Introduction
The need for sustainable practices across all sectors of society has increased significantly in recent years, with a particular emphasis on integrating both social and environmental sustainability into organisational operations. The Economy for the Common Good (ECG) movement, the main collaboration partner in this research, is one such initiative that seeks to align business practice with human well-being and environmental sustainability. One critical area of interest is at the employee level; a significant amount of time is spent in places of employment, thus making workplaces critical leverage points for sustainable development. Labour unions are key actors in this regard, as they have long-standing involvement on the employee level and extensive influence over shaping workplace conditions and policies.
While labour unions historically focused almost exclusively on improving workers’ rights and working conditions, in recent decades they have begun to gradually integrate broader societal and environmental concerns into their operations. A central concept in this context is the “Just Transition” framework, which links environmental sustainability to worker justice, stressing that efforts to address climate change must be inclusive and equitable for workers (Chng et al., 2023; Galgóczi, 2020; Stevis & Felli, 2014). However, the degree to which unions have embraced social and environmental sustainability at the employee level, and the strategies they use to achieve these goals, remain under-explored.
This research seeks to address this gap, by contributing to the understanding of the intersection of social and environmental sustainability on the employee level within union policies. Moreover, it examines how unions, as powerful actors in the labour landscape, subsequently influence employee-level sustainability in practice. It presents insights that provide the reader with a clear overview of the positions of labour unions on sustainable employee policy, the main fields of tension as well as systemic hindrances hampering its advancement. The paper aims to provide an exploratory starting point into the topic for any actor seeking to advance employee-level sustainability within the labour movement landscape.
Contemporary Positioning of Labour Unions in Society
Labour unions historically emerged during the Industrial Revolution as local phenomena in specific areas and industries, with workers banding together to create stronger bargaining positions to protect their interests, such as sufficient pay, restrictions on working hours and safe working conditions (Knotter, 2018). As an increasingly larger part of the world population came to live in a reality dominated by wage labour and labour markets, the concept of labour unions, originating from the industrial heartlands many decades earlier, spread throughout the world, and became a globally present phenomenon (Knotter, 2018).
In contemporary societies, unions have become key players in many critical elements of our societies. Their position implies a regulator-like role, for example, by enhancing governance and achieving a more favourable balance of power between civil society, state institutions, and corporations (Lee, 2007). They have become essential strategic entities that hold significant influence over public discourse, government policies and the development of our societies (Ahlquist, 2017). As such, the values they propagate and the frameworks they use are significantly influential on the course of the global future.
The core mission of labour unions has been clear throughout history: to advocate for workers’ rights and working conditions. However, a major development occurred at the end of the twentieth century which broadened the scope of unions’ societal role. In an increasingly complex world, many labour unions have begun to position themselves closer to broader societal issues that influence citizen well-being beyond the traditional worker-oriented focus (Barca & Leonardi, 2018; Silverman, 2004). This shift included non-traditional concerns that could be considered to roughly correspond to concepts related to social and environmental sustainability. Because of this new, broader focus, contemporary unions have increasingly become indispensable actors when it comes to advocating for social justice, democracy, equity and more (Kuzhelnyi, 2020).
The Just Transition
A concept which correlates with this development is the “Just transition”, which has been co-developed and promoted by labour unions. This concept originates from the contemporary need for a societal transformation to deal with the various crises we face today, and emphasises a dual focus on economic and social justice for workers simultaneously with environmental action (Chng et al., 2023; Galgóczi, 2020; Stevis & Felli, 2014) (see Figure 1). This much more comprehensive mission also included tackling issues such as discrimination, social injustice and economic inequality.
Figure 1
The Just Transition Concept.
Beyond a more traditional, labour-oriented view, the concept has been adopted by business as a management principle for the transformation of entire industries and economies. The ILO has formalised this broader perspective, broadly emphasising industrial transformation, economic policy, social inclusion and environmental justice, thus making it a more multidimensional, but also more interpretable concept (ILO, 2015).
While the concept of a just transition has found large-scale acceptance in many labour unions, its precise conceptualisation is subject to considerable debate. An important reason why the concept is so ill-defined is because of the wildly differing positionalities that labour unions have (Castree et al., 2004; Gough, 2010). There are local or sectoral unions and confederations of unions. There are unions representing industries that are set to gain from the transition and those that are set to lose out. All these entities have differing concerns regarding current developments, and as such, they all develop different frameworks and action plans (Castree et al., 2004; Gough, 2010).
The literature finds many fields of tension, one such field being the environmental-social sustainability axis (Stevis & Felli, 2014). For example, bold and decisive action in the area of environmental sustainability comes at the cost of careful processes of inclusive governance. It disrupts equitable outcomes and neglects to take into account a diversity of values and rights (Ciplet & Harrison, 2020). Where to place the balance on this axis is a value judgement, and as such, strategies in policy differ.
Stevis and Felli (2014) identify three specific Just Transition strategies that are in tension with each other. The “shared solution” approach emphasises dialogue and mutual understanding, while the “differentiated responsibility” approach places a stronger emphasis on defending the “losers” of the transition, focusing on worker and union power. The less prominent “social-ecological” approach connects the just transition to the societal balance of power, arguing for a democratisation of the economy and a socialisation of fossil fuel reserves.
Besides these fields of tension and non-uniform conceptualisations, the degree to which unions even engage with the concept at all differs strongly. As described by Stevis and Felli (2014), so-called “business unions” are leaning more towards the traditional characteristics of labour unions, focusing on ensuring a fair share of economic windfalls. On the other hand, many contemporary labour unions lean towards what are described as “social unions”, which feel like they should have a say in the shaping of the overall political economy and society at large.
