which, in contrasting ways, are no more than extensions of national systems.
But under the third, the functioning of the EWC is creating a genuinely
transnational form of interest representation.
The first path is where the EWC is essentially the meeting point of differ-
ent national representatives. Each national delegation regards the EWC as an
extension of its national system and attempts to use the EWC to promote pri-
marily issues which accord with national priorities. In this scenario, the EWC
is no more than the sum of the different delegations. Such EWCs are likely to
develop a largely symbolic existence based on an annual meeting, but with
little or no independent contact and coordination between members in
between meetings and no ongoing liaison with group management. Following
Levinson’s (1972) classic analysis of the potential for transnational collective
bargaining, and echoing Perlmutter (1969), these might be described as ‘poly-
centric’ in orientation. Second are those EWCs in which representatives of the
home country dominate the functioning of the EWC, providing the secretariat
and leading officers. The EWC assumes an active rather than symbolic role,
characterized by communication and coordination between employee repre-
sentatives in between meetings and ongoing contact with group management.
But EWC members from operations outside the home country are marginalized
in this process and the international agenda is primarily driven by employee
representatives from the home country. In Levinson’s terms, this equates to an
‘ethnocentric’ approach to constructing industrial relations at the European
level. Third are those EWCs which are developing a new, European, identity
distinct from that of the structures of representation in the home country.
These correspond to Levinson’s ‘geocentric’ orientation. Continuing commu-
nication and activity on the employee side is not necessarily coordinated by
home country representatives, who do not have a monopoly of leading posi-
tions on the EWC or secretariat. Such EWCs are more than the sum of the
national delegations, developing a European agenda which is not nationally
driven, and are beginning to regulate some matters at the European level.
Amongst the cases studied, both Lecher and Rüb (1999) and Stoop and
Donders (1998) find evidence of all three types of EWC. Moreover, instances of
each type are found amongst MNCs headquartered in any given country; it is
not the case that EWCs in MNCs based in some countries are more likely to be
‘ethnocentric’ while those based in other countries tend to be either ‘polycen-
tric’ or ‘geocentric’. Crucially, even though many of the EWCs in question had
only been in operation for two to three years, some were already evolving a
transnational or ‘European’ mode of operation. In these EWCs, the ‘network of
contacts’ (Streeck, 1997: 333) and the control of resources is not nationally cen-
tred. It remains to be seen whether those EWCs which currently operate as
extensions of national structures will, over time, develop a transnational mode
of operation. In any case, the proposition that EWCs are primarily an exten-
sion of national systems is supported only in a contingent sense, and does not
stand as a generalization.
The Eurocompany and European Works Councils 473