Comparing the Netherlands and Germany, and building on different theoretical perspectives on cooperation, we analyse whether works councils are able to accommodate and reconcile the competing demands of representation (relationship to the workforce), integration (relationship to management) and solidarity (relations to the union), or whether varying geometries of interest lead works councils to prefer one of those three demands. The analysis of an online-survey of 1,776 works councillors reveals differences and similarities between the two countries. Despite very similar institutional settings, multivariate statistical analysis shows that works councils differ in the priorities they set when choosing a preferred partner. German worker representatives feel close to the unions and workforce alike, while their Dutch counterparts maintain comparatively close relations to management. Nevertheless, we see many similarities as well. So, despite different historical trajectories and differences in regulatory detail, works councils have much in common in both countries, which suggests that they have a systematic impact on how employee voice materialises on the ground.
BoschA (1997) Vom Interessenkonflikt zur Kultur der Rationalität. In: Neue Verhandlungen zwischen Management und Betriebsrat. Munich and Mehring: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
2.
BoschAEllguthPSchmidtR, et al. (1999) Betriebliches Interessenhandeln, Band 1 – Zur Politischen Kultur der Austauschbeziehungen zwischen Management und Betriebsrat in der westdeutschen Industrie. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
3.
BrayMBuddJWMacneilJ (2020) The many meanings of co-operation in the employment relationship and their implications. British Journal of Industrial Relations58(1): 114–141.
4.
BuddJWBhaveD (2008) Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in industrial relations. In: BlytonPBaconNFioritoJ, et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London, UK: Sage, 92–112.
5.
EatonAERubinsteinSAKochanTA (2008) Balancing acts: dynamics of a union coalition in a labor management partnership. Industrial Relations47(1): 10–35.
6.
EdwardsPBélangerJWrightM (2006) The bases of compromise in the workplace: a theoretical framework. British Journal of Industrial Relations44(1): 125–145.
7.
Eurofound (2015) Third European Company Survey – Direct and Indirect Employee Participation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
8.
EvansJRMathurA (2018) The value of online surveys: a look back and a look ahead. Internet Research28(4): 854–887.
FürstenbergF (2000) Der Betriebsrat – Strukturanalyse einer Grenzinstitution. In: FürstenbergF (ed) Arbeitsbeziehungen im gesellschaftlichen Wandel. Munich and Mehring: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 19–30, First published 1958.
12.
GreifensteinRKißlerL (2010) Mitbestimmung im Spiegel der Forschung. In: Eine Bilanz der empirischen Untersuchungen 1952-2010. Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.
13.
GuestDPecceiR (2001) Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage. British Journal of Industrial Relations39(2): 207–236.
14.
Gumbrell-McCormicRHymanR (2010) Works councils: the European model of industrial democracy? In: WilkinsonAGollanPJMarchingtonM, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 286–314.
15.
HaipeterT (2010) Betriebsräte als neue Tarifakteure. In: Zum Wandel der Mitbestimmung bei Tarifabweichungen. Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.
16.
HeeryE (2002) Partnership versus organising: alternative futures for British trade unionism. Industrial Relations Journal33(1): 20–35.
17.
HegeADufourC (1995) Decentralization and legitimacy in employee representation: a Franco-German comparison. European Journal of Industrial Relations1(1): 83–99.
18.
HymanR (2009) How can we study industrial relations comparatively? In: BromwichWRymkevichOSpattiniS (eds) The Modernization of Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Comparative Perspective. Zuid-Holland, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 3–23.
19.
JirjahnUMohrenweiserJ (2016) Owner-managers and the failure of newly adopted works councils. British Journal of Industrial Relations54(4): 815–845.
20.
JohnstoneSWilkinsonA (2018) The potential of labour – management partnership: a longitudinal case analysis. British Journal of Management29(3): 554–570.
21.
KarelJHeijinkJVan den TillaartH, et al. (2010) Inzet en invloed van de OR: Onderzoeksrapport van de GBIO Medezeggenschapsmonitor 2008. Amsterdam: Reed Business BV.
22.
KellyJ (2005) Social partnership agreements in Britain. In: StuartMMartinez LucioM (eds) Partnership and Modernization in Employment Relations. London/New York: Routledge, 188–209.
23.
KochanTAOstermanP (1994) The Mutual Gains Enterprise. Forging a Winning Partnership Among Labor, Management, and Government. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
24.
KotthoffH (1981) Betriebsräte und betriebliche Herrschaft. In: Eine Typologie von Partizipationsmustern im Industriebetrieb. Frankfurt and New York: Campus.
25.
KotthoffH (1994) Betriebsräte und Bürgerstatus. In: Wandel und Kontinuität betrieblicher Mitbestimmung. Munich and Mehring: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
26.
