Involvement of employer organisations and trade unions in the European Semester in 2024–2025
Published: 31 August 2026
Data: one figure and 44 tables
This report looks at how national employer organisations and trade unions were involved in different aspects of the European Semester from 2024 to 2025. It considers whether they were consulted or informed by their national governments on the medium-term fiscal-structural plans (MTFSPs) submitted at the end of 2024. A similar analysis is conducted for the 2025 annual progress reports on the implementation of MTFSPs. The findings indicate that the involvement of social partners in MTFSPs and the 2025 annual progress reports is perceived to be limited. This stands in marked contrast with the fact-finding missions organised by the European Commission, in which national social partner organisations reported more substantial involvement. This report also considers the priorities and capacities of national social partner organisations to contribute to the overall European Semester process, alongside the involvement of European-level social partners. Methodological considerations regarding how information was collected help with the interpretation of findings presented.
Social partner involvement in the European Semester remains uneven across the Member States and across processes. Trade unions and employer organisations participate at different stages, with considerable variation in the extent and quality of their involvement.
Consultation on the new fiscal plans is often limited to information sharing or is largely formal rather than meaningful involvement. While some governments reported innovative approaches, only a trade union in Malta and employer organisations in Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia and France reported their participation to be meaningful.
Social partners’ perspective of their involvement varies, depending on whether national governments or the European Commission are responsible for engaging them. They assess their involvement more positively in Commission-led processes, such as fact-finding missions, country reports and country-specific recommendations, than in government-led fiscal-structural plans and annual progress reports.
Limited capacity and the complexity of the European Semester continues to restrict meaningful social partner involvement. Social partners report the need for greater expertise, stable resources and clearer information, even though EU funding is already supporting capacity-building efforts. Not all social partners are familiar yet with the newly established Social Convergence Framework.
Most employer organisations and trade unions expect to be more involved in the European Semester. With increased social partner involvement and structured feedback mechanisms, the ownership, legitimacy and effectiveness of the European Semester is expected to improve.
Eurofound has a long-standing tradition of monitoring the involvement of social partners in the European Semester. Recently, some new elements were added to the European economic governance framework. At the end of 2024, governments submitted, for the first time, medium-term fiscal-structural plans (MTFSPs). Also for the first time, they produced annual progress reports (APRs) on the implementation of their MTFSPs in 2025. The creation of the Social Convergence Framework (SCF) is another development. At the same time, the well-established practices of running European Semester fact-finding missions, and producing related country reports and country-specific recommendations, continued.
This report looks at how social partners were involved in these aspects of the European Semester. It combines information from document analyses and expert interviews with information provided directly by national governments and by representatives of national employer organisations and trade unions. The information is analysed from a comparative perspective and is summarised for each EU Member State in country fiches.
In April 2024, a new European framework for the coordination of macroeconomic governance entered into force with the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2024/1263. This regulation includes a reference, in Article 11(3), to social partner consultation on MTFSPs, and a reference, in Article 21(5), to APRs on the implementation of those MTFSPs. Country reports and country-specific recommendations are rooted in Articles 121 and 148 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 and Regulation (EU) 1176/2011. The SCF is rooted in the European Pillar of Social Rights and based on the social scoreboard in the annual Joint Employment Report. It is monitored by the Employment Committee, which is the advisory committee for employment and social affairs ministers in the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) and the Social Protection Committee. The role of the council, in accordance with Article 148 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is to promote the coordination of employment and labour market policies at both European and national levels. The Council recommendation of 12 June 2023 on strengthening social dialogue in the European Union fosters the role of social partners in the implementation of the SCF, and in the European Semester in general.
The MTFSPs from 15 Member States indicate that consultations took place on their formulation, as referred to in Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1263. Five Member States (Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal) indicated that no consultations took place on the production of their plans; however, they reported that instead of consultations, discussions were organised. For the seven other Member States, no information was included in the MTFSP on whether or not a consultation took place, although this is a requirement in Article 13(g)(vi) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1263.
Information collected by the Network of Eurofound Correspondents confirmed differences between Member States. In some Member States, governments reported not having consulted social partners; in others, they consulted them on parts of the MTFSP, but not on the entire MTFSP. For some Member States, a specific ad hoc approach was used to inform or consult social partners, while in other Member States a discussion was held in the national economic and social council. In Bulgaria, Czechia and Finland, a practice of multilayered consultation was reported.
A quality assessment provided by national employer organisations and trade unions showed that few organisations assessed their involvement as meaningful: one trade union from Malta, and four employer organisations from Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia and France. Employer organisations and trade unions from many Member States indicated that they were not involved in the drafting of MTFSPs, or that information was only shared with them, or that the consultation held was a formality that did not allow them to propose changes. The involvement of national employer organisations and trade unions in the preparation of the first APRs on the implementation of the MTFSPs (in 2025) was assessed as being at a similar level.
Higher levels of social partner involvement were reported as regards the European Semester fact-finding missions. In almost all Member States, social partners appreciated their involvement in these missions. Some variation is reported in terms of the timing of the fact-finding missions, the way in which meetings with social partners are organised, and how this can affect the involvement of social partners and their assessment of it.
The difference in approach between drafting MTFSPs and conducting fact-finding missions when it comes to the perceived involvement of social partners is striking. In the fact-finding missions, the European Commission interacts directly with national employer organisations and trade unions, facilitated by Economic Counsellors in their Member States. In contrast, with regard to MTFSPs, the responsibility lies entirely with the authorities of the Member States, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1263, with no direct role for European Commission services.
Many social partner organisations indicated they need more support for capacity building to allow them to strengthen expertise and familiarity in their organisation as regards different aspects of the European Semester.
Measuring social partner involvement in the European Semester objectively is challenging. Findings are nuanced and must be interpreted with the context of how information was collected in mind.
An earlier start to the process of drafting MTFSPs and APRs provides more time for consulting with social partners.
In most Member States, it is the ministry of finance that leads the drafting of the MTFSP and the APR. The involvement of other ministries, such as the ministry of employment or social affairs, could be considered, as they may have more experience with social partner consultation.
Social partners point to the need for enhanced transparency regarding consultation procedures, including guidance on the right time to provide input.
Social partners indicated the importance of structured feedback mechanisms, which allow them to see how their input has influenced outcomes.
The need for support for capacity building for social partner organisations is emphasised by social partners from many Member States.
The MTFSPs, the 2025 APRs and the SCF were not subject to extensive public debate. Knowledge of associated governance processes is limited to a small number of experts, as the processes are complex and difficult to explain. Raising public awareness and improving social partners’ understanding of objectives and methods could also contribute to improving ownership of the processes and increasing the legitimacy and effectiveness of the entire economic governance framework.
This section provides information on the data contained in this publication.
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2026), Involvement of employer organisations and trade unions in the European Semester in 2024–2025, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
