Member of the Network of EU Agencies

RESEARCH REPORT

New forms of employment:Developing the potential ofstrategic employee sharing

New forms of employment:Developing the potential ofstrategic employee sharing

European Foundationfor the Improvement ofLiving and WorkingConditions

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number*: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11*Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Printed in Luxembourg

Cover image: Shutterstock

When citing this report, please use the following wording:

Eurofound (2016), New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing,Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Author: Irene Mandl

Research manager: Irene Mandl

Eurofound project: New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

Acknowledgements: Eurofound would like to thank Frédéric Bruggeman (Antime), Gábor Kártyás (Pázmány PéterCatholic University), Tom Martin (Tom Martin & Associates), Frédéric Naedenoen (Lentic) and Frédéric Turlan(IRshare), who provided national analyses on the topic as well as Elma Paulauskaitė and Egidijus Barcevicius(Public Policy Management Institute, PPMI) who coordinated these contributions. In addition, this report hasbenefited from insightful discussions between the following experts in a workshop on the topic organised byEurofound: Peter Byrne (FRS Farm Relief Services), Antal Csuport (Stratosz), Thomas Kreiter (Federation of AustrianIndustries), Pierre Fadeuilhe (IPST-Cnam), Marcus Strohmeier (ÖGB/progressNETZ) and Sigrid Wölfing(tamen. Entwicklungsbüro Arbeit und Umwelt GmbH).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Print: ISBN: 978-92-897-1553-9 doi:10.2806/470081 TJ-06-16-031-EN-CWeb: ISBN: 978-92-897-1554-6 doi:10.2806/539027 TJ-06-16-031-EN-N

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) is a tripartiteEuropean Union Agency, whose role is to provide knowledge in the area of social and work-related policies.Eurofound was established in 1975 by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1365/75 to contribute to the planning and designof better living and working conditions in Europe.

© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2016

For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundationfor the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, D18 KP65, Ireland.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00 Email: information@eurofound.europa.eu Web: www.eurofound.europa.eu

Contents

Executive summary 1

Introduction 3

Background and objectives of this report 3

Methodology and structure of the report 3

1 The ‘strategic employee sharing’ model 5

Main characteristics of strategic employee sharing 5

Implementation in the individual countries 6

Scale and scope of strategic employee sharing 8

2 Framework conditions for strategic employee sharing 13

Public framework conditions 13

Resource centres 15

Employer group management 16

Company and job characteristics 18

3 Potential benefits and risks of strategic employee sharing 21

Implications for workers 21

Implications for companies 23

4 Conclusions and policy pointers 25

Strategic employee sharing – a new employment form in Europe 25

Fostering and hampering strategic employee sharing in Europe 25

Implications of strategic employee sharing 26

Policy pointers 27

Bibliography 31

iii

Country codesEU Member States

iv

AT Austria FI Finland NL Netherlands

BE Belgium FR France PL Poland

BG Bulgaria HR Croatia PT Portugal

CY Cyprus HU Hungary RO Romania

CZ Czech Republic IE Ireland SE Sweden

DE Germany IT Italy SI Slovenia

DK Denmark LT Lithuania SK Slovakia

EE Estonia LU Luxembourg UK United Kingdom

EL Greece LV Latvia

ES Spain MT Malta

1

IntroductionAlthough standard employment practices are stilldominant in European labour markets, an increasingmixture of new employment forms is emerging; theirimplications for working conditions differ, with somebeing more beneficial than others. This study exploresthe employment model of ‘strategic employee sharing’,which can be applied if a group of employers havespecific recurring, human resources (HR) needs that canbe planned in advance and combined acrosscompanies. The participating companies establish an‘employer group’ which becomes the formal employerof one or more shared workers and coordinates theirassignments to the participating firms. In this way, theworkers get access to permanent full-time employmentwith a single employer (although they work in severaldifferent companies) that would not be otherwiseavailable.

This study investigates how to develop the potential ofthis employment form by identifying the factors whichfavour or hinder its establishment and growth. It alsodiscusses the positive and negative effects of theemployment model on workers and companies. Finally,it provides pointers on how to foster the introductionand spread of strategic employee sharing in Europe.

