Social partners and racism: the impact of the European joint declaration

Combating racial discrimination and xenophobia is an issue which has become increasingly prominent on the European Union agenda in recent years. Since the mid-1980s, a rising tide of concern with the problem can be perceived in various declarations and resolutions by Community institutions, and notably in the inclusion of the issue of racial discrimination in the 1989 "Social Charter". The past two years, especially, have seen significant developments, many of which are of direct relevance to employment and industrial relations. Some of the notable recent landmarks have included:

• the Council of Ministers' October 1995 Resolution on the fight against racism and xenophobia in employment and social affairs;
• the adoption in December 1995 of the European Commission's first Communication on racism, xenophobia and social affairs
• the declaration of 1997 as the European Year against Racism. This move had been proposed by the Commission, and was approved by a July 1996 Council Resolution;
• the creation of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, based on a Council Regulation adopted in June 1997; and
• the inclusion in the draft Amsterdam Treaty in June 1997 of a new Article 6A allowing the Council to "take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation".

The increasing level of European-level activity to combat racism has not just involved the EU institutions, and the social partners have also been playing an important role. Most visibly, on 21 October 1995, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) and the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) signed a "Joint declaration on the prevention of racial discrimination and xenophobia and promotion of equal treatment at the workplace" (see box below for details). The purpose of this supplement is to examine the extent to which this joint declaration has had an impact at national level, a year and a half or so after its adoption. The focus is on joint action by the social partners in response to the declaration. The findings are based almost wholly on a brief "snapshot" of the position in each country of the EU, plus Norway, provided by the national centres of the European Industrial Relations Observatory (the individual national reports will be available on the EIRO database). The picture is thus very much a provisional and interim one.

Problems of assessment

In attempting to assess the influence and impact of the social partners’ joint declaration, the issue is clouded by the fact that it forms part of a recent series of initiatives addressing the problem of racial discrimination and xenophobia. As noted above, at EU level the period immediately before and after the adoption of the declaration has seen a number of other important, and often linked, developments – most notably, the declaration of 1997 as the European Year Against Racism (EYAR). Very briefly, the EYAR is a key part of the Commission's strategy to combat racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, and aims to:

• highlight the threat posed by these problems to the respect of fundamental rights and to economic and social cohesion;
• encourage reflection and discussion on measures required to combat racism, xenophobia and antisemitism;
• promote the exchange of experience on good practice and effective strategies devised at local, national and European level;
• disseminate information on good practice and effective strategies;
• make known the benefits of national-level integration policies, in particular in the fields of employment, education, training and accommodation; and
• turn to good account the experience of people actually affected, or likely to be affected by racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, and promote their participation in society.

The EYAR consists of information and communication projects and exchange of experience projects, at all levels from the national to the Community. The action involves all relevant parties, including the social partners.

While the declaration obviously focuses essentially on the sphere of employment and the EYAR has wider concerns, the two initiatives clearly have many of the same objectives and use many of the same methods, while the social partners are heavily involved in the EYAR’s activities (in national coordination committees, for example). While this is a positive state of affairs, with the joint declaration forming one part of a wider movement of activity and awareness-raising on racial discrimination, the result is that it is often very difficult to distinguish the effects of the joint declaration from those of EYAR (and, to a lesser extent, other initiatives). This overlapping between the declaration and the EYAR is noted in many countries. In most cases, the two initiatives are seen as mutually reinforcing, though in one or two countries (such as Austria), EYAR is perceived in some quarters to have overshadowed the declaration to a degree.

The extent and nature of the effect of the joint declaration at national level is also strongly influenced by particular factors in each country (see below). A key issue is the extent to which the social partners had a history of addressing racial discrimination issues prior to the adoption of the declaration. Where this is the case, the direct effect of the declaration is again difficult to distinguish, as measures arising from national initiatives may tend to overlap with those arising from European-level developments. Countries where policy and activity in this area, either joint or unilateral (usually among trade unions), were already relatively well developed include Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Awareness

The general picture across Europe is that the central social partners organisations - usually the members of the signatory European bodies – are fully aware of the joint declaration. However, in a number of countries, this awareness (and especially detailed awareness of the declaration's contents) may be largely restricted to those individuals in these organisations with particular responsibility with race and migrant issues – this seems to be the case in Austria and Belgium, for example.

The evidence of dissemination of awareness and information about the declaration to lower-level organisations is rather patchy. Countries where there is clear evidence of such activity include Germany and the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands, the central social partners, through the Labour Foundation, have distributed information on the declaration and incorporated it into their own initiatives in this field, and it is these which are better known among individual unions and employers’ organisations than the declaration itself.

In Italy, it is reported that there have been some difficulties in dissemination to sectoral and local structures (though there appear to have been significant efforts by trade unions to diffuse knowledge about the declaration). Awareness among the affiliates of central organisations is thought to be uneven and limited in Ireland. The declaration would not appear to have been widely publicised outside the main trade unions and employers’ in Spain. Similarly, it is reported from Greece that there has been no action by central organisations to disseminate information, and that there is a lack of information at the base.

