The environmental integrity of VA is the subject of much debate. Some governments – as well as industry – believe that VA is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (IIA, 2002; OECD, 2003c). Rietbergen et al. (2002) investigated whether voluntary agreements in the Netherlands have improved energy efficiency beyond what would have been the case without such agreements. They estimate that, on average, between 25% and 50% of energy savings in Dutch manufacturing are due to the policy mix of agreements and support measures. It is not easy to assess the effectiveness of VA. The standard approach is to first measure the environmental performance of a group of companies participating in a VA and then compare the performance with that of one or more typical non-participating companies. One of the problems with this approach is selection bias: it is often the most successful companies that complement the VA. A second, and related, counterfactual problem: it is difficult to know what a company could have done if it had not joined VA. Very few studies have attempted to assess VA in light of these two aspects. Studies that do not take these factors into account can lead to an overly optimistic assessment of VA performance.
Autonomous Agreement; European social dialogue; European social model; the European social partners; framework agreements; cross-sectoral agreement; Non-binding law; stress at work; Telecommuting The benefits of VA for individual businesses and society can be considerable. Companies can benefit from lower legal fees, improve their reputation and improve their relationships with society as a whole and with shareholders in particular. Companies gain by translating their goals into concrete business practices and convincing other companies to follow their lead. Negotiations to develop VA raise awareness of climate change issues and possible remedial measures in industry (Kågeström et al., 2000), establish a dialogue between industry and government, and help move the industry towards best practice. Voluntary agreements benefit the injured worker. They are also necessary in most accepted cases for workers` compensation. Insurance companies often neglect to prepare a voluntary agreement that allows them to reject the claim at a later date. Our CT workers` compensation lawyers will seek a voluntary agreement whenever appropriate or necessary to protect your employees` claims. In January 2006, the European social partners agreed on a proposal for a work programme for the period 2006-2008, which included the conclusion of two “autonomous” framework agreements similar to those on telework and work-related stress.
The social partners decided to use the term “autonomous agreements” for future European framework agreements and to maintain the use of “voluntary agreements” for the two agreements already signed. One of these new frameworks was on harassment and violence in the workplace (signed in April 2007) and the other on inclusive labour markets (signed in March 2010). These framework agreements, whether voluntary or autonomous, are voluntary in the sense that the social partners can enter into negotiations with or without the involvement of the Commission and that it is the social partners, not the EU institutions, who are responsible for their implementation. It must be recognized that VA fits better into the cultural traditions of some countries than others. Japan, for example, has a history of cooperation between government and industry that facilitates the implementation of “voluntary” programs. Some examples of VA in different countries are given in Box 13.5. The Commission`s 2004 Communication “Partnership for Change in an Enlarged Europe – Strengthening the contribution of European social dialogue” places particular emphasis on voluntary agreements (referred to in the Communication as “autonomous agreements”). Others are more skeptical about the effectiveness of VA in reducing emissions. Independent assessments of VA – while it is acknowledged that investment in cleaner technologies has led to absolute improvements in emissions – suggest that there is little improvement over business-as-usual scenarios, as these investments would likely have occurred anyway (Harrison, 1999; King and Lenox, 2000; Rietbergen and Blok, 2000; OECD, 2003e; Rivera and deLeon, 2004). The economic efficiency of VA can also be low, as it rarely includes mechanisms to offset the costs of mitigating boundaries between different transmitters (Braathen, 2005). The second voluntary agreement follows a consultation of the social partners launched by the Commission in 2002 on stress and its impact on health and safety at work.
The European social partners have also included the issue of work-related stress in their work programme for 2003-2005. In October 2004, they signed a stand-alone agreement on work-related stress. The agreement defines work-related stress and provides guidelines for measures to prevent, eliminate or reduce it. Voluntary agreements can take many forms with varying degrees of rigour. While all VAs are “voluntary” in the sense that companies are not required to join, some may include incentives (rewards or penalties) for participation. Companies may agree on direct or indirect emission reductions through changes in product design (see Chapter 6, Section 6.8.2.2.). Agreements may be autonomous, but are often used in conjunction with other policy instruments. Voluntary agreements are also a subset of a broader set of “voluntary approaches” where industry can first negotiate standards of conduct with other companies or private groups and then allow third parties to monitor compliance. This broader circle also includes unilateral voluntary measures taken by industry. See Section 13.4, Box 13.5, and Section 7.9.2 of Chapter 7 for more information on voluntary measures. The second type of voluntary agreement is that of a “specific premium” or a “permanent premium”.
If an injury results in a permanent loss of function of a part of the body covered by the Workers` Compensation Act, this second type of agreement is used. The difference is that this voluntary agreement lists the part of the body affected and the number of weeks granted – for example, it could indicate a 5% loss of the back, or a 100% loss of the hand, or a 35% loss of the heart. The European social dialogue is one of the most important examples of this type of alternative governance; In its 2002 Communication “European social dialogue as a driver of innovation and change”, the Commission states that social dialogue is a “key to better governance” and calls for greater involvement of the social partners “on a voluntary basis”. Since the 1990s, the EU has developed a new regulatory policy, with an increasing emphasis on the use of alternative instruments that complement traditional legislation. These instruments, which are less coercive or non-governmental in nature, are often referred to as “soft law”, “self-regulation” or “co-regulation”. Voluntary agreements are a typical result of these alternative forms of multi-level governance. The main objective of diversifying regulatory instruments is to improve the effectiveness, legitimacy and transparency of EU action and to respect the principles of conferral of competences, subsidiarity and proportionality in the EU legislative process. Darnall and Carmin (2003) review 61 general environmental agreements between governments, industry and third parties, primarily in the United States (see also Lyon and Maxwell, 2000). Overall, their results show that voluntary programmes were weak in that they had limited management, environmental and performance requirements.