Policy contextIn Europe, new employment forms can refer to achanged relationship between employer and employee(or client and worker); to new forms of workorganisation (as regards the time and place of work orthe use of modern information and communicationtechnologies); or to a combination of both. These newforms are caused by economic circumstances, but alsoby technological and societal change. While most newemployment forms are still marginal, it can be assumedthat some of them have the potential to effect acomplete structural change of the labour market.

In recent decades, Europe has put considerable effortinto improving employment and working conditions.The limited evidence available, however, hints towardsa wider spread of new employment forms withpotentially negative implications for workers. Againstthis background, it seems reasonable to further explorestrategic employee sharing as an employment modelthat provides companies with the HR flexibility theyrequire while, at the same time, offering job,employment and income security to workers.

Key findingsStrategic employee sharing is a form of cooperative HRmanagement at regional level. Companies with specificHR needs that recur from time to time, and that can beforeseen in advance but do not justify a permanentfull-time position, can jointly hire one or several workerswho are repeatedly given individual assignments in theparticipating companies. The companies have a jointresponsibility and liability towards the shared workerswho are ensured ‘equal pay, equal treatment’ with theircore staff in the participating companies. Theemployment form provides security to workers whootherwise might have to accept more precariousemployment forms.

Strategic employee sharing is, so far, only marginallyused in Europe. This can partly be explained by the factthat this employment model is a solution for a specifictype of HR demand and cannot be used for all everydayemployment situations. However, it is generally felt thatthe potential of this employment form isunderdeveloped.

This research explored what might encourage itsestablishment and further development, and concludesthat the necessary conditions can be grouped into fourareas which influence each other.

Demand: Companies need to be aware that thisemployment model exists and be willing to engage in it.This is affected by legal frameworks, but also by theexistence of alternative employment options and thecompanies’ own attitudes towards HR innovation andcooperation. Furthermore, the HR needs of individualfirms must be complementary and it must be possibleto reliably anticipate them.

Supply: Shared workers need to be adaptable, flexible,autonomous, reliable and have certain social skills.

Framework: Labour market players need to support thisemployment form. Suitable legal framework conditionsmust be designed; financial support is needed for theoperational implementation of the employment model;and information needs to be shared with companiesand workers.

Executive summary

2

Operational support: The use of strategic employeesharing needs some impetus. Resource centres areneeded to raise awareness among institutional players,companies and workers, and to guide those who applythis employment model. Individual employee sharingmodels are administered by an employer group’smanagement team, which plays a vital role incommunicating with companies and workers; ensuringthat the employment model is only applied when andfor whom it is really suitable; dealing with the variousrelated administrative tasks; and coordinating theassignment of workers.

The main advantage of strategic employee sharing forcompanies is the way it can provide cost-efficient andflexible access to (skilled) workers. There are otherbenefits such as improved HR administration, HRpractices and employer branding. There are, however,potential disadvantages. The joint responsibility andliability within the employer group may obligecompanies to cover for the deficiencies of othermembers, and workflow and work organisationchallenges can also adversely affect productivity levels.

For the participating workers, the main advantage isaccess to permanent full-time positions that otherwisewould not be created and which give them job andincome security. A job with an employer group canimprove employability as workers acquire a range ofon-the-job skills as they move between companies.However, there is the potential of increased stress levelsand work intensity, less integration into the individualfirms and limited representation.

Policy pointersTo take advantage of the potential of strategicemployee sharing, the identified preconditions for itsestablishment and wider use would have to be put inplace. This suggests the following policy pointers:

£ awareness-raising among institutions, companiesand workers;

£ recognition of the employment model through astable and simple legal framework that clarifies theconcept and its implications for the involvedparties;

£ active support of strategic employee sharing bygovernments and social partners, includingfinancial support for resource centres and the start-up of employer groups;

£ creation of a collaborative spirit among companies,encouraging their HR innovation and medium tolong-term HR planning;

£ support to employer group management, forexample through the provision of codes of conduct,contract templates or training.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

3

Background and objectives ofthis reportWhile European labour markets are still dominated bystandard employment forms (that is, permanentfull-time contracts for salaried employees, orself-employment), an increasing diversity ofemployment forms is emerging across the EU MemberStates (Eurofound, 2015a). These new forms arecharacterised by a changed relationship betweenemployer and employee (or client and worker), by newforms of work organisation (particularly for the time andplace of work, or the use of modern information andcommunication technologies) or a combination of both.

