malta and Cyprus (19 and 14 percentage points, respectively), while the highest
increase in trade union density rates are expected in Lithuania and Latvia (20
and 11 percentage points, respectively).
x In Global 7 countries majority of respondents expect some decline in the trade
union density rates by 2025. However, the expected decrease in Global 7
countries is modest compared to the average decline expected in EU countries.
Some decrease is expected in China, Japan, U.S and Australia (around 3 to 5
percentage points), while industrial relations experts from India foresee some
increase in trade union density rate in the future.

In regard to the employer organisations’ density rates, then majority of respondents

from the EU15 countries foresee some decline, while the respondents from new
member states expect an increase by 2025. These tendencies show that some
convergence and unification in trade union as well as employer organisation density
rates is taking place in Europe. However, no drastic changes are foreseen, these
results show that today’s levels are in the majority of cases projected into 2025. Both
trade union and employer organisations density rates remain higher in EU15
countries, followed by EU12 and then Global 7 countries.

188
90
2004
2025
80

70
Trade union density rate (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
IE
LU

FR
SE

ES

EE
DK

UK

NL

SI

CZ

HU

SAF*

USA
CHI

AUS
FI

IT

MT

SK

IND***
DE

CY

LV
RO

BG
BE

JAP
EL

PT

PL

BRZ**
LT
AT

Figure 3. Trade union density rates in 2004 and foresight3 on trade union density
rates in 2025 (percentage). (Experts’ survey and Van Gyes et al. 2007; Industrial
relations foresight 2025 survey)

Many respondents have a view that there will be new actors present in industrial
relations processes by 2025. The new actors, which enter into the industrial relations
processes, are new employees’ organisations, which are different from the current
trade unions. There might also be mergers or split-ups of current unions and
employer organisations. In the future, current unions may also cover those groups of
workers who do not have a representation today (e.g. migrant workers, workers in
informal sector, temporary agency workers). The role of the third sector, NGOs and
professional bodies is expected to increase by two channels: one is civil
organisations interest to use trade unions for their interest promotion and also vice

3
Question: “Please estimate, what will be the trade union density rate (i.e. share of employees
belonging to trade union) in 2025 in your country (%)”. Notes: *According to South African
expert P. Hirschsohn, in 2001, trade union density rate corresponded to almost 43% of those
employed in the formal sector of the economy, but only to 28% of the economically active
population due to high levels of unemployment. ** - According to Brazilian expert H.
Zylberstajn, the Brazilian unionisation rate in 2004 is overestimated for the following two
reasons: first, Brazilian trade unions are entitled to a ‘union contribution’ which equals the
wage of one and which is compulsorily and controlled once a year; secondly, older workers in
rural areas need a statement from the trade union justifying that they are rural workers, in order
to receive their pension benefit. *** - For India 2004 figures concern only the formal sector.
Various sources provide different estimates for trade union density rate in India, ranging from
2.6% to 6%.

189
versa. Several respondents expect that the role of professional associations will rise
and they will take over some functions of trade unions.

3.3. Foresight on collective bargaining and collective agreement coverage

The ongoing liberalisation and decentralisation processes in society will also affect
the collective bargaining coverage rates. The majority of respondents from the EU15
countries expect some decline in collective bargaining coverage, while the
respondents from the EU12 and Global 7 countries foresee an increase in coverage
rates. Outliers are India and Japan, where the collective bargaining coverage rate is
very low and where a modest increase is expected in the future. On average, the
collective bargaining coverage rates will remain higher in the EU15 countries
compared to the new member states. In the Global 7 countries, the coverage rates
will be lower than the EU average.

In 2004, collective bargaining coverage rates varied widely – from 100% in Slovenia
to 3% in India – in the countries examined. It was much lower in the EU10 countries
– covering, on average, between 30% and 40% of the workforce – than in the EU15
countries, where around 75% of the workforce was covered by collective
agreements; and in the Global 7 countries, on average the coverage rates were lower
than the EU average (for detailed description see also Van Gyes et al. 2007; Philips
and Eamets 2007). According to respondents’ predictions the variability in collective
bargaining coverage rates will remain also in 2025 – ranging from more than 90% in
Belgium, Austria and France to less than 15% in India and Japan (see Figure 4).