Social Sustainability and Employee Policy
Labour unions propose several broad categories of social policies in the context of employee policy, although their specifics and their angles differ strongly from actor to actor.
Dignity, equity and anti-discrimination measures
At the traditional core of the mission statement of labour unions stand the goals of ensuring workers’ interests, such as adequate financial remuneration and working conditions. In this area, unions have a large observable effect, with unionised sectors being comparatively safer and having fewer job-related injuries while offering better financial compensation (Hagedorn et al., 2016; Leigh & Chakalov, 2021).
Outside of traditional social concerns, there have been many advances made, most notably the increased advocacy for equity and anti-discrimination measures. As laid out by Paraskevopoulou and Mckay (2015), labour unions in Europe especially have come to support equality and anti-discrimination policies across the continent by incorporating equality and diversity policies into their agendas. However, how these measures are conceptualised differs strongly. For example, while the German Confederative Union proposes far-going anti-discriminatory measures considering race, sexuality, gender and ability (DGB, n.d.-a) (hereafter referred to as DGB) the main Belgian union ACLVB focuses exclusively on promoting equality between men and women, thereby excluding non-cisnormative and other intersectional identities (ACLVB, n.d.). This demonstrates the wide range of approaches among unions, with varying degrees of proposed transformative change.
Working agreements
Another area that undoubtedly falls under the umbrella of social sustainability and the just transition, but also strongly correlates with traditional focuses of unions, is the topic of working agreements and pay. There is an observable effect of labour unions on financial remuneration, with unionised sectors and companies seeing employees receive comparatively higher salaries and benefit standards (Hagedorn et al., 2016; Knepper, 2020; Leigh & Chakalov, 2021). Furthermore, unionised firms have lower pay disparities between the workforce as a whole, as well as between employees doing similar work (Jo & Lee, 2024; Metcalf, Hansen & Charlwood, 2001). Union affiliation affects working times as well, as they limit excessive working hours and enhance job security (Goerke & Pannenberg, 2008) while simultaneously increasing the amount of paid leave (Goerke, Jeworrek & Pannenberg, 2015).
Employee engagement in contract structuring is another proposal to increase social sustainability. As explained by Berg et al. (2004), this practice lets employees gain larger control over the contract conditions and working arrangements through a cooperative process based on trust and needs, which allows for much more flexible working arrangements that benefit the employees of a company. Yet, this measure cannot be observed to this degree in the policy papers of unions, and there exists no academic literature observing any significant trends.
Co-determination and democracy within the company
Co-determination describes the degree to which employees are involved in the day-to-day decision-making and the strategic direction of an organisation. Many organisations operate on autocratic governance principles, and proposals for democratisation are notably absent in policy papers of unions despite their positive potential. One study by Frick (1996) analysed company personnel turnover in the time since a German co-determination law was implemented in 1972 until the time that the article was written. What they found was that firms with a location-specific work council have an annual dismissal rate which is 1.6 percentage points lower than the one experienced by firms without location-level worker representation, likely due to enhanced tangible working conditions as well as positive psychological perceptions among the workforce. While the paper is dated, the reasoning for this positive effect is sound, and thus the effect itself is likely to still hold.
Nevertheless, such measures remain underutilised, although there exists variance there too among unions. In the case of Germany, this principle is legally actualised nationwide and also extensively promoted by its labour unions. The German DGB union talks at length about in-company democracy (DGB, n.d.-b). However, the Belgian ACLVB does not devote a single line of text to this topic (ACLVB, n.d.). Again, there exist many differences between the unions as to what degree policy is advocated for.
Environmental Sustainability and Employee Policy
Besides action on the social front, unions take action on environmental dimensions. The aforementioned Just Transition was frequently referenced in this context. A core tenet of the framework is the recognition that planet Earth faces an environmental crisis that unavoidably necessitates mitigation, thus reflecting an explicit commitment to environmental concerns. However, there seems to be a discrepancy between expressed environmental concerns and the promotion of mitigation measures on the employee level, as there exists a pertinent absence of literature and noted action within union policy papers on this scale level of environmental engagement. In contrast, higher scale levels showed significantly larger engagement; many unions promote initiatives that aim to facilitate a shift towards environmentally sustainable practice through industry sector or national economy action plans (Räthzel & Uzzell, 2012; Stevis, 2011).
Analytical Orientation
The literature review highlights how unions have evolved from their foundational roles of exclusively advocating for workers’ rights to addressing broader issues, such as social justice and environmental sustainability. Unions have extended their societal influence in these areas, advocating for social equality, anti-discrimination measures and more. Environmental action is similarly included, although mostly at larger-scale levels as opposed to employee-level measures.
A concept that came back repeatedly in the literature regarding this transformation is the “Just Transition”. However, a unified conceptualisation of the framework is notably absent, as there exists great variance in how unions engage with this concept. Despite this, the concept of a just transition evidently influences labour unions’ viewpoints on sustainable employee policy, as it furthers the inclusion of additional indicators and proposals that advance employee policy towards increasing awareness for social sustainability and environmental mitigation.
While the Just Transition has significantly influenced the scope and mission of labour unions, labour unions themselves are one of the main contributors to the development of the framework. Sustainability paradigms such as the Just Transition function as overarching frameworks that guide how labour unions conceptualise, develop, and implement sustainable employee-level policies. This relationship has been visualised in this research’s conceptual framework (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework.
