Revisiting European social dialogue: A systematic literature review

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Revisiting European social dialogue: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] Fernando Cárdenas Domínguez , Mercedes Fernández García, Yoan Molinero Gerbeau Instituto Universitario de Estudios sobre Migraciones, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Community of Madrid, 28004, Spain First published: 10 Oct 2025, 5:309 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21020.1 Latest published: 10 Oct 2025, 5:309 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21020.1 v1 Abstract This paper conducts a systematic literature review of the European Social Dialogue (ESD), a cornerstone of participatory governance within the EU. Despite this, it is a collective bargaining tool whose scope, objectives, functioning and impact are unclear due to the various definitions and a vague and fragmented regulatory framework, which gives rise to different interpretations. Thus, this study examines its definition, regulatory framework, key actors, negotiation structures, and outcomes. ESD facilitates collaboration between trade unions, employers, and EU institutions to shape labour policies and promote social cohesion. While the mechanism has evolved through milestones such as the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, its scope and effectiveness are constrained by conceptual ambiguity, fragmented regulation, and a limited capacity to enforce agreements. The research identifies challenges related to actor representation, structural coordination, and the increasing reliance on non-binding agreements. It also highlights the potential of ESD to harmonise labour standards across member states through both soft governance and regulatory tools. Proposals for improvement include clarifying the legal framework and establishing a transparency and evaluation body to monitor its impact. These findings contribute to understanding ESD's role as an evolving governance mechanism, essential for fostering equitable and adaptable labour relations in the EU. Keywords European social dialogue, social dialogue, industrial relations, trade unions, employers' organisations. Open Peer Review Approval Status 1 2 version 1 10 Oct 2025 view view Marius van Staden , University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 1. Jan Czarzasty , SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland 2. Any reports and responses or comments on the article can be found at the end of the article. Open Research Europe  Page 1 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Corresponding author: Fernando Cárdenas Domínguez ([email protected]) Author roles: Cárdenas Domínguez F: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing; Fernández García M : Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing; Molinero Gerbeau Y: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was funded by the European Union through the project Social Dialogue for Skills (SD4S), Grant Agreement No. 101102353, under the programme SOCPL. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, nor in the writing of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Cárdenas Domínguez F et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite this article: Cárdenas Domínguez F, Fernández García M and Molinero Gerbeau Y. Revisiting European social dialogue: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21020.1 First published: 10 Oct 2025, 5:309 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21020.1 This article is included in the Horizon Europe gateway. Open Research Europe  Page 2 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 1. Introduction European Social Dialogue (hereinafter ESD) functions as a key platform within the European Union (EU), facilitating cooperation among representatives of workers, employers, and EU institutions on essential labour-related issues. By promoting a participatory governance model, ESD integrates the perspectives of trade unions and employers’ associations into EU policymaking, shaping a vital framework for aligning the EU’s economic integration with its social policy goals, thereby protecting labour rights and fostering fair working conditions across member states. As the EU’s economic reach grows, the importance of ESD in ensuring that economic development does not deteriorate social protection has become increasingly relevant (Iankova, 2007; Prosser & Perin, 2015). This bargaining tool has historically progressed in tandem with the deepening of European integration. The Treaty of Rome (1957) established the foundation for enhancing labour conditions within the common market framework. This process accelerated in the 1980s under Jacques Delors, who advocated the social dimension of European integration (García-Muñoz-Alhambra, 2022). Key milestones, such as the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), formalised the role of ESD, empowering social partners to negotiate binding agreements under Articles 154 and 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (De Boer et al., 2005; Keller & Sörries, 1999). Through decades, ESD has significantly shaped the EU social policy by fostering collaboration between workers and employers, ensuring their perspectives are incorporated into the legislative