the ccmi: a decade of industrial change in europe · the ecsc treaty: a lesson for europe today? 20...
TRANSCRIPT
The CCMI: a decade of industrial change in Europe
EESC President Staff an Nilsson, Viscount Etienne Davignon and CCMI President Jorge Pegado Liz
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
1
IntroductionIn 2012, the EU’s Consultative Commis-
sion on Industrial Change (CCMI), based
in the European Economic and Social
Committee, celebrated its 10th anni-
versary. For a body which came into
the world after a difficult birth and
with uncertain prospects, this is no
mean achievement.
The conference on ‘The CCMI:
a decade of industrial change in
Europe’ took place in Brussels on
12 June 2012 to mark this anniversary.
But more importantly, the event was an
opportunity to bring together people from
all parts of the industrial scene, not only to bear
witness to the CCMI’s achievements up to now, but
also to map out the future course for an organisation which,
in view of the crisis that continues to damage Europe’s
industrial base, is more necessary than ever.
The CCMI is aware and proud of its origins, evolving out of
the historic European Coal and Steel Community – the first
visionary, post-war step towards lasting and ongoing peace
in Europe. The ECSC was, in turn, the foundation for the
European Union.
There is no denying that these are troubled times for the EU.
The economic crisis has undermined jobs and growth, and
even placed in question the principle of solidarity on which
the Union is based. At the same time, globalisation has put
pressure on European industries, the source of much of the
prosperity that this continent has enjoyed in the post-war
period.
The CCMI brings together representa-
tives from different sides of industry,
who do not always agree on po–
licies or the way to apply them. But
what we do share is a belief that
strengthening European indus-
tries and making them more
flexible, modern and capable of
responding to global challenges
will help the EU to recover from
the crisis as rapidly as possible, and
restore the higher standards of living
our citizens expect. We have a unique
responsibility to anticipate and interpret
the key industrial developments that have
a decisive effect on growth and employment,
and therefore on people’s lives.
This book is a tribute to 10 years of work by the CCMI to
promote constructive industrial change. It outlines the his-
tory of the Commission and explains how it has evolved
in response to new challenges, often through the eyes of
those most closely involved. But more importantly, through
its account of the conference proceedings, it also looks for-
ward and charts the many ideas and proposals for the future
that emerged from the day’s discussions.
Jorge Pegado LizCCMI President
ContentsIntroduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
The background: a 60-year journey from a pioneering partnership of coal and steel to a mature industrial policy 4
Policies to anticipate global change 8
Weighing up the benefits after a decade 12
EESC President Staff an Nilsson faces the media
Section 2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
The Conference, 2002-2012, 10th anniversary of the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change: for continuous, sustainable industrial change 16
The ECSC Treaty: a lesson for Europe today? 20
PANEL 1: 22Behind the scenes – the creation of the CCMI
PANEL 2: 30Easing the transition towards an energy and raw materials-efficient European industry
PANEL 3: 38Technological, organisational and social innovation for sustainable industrial change
PANEL 4: 44The role of services for a more sustainable European industry
What prospects for SMEs in the light of the panel discussions? 50
The future orientation of the CCMI and its activities 54
CCMI Opinions and Reports .......................................................................................................................................................... 56
Present and former CCMI members .......................................................................................................................................................... 59
4Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Section 1The background: a 60-year journey from a pioneering partnership of coal and steel to a mature industrial policy
In the beginning, there was the European Coal and Steel
Community. Established by the Treaty of Paris in 1951,
it was the first concrete manifestation of the vision of
a peaceful and united Europe, which was later to bring
about the 1957 Rome Treaties and the creation of the
European Community.
The French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, in his
famous declaration of 9 May 1950, first proposed that
Franco-German coal and steel production be governed by a
common High Authority, thus placing the main resources used
to wage two world wars under joint control.
The High Authority was to be assisted by a Consultative Com-
mittee, made up of producers, workers, and ‘users’ – including
retailers and distributors – which met for the first time in Luxem-
bourg in January 1953. But the ECSC Treaty had a finite lifespan
of 50 years. In the 1990s, a fierce debate began about the future
of the Consultative Committee, with some people urging its early
abolition. Eventually, it was confirmed that the Committee’s man-
date would come to an end in 2002 – half a century after the
Treaty entered into force.
As the date approached, the 108 members were determined
that the experience and knowledge accumulated over five dec-
ades should not be lost. They appealed to the European Com-
mission to create a new structure to continue the work. The
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) had already
been in place since 1958 as the body representing civil society
– including employers and trade unions – within the EU institu-
tions. So, in May 2000, it was logical for the Commission to turn to
the EESC to help find a format to keep the group in existence and
maintain a structured dialogue in these crucial industrial sectors.
The Council officially supported efforts to preserve the commit-
tee’s expertise.
A new perspective
Full integration into the EESC was not possible, since the mem-
bers were selected in different ways: individuals on the Con-
sultative Committee did not have the same endorsement from
national governments and the EU Council that EESC members
required. Consequently, in September 2000, the European Com-
mission issued a Communication proposing the creation of a new
hybrid body. It drew attention to the ECSC’s unique “experience
– notably in the fields of social consensus, industrial restructuring
and research”, and called for “a firmly future-based perspective”
for the new committee, which would gradually expand to cover
all aspects of industrial change in the European Union.
A joint working party was set up to examine the options. On
18 October 2001, the last president of the Consultative Com-
mittee, Italian trade unionist Enrico Gibellieri, wrote formally to
the then EESC president Göke Frerichs, informing him that his
Romano Prodi receives the ECSC fl ag
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
5
members had accepted the negotiators’ proposals, and hoping
the plan would go ahead as rapidly as possible, in order to secure
funds for 2002. As a result, the Council and the European Parlia-
ment were able to agree a supplementary budget for the EESC,
to enable it to maintain a structured dialogue on the basis of
experience in the coal and steel sector, and take on the challenge
of industrial change as part of its permanent work.
And thus the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change
came into being – known to this day by its French acronym: CCMI
(Commission consultative des mutations industrielles).
The final session of the ECSC Consultative Committee took place
in Luxembourg in June 2002. The following month, on 23 July,
the Treaty formally expired. At a handover ceremony in Brussels,
the flag of the Coal and Steel Community, with its white stars on
a dark and light blue background, was lowered and folded. Enrico
Gibellieri placed it in the hands of the president of the European
Commission, Romano Prodi.
On 24 October 2002, the EESC’s Plenary Assembly formally
approved the setting up of the Consultative Commission.
Testing the experiment
The CCMI represents a new kind of model for dialogue and
debate between the different actors in European industry, with
the aim of drawing up expert ‘opinions’ which are subsequently
adopted by the full EESC. Today, it is made up of 48 EESC mem-
bers and 48 ‘delegates’ coming directly from different industrial
sectors and related organisations. In 2002, these were the former
members of the Consultative Committee, involved in the coal
and steel industries. At that time, there were 24 EESC members
and 30 dele gates. But the CCMI has grown with each round of
EU enlargement and, given the importance of industrial devel-
opment in the newer Member States, a high proportion of par-
ticipants come from these countries. Like the EESC members,
the delegates are now divided into three groups: employers,
employees and various interests.
The new CCMI took a while to settle into its role. At first, some of
the former Consultative Committee members were expecting to
go on performing the same task as before, regulating the heavy
coal and steel industries at the core of the ECSC’s mission. But the
legal basis for their work had changed, and they no longer had
the power of the High Authority behind them.
“The ECSC was a very important body – it had the power to
impose levies on coal and steel producers, which paid for restruc-
turing of the sector, and an administration to manage it. All that
disappeared,” recalls former CCMI president Joost van Iersel.
External circumstances were not easy, either. The CCMI was not
known, even within the EESC, and acceptance was a lengthy pro-
cess. Many thought industrial policy was already covered by the
EESC’s Single Market, Production and Consumption section (INT)
and could not see the breathing space for a new body.
But the CCMI gradually found its place. Its third meeting in 2003
was in Dublin, where in 2001 the European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions had set up its
own Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC).
The fi rst assembly which established the tradition of providing a direct voice for industry vis-à-vis European policy-makers was the ECSC Consultative Committee, which provided a forum for the coal and steel industries. The CCMI builds on this experience, providing an important point of dialogue for industry and policy-makers.
“The prosperity of Europe and its people is essentially built on manufacturing industry and its unique value chains, of which the steel industry is one of the backbones. The future of Europe depends on the sound functioning of its industrial value chains, as has been demonstrated by the fi nancial and economic crisis. This is sometimes forgotten by policy-makers. The CCMI gives us a unique opportunity to help make European policies right by delivering advice on policies aff ecting the development of industry.”
Gordon Moff at, Director General, Eurofer – The European Steel Association
6Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Enlargement over time
In January 2005, following EU enlargement, the CCMI member-
ship was officially broadened to bring in delegates from the
industries undergoing change. Of the 45 delegates, one-third
came from the former ECSC Consultative Committee, one-third
from the 10 new Member States, and the rest from new sec-
tors including textiles, services, shipbuilding and automobiles.
Delegates from the ECSC Consultative Committee ‘users’ group
were slowly replaced by representatives of ‘various interests’: a list
of relevant organisations – like the European consumers’ body
BEUC, for example – was drawn up and they were invited to take
part. This process continued in 2010.
Whereas the role of the ‘social partners’ – workers and manage-
ment – on the CCMI was self-evident from the outset, and both
sides had an existing commitment to dialogue, the representa-
tives of ‘various interests’ took a little longer to find their place.
But in 2010, the CCMI elected its first president from this group,
Jorge Pegado Liz, and civil society organisations were invited to
nominate their own representatives directly. As a consequence,
more of them are now involved in proposing and drafting opin-
ions, bringing new perspectives to the CCMI’s work and taking it
into areas it has not previously explored.
Outside the European institutions, the CCMI was also an entirely
new actor. But its ‘own-initiative’ opinions on specific sectors
began to arouse interest. The public hearings with industry rep-
resentatives, held regularly while opinions were being drawn up,
started to attract a wider audience. Little by little, the CCMI won
acceptance not because it was there, but because it did good
work.
As it took in delegates from a broader range of sectors and other
interested bodies, the CCMI evolved. Coal and steel became indi-
vidual industries like the others, but the lessons learnt from 50
years of social dialogue were universally relevant.
Despite its bumpy start, there is now an excellent relationship
between CCMI members and delegates, says Mr Van Iersel. “More
and more EESC members want to be on the CCMI, because it’s
very interesting and it’s dynamic, while it focuses on economic
progress.”
How it works
The CCMI usually meets five times a year. Whereas EESC members
are nominated and appointed by national governments and the
EU Council, delegates are more informally selected, so their rights
are different. The president and the rapporteurs of opinions must
be EESC members, while the co-president and co-rapporteurs
come from the ranks of the delegates. Delegates do not take part
in formal votes on opinions, but hold an informal poll beforehand.
Day-to-day decisions between meetings are taken by the six-
person bureau comprising president Jorge Pegado Liz, co-pres-
ident Patrizio Pesci, Jacques Glorieux, Enrico Gibellieri, Joost van
Iersel, and Claude Rolin.
The CCMI itself selects and examines important topics, through
study groups, typically of six members and six delegates,
meeting twice to draft an opinion. The majority of opinions now
come from delegates’ initiatives. Although they are identified as
“When I became a member of CCMI, one year ago, it was for me a fi rst contact with this Commission and I was not aware of the vast scope of topics that it has to cover. Although in the beginning, I wondered what could be the added value of my perspective – my fi eld of expertise is consumer law and policy – I was rapidly struck by the high relevance of many of the opinions prepared by the Commission for consumer welfare.
“I quickly started to wish to contribute to the content of the opinions. Having to face the sometimes complicated procedures within the EESC, I could, however, count on the kind fl exibility of the members and the delegates, as well as on the very effi cient availability and support of the secretariat. I hope to be able to cooperate eff ect-ively in the future work of the CCMI, with a view to raising awareness that any industrial development policy needs to take account of the consumer perspective in order to be successful.”
Monique Goyens, Director General, BEUC – The European Consumer Organisation
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
7
co-rapporteurs, the rapporteurs rely on their expertise, and it is
this concrete knowledge that is the CCMI’s unique selling point.
“Each time we ask for ideas we get at least 15 very good ones, so
we have to choose,” explains Mr Pegado Liz. “We could do much
more if we had more time.” The CCMI also responds, through the
EESC, to requests for advice from the European Commission, Par-
liament and Council. He says that the CCMI’s opinions are now
“mature”, and well accepted both within the EU institutions and
beyond.
Mr Glorieux believes the CCMI should be drawing up at least
10-12 opinions a year, to make the best use of its expertise. Fur-
thermore, whereas only about 40-50 of the 108 members of the
ECSC Consultative Committee actively participated in meetings,
some 80 % of CCMI members and delegates are active. “That’s
meaningful. It shows people feel very involved in what they are
doing. We have a very proactive way of working. That’s why I am
confident for the future,” he concludes.
New CCMI sectors included shipbuilding
8Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Policies to anticipate global changeThe development of the Consultative Commission
on Industrial Change over the last 10 years is a
reflection of the evolution of industry and ser-
vices at both European and global levels.
The Treaty establishing the European
Coal and Steel Community was drafted
in the early 1950s, but by the end of
the century reality had evolved. These
two sectors had been protected
from the competitive environment,
but when the Treaty expired they
had to open up to competition in
another way. The policy of subsid-
ising sectors that could not survive
on their own was abandoned.
Whereas the ECSC represented a
serious effort to put coal and steel
production in common and to
overcome nationalism, throughout
the 20th century industrial policy in
other sectors remained very national-
istic. In areas like automobiles and tex-
tiles, it was based on supporting national
champions. Europe had to move towards
a more open and modern industrial policy.
Yet many of those who worked with both the
ECSC and the fledgling CCMI testify to reluctance
among European leaders at that time to tackle the issue.
At the start of the 21st century, as the CCMI began to develop
its expertise in individual industrial sectors, it acquired a new
authority – able to assess the desirability of regulation and
legislation on a case-by-case basis, anchored to specific needs
and conditions. Then in 2004, coinciding with Union enlarge-
ment to 10 new countries, a European Commission Com-
munication calling for a new-style industrial policy fostering
structural change in an enlarged Europe vindicated the CCMI’s
approach. “A strong industrial base remains vitally important
for a successful European economy, to create jobs, boost pro-
ductivity and fuel innovation,” declared EU Enterprise Com-
missioner Erkki Liikanen.
“Only a few years ago such a strong affirmation of industry’s
role and of the role of industrial policy would have been
unthinkable. Industrial policy was being written off as a thing
of the past. We therefore need to work with individual sectors
to understand how our policies affect them.”
Thereafter, the CCMI began to develop good relations with
the Commission, especially in the areas of enterprise, employ-
ment, internal market and research.
The CCMI examined individual industries
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
9
Human capital in first place
The CCMI’s role is to look to the future. Its mandate involves antici-
pating, pre-empting and analysing developments, so as to ensure
positive, common approaches to the management of industrial
change from an economic, social, territorial and environmental
point of view. It promotes coordination and coherence in Euro-
pean policy and action throughout all 27 Member States, and
aims to keep EU industries competitive while at the same time
ensuring developments are socially beneficial or at least accept-
able. It stresses the fundamental importance of human capital,
and creating the conditions for industrial activities to flourish.
Mr Pegado Liz defines its three main functions as promoting the
principles of the EU’s founders through its opinions; meeting
the challenge of developments such as globalisation, social net-
working and new working methods; and anticipating and pre-
paring for industrial change and restructuring. He summarises
this as: learning from the past, proactive observation of the pre-
sent, and anticipating the future.
One strand of work is on cross-sectoral topics that affect all sec-
tors of industry, such as education and training. For example, the
CCMI produced opinions on IT-supported lifelong learning in
2006, and on matching skills to the needs of industry in 2010.
Own-initiative cross-cutting opinions covered a wide range of
issues including greenhouse gas emissions in 2006, European
environmental rules, and global trade integration and out-
sourcing in 2007.
When the European Commission, Council, EU Presidency or Par-
liament asks the EESC for advice on an industrial policy issue, it
is often the CCMI which draws up the draft, for approval by the
full Committee. This was the case with three opinions on the
EU’s Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in 2006, 2009 and 2011, for
example, and on flexicurity and restructuring, in 2009 (referred by
the Swedish Presidency).
The second axis is sectoral policies. Here, the CCMI found that
focusing on specific industries helped to draw in relevant stake-
holders, who wanted to have their say, and to create horizontal
links between employers, trade unions and other groups organ-
ising around individual topics. Furthermore, faced with the threat
of cheap labour and poor working conditions outside Europe
undercutting and destroying manufacturing jobs at home, man-
agements and workers began to identify a common ‘enemy’ in
countries like China, and to understand the need to cooperate in
confronting the challenge of delocation.