As shown, the labour union sector is continuously influenced by developments, while at the same time also being a driving force behind this very development. Because of this, what makes up socially and environmentally sustainable employee policy as advocated by unions is always in flux. Due to the fluidity of this dynamic and the subsequent non-uniformity of conceptualisations across the sector, this research asserts that it is not of importance to try to establish a common framework. Instead, it seeks to explore the diverse range of employee policies of labour unions, with a specific focus on how social and environmental sustainability intersect with these policies. Through investigating what, according to unions, constitutes environmental and social sustainability in employee-level policy, the research identifies the main schools of thought, the main fields of tension, as well as the systemic hindrances hampering implementation. Specifically, while the literature observed diverse angles on the concept of Just Transition, this research will focus primarily on the traditional, labour-oriented viewpoint, as it is most relevant to the union context.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to investigate what constitutes environmental and social sustainability in employee-level policy from the point of view of various labour unions in ECG-active countries. In line with the study purpose, the research poses the following questions: 1. How do various labour unions define social sustainability on the employee level? 2. How do various labour unions define environmental sustainability on the employee level? 3. What specific instruments and strategies do various labour unions implement to advance sustainability on the employee level?
The term employee-level policy in this context refers to initiatives and structures that affect individual workers directly or indirectly, regardless of whether these are implemented on the individual level (e.g. personal development opportunities), the team level (e.g. inclusion and non-discrimination measures) or the organisational level (e.g. co-determination structures).
Methodology
Study Design
As noted by Jebb et al. (2017) and Woo et al. (2017), when literature is limited and a strong established theoretical framework is lacking, an exploratory and inductive research design is an adequate approach to uncover new patterns and generate hypotheses. Union perspectives on employee-level sustainability, especially its environmental dimensions, showed to be relatively under-explored in the existing literature. As such, an exploratory and inductive approach was deemed suitable.
Data Collection
Considering the exploratory and inductive nature of this research, semi-structured interviews were chosen as the data collection method. As described by Adeoye-Olatunde and Olenik (2021), semi-structured interviews offer a focused, yet flexible interviewing approach that allows for probing topics deeply while allowing the exploration of emerging pertinent ideas. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes.
The interview protocol contained two parts. Part 1 covered general, standardised questions such as on unions’ general integration of sustainability in their agenda and operations, underlying principles and values, and specific examples of recent relevant initiatives they engaged in. Crucially, however, part 2 consisted of flexible, free-choice modules, asking more specific, sub-theme-related questions. While this caused sub-theme coverage to become fragmented per interview, the research deemed it necessary to ensure interview relevance given the large variance in the way and degree to which various labour unions incorporate different aspects of sustainable employee policy in their advocacy. The research took steps to mitigate the fragmentation effect through its sampling and data analysis strategies.
In addition to these questions, participants were exposed to excerpts from the ECG-related Common Good Matrix handbook, a document which contains prescriptive and norm-defining definitions of employee-level sustainability. Asking participants to judge these definitions allowed them to anchor their responses in concrete, practical examples, providing answers that would likely not have emerged otherwise.
Sampling
This research aimed to capture various different viewpoints on employee-level sustainability. To promote diversity in data and findings, it sought to target a varied participant pool with wide-ranging characteristics.
On the organisational level, the research aimed to reach unions of various member sizes, political-ideological affiliations, organisational characters and geographical locations (see Figure 3). Efforts were made to interview participants from countries which have ECG communities active within them to make use of the extensive ECG network in these countries for participant recruitment, and to constrain the overall research scope to a feasible scale. The focus on diverse positionalities came with one exception: the research primarily focused on reaching “social unions” as described by Stevis and Felli (2014), as there were few expected insights into sustainable employee policy among “business” unions.
Figure 3
Organisational-Level Participant Characteristics.
The final organisational-level sample (n = 10) shows member sizes spread relatively evenly between small (<1 million), medium-sized (1–5 million) and large (>5 million) unions. The participants are similarly spread relatively evenly over five countries; the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Japan and Switzerland. However, the final sample skewed towards centre-left political affiliation and broad union federations; the former can be interpreted as a reflection of the dominant political orientation of the labour movement, while the latter can be attributed to recruitment ease, as broad federations often provide more entry points for engagement than smaller, sectoral unions.
On the individual level, efforts were made to recruit a diverse participant pool, with key axes of differentiation being job position, gender and age (see Figure 4). In all cases, participants were individuals who were knowledgeable about the inner workings and philosophy of their union and were directly involved in areas related to the core themes of this research; this was evenly spread between union leadership, policy officers and operational staff. However, the sample skewed towards middle-aged and older participants, with a strong deviation towards men specifically. This seemingly reflects a broader demographic trend within the sector, where this group may be over-represented, especially among the more senior positions. The under-representation of women in this research was reinforced by several female representatives withdrawing from the recruitment process due to expressed time constraints.
Figure 4
Individual-Level Participant Characteristics.
To gather the intended varied participant pool, purposive and snowball sampling were used. Purposive sampling, as highlighted by Ames et al. (2019), is an effective method for selecting participants with specific desired characteristics, thereby ensuring data relevance and richness, while maintaining the manageability of the data. Secondly, snowball sampling was noted by Berg (2006) and Johnson (2014) as an effective method for recruiting participants from hidden or inaccessible populations. This approach was deemed as a suitable addition to purposive sampling to reach additional individuals through the networks of both labour unions and the ECG. Following Young and Casey’s (2018) recommendations that six to ten interviews are typically sufficient to adequately identify codes and complete robust themes, this research aimed for the high end of this range, ultimately conducting ten interviews.
Data Analysis
To analyse the collected data and identify patterns and themes, an inductive-style thematic analysis was conducted for the interview transcriptions. As expressed by Herzog, Handke and Hitters (2019) and Kiger and Varpio (2020), this method is a highly flexible and widely used approach to exploratory research. Given the intentionally diverse sample, this method was particularly suitable, as it allowed the analysis to manage the diversity of perspectives while still identifying meaningful cross-cutting themes.