framework. One of its key contributions has been its crucial role in promoting social cohesion through the European Pillar of Social Rights (Sorensen & Dumay, 2023). ESD has also been essential in addressing specific challenges in sectors such as transport and healthcare, showcasing its adaptability to meet various needs (De Boer et al., 2005). Furthermore, it has developed agreements that enhance workplace protection and well-being, showing its capacity to adapt to the evolving European labour landscape (Zeitlin & Vanhercke, 2018). Initiatives like the Framework Agreements on Telework (2002) and Work-Related Stress (2004) exemplify how the ESD has provided tools to adapt to evolving work environments and improve occupational health (Martín & Visser, 2008; Prosser, 2011). Although the ESD plays a crucial role in European politics, its scope, objectives, functioning, and impact remain unclear due to widely varying definitions and a vague, fragmented regulatory framework, leading to diverse interpretations. This lack of clarity as to the functions and roles to be played by the ESD is probably due to the different positions among member states, which have resulted in the establishment of an ambiguous legal foundation under the TFEU. Consequently, not only does its implementation vary significantly across member states (Gómez Urquijo, 2024), but it also generates a framework of uncertainty that complicates the assessment of its influence on shaping EU policies. While ESD holds significant potential as a tool for advancing ‘Europeanisation’—understood as influencing domestic political, legal, and economic reforms to improve and harmonise labour standards across member states (Sedelmeier, 2011)—its lack of clarity represents a missed opportunity for effectively managing European labour relations. Furthermore, in addition to its ethereality, the involvement of multiple actors—including trade unions, employers’ associations, and EU institutions—raises questions about representativeness and legitimacy, as no comprehensive conceptual framework exists to regulate these roles, nor specific structures to negotiate their functioning. At the same time, processes of consultation and negotiation often lack transparency and consistency, which can undermine policy outcomes. Finally, discrepancies between EU-level agreements and their national implementation frequently lead to uneven labour standards and protections across the EU (Im et al., 2024). In the current context, understanding the complex field of action of ESD requires not only examining its legal foundations but also analysing its customary functioning. This article seeks to clarify ESD’s intricate and ambiguous aspects through a systematic literature review that will provide insight into its conceptualisation, regulatory framework, scope, participants, and outcomes. This review will offer a structured basis for a comprehensive understanding of this key pillar of European policy by employing the PRISMA method. Furthermore, this approach will shed light on the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the ESD, such as its role in standardising working conditions across EU member states and its capacity to adapt to evolving socioeconomic challenges. Ultimately, this contribution aims to systematise existing knowledge on this bargaining mechanism, outlining both its strengths and limitations while facilitating its examination for future research. By synthesising insights from diverse academic perspectives, this article contributes to the ongoing discourse on ESD’s relevance and limitations. It emphasises the need for a more inclusive and adaptive framework to address traditional and contemporary issues in European labour relations. Ultimately, the study aims to provide a detailed understanding of ESD’s role as a key yet evolving component of the EU’s social and economic governance. The article will be structured as follows. After this introduction, it outlines the methodology used for the literature review (Section 2). It then presents the findings, categorised into key thematic areas: definition, regulation, actors, relationships, structures, and outcomes (Section 3). The subsequent discussion evaluates these findings in the context of ongoing debates regarding the definition and limitations of ESD and also offers some policy recommendations for improvement (Section 4). Finally, the study concludes by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of ESD, providing a basis for future research on this important governance tool (Section 5). 2. Method This research is based on a systematic review following the PRISMA method (Page et al., 2021). The PRISMA method Page 3 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 structures the procedure for searching for and selecting studies, offering a multi-step screening process controlled by various reviewers, which establishes the study guidelines. This method guarantees the transparency and reproducibility of the review process, from the identification of relevant studies to the final synthesis of the results. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Initially, our review aimed to include all academic texts addressing ESD. To this end, we incorporated works that explicitly mention the term, as well as those that discuss social dialogue at the European level, even if they do not directly reference the concept. To do this, articles were analysed from 1990, which is the year the first article dealt with this subject, to June 5, 2024, when the data was extracted. We established several exclusion criteria to focus on highly relevant and high-quality studies. Studies focused solely on social dialogue within national contexts were excluded unless a clear connection to the European framework was established. Additionally, we limited the review to peer-reviewed academic articles to ensure the reliability of the sources. Articles not published in English were also excluded, as English is the predominant language in the scientific literature on this subject. In this way, using English ensures that researchers can understand and access the information. Search procedure and data collection Searches were conducted in high-impact scientific databases, specifically Scopus and Web of Science. These databases were selected due to their extensive coverage and comprehensive indexing of topics related to industrial relations, labour policies, and European governance. The search strategy aimed to retrieve all possible results on ESD by applying Boolean operators in the title, abstract, or keywords, using the following query: (“European Social Dialogue” OR “European social dialogue” OR (“social dialogue” AND Europe))1. During this process, the acronym ‘ESD’ was excluded as it overlaps with the medical procedure ‘Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection,’ which significantly inflated the number of results without contributing relevant articles for analysis. Data collection was conducted on June 5, 2024, including all articles available in both databases up to that date. Subsequently, using Covidence, a reviewer2 carried out three rounds of screening of the studies until the sample to be extracted was concluded. After each of these rounds, the sample was reviewed by two additional researchers, finally including those records that had the entire team’s agreement, proceeding in this way until the final extraction. In total, 336 initial studies were retrieved and distributed as follows: 212 studies from Scopus and 124 from Web of Science. The first step in the process was the elimination of duplicate studies. A total of 110 duplicate references were identified and removed. The second screening phase evaluated the titles and abstracts of 226 studies selected after removing duplicates. During this phase, 113 studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. These studies were discarded because they dealt with tangential issues, lacked empirical or methodological relevance to ESD, or were outdated regarding current EU policies. In the last phase, the full text of the remaining 113 studies was reviewed to assess their eligibility according to the predefined criteria. In this phase, 79 studies were excluded for the following reasons: 36 studies dealt with topics unrelated to the ESD (cross-industrial), 30 did not comply with the required academic format, and 13 were published in languages other than English. Thus, the final number of articles extracted for the review was 34. Figure 1 shows the information on the selection process following the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram: Limitations of the study The first limitation of this article relies on the fact that by including only studies published in English, relevant work in other languages may have been excluded. Also, by analysing only academic articles and excluding books and book chapters, our study may have overlooked complementary works on the subject. In addition, the fact that the acronym ‘ESD’ was removed from the query makes it possible to exclude some studies that deal slightly with the topic. Furthermore, the data in the articles analysed are understood to be reliable, as they have undergone peer review by academic journals. No sensitivity analyses were planned or performed, as this was a qualitative synthesis without aggregation models or weightings and without prespecified alternative thresholds whose variation would provide additional evidence. Finally, although advanced search and reference management tools were used, there is always a risk of bias in the selection of studies, especially regarding the interpretation of their relevance and quality. 3. Results Initially, a descriptive analysis of the information in the selected articles was conducted by examining the publication years, followed by an analysis of the journals. Finally, the keywords of the selected articles were analysed and grouped by subject. Figure 2 shows that studies on the ESD were published between 1990 and 2024, with a slight upward trend. This trend is likely due to two factors: the phenomenon’s emergence and the tool’s consolidation. Social dialogue began at the national level much earlier, but only took shape at the European level in the 1980s, materialising in 1992. Consequently, there was little literature before this period. The upward trend reflects the 1 First, a more complex query was used, combining the various elements of the social dialogue with ‘European social dialogue’, such as ‘European social dialogue’ AND ‘actor*’; ‘European social dialogue’ AND ‘relation*’; etc. However, this query was discarded as it did not provide more papers than the final query. 