“I volunteered to become a member of CCMI because I wanted to contribute the point of view of the European construction industry – Europe’s largest industrial employer generating 10 % of GDP – to the analysis of the past and the preparation of the future. FIEC, the recognised sectoral social partner on the employers’ side, is well equipped for this role. Via its 33 national member federations in 27 countries, it is fully representative of craftsmen, SMEs and large fi rms, active in all building and civil engineering activities.
“The construction industry, with its qualifi ed workforce, is able to provide solutions for most of the current and future global challenges related to energy saving, CO
2
reduction, decent housing or infrastructure for energy, drinking water, wastewater, and transport.
“In addition to providing a friendly atmosphere for lively discussions among colleagues, the CCMI has also been a good forum for introducing the construction industry’s views, in particular to the reports on the ‘internationalisation of SMEs’ and ‘access of third country state-owned enterprises to the EU procurement market’. For the future, I hope that the CCMI can spend 100 % of its eff orts on the material issues ahead and 0 % on administrative and structural issues.”
Ulrich Paetzold, Director General, FIEC – The European Construction Industry Federation
10Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
The new industrial battlefield
The changes affecting European industry have been dramatic. In
Bilbao, in Spain, to take just one example, three-quarters of jobs
in steel and coal had disappeared by the end of the 20th century,
throwing thousands of people out of work: a process mirrored
across the continent.
Globalisation created the dynamic for companies to go abroad
or restructure. In 2006, the CCMI produced a key report assessing
the sectoral impact of relocation. “To date, there has been no
attempt by public or private institutions in Europe to undertake
a comprehensive survey … dedicated exclusively to the issue of
relocation from a sectoral point of view,” it found.
“We were at the front of developments, and try to remain so,”
confirms rapporteur Mr Van Iersel. As technology and research
became increasingly important, the CCMI focused on ICT and
services: sectors where Europe was lagging behind. “That’s the
new battlefield, where we need to keep in front of China and
India,” he adds. “We are more sophisticated than them. We say
that economies must be sustained by services, otherwise we will
fall behind in five to 10 years. The strategy is well founded. We are
working closely with the European Commission and we are on
the right track.”
Mr Glorieux agrees. Dealing with closure and delocation may seem
negative, “but they exist”, he points out. “At the same time, we want
to keep the brains in Europe. We know that China has its own
limits, and they will still need us. There are a lot of new technolo-
gies based on coal, like carbon capture and storage, for example,
and Europe is active in these areas. It’s not all about the past.”
Influencing the EU institutions
In turn, the European Commission became more and more atten-
tive to the differences between sectors, and the way workers
needed to change their attitudes and skills. In the European
Parliament, too, awareness of sectoral issues expanded, as the
impact of the economic crisis moved MEPs’ attention away from
merely passing legislation.
Inevitably, extending the CCMI’s mandate led to a debate about
what ‘industry’ covers, with the growing realisation that a long
list of subjects affect industrial development, including employ-
ment, social and structural policy, aid and competition rules,
research and technology, environmental and sustainable devel-
opment, energy policy and trade.
The CCMI also had to confront problems such as how to
approach overlapping sectors – concluding that
some overlapping was inevitable. “We talk more
and more about value chains, which are breaking
through sectors and creating a totally new picture,”
explains Mr Van Iersel. “The interfaces between
sectors create new phenomena. In effect, you can’t
speak any longer about simple sectors. Nowadays,
living networks and production plants within large
corporations are closely connected with middle-
sized and smaller companies in the supply chain.
Value chains are strengthened by outsourcing and
external suppliers.”
In an opinion on ‘Value and supply chain develop-
ment’ in 2007, the CCMI warned of the emergence
of “a host of economic, industrial and social issues –
including, for example, outsourcing, employability,
and re-skilling, product labelling and origin, [and]
impact on the transport sector”, and called for a
new policy towards ‘IICs’ (initial and inter mediate
companies). The agricultural vehicle trade fair in Bologna
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
11
In the EU, more than 95 % of firms are SMEs or micro-enterprises.
There is a widespread belief that smaller companies are the real
technical and technological pioneers, and key to job creation.
“We are very strong advocates of SMEs, and that is now very
popu lar,” says Mr Van Iersel. “For example, in the modern car,
motors do not make the real difference. That is seen in the elec-
tronics, design, and gadgets. The car industry is also a major client
for textiles. Every vehicle has thousands of parts, and they are not
all mechanical.”
Implementing the Europe 2020 strategy
One of the CCMI’s current priorities is improving the economic,
financial and social environment, battered by the economic crisis,
within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. Because it has
already focused for 10 years on industrial policy, which is a more
recent priority for the European Commission, the CCMI has an
especially important role in its implementation.
When the Commission launched the strategy, it invited the EESC’s
opinion on one of the seven flagship initiatives, focused on “An
industrial policy for the globalisa-
tion era to improve the business
environment, notably for SMEs,
and to support the develop-
ment of a strong and sustainable
industrial base able to compete
globally”. In May 2011, the EESC
adopted three different opinions.
‘An industrial policy for the glob-
alised era – putting competitive-
ness and sustainability at centre
stage’ proposed the streamlining
of EU and bilateral coordin ation,
and suggested that the Council
and Commission draw up a series
of priorities and time frames. The
second opinion, ‘The external
dimension of European industrial
policy – is the EU’s trade policy
really taking the interests of
European industry into account?’
called for jointly agreed rules to
enable companies to compete
under fair conditions. Finally, the
opinion on ‘Third country state-owned enterprises in EU public
procurement markets’ welcomed the World Trade Organisation
Agreement on Government Procurement, but urged the EU to
defend the interests of European companies in both internal and
international markets.
“Europe 2020 is very important for our industrial future,” insists
Mr Van Iersel, who chairs the EESC’s Europe 2020 Steering Com-
mittee. “We have 27 different industrial plans in the EU, so how
can we create a level playing field? We need Europe 2020 to point
these policies in the same direction.”
The CCMI is trying to apply this principle to concrete cases.
Every European country has its own defence policy, for example,
leading to fragmentation, duplication and overproduction and
lack of interoperability in the defence industry. National govern-
ments need to realise that they can make more progress together
– and that applies to all industrial sectors. Now, at last, with the
support of the CCMI, more Member States are developing a bud-
ding convergence.
Looking forwards: the birth of the CCMI
12Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Weighing up the benefits after a decade
The CCMI’s approach is “forward-looking, integrated and
dynamic”, aiming to bring different actors together
to promote sustainable industrial change without
damage to any part of society.
Its philosophy is summed up in a 2005 opinion
on ‘Restructuring and employment’: “The Com-
mission firmly believes that restructuring must
not be synonymous with social decline and a
loss of economic substance. On the contrary,
restructuring can underpin economic and
social progress – but only if such measures
are correctly anticipated…”
Over the last decade, the CCMI has fulfilled a
useful role: raising awareness of the need to
preserve a sound industrial base in Europe, and
to anticipate change so that it is less painful for
individuals and communities. Indeed, some say
the difference between restructuring and industrial
change is that whereas the first is an unstoppable
train that ‘runs you over’, the second can be planned
and managed, for example through social dialogue.
In particular, the CCMI has succeeded in highlighting important
sectors that were being neglected by the European Commission,
says Mr Gibellieri, such as the metalworking industry, which was
“not a priority” for the EU. “We helped it to emerge,” he says. In
2008, a CCMI opinion on ‘Competitiveness of the metals indus-
tries’ pointed out that this sector played an important role in the
value chain of much European manufacturing, and urged invest-
ment in innovation while, at the same time, taking care of envir-
onmental and social impacts.
Focusing on the ‘Metalworking industry’ in 2010, the CCMI drew
attention to the 400 000 SMEs that made up the sector. “Because
of this structure, the European Commission was not very atten-
tive,” agrees Mr Van Iersel. “But we got it to set up a high-level
group on the metal industry. It was very much appreciated by
ORGALIME (the European Engineering Industries Association).”
The Commission also launched an action plan to promote metal-
working and the metal articles industries.
A new era for industry
The changing industrial framework generated crisis in traditional
industries like shipbuilding, where the end of national subsidies
led to the closure of many companies. The era of support for
failing sectors was over, and the CCMI was looking to bring about
a new era, more open to the rest of the world. In a 2010 opinion
Kronospan (wood panel producer) in the Czech Republic
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
13
on the ‘European shipbuilding industry’ it proposed the use of
European Investment Bank funds to promote green technologies
and clean transport in the sector. This was supplemented in 2011
by an additional opinion on ‘State Aid to shipbuilding’.
The CCMI has turned its attention to a wide range of other sec-
tors, including services, cement, household appliances, retail, and
glass and ceramics.
In 2010, it published an opinion on the printing industry, followed
up by the ‘Publishing on the Move’ conference in November 2011.
The creative industries came under scrutiny at a public hearing
in Valencia, Spain, followed by an opinion. In December 2011, it
was the turn of banking, with a public hearing, a study exam-
ining ‘What changes for Europe’s banking sector with the new
financial rules?’, and an opinion in April 2012. The future of book
publishing is the latest subject on the CCMI agenda.
Aviation is another important and topical sector where the CCMI
can have influence. A public hearing on air transport took place
in April 2012.
One industry that caught Patrizio Pesci’s attention was the ‘European
woodworking and furniture sector’. A 2011 opinion was coupled
with a hearing in Prague. Austrian company
Kronospan is the largest manufacturer of
wood panels in the world, employing 11
000 people, with several sites in Eastern
Europe. The European Parliament’s ‘Club
du Bois’, made up of MEPs and industry
representatives, welcomed the opinion
and promised to use it as a base for action.
Now, plans are in hand for a major event,
also involving European Industry Com-
missioner Antonio Tajani, to be held at the
EESC in October 2012, in preparation for an
EU Communication on the woodworking
industry by the end of the year.
“We are looking at new sectors: IT, elec-
trical cars, chemical industries…” says Mr
Glorieux. “There are some sectors that
people believe are just for fun, like motor-
cycles. But Europe has a good position,
and we need to keep these industries in
Europe. We cannot retain all the heavy
industry, but as far as new technologies are concerned, they are
of great importance.”
In April, the CCMI completed a new opinion on cooperatives,
and will hold a conference in Cyprus to coincide with the 2012
United Nations International Year of Cooperatives. Mr Pegado Liz
points out that cooperatives have been hit less hard by the crisis,
and the social economy may offer worthwhile solutions for the
future. It is also an example of how the CCMI is trying to broaden
the traditional relationship between workers and employers in a
positive way.
Having an impact
An evaluation of the impact of 25 ‘own-initiative’ opinions from
2008 to 2011 clearly demonstrated how the European Commis-
sion and other bodies pay attention to the CCMI’s recommenda-
tions in pursuing their own political policy-making. For example,
the 2007 opinion on the ‘Evolution of the automotive sector’ was
the basis for the Commission’s document on dealing with change
in the car industry, and preparations for the mid-term review of
the CARS 21 programme, aimed at saving Europe’s crucial motor
industry, in 2009.
Aviation is an important sector (Airbus Toulouse)
14Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
In 2008, an opinion on ‘Developments in the retail industry
and the impact on suppliers and consumers’ had a wide
impact, and was taken up by many EU departments
and sectoral stakeholders, including Euratex, the
European Apparel and Textile Organisation.
In all, the review showed that the European
Commission used three opinions to prepare
its own policy documents, four contributed
to national or local programmes or pilot
projects, 18 were accompanied by hearings,
conferences or seminars, and six generated
media attention.
The way to do it
The variety of ways in which the CCMI works is
one of its strengths. On some occasions it makes use
of studies carried out by outside experts, with a short
paper drawing conclusions. “That puts us in a strong pos-
ition, because we are basing our opinions on research. This is a
very good method, and helps the EESC to reinforce its position in
the EU institutions,” says Mr Van Iersel.
In 2005, for example, the CCMI published an information report
on the EU’s new chemicals legislation known by its acronym
REACH. In September 2006, one of the most important reports
was on relocation which, as Mr Piette pointed out at the time, was
“a highly charged, often emotive issue”. It concluded that there
was no agreed definition of relocation and no comparable data,
making it impossible to present a true picture across Europe. So
the CCMI commissioned outside experts to carry out statistical
research, which did much to alert the European Commission to
the gravity of the situation. It attracted widespread attention.
In 2008, the CCMI held three public hearings in Ljubljana, Buda-
pest and Sofia, to examine economic development in the 10 new
Member States, resulting in the publication of a ‘Comparison of
industrial transformation models’. In the same year, it published
findings on ‘The future of the textile, clothing and footwear sec-
tors in Europe’, following on from an opinion on the textile and
clothing industry in 2004. This important sector had suffered a
damaging decline in Europe due partly to the import of cheap
clothing from the Far East and elsewhere. The report offered real
prospects for change and renewal.
Almost all opinions are pre-
ceded by hearings or semi-
nars where stakeholders
are invited to give their
views. Numerous meet-
ings have been held in
Brussels and in towns
and cities around the EU.
Study group meetings on
specific sectors also take
place in Member States. The
CCMI dedicates much of its
time to following up opinions,
through round tables and other
events, often in partnership with
the EU Presidency country.
CCMI materials are translated into all EU
languages and distributed through sectoral organisa-
tions, where they not only demonstrate the benefits of discus-
sion and compromise, but also have an educational role.
Exchange of ideas
Because the EESC and CCMI are less formal bodies, they can do
things the European Commission cannot. People feel more at
ease and are more ready to discuss their ideas and exchange
views freely and spontaneously.
For example, within the framework of its ‘Going local’ follow-up to
the Europe 2020 strategy, the CCMI took part in two fact-finding
missions: to Warsaw, Poland in June 2011 and Madrid, Spain in
October 2011. In Warsaw, activities centred on a one-and-a-half
day round table, to gather the views of local industrial policy
stakeholders. The resulting report examined in detail the main
features of the Polish economy and industry, covering issues like
social dialogue, regional growth, foreign investment, R&D and
innovation, energy policy, labour productivity and SMEs, with
succinct conclusions. “The Europe 2020 strategy is sometimes
seen as an alien paper coming from ‘Brussels’ and not enough as
a joint endeavour of the EU,” it warned.
The CCMI likes to ‘go local’
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
15
In Spain, the CCMI found a country “particularly hard hit by the
fallout from the economic crisis”. A questionnaire was sent out in
advance of a second round table to assess the reform process. The
debate covered recent developments in economic and industrial
policy, plus foreign investment, access to markets, SMEs, infra-
structure and human capital. “All stakeholders … especially busi-
nesses, have proved their full support for European values and
interests and their commitment to the goals of competitiveness
and growth for Spanish industry, in line with the objectives of the
Europe 2020 strategy,” reported the CCMI delegation.
“As regards industrial restructuring,” recalls Mr Piette, “the CCMI,
early in its existence, established relations with China which
paved the way for a large delegation to undertake an intensive
and fruitful study visit focusing on steel making, followed the
next year by the arrival of a Chinese delegation in Europe.”
Indeed, bilateral cooperation got under way in July 2002, and the
visit took place in September-October 2004, travelling to Beijing,
Liaoning Province and Shanghai. The 12-man CCMI delegation,
led by Mr Piette, studied how China’s centralised economic plan-
ning responded to the challenges of industrial restructuring and
modernisation, environmental protection and social welfare. It
concluded that both sides were committed to implementing
change in a socially acceptable way.
Delivering a better future
The CCMI was also quick to appreciate the environmental impact
of industry, and this aspect is covered in many of its opinions. “The
history of the CCMI coincides with that of the European project,”
points out Claude Rolin, Secretary-General of the Belgian trade
union federation the CSC and a member of the CCMI bureau.
“Tomorrow’s industries will be greener and more low-carbon. It
is more essential than ever to prepare for this change. The CCMI
must be able to contribute through identifying the paths to take
towards a better future – a future that will enable generations to
come to feel fully and collectively European.”
Mr Pegado Liz, re-emphasising the crucial role of the CCMI, adds
that some operational improvements could be made to enable it
to respond even better to the expectations of both EU institutions
and stakeholders and partners throughout industry. “But we intend
to do that in a very participative way, starting from very concrete
examples and a very pragmatic, not theoretical approach.”
A decade ago, industry seemed to be a thing of the past. But
throughout the economic crisis, countries with a more solid
industrial base, like Germany, have suffered less, while those with
service-based economies have struggled. The lesson suggests
that the EU should not neglect industry’s importance in sus-
taining well-being in society. Now, as it applies that lesson, the
CCMI is more important than ever in helping to transform Europe
into a dynamic, modern and high-skilled industrial society.