In terms of awareness at the level of the individual company and workplace, there is no real evidence, though the general perception is that such awareness is very low (though with the obvious exceptions of those company-level initiatives discussed below).

Awareness is clearly difficult to gauge. Response to the joint declaration is easier to measure where awareness has been translated into some concrete joint action, and it is to this issue that we now move.

Joint action

National level

As indicated by table 1, the central national social partners have taken some joint action which is clearly directly inspired by the European joint declaration, and which refers explicitly to it, in Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. In Sweden, the social partners have signed their own joint declaration, based on the European text, while in Greece and Portugal the social partners have incorporated their commitment to the joint declaration in national intersectoral agreements. in Luxembourg, the private sector central social partners have jointly recommended the joint declaration to their affiliates, while in the Netherlands, the social partners have incorporated aspects of the declaration into the implementation of their existing national agreement on ethnic minority issues.

In Ireland, the social partners have agreed a joint code of practice on preventing racism in the workplace, which, while not referring to the joint declaration, covers similar issues. The declaration, along with the EYAR, can be seen as the catalyst for this initiative. In Denmark and the UK, the joint declaration has been a contributory factor, along with the EYAR, to joint activities - including publications and workshops - conducted by the central social partners.

Elsewhere, there are no reports of specific national-level joint activity in response to the joint declaration. However, in Finland actions are due to start later this year, with a tripartite seminar invovling all the central social partner organisations to be held in November, and there are hopes of a national declaration in Spain. Although our focus here is on such joint action , it should be noted that there have been unilateral responses by the social partners in some countries. For example, in Denmark, the FTF union confederation for white-collar workers and civil servants has used the declaration as the basis for a discussion paper circulated among its member unions and district offices for debate and consideration, with a request for ideas for initiatives (likely to be finalised in August 1997).

Sectoral and regional level

It would appear that joint activity directly and explicitly prompted by the European joint declaration has been very limited at sectoral level or regional level. Table 2 gives brief details of two of the very few such initiatives reported - an agreement in the Belgian temporary employment sector, and a joint declaration in the Marche region of Italy. It may be that some of the national level initiatives mentioned above have been followed up at sector level - this is the case in the Netherlands (where numerous sectoral agreement deal with this issue) and Sweden- but this has not occurred in cases such as Greece and Portugal.

Company level

Joint activity at company level directly and explicitly prompted by the European joint declaration is very hard to identify. The only very clear example reported is the campaign by IG Metall in Germany to conclude works agreements on combating racial discrimination, which has led to a number of company agreements. This initiative is summarised in table 3, along with several examples from Belgium and France, where there may be some indirect influence of the joint declaration. However, it should be noted that company-level developments are difficult to monitor, and the motives and inspiration of social partners at this level are not easy to establish.

Overall assessment

The picture which emerges of the direct national impact of the joint declaration is that so far it is both patchy and limited. In a minority of countries, there has been some national-level joint action directly inspired by the declaration, but evidence of lower-level joint initiatives, even in these countries, is very hard to come by. The patchiness of the national impact is attributable largely to particular national situations, with a number of factors hampering direct effects in terms of joint action. To take number of examples:

• some of countries have traditionally had a relatively small population from ethnic minorities, and social partners have not tended to see racial discrimination as an important issue. This is the case in, for example, Finland and Ireland. Conversely, in Luxembourg, the fact that over half of active population is made up of foreign employees, plus very low unemployment, means that racism has not been regarded as a problem. However, there are signs in all cases that this is changing;
• in some countries, such as Austria and France, not all the key social partners are members of the organisations which signed the European joint declaration;
• the issues covered by the joint declaration may not be perceived by all the social partners as appropriate subjects for collective bargaining or other forms of joint action - examples include France, Portugal and Spain;
• in France the rise of the extreme Right has meant that the primary objective of union activity in this area has been to tackle racism among their own members, rather than to attempt joint activity. Also, a perception is reported, notably among employers, that the declaration leans heavily on an "Anglo-saxon" model and raises problems for the French tradition; and
• in Greece, its is reported that there is a general slowness in the whole area of equal opportunities, with inadequate legislation and a lack of initiatives from the social partners.

As mentioned above, the existence of EYAR and other European initiatives means that it is very difficult to single out the specific results of the joint declaration. Furthermore, in many countries there are existing national programmes and activities, which have overlapped with (and in some cases obscured) the joint declaration - an example is Norway, where the conclusion joint declaration coincided with the planning of a major joint campaign against racism. There, are however, signs that the impact of the joint declaration may be growing clearer and stronger in some countries in the future (for example, in Belgium, Finland and Spain). Perhaps the most important point is that in most of the countries examined, there is a a healthy and rising level of interest and activity in the field of combating racial discrimination and promoting equal opportunities. The joint declaration has played a positive role in prompting awareness and concrete action, alongside a range of other European and national initiatives, which together can be seen as creating a kind of synergy (for example, in Italy the declaration is seen as playing a significant role in legitimising and promoting pre-existing activities). There is arguably little point in seeking to trace each national development back to a particular initiative, when it is more appropriate to welcome the overall effect.