2 In this case, ‘reviewer’ has a different consideration than that of a peer review process. In this type of systematic review, a reviewer is the person who analyses articles at each step of the review process and determines whether the article should proceed to the following screening or be excluded from the selection. Page 4 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 tool’s consolidation, allowing scholars to analyse its impacts and failures through case studies. Table 1 Regarding the keywords, they were extracted and grouped into various categories and subcategories. For those articles without keywords, the Consensus version of GPT-4 was used to generate keywords based on an analysis of the body of each article. Subsequently, the same AI was asked to generate a classification of all available keywords, with categories and subcategories, to group them effectively. The result of this process is shown in Table 2. More than half of the keywords belong to industrial relations, so it can be determined that this is the predominant area of knowledge in this subject. European law and governance then occupy just over a quarter of the total keywords. Subsequently, the results include theoretical governance, institutional relations, and policymaking elements. Definition The existing literature does not define ESD, generally resorting to the concept coined by international organisations. So, the definition of social dialogue provided by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) is used by Bisson (2022); Houtman et al. (2020). For the ILO, social dialogue refers to all types of Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the information on the selection process following the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. Page 5 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Figure 2. Figure 2 shows that studies on the ESD were published between 1990 and 2024, with a slight upward trend. Table 1. Journals in which the articles analysed have been published. Own elaboration. shows the journals where the analysed articles were published. There is a significant heterogeneity of journals covering topics ranging from labour relations and law to management and gender studies. Journal Area3No. of appearances European Journal of Industrial Relations Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 6 Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 3 Common Market Law Review Law and Legal Studies 2 International Labour Review Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 2 Journal of European Social Policy Public Policy, Governance, and Politics 2 Journal of Public Policy Public Policy, Governance, and Politics 2 The International Journal of Human Resource Management Business and Management Studies 2 West European Politics Public Policy, Governance, and Politics 2 British Journal of Industrial Relations Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 1 Business History Business and Management Studies 1 Employee Relations Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 1 European Constitutional Law Review Law and Legal Studies 1 European Law Journal Law and Legal Studies 1 Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences Other 1 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies Law and Legal Studies 1 Industrial Law Journal Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 1 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Other 1 Journal of East European Management Studies Business and Management Studies 1 Page 6 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Table 2. Categories and subcategories group keywords. Own elaboration. Category4Frequency % Subcategory3Frequency % Employment, Labour, and Industrial Relations 90 51,43% Dialogue Mechanisms and Partners 38 21,71% Education and Gender Issues 6 3,43% Health, Safety, and Employment Strategies 12 6,86% Labour Agreements and Bargaining 11 6,29% Labour Relations and Social Partners 17 9,71% Social Policies 6 3,43% European Union Law and Governance 48 27,43% EU Institutions, Regulations, and Bodies 15 8,57% EU Integration and Processes 14 8,00% EU Regulations and Policies 3 1,71% Lobbying and Representation 3 1,71% Treaties and Legal Frameworks 8 4,57% Types of Law 5 2,86% Governance and Institutional Theories 22 12,57% Governance Strategies and Theories 11 6,29% Institutional Change and Models 7 4,00% Risk and Management 4 2,29% Political Economy and Policy 15 8,57% Decision-Making and Voting 4 2,29% Economic Sectors and Policies 8 4,57% Theories and Models 3 1,71% Journal Area3No. of appearances Journal of Education and Work Industrial Relations, Labour, and Employment 1 Perspectives on Federalism Law and Legal Studies 1 Women’s Studies International Forum Other 1 3 These categories have been generated by GPT-4 (Consensus).’. 4 These categories and subcategories have been generated by GPT-4 (Consensus) using the following prompt: ‘Can you group the following keywords by theme? In addition, could you group these themes into main categories?’