During the first-cycle coding process, open coding was utilised in an exploratory coding process unconstrained by predefined categories to address the large diversity of data. Additionally, descriptive, concept, in-vivo and process coding were used. During the second-cycle coding process, the research followed a layered strategy of thematic clustering, pattern coding and axial coding. The coding strategy aimed to address the fragmentation of data caused by the research design, ensuring coherence. The coding process was flexible and iterative, ultimately using a nested coding approach in its codebook to manage the complexity and diversity of codes.
Quality Assurance
This study adhered to the core qualitative trustworthiness criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Korstjens & Moser, 2017).
Credibility was supported by data source triangulation. Participant type diversification ensured a wide range of organisational perspectives. Where feasible, two individuals within one union were interviewed to enable intra-organisational consistency comparisons. Interview protocols were co-developed with and reviewed by stakeholders to ensure alignment with research aims. To address fragmented topic coverage, the sample size aligned with the upper end of the recommendations of Young and Casey (2018), ensuring thematically robust and credible findings.
Dependability was strengthened through standardised interviewing conditions, consistent data collection approaches and recording methods, providing comparable data.
Whilst audit trials were not integrated in the research design, confirmability was upheld through clear elaboration on key methodological decisions. Although no structured reflexive journal was maintained, the researcher engaged in ongoing critical reflection on positionality and bias, informing both methodological choices and the analytical process.
Transferability was ensured by providing an elaborate description of the context of the research, the data collection, sampling strategies, and data analysis, enabling assessment of applicability to other settings.
Ethical Considerations
Throughout the process, the research ensured it adhered to ethical principles. All participants were thoroughly informed about the background and objectives of the research and engaged with it on an explicitly voluntary basis without the prospect of incentives. Moreover, all participants were asked to sign an informed consent form. Withdrawal from the project was explicitly allowed throughout the whole process. All participants are anonymised in this study. Descriptions include broad job role and union affiliation where relevant, to preserve analytical value without compromising identity. The interview data was securely stored, with exclusive access reserved for the researcher.
Results and Discussion
Social Sustainability
Unions framed social sustainability not as a technical concept, but rather as an integrated, deeply interconnected set of values, conditions and mechanisms that allow workers to lead a decent and dignified life. Their foundational values and principles – such as equity, respect, and dignity – constitute the normative framework for what many unions consider desirable and sustainable. In turn, this framework informs the concrete desirable working conditions, such as fair pay, job security and occupational safety, that embody these norms.
Then, these conditions are enforced and subsequently sustained through mechanisms of workers’ influence, such as workers’ representation, employee participation and collective bargaining agreements. This configuration is echoed by Hagedorn et al. (2016), who note how union contracts serve as key mechanisms through which foundational values are translated into institutionalised working conditions, reflecting an integration of principles, conditions and enforcement.
This layered sequence of analytically disparate clusters, moving from values to conditions to mechanisms, shows that many unions see social sustainability not as a static outcome but rather as a dynamic and malleable process that is based on both principle and practice. Importantly, the boundary between values and working conditions is not always distinct, as working conditions are often seen as the embodiment and operationalised form of values. For example, job security is a working condition and expression of dignity at the same time. The same can be said about a living wage. As such, social sustainability may be best understood as an integrated system in which principles, practice, and policy are interwoven.
Interestingly, there were several cases in which unions clearly engaged with these three pillars extensively as part of their operations, but in which they did not explicitly use the term social sustainability. Instead, interviewees framed their efforts as simply fighting for good working conditions. One operational officer from the Dutch Christian National Trade Union Federation (CNV) referred to union efforts as “common-sense worker agreements”, noting that the term social sustainability was rarely used explicitly. Similarly, Hagedorn et al. (2016) describe how union contracts further health and equity within working conditions – indispensable dimensions of social sustainability – despite never using the term itself. While the term social sustainability is useful as an analytical tool, the semantic discrepancy identified might indicate a disconnect between policy language and the operational vocabulary within union contexts. For unions, social sustainability is thus more practiced than pronounced.
Foundational values
The foundational values that underpin unions’ work act as a moral preamble that steer how unions define goals and advocate for policy which then informs the tangible working conditions that unions advocate for. Unions express using a wide array of principles to guide their operations, mostly stemming from several main overarching values. Across interviews, human rights and humanism were noted multiple times as the moral foundation of union operations, from which many subsequent values such as dignity, democracy and equity stemmed. Similarly, the principle of equity leads unions to advocate for closing the treatment gaps between regular and temporary workers, as well as closing the gender pay gap. This illustrates how such normative values translate directly into concrete policy goals, grounding social sustainability in morality and practice simultaneously.
“Social sustainability means for me compliance, in particular, with human rights.” – German Industrial Union of Metalworkers (IG Metall) Policy Officer
Although these values were primarily described on a social basis, several interviewees also noted their environmental implications and broader interconnectedness, a dynamic that is further explored in section 3.2.
Working conditions
Unions translate their foundational values into concrete workplace priorities focused on security and continuity, health and safety, and mental well-being to ensure socially sustainable employment. These three material and non-material aspects were consistently highlighted as essential preconditions for workers to be able to live a decent and dignified life. The language that was used to describe this was imbued with everyday language around fairness, well-being and health.