Most of the identified new employment forms are stillsmall in scale and scope, with some of them expected toremain so as they apply to specific employmentsituations. Others, however, are already used morewidely and the use of them could grow considerably.This seems to be mainly driven by the need forincreased flexibility by employers, workers or both.

The characteristics of the new employment trends arediverse, as are their implications for working conditionsand the labour market. Some of them raise concernsabout the retention of employment standardsdeveloped in Europe during the last decades. Others arethought to have the potential to improve the labourmarket and workers’ employment situation. Overall,little detailed information is available to provide asound scientific evaluation of the effects of the newemployment forms in Europe. Nevertheless, the dataavailable imply a wider spread of those employmentforms with potential negative implications for workers,compared with those which are thought to be morebeneficial.

Against this background, this report focuses on strategicemployee sharing, which was identified by Eurofound(2015a) as a new employment form with the potential toalign employers’ needs for flexibility with workers’ needfor security and stability. In this employment form, agroup of employers with limited but recurring humanresources (HR) needs hires workers jointly, ideally on apermanent and full-time contract, and is jointlyresponsible for them. Although strategic employeesharing has the potential to benefit both employers andemployees, it is not widely used – or even known –across Europe.

This report explores which economic and labour marketconditions, legal frameworks and institutional settingsfavour and hinder the implementation of strategicemployee sharing models. It discusses what needs to bein place to increase their spread and effectiveness in

European labour markets. It also investigates, in moredetail, the potential benefits and risks of strategicemployee sharing for employees and employers.

Methodology and structure ofthe reportThe report analyses strategic employee sharing in fiveEU Member States in which it has been identified asemerging or of increasing importance since around 2000(Eurofound, 2015a). There is no standardised orcommon term for this employment model. For thisreport, the terminology ‘strategic employee sharing’ isused in line with the Eurofound report New forms ofemployment (Eurofound, 2015a), which refers to theemployment models analysed in the individualcountries and set out in Table 1.

The analysis also covers Ireland, where strategicemployee sharing is not yet used. This was done as afirst, small-scale test on the transferability of theemployment model to other countries, based on theexperiences of countries already implementing it.

The research is mainly based on a qualitative approach,supplemented by a small-scale analysis of nationalsecondary data. Next to a literature and documentreview, 55 semi-standardised qualitative in-depthinterviews with representatives of governments, socialpartners, labour law experts, practitioners in strategicemployee sharing and academic experts wereconducted across the six countries in the first half of2016. For France, two regions in which strategicemployee sharing is operational have been analysed:Poitou-Charentes and Languedoc-Roussillon. To discussand validate the preliminary findings, a workshop withseven stakeholders from the analysed countries washeld at Eurofound in June 2016.

Introduction

Table 1: National models of strategic employee

sharing analysed in this report

Source: Eurofound

CountryNational name of the strategic employee

sharing model

Austria Arbeitgeberzusammenschluss (AGZ)

Belgium Groupement d’employeurs (GE)/Werkgeversgroeperingen

France Groupement d’employeurs (GE)

Germany Arbeitgeberzusammenschluss (AGZ)

Hungary Több munkáltató által létesitett munkaviszony

4

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the maincharacteristics of strategic employee sharing as well asits specific implementation in the analysed countries.Furthermore, it presents the few available statistics toillustrate the scale and scope of the use of strategicemployee sharing.

Chapter 2 discusses the factors than can foster orhinder the implementation and use of strategicemployee sharing. This includes the characteristics ofthe regional economic and labour market structure,legal frameworks, institutional settings and culturalaspects related to employers and employees.

Chapter 3 investigates the main benefits and risks of theemployment model for the affected workers andparticipating companies. However, due to the limitedexperience with, and small scale of, strategic employeesharing, the macroeconomic effects on the regionallabour market and business structure could not beexplored.

Finally, Chapter 4 summarises the main findings of theresearch and suggests policy pointers for how thisemployment model could be further fostered acrossEurope.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

5

Main characteristics of strategicemployee sharingStrategic employee sharing was identified as a new orincreasingly significant employment model in a few EUMember States in the mapping of employment trends in2013/2014 by Eurofound (Eurofound, 2015a). There is nostandard or common term for this employment modelacross Europe, nor are its characteristics and workingmethods harmonised across the countries. The mostcommon terminology for strategic employee sharingrefers to groupements d’employeurs (GE) in the French-speaking countries and Arbeitgeberzusammenschluss(AGZ) in the German-speaking ones.