Respondents have different opinions concerning the developments in collective

bargaining coverage rates by 2025. Majority of respondents from EU15 countries
expect some decline in coverage rates, while on average, some increase in collective
bargaining coverage rates is expected in EU12 and Global 7 countries.
x In majority of EU15 countries, respondents expect that the collective bargaining
coverage rate will decline by 2025 and the deepest decline is expected in
Portugal, but also in Finland, Sweden and Spain. Respondents from
Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Italy expect
modest increase in the collective bargaining coverage rates.
x In EU12 countries, the changes in collective bargaining rates are more
remarkable to both directions. In Slovenia, where the coverage is currently at
very high level, a decline is expected on average by 26 percentage points by
2025. A decline around 10 percentage points is expected in Malta, Cyprus and
Slovakia. The highest increases in coverage rates are likely in the Baltic States
(24 percentage points in Lithuania, 20 in Latvia and 14 in Estonia).
x There are rather diverse expectations of the developments in collective
bargaining coverage rates in Global 7 countries. Respondents from Australia and
Japan expect that there will be a decline in the coverage rates by 2025, while
respondents from China, India and the U.S foresee some increase in the rates.
However, the expected rates differ remarkably: from around 7% in India up to
76% in Brazil in 2025.

190
100
2004
2025
90

80
Collective bargaining coverage rate (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

CHI

USA
BRZ*
FI

NL**

CZ
SE

ES

RO*

LV

BG*
EE

SAF*
FR

DK

LU

UK

SI

HU

AUS

IND
PT

EL

PL

LT
IE*
BE

DE

CY

SK
MT

JAP
AT

IT

Figure 4. Collective bargaining coverage rates in 2004 and foresight 4 on collective

bargaining coverage rates in 2025 (percentage). (Experts’ survey and Van Gyes et
al. 2007; Industrial relations foresight 2025 survey)

Industrial relations experts foresee that there will be changes in the importance of
different collective bargaining levels by 2025. In general, the majority of
respondents expect that there will be an increase of collective bargaining at the
international and enterprise level. With regard to the other levels of collective
bargaining the picture is more patchy. Among respondents from the EU12 countries,
the general attitude is that the importance of sectoral level collective bargaining will
increase, while the respondents from EU15 countries expect that the enterprise level
collective bargaining is gaining more importance in the future. This indicates also
some convergence in the industrial relations systems of the old and new member
states, as one can observe that the old EU member states are moving towards
decentralisation and the new member states towards centralisation in collective
bargaining. Not surprisingly the results from Global 7 are different: the dominant
levels are expected to be the enterprise and regional level.

4
Question: Please estimate, what will be the collective bargaining coverage rate (i.e. the share
of employees covered with collective agreements) in 2025 in your country (%). Note: * - There
is no reliable information available about collective bargaining rate in 2004 for Ireland,
Bulgaria, Romania, Brazil and South Africa. ** - According to comments of two respondents
from the Netherlands, the collective bargaining coverage rate is around 80-85% ever since
World War II.

191
In majority of EU15 countries, the dominant level of collective bargaining in 2025
will be sectoral level. Exceptions are Greece and the United Kingdom, where the
enterprise level will be dominant and also Ireland, where the national level collective
bargaining will be dominant. In majority of EU12 countries, still the enterprise level
collective bargaining will be dominant in the future. Respondents from Bulgaria,
Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia expect that the enterprise level collective bargaining
is replaced by sectoral level collective bargaining by 2025. Among Global 7
countries major changes are not expected: sectoral level collective bargaining is
expected to be dominant in Brazil and South Africa and in other countries the
enterprise level bargaining is expected to be dominant.