. negotiation, consultation or exchange of information between or among governments, employers and workers, whether bipartite or tripartite, and informal or institutionalised. In turn, Akgüç et al. (2024) refer to the European Commission’s definition of ESD, which includes negotiation, consultation, and information exchange among social partners and public authorities. ESD is a method to promote interaction on social and labour issues within the European framework. It prioritises consultation, negotiations, and agreements with social partners over legislative enactments proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council (EUCO) without involving social partners. Other authors seem to go beyond and, in contrast to the broader view of the ILO and the Commission, assert that European Page 7 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 social partners themselves limit social dialogue to a bilateral interaction between workers and employers, even when it takes place under the framework of the Commission’s consultations and according to the procedures laid down in the TFEU. According to Smismans (2008b), ESD is a procedure that allows social partners to address social issues through collective agreements rather than legislation. This means that the social partners can take direct control of the regulation of specific social and labour problems without the intervention of European public authorities. In this way, this definition emphasises the delimitation of the power of the public authorities and makes the social partners more autonomous. This disparity of definitions makes some authors (Prosser, 2016; Prosser & Perin, 2015; Sorensen et al., 2022) highlight ESD’s flexibility and adaptability to different contexts within the European Union. However, this also has certain limits. ESD does not cover all aspects of industrial relations. Strikes and lockouts were explicitly excluded from the legal scope of the dialogue, which limits its ability to address direct industrial disputes (Prosser, 2016). Moreover, Social dialogue has a limited capacity to address issues of bogus self-employment, which may misclassify workers under this denomination in order to avoid employment benefits. EU regulations primarily handle these concerns through national laws rather than collective agreements or ESD (Bandasz, 2014). Ultimately, the ESD cannot harmonise national social security systems. Although European legislation coordinates the social security systems of the Member States, the specific control of these systems is the responsibility of national legislation (Bandasz, 2014; García-Muñoz-Alhambra, 2022; Pinto-Ramos, 2018). Regulation ESD began to develop after the Treaty of Rome in 1957, though it was not a key element in early European integration. While the Treaty recognised the importance of improving labour conditions, its primary focus was on creating a common market (Iankova, 2007). It was not until the 1980s that social dialogue started to institutionalise, notably under Jacques Delors, the European Commission President in 1985, who recognised the need to strengthen the social dimension of the European project to ensure the single market did not overshadow labour rights (García-Muñoz-Alhambra, 2022). A turning point was the Val Duchesse meetings in 1985, formally launching a dialogue between European trade unions and employers. This process continued with the Single European Act (SEA) of 1986, which integrated social dialogue into the acquis communautaire under Article 118b, obligating the Commission to promote dialogue between labour and management at the European level (De Boer et al., 2005). The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 formalised the role of social partners in shaping labour policy through the Social Policy Protocol, and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 further consolidated these roles in the core EU treaties (Keller & Sörries, 1999; Keune & Marginson, 2013). Through Articles 154 and 155 of the TFEU (Begega & Aranea, 2018; Bisson, 2022; Guardiancich et al., 2023), social partners were granted the ability to negotiate framework agreements that could be transformed into EU directives or implemented autonomously under national labour laws (Keune & Marginson, 2013). Unlike other EU legislative processes, the European Parliament has no formal role in negotiations under these articles, and the Member States ultimately decide on agreements in the EUCO, which can lead to potential political challenges in implementation (Bandasz, 2014; García-Muñoz-Alhambra, 2022). Moreover, these articles enable social partners to share legislative initiative power with the Commission on labour and social policies (Carré & Steiert, 2022), through the compulsory consultation with social partners. So, Article 154 TFEU requires the European Commission to consult social partners before legislative proposals (Article 154 TFEU). In turn, Article 155 TFEU allows social partners to negotiate agreements that the EUCO may adopt into binding law (Carré & Steiert, 2022; McDougall, 2022). Initially, agreements like those on parental leave and working time were often implemented as binding directives. However, there has been a gradual shift towards soft law since the 2000s, with social partners increasingly adopting autonomous agreements implemented voluntarily by Member States or via national labour practices (Prosser, 2011). This trend towards soft law is part of a broader governance shift in Europe, exemplified by the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty. The OMC allows for non-binding guidelines on employment, offering an alternative to binding