Strategic employee sharing refers to a model of salariedemployment deviating from the traditional relationshipbetween one employer and one employee. A group ofemployers forms a network with a separate legal entity(the ‘employer group’) that hires one or several workersto be sent on individual work assignments to theparticipating companies.

The employer group becomes the formal and singleemployer of the workers and is responsible for:

£ fulfilling the duties related to the employmentcontract as regards administrative and socialobligations;

£ coordinating the assignments of the workers in theparticipating companies;

£ setting out guidelines/codes of conduct for thecooperation of all involved parties.

The individual companies are responsible for:

£ providing the workload for the shared workers;

£ arranging the work organisation with them andensuring adequate working conditions, followingthe general principle of ‘equal pay, equaltreatment’ compared to core staff;

£ paying the employer group for the human resourcesprovided.

The employer group combines the limited orfragmented, but recurring, HR needs of individualemployers into permanent and full-time positions forthe workers.

1 The ‘strategic employee sharing’model

Operating model of strategic employee sharing

The structure is similar to temporary agency work,with three important differences.

£ The sole purpose of the employer group is toadminister and coordinate the assignment of theshared workers to the participating companies,with the aim of providing them with the neededhuman resources when required. As such, theemployer group does not aim to make a profit.

£ The participating companies have not only aclient-service provider relationship with theemployer group, but also commit themselves tojoint and several responsibility and liability forthe shared workers’ wages and social securitycontributions.

£ The workers regularly rotate among theparticipating employers and work exclusively forthese employers, rather than being sent to anycompany that might become a client of theemployer group at any point of time.

Source: Eurofound

Employers

Workers

Work

Invoicing

Invoicing

‘The group’

Work

Work

Contract

Contract

Contract

6

Strategic employee sharing is considered to be a form ofcooperative HR management at regional level (CERGE,2008; Wölfing et al, 2007; Osthoff et al, 2011; Baumfeldand Fischer, 2012; Baumfeld, 2012). It transforms theflexible HR needs of several companies that individuallywould not be enough for standard employment intostable and secure employment relationships for workers,creating a ‘collective staff’ shared across companies.

In practice, the establishment of strategic employeesharing is driven by a regional player (for example, aregional development agency or other institution, butalso an individual company) that sees the benefits ofthe model for companies and the workforce, andapproaches local companies to explore the feasibility ofsetting up an employer group (Osthoff et al, 2011;Hertwig and Kirsch, 2012).

While larger employer groups have a specificmanagement body, smaller ones are organised by oneof the participating companies on top of their normalworkload. The reason for this is that a specificmanagement function incurs administrative costs whichneed to be charged to the participating companies, andthis is only feasible if there are enough shared workers.The assumed threshold when a specifically assignedfull-time employer group manager is feasible variesconsiderably across the interviewed experts – fromaround 10 to 40–50 shared employees.

Anticipated HR demand is discussed between theemployer group management and the participatingcompanies, dealing with the skills required and thetiming of assignments. Participating companies have tocommit to their stated HR needs for a certain period.While practices vary across employer groups, a standardplanning horizon seems to be six months to one year. Inmost cases, a civil law contract will be drafted betweenthe employer group and the member companies, andthey will be invoiced on this basis in order to guaranteeregular payment to the shared workforce even if theycannot, in the event, provide the planned workload.However, it is possible to search for employmentalternatives with other participating companies ifresource needs are overestimated, hence offering someflexibility for the employers. Such a search would beconducted by the employer group manager. The sameperson also recruits the shared staff; carries out HRadministration tasks such as registration or payrollaccounting; supports cooperation between theindividual companies and workers (including, forexample, coordinating conflict resolution); and mighttake on other tasks such as organising training withinthe employer group.

With the exception of Hungary, ‘resource centres’ havebeen set up in the countries analysed in this report tosupport strategic employee sharing. In Belgium andFrance, these centres act at regional level (with nonational umbrella organisation) and receive financialsupport from regional institutions. In Austria and

Germany, the resource centres operate at national level.The Austrian resource centre was set up in 2016 withfinancial support from the national government, whilethe German resource centre is organised by a privateorganisation that voluntarily devotes resources tostrategic employee sharing, occasionally supported bypublic funding for individual projects.