3.4. Foresight on wage, working time, and other working conditions

Following general trends can be drawn about determination of different working

conditions in different countries and country groups:
x There are many countries, where respondents do not expect major changes
happening in the wage determination procedures, while in majority of countries
some decentralisation process in wage determination is expected. Respondents
foresee that in the future wages will be still collectively regulated, but there will
be more variability in wages and more differentiations in rules, which will
introduce more variable/flexible pay.
x Respondents from majority of countries do not expect changes in the present
system of determination of minimum wages. Currently national minimum wages
are fixed in 21 of the EU27 member states, as well as in Australia and Brazil.
Minimum wages in EU15 countries are set mostly at national level or sectoral
level negotiations, and in EU12 countries minimum wages are set dominantly at
national level negotiations.
x In the EU15 countries currently the working time is regulated in majority of
countries by national legislation and/or by sector level collective agreements. In
the countries, where changes are foreseen these changes are towards enterprise
collective agreements or individual contracts. In the EU12 countries working
hours are regulated by national legislations. Collective agreements play minor
role and, if play, does not deviate from the statutory weekly working hours. In
majority of cases no changes are expected in the current system. In Global 7
countries respondents’ opinions about future developments in regulating
working time issues are very different and no generalisation can be made.
x At present in a majority of countries the health and safety issues are regulated by
national legislation and respondents do not expect changes in the system.
Respondents also expect that the government’s role in regulating health and
safety issues will either increase or remain unchanged in the future.

Many of respondents pointed out that flexible employment arrangement (telework,

temporary agency work, etc.) may increase because of need for reaction to
expanding phenomenon in the future. Respondents foresee that the governments will
have to deal with the increase of flexibility in the labour markets and the
government’s role as a promoter of flexible employment arrangement could rise, as

192
well as the regulation with respect to the flexible forms of employment will increase.
The implementation of flexicurity is likely to require extensive legislation at
national level, but the European Commission is also likely to have an increasing role
in these matters. However, lot of respondents have an opinion that the minimum
standards of working conditions (minimum wage, working time, and health and
safety issues) will be fixed at national and/or EU level and sectoral and/or enterprise
level agreements will settle more rights for workers.

Conclusions

Globalisation impacts directly and indirectly on the industrial relations systems and
their actors. Different dimensions of globalisation – internationalisation of markets,
increasing competition, free movement of capital and labour, rising importance of
markets and ICT – impact on the working life and represent serious challenges for
national industrial relations systems. The pressure exerted by globalisation affects
employment and industrial relations at regional, national and international level.
These pressures interact with national characteristics of the economic and political
system, (e.g. type of government, legislative developments, role of the social
partners, etc.).

Globalisation has a contradictory impact on industrial relations. On the one hand, it

is accelerating economic interdependence between countries on an intraregional
basis and encouraging similar business approaches of individual companies in
competitive markets. This may lead to some convergence in industrial relations
arrangements worldwide. On the other hand, evidence exists that industrial relations
in some countries resist the convergence trend; such resistance from industrial
relations actors is based on particular national and regional circumstances. Big
multinational companies cover different countries and this means new challenges for
social partners as well (see e.g. Papadakis 2008). Work standards and wages begin to
level out internationally, different work culture, value systems means that unions
have to adjust their recruitment policies, importance of international co-operation
between trade unions will increase. Several respondents pointed out that the
developments industrial relations systems in 2025 will be influenced by
globalisation and competition.

In addition to the effects of globalisation, Europe, as well as some other

economically more advanced countries, must also meet the combined challenges of
low population growth and an ageing population. In this context, it appears to be
impossible for developed countries to handle their current demographic situation
without allowing for labour migration originating from developing countries; in
particular, the migration of skilled workers is encouraged. At the same time,
developing countries, especially China and India, are facing further population
growth and a labour surplus. The majority of developed countries face also serious
labour and skill shortages which threaten their sustainability of economic growth,
productivity performance and international competiveness. In the EU, rising labour
shortages will put a push on increasing labour migration within the EU and also
from non-EU countries.