legislation while maintaining the sovereignty of Member States over social policy (Pinto-Ramos, 2018). This trend was consolidated at the Laeken Summit (2001), where the social partners advocated autonomous and bipartite social dialogue (Bisson, 2022; De Boer et al., 2005; González-Begega & Aranea, 2018) aimed at voluntary and non-legally binding agreements (De Boer et al., 2005; Prosser, 2016; Sorensen et al., 2022). Although this approach provides flexibility, it has raised concerns over its effectiveness in harmonising labour standards across the EU (Pinto-Ramos, 2018). Actors There are two types of actors involved in Social Dialogue, according to the TFEU. On the one hand, there are the ‘public authorities’, i.e. the EUCO and the European Commission. On the other hand, the ‘social partners’ must be considered. Although the term’ social partner’ was not explicitly defined in the analysed articles, the criteria for their inclusion in the ESD are detailed in the literature. To be considered as a social partner at the European level, organisations must: (1) operate across multiple industries or be relevant to specific sectors or categories and be structured at the European level; (2) be integral and recognised components of national social partner frameworks, with the ability to negotiate agreements, and should aim to be representative of all Member States; (3) have sufficient structures in place to ensure effective participation in the consultation process (Franseen & Jacobs, 1998; Keller & Sörries, 1999; Verbruggen, 2009). Page 8 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Thus, three participants in the Val Duchesse Summit were initially invited to the ESD as social partners. These are the : European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne (UNICE)/BusinessEurope and the Centre Européen des Entreprises à Participation Publique et des Entreprises d’Intérêt Economique Général (CEEP)/Services of General Interest Europe (SGI Europe) (Cockburn, 1997; De Boer et al., 2005; Ertel et al., 2010; Franseen & Jacobs, 1998). ETUC is an umbrella organisation for workers’ trade unions in various European countries. It was founded in 1973 to represent and protect workers’ interests at the European level, mainly in the institutions of the European Union, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and the EUCO (Adamczyk, 2018; Begega & Aranea, 2018). One of ETUC’s key objectives is to influence European policies in areas such as employment, social protection, working conditions and vocational training (Erne, 2008). BusinessEurope is the leading organisation representing businesses and employers in Europe. Founded in 1958 as UNICE (Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe), it changed its denomination in 2007 to its current name (Guardiancich et al., 2023). This organisation acts as the voice of business at the European level, defending its interests before the leading institutions of the European Union, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and EUCO (Guardiancich et al., 2023). This organisation defines its primary objective as promoting a favourable European business environment that fosters competitiveness, economic growth, and job creation. SGI Europe, formerly known as CEEP, ‘Centre Européen des Entreprises à Participation Publique et des Entreprises d’Intérêt Economique Général’, is an organisation representing companies and organisations that manage services of general interest in Europe. Services of general interest (SGI) refer to economic activities that meet fundamental public needs and are often provided by public and private entities under state regulation or through specific concessions (Keller & Sörries, 1999). SGI Europe brings together both public and private companies operating in these sectors, acting as an interlocutor in the ESD, especially on issues related to the provision of public services and their regulation (Franseen & Jacobs, 1998). Upon identifying the key participants in the social dialogue, the literature highlights the essentiality of examining the roles of additional stakeholders whose presence or absence may warrant further consideration. On the side of the public authorities, it is essential to note that the European Parliament has no role in the ESD. Thus, the only European institution whose members are directly elected by European citizens is excluded from this negotiation process (Franseen & Jacobs, 1998; García-Muñoz-Alhambra, 2022; Guery, 1992; Keller & Sörries, 1999). Social partners, workers, employers, and public companies are represented. However, small and medium-sized enterprises were not initially recognised as social partners. This type of business tends to set up different employers’ organisations from large corporations, as their interests differ. Small and medium-sized enterprises are represented by SMEUnited, previously known as the ‘Union Européenne de l’Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises’ (UEAPME). Founded in 1980, SMEUnited was already active in social dialogue at the time of the Val Duchesse meetings. However, it was not formally recognised as a complete social partner until the Maastricht Social Protocol and the Amsterdam Treaty were revised (Guardiancich et al., 2023). This formal recognition, granted in 1999, enabled UEAPME, now SMEUnited, to gain greater negotiation autonomy and be officially included in the autonomous social dialogue mechanisms. This recognition came after the UEAPME case. UEAPME sued the European Commission for excluding it from social agreement negotiations, arguing that it lacked the same legal status as other organisations, such as BusinessEurope and ETUC. