News

What will trigger Heads of State to commit to introducing common social targets in the near future? I would suggest looking at the reasons behind last week’s European Council decision to set binding climate targets to get some idea of what the factors for achieving EU social targets could be.

Taking the Council’s climate targets as an example, the dire situation of the EU’s social dimension may have nothing at all to do with a decision to set social targets. When you consider the disappointment expressed by our friends from the European Environmental Bureau after last Thursday’s late-night negotiations, it doesn’t seem as though our leaders are really committed to responding to the global challenge climate change presents.

Unfortunately, it is more likely that their motives were placed elsewhere. Firstly, geostrategic reasons seem to have played a huge part in the decision making process. With the ongoing Ukrainian conflict and the EU’s increasingly strained relationship with Russia, the EU recognises the need for autonomy from gas and oil from the East. Moreover, access to the Middle East’s oil fields is jeopardised by the constant reshuffling of power cards in the region. Secondly, there were also economic reasons; the EU, facing its worst recession in history, realises the need to invest in the economy, and is prioritising an EU investment package in the coming weeks as well as a Franco-German agreement on investment to be discussed at the December European Council.

Taking the same approach, I envisage the development of binding social targets based on the following factors:

• Investment: to respond to slow growth and a possible second recession, Heads of State will finally acknowledge the added value of investing in social infrastructure, as October’s ECOFIN council fleetingly referenced in its conclusions (no. 11). They can rely on the Commission’s investment package to work towards this end.

• Legitimacy: the disconnect between the difficult social situation of people living in the EU and the economic priorities set by the EU will increase the legitimacy crisis that exists between the EU and its people. We are already witnessing the new Commission’s attempts to address this disconnect, such as through its pledge to work on minimum income and minimum wage. However, there is still poor coordination between the different elements needed to achieve this, and we are far from being able to implement the binding targets we are calling for.

• Self-destructing competitiveness: social dumping in the EU – defined by the Commission as ‘a situation where foreign service providers can undercut local service providers because their labour standards are lower’ – linked to the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive, triggered a race to the bottom between people in the EU, and has raised severe anti-European narrative in several countries. Competitiveness at any cost is not what we are looking for.

We see from our friends working on the environment that taking ‘good’ decisions for the wrong reasons does not necessarily address the issues at stake. The climate targets agreed by the Council do not respond to what climate change demands of us. Let’s hope that our calls to EU leaders on social investment and social standards will be heard before they act upon them for the wrong reasons.

Let’s engage!

Pierre Baussand, Director