The CCMI studied restructuring in China
16Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Section 2The Conference, 12 June 2012, Brussels 2002-2012 10th anniversary of the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change: for continuous, sustainable industrial change
Introductory session
Staffan Nilsson, President of the European Economic and Social
Committee 2010-2013, welcomed conference participants and set
the debate in context.
“The European Coal and Steel Community, founded in 1951, was
the first concrete manifestation of the vision of a peaceful and
united Europe,” he reminded his listeners. “The High Authority
was assisted by a Consultative Committee, made up of producers,
workers and users. As Viscount Etienne Davignon has said: ‘It is
absolutely necessary to talk to the people on the spot who are
confronting reality.’
“In 2000, approaching the expiry of the ECSC, the three major
European institutions decided to retain the experience accu-
mulated by its Consultative Committee over five decades. They
extended its competence to all industrial sectors. The EESC was
ready and happy to accept this challenge, and a specifically
designed body was created: the CCMI.
“On the occasion of this 10-year anniversary, it is not only a time
to look back at the past, but, more importantly, to look forward
to the future. For us in the EESC it is important to know how to
perceive future industrial change as a factor of growth and what
kind of input you expect from the CCMI in this context.
“Let’s use the opportunity of this celebration to answer some in-
depth, crucial questions. What added value can the EESC offer in
shaping the Europe 2020 strategy, via an ambitious and renewed
industrial policy? How would we like industrial policy to look, so
that it is able to respond to future challenges?
Staff an Nilsson chairs the opening session of the conference
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
17
“The EESC fully acknowledges its role as a bridge towards civil
society,” he concluded. “We believe that we are the platform
where the CCMI can share its ideas, concerns, and experience on
European policies, and that we can help the CCMI to pass its mes-
sage to the European institutions.”
The CCMI’s challenge
Viscount Etienne Davignon, Former
Vice-President of the European Com-
mission and ex-Commissioner for
Industrial Affairs, gave the keynote
speech. As an EU Commissioner
in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
he faced difficult decisions about
the future of Europe’s coal and
steel industries. He has long been
a stalwart defender of the CCMI.
“I’m often saddened that the
legal basis for the Coal and Steel
Community has been removed,”
he reflected. “Often when we think
we’re putting things in order, actually
we’re not at all – we are removing key
factors.
“The coal and steel community was the biggest
delegation of power in Europe up to that point. As a
consequence of giving power and responsibilities to the Higher
Authority, they had to have the instruments and tools necessary
to implement that responsibility. That meant, first and foremost, a
financial basis. The ECSC was the only European institution which
had its own resources: the financing of its budget was a tax. It
meant that the ECSC had to decide how to use the means at its
disposal. Innovation stemmed from the Consultative Committee,
whose opinions were binding.
“There was another characteristic. Besides the traditional dia-
logue between the social partners, we added another dimen-
sion: the users. So we had the market – it might have been the
coal industry or the steel industry – and then we had the work-
force and those who were interested in production, from trade
or retailing, for example. We had all the elements of true consult-
ation, and it worked because the Consultative Committee had
the power of influence. When you know that reaching agreement
will have an impact on subsequent decisions of the European
Commission or Council, that changes the situation.”
Viscount Davignon recalled the problems of overproduction
in the European steel industry, and the authorities’
reluctance to embark on restructuring. “There’s
nothing more dangerous than delay,
because you find yourself in the middle of
a crisis, and at a time of crisis selfishness
reigns.” National governments were
tempted to go it alone in a bid to
save their domestic industries.
“These were extremely difficult
circumstances. But we ended
up with a restructuring plan
with a considerable social com-
ponent, and the steel industry
was able to remain a significant
force in the economy.
“What about the present?
Things were relatively straight-
forward back then in 1951, when
we were just talking about coal
and steel. These were two crucial ele-
ments in the economy at the time, but
that’s no longer the case. There’s much less
coal now, and there are environmental fac-
tors to consider. It’s a form of energy that we don’t
really want to develop. But the cost of renewable energy
means it has to be subsidised.
“Energy in production remains an essential factor. How does
energy policy fit into industrial policy? A large number of essen-
tial industries, such as chemicals, consume a lot of energy. So
how do we incorporate that into our economic model? Where
do we find overarching powers and where do they fit in with our
European structures? The CCMI on this 10-year anniversary needs
to look very precisely at the consequences of policy in various
sectors. No-one is suggesting that countries no longer need
an industrial basis. Innovation is fine and good, but what does
it mean? We know that Europe has a weakness when it comes
to transforming research results into reality. What is the indus-
trial basis for innovation? What the Coal and Steel Treaty should
remind us is that there should be a transversal assessment of the
situation, so we can understand what influences what.
18Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
“This brings us to disappointment about the Lisbon Agenda, and
maybe tomorrow the Europe 2020 strategy. What’s wrong with
it? Nothing. How can it work? That is the question. Here we have
the important dilemma: why did Lisbon bring such poor results?
Because the analysis was European and the implementation was
national, creating a disconnection. Common sense shows that
if you fix an objective, you have to define the processes and the
timetables to get there.
“The integration of the EU has taught us two very simple lessons:
first, if you don’t have a timetable you don’t have the obligation
to reach results, and secondly, if countries act alone they won’t
get anywhere. It is essential that one body, be it the
CCMI or the EESC as a whole, tells decision-makers
what the inescapable decisions should be. If
you decide together, you give yourselves the
instruments to act together. This is what we
lack.
“We are still a segmented Union. We dis-
cuss the environment, we discuss agri-
culture, finance and industry, but all in a
separate fashion, whereas reality shows
they are all linked.
“The CCMI should have an important role
to play in the Europe 2020 strategy. You can
plan everything, but it will not work unless there
is a frame of mind where all the participants seek
the best collective answers to the challenges confronting
them. Jean Monnet was right when he said you cannot have a
collective policy if you do not have a body where the debate can
take place; but the debate can only be as good as the people
who participate want it to be.
“In the future, the CCMI faces a big challenge. It’s obvious that the
crisis has created very significant sociological unrest. People feel
they have to suffer because of a crisis they did not cause. There
is a need to find common ground in a very complex situation
where people are full of uncertainty and dissatisfaction.
“The assessment of the situation is, unfortunately, straightfor-
ward. What we do about it is more important. The lack of trust is
something we have to react to. The only way human beings can
restore trust is by working together and ensuring all points of
view are taken into account before deciding on the way forward.
“The merit of the Coal and Steel Treaty was that there was a
single body, which drew attention to the connections between
the various elements and showed that if you wanted to reach an
agreement, you had to have the tools, the objective, the time-
table and the instruments. That is what I wish for the CCMI in the
next 10 years,” he concluded.
Changing times bring opportunities
“There is only one constant in life – and that’s change!” insisted
EESC and CCMI member Madi Sharma, a successful entrepre-
neur with businesses in the UK and India.
She recalled studying the Industrial Revolution
as a child. “I remember the coal mines in the
village where I went to school. My father
was in the textile business in Nottingham,
UK, in the days when men worked and
women waited at home with their slip-
pers!” Changing times have brought a
loss of manufacturing jobs, manual skills
and employment security, but she added:
“Change brings insecurity and fear of the
unknown, but it also brings opportunities!”
Ms Sharma believes the role of the CCMI is to
take the expertise and know-how of the past,
reform it, and use it to build new industries for the
future, or even revive old industries with new ideas, innov-
ation and technology.
“Since leaving school I have witnessed the demise of great indus-
tries. However, there are reasons to be optimistic. In the last few
months, steel foundries and coal mines have reopened in the UK,
small car manufacturers in France have been given a boost, and
Paris, Milan and London are still recognised as the fashion cap-
itals of the world. The European Airbus project promotes growth
through communication and cooperation across Member States.”
The CCMI gains from bringing together experts from the EESC
and from industry. “By putting both groups of people together,
transferring knowledge, innovation and skills across sectors and
working cohesively, it is possible to make the changes needed to
make the EU an industrialised region again. However, this time
it will not be with great polluting factories and poor working
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
19
conditions. It will be with long-term sustainability and quality
jobs, as we have learnt the lessons of the past.
“These objectives have been the driving force and priority of the
CCMI over the last 10 years, demonstrating its important role in
the EU,” declared Ms Sharma.
“But business is no longer a man’s world,” she warned. “If the
CCMI, and EESC, wish to remain credible and effective, they must
reflect society and take on new ideas, technologies and thinking
– especially from young people. Sadly, the CCMI today lacks
female input and youth intelligence. Women have moved away
from the kitchen table to run multimillion-euro industries. They
are excelling in science and research and achieving new heights
in education, and they are present in the boardrooms of many
companies. We must encourage more women to engage in CCMI
activities, and more men to listen to them. Most importantly, we
must value and listen to young people, because their world will
be changing faster than anything we have experienced.”
Josly Piette, CCMI’s fi rst president (left)
20Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
The ECSC Treaty: a lesson for Europe today?
Professor Ruggero Ranieri, from the Universities of Padua and Perugia,
started his academic career with a thesis on the Italian negotiating
position on the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s. He
described on the development and the importance of the ECSC.
Historians have tended to underplay the achievements of
the 1950 Schuman Plan, argued Professor Ranieri. It not only
proposed a single authority to supervise coal and steel pro-
duction in France and Germany, but in the long term it also
helped shape the EU as we know it today.
Through the ECSC, the Federal Republic of Germany was inte-
grated, on an equal footing, into post-war Europe. The original
project was technocratic – reflecting the style of Jean Monnet,
a leading character in the construction of the Community. But
as time went on it opened up to growing political and social
influence.
“The ECSC Treaty was drafted not only by technocrats and pol-
iticians, but also by trade unionists and industrialists: practical
men who knew the two industries inside out and took charge
of the details,” he explained. “It was a blueprint for immediate
action, based on firm rules and prescriptions, not general
guidelines. It provided tools for dealing with extraordinary
situations of manifest crisis.”
Prof. Ruggero Ranieri, Enrico Gibellieri and Patrizio Pesci
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
21
Professor Ranieri went on to highlight some of the most sig-
nificant articles. The idea of a common research policy
(Art.55) was very innovative for the time, and came
to be seen as one of the main achievements of
the ECSC Treaty. Another pioneering provi-
sion (Art.56) offered aid for the re-employ-
ment of the workforce and funds for
re-conversion.
“The particular nature of the steel
and coal industries meant they
could not be entrusted solely
to market forces,” he empha-
sised. “Did the ECSC Treaty save
European steel? The answer is
probably affirmative.” Managed
restructuring prevented dam-
aging price wars that could
have spilled over into political
tensions, and it provided social
support to workers leaving the
industry. Although the emphasis
was on damage limitation, and
it did little to develop regional
or product specialisation, it was
largely successful in preparing Euro-
pean steel producers for the rigours
of the global market.
Why did the ECSC Treaty include a 50-year
expiry date? “Jean Monnet wanted a powerful
High Authority, without time limits,” revealed
Professor Ranieri. The five-decade deadline was a
result of negotiated concessions. In the 1990s, there
was disagreement over ending the Treaty early, or pro-
longing it. In the end, the Council of Ministers agreed formally
in 1998 and 1999 that coal and steel would be incorporated
into other EU Treaties, entrusting more enforcement powers to
national judiciaries.
As for the financial resources the ECSC had accumulated, in 2003
the Council resolved to maintain a research fund for coal and
steel, governed by multiannual guidelines. “This was the practical
legacy of the ECSC,” concluded Professor Ranieri, “but its history
contains a number of enduring lessons for the future of European
integration.”
22Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
PANEL 1:
Behind the scenes – the creation of the CCMI
Two of the CCMI’s most eminent and long-standing members dis-
cussed not only past history, but also prospects for the future. Other
big names in the Commission’s evolution added their recollections
during the first panel session.
An inspiring experience
With a 40-year career as a chemical engineer and expert in steel
manufacture at the Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM), Italy’s main
industrial materials research centre, coupled with a voluntary
commitment to the Italian, European and international trade
union movements, Enrico Gibellieri has never lost his close links
with the shop floor.
A member of the ECSC Consultative Committee since the 1980s,
and its last president in 2002, he worked with former European
Commission President Romano Prodi to end the Coal and Steel
Treaty and pave the way for a new phase in EU industrial policy-
making. He was the CCMI’s first president, and remains a member
of the six-person bureau.
Mr Gibellieri pointed out that the ECSC Treaty was the only EU
Treaty with an expiry date. But in 1951, predicting 50 years of peace
between countries that earlier in the century had gone back to war
after just 20 years, was an act of courage – if not of folly.
In the last two decades of its life, the ECSC came to be regarded
as an irritant by those who advocated an unbridled
Enrico Gibellieri presents current CCMI President Jorge Pegado Liz with the poster for the fi rst meeting in November 2002
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
23
free market, he believed. Its policy of day-to-day interven-
tion in two major industrial sectors seemed an embar-
rassing anachronism to many Member States.
“It’s difficult to describe what you feel when
you come to the end of an inspiring
experience, amid indifference or even
hostility on the part of the very insti-
tutions that gave birth to it,” he
reflected. The Consultative Com-
mittee became a target of irony
from those obsessed with the
prevailing fashion for financial
services, but who had, in fact,
lost touch with reality.
“Several times we called for
the experience gained by
the ECSC to be used and
extended to other sectors.
The only option was integra-
tion into the EESC. It was very
lucky that the Committee
president at the time was
Göke Frerichs – a man of great
experience, culture and sens-
ibility who was extremely open-
minded – and that Josly Piette and
the president’s office were eager to
carry out the necessary work.”
Mr Gibellieri recalled his emotions when
the moment came to end the ECSC Treaty. “I
was proud that our industrial sectors had con-
tributed to 50 years of peace in Europe, had handled
major restructuring in a socially acceptable way, and had
helped to improve radically the quality of products and thus
workers’ living standards.
“But above all I was pleased to have closed the Treaty in a dig-
nified manner, and to have helped safeguard the legacy of the
ECSC, creating continuity with the roots of European integra-
tion and reinforcing links with the EU’s most important indus-
trial and service sectors.”
The CCMI has had to overcome many trials to prove its right
to exist, he concluded, but over the last 10 years it has not lost
touch with the basic facts of European economic production.
The key to its success has been building on the best of past
values, while confronting the realities of today.
24Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Pursuing common standards
After 21 years as an EESC member, former businessman and
German Bundestag parliamentarian Göke Frerichs knows as
much about European integration as anybody. Just as the EU was
founded in the wake of the Second World War, he says, the CCMI
is also a symbol of peace.
As EESC President at the time the ECSC Treaty
expired, he played a key role in preserving
the Community’s legacy of construc-
tive compromise. “Cooperation is
vital at all levels: economic, social
and industrial – between trade
unions, employers, and con-
sumers. They must work
together – that is the only
way Europe can survive
and grow,” he mused.
He pointed to a
number of challenges
facing not only the
CCMI but the EU as a
whole, in the coming
decade. “The single
European market is
only going to become
the biggest market
in the world, with its
500 million citizens, if
it becomes a truly open
market. There are a number
of obstacles and limitations to
overcome at both national and
international level.
“There’s the matter of standards, such as those
in German industry, which need to be de veloped
into European industrial standards as soon as possible.”
‘Small issues’ like the standardisation of electric plugs may seem
inconsequential, said Mr Frerichs, but for many Europeans it is
hard to understand why they persist. People still visit other coun-
tries and find they cannot plug in their hairdryers, for example.
“Standardisation affects our traffic and streets, our water and air
quality. We have trains and tracks that don’t correspond with
others across borders and even in the same country. These are
things that need to be harmonised. They all cause delays and add
to the problems we face every day in Europe.”
The struggle over the European patent is very damaging,
especially in light of competition from the US or
Japan, continued Mr Frerichs. “We have a lot
of different national laws, we have the
problem of protectionism, and that’s
led to a lot of conflict. Obstacles
can be found throughout the
web of European bureau-
cracy. We need to reduce
bureaucracy as much
as possible, in order to
make savings.”
Much work is needed
to revive the EU
economy, he warned.
“Import, export, ser-
vice industries – all
these need to be glob-
ally competitive, espe-
cially when you look
at the challenge from
countries like China. We
need governments and
parliaments involved, as
well as universities and higher
education. We know there’s a
lot of potential there but we need
to see it in practice. It is important to
invest in education. We need a younger
Europe, because young people are the future.”
Mr Frerichs also called for more active cooperation from the
media. “Often in the press we see rather negative accounts of
what’s happening in Europe. We need more positive publicity.”