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in favour of UEAPME, allowing its inclusion in the social dialogue process on equal footing with other social partners (Franseen & Jacobs, 1998). With this set of actors, ESD becomes a figure of co-regulation (Keune & Marginson, 2013; Schömann, 2011), understood as a regulatory approach that involves collaboration between private and public entities to govern specific interests and achieve objectives (Verbruggen, 2009). In this way, the ESD is a tool for private institutions (that defend sectors of the population) to influence policymaking on the issues that affect them, instead of the classical representation by political parties (Velluti, 2022). Relations The process of bargaining The relations between social partners and European bodies are many and varied. There are two primary forms within the ESD: consultations by the Commission and autonomous negotiations by the social partners. Following the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the European Commission must consult the social partners in areas related to employment, working conditions, social security and other social issues (Keller & Sörries, 1999; Prosser, 2011). This process is divided into two phases. In the first phase, the European Commission consults the social partners to determine whether they consider that action at the European level is necessary. If the social partners agree on the need to address an issue, they may choose to enter into the second phase, having direct negotiations with each other, with up to nine months to reach an agreement. During this period, the Commission refrains from further action (Keller & Sörries, 1999; Léonard, 2008). The EU institutions will only intervene if the social partners have not reached an agreement within the specified period or if the organisations decide not to negotiate (Carré & Steiert, 2022). In turn, the social partners at the European level can negotiate autonomously; for their agreements to be binding, they must address issues within the EU’s competence and receive approval from the EUCO (McDougall, 2022). Page 9 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Open Peer Review Current Peer Review Status: Version 1 Reviewer Report13 December 2025 https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.22739.r62610 © 2025 Czarzasty J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Jan Czarzasty SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland The report is a very valuable contribution to the research on social dialogue in Europe, in general, and on European Social Dialogue (ESD), in particular. As far as the declared objective is concerned (that is, providing asystematic literature review on the subject), it is successfully accomplished. In methodological terms, the whole process is meticulously described. There is no doubt as to relevance of the study, both on formal and substantial levels. The body of research identified in course of the review and covered by the report is abundant but the number of the studies eventually analysed is limited, as vast majority of sources pre-selected were eventually put aside due to not meeting the selection criteria adopted. My concern is about 13 studies excluded, because they were "published in languages other than English". To my understanding, the PRISMA method per se does not require homogeneity of the data in terms of language in which it is published. Furthermore, the new version (2020, which is followed by the Authors) has been developed inter alia to address the technological progress including automated translations, as the project team claim (see:Page et al. 2021) and in principle it is possible to use translating devices or human aid. For that reason, maybe it would be worthwhile reconsidering the 13 nonEnglish studies for inclusion in the analysis? Given that 34 articles are now covered, it would enhance the data range substantially and enhance the results, even if only some of the 13 nonEnglish studies could be brought into analysis. References 1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Open Research Europe  Page 16 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: industrial relations, social dialogue, economic sociology, comparative political economy I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Reviewer Report23 October 2025 https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.22739.r62608 © 2025 Staden M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Marius van Staden University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa This systematic literature review examines the European Social Dialogue (ESD), a participatory governance mechanism within the European Union that facilitates collaboration between trade unions, employers, and EU institutions on labour policy matters. Using the PRISMA methodology, the authors reviewed 34 peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2024, sourced from Scopus and Web of Science databases. The review