- 15 of 27 Member States reported social partner consultation on MTFSPs in 2024; 5 States reported discussions only, 7 provided no information.
- Only one trade union (Malta) and four employer organisations (Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, France) assessed their involvement as meaningful.
- Commission fact-finding missions gave social partners significantly greater real influence than Member State fiscal and progress plans.
- Social partners call for more expertise, stable resources, and structured feedback mechanisms to strengthen their involvement.
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1263 mandates social partner consultation, but practice varies considerably across Member States.
Overview
Eurofound's new research report documents how national employer organisations and trade unions were involved in various aspects of the European Semester in 2024–2025. It analyses in particular the consultation of social partners in connection with the new medium-term fiscal-structural plans (MTFSPs) and the 2025 annual progress reports (APRs). Findings indicate that social partners' involvement in these processes is perceived as limited, in sharp contrast to the more substantial role they play in the Commission's fact-finding missions.
Background
In April 2024, the new European framework for the coordination of macroeconomic governance entered into force with Regulation (EU) 2024/1263. The regulation includes, in Article 11(3), a reference to social partner consultation on MTFSPs, and in Article 21(5), a reference to the annual progress reports. Country reports and country-specific recommendations are rooted in Articles 121 and 148 of the TFEU and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 and Regulation (EU) 1176/2011.
At the end of 2024, Member State governments submitted their medium-term fiscal-structural plans for the first time. In 2025, annual progress reports on their implementation were produced for the first time. The Social Convergence Framework (SCF) was also established, based on the European Pillar of Social Rights, while the established fact-finding missions, country reports, and country-specific recommendations continued.
Key findings on MTFSP consultation
| Member States | Status of MTFSP consultation |
|---|---|
| 15 States | Indicated that consultations took place under Article 11(3) |
| 5 States (Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal) | Indicated no consultations took place, but discussions were organised instead |
| 7 States | Provided no information on whether consultation took place, despite the requirement in Article 13(g)(vi) |
The Network of Eurofound Correspondents confirmed differences between Member States. In some, governments reported not having consulted social partners; in others, they consulted on parts of the MTFSP but not the entire plan. In Bulgaria, Czechia and Finland, a practice of multilayered consultation was reported. In several States, a specific ad hoc approach was used, while others held discussions in the national economic and social council.
Quality of involvement
A quality assessment provided by national employer organisations and trade unions showed that very few organisations assessed their involvement as meaningful:
- One trade union in Malta
- Four employer organisations in Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia and France
The remaining organisations reported either that they were not involved in the drafting of MTFSPs, that information was only shared with them, or that the consultation was a formality that did not allow them to propose changes. Involvement in the preparation of the first APRs in 2025 was assessed at a similar level.
Comparison: Fiscal plans vs. fact-finding missions
There is a striking asymmetry in perceived involvement between the two processes:
- Fact-finding missions: In almost all Member States, social partners appreciated their involvement. The European Commission interacts directly with national employer organisations and trade unions, facilitated by Economic Counsellors in their Member States. Some variation is reported in timing and organisation of meetings.
- MTFSPs and APRs: Responsibility lies entirely with the authorities of the Member States under Regulation (EU) 2024/1263, with no direct role for Commission services.
Social partners consistently assess their involvement more positively in Commission-led processes – fact-finding missions, country reports, and country-specific recommendations – than in government-led fiscal-structural plans and annual progress reports.
Capacity challenges
Most employer organisations and trade unions expressed the need for enhanced support for capacity-building to strengthen their expertise and familiarity with the various aspects of the European Semester. Key needs include:
- Greater expertise in EU economic governance
- Stable resources
- Clearer information and guidance on consultation procedures, including when to provide input
- Structured feedback mechanisms showing how their input influenced outcomes
Not all social partners are yet familiar with the newly established Social Convergence Framework. EU funding already supports capacity-building efforts, but the need persists.
Recommendations
The report highlights the following policy pointers:
- An earlier start to the drafting of MTFSPs and APRs provides more time for consulting social partners
- Involvement of other ministries besides the finance ministry – e.g. employment or social affairs – could strengthen consultation, as they often have more experience with social partners
- Enhanced transparency regarding consultation procedures, including guidance on timing of input
- Establishment of structured feedback mechanisms
- Greater public awareness of the European Semester and its governance processes, as knowledge is limited to a small number of experts
About the report
The research report was published by Eurofound on 31 August 2026 and authored by Senior Research Manager Peter Kerckhofs. The report comprises 96 pages, one figure and 44 tables, and is part of the publication series National social partners and policymaking. The methodology combines document analysis, expert interviews, and information from national governments and representatives of employer organisations and trade unions, with findings presented from a comparative perspective including country fiches for each Member State.
ISBN: 978-92-897-2580-4 | Reference no.: EF25009 | DOI: 10.2806/9323175