He concluded that the CCMI is important both for the EU and in
Member States. “We need many more decades of its committed
work,” he urged.
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
25
Bringing people together
“I am one of the last remaining survivors from the ECSC era,”
pointed out Jacques Glorieux, a CCMI delegate who also sat
on the Consultative Committee during the last four years of
its life. In the 1990s, EU coal consumption overtook produc-
tion, and the 15 Member States were increasing coal imports
from countries like Poland. As a Belgian coal trader he found
himself in the committee’s ‘importers and consumers’ (users)
group, which became the CCMI’s ‘various interests’ group.
“It was an interesting experience,” he told the conference.
“Employers ‘and employees’ groups had no difficulties with the
transition, but this was not the case for the various interests
group. On the Consultative Committee it represented users,
and the idea was to have a structured dialogue and establish
contact between these three different sectors.” But with the
launch of the CCMI, the various interests group broadened
to include a heterogeneous collection of delegates from
SMEs, NGOs and many other sources. Now, their wide
range of experience helps to improve the quality of
opinions, said Mr Glorieux. “We truly involve users,
consumers, SMEs, civil society, environmental
groups … we have a wealth of players, and we
will continue to contribute along those lines.”
Mr Glorieux, CCMI co-president from 2004-06,
is coordinator of his group: “One of my tasks is
to bring people together.” The effort has been
more than worth it, he insisted. “Structural
dialogue is brilliant: it’s a constructive way to
work together. We don’t agree on positions
from time to time, but debate takes place in a
positive manner. The ECSC was the beginning
of Europe, and when it ended, everyone would
have been sad to lose this form of dialogue.
“What I appreciate is the opportunity to talk to
people socially, outside the meeting rooms. Net-
working is very important. People get to know each
other better, and that has created a very good spirit.” It
took time, but the group delegates have now found their
feet. “We had to develop our professionalism. But I think we
have gained good acceptance and recognition.”
26Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
A sense of pride
Patrizio Pesci noted that the ECSC Consultative Committee
– “our glorious predecessor” – had made a fundamental contri-
bution to the process of European integration. The CCMI should
always be guided by its spirit. A former EESC member, he has
been a CCMI delegate since 2008, with more than 25 years’
experience working with the Italian employers’ association Con-
findustria in Brussels.
“Over the last 10 years, the CCMI has grown
considerably. Thanks to our efforts, in the
eyes of the European Commission, it
has become a valuable and indis-
pensable partner, as we seek to
accompany industrial change. It
makes an indisputable contri-
bution because of its mix of
members and delegates,” he
affirmed. Indeed, contacts
suggest that the CCMI will
become ever more valu-
able in the future. “Indus-
trial change will remain
crucial against the back-
ground of the crisis. The
CCMI will be centre-stage
and will be ready to face up
to the challenges.”
Mr Pesci believes he is the
only CCMI delegate nominated
and sponsored by three associ-
ations: the European Confederation of
Woodworking Industries, Orgalime (Euro-
pean Engineering Industries Association),
and Acembike (European Motorbike Industry).
“Through my contacts in industry, I started to promote ini-
tiatives in individual sectors that needed support,” he explained.
His experience demonstrates the growing success of the CCMI
in addressing the problems facing specific industries in crisis,
especially when timed to coincide with publication of European
Commission proposals or Communications.
“I remember that at the beginning of the 1990s, Europe’s
motorcycle sector was completely abandoned by the European
Commission,” he recalled. “They realised it could not compete
with the challenge from Japanese and other manufacturers, so
they asked us to undertake a study to see if the industry could
be saved.” Up to that time, the CCMI had only focused on car
manufacturing. “Two-wheelers were a vital sector, providing
employment in many Member States including Italy, Poland
and Romania,” pointed out Mr Pesci. “But it had big problems.”
The outcome was a double success. The CCMI
finally approved the opinion on ‘Industrial
change and prospects for the motor-
cycle industry in Europe’ in February
2010, putting forward concrete
recommendations for reviving
the sector through training,
restructuring and partner-
ships. But in advance of
that, in November 2009, a
hearing took place at the
international trade fair in
Milan – the most important
motorcycle trade event in
Europe.
“All the actors were there:
parts manufacturers, trade
unions, international and
trade press… when you
target such an important event
you get the real protagonists,”
explained Mr Pesci. “It was so suc-
cessful that the following year the
organisers invited me to come back and
explain the opinion in front of the same audi-
ence. It is very important to have follow-up. It’s no
use adopting opinions and leaving them in a drawer.”
As a consequence, the CCMI initiated similar action in other
sectors: including agricultural and construction vehicles,
and woodworking. In April 2011, an opinion on ‘Agricultural
machinery and construction equipment’ followed a hearing at
the tractor trade fair in Bologna in November 2010.
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
27
“I am very proud of these initiatives,” concluded Mr Pesci. “It is
important to focus on specific areas – to meet the actors and
investigate the problems. I come from a practical background,
and I want the CCMI to be practical too.”
A serious partner
“It’s good to remember our roots,” said the CCMI’s first president,
Josly Piette, a former trade union leader and Belgian employ-
ment minister. When the CCMI moved into the EESC there was a
degree of suspicion. We were bringing in people who were not
officially recognised, and it was quite a painful debate.
“We took on the values of the ECSC, and it’s important to think
about those values. I am happy that the CCMI is still here, and that
the quality of its work is recognised,” he affirmed.
Today, the CCMI is acknowledged as a serious partner in the
development of industrial policy. “Its greatest success has
been to reaffirm the importance of a sectoral approach
to industrial policy, demonstrated by its work in the
automobile sector, for instance – to name merely
the most emblematic example because of its
importance.
“In addition, enlargement in 2004 allowed for an
exchange of experience between the old and
new Member States on industrial restructuring.
As president, I recall in particular the excellent
relations with the former members of the ECSC
Consultative Committee during the negoti ations
to bring them into the EESC and when the CCMI
completed its mission of integrating them into
the EESC’s overall industrial policy activities.”
Mr Piette outlined his priorities for the EU’s future
industrial policy: a major research effort focused
on innovative sectors; internal and public markets
directed towards the emergence of European industrial
groups; a harmonised fiscal regime ensuring tax equality
between companies, whatever their size; the launch of large
infrastructure and development projects, especially in energy;
and a fair and efficient education and training system in all
Member States.
28Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Boosting social capital
Former EESC ‘various interests’ group member Jan Olsson
was one of the negotiators involved in the creation of the
CCMI. “I had experience of shipyard restructuring in Sweden,
but I didn’t fully understand the ECSC at that time.” So he was
familiar with the “suspicion” that others referred to, especially
within his own group.
“Yet we managed to integrate the delegates and to open up
the EESC,” he pointed out. The CCMI “was not just dealing with
working conditions in the steel industry, but examining how
to use social capital and improve well-being.”
Nonetheless, challenges still exist, especially within the vari ous
interests groups, he underlined.
José Custódio Leirião, from Portugal, described his involve-
ment in the CCMI from the outset, and as a various interests
group nominee since 2007, with 35 years’ experience in the
automotive industry. “The CCMI has produced over 100 opin-
ions and we have tried to pass on our ideas for dealing with
industrial change to the European institutions,” he noted, “but
we have not always been able to get these ideas across. Produc-
tion has gone down in recent years, faced with stiff competition
from China. We have what amounts to a new industrial revolu-
tion in Europe.”
The EU must cement its position in new industries, especially the
green economy, he urged. “The CCMI has a key role in influencing
Member States and sending the message that European industry
is important.”
The new language of industrial change
Joost van Iersel became interested in industrial policy in the
1980s, when the Dutch shipbuilding industry fell into decline due
to government failures. “Industrial policy died and was replaced
by a market-oriented philosophy across the board,” he explained.
“Although the old-fashioned industrial policy led to some
un desirable results, something of the sort should be maintained
– but it must be compatible with market forces.”
Mr Van Iersel, who was a Christian Democrat MP in the Dutch
Parliament until 1994, joined the EESC in 2002. “By coincidence
my first opinion was on industrial policy, although I was not a
member of the CCMI at the time.” He drew up the CCMI’s first
real policy statement, on ‘Industrial change: current situation and
prospects’, as a ‘visiting card’ for the new body, because “nobody
knew what it was going to do”.
“We had a difficult start. There was resistance towards the CCMI
within the EESC, because the groups saw it as a threat.” Taking his
inspiration from the innovative Swedish former CEO of Volvo, Pehr
Gyllenhammar, Mr Van Iersel set out an agenda for dealing with
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
29
industrial change. “Until 10 years ago, the European Commission
was not interested in industrial policy. It was all ‘market, market,
market’. But in 2004, the then EU Enterprise Commissioner Erkki
Liikanen came up with a new approach to industry. “Originally,
the Commission was primarily a legislative body. Rules were gen-
erally applied across sectors, regardless of different conditions.
Now it works more coherently on practical sectoral develop-
ments and value chains,” Mr Van Iersel told the conference.
The advent of the 21st century was making change a dominant
issue anyway. “We started our work gradually. We got very
few official requests from the Commission. It was a
permanent, uphill fight,” recalled Mr Van Iersel.
In 2006, he became president, and kept
up the momentum of reform. The CCMI
extended its membership during its
second and third mandates.
The CCMI became increasingly
active in launching its own initia-
tives. “We identified issues, and our
strategy was to fill the policy gaps.
And the reputation of the CCMI
changed,” he noted. “The members
like the work because it is very con-
crete. It’s not abstract. It speaks about
developments on the shop floor, in fac-
tories and laboratories and the world at
large.
“We accompany the Commission in the overwhelm-
ingly important task of reorganising Europe’s industrial
strength, taking account of issues like climate change. One great
step forward in this decade has been the move towards more
finely-tuned legislation – which has nothing to do with protec-
tionism – to strengthen competitiveness.”
He highlighted the “excellent” cooperation between the CCMI’s
three groups. “It’s exemplary. There’s a real consensual approach.
Everybody is convinced of the need to strengthen competitive-
ness and bring all stakeholders on board.” At industrial-sector
level, as in companies, getting agreement between manage-
ment and workers is the best way, he insisted. They all share an
interest in issues like R&D and development, earning capacity,
and skills and training, so that regarding workers and employers
as enemies has become an “outmoded” view. “In the new, very
dynamic world, all layers of management and employees are
dependent on each other. They undoubtedly need to improve
conditions for working together.
“Our point of view is that change is the rule of the day, and should
be the focus for legislation. It is paramount to keep a healthy future
for industry, services and value chains. We try to assist the Commis-
sion and Council in taking the right direction, based on a contin-
uous cycle of change. That’s the only way for Europe to survive in
a world that’s very competitive as regards production, technology,
skills and quality. The CCMI remains a little bit of a strange animal
in Brussels, but strange in a very positive way.”
Looking to the future, Mr Van Iersel warned of
the need for strong governance. “Europe
2020 is a very nice programme, but if
there are no deadlines or surveillance
or sanctions, it is very hard to turn it
into reality.”
He also drew attention to the fact that
core sectors like chemicals underpin
many other activities. “When things
go wrong in that sector, it works
through to others, so it’s extremely
important for these basic industries
to enjoy the right conditions. What we
do in Europe must always be in line with
what can be expected from other coun-
tries,” he added. “If we formulate far-reaching
legislation, we must convince others to do the
same. But so far the results are not very promising.
There has to be a level playing field internationally.”
Above all, he pointed out that SMEs are taking over from trad-
itional manufacturers in rapidly changing sectors like textiles.
“Smaller companies are more flexible. It’s a fact that innumerable
self-employed people are organising networks around them-
selves, and ICT plays an enormous role. SMEs are a priority for the
EU. But statistics are lacking, and we don’t even have clear defin-
itions. We have to recognise that the old jargon is obsolete and
we need new ways of describing these businesses.”
Despite the current gloomy economic outlook, Mr Van Iersel
remained optimistic. “It is clear that industrial change must
make room for creativity and forward-looking value chains,”
he concluded. “The CCMI is very well placed to support that
recovery.”
30Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
PANEL 2:
Easing the transition towards an energy and raw materials-efficient European industry
The second panel session focused on the chemical industry as a case study in how crucial industrial sectors can move towards sustainable change.
Göke Frerichs, Enrico Gibellieri and Prof. Ruggero Ranieri
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
31
Wider horizons
In the five years or so since she joined the CCMI as a delegate,
German environmentalist Ingeborg Niestroy has seen
major changes. “At my first meeting, I found that renew-
able energy was hardly mentioned,” she recalled. “It
was an eye-opener. Now it’s all over the place.”
As Secretary General of the European Network
of Advisory Councils on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, she believes she
has helped to raise awareness of the green
agenda. “That’s the strength of bodies like
the CCMI: bringing different parties together
around the table and shaping opinion. That’s
the added value of multi-stakeholder groups.”
Nevertheless she finds that within the ‘various
interests’ category, specific groups such as
young people, NGOs and consumers are still
under-represented, although this is largely a
consequence of the CCMI’s industrial origins.
“Horizons have widened,” she noted. “But we need
an industrial transition in various respects. We must
provide for sustainable development and an energy and
resource-efficient economy. Forty years ago it started at
the end of the pipe. Now it’s more and more about producing
and consumption: it’s a ping-pong game between producers
and consumers about who should change first. There are also
problems of globalisation and competitiveness. In the sustain-
able development community we work with both sides and try
to bring them together.”
32Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
In search of a ‘first-mover advantage’
Christian Hey, Secretary General of the German Advisory Council
on the Environment, has worked for more than 20 years on envir-
onment, transport and energy policy issues.
“There’s no doubt the economic crisis is dominating a lot
of people’s minds,” he told the meeting. “The key
question is: will Europe manage to correct
the imbalances and to renew confidence
without deepening the recession? This
must be at the heart of business con-
cerns. I believe that the way we
address these questions matters
much more for business than
climate, resource or chemicals
policy.”
As confidence declines, the
euro falls, he pointed out.
“But this can also be an
opportunity, as it makes
European industries more
competitive globally. As
import prices increase,
it creates market oppor-
tunities for substitutes for
fossil energy or raw material
imports. Rising food, energy and
raw material prices are beginning
to reflect the fact that we are living
in a world full to capacity, and we
don’t yet know when we will reach the
peak.”
The problem is not merely one of scarcity. “Sooner
or later, overburdened carbon sinks or over-exploited
natural resources backfire on the economy, which depends on
the services of a resilient and well-functioning biosphere. The
economy and environment are not in conflict with each other
but are interconnected,” insisted Mr Hey. This should be a key
issue in the future work of the CCMI.
The chemical industry is part of the solution and also part of the
problem, he suggested. As resource prices increase, substitutes
become more competitive and new markets emerge. It can offer
solutions such as insulation to boost energy efficiency, nano-
materials used in solar energy and other environmental applica-
tions, and drought-resilient crops. “The track record of the chem-
ical industry is really impressive, and it would be a key beneficiary
of the green economy. But this is not a pure market economy. It is
regulation-driven by measures such as climate policy and emis-
sions trading.”
Mr Hey pointed out that decarbon-
isation is bound to raise costs for
energy-intensive industries like
the chemicals sector, leading
it to resist regulation. “The
transition to renewables
requires high short-term
investment. It has to be
remembered, though,
that a renewable
energy system will be
cheaper than a con-
ventional one in the
decades to come.
Nevertheless, some
sectors are threat-
ening to abandon
production in Europe,
and this should be
taken seriously.
“In most cases it is not cost
driving industry abroad, but
the proximity to new dynamic
markets,” he argued. Industry will
stay if it anticipates dynamic growth,
and the chemical industry’s capacity
to develop solutions should not be under-
mined by EU climate, resource or chemicals policy.
“But this cannot mean that we create a pollution haven for the
chemical industry.” He called for a serious, taboo-free debate on
avoiding carbon leakage and on the economic effects of climate
policy.
“By 2050, we will face radical social and economic changes,” con-
cluded Mr Hey. “The time of cheap resources will be over and
the world will be unable to absorb more waste. But there are
solutions. The potential for producing chemicals on the basis
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
33
of renewable energy has not yet been seriously evaluated and
researched.”
Evidence shows that good practice is emulated internationally,
even if it takes a decade, he insisted. And innovators secure a
“first-mover advantage”.
He appealed to his listeners to be open to radical innovation. “We
cannot survive without it. Let’s think long term and let’s open
minds. The CCMI’s balanced approach to the environment and
industry and the seriousness with which it discusses policy is most
welcome. More of that is needed in the future. I am convinced that
we are at a time of fundamental transition,” he concluded.
Mr Hey introduced the German Advisory Council’s new 2012
report on ‘Responsibility in a finite world’ (www.umweltrat.de).
