Social Affairs Board

CEEP Opinion “Gender Equality: “Progressing to 2020””, adopted by CEEP General Assembly on 08 June 2016 – PDF

Executive summary

  • CEEP and its members are committed to promoting gender equality both in their role as employers and as service providers.
  • CEEP emphasizes how important it is for the Commission to acknowledge the role of CEEP and the social partners’ and their work on gender quality. We also stress the importance of safeguarding and strengthening our autonomy at both European and national level.
  • A balanced way forward to meet the gender equality challenges would be to take a holistic approach and focus on supportive and encouraging measures.
  • To achieve gender equality in the labour market there must be a range of effective and well-funded public services in place such as child- and elderly care, transport, education etc.
  • The interconnection between work-life conditions greatly influence women’s and men’s situation at the labour market as well as their private life.
  • CEEP wants to stress the important role played by social partners in tackling the gender pay gap and promoting equal pay through collective bargaining.
  • The need for increased awareness of the consequences that different kinds of leave and flexible working have on income and subsequently pensions
  • The business case for gender equality needs to be developed and shared widely.
  • The current European legislative framework on gender equality is robust and    provides protection. There is no need, therefore, to amend the current European legislation or to introduce new instruments. It is better to focus on the implementation on existing regulations.
  • CEEP believes that it is important to have a multiannual European strategy for Gender Equality in place in order to keep these issues high on the European agenda.

Executive summary

  • CEEP fully shares the Commission’s assessments and key observations in the fitness check, published on the 26 July 2013, and the consultation document, that the three Directives are (broadly) fit for purpose.
  • Thus, stemming from this assessment there should be no reason to change the current provisions of the three directives. Status quo should therefore be the preferred option. Following the motto “Don´t try to mend what is not broken”, there is no need for a consolidation/recast of the directives.
  • Changes in the Directives, a consolidation or a recast under these circumstances would contradict the new Commission’s guiding principles for its work: only to act on issues when necessary regarding simplification, clarification, better regulation, REFIT.
  • It is entirely inappropriate to, in any manner or form, widen the scope of a new joint Directive on Information and Consultation (I&C) to include public administration.

CEEP response on First-Phase Consultation of Social Partners under article 154 TFEU on a Consolidation of the EU Directives on Information and Consultation of Workers (PDF)

CEEP Response to the European Commission’s Public Consultation on Building a Capital Markets Union – PDF


  • We support the essential intentions, goals and most measures mentioned in the Green book “CMU” and we see a lot of chances for more integrated and liquid capital markets in the EU with high standard products (i.e. standardization of covered and corporate bonds markets, support of the ELTIF, facilitation of private equity and risk capital markets, private placements, etc.). Financing of the European economy should be diversified more broadly and capital markets should play a greater role.
  • A harmonized credit scoring system and a Eurpean database on SME asking for credit could provide for better access and standarization of SME credit information. This could ease the (direct) intermediation of IORPs capital to credit searching companies.
  • We support measures for the European Long-Term Investment Fund, as the ELTIF has potential for the “democratization” of long­term investments (due to smaller amounts of invested capital per investor, be it a retail or institutional investor). A stricter practical separation of retail ­ELTIFs and those for institutional investors would be appropriate, as there is no legal separation envisaged in the current compromise on the ELTIF ­Regulation. The management fees and the focus on distribution of retail products makes them unattractive for institutional investors. ELTIFs might be treated on national basis with favorable tax treatment which is often on ly applied to open-­ended funds. We want to stress that a lower SCR ­charge under Solvency II alone does not stimulate the ELTIF for IORPs.
  • We support many measures suggested in the green book but want to make some additional macroeconomic comments to put the green book into a broader perspective. Central diagnosis and assumption of many suggestions of the green book is that the low growth potential of the EU as well as low financing of SME and infrastructure projects is rooted in problems of the supply and intermediation. The answers are the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and the Green Book on Capital Market Union. The EFSI shall deliver a short-term investment offensive for the areas of infrastructure investments, renewable energies, research & development and education.
  • The insufficient intermediation of capital within the EU shall be captured by the green book delivering measures for creating a capital market union. But we want to question if the problem is really to be found solely on the side of capital supply and intermediation.

Brussels, 21 January 2015 – To promote the European social dialogue in three EU candidate countries – Montenegro, Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), the European social partners will meet representatives of national employers and trade unions of these countries at a seminar in Belgrade on 22 and 23 January 2015.

The key goal of ETUC, BUSINESSEUROPE, CEEP and UEAPME is to help social partners in these countries better understand the role and functioning of the European social dialogue in view of their countries’ accession to the EU, and supporting the development of social dialogue between national organisations and/or their respective members.

Social dialogue is an important feature of the European model of economic and social development. In many EU countries, social partners play a substantial role in determining working conditions. As a significant vehicle of policy-making at EU and national levels, it allows devising arrangements that reflect the needs of enterprises and employees.

Engaging in a properly structured, responsible and effective social dialogue will also be key in the candidate countries for developing the framework conditions for long-term economic growth and job creation. Existence of strong, representative and independent employers and worker’s organizations is a prerequisite for an effective social dialogue at all appropriate levels. Further the recognition of national social partners in these countries through their consistent and effective consultations by governments is an essential component to make social dialogue a success.

PDF Version

<< Feb 2020 >>
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 1