For example, security and continuity express themselves through a fixed contract and a living wage, which provides a degree of predictability and stability that allows workers to move through life without unnecessary interruptions. Safe and healthy working conditions prevent unnecessary illness, which leads to a sustained higher quality of life (while the absence of illness, by extension, provides predictability and continuation). The mental well-being of employees was an increasing topic of concern for the interviewed participants, primarily based on values such as respect and dignity. Unions noted increasing efforts to ensure safe and supportive working environments for all by addressing incidents such as sexual and power-based harassment.
“Sustainable employment is work where you can borrow social and economic security. So that you know that you earn enough to live well; not only to work, but also to be able to rest.” – Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV) Policy Officer
These three sub-criteria – security and continuity, health and safety, and mental well-being – were consistently expressed as being vital for sustaining employees but also for benefiting companies, as measured by factors like turnover and illness rates. These working conditions, based on the expressed values and principles, are striven for by unions not only through external pressure but also through mechanisms of workers’ influence.
Mechanisms of workers’ influence, representation, and participation
A major way in which unions simultaneously define and aim to ensure socially sustainable employment is through active employee participation and representation, ensuring that workers’ concerns, particularly those relating to working conditions, are seen and addressed. Unions overwhelmingly support social dialogue and employee participation, a finding echoed by Galgóczi (2020) within the context of the Just Transition. Unions frame these as normative principles and as practical tools simultaneously and promote internal participation mechanisms that facilitate this. However, while the ECG favours participation models based on direct democracy, unions prefer representative democracy, often supplemented by direct democratic elements.
“We don’t touch the representative model” – IG Metall Policy Officer
This preference is based primarily on expressed concerns regarding the risks and limitations inherent to furthering a more direct democratic character in its participation structures, with unions often describing them as impracticable or even dangerous. Especially in the context of large-scale, complex organisational decisions, an extensive engagement of the majority of the workforce in organisational decision-making was perceived as significantly limiting effectiveness. A further reason for the aversion towards participation mechanisms grounded in direct democracy was that they diffuse representation and decision-making authority by design. Unions saw these effects as strongly at odds with the inherently hierarchical nature of the employer-employee relationship, as they perceived any power diffusion to be undermining to the collective strength of the workforce.
“I think direct democracy is a good thing, but it has its limitations … It is important to be effective, schlagkräftig.” – Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) Legal Representative
Unions instead consistently advocate for internal systems of graduated, representative democracy. Frequently referenced were work councils: participative local-level bodies composed of elected employee representatives. Beyond fostering employee participation, these councils are seen as effective mechanisms facilitating dialogue, transparency, and social cohesion between employees and management. They are also considered more effective due to their higher concentration of power which implies reduced vulnerability to worker–management power imbalances, and they often carry specialised skills not normally present in the average employee. While based on representative democracy, unions often support the integration of direct democratic elements, such as allowing the full workforce to vote on deals negotiated by councils.
Additionally, unions stress the need to position internal participation mechanisms within a broader power constellation model in which external actors, such as unions, provide structural, external checks beyond the scope of purely internal governance. Much like the trias politica relies on an independent judiciary, unions see their role as offering an independent check within employment relations, helping to provide external accountability and to address risks of managerial co-optation of internal power structures for organisational gain.
“As an employee, you have to arm yourself against the business case crushing you. And then you need the independence of the union.” – FNV Union Executive
Another way in which unions aimed to improve working conditions was extensive employee participation in the structuring of working agreements, emphasising that providing adequate flexibility can help address individual needs and increase well-being. In this context, Berg et al. (2004) described the Dutch 1996 Working Time Act, which was partly designed to increase labour flexibility, as a case example. However, unions viewed far-reaching, unbounded flexibility not as empowering, but rather as a risk, noting the potential for reinforcing favouritism, power imbalances, inter-employee competition and employer abuse. The FNV policy officer underscored this point by referring back to the Dutch case:
“[The Dutch labour law] is very flexible, the idea at implementation being that people should get more of a say over their working hours. However, what we also got out of it is a lot of nightwork in distribution centres along the highway.”
To mitigate negative effects, unions argued for union-employer negotiated collective bargaining agreements. This was seen as an effective method to set protective minimum terms of employment and empower workers’ negotiation position through collective strength, while simultaneously being an institutional expression of the foundational principle of solidarity.
Besides participation mechanisms, numerous unions stressed the importance of structural mechanisms to protect emotional safety within the workplace. Frequently mentioned examples included formal complaint channels, in-company designated persons of trust, and whistleblower protection systems. Such structural enforcing mechanisms were regarded as essential to addressing various kinds of misconduct, harassment, and power abuse without fear of retaliation. These were seen as indispensable structural complements to participatory frameworks, designed not to empower directly but rather to shield from harm, and to uphold the principles of dignity and respect.
All in all, the findings show that within labour union frameworks, worker participation and the structures that protect them are both a means and an end; they are a pathway and safeguard to ensure and maintain just and equitable outcomes, as well as a cornerstone of what constitutes socially sustainable employee policy.
Environmental Sustainability
The majority of contemporary unions have recognised the importance of environmental sustainability as relevant to their mission. As such, environmental concerns are increasingly incorporated into union agendas. Most unions operate from an integrated social-ecological lens, commonly guided by the Just Transition framework.
Despite the growing integration of social and environmental concerns among unions, they are careful to implement environmental measures on the employee level. There is strong hesitancy to challenge deeply ingrained customs, as doing so could evoke internal dissent and significantly damage the unions’ power base and legitimacy. As such, unions tend to prefer low-resistance initiatives that are constrained to the workplace. Overall, these findings point towards unions having a cautious yet determined approach to the integration of environmental action on the employee level, continuously taking internal political dynamics into account, and weighing the potential impact of measures to potential resistance.
