Employee representation was present in 29% of EU27 establishments in 2019, according to the European Company Survey 2019 from Eurofound. The survey measured establishments rather than individual employees and included works councils, trade-union delegations and other country-specific representative bodies. Representation was substantially more common in large establishments than in small ones, while management views of representative structures were generally positive where those structures existed.
Contents
- Representation by establishment size
- Country differences
- Works-council configurations and sectors
- Collective bargaining and workplace representation
- Management attitudes and consultation
- Dialogue, trust and influence
Representation by establishment size
The clearest pattern in the 2019 Eurofound data is the relationship between establishment size and the presence of an employee-representation structure. Overall, 29% of EU27 establishments reported one. The share rose to 76% among large establishments and 51% among medium-sized establishments. It was 23% among small establishments.
| Establishment size | Establishments with employee representation |
|---|---|
| Small | 23% |
| Medium-sized | 51% |
| Large | 76% |
| EU27 total | 29% |
These figures describe the presence of a structure, not the proportion of employees represented. They also do not mean that every structure had the same powers or membership. Eurofound’s measure brings together several forms of representation, including works councils, trade-union delegations and non-union staff representation.
The size pattern also differed sharply between countries. In 2019, representation among large establishments reached 98% in Belgium, 96% in Finland and 96% in France. At the other end of the reported range, it was 24% in Malta and 25% in Greece. Thus, establishment size was associated with representation, but national institutional conditions still produced very different results among large workplaces.
Country differences
Across all establishment sizes, Romania had the highest reported prevalence in the survey, at 56% of establishments. Finland followed closely, with representation present in 55% of establishments. The reported shares were far lower in Greece, at 2%, and Latvia, at 4%.
The contrast remained visible among small establishments. Representation was present in 50% of small Romanian establishments and 48% of small Finnish establishments. It was present in only 1% of small establishments in Greece, 2% in Latvia and 2% in Portugal.
These country figures should be read as establishment-level survey results for 2019, not as a ranking of the proportion of workers who belonged to a representative body. The report also notes that country questions differ, so the forms of employee representation covered by the survey were not identical everywhere. That matters when comparing a works council, a trade-union delegation and another legally or institutionally specific body.
The results show why a single EU-wide percentage can conceal substantial variation. The EU27 figure of 29% combines countries where representation was common even in small establishments with countries where it was rare across the establishment distribution. The same caution applies to country comparisons by size: a large-establishment figure is not directly interchangeable with an all-establishment figure.
Works-council configurations and sectors
Among establishments that had employee representation, 65% had a single representative body. A works council was the sole representative body in 23% of establishments with representation. Non-union staff representation alone accounted for 19%, and a trade-union delegation alone also accounted for 19%.
Multiple structures were also reported. Two types of representative body were present in 23% of establishments with employee representation. A trade-union delegation combined with another representative body occurred in 10%, while a trade-union delegation combined specifically with a works council occurred in 9%. Three or four different representative structures were present in 11%.
The configuration figures describe establishments where some form of representation was already present. They therefore should not be read as percentages of all EU27 establishments. For example, the 23% figure for a works council as the sole body uses represented establishments as its reference group, while the 29% EU27 figure uses all establishments as its reference group.
Representation also varied by sector. It was present in 42% of financial-services establishments and 35% of industry establishments. The share was 21% in commerce and hospitality establishments. These sector results use the same establishment-level representation measure and refer to the 2019 survey period.
Collective bargaining and workplace representation
Employee representation appeared alongside a wide range of collective-bargaining patterns. Managers in 61% of EU27 establishments reported that at least some employees’ wages were set by a collective-bargaining agreement. This is an establishment-level measure of whether some wages were covered; it is not the same as worker-level collective-bargaining coverage.
The country differences were particularly wide. The corresponding establishment share was 97% in Italy, 94% in Austria, 91% in Spain, 90% in Finland, 90% in France and 89% in Sweden. It was 6% in Estonia, 9% in Czechia, 10% in Lithuania, 10% in Malta and 10% in Poland. The reported shares were 12% in Slovakia and 13% in Hungary.
Sector and size differences were also recorded:
- Collective-bargaining coverage was reported in 71% of construction establishments.
- The share was 57% in commerce and hospitality and 57% in other services.
- It was 73% in large establishments, 61% in medium-sized establishments and 60% in small establishments.
The survey therefore presents two related but distinct workplace measures: whether an establishment had an employee-representation structure, and whether managers reported that at least some wages were set by collective bargaining. The figures can be discussed together, but they should not be treated as interchangeable indicators or as proof that one measure caused the other.
Management attitudes and consultation
Where an employee-representation structure was present, managers described it as very or fairly constructive in 80% of establishments. The constructive assessment reached 94% in Romania and was 57% in Portugal. By sector, it reached 90% in financial services.
Managers also reported a preference for consultation. Where representation was present, 65% preferred some form of consultation with representatives. The corresponding preference was 77% in the Netherlands.
These measures capture management responses about establishments with representation. They do not establish that consultation was equally frequent in every workplace, nor do they measure the views of employees as a whole. The positive assessments also coexist with the survey’s more detailed evidence on meeting frequency and perceived sincerity, which shows that constructive attitudes did not necessarily mean frequent contact.
Country-level management analyses require additional care. Eurofound excluded Malta and Greece from some management analyses because fewer than 30 cases were available. Cyprus and Latvia results in those sections used fewer than 50 cases and should be treated cautiously. Those sample limitations apply to the relevant management findings and are separate from the broader representation figures above.
Dialogue, trust and influence
Employee representatives reported different levels of contact with senior management. Weekly meetings were reported in 5% of establishments. Meetings several times a month were reported in 11%, and meetings once a month in 33%. In 42% of establishments, representatives met senior management less frequently than monthly. In 9%, they reported never meeting senior management.
The distribution indicates that having a representative structure did not imply a single standard of day-to-day dialogue. Monthly or more frequent meetings accounted for the categories reported as weekly, several times a month and once a month, while less-than-monthly and never meeting were also substantial reported experiences. The figures are descriptive survey results rather than a measure of meeting quality or decision-making power.
Representatives also assessed management’s efforts to involve them in solving workplace problems. Such efforts were judged sincere to a great or moderate extent by 64% of employee representatives. Meanwhile, 9% judged management efforts not sincere at all.
Trust measures were similarly reported from the representative perspective. According to 78% of employee representatives, management had confidence in employees’ ability to do their jobs to a great or moderate extent. Employee representatives trusted management to a great or moderate extent in 76% of establishments.
The survey also included industrial action directly related to an establishment-specific issue during the three years before the 2019 survey. That measure concerns the stated survey period and type of action; it is not a count of all industrial action. Taken together, the dialogue and trust results show that representation involved varied meeting rhythms, assessments of sincerity and reciprocal confidence, with the meaning of each percentage tied to its specific respondent group and reference period.