The aim of resource centres is twofold. On the one hand,they lobby for the employment model by activelyapproaching institutional stakeholders, familiarisingthem with the concept of strategic employee sharingand asking for support. On the other hand, they supportemployer groups by providing templates for standards,codes of conduct or contracts and by advising employergroups in their start-up and later activities.

Some of the national and regional resource centreshave jointly set up the European Information andResource Centre for Employers’ Alliances (CERGE).CERGE sees its mission as the promotion of thisemployment model across Europe through networkingactivities across countries; the encouragement ofstrategic employee sharing in countries where it is notyet used; the setting of quality standards for thisemployment form in Europe; and the support ofresource centres and employer group managers in theirday-to-day work.

Implementation in the individualcountriesAs there is no common European concept of strategicemployee sharing, the method of implementing itdiffers from country to country. This is mainly due to itsdegree of formalisation (that is, its legal framework) inany given country, its background and the motivation inestablishing it, and general labour market characteristics.

The most well established model of strategic employeesharing can be found in France (groupementd’employeurs, GEs). The concept was incorporated inthe labour code in 1985 (Law 85-772 of 25 July 1985),specifying the status of an employer group, the relatedrights and obligations of the involved parties, whichcollective agreements to be applied and other issuesspecific to employer groups (see also Eurofound,2015d). Examples of these include liability issues suchas the consequences of a participating companydeclaring itself bankrupt. The legislation ensures thatthe shared workers and the core staff of theparticipating companies are treated equally. This coreprinciple of strategic employee sharing is generallyreferred to as ‘equal pay, equal treatment’. The legalframework relevant for strategic employee sharing hasbeen amended several times, so that it can be betterapplied in practice. Hence, GEs are not ‘new’ in France,but are analysed in this project as they have been amodel for strategic employee sharing in other countriesand have recently experienced growth.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

7

A French GE must be founded under the legal form of anassociation or a cooperative (that is, a non-profitorganisation). No specific authorisation is required,although the labour inspectorate must be informed. Theemployer group has to draft written contracts with theshared workers specifying the main employmentconditions, including a list of potential companies andthe location of the workplaces to which the worker maybe sent. As previously mentioned, the law requires theshared workers and the participating firms’ core staff tobe treated equally on pay, profit-sharing, participationand savings (Fadeuilhe, 2012). Workers can be hired ona part-time and full-time basis, and also on permanentand fixed-term contracts.

There are three different types of employer groups inFrance:

£ agricultural employer groups;

£ single-sector or multi-sectoral employer groups(other than agriculture);

£ employer groups for the integration of people intothe workforce and the acquisition of qualifications(groupes d’employeurs pour l’insertion et laqualification, GEIQs), which support those who havedifficulty in accessing the labour market to findplacements and gain qualifications.

In the agriculture sector, there are also groupementsd’employeurs service de remplacement. This is a serviceoffered by the sectoral insurance fund that suppliestemporary staff to cover for sick leave or (short)holidays.

The ‘strategic employee sharing’ model

In Belgium, strategic employee sharing is based onlegislation introduced in 2000 (amended in 2014). Whilestrategic employee sharing was previously consideredas a tool to integrate the long-term unemployed intothe labour market, the new law allows the hiring of anykind of workers (which is more consistent with therequirement towards shared workers’ characteristics)and the use of fixed-term or specific-assignmentcontracts that come to an end when a particular taskhas been completed (which facilitates the cross-

company combination of HR needs). Furthermore,workers can now also be hired on a part-time basis.Employer groups can also be set up as non-profitorganisations, as well as the previous option of aneconomic interest grouping (a little-known legal form,and this unfamiliarity made potential companiesreluctant to participate). As in France, the legal basisguarantees the same employment and social protectionrights of the shared workers as for any otheremployment. (For more details, see Eurofound, 2015c.)

£ The Groupement d’Employeurs Associatif et Sportif Audois (GEASA) was started in 2015 and provides jobs for13 workers (12 on indefinite contract, one on fixed-term contract) by combining tasks of 10 organisations,mainly related to administrative or technical jobs in the sport sector.

£ The Groupement de l’Orb et de l’Herault is a multisectoral employer group established in 2003 as a responseto the HR needs of the local small companies. The shared workers comprise, for example, administrativeassistants as well as sector specific occupations such as sales staff, construction workers or technicalspecialists.