Framing environmental sustainability: From acceptance to social-ecological nexus
The interviews found that the way in which unions engage with environmental sustainability has moved through two stages: a period of growing acceptance of the importance of environmental action within the labour movement, and a subsequent translation into the language of social justice and worker protection.
In recent years, unions have integrated environmental concerns into their agenda, seeing them as indispensable to achieving their overall mission of defending the interests of workers. This was frequently symbolised by participants through the slogan “There are no jobs on a dead planet,” which highlights unions’ realisations that environmental issues are essential to safeguarding workers’ interests. This acceptance came on slowly, but labour unions experienced a shift from purely labour-oriented organisations towards a broadening agenda.
“[My colleagues] were completely against the environmental movement, because they saw it as being at the expense of employees. The same group that first ridiculed me is now part of sustainable strategic thinking.” – FNV Union Executive
Rather than treating environmental concerns as an additional agenda, the majority of unions now frame them as interconnected with social goals, noting that there exist inherent positive and negative links between environmental action and social impact. One representative from the ÖGB Climate Bureau described an illustrative case. A union-affiliated company had started a climate financing programme, offering interest-free loans to employees for the installation of solar panels, which led to a reduction in fossil energy use while improving household economic security. Also frequently mentioned were instances of negative coupling, for example, when environmentally sustainable practice undercuts the relative market position of the very actor willing to enact it, threatening job security. Pertinent to note is that environmental concerns were often framed through pre-existing social terms such as equity, worker protection and solidarity. Union engagement with environmental concerns can thus be interpreted as a continuation of their traditional labour-oriented framework, projected onto novel challenges, rather than a fundamental reorientation to environmental concerns.
The Just Transition framework was repeatedly noted as a guiding framework in the context of integrated union sustainability thinking. Notably, several representatives reported that they had actively participated in its development, illustrating unions’ role not only as adopters but as co-creators of sustainability paradigms. Within the context of the framework, interviewed unions significantly emphasised worker protection and the positioning of unions as a central actor in this process, an approach most consistent with the aforementioned “differentiated responsibility” approach described by Stevis and Felli (2014). Overall, the findings position the Just transition as the central lens through which environmental and social sustainability in contemporary union strategy evolves and is understood. Furthermore, the noted union co-development of the Just Transition framework underpins the active two-way interaction between the labour unions and sustainability paradigms, as they actively contribute to its development and adapt it to their real-world needs.
“I suppose like many trade unions, we adhere to the principles and values of a just transition, meaning that the future should be both ecologically sustainable and societally just and equitable.” – ÖGB Climate Bureau Representative
While most unions adopted an integrated social-ecological perspective, a minority continues to treat environmental action as a distinct or secondary issue and hold back environmental action, especially at the employee level. The FNV policy officer elaborated on this, noting “Strictly, it is not a primary interest of a worker to show environmentally friendly behaviour; it is a collective interest. We thus don’t see it as an employer responsibility and feel it is best for the government to stimulate this”. This finding stresses that a minority of unions continues to define the two areas through a more traditional lens, prioritising immediate and tangible workers’ interests at the expense of more abstract, collective environmental concerns. Interestingly, many of their representatives did note having environmental action plans or declarations on higher scale levels such as the sector or the country; a finding which aligns with Räthzel and Uzzell (2012) and Stevis (2011).
Preferred environmental action & tensions
For those unions that did engage with environmental initiatives on the employee level, they approached such action carefully. They noted how environmentally damaging behaviours are often deeply culturally ingrained in customs that reach back generations. Noted examples were meals without meat being perceived as incomplete, or cars being viewed as a symbol of freedom and prosperity. Unions noted how challenging these behaviours can be perceived as an attack on an individual’s way of life, which creates resistance.
“Some companies tried to have two vegetarian days, where there’s no meat on the menu, and it was vastly unpopular.” – ÖGB Climate Bureau Representative
Since unions heavily rely on their members’ support for their power base and their legitimacy, they are strongly hesitant to pursue far-reaching individual-level environmental policies which could rouse internal resistance among their members. Subsequently, unions focus on low-resistance measures within the organisational context, mostly avoiding the private sphere. While they thus acknowledge the importance of environmental action being a union priority, the implementation on the employee level remains constrained because of pragmatic considerations of internal power politics.
“I am not going to tell them they need to cook vegetarian in the canteen; that is within their own influence. It is all about impact and resistance. In the end you’re a labour movement and not an environmental movement, but we try to bring in as much as possible.” – FNV Union Executive
Strategies and Instruments
Unions advance sustainability at the employee level through a pragmatic, incremental approach, leveraging internal democratic structures while balancing sustainability ambitions against political and sector-specific constraints. Unions’ strategic vision is largely shaped by direct member concerns and system constraints, leading them to favour practical, system-compatible reforms over grand ideological shifts.
A key union strategy to further its goals is cooperation with internal democratic structures such as work councils, which serve as intermediaries between employees, employers and unions. At the same time, unions are significantly influenced by external directives and guidelines that influence the labour environment in which they operate, and thus, they actively seek to align their strategies with these evolving frameworks. However, unions also consistently have to acknowledge the obstacles that limit their efforts, such as tensions between social and environmental values or political realities.
Overall, the findings show that while unions are engaged in sustainable progress, it is not a linear process but rather one of constant struggle, recalibration and renegotiation between several parties and system elements. Unions promote employee-level sustainability through pragmatic, member-driven strategies characterised more by incremental reformism than revolutionary transformation.
