Energy Transition in the Metal sector: Are Workers Getting Enough Support? – BARMETAL Project Insights

WageIndicator interviewed Angelo Moro, a researcher from Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, involved in the EU-sponsored BARMETAL project. The study explores the current state and opportunities to strengthen collective bargaining in the metalworking industry amidst technological changes like digitalisation, automation, and decarbonisation. He discusses the project's goals, challenges and path forward.

Could you briefly share the key objectives of the BARMETAL Project?

The project had multiple objectives, but the main goal was to assess the current state of collective bargaining around technological innovation, particularly digitalisation, automation, and the green transition (decarbonisation). This was divided into five research tasks.

First, we identified the key challenges in the metalworking sector across different countries. Then, we conducted two case studies per country of companies undergoing digitalisation, automation and decarbonisation processes. For each country, we carried out at least 15 qualitative interviews, focusing on workers, union representatives, engineers and managers, both at the workplace and sectoral levels. Furthermore, we analysed social dialogue on digitalisation, automation and decarbonisation at the European level using both interviews and desk research. Additionally, we contributed to the WageIndicator Collective Agreement Database (CBA), coding 75 agreements in the metalworking industry, focusing on clauses related to technological change, such as those concerning skills and qualifications, training, and working conditions.

Finally, we used these findings to identify opportunities and challenges for strengthening collective bargaining, both at the national and European levels, with a focus on technological change, digitalisation, and decarbonisation.

What was the biggest challenge in conducting the research?

One significant challenge was securing access to companies for conducting our case studies. Many companies were hesitant to participate or imposed unacceptable conditions, such as restricting access to workers or trade unions. This issue isn't unique to our project but is a broader challenge in this type of social research. Despite this, we are especially grateful to the companies and managers who worked with us and were actually open to collaboration, allowing us to gather comprehensive data and insights, including diverse perspectives from within their organisations.

We recognize that the transitions we studied, especially the green transition, can create friction and problems, making workplaces less accessible to researchers during conflicts. This adds a layer of structural difficulty, but it is an important aspect of researching these complex changes.

Did the companies you spoke to demand to see the case study before it went for publishing etc.?

In the cases I conducted, we didn’t encounter issues with companies controlling or limiting the results of our research, which we are particularly grateful for. There is no point in social research if the results are controlled. Of course, this doesn’t mean our results are perfect. We are looking forward to opportunities for mutual learning and discussing our study results at upcoming conferences, where we hope to validate our findings through triangulation and gather feedback from various actors.

What key differences did you observe among the various countries in their capacity to manage DAD processes?

There are two main structural and institutional components that affect the differences between countries.

First, there is the varying institutional context of industrial relations. As we know, different countries have distinct systems of industrial relations. Specifically, there is an institutional divide between Eastern European countries, Southern European countries, and Central Northern European countries, each with different traditions and arrangements of collective bargaining.

The second factor is the economic divide. This refers to how countries and firms occupy different positions within value chains, distinguishing between core and semi-peripheral countries. This economic divide also impacts collective bargaining.

In summary, the differences between countries can be articulated on two levels:

1. Differences in the opportunities for collective bargaining.
2. Differences in the coordination of collective bargaining.

Some countries offer substantial opportunities for workers, work representatives, and trade unions to engage in collective bargaining on issues such as technological change and decarbonisation. In other places, these opportunities are less significant or less available.

Additionally, there are variations in the strength of collective bargaining. In some countries, it is stronger at the sectoral level, while in others it is stronger at the workplace level or weaker at both levels. Coordination issues also arise when sectoral collective bargaining is underdeveloped, leading to potentially conflicting local-level bargaining.

The issue of the weakness and the lack of coordination of collective bargaining is not confined to Eastern European countries. Even within some Western European countries, recent labour market reforms have aimed to decentralise industrial relations systems, weakening the sectoral level while attempting to strengthen workplace or company-level bargaining. Reversing this trend must become a priority for the entire EU.

What key takeaways would you like policymakers and general readers to derive from the study?

We found strong evidence of collective bargaining related to digitalisation and decarbonisation only in a few countries, such as Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark.. In many countries, on the contrary, technological change is often viewed as a managerial prerogative, with minimal involvement of workers or unions.

However, there are instances where collective bargaining around technological change is happening, indicating that change is possible. EU policy reforms could strengthen collective bargaining on these issues. Worker and union involvement is crucial for ensuring a just transition. A few takeaways for policymakers, trade unions, and companies are as follows:

For Policymakers: Addressing policy reforms that support and strengthen collective bargaining is essential. Without this, achieving a just transition will be challenging.

For Trade Unions: Having institutional opportunities is not enough. Unions need to be prepared, gain experience, and address issues even when opportunities are limited. This proactive approach will help expand institutional opportunities over time.

For Companies: Involving unions in collective bargaining can lead to better outcomes during transitions. Companies that engage in bargaining are more likely to manage transitions effectively, create a better working environment, and improve their performance. Constraints from bargaining should be viewed as opportunities to achieve better long-term results and ensure a more human-centric technological change.

How would you like to take the study forward?

At the start of the project, we aimed to combine the country-specific approach with a value chain approach. While we successfully investigated collective bargaining in various countries, integrating this with value chain analysis proved more challenging.

A promising direction could be to explore how collective bargaining on digitalisation, automation and decarbonisation impacts working conditions along the value chains and across sectors. This approach could provide a more comprehensive understanding of these issues.

Additionally, the consortium comprises experienced researchers as well as younger researchers. The project has been particularly beneficial for the latter group, helping them gain valuable experience. Leveraging this accumulated knowledge could be instrumental in advancing the project’s framework.

The BARMETAL project seeks to analyse the current situation and opportunities for strengthening collective bargaining in the metalworking industry in conditions of technological change, including in particular digitalisation, automation and decarbonisation. The project is led by Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies (Italy) and joins partners Central European Labour Studies Institute (Slovakia), Linnaeus University (Sweden), ASE București (Romania), Instytut Spraw Publicznych (Poland), WageIndicator Foundation (the Netherlands), Ekonomskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu (Serbia) and Univerzita Karlova (Czechia). CEEMET and IndustriAll Europe are the EU-level social partners in the metalworking industry that joined as associate partners.