Examples for employer groups in France

£ JobArdent was created in 2008 by the Liège chamber of business and industry to share workers among itsmembers. In 2016, JobArdent comprises 58 user companies. The employer group shares nine workers among33 user companies. Their current functions are: infographics specialists (5), secretary (2) and IT manager (2).The recruitment of a third IT manager is under way at the time of preparing this report in March 2016.

£ Syndic Reunis GIE gathers three building management companies since 2008. The employer group employsfive workers for the accountancy and the secretary work of its members. Three workers have full-timecontracts, two are employed part time.

£ Basic+ was created in 2013 by several schools to share an accountant. In 2016, Basic+ comprises around onehundred schools and shares two accountants and three accident prevention advisors.

Examples for employer groups in Belgium

8

In Hungary, strategic employee sharing was included inthe labour code in 2012 to offer a flexible and practicalemployment form across companies. It can be appliedin exchanging staff within a group of companiesconnected by ownership or a close businessrelationship, but also to satisfy the demand for specificskills within otherwise unconnected businesses. Incontrast to the general description of employee sharing,and to the French and Belgian examples, in Hungary, noseparate legal entity is set up to facilitate strategicemployee sharing. Rather, an employment contract issigned between one employee and two or moreemployers, where the worker is supposed to conductthe same job for all involved employers. Theparticipating companies might conclude a civil lawcontract among themselves to specify their respectiverights and obligations in the employee sharing model(Kozma, 2012; see also Eurofound, 2015e).

The legislation sets some basic guidelines (includingsetting out the joint and several liability of the involvedcompanies for the shared workers’ labour-relatedclaims and the principle of equal pay/equal treatment),leaving the operational details to the involved parties.This also includes the choice of the applicable collectiveagreement. No specific authorisation is required, butthe employers need to inform the tax authority whichemployer has been designated to take charge of payingtax and social security contributions.

In contrast to the country examples presented so far,neither Austria nor Germany has a legal basis forstrategic employee sharing (Eurofound, 2015b;Eurofound, 2015f). Here, strategic employee sharing ismore a company practice than a formally recognisedemployment model. In Germany, strategic employeesharing was first considered as an employment model inthe mid-2000s (Eurofound, 2015b), while in Austria, thefirst employer group was set up in 2014 (Eurofound,2015f). Both countries took advantage of France’sexperiences by intensively exchanging information withthe experts there (and with each other). Companiesinterested in using the shared employment model mustjointly set up a temporary work agency, which then acts

as the employer group by formally hiring the sharedworkers and assigning them to the participatingcompanies. The same approach would also have to betaken when establishing strategic employee sharing inIreland.

As a consequence, the companies’ joint responsibilitytowards the workers is not legally anchored, but basedon mutual agreement among the participatingcompanies. The same holds true for the principle of‘equal pay, equal treatment’. At the same time, thesubstantial legal basis for temporary agency workprovides a high level of protection for the sharedworkers’ employment and working conditions.

In both Austria and Germany, founding a temporarywork agency requires authorisation by a public body. Asfor the legal form, it has been recognised in Germanythat an employer group cannot be an association(Hädinger, 2006).

Scale and scope of strategicemployee sharingAvailable data on strategic employee sharing are verylimited. In most of the analysed countries, there isneither a register of employer groups nor their affiliatedcompanies and workers, nor an authority systematicallycollecting data on this employment form at nationallevel. The following information should therefore beseen as an illustration rather than a comprehensivestatistical analysis. The sources mainly refer to surveysat national or regional level, supplemented by expertestimates.

In France, it was observed that the uptake of thisemployment form was limited after its introduction (forexample, about 70 employer groups in 1988) andfocused on agriculture. It became more widespreadduring the 1990s, with about 2,400 employer groups in1998, involving about 11,400 companies and 8,100workers. In 2014, it was estimated that there were about5,600 employer groups with 100,000 participatingcompanies. They are assumed to have employed about

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

£ Two IT firms launched cooperation for the fulfilment of an EU-funded project. One of them won a tender butfound it needed more people to do the work, thus it approached the other firm for help. The two companiesshared 21 highly-trained and experienced IT professionals for the implementation of the EU project (fornearly one and a half years).