Strategic approach
Across the interviews, unions consistently emphasised that their operational strategies are grounded more in incremental pragmatism than in grand ideological visions. This is primarily due to the realities of internal politics. Unions are heavily reliant on their members for their power base, and their union-specific strategic vision is often democratically determined. This leads to union concerns most often being disproportionally directed by short-term member concerns, such as immediate wage increases and lower work pressures. Among workers, unions noted such concerns often take precedence over longer-term sustainability goals, an insight which aligns with the findings of Chng et al. (2023). This significantly limits the space for ideological proposals, and as such, how unions advocate for sustainable change is much more rooted in incrementalism and pragmatism over shorter periods, guided by direct member concerns.
“My folks would not understand if I came along all the time with a big vision of a changed society.” – Swiss Union of Transport Workers (SEV) Leadership Representative
Furthermore, several unions remarked that, as a labour union, they are always positioned within the system, dependent on the negotiation outcomes with companies which have opposing interests. A failure to reach positive negotiation outcomes for workers would delegitimise their organisational raison d’être. Because they perceive more radical approaches to be potentially unproductive and thus dangerous to the organisation, they work through reformism rather than revolution. Within this context, unions’ experiences during negotiations also shaped their overall critical stance on more transformative measures as proposed by the ECG. One ÖGB legal representative noted that while they saw the ECG’s visionary proposals as commendable, as a union, they are most often still preoccupied with ensuring even baseline conditions during negotiations. While many union representatives expressed ideological positions on several points, it was often acknowledged that the reality of union advocacy does not always allow pursuing these due to internal and inter-organisational politics. Thus, while unions may endorse ambitious sustainability goals in principle, their actual strategic approach remains defined by incremental, system-compatible reforms that align closely with member priorities and organisational survival.
These strategies of incrementalism and pragmatism reflect the dynamic and non-uniform character of sustainable employee policy. Stemming from the interplay between structural constraints and internal values, the adopted strategies, in turn, give meaning to what sustainability looks like in practice. As a result, unions not only actively engage with sustainability paradigms as active co-creators, as exemplified by the Just Transition framework, but also through a more interpretive involvement, by practically adapting such paradigms to their respective organisational contexts. Beyond explicit, active co-development, unions thus become shapers of such paradigms not through formal design but rather through lived operationalisation.
Employee participation and union cooperation
As previously mentioned, one of the key ways in which unions define social sustainability on the employee level is through participatory and democratic values and practices, expressed through mechanisms of worker participation and representation. A subsequent key strategy unions employ to further sustainability on the employee level is the promotion of and cooperation with such internal structures, such as joint health committees, the aforementioned work councils, and other employee bodies. Unions perceive these structures as facilitating effective bottom-up engagement within the company, with council members serving as specialised representatives who act as intermediaries between management and labour, effectively relaying information from employers and presenting a centralised point of contact in employer-employee discussions.
“If there is a workers’ council in a company, and if they are working well with management, then there are much better results when it comes not only to how employees feel but also the bottom line of the company. This is why we always strive to strengthen the democratic processes within the companies.”– ÖGB Legal Representative
These structures are also strategically important for unions themselves. In centralised bargaining, council representatives often serve as designated intermediaries between unions and the broader workforce, relaying member interests and strengthening internal communication. At the same time, unions indicated that members of internal democratic structures are frequently also union members, solidifying union influence on company operations even further. Thus, internal democratic structures serve as a crucial strategic instrument, based on a two-fold rationale: they allow unions to promote the values of participation and democracy into tangible institutional frameworks, and these frameworks subsequently become important leverage points within workplaces to further advance sustainability goals.
Adaptation of external frameworks
Unions are intimately connected to many extra-organisational international frameworks that guide their operations and demands. The most commonly cited guidelines come from the United Nations-affiliated International Labour Organisation (ILO), which stipulates the most important baseline conditions for decent work. Since its founding, it has published many conventions containing guidelines on working hours (International Labour Organisation, 1919), occupational safety and health (International Labour Organisation, 1981), and, more recently, the Climate Action for Jobs Initiative, which contains the ILO guidelines to a just transition (International Labour Organisation, 2015).
Besides this, Europe-based unions indicated being significantly influenced by several EU directives. Examples such as the European directives on safety and health at work (Council of the European Communities, 1989), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2022) and the Pay Transparency Directive (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2023) all directly influence the labour environments in which these unions operate as they are transposed into national legislation by EU member states.
“The CSRD, which is now hanging in the air, will change a lot about informational transparency within companies, so this will also change how we advocate for this.”– ÖGB Climate Bureau Representative
Unions regularly integrate these international and regional directives into their operational strategies, often revisiting them during periodic strategic meetings. This helps unions reinforce legitimacy, increase bargaining power and evolve advocacy scope. Thus, the strategic use of external frameworks represents an important instrument with which unions advance their sustainability agenda at the employee level while maintaining alignment with evolving international labour environments.
Strategic trade-offs
While unions promote sustainability goals through a wide collection of strategies, they also face structural and political trade-offs that limit how fast and how far these strategies can be implemented. For example, in the aviation or oil industry, environmental action would directly impact job security, which places unions in a position where advocating for environmental goals may conflict with their foundational role of defending employment. Another previously noted tension is between implementing sustainability measures and undercutting market position, as both environmentally and socially sustainable practice generally drive up operational costs. As such, unions sometimes dilute or delay support for such measures.
“With Schiphol we made all kinds of agreements to raise the working conditions as much as possible, with the consequence that Schiphol is on the edge of being pushed out of the market … and lose out to to neighbouring airports that are less serious about their social standards.”– FNV union executive
These tensions show that unions are constantly trying to balance goals and values with political and sector-specific realities. As a result, they may scale back support for measures if these are set to undermine social sustainability or threaten their credibility as defenders of worker interests. Thus, trade-offs are not an anomaly but a structural reality, integral to union strategy, where the constant balancing of social and environmental ambitions as well as organisational priorities sets the practical limits of sustainability advocacy.
