Volume 20, Issue 2

In the introduction the authors place the articles of this thematical issue into the context of the discourse on the globalization and its consequences. Searching for a way out of the globalization trap the potential of the European Union to avoid an unregulated competition of national states is put under scrutiny. Summing up the papers, the authors come to the conclusion that in certain policy fields, especially regulative policies aiming at similar standards for the protection of the environment, health and safety issues or workplace participation do have chances of overcoming the dilemmata of collective action by the European Union. Distributive and particularly redistributive social policies are much more demanding and tend to overstrain the solidarity of a European collective identity. Changing their perspective from the potential for action and problem solving to input-legitimation of collective political decision processes, the authors point out the democratic deficit of the European Union. Exactly when it is possible to design the European actors in such a way, that they will be able to handle public good problems effectively and efficiently, democratic legitimation becomes a bottleneck. Therefore a more sober quest for a post-national and post-parliamentary design of democratic institutions for the European Union is demanded.

The process of economical globalisation leads to the weakening of social regulations and social state activities. International and global social standards could limit this development and the risk, that this results in social dumping, but there are hardly signs for it. International organizations (like ILO or WTO) are of no relevance so far respectively their regulations only have the character of “soft law”. International social standards only come into being to a limited extend in a few regions, like the EU (or eventually the NAFTA). The labour and social regulations of the EU, that have been issued so far, can in some parts contribute to a (limited) protection against negative social consequences of globalisation.

The existing literature on social dialogues deals with problems and results at the interprofessional level only. Despite its potential importance the sectoral form has been widely neglected. The first part of the article consists of some remarks on the interpretation of procedural regulations given by the Commission in its different communications. The second part presents an overview of the existing results based on the explicit distinction between official statements and the results of empirical studies. In the third part specific, most recent difficulties consisting in problems of private corporate actors as well as in the implementation of regulatory projects are analysed. The article is concluded by some tentative remarks on the future of Europeanisation as well as alternative paths of development of social dialogues at the sectoral level and by a short outlook.

A few years after the directive 94/95 EU on European Works Council has been passed we can now start proceeding to an evaluation of their implementation. In a context where E WC are being openly criticized for their lack of effectiveness in regulating industrial relations, this article presents the case of Volkswagen’s E WC as a “best practice example” in this field. The particularity of this research is that it not only questions the statements of many critics about the inefficiency of these committees and the resulting danger of company internal and external social dumping. Even more it shows that it can even lead within one company to the exportation of industrial relations of high participation’s standard to locations where these standards are usually less regulated.

In Summer 1997 the group of experts on the „European Company Statute“, chaired by Etienne Davignon, presented proposals on the presence and the rights of worker representatives in the company bodies of the future European Company. While the Davignon-group put forward a prudent solution (negotiation plus reference rules), the proposed definitions of „involvement“ and „participation“ are untenable since the qualitative distinctions (intensity) among different levels of participation are lost. The argumentation the group of experts considers necessary to help its solution succeed is not convincing, and may even turn out to be counterproductive. The article argues in favour of a clear terminology and an open discourse on participation, not least among the trade unions, as the only way of coping with the „phantom of the German model“.

This article analyses European law-making with regard to its procedure and function with the example of the making and implementation of the participation rules in article 11 of the directive 89/391/EEC concerning health and safety at work. The procedure is characterized by repeatedly trying to balance the different interests of Commission, Council and Parliament as well as the central and decentralized groups. At first glance this law based an compromises seems to be unclear and as a consequence of formal implementation this law remains invisible and thus a successful acceptance is made more difficult. Examples from other European member states, however, show that an unbiased and active reception of the European law could support the modernization of national institutions in a lasting way. An important active part is the integration into the building of a Common Market, which in many areas has led to a deregulation and which also requires measures against dumping in the social field to establish a fair environment for competition. Further important elements are the choice of a decentralized implementation of the directive 89/391/EEC and the support by communication networks.

The Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) belongs to new forms of reflexive regulation within EU-environmental policy. By the example of EMAS the paper analyzes the effects of reflexive regulation on ecological modernization within firms as well as market effects. The results are ambivalent: EMAS is more or less a German project facing a strong challenge by a privately organized environmental management standard, i.e. ISO 14001. Positive effects are an improved level of environmental protection and of legal compliance by participating firms. But the potentials of reflexive regulation are not sufficiently used. Market effects and an improvement of external communication via EMAS seldom occur. A pathway to ecological modernization by EMAS may consist in creating resp. developing decentral networks fostering the EMAS participation of firms. Such networks could support reflexive regulation an the EU-level.

The infringement procedure (Article 226 EC) is the most important instrument in overseeing the transposition of EC environmental directives into national law and administrative practise. This has not been changed despite several attempts to create other, more informal instruments to control their implementation. If the administrative part of the infringement procedure does not succeed, the Commission can institute proceedings against the member state concerned before the European Court. The overwhelming majority of these procedures end in convictions. One reason for this is the Commission’s broad discretionary power concerning the different stages of the infringement procedure. Another reason is that the European Court's jurisdiction in these procedures generally tends to strengthen the European environmental policy and in so doing the Commission as well.

The sociology of law should gain more influence on sociology in general. One means would be more cooperation with other sociological associations. This volume may serve as an example. As regards the content of this volume, it is assumed that the European Parliament will play a much bigger role in the future which also will contribute to the further development of a „European identity“.