£ In 2015, the structure of national bus companies was merged from previously individual state-owned companiesat country level into seven regional companies. In one region, the three predecessor companies decided to setup a common joint-stock company in 2014 to manage all preparatory tasks before the new regional leveloperation would start. The three companies delegated some of their executive employees and highest trainedprofessionals to the joint company by means of employee sharing. Altogether, 20 employees were affected,including one company’s CEO.

Examples for employer groups in Hungary

9

35,000–40,000 workers, which corresponds toapproximately 0.2% of the overall workforce in France(or about 0.5% in Poitou-Charentes – one of the regionswith the highest number of employer groups). This lowuptake can partly be explained by the fact that strategicemployee sharing is a ‘niche arrangement’ in that itaddresses a specific type of HR demand and cannot beapplied in all employment situations.

Next to these estimates, more solid data are availablefor agricultural employer groups. In 2014, 3,900agricultural employer groups employed about 24,000full-time equivalent workers (MSA, 2016). Since 2004,this kind of employment has grown at an average of 7%per year.

A recent study conducted by the consultancy firmGESTE for the Ministry of Labour DGEFP estimates thatin 2013 there were about 800 employer groups with atleast one employee outside the agricultural sector(compared to about 1,000 in February 2016). Theseemployed a total of about 19,000 shared workers (about15,800 full-time equivalents). (At the time of writing thisstudy the data had not been published. The informationgiven here was presented at a national event; finalresults might change.)

Between 60 and 70 employer groups have been createdeach year since 2009, although it is not possible toidentify the number of employer groups which ceasedoperating during this period. Nevertheless, experts inthe region of Poitou-Charentes (which can beconsidered as the ‘birthplace’ of the sharedemployment model) judge that employer groups arequite sustainable once they are set up and reach acertain size – about 30 employees. This can beexplained by the fact that the number of employergroups in this region was stable or growing slightlybetween 2012 and 2014, while the number of workersemployed by them increased substantially.

There is significant diversity in the size of Frenchemployer groups outside of the agriculture sector, asshown in Figure 1. Around 15% involve fewer than 10companies and about the same percentage has 100 ormore participating firms. Just under 30% of groups have10–29 member companies, 20% have 30–49, and 23%have 50–99 member companies. Nevertheless, the vastmajority of them operate as micro enterpriseemployers, with 60% of the employer groups employingfewer than 10 shared workers, and fewer than 10% ofthe employer groups have 50 or more shared workers.Although agricultural employer groups are small(employing, on average, 5.8 full-time equivalents), theyare much larger than other agricultural companies (twofull-time equivalents) (MSA, 2016).

There is an almost perfect gender balance across theemployees of employer groups. Employees aged under30 represent 49% of the total workforce of employergroups, compared to 44% in overall nationalemployment (Dares, 2013). About 40% are blue-collarworkers (in Poitou-Charentes, the share of blue-collarworkers in employer groups is as high as 60%,compared to 21% in the total French workforce); about35% are general employees (28% in the totalworkforce); about 18% technicians and qualifiedemployees (26% in the total workforce); and 7%managers (16% in the total workforce).

About two-thirds of the shared workers have apermanent contract (women more often than men), andabout 70% have a full-time job. As regards agriculturalemployer groups, an almost twofold increase in long-term contracts could be observed between 2004 and2014 (MSA, 2016). At regional level, it can be seen thatthe employer groups in Poitou-Charentes aredominated by fixed-term contracts (more than 85%),although with an increasing share of permanentcontracts. In the Languedoc-Roussillon and Pays de laLoire regions, about 50% of the strategic employeesharing contracts are permanent, and the available data

The ‘strategic employee sharing’ model

Figure 1: Size of French employer groups outside of the agriculture sector, 2013

Source: DGEFP/GESTE (2016), Les groupements d’employeurs

15%

28%

20%

23%

14%

Fewer than 10 10–29 30–49 50–99 100 or more

45%

14%

15%

18%

6%

2%

Fewer than 5 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100 or more

Participating companies Employed workers

10

for the latter show that more than 80% of the contractsare on a full-time basis (Kerbourc’h and Chevalier,2016). Fixed-term contracts, in the context of employergroups, are not necessarily a sign of precariousness butare driven by the type of activity (particularly inseasonal industries) and they often result in only shortperiods of unemployment between two contracts.