KotthoffHReindlJ (1990) Die soziale Welt kleiner Betriebe. Wirtschaften, Arbeiten und Leben im mittelständischen Industriebetrieb. Göttingen, Germany: Otto Schwarz & Co.
27.
LaiYPCheungHT (2024) DOLD: a digital platform for conducting online language experiments and surveys. International Journal of Dental Hygiene1–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42803-024-00085-2.
28.
LockeRMThelenK (1995) Apples and oranges revisited: contextualized comparisons and the study of comparative labor politics. Politics & Society23(3): 337–367.
29.
MeyerKvan WitteloostuijnABeugelsdijkS (2017) What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies48: 535–551.
30.
Müller-JentschW (1995) Germany: from collective voice to co-management. In: RogersJStreeckW (eds). Works Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 53–78.
31.
Müller-JentschW (1997) Soziologie der Industriellen Beziehungen. In: Eine Einführung. 2nd edition. Frankfurt and New York: Campus.
32.
Müller-JentschW (2003) Re-assessing co-determination. In: Müller-JentschWWeitbrechtH (eds) The Changing Contours of German Industrial Relations. Munich and Mehring: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 39–56.
33.
Müller-JentschW (2011) Gewerkschaften und soziale Marktwirtschaft seit 1945. Stuttgart, Germany: Reclam.
34.
NienhüserWHoßfeldH (2005) Der Einfluss des Betriebsrats-Typs auf die Nutzung und Bewertung von Betriebsvereinbarungen. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. Industrielle Beziehungen12(1): 5–27.
35.
NijhofEVan den BergA (2012) Het Menselijk Kapitaal. Sociaal Ondernemersbeleid in Nederland. Amsterdam, Netherland: Boom.
36.
O’SullivanMA (2000) Contests for Corporate Control: Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the United States and Germany. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
PasterTOude NijhuisDKieckerM (2020) To extend or not to extend: explaining the divergent use of statutory bargaining extensions in The Netherlands and Germany. British Journal of Industrial Relations58(3): 532–557.
38.
PirkerT (1979) Die blinde Macht. Die Gewerkschaftsbewegung in der Bundesrepublik. Berlin, Germany: Olle & Wolter.
39.
PrzeworskiATeuneHJ (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.
40.
RaginCC (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
41.
RogersJStreeckW (1995) The study of works councils: concepts and problems. In: RogersJStreeckW (eds) Works Councils: Consultation, Representation, and Cooperation in Industrial Relations. Chicago and London, UK: The University of Chicago Press, 3–26.
42.
SchmidtRTrinczekR (1991) Duales System: Tarifliche und betriebliche Interessenvertretung. In: Müller-JentschW (ed) Konfliktpartnerschaft. Akteure und Institutionen der industriellen Beziehungen. Munich and Mehring: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 167–199.
43.
TietelE (2006) Konfrontation – Kooperation – Solidarität. Betriebsräte in der sozialen und emotionalen Zwickmühle. Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.
44.
TopMCremersJ (2003) OR-Faciliteiten bij de Buren: Een Duits-Nederlandse Vergelijking. Amsterdam, Netherland: Reed Business Information.
45.
Van het KaarRH (2008) De Nederlandse medezeggenschap in een Europees perspectief. In: SER-Advies Evenwichtig Ondernemingsbestuur. Den Haag: De Sociaal-Economische Raad. (Externe Consultaties en (Onderzoeks) rapportages).
46.
Van het KaarRHLooiseJKDe VolwassenOR (1999) Groei en Grenzen van de Nederlandse Ondernemingsraad. Resultaten van het Grote OR-Onderzoek. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherland: Samson.
47.
van WitteloostuijnA (2020) New-day statistical thinking: a bold proposal for a radical change in practices. Journal of International Business Studies51: 274–278.
48.
VisserJ (1998) Two cheers for corporatism, one for the market: industrial relations, wage moderation and job growth in The Netherlands. British Journal of Industrial Relations36(2): 269–292.
49.
VisserJ (2019) Database on institutional characteristics of trade unions, wage setting, state intervention and social pacts in 34 countries between 1960 and 2019 (ICTWSS). https://ictwss.org/downloads.
50.
von OertzenP (1965) Analyse der Mitbestimmung – ein Diskussionsbeitrag. Hannover, Germany: Arbeit und Leben.
51.
WajonIVlugPEnnekingE (2017) Naleving van de Wet op de Ondernemingsraden. Stand van Zaken Begin 2017. Rotterdam, Netherland: Numansdorp.
52.
WindmullerJPde GalanKvan ZweedenAF (1987) Arbeidsverhoudingen in Nederland. Utrecht, Netherland: Het Spectrum BV.
53.
YinRK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