Towards an environment that allows Europe to be
more competitive
“Current patterns of exploitation of finite resources are not
sustainable.” So the question is not whether to respond,
but how, agreed Rene van Sloten, Director General of
the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC).
“The chemical industry in Europe is willing and able
to contribute to this effort, by changing what we do
ourselves and producing substances and mater ials
that enable others to change what they do,” he
pledged. “This is a dual economic and environ-
mental challenge. For globally traded resources,
prices will inevitably rise to reflect their scarcity. To
maintain our quality of life we will have to become
more energy and resource efficient.”
CEFIC accounts for some 21 % of global sales, repre-
senting 29 000 companies in Europe – the majority
SMEs – employing about 1.2 million people and gen-
erating over €500 billion in revenue. A trade surplus of
around €44 billion in 2011 made a contribution to eco-
nomic prosperity in the EU.
However, the impact of globalisation is heavy, especially in view
of the phenomenal rise of China, where growth from 6 % of the
global market a decade ago to almost 25 % in 2010 has made
it the largest chemical-producing country in the world today.
“To counter this, we need to make the most of the huge poten-
tial in new technologies in Europe,” insisted Mr Van Sloten. And
with low domestic demand, it is vital to access stronger markets
elsewhere.
“We need an aggressive EU trade policy to open up these mar-
kets where we can also benefit from the competitive advantages
that we have. This is precisely the problem with our industry – we
can benefit but if we don’t try to open up new markets, business
will be done somewhere else.”
Mr Van Sloten pointed out that many other parts of the world
have cheaper energy. For example, natural gas in the USA is one-
fifth of the price in Europe, due to the shale-gas revolution.
34Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
The EU also has high regulatory compliances costs – a necessary
choice, but one which impacts particularly on SMEs. Further-
more, Europe has issues surrounding access to raw materials.
Some countries around the world are starting to apply protec-
tionist policies in respect of raw materials and there are already
clear signals of trade competition between Europe and India and
China.
He was concerned that Europe’s green economy policy is not
clear. “The so-called green transition must grow from within
and must be founded on the real economy – we do not accept
artificial distinctions between the two,” he insisted. “The neces-
sary changes will not be so much a transition as a transform-
ation. We lack a clear green-economy horizon but we also lack
a common industrial policy. Great progress has been made, but
now it’s a matter of implementation and integration.
“At least industrial policy is not a dirty word anymore, but the
European Commission should implement what it plans to do,
and industrial policy needs to be integrated into all other pol-
icies.” Whereas the Directorate-General for Enterprise should be
giving the lead, currently the environment and climate DGs are
making the running, he claimed. “There should be a unified,
coordinated approach.”
In 2050, we could have a world of 9 billion people and all of
these people will aspire to a high standard of living, he noted.
All of them will use resources and energy. “But by 2025, Europe’s
population will make up 6 % of the world’s population, so
we have to keep in mind that what we do in Europe is only a
minute part of the bigger picture. If others around the world
don’t change, all our efforts will be in vain. The largest growth
in greenhouse gas emissions is coming from elsewhere on the
planet. This does not mean that we should not do anything to
cut ours. But even if we stop industrial production in Europe
today, it will still go on elsewhere. We cannot be too far out of
step with the rest of the world.”
Sustainable chemistry means maximising resource efficiency. If
energy and resource costs are higher in Europe, this means that
Europe must become more efficient in order to compete. “That
is exactly what we have done,” he assured the conference. “We
have drastically reduced our energy intensity over the last few
decades, more so than other areas of industry. Our production
has increased but our greenhouse gas emissions have fallen,
in many cases to the point where no further improvement is
possible.”
Mr Van Sloten concluded by calling for an international approach
in order to remain competitive and keep industry in Europe. “We
need to avoid unilateral measures that increase costs and the
regulatory burden in the EU. We have to establish a smarter regu-
latory environment. We have to support innovation in Europe
across the value chain because that is the key success factor:
spending more on research and development but also finding
ways to bring it to the market. Only a prosperous industry can
contribute to that.”
Fair pay and good working conditions
Ulrich Eckelmann is Secretary General of the IndustriAll Euro-
pean Trade Union, formed from the recent merger of metals,
chemicals, mining and textile unions.
Fulfilling Europe’s potential means production and jobs that
are ready for the future, said Mr Eckelmann. It also means good
working conditions and fair pay.
“When you look at European statistics, it’s easy to question
whether there is a future for the chemical industry,” he conceded.
Production levels are the same as they were in 2005. Many Euro-
pean countries have lost production capacity, particularly the
UK and Italy, while Germany and Spain hover around the Euro-
pean average. In the newer Member States, output is stronger,
climbing above 2005 levels, particularly in Poland and Romania.
But over the last seven or eight years, the chemical industry has
lost some 10 % of its jobs.
“That may sound like bad news, but I still believe the chemical
industry does have a future,” argued Mr Eckelmann. Textiles,
medi cines, cleaning products and solar cells are just a few exam-
ples of what the industry is capable of producing. Basic chemical
substances play a part in many aspects of the everyday lives not
only of citizens, but also of industry.
Only a small part of chemical production goes directly to end-
consumers. More than 80 % is used elsewhere in the value chain
to manufacture other products, demonstrating that the chemical
industry cannot be seen in isolation. It should be viewed in con-
junction with the metal and steel industry, food, consumer prod-
ucts, cars, textiles, electrical goods and construction.
“So when we talk about resources and energy efficiency, we
need to see these industries as a whole and look at the end
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
35
product,” he insisted. “How can the work be done with less
material input? This is one of the reasons why trade unions
have joined forces with the textile, clothing, electrical and
metal industries. We have to work together, so that there are
no national borders for industry.” He cited examples of how the
chemical and auto industries have worked together on the pro-
duction of paint and how the electricity and chemical sectors
have cooperated on cable technology, entertainment uses and
security packages.
“What is important is that this cooperation becomes
visible through the CCMI – this is one of its roles, and
its representatives should be bringing up these
issues for public debate.”
Mr Eckelmann admitted that the chemical
industry often gets a bad press, particularly
in the wake of accidents like Seveso, or toxic
waste or food scandals. “We shouldn’t con-
ceal or play down the risks,” he concluded,
because they need to be dealt with.
“Trade unions don’t like self-regulation
because it is not adhered to. We need
national regulation or even better still, in
the European context. Of course, we don’t
want any unhealthy competition with
negative effects for workers and consumers,
which is why we need EU regulations. REACH,
the European regulation on chemicals and
their safe use, is not only designed to control
bad companies, but it also offers protection for
consumers and workers who deal with hazardous
substances on a daily basis. There is an opportunity
here for social dialogue and for the CCMI to bring the
debate and these issues to the European level, together
with industry.”
Industrial policy should be about reducing risks and developing
opportunities, concluded Mr Eckelmann. “When we evaluate
each sector – be it chemistry, machine engineering, or the auto
industry – we need to assess how it can contribute to future
trends (‘mega trends’) such as climate and environmental pro-
tection, energy production, efficient use of resources, sustainable
development in cities, urbanisation and demographic change.”
Many sectors are already doing so, but often with too little
enthusiasm.
“Products for the future mean jobs for the future. In order to
have good quality we need education, training, good working
conditions, fair pay, and co-determination in business decision-
making.” But in Europe, the same standards do not apply every-
where, he warned. “This can change through the CCMI.”
36Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
An integrated EU strategy on raw materials
Maria Spiliopoulou-Kaparia is the deputy head of the unit
dealing with metals, minerals and raw materials in the European
Commission’s DG for Enterprise and Industry. She outlined the
EU’s raw materials strategy, emphasising its importance for Euro-
pean industry.
While emerging countries and new technologies are continuing
to boost demand for materials, the EU itself is very dependent on
imports. How can it guarantee a level playing field and fair access
to crucial raw materials? “Non-energy” materials include
metals, minerals, aggregates, wood and paper. Some
of them are concentrated in certain parts of the
world. To be more self-sufficient, the EU has to
step up resource-efficiency, she declared,
including the maximum use of recycling.
Within the EU’s Raw Materials Initia-
tive (RMI), the integrated strategy,
launched in 2008 and reinforced
in 2011, seeks to connect internal
and external policies, and is
based on three pillars:
EU diplomacy aims to secure
access to raw materials from
third countries through
partnerships and policy dia-
logues. It promotes EU devel-
opment policy, enabling less-
developed states to translate
resource wealth into sustain-
able growth, and creating a
win-win situation for both sides.
The EU has reinforced its coopera-
tion with Africa through the Africa-
EU Joint Strategy Union, focusing on
governance, investment and geological
skills. But European companies need to
reveal more information in order to tackle
the problem of “conflict” minerals, for example.
The EU is stepping up support for the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), founded in
2002.
The EU is also including raw material issues in trade negotiations,
both bilateral and in international organisations like the World
Trade Organisation, which is also a forum for dispute settlement
if necessary.
Improving conditions for exploration and extraction within the
EU means working with Member States to exchange best prac-
tice on land-use planning. The Commission is examining the
feasi bility of establishing a European monitoring mechanism
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
37
in this field, with the aim of fostering a favourable investment
framework for sustainable mining, extraction and processing.
DGs Enterprise and Environment are working together to boost
resource efficiency and recycling, including targets. Mining waste
is a significant source of minerals, for example: the Commission
is looking at criteria for distinguishing waste from secondary
raw materials. The Waste Shipment Regulation is an important
measure for tracking illegal activities. “We need to work closely
together with our colleagues, to ensure coherence,” concluded
Ms Spiliopoulou-Kaparia.
In February 2012, the Commission proposed an innovative part-
nership on raw materials, covering the whole life cycle, with a
series of targets for 2020. The next step involves a strategic imple-
mentation plan (SIP) to be adopted in September 2013.
The old and the new: CCMI conference posters spanning a decade
38Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
PANEL 3:
Technological, organisational and social innovation for sustainable industrial change
The third session of the conference turned its attention to the elec-
tric car and mobility sector, looking at radical new innovations that
could change the way people move and live in Europe.
Falling in love with Europe
“The first reason for my commitment to the CCMI is that I am
a convinced European,” declared Claude Rolin, Belgian trade
union leader and CCMI Bureau member. “We need a response to
the incredible challenges facing us now. What worries me most
about the crisis, is the growing gap between the citizens and
Europe.
“Not only is the economic, cultural and social crisis generating
ideas that are entirely opposed to a federal Europe, but there is
also a real danger to democracy, from different forms of totalita-
rianism and nationalism,” he warned.
“Today, Europe is facing the same kind of challenges as when
the EU was born. It’s a problem of cohesion. We need to create
employment, but we can only do that by changing the economy.
Jorge Pegado Liz, Enrico Gibellieri, Staff an Nilsson, Etienne Davignon and Jacques Glorieux
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
39
The CCMI is crucial because there is no other structure in the
EU that can lead reflection on these changes.
“For example, we are not talking about coal any-
more, so how can we guarantee sustainable
energy in the future? We have to give a
lead towards a socially balanced tran-
sition, not a brutal shift that leaves
many people at the side of the road.
If we do that we will destroy social
cohesion.
“The CCMI must be able to con-
tribute to building a future for
EU citizens,” insisted Mr Rolin,
recalling Jacques Delors’ well-
known comment that people
cannot fall in love with a
single market, and adding:
“But they can fall in love with
Europe.
“Unfortunately, EU leaders
don’t listen to us enough. They
are locked into short-termism
and live from poll to poll, from
election to election, so they never
have time to construct a vision. But
we have the opportunity to take a
long-term view and bring together
interests which seem at first sight to be
contradictory. This is an important element
of democracy. Parliamentary democracy is not
sufficient if there is no social, economic and soci-
etal democracy,” he warned.
“Although we are undergoing a serious crisis, we have to refuse
pessimism. It could be the opportunity for an industrial revo-
lution that respects workers – women, men and future gener-
ations. At the heart of the revolution, innovation is fundamental.”
40Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
The move to electric mobility
Auto manufacturers all over the world are producing electric cars.
Saloons, city cars and even top-range sports cars are going elec-
tric. Minnemijn Smit is Marketing Manager of Qurrent Renew-
able Energy and a board member of the Formula E-team – a part-
nership of trade, industry, research and policy-makers, founded
by the Dutch government in 2009 to foster break-
throughs in electric mobility.
Infrastructure, batteries, availability of
vehicles and safety are all challenges
to be met in bringing electric
transportation into the main-
stream. “Our ambition is to
make the Netherlands one of
the leading countries in this
field,” announced Ms Smit.
Entrepreneurs were brought
into the Formula E-team, to
generate maximum public
exposure. The shared goal
is to boost electric car use
in the Netherlands from
15-20 000 today to 200 000
by 2020, and 1 million by 2025.
“Within the Formula E-team,
we formed an action plan based
on CO2 and noise reduction, and
improved air quality. For this plan
to be implemented, we needed the
national administration to create the right
conditions for markets, and possibilities for
electric mobility. Local and regional governments
had a very important role in this, as they set up the pilot pro-
jects, and industry was also on our side.”
With any new project, it is important to allow room for trial and
error, as well as entrepreneurship and innovation. “Within the
action plan we had a central core of activities: create a network
of electric recharging points across the country with universal
access, roll out standard plugs, and have payment facilities for
the actual energy you take from the infrastructure.”
The team monitored the battery lifecycle, so as to develop a
sustainable second life. Working with the automotive industry,
it looked at incentives, such as fiscal advantages, to secure an
adequate supply of electric vehicles.
“Another element is of course safety. When you are using high-
voltage power, what happens when a car crashes? Training was
necessary for the emergency services personnel who
would have to deal with electric vehicle crashes.”
In addition to work at local and regional level,
the team created an international pilot
project with neighbouring Germany
and Belgium and other leading
nations in the electric mobility
sector like Portugal and Ireland.
Meanwhile, the entrepre-
neurs decided to form their
own association for elec-
tric mobility innovators to
stimulate electric mobility:
examining how to reach
markets and to create the
right climate and condi-
tions for that to happen.
“When they started working
with the government, that’s
when things really started hap-
pening in our country in terms of
electric mobility. They started with
a ‘chicken and egg’ problem: do we
need charging points all over the country
first or do we need electric vehicles? The
decision was made to go with charging points
first. The government created standards and through
that the entrepreneurs could set up charging points, and iPhone
applications for pinpointing locations and making reservations.
“Now, the country has over 1 200 public and semi-public charging
points, plus ultrafast charging which means you can charge your
car in 20 minutes, which makes it much easier to go further.”
Over the last six months, the number of electric and semi-electric
vehicles in the country has grown from around 1 700 to nearly
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
41
3 000. There are also some 200 000 electric bikes and scooters in
the Netherlands, and research shows that people are using these
instead of their cars.
“We’ve also seen a change of attitude in some businesses,” noted
Ms Smit. “International partners have realised that we don’t
need to ship electric cars around the world to each other but
that we only need to exchange knowledge. With investment
from entrepreneurs and the government, you create a
lot of new business opportunities.” For example,
electric taxis improve air quality in cities, and
garbage trucks can work at night because
they are silent.
“These innovations are very import ant
to Europe and the world.” In the
Netherlands, public demand grew
rapidly, stimulated by novelties
such as electric rallies and ‘plug’n
party’ events. “The sooner stand-
ards are created, the sooner the
market can pick up and create
business through that,” con-
cluded Ms Smit. “By creating the
right conditions and climate for
innovation, technologies such as
electric mobility can thrive.”
The EU: an attractive place to work and live
The European Engineering Industries Association
(Orgalime) has been working with the CCMI for a long
time, and helped draw up a report on the mechanical engin-
eering sector, even though the European Commission did not
regard it as necessary. That report brought a change of mood,
noted Orgalime Director General Adrian Harris, and the outlook
for the industry is now good.
“Last year, we saw almost an 8 % growth in output, while employ-
ment in the sector went up by 1.8 %. Most of our growth was in
export markets – up by about 12.5 % – while the domestic market
was relatively flat at around 5 %. This is important because, as we
provide goods for all other industries to make their products, this
is a sign that there is a certain lack of investment in lots of indus-
trial sectors in Europe and we have to take that into account.”
Mr Harris pointed out that, for the last few months, Europe has
been focusing on austerity and saving the euro. Very little has
been said on the positive side. “It is good that European polit-
icians are now reacting against the doom and gloom by talking
about growth. But even so, the word ‘industry’ is very
rarely mentioned. Why?” he demanded. “How
can growth be stimulated otherwise?”
Public funding will not do it, and
anxious consumers are tending
to save their money at the
moment, he reflected. Industry
accounts for 17-18 % of the
economy, with related ser-
vices bringing that up to
near 50 %. And yet indus-
trial investment is going
down.