193
In general, the country groups (EU15, EU12 and Global 7) are internally highly
heterogeneous and countries are characterised by very high diversity in most of
cases. Hence, all of the conclusions drawn up as part of this analysis should be
handled with caution, since specific aspects relating to each country, such as
historical and cultural developments, legislation and the role of the state, have to be
taken into account. The following paragraphs highlight some of the main differences
between the country groups in 2025 according to the survey results.
x In the EU15, the industrial relations indicators – trade union and employer
organisation density rates, collective bargaining coverage and workplace
representation – will have on average, the highest scores also in 2025: all of this
indicates that employees will generally be more protected in the EU15 and that
they enjoy greater employment security and social guarantees. In addition, social
cohesion (more equal opportunities in the labour market, lower income
inequality and gender wage gap) will be higher in the EU15 societies than in
those of the other country groups.
x The EU12 countries will keep their position between the EU15 and Global 7
countries, showing higher social partner organisation density and collective
bargaining coverage rates than the Global 7 countries. Workers will be better
protected and inequality is lower in the EU12 when compared with the Global 7
countries.
x In the G7 countries, workers will be less unionised and less protected and low
trade union density is accompanied with a relatively low rate of collective
bargaining coverage also in 2025. Furthermore, employers are also less
organised. The labour markets will be more flexible and employment protection
will stand at a relatively low level also in the future.

This foresight study picked up also several “strong signals” of the changes in the
industrial relations systems: declining unionism in observed countries,
decentralisation processes in collective bargaining negotiations and in determining
different working conditions. It seems also that EU level convergence is expected in
the area of industrial relations. Convergence to the EU average level is more concern
of the EU12 countries, which are more willing to expect an expansion of social
partnership. In relation to trade union and employer organisations density, the
member states, dominantly EU15 countries, are foreseeing a decline. In parallel the
old member states are dominantly foreseeing a decline in the collective bargaining
coverage rates, while the EU12 is expecting a rise. In general, decentralisation of
collective bargaining is expected in old member states, while the situation will
remain unchanged in majority of the new member states. It seems that European
level convergence is expected in the area of industrial relations. On the background
of this convergence increasing competition and globalisation push for higher
flexibility, increase of atypical forms of work, decreasing job security.

194
References

1. Ali, M. (2005). Globalisation and industrial relations of China, India and South
Korea: An argument for divergence. Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar
Paper Series, University of Rhode Island.
2. Benchmarking working Europe 2007 (2007). ETUI-REHS and ETUC, Brussels.
3. Employment outlook 2001 (2001). OECD, Paris.
4. Frenkel, S. and Peetz, D. (1998). Globalisation and industrial relations in East
Asia: A three-country comparison. – Industrial Relations, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.
282-310.
5. Giles, A. (2000). Globalisation and industrial relations theory. – Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 173-194.
6. Long-term global economic challenges and opportunities for Europe. (2005).
HM Treasury, The Stationary Office, London.
7. Irvine, J., Martin, B. R. (1984). Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners.
London/ Dover.
8. Khan, H. and Wiener, A. (1967). The Year 2000. A Framework for Speculation
on the Next Thirty-Three Years. The MacMillan Company. Collier-MacMillan
Limited London.
9. Macdonald, D. (1997). Industrial relations and globalisation: Challenges for
employers and their organisations. Paper presented at the ILO Workshop on
employers’ organisations in Asia-Pacific in the twenty-first century, Turin, Italy,
5-13 May.
10. Masini, E. (1986). The Futures of the Cultures. UNESCO
11. Masini, E. (1989). Women’s International Network. Emergency and Solidarity.
UNESCO.
12. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W. (1972).
The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.
13. Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming our Lives.
Warner Books.
14. Philips, K., Eamets, R. (2007). Impact of globalisation on industrial relations
in the EU and other major economies. Dublin, European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
15. Sapir, A. (2003). An agenda for a growing Europe. Making the EU economic
system deliver. Report of an independent high-level study group established on
the initiative of the President of the European Commission. Brussels, July 2003,
available online at: http://www8.madrid.org/gema/fmm/informe_sapir.pdf.
16. Swedish technology foresight (2000). NUTEK.
17. Thelen, K., Wijnbergen, C. (2003). The paradox of globalisation: Labour
relations in Germany and beyond. – Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 36, No.
8, pp. 859-880.
18. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. Random House.
19. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. Bantam Books.
20. Van Gyes, G., Vandenbrande, T., Lehndorff, S., Schilling, G., Schief, S. and
Kohl, H. (2007). Industrial relations in EU Member States 2000-2004. Dublin,
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

195

View publication stats