synthesises existing knowledge across six thematic areas: definition, regulatory framework, key actors, relationships between actors, negotiation structures, and outcomes. The authors identify several critical findings. First, ESD lacks a universally agreed definition, with competing conceptualisations from the International Labour Organisation, the European Commission, and social partners themselves creating conceptual ambiguity. Second, the regulatory framework has evolved significantly since the Treaty of Rome (1957), with key milestones including the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and Amsterdam Treaty (1997), which formalised social partners' roles under Articles 154 and 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, since the early 2000s, there has been a marked shift from binding directives to non-binding, autonomous agreements. Third, the review identifies power imbalances between actors, with employers favouring deregulation whilst trade unions face fragmented interests across member states and lack traditional bargaining tools such as the right to strike. Fourth, the authors document structural complexities arising from the division between cross-sectoral and sectoral dialogue frameworks, with ambiguous competency boundaries. Finally, outcomes analysis reveals that fewer than 2% of sectoral documents constitute agreements, with fewer than 10% expected to have meaningful national impact. Open Research Europe  Page 17 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 The authors conclude that whilst ESD represents an important participatory governance mechanism, its effectiveness is constrained by conceptual ambiguity, fragmented regulation, limited enforcement capacity, and structural imbalances. They propose three improvements: promulgating a single directive to clarify ESD's legal framework, establishing regular reporting on autonomous agreements, and creating a European Social Dialogue Transparency and Evaluation Board to monitor implementation. The methodology section demonstrates several strengths. The authors clearly specify their databases (Scopus and Web of Science), provide the complete Boolean search string, justify the exclusion of the 'ESD' acronym due to overlap with medical terminology, establish clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and document the selection process using Covidence software with appropriate PRISMA flow diagram. The numbers at each screening stage are transparently reported, and the authors acknowledge limitations including language restrictions and potential selection bias. However, several critical methodological details are insufficiently described, which would impede full replication by other researchers. These deficiencies must be addressed to meet contemporary systematic review standards. The authors state that "a reviewer carried out three rounds of screening" with subsequent review by "two additional researchers," but provide no information about how disagreements were resolved or whether screening decisions were made independently. Systematic reviews require transparent reporting of inter-rater agreement. Consider addinga paragraph describing: (a) whether title/abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by at least two reviewers; (b) the process for resolving disagreements (consensus discussion, third reviewer arbitration, etc.); and (c) inter-rater reliability statistics (Cohen's kappa or percentage agreement) for at least a subsample of articles. If screening was not conducted independently, this represents a methodological limitation that should be acknowledged explicitly in the limitations section, with justification for the approach taken. The manuscript provides no description of how data were extracted from included studies. Readers cannot determine what information was systematically collected, how it was recorded, or who performed the extraction. Consider addinga "Data Extraction" subsection describing: (a) what data were extracted from each article (author, year, research design, key findings related to definition, regulation, actors, structures, outcomes, etc.); (b) whether extraction was performed by one or multiple reviewers; (c) whether a standardised extraction form was used (if available in the OSF repository, reference it explicitly); and (d) how accuracy of extraction was verified. This review makes a valuable contribution to understanding ESD as a governance mechanism. The systematic approach successfully synthesises a dispersed literature, the thematic organisation is logical and comprehensive, and the identification of conceptual ambiguities, power imbalances, and implementation gaps represents important scholarly work. The PRISMA methodology is appropriately applied, the writing is generally clear, and the acknowledgement of AI tool usage demonstrates commendable transparency. The review fills a genuine gap by providing structured synthesis of ESD scholarship. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Open Research Europe  Page 18 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025 Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Labour and Employment Law. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Open Research Europe  Page 19 of 19 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:309 Last updated: 13 DEC 2025