Politicians in the Member
States are at last begin-
ning to realise that they
have to attract industry
again, but they do not
know how to do it. “It is very
clear that for a lot of compa-
nies, investing in Europe is not
the most attractive environment.
Companies will go where they get a
reasonable return on their investment.
But petroleum associations, for example,
are claiming that their returns are getting close to
zero here in Europe, due to regulation.”
Mr Harris agreed that regulation is necessary to create a stable
and supportive environment. “But there seems to be a need in
Brussels for continuing flux, which makes things difficult. If we
want to work properly we need an integrated industrial fabric.
Germany is doing very well at the moment because it has pre-
cisely that. But if this is undermined, and we lose part of the fabric
– such as the aluminium or steel industry – we are going to have
holes in our infrastructure.” He referred to the GMO sector, for
example, moving out of Europe’s “unfriendly” environment.
42Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
The EU is “wonderful” at generating laws, he suggested, but
“pretty lousy” at applying them. He called for proper market sur-
veillance, “because you cannot undermine the whole structure of
industry by having laws which are not applied or are only applied
by people in Brussels”.
Mr Harris described electric vehicles as a “policy fashion”. The EU’s
vision is to have only electric vehicles in cities by 2050, he noted,
but this is a challenge for the automotive industry. “We can already
see a distortion of the market with some companies taking the
lead and investing strongly while others lag behind.” Further
technological innovations are needed: for example, batteries are
too expensive, and unless prices come down and better storage
technologies are available, this will hold back development. Brus-
sels is also concerned about standardising plugs – but this is not
a major issue, he argued. Infrastructure must be developed to
cope with the energy loads required to charge an esti-
mated 4 million vehicles by 2020, while adapting
a home electricity supply to support charging
will probably cost around €1 000.
“All this will drive social change, because
we will need new skills. The services
and infrastructure required will pro-
vide new jobs and growth,” con-
cluded Mr Harris, adding that with
potential competition from coun-
tries like China, Europe needs to
create the right conditions for invest-
ment in R&D. “Politicians should talk
and listen to their industries. We have
to make Europe a good place to invest.
That is where the CCMI comes in. One
of its future roles will be to remind the EU
institutions where the focus needs to be,
and how Europe can remain an attractive place
to work and live in.”
The impact of e-mobility on workers
The European Transport Workers Federation (ETF) is directly
involved in e-mobility, since it represents workers in the ser-
vice sectors who drive electric buses and delivery vehicles. ETF
Deputy General Secretary Sabine Trier pointed out that the
European Commission’s Transport White Paper 2010 envisaged
a 50 % reduction in conventional car-use in cities by 2030, and
100 % phasing out by 2050.
“The year 2050 is quite far in the future, but with these clearly
defined targets we have in principle an active and sustainable
industrial policy,” she said. Public procurement has a role to play,
and public authorities are encouraged to act as test beds for
new technologies, including the establishment of the necessary
infrastructure.
However, the Commission’s targets do not refer to electrical
ve hicles only, but allow for alternative propulsion systems. This
could be a weakness when it comes to implementing a clear
industrial policy.
The ETF had identified something missing in the White Paper, she
told the conference. “We want a quantitative target for
the shift from conventional car use to collective
transport and alternative modes of travel,
including E-vehicles. That target would
bring huge employment possibilities.
“Overall, the ETF is very much in
favour of sustainable transport policy
and an active and sustainable indus-
trial policy, and as a trade union
organisation, we focus on the social
aspect of change,” explained Ms
Trier. “The social dimension is essen-
tial, and means having objectives
based on job creation; decent jobs
rather than precarious employment;
vocational training and skills develop-
ment; full consultation and participation
of workers’ representatives; and strength-
ening the social dialogue at all levels to allow
for the impact assessment of policy measures.”
She pointed out that in manufacturing terms, e-mobility will
mean motors with fewer moving parts and perhaps fewer jobs.
Shifts in technology and towards collective transport could also
affect the supply industry, maintenance and service sectors.
“Where jobs are lost we need a just transition and consultation.
We face challenges created by changes in skills and qualifications,
production processes, and new maintenance requirements.
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
43
So we need to anticipate skills needs well in advance, and to
provide for vocational training and lifelong learning, to upgrade
workers’ skills.”
E-mobility also has an effect on working conditions. For example,
electric technology with reduced engine noise will allow delivery-
vehicle drivers to work at night, impacting their work-life balance.
There is also the question of safety. Bus drivers must remember
that with quieter vehicles, other drivers and pedestrians will not
be so aware of the bus from the noise it makes. This is an issue
for electric car users too, but bus drivers will need training on the
different features of their new vehicles.”
Public procurement is an issue for local authorities,
Ms Trier pointed out. “It is not only a question of
green procurement, but also social procure-
ment. Legislation at European level should
allow authorities to include social as well
as green criteria in their procedures.
“The CCMI has a responsibility to insist
on the social aspects of change and
the need for consultation and rep-
resentation of workers’ representa-
tives and the social partners at all
levels, to create social responsi-
bility. That is what we expect from
the CCMI,” she concluded.
Enjoying the fruits of
knowledge and innovation
The European Commission’s perspective
on industrial innovation came from Michel
Poireau, head of the horizontal aspects unit of
the European Commission DG Research and Innov-
ation’s Industrial Technologies Programme.
“It is very important to emphasise the importance of industry,” he
stressed. “We are not living in a post-industrial society. Industry
is still the basis of our wealth and growth. One job in industry
leads to the creation or the existence of three other jobs.” There
has been a trend over the past 20 or 30 years to forget some of
the aspects of industry’s influence as they have been absorbed
by the service industry, but there are growing links between the
two sectors.
“If services are important, it is because we need to take account
of the whole value chain,” he told the conference. This covers pro-
cesses from design to delivery, use and end-of-life. “Design is very
brain intensive, and manufacturing has become increasingly a
knowledge-based as well as physical industry, so there is a whole
chain, with much potential. If you want to close the loop you
come to sustainable development.”
Innovation is also very important, and it is crucial that research
results are transferred and exploited. “It is a big chal-
lenge for Europe 2020 to bring together
research and innovation, requiring us to
change the culture of our research
consortia as well as our project
offices. We have tried to do this
in the Industrial Technologies
Programme by raising aware-
ness of intellectual property
rights (IPR), exploitability,
risk factors, and helping
to shape business plans.”
But innovation does not
come just from research,
he added, but also from
consumer-driven social
innovation. So the area of
innovation is a complex
web of interactions.
Looking to the future and
forecasting change is all very
well, noted Mr Poireau, but as the
economist John Maynard Keyes said,
“in the long run, we are all dead”. Industry
needs to survive today, and needs a stable
framework in which to undergo transition, with
appropriate support from banks and financing institutions. “We
need to go back to a real economy, not a fake one.”
Finally, he pledged that DG Research would in future pay more
attention to the work of the CCMI. The European Commission
is developing studies on future skills needs, and looking at the
impact of ageing workers and consumers.
44Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
PANEL 4:
The role of services for a more sustainable European industry
The final panel session of the day examined the relationship between
manufacturing and services, highlighting the information and com-
munication technology (ICT) sector as a key instrument for estab-
lishing and maintaining Europe’s industrial leadership.
Joined up thinking
“We have lived for too long with the cliché that services and
industry are completely distinct and not interdependent,”
declared Emmanuelle Butaud-Stubbs, Director of Economic
and International Affairs for the employers’ group the Union of
Textile Industries (UIT), and a member of the CCMI.
Ms Butaud-Stubbs maintained that although the relationship
between the two areas is a new concept, it should become a
Emmanuelle Butaud-Stubbs chairs the panel
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
45
priority. She pointed out that since the 1930s, economic activi-
ties have been divided into three sectors: primary (agriculture),
secondary (industry), and tertiary, covering “all the rest” – a
kind of hotchpotch of jobs which tend to be seen in a
rather negative light.
In trade negotiations and elsewhere, this frame of
mind has led to a perceived clash between the
interests of European industry and services.
Another common cliché is the view that
relocation only affects industry, in a head-
on contest with low-cost economies. But,
in fact, restructuring also applies to high-
tech sectors and services. “We need to rid
ourselves of all these preconceived ideas
and cast a fresh glance at this relation-
ship,” she insisted.
A PricewaterhouseCooper study carried
out some years ago for the French Industry
Ministry concluded that services already
represented 15 % of GDP. Ms Butaud-Stubbs
argued that in the end, no industrial com-
pany can function without expert support in a
wide range of fields, including freight transport,
data processing, consulting, technical research
and development, human resources, recruitment,
training, exhibitions and marketing, recycling and waste
treatment, legal services, accounting and management.
The borderline between industry and services has been swept
aside by the identification of value chains, and economically it is
more beneficial for companies to outsource some activities, she
claimed. The impact of relocation is seen in emerging countries
like India, for example, where skilled computer engineers and
modern ICT enable data to be swiftly transferred. At the same
time, the EU’s Globalisation Adjustment Fund, set up in 2006, has
helped to retrain European workers for service sectors, including
telecoms in Ireland, warehousing in Italy, and retail distribution in
Spain and Greece.
46Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Dialogue is better than conflict
“It is important to be forward-looking,” announced Patrick
Itschert, Deputy General Secretary of the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC). Underlining the importance of indus-
trial policy, he pointed out that one in four European jobs is in
industry, many of them in the EU’s 23 million SMEs, and a further
one in four in industry-linked services.
“With the current crisis affecting all industries, we
are looking for possible long-term solutions
through competitiveness and innov-
ation. In the medium term, we need
a true European industrial policy,
and we still don’t have that,” he
protested. This has an impact
on the service sector, and
posed a special problem
for Mr Itschert in his pre-
vious role as a trade
union leader in the tex-
tile industry.
“We want a Euro-
pean industrial policy
based on cooperation
between large compa-
nies, SMEs and research
centres. Creating net-
works can be extremely
beneficial at regional and
local level. This is one way
we can remain competitive
in the face of challenges from
China, India and Brazil.”
He warned also of demographic chal-
lenges. “They vary in different Member
States, but there could be an important impact
on SMEs across Europe. A large number of skilled people
may be lost in the coming decade – so what are we going to do to
transfer knowledge? We need a better balance between supply
and demand and links between qualifications and training.”
Mr Itschert emphasised the need for greater innovation, telling
the true story of a small textile company with 11 employees in
France. When the firm went bankrupt, the owner discovered that
the fabric he manufactured could be adapted and used to pro-
tect vines. The company has now expanded to employ 50 people.
“What we are losing in Europe is innovation, and that could have
a really significant impact throughout the industrial sector,” he
predicted. The growing tendency to contract out services also
brings problems, often leaving workers with poorer employment
conditions. In Spain, for example, the army now contracts out the
cleaning of all its uniforms.
He referred to a number of other issues facing
European industry. SMEs face a stiff chal-
lenge in adhering to regulations sur-
rounding the green economy: imple-
menting REACH was a struggle
for most small firms in the tex-
tile industry. Social dialogue is
weak in certain sectors and
especially among SMEs,
but it is vital in facilitating
the transformation of
industries. “It’s better
to have dialogue than
conflict,” Mr Itschert
pointed out. Globali-
sation and relocation
also have to be antici-
pated. “When you look
at Europe’s situation
compared to our main
competitors in China,
India, Brazil and perhaps
Russia, in the future, there
are concerns for our industry
and services related to industry,”
he concluded. “But despite these
challenges, we also have new oppor-
tunities for growth. So the outlook is not
all negative.”
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
47
Developing information technology: “we cannot afford to leave people behind”
Claudio Cappellini represents small firms in the craft sector in
Italy. He is head of EU policies at the National Crafts and SMEs
Confederation (CNA).
He launched his intervention by acknow-
ledging Europe’s ‘unprecedented crisis’.
“If I think of my country, small trad-
itional companies have particular
problems, for historical and
cultural reasons, and they are
finding it hard to compete
domestically and in Europe.
They are facing obstacles
which have been accu-
mulating for years and
haven’t been resolved.
These are exacerbating
the current crisis, and
the service and ICT sec-
tors are paying a heavy
price.”
In Italy, there are believed
to be 100 000 micro and
small companies in ICT,
although few statistics are
available. Many of them could
benefit from being better inte-
grated into the EU market. These
small firms are very important, and are
beginning to find their voice and put for-
ward projects to serve other industries and the
public.
“There are two dimensions here,” explained Mr Cappellini: “com-
panies which use ICT to become more competitive, and com-
panies which make ICT available to others. This dual dimension
raises the question of how we can promote them better on the
European market, so as to unleash their potential.”
Challenges now exist, and small ICT companies can be part of
the answer. For example, how can they meet the needs of an
ageing population? he asked. What is their role in climate change
and energy efficiency, and quality of services of general interest?
Should market forces dictate their future, or should tax regimes
do more to encourage their growth and success?
ICT companies can help society to reach its energy-saving poten-
tial, insisted Mr Cappellini. They can also improve care services
and the health sector. “With the welfare state shrinking,
other organisations must make public services
more accessible and comprehensible. Small
companies must be involved in these
opportunities, not just the big firms
which won’t be able to meet
these needs in the future.”
Half of European product-
ivity growth over the past
15 years has been driven
by information and com-
munication technolo-
gies, and this trend is
likely to accelerate. For
all these reasons, the EU
has identified SMEs and
the ICT sector as ‘key
drivers’ for growth and
jobs in the context of the
Europe 2020 strategy.
Skills gaps exist, especially
in the most disadvantaged
regions of Europe. There is a
great diversity across the EU,
but ICT companies can provide a
response, helping both companies and
citizens.
Another crucial challenge over the next 15 years is
keeping people connected. “It’s not just a question of providing
broadband but one of a service culture,” explained Mr Cappellini.
“The private sector won’t step in on its own, which is why we
have to consider public-private partnerships. These partnerships
have to be efficient and they need to involve citizens. There are
opportunities not only in big cities but also in remote areas, and
such provisions could be promoted through growth policies.”
The CCMI in its future activities could consider the new demand
for services and study the nature of that demand, he suggested.
48Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
“There is a lot of theory on the subject, but people in SMEs are
not always familiar with it. We need to organise a dialogue on ICT
services involving small companies – but that’s not all. When we
talk about Europe’s digital agenda, we need to make it as specific
as possible. We need to work out a more participatory strategy,
one that doesn’t rely solely on the major players, so that everyone
is involved. We have to involve small companies in particular,” he
argued. “We cannot afford to leave people behind.”
The right time for a strategy
In this session, it was the turn of the European Commis-
sion’s DG for Internal Market and Services (DG Markt),
represented by Claire Bury, Director of the Ser-
vices Directorate, to articulate its vision for the
CCMI.
“The discussion on the link between
services and industry has come at
the right time,” she said. EU Com-
missioner Michel Barnier is very
interested in this topic, and the
previous week the Commission
adopted a package of measures
on implementation of the Ser-
vices Directive. It goes further in
identifying more jobs that need
to be done in that sector.
In addition, the Commission
decided to establish a high-
level group to work on this sub-
ject over the coming year. “It’s
time to address this issue.”
There is a lot of talk about an
EU industrial policy, she acknow-
ledged. “Our colleagues in DG Enter-
prise are working on a strategy for an
industrial policy which is expected later
in the year. We have also been urged not
to forget SMEs, and I agree. After five years
of study, experts at the Commission are aware
that there are still gaps in the data on SMEs around
Europe – something the Commission is determined to put right.
All of these things will be addressed with the help of the CCMI.”
Credit where it is due
Spanish CCMI delegate Enrique Calvet Chambon said SMEs are
asking for one thing only: they need financing. In Spain, where
unemployment has reached 25 %, small businesses are closing
because they cannot get credit.
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
49
“We are talking about the future, but we are facing a serious col-
lapse in Europe, and we cannot ignore it,” he insisted.
He highlighted the difficulty of defining SMEs, which are
“dynamic” and subject to constant change: no longer anything
like the enterprises that existed 25 years ago. “They could be
defined as what a big company is not – but that would be going
down the wrong path.” He was concerned about a “kind of ani-
mosity” between large and small firms in Europe. “If we could
create synergy rather than competition, there would be a great
deal to gain.”
EESC member Antonello Pezzini, from the Italian Confederation
of Industry (Confindustria) claimed that credit for micro-compa-
nies is not a problem in developed regions of the EU. There are
over 1 million craftspeople in northern Italy, who have no diffi-
culty with access to credit – the problem is the repayment terms.
Creditors may require 80 % security, and this becomes difficult if
not impossible in poorer southern regions of the country such as
Calabria and Sicily. Poverty brings obstacles, and craftspeople in
these areas suffer. Late payments add to the problems.