Conclusion
Summary and Implications
This research explored what constitutes environmental and social sustainability in employee-level policy from the viewpoint of labour unions in ECG-active countries. The findings show a complex set of interrelated aspects.
In essence, what constitutes sustainability in employee-level policy from the viewpoint of unions is shaped by a principled yet pragmatic approach. It is based on a complex set of values, preferred practices and mechanisms, addressing both social and environmental concerns through their advocacy, though primarily framed in social terms. At the same time, there exists a gap between ideological vision and practical implementation because of systemic hindrances, and thus, unions continuously aim for incremental, system-compatible change. Through this process of navigating everyday real-world constraints, unions subsequently shape the landscape of sustainable employee policy, and together with the active co-development of the Just Transition framework, unions are positioned as both adopters and co-creators of labour sustainability paradigms. This dynamic highlights the complexity of union engagement with sustainability, which is a defining force in how they define and advance sustainable employee policy.
The “Just Transition” was revealed to be a guiding framework in the context of union engagement with sustainable employee policy, as many unions acknowledge the interconnectedness between social and environmental dimensions. However, while the Just Transition was conceived as a framework combining social and environmental sustainability, in practice, from a labour union standpoint, the concept is primarily operationalised through its social dimensions, as unions frame environmental issues through pre-existing social values such as equity and fairness. Thus, while unions increasingly include environmental action in their advocacy, it can be understood as an extension of their labour-driven legacy and agenda – adjusted to the reality of the imminent sustainability transition – rather than a fundamental re-orientation towards a social-ecological movement. This dynamic illustrates how unions’ social focus is being expanded rather than replaced, morphing into a labour movement that engages with environmental challenges while retaining its social foundations.
Furthermore, while the Just Transition is frequently conceptualised as a static policy paradigm (for example by the ILO), these findings suggest that for unions, the Just Transition is socially anchored and dynamically negotiated within pre-existing institutional labour frameworks. This finding underscores the need to construct the Just Transition not as a top-down policy model, but as a socially constructed process, shaped by existing power relations and the pre-existing values of labour actors such as unions themselves.
This pragmatic and dynamic union orientation is not only conceptual, but also strategic. The large majority of unions noted the use of reformist and incrementalist strategies to enact positive change, which can be understood as a practical expression of the principled pragmatism that underpins their strategy. This approach is shaped by everyday constraints in their operations. As such, unions further sustainability not linearly, but through a highly dynamic, negotiated process, during which potential benefits and disadvantages are continuously weighed, while also taking political and member realities into account. For those seeking to collaborate with unions as a means to advance sustainable change, this means taking into account that measures must align with union’s incremental and reformist strategies, rather than rapid transformation.
Overall, these findings show how unions approach employee-level sustainability both as fundamentally driven by values, as well as by strategic adaptability. Unions retain a power position in the labour landscape and within greater society, while possessing an effective capacity to translate their values into tangible, pragmatic action within the workplace. As such, this study positions unions as key players and intermediaries when it comes to social justice and ecological sustainability on the employee level, and as indispensable actors in shaping sustainable futures of work.
Limitations and Future Research Recommendations
The main limitation of this research was its broad scope, which was found to significantly limit the ability to engage in more granular analysis. During interviews, there was a constant trade-off between thematic breadth and analytical depth. To present a comprehensive overview, the focus was necessarily placed on broader questions and overarching patterns, obscuring vital sub-topics. For example, while broad themes such as emotional safety and dignity were explored, explicit engagement with constituent sub-topics, such as gendered labour dynamics, was limited. To address this, future research should constrain the scope to one or several sub-themes.
A second limitation of this research was an overreliance on the methodological assumption that a highly targeted recruitment strategy could be effectively and consistently implemented in practice to achieve a diverse participant sample. Although satisfactory, it differed from the originally intended highly pluralistic constellation. Moreover, while achieved in several cases, it proved unrealistic to consistently recruit two representatives per union, which constrained the exploration of intra-organisational comparative viewpoints. To address these challenges, future research should consider extending the recruitment period and utilising official institutional channels for communication, as well as institutional partnerships and incentivisation mechanisms.
Third, since this research applied a geographical scope limited to ECG-active countries, there is a selection bias. Union perspectives in other countries has been inadvertently excluded, and as such, future research could extend the scope beyond ECG-active countries.
Finally, unions may have a vested interest in emphasising their importance in advancing employee-level sustainability to solidify their organisational influence within the labour landscape. This may influence their viewpoints, for example when positioning themselves as indispensable actors within power constellation models, or when emphasising the importance of work councils, which can serve as key points of union leverage within companies. Future research could therefore examine how other organisations, such as HR departments and NGOs, influence employee-level sustainability, as well as how they relate to labour unions. Including a wider range of organisational viewpoints could promote a more pluralistic understanding of sustainable employee policy, especially by contrasting the traditional legacy role of unions with the more innovative approaches pursued by emergent institutions like the ECG.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Economy for the Common Good movement for their valuable support and insights, and for their inspiring ideas and principles aimed at creating transformative change.
Competing Interests
This article is based on the internship research report submitted by the author as a requirement for completing his bachelor’s degree at Windesheim Honours College. During his internship, Agnes Zenaida V. Camacho, Editor-in-Chief of this journal, served as his examiner. In accordance with Glocality journal policy, Agnes Camacho had no involvement in the quality assessment or editorial decision-making for this article. All editorial decisions were made by the editor assigned to this article.