A model for development
Ivorian businesswoman Reine Gisèle Aké, who lives in Rome,
came to the conference to see how the CCMI approaches issues
like reform and restructuring from both the industrial and envir-
onmental points of view.
Her agency, ISIS Connection, is involved in organising training
for people from SMEs and public administrations in eight West
African nations on economic relations between their countries
and the EU, including the Cotonou Agreement.
“The aim is to give them the opportunity to make links with their
counterparts in Europe,” she explained. “It’s very important from
the point of view of exchange.
“There needs to be an industrial policy for development, but in my
country it doesn’t exist. We need to take on a model that is rele vant
to us. So I want to know more about how the CCMI works.
“The European Economic and Social Committee is important
because it’s a model we don’t have down there, with trade
unions, companies and civil society working together to take
part in policy-making.”
50Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
What prospects for SMEs in the light of the panel discussions?
Martine Boutary, PhD lecturer at Toulouse Business School, in
France, analysed the significance of SMEs for Europe’s economy.
There are about 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises
in the EU, and they create some 80 % of new jobs. They make up
97 % of EU companies, and they also have an impact on land use,
because they exist everywhere. “So when we talk about Euro-
pean SMEs, we’re talking about employment, we’re talking about
the creation of wealth and prosperity, and how we can manage
that. In this context, I don’t think we speak enough about the
importance of SMEs,” she told the conference.
The common goal is to help SMEs to develop and become inter-
national – but this is ambitious at a time of crisis. “What is needed
is a more concerted debate on how we can achieve this goal,”
she urged.
Ms Boutary invited her audience to consider the history of SMEs,
which is based on proximity: they prefer to be close to their mar-
kets. On the other hand, this makes them less likely to look fur-
ther afield or export goods and services.
SMEs tend to operate in the short term. Tools, processes and
timetables need to be formalised to deal with today’s globalised
market, but it is not always easy. “When we discuss putting these
types of processes in place, and when we formalise these pro-
cesses, it is no longer the head of the company who decides
every thing,” she explained.
The heart of innovation
A large number of SMEs have specialisations. Such companies
embody know-how and skills, and they are passionate about the
areas they work in. “Here, we are at the heart of innovation,” she
declared. “How do we harness this in a company, an SME, which
does not have a lot of resources or personnel? How do we sell
that innovation?”
She identified a range of different needs. The first is technical, and
includes access to financing. Some companies with access to
financing have other needs as well, such as access to information,
new markets and networks. Some SMEs may participate in local
networks but do not get involved on a broader scale: it would
be useful to enable them to join EU-level networks, so as to gain
more experience and overcome psychological obstacles.
Indeed, becoming more international can be a real source of
anxiety for the people running SMEs. So networks can provide
for exchange of experiences, while strengthening links to larger-
scale companies would also be very beneficial, she agreed. Not
enough big companies make an effort towards their smaller
counterparts.
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
51
Another requirement is more support for innovation. Creating
production partnerships is one option. SME networks need to be
expanded if they are to increase their potential. “There are a lot of
SMEs with amazing technical know-how, but they don’t really use
this technology in all the ways that they could – and we need to
help them to do that,” said Ms Boutary. It would be interesting to
collect case studies of innovative SMEs, as is done in France.
The EU needs to understand innovation and internationalisa-
tion models for SMEs, which are not just scaled-down versions
of large businesses. Some prefer to innovate before exporting,
while around 30 % export first and create networks. Some move
a small part of their production overseas, but it is not so easy to
cut up value chains or outsource tasks.
SMEs have their own ways of functioning, but in business schools,
most of the teaching is based on big company strategies, she
pointed out. “Students are fascinated when they are presented
with SME models, because they are not common in curricula.
When I talk to them about SMEs, they do not know how to find
them, even though they are all around them. This should be
changed to reflect reality.”
Training and creating strategies are further priorities. Large com-
panies have the resources to create clear strategies, with targets
and dates for expansion, which gives them security. SMEs need
to find investment and markets, and this involves the whole com-
pany and means a long-term commitment.
SMEs need access to emerging markets as well, and she regretted
the fact that some European companies with “amazing capaci-
ties” at home, fail to apply them on a broader scale. Marketing
strategies mean targeting clients and refining the firm’s offer.
It is crucial to take account of the differences within the SME
sector, she argued. There are thousands of different companies
– some employing just one person, others with 150. “Would we
treat them all the same? No, of course not!” The problem is a lack
of data that would allow for SMEs to be distinguished, defined
and grouped into subcategories.
Lack of data
Ms Boutary emphasised the issue of language, which can be a
real obstacle to small firms. “But in business there is a different
sort of language, and people do not always understand the
message that is being put across. The CCMI is very good in this
context, because of its mixed membership.” Certain terms had
emerged throughout the day, she added, such as ‘new industrial
revolution’, ‘change’, ‘cross-cutting issues’, or ‘long-term vision’. But
they do not all apply to SMEs which may not, for example, have
the same long-term approach.
In future, she also called on the CCMI to work on integrating more
women into SMEs, which are still largely male. “It’s surprising that
women coming out of business schools try less often to set up
businesses,” she remarked.
“Overall, the CCMI is proactive and committed,” she concluded. “It
is a very good fit with the policies SMEs need.”
Managers and workers
Pedro Augusto Almeida Freire, an EESC member from the Por-
tuguese Confederation of Commerce and Services, asked about
managerial skills in SMEs. Large companies can recruit experts,
but small ones are dominated by their founders. “I am chair of
the largest organisation of SMEs in Portugal, and I see a lack of
managerial skills,” he said.
52Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Equally, he was concerned that management systems are being
imported from the USA and may not be appropriate for the EU
market.
CCMI delegate Pierre Gendre stressed the heterogeneous
nature of SMEs, employing anything from one to 250 people. “It is
time for a more subtle analysis, because they do not all have the
same needs. For example, individuals may be self-employed, but
may also work for other companies. We need to define precisely
what we are talking about.”
Stephane Buffetaut, the president of the EESC’s Transport,
Energy, Infrastructure and Information Society section, spoke of
his own enterprise of 650 people, compared with the upper limit
of 250 in SMEs. “But relations between management and workers
are more like an SME than a big company,” he said. “I know half
of my staff.” Family-run companies are also different, even when
they expand. There tends to be a lack of training among senior
managers, who are more likely to be ’jacks of all trades’. “But I
have never found a manager who was happy to sack workers,”
he concluded.
Gaining a global outlook
In conclusion, Martine Boutary returned to the problem of
lacking data. “They are in the pipeline,” she pledged. The OECD
has also recently taken a decision to categorise firms according
to size and behaviour. A lot of research has already been done in
France. SMEs (defined by the EU as employing 10-250 workers
– below that they are ‘micro’ companies) handle issues like risk-
taking differently from large companies, and family firms also
have a different long-term perspective. But training is vital at all
levels, and bears a strong relationship to company performance.
Although large and small companies are very different, they do
need to cooperate, she agreed, joining forces to create networks
and working together at EU level.
SMEs also need young people, who are attracted to the sector
because it offers autonomy and enthusiasm, but are afraid of
having to work too hard and make sacrifices. “These days, that’s
not always necessary,” Ms Boutary insisted. The old-fashioned
parameters, limiting SMEs to neighbouring countries with shared
languages, no longer apply. “In today’s global context, young
entrepreneurs look to India, China, or anywhere. They are the first
generation with a global outlook, and young people today are
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
53
extremely competent and well-prepared. We are undergoing a
very, very big evolution,” she predicted.
The path to closer social dialogue
“The CCMI is the only place at EU level
where we talk about European indus-
trial policy,” said Nikola Konstantinou,
a CCMI delegate and coordinator of
trade union federation UNI-Europa’s
graphical sector.
“It’s consultative, so our role is
limited – we should be able to
influence decision-makers more.
But what is interesting is that
we are autonomous: the mem-
bers of the three groups meet
together and can make their own
propositions and work on opin-
ions. It’s a way of calling on the EU
institutions for action – and they
should respond.”
Mr Konstantinou would also like to
see more financial resources for experts
and study groups. “Our budget is limited,
so we cannot complete all the opinions or
meet as often as we would like to. But our
public hearings are very interesting and enable
us to verify our theories and take account of the
views of people within the different sectors.”
Adopting opinions should not be the end of the story either,
he argued. The Consultative Commission needs to prepare a
coherent follow-up strategy around each issue.
Through the CCMI, Mr Konstantinou has developed closer con-
tacts with employers in the European graphical sector. “It has
helped us to build confidence between the two sides, which
has allowed us to take the final steps towards creating a Euro-
pean Social Dialogue Committee in this sector,” he pointed out
proudly. EU-sponsored Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees give
trade unions and employers in specific industries, at European
level, the opportunity to be consulted on new EU employment
and social legislation, and to undertake detailed discussions on
issues affecting their sector, such as working conditions and
restructuring.
Nikola Konstantinou (right)
54Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
The future orientation of the CCMI and its activities
Conclusions presented by Jorge Pegado Liz, CCMI President
Summing up all the presentations and interventions made
during the day’s lively debates, Mr Pegado Liz ended the event
by putting forward some conclusions.
“The CCMI is at a crossroads, and the words, comments and sug-
gestions from conference participants have shown us clearly
which way we need to go.
“We are very much aware of the nature of the crisis affecting us.
It is not just financial; it is also economic, social, environmental
and cultural. We have been let down in a number of ways by our
democratic representation and political decision-making system.
We have noted a lack of regulation, difficulties in applying laws
and shortcomings in justice, and we have become aware of a
profound moral crisis.”
“All this has resulted in a lack of scrutiny over public budgets,
widespread debt, both public and private, a fall in production
and investment and, in many countries, rising unemployment,
often of a long-term nature, now reaching unprecedented levels,
especially among young people, and in some cases the return of
hunger, poverty and endemic disease.
“While the economic situation varies across the Member States, we
can only deplore the fact that in many countries the business envir-
onment has suffered, the number of bankruptcies has increased,
with the worst hit being small and medium-sized companies,
which in Europe account for more than 80 % of GDP and jobs; not
to mention business relocations and plummeting exports.
“It is against this backdrop that we will have to recover and
relearn, without losing sight of Europe’s enduringly strong pos-
ition on the world markets.”
New avenues to explore
“First, industrial policy must be pivotal to
all policies aimed at promoting growth
and employment, and thus progress,
well-being and quality of life. Of course,
this policy must not ignore the trad-
itional sectors – and on this note we must
never forget the lessons of the ECSC and
its contribution to peace and progress –
but it must invest boldly in value chains,
innovation, research and development,
the use of new and recycled materials,
nanotechnologies and the use of digital
technology in information and com-
munication, and apply these to the new
challenges facing us.
Staff an Nilsson and Jorge Pegado Liz
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
55
“This policy must support a more robust and competitive Euro-
pean industry, that can generate more and better jobs, and that
is attentive to climate change and also to the preservation of raw
materials and energy sources that are eco-system neutral. This
policy must make the most of green technology and focus more
on the potential represented by the eco-industry sub-sectors.
“This policy must, finally, be able to promote the internationalisa-
tion of European companies, especially SMEs, which need greater
self-confidence and have yet to receive the support they need to
enable them to step out and take on the world and globalisation.
“I’m not sure we can really talk about a third industrial revolution,
but I do know that in the last 20 years there has been a major
and significant upheaval in terms of market players. New tech-
nologies have emerged and the workforce available is better pre-
pared and better equipped.
“Europe cannot afford to miss the opportunities presented by
this crisis. That is why we need a proactive policy – intent on
anticipating change and restructuring, but also participatory,
giving consideration to the interests of all stakeholders: investors,
employees, consumers and the public, always bearing in mind
that the most important aspect, which comes first, is the people
who are working day-by-day to improve our continent’s produc-
tive base.
“We are not so presumptuous as to suggest a magic formula
that can be broken down into so many pillars and a set list of
proposals, but we are always keen to listen to those who, like
us, want to put ‘industry at the heart of new growth’, to quote
Philippe Hertzog.
“This is why we set such great store by the forthcoming consult-
ation announced by the Commission ‘enabling consumers to
spur industrial innovation’, (the case of the electric car is a good
example), and also by the results of the Commission consultation
on industrial policy as a driver for sustainable growth and jobs, in
which we have already been actively involved and which must
be placed at the centre of the Europe 2020 strategy.”
Focus on the practical
“Here at the CCMI, we are neither theorists nor academics,
although there may be some fine examples of both among us;
we prefer to focus on the practical side and we want to produce
results.
“The make-up of our commission, with members drawn from
the three EESC groups alongside delegates nominated directly
by stakeholders, and our participatory and balanced working
methods, arm us well to respond to the challenges put before us
either by the EU institutions or by the stakeholders themselves.
We always aim in our opinions to stay in tune with the European
companies, workers and consumers we know so well.
“It is precisely this practical approach, anchored in the daily reality
of the experience of our members and delegates, which enables
us to make a difference. We have been strongly encouraged to
carry on with our work, using the same approach and moving in
the same direction. Europe can count on our determination and
commitment. But we want to move forward in solidarity with all
European players, taking account of their vital input and support.
“We believe that, together, we will succeed in contributing to
a new era of integrated growth, sustainable development and
social progress.“
56Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
CCMI/001 – Annual statistics on steel 2003-2009 – 26/03/2003
CCMI/002 – Industrial change: current situation and prospects
– 24/09/2003
CCMI/005 – European defence – Industrial and market issues
– 24/09/2003
CCMI/006 – Economic diversification in the acceding countries
– the role of SMEs and social economy enterprises
– 31/03/2004
CCMI/007 – The repercussions of trade policy on industrial change,
with special reference to the steel sector – 28/04/2004
CCMI/008 – On the road to sustainable production – Progress in
implementing integrated pollution prevention and
control – 10/12/2003
CCMI/009 – The future of the textiles and clothing sector in the
enlarged EU – 30/06/2004
CCMI/010 – The implications of proposed chemicals legislation
(REACH) – 10/02/2005
CCMI/011 – LeaderSHIP 2015 – Defining the Future of the
European Shipbuilding and Repair Industry
– 30/06/2004
CCMI/012 – Industrial change and state aid in the iron and steel
sector – 27/10/2004
CCMI/013 – Industrial change and economic, social and territorial
cohesion – 30/06/2004
CCMI/014 – Scope and effects of company relocations – 14/07/2005
CCMI/015 – Science and technology, the key to Europe’s future
– 15/12/2004
CCMI/017 – Fostering structural change: an industrial policy for an
enlarged Europe – 15/12/2004
CCMI/018 – The Perspectives of European Coal and Steel Research
– 13/07/2005
CCMI/019 – Social dialogue and employee participation
– 29/09/2005
CCMI/020 – Industrial change in the mechanical engineering
sector – 11/05/2005
CCMI/021 – Industrial change in the EU and China – lessons learnt
from the cooperation between the EESC and its
Chinese counterpart – 09/02/2005
CCMI/023 – The management of industrial change in cross-border
regions following EU enlargement – 21/04/2006
CCMI/024 – The effects of international agreements to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions on the industrial change
processes in Europe – 20/04/2006
CCMI/025 – The role of technology parks in the industrial
transformation of the new EU Member States
– 14/12/2005
CCMI/027 – Restructuring and employment – 14/12/2005
CCMI/028 – Risks and problems associated with the supply of raw
materials to European industry – 05/07/2006
CCMI/029 – Sustainable development and industrial change
– 14/09/2006
CCMI Opinions and Reports
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
57
CCMI/030 – A sectoral survey of relocation – 14/09/2006
CCMI/031 – Territorial governance of industrial change
– 13/09/2006
CCMI/032 – Modern industrial policy – a sectoral approach
13/12/2006
CCMI/034 – The contribution of IT-supported lifelong learning
to European competitiveness, industrial change and
social capital development – 13/09/2006
CCMI/035 – Services and European manufacturing industries
– 13/09/2006
CCMI/036 – Establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment
Fund – 13/09/2006
CCMI/037 – Value and supply chain trends in a European and
global context – 25/04/2007
CCMI/038 – Innovation: Impact on industrial change and the role
of EIB – 11/07/2007
CCMI/039 – The development of the European chemical industry
– 26/09/2007
CCMI/040 – Developments in the European cement industry
– 13/12/2007
CCMI/041 – The development of the European textile and
footwear industry – 13/02/2008
CCMI/042 – Simplification of the regulatory framework applicable
to the industry sub-sector of machines – 26/09/2007
CCMI/043 – Global trade integration and outsourcing – 26/09/2007
CCMI/044 – Impact of the territoriality of tax law on industrial
change – 13/12/2007
CCMI/045 – Impact of European environmental rules on industrial
change – 12/12/2007
CCMI/046 – A Competitive Automotive Regulatory Framework for
the 21st Century – 13/12/2007
CCMI/047 – The European aeronautics industry – 03/12/2008
CCMI/048 – European space policy – 13/02/2008
CCMI/049 – Impact of private equity, hedge and sovereign wealth-
funds on industrial change – 05/11/2009
CCMI/050 – Developments in the retail industry – 03/12/2008
CCMI/051 – Perspectives of European Coal and Steel Research
– 13/02/2008
CCMI/052 – Impact of the ongoing development of energy markets
on industrial value chains in Europe – 18/09/2008
CCMI/053 – Structural and conceptual change as a prerequisite for
a globally competitive knowledge and research-based
European industrial construct – 22/10/2008
CCMI/054 – The restructuring and evolution of the household
appliance industry – 22/10/2008
CCMI/055 – Industrial change, territorial development and
corporate responsibility – 03/12/2008
CCMI/056 – Non-energy mining industry in Europe – 09/07/2008
CCMI/057 – Competitiveness of the metals industries – 03/12/2008
CCMI/058 – Innovative and sustainable forest-based industries
– 03/12/2008
CCMI/059 – The components and downstream markets of the
automotive sector – 16/07/2009
CCMI/060 – The raw materials initiative – 13/05/2009
CCMI/062 – Impact of the climate and energy package on selected
European Union industries – 16/07/2009
CCMI/063 – European Globalisation Adjustment Fund – 24/03/2009
CCMI/064 – How to support SMEs in adapting to global market
changes – 16/12/2009
CCMI/065 – The impact of the global crisis on the main European
manufacturing and services sectors – 30/09/2009
CCMI/066 – How flexicurity could be used in the restructuring
connected to global development – 01/10/2009
CCMI/067 – Responding to the crisis in the European automotive
industry – 13/05/2009
58Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
CCMI/068 – Matching skills to the needs of industry and evolving
services – 17/02/2010
CCMI/069 – European shipbuilding industry – 29/04/2010
CCMI/070 – Industrial change and prospects for the motorcycle
industry in Europe – 18/03/2010
CCMI/071 – European aviation relief programme – 17/12/2009
CCMI/072 – European technology, industrial and science parks
– 14/07/2010
CCMI/073 – Towards an EU policy to rationalise the web offset and
rotogravure printing industry in Europe – 14/07/2010
CCMI/074 – Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative
industries – 21/10/2010
CCMI/075 – Changes and prospects for the metalworking
industries – 21/10/2010
CCMI/076 – Changes and prospects for the textile services sub-
sector in Europe – 14/07/2010
CCMI/077 – The employment impact of industrial change caused
by ecological, energy and climate-related challenges
– 15/07/2010
CCMI/078 – Access to secondary raw materials – 16/02/2011
CCMI/079 – EU crisis exit strategies and industrial change
– 13/07/2011
CCMI/080 – Agricultural machinery, construction and handling
equipment – 04/05/2011
CCMI/081 – The external dimension of European industrial policy
– 04/05/2011
CCMI/082 – Third country state-owned enterprises in EU public
procurement markets – 04/05/2011
CCMI/083 – An industrial policy for the globalised era – 04/05/2011
CCMI/084 – Council Regulation on State aid to facilitate the closure
of uncompetitive coal mines – 08/12/2010
CCMI/085 – State aid to shipbuilding – 13/07/2011
CCMI/086 – The effect of the financial and economic crisis on the
distribution of labour force among the productive
sectors, with a special regard to SMEs – 04/05/2011
CCMI/087 – The processing and exploitation, for economic and
environmental purposes, of the industrial and mining
waste deposits from EU – 26/10/2011
CCMI/088 – Opportunities and challenges for a more competitive
European woodworking and furniture sector
– 26/10/2011
CCMI/089 – The perspectives for sustainable employment in rail,
rolling stock and infra producers – 27/10/2011
CCMI/090 – Industrial change to build sustainable Energy Intensive
Industries – 08/12/2011
CCMI/091 – Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and
on raw materials – 14/07/2011
CCMI/092 – Publishing ‘on the move’ – 25/04/2012
CCMI/093 – Cooperatives and restructuring – 25/04/2012
CCMI/094 – What changes for Europe’s banking sector with the
new financial rules? – 12/07/2012
CCMI/095 – Revision of aviation and airport guidelines
– 12/07/2012
CCMI/096 – European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
– 21/09/2011
CCMI/097 – European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020)
– 22/02/2012
CCMI/098 – Creative Europe Programme – 28/03/2012
CCMI/099 – European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and industrial
change – 12/07/2012
CCMI/100 – Defence industry: industrial, innovative and social
aspects – 12/07/2012
CCMI/102 – Restructuring and anticipation of change
– 12/07/2012
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
59
PRESENT MEMBERSAlmeida Freire Pedro Augusto EESC Member 22/10/08
Atanasov Rumen Delegate 16/02/07
Attard Grace EESC Member 21/10/10
Balasopulov Stilian Delegate 16/02/07
Baumann Wolf-Rüdiger Delegate 23/02/12
Bielinski Jerzy Delegate 16/02/07
Biermann Egbert EESC Member 21/10/10
Butaud-Stubbs Emmanuelle EESC Member 21/10/10
Calleja Edwin Delegate 19/09/02
Calvet Chambon Enrique Delegate 14/12/04
Cavero Mestre Lourdes EESC Member 21/10/10
Correia Alfredo EESC Member 21/10/10
Curtis Brian EESC Member 19/09/02
D’Sa Rose EESC Member 22/10/08
Danev Bojidar EESC Member 20/09/07
Durieu Xavier Delegate 7/12/10
Eisenvortová Renata Delegate 27/09/05
Farrugia Vincent EESC Member 21/10/10
Felisati Marco Delegate 7/12/10
Fernández Vázquez Víctor Delegate 14/12/04
Fornea Dumitru EESC Member 18/01/07
Gay Bernard Delegate 16/02/07
Gendre Pierre Delegate 20/10/06
Gibellieri Enrico Delegate 19/09/02
Gkofas Panagiotis EESC Member 21/10/10
Glorieux Jacques Delegate 19/09/02
Goergen Viviane EESC Member 21/10/10
Golini Flora Delegate 7/12/10
Goyens Monique Delegate 7/12/10
Grimaldi Tommaso Delegate 7/12/10
Haber Jean-Pierre Delegate 7/12/10
Havlicek Karel Delegate 7/12/10
Hoffelt Jean-François EESC Member 21/10/10
Hrusecká Monika Delegate 18/09/08
Iozia Edgardo Maria EESC Member 20/10/06
Jarré Dirk Delegate 7/12/10
Jirovec Ludvik EESC Member 19/09/02
Present and former CCMI members
60Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Kapuvári József EESC Member 19/09/02
Kleemann Johannes EESC Member 22/10/08
Klok Per Delegate 7/12/10
Kolbe Rudolf Delegate 22/09/11
Komorowski Marek EESC Member 20/10/06
Konstantinou Nicola Delegate 18/09/08
Kotowski Zbigniew Delegate 7/12/10
Krauze Armands EESC Member 22/10/08
Kreuzer Gerald Delegate 7/12/10
Krzaklewski Marian EESC Member 19/09/02
Kubícek Jirí Delegate 14/12/04
Lechner Susanne Delegate 7/12/10
Leirião José Custódio Delegate 16/02/07
Lemercier Jacques EESC Member 21/10/10
Leo Hannes Delegate 14/12/04
Lytras Michalis EESC Member 21/10/10
Misiunas Tautvydas Delegate 16/02/07
Mitov Veselin EESC Member 21/10/10
Moffat Gordon Delegate 19/09/02
Morkis Gintaras EESC Member 21/10/10
Nárovcová Alena Delegate 14/12/04
Nicosevici Radu EESC Member 21/10/10
Niestroy Ingeborg Delegate 14/12/04
Nurm Kaul EESC Member 20/10/06
O’Riordan Manus EESC Member 21/10/10
Olsson Jan Delegate 19/09/02
Opran Marius Eugen Delegate 18/01/07
Paetzold Ulrich Delegate 16/02/07
Palenik Viliam EESC Member 19/09/02
Palmgren Thomas EESC Member 14/06/11
Pèes Christian Delegate 7/12/10
Pegado Liz Jorge EESC Member 21/10/10
Pesci Patrizio Delegate 16/02/07
Pezzini Antonello EESC Member 20/10/06
Philippe Marcel Delegate 12/05/09
Pintér Michal EESC Member 21/10/10
Polyzogopoulos Christos EESC Member 21/10/10
Pop Ion Delegate 16/02/07
Rolin Claude EESC Member 3/11/09
Rossitto Corrado EESC Member 19/09/02
Sharma Madi EESC Member 21/10/10
Siecker Martin EESC Member 20/10/06
Sjölander Erica Delegate 18/09/08
Sora Gheorghe Delegate 16/02/07
Sporar Primoz EESC Member 22/10/08
Strautmanis Gundars EESC Member 21/10/10
Student Thomas Delegate 16/02/07
Studnicna Lucie EESC Member 21/10/10
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
61
Trias Pintó Carlos EESC Member 21/10/10
Vandeputte Tony EESC Member 21/10/10
van Iersel Joost EESC Member 19/09/02
van Laere Hilde Delegate 7/12/10
Vantti Sauli Delegate 14/12/04
Varfalvi Stefan EESC Member 21/10/10
Wennmacher Nico Delegate 7/12/10
Westendorp Dirk EESC Member 19/09/02
Zboril Josef EESC Member 19/09/02
Zelaia Ulibarri Adrian Delegate 7/12/10
Zufiaur Narvaiza José María EESC Member 19/09/02
PREVIOUS MEMBERS
Adams Richard EESC Member 21/10/06 23/10/08
Andersson Hans-Evert EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Ardhe Christian EESC Member 20/10/06 23/10/08
Attley William A. EESC Member 22/10/08 19/10/10
Bartolomé gironella
Juan Ignacio EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Baudouin Patrick Delegate 16/02/07 11/05/09
Booth Peter Delegate 13/02/06 7/12/10
Borkowski Zygmunt Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Brewer David Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Brovia Giovanni Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Cabra de Luna
Miguel Ángel EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Callanan Brian EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
Cappellini Claudio EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Carragher Patrick EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Castañeda Boniche
José Luis Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Chagas Eduardo EESC Member 19/09/02 7/07/08
Chruszczow Tomasz Delegate 15/01/08 15/01/10
Cincera Pavel Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Conan Sinne EESC Member 20/09/07 23/10/08
Csuport Antal EESC Member 19/09/02 23/10/08
Cué Nicanor Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Dantin Gérard EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Danusevics Henriks EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Dhejne Nina Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Diederich Pierre EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Dimitrov Plamen EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
Donocik Tadeusz Delegate 19/09/02 7/12/10
Durás Ján Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Fallesen Henrik EESC Member 19/09/02 11/07/07
Frank Karol Delegate 21/01/10 7/12/10
Frerichs Göke EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
Fusco Lucia EESC Member 19/09/02 11/11/04
Garczynski Jerzy Delegate 14/12/04 30/10/11
62Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
Glahe Manfred Delegate 16/02/07 7/12/10
González Sánchez
José Antonio Delegate 14/12/04 31/03/05
Guieze Jean-Luc Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Hodac Ivan Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Hódi Zoltán Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Hosman Julius Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Huvelin Bernard EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
Itschert Patrick Delegate 14/12/04 30/01/06
Janson Thomas EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Julien-vauzelle Michel EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Junck Paul EESC Member 20/10/06 1/10/08
Kerkhoff Hans-Jürgen Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Kittenis Dimitris EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
Kocins Viesturs EESC Member 20/10/06 19/10/10
Konstantinidis Kostakis EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Kormann Albrecht Emil EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Korn Peter EESC Member 20/10/06 23/10/08
Kurki Leila EESC Member 19/09/02 25/02/09
Kvetan Vladimir Delegate 16/02/07 15/01/10
Lagerholm Göran Delegate 19/09/02 7/12/10
Landesmann Michael Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Lasiauskas Linas EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Leahy Michael Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Legelius Bo Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Lennardt Jörg Delegate 16/02/07 7/12/10
Le Nouail Marlière An EESC Member 19/09/02 11/11/04
Linnartz Michael Delegate 12/07/05 8/02/07
Mack Wolfgang EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Mainguy Michel EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Masi Marcello EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Matousek Vladimír EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/10
Micallef Godwin C Delegate 13/03/07 7/12/10
Morais Federico Delegate 3/11/09 7/12/10
Niepokulczycka
Malgorzata EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Nollet Michel EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Nose Martin EESC Member 20/10/06 19/10/10
Nowicki Maciej Delegate 1/03/07 16/01/08
Nusser Jürgen Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Nykänen Mika Delegate 3/11/09 7/12/10
Oravec Ján EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Panero Flórez Ángel EESC Member 19/09/02 27/08/10
Pariza Castaños
Luis Miguel EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/10
Parnis Michael EESC Member 20/10/06 23/10/08
Passley Patrick Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Peltola Marja-Liisa EESC Member 20/10/06 23/10/08
Pereira Martins
Carlos Alberto EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
Peter Heinz EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
63
Piette Josly EESC Member 19/09/02 21/09/09
Proyer Karl Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Raab Jaroslav Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Reichel Wolfgang Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Retvig Karin Delegate 14/12/04 15/09/08
Ribbe Lutz EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Rohde Gerhard Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Rostron Brian EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Salerno Salvatore Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Salvatore Valerio EESC Member 22/10/08 20/09/10
San Miguel Llamedo
José Ignacio EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Schadeck Robert EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/10
Schallmeyer Manfred EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Scherrer Peter Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Schmidt Rainer EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Schneider Andréas EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Sears David EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/10
Sharma Sukhdev EESC Member 20/10/06 23/10/08
Simpson John EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Sirkeinen Ulla EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Skyte Peter Delegate 16/02/07 7/12/10
Smolsky Sirpa Delegate 16/02/07 2/11/09
Söderkvist Hanna Delegate 16/02/07 15/09/08
Soldéus Inger EESC Member 19/09/02 14/11/04
Soury-lavergne Daniel Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Staikos Stylianos EESC Member 20/10/06 23/10/08
Stern Juraj EESC Member 20/10/06 20/09/10
Stöllnberger Klaus EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/06
Suárez Santos Roberto Delegate 16/02/07 2/11/09
Sukova-Tosheva Andriana EESC Member 18/01/07 30/06/07
Surin Ivan Delegate 16/02/07 15/09/08
Szadzinska Elzbieta EESC Member 20/10/06 19/10/10
Szerement Wojciech Delegate 14/12/04 8/02/07
Szucs András Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Tereszkiewicz Marek Delegate 19/09/02 8/02/07
Tóth János Delegate 19/09/02 18/04/11
Trier Sabine Delegate 16/02/07 7/12/10
Varea Nieto Rafael EESC Member 19/09/02 6/01/05
Vella Sue Delegate 14/12/04 9/03/07
Verstappen Roland Delegate 16/02/07 7/12/10
Werkowski Andrzej Jósef Delegate 21/01/10 7/12/10
Wodopia Franz-Josef Delegate 14/12/04 12/07/05
Wolf Gerd EESC Member 21/10/10 14/06/11
Zahariev Plamen EESC Member 18/01/07 23/10/08
Ziesing Hans-Joachim Delegate 14/12/04 7/12/10
Zöhrer Gustav EESC Member 19/09/02 20/09/10
64Th
e CC
MI:
a de
cade
of i
ndus
tria
l cha
nge
in E
urop
e
© All photographs copyright of the European Economic and Social Committee
The
CCM
I: a
deca
de o
f ind
ustr
ial c
hang
e in
Eur
ope
65
Sib Dress in Romania
© European Union, 2012Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Published by: “Visits and Publications” Unit
EESC-2012-43-EN
For more information: [email protected]. +32 25469389Fax +32 25469938
This book, published by the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI) of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), on the occasion of the CCMI’s 10th anniversary, is a contribution to the refl ection on current developments and future trends in European industry. It also helps to improve working methods aimed at anticipating changes in European industry, and to respond to the social, economic and environmental challenges it faces.
Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 991040 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGIË
www.eesc.europa.eu
EN
QE-32-12-251-EN-CISBN 978-92-830-1935-0
REG.NO. BE - BXL - 27
The EESC is on-line:www.eesc.europa.eu
www.eesc.europa.eu/facebook/
www.eesc.europa.eu/twitter/
www.eesc.europa.eu/youtube/
Anna Maria Darmanin www.eesc.europa.eu/anna-maria-darmanin/
President’s Comment
www.eesc.europa.eu/staff an-nilssons-comment/
doi:10.2864/14706