In Belgium, 14 employer groups were set up between1999 and 2016, with eight other initiatives beingconsidered, but not set up. In six of these cases, thewould-be founders decided to withdraw due to the legalrestrictions that applied before the 2014 amendments.In the other two cases, the projects were stopped by thepublic employment service due to suspected misuse ofthe employment model or assumptions that they wouldrun into difficulties.

As at March 2016, seven employer groups wereoperational, two were hiring the first workers, while theremaining five had ceased operating. The activeemployer groups involve about 220 workers (with awide diversity of characteristics) and 230 companies(mainly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)).

For Hungary, no data on employer groups orparticipating companies are available, but there is someinformation about the shared workers. As in France, theuptake of the new employment model was very lowwhen it was introduced in 2012 (54 workers) and, inspite of a considerable increase (to almost 14,000workers in 2015), it is still a marginal employment form.Shared employees constitute 0.1% of the total ofeconomically active people in Hungary, or 0.12% of allHungarian employees. Again, as in France, there is no

significant difference by gender and the data suggestthat younger employees are quite open towards thisnew employment form. One in five shared employees isyounger than 30 years of age, which corresponds to theoverall workforce.

Over the years for which data are available, no clearpattern can be identified as regards the occupations forwhich strategic employee sharing is used, as shown inFigure 2. Nevertheless, some occupational groups –commerce/catering, production managers, office clerks,cleaners – have the highest shares among sharedworkers in all years. Unlike other ‘atypical’ employmentforms, highly trained professionals and executives areoverrepresented among shared employees. This reflectsthe fact that employee sharing was, in part, introducedto help companies exchange ‘gold-collar’ workers,especially where there is a temporary need for aspecialist or if SMEs cannot afford to hire a professionalon their own account.

In Germany, the highest number of employer groupsoperating at any one time is seven, involving more than100 companies and about 100 workers; by the summerof 2016, three were still running. Some of them stoppedtheir activities due to unfavourable frameworkconditions which made their further operationunworkable. Others stopped when some participatingcompanies misused the employment model and tookadvantage of its benefits, but were not willing to take onthe related responsibilities. A third group, however,stopped due to the success of the employment modeland general economic/labour market developments.Here, the employer group provided a ‘perfect match’

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

Figure 2: Number of shared employees in Hungary by occupation, July 2012–September 2015

Source: National Tax and Customs Authority

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2012

2013

2014

2015

Managers Professionals Technicians and associate professionals

Office and management occupa�ons Commercial and service occupa�ons Agricultural and forestry occupa�ons

Industry and construc�on industry occupa�ons Machine operators, assemblers, drivers Elementary occupa�ons (not requiring qualifica�ons)

%

11

between participating companies and workers, andwhen the economic situation allowed the firms to hirethe workers directly – in a labour market situation ofskills shortages – they did so and dissolved theemployer group.

Due to the short history of strategic employee sharing inAustria, there is just one employer group, with a fewothers being in their start-up phase, and somediscussions continuing on the feasibility of setting up

further groups. The first employer group involves ninecompanies of which four were actively sharing fourworkers by June 2016. The participating employers areall tourism companies with between 5 and 40 core staff.The four shared workers are an assistant cook, a sous-chef, a qualified restaurant expert and a facilitymanager. This shows the diversity of skills andoccupations for which strategic employee sharing canbe applied, even if limited to a single industry.

The ‘strategic employee sharing’ model

13

Public framework conditions

Awareness and active engagement ofpublic actors

Across the analysed countries, and irrespective ofwhether strategic employee sharing is a legallyrecognised employment form, or whether it has beenpart of the labour market for three decades or only afew years, the interviews conducted as part of thecurrent research highlighted a general lack ofawareness among institutional players (includingpolicymakers) about this employment model.

Due to its newness in most countries and its limitedapplication (see Chapter 1), stakeholders are unfamiliarwith its operational characteristics, working proceduresand potential implications for the labour market. As aconsequence, their attitude towards it is generallyneutral. This means that they widely recognise thepotential advantages for workers and companies, butare hesitant to help foster strategic employee sharinguntil there is more evidence on its use and outcomes.They also have to devote their resources to bigger andmore pressing issues such as general employment-related/labour market matters including the misuse ofregulations (for example, bogus self-employment), theconditions for termination of contracts, working timemodels (such as zero-hours contracts or other forms ofcasual work) or the effects of digitalisation.Furthermore, there is a widespread perception amongthe interviewed stakeholders that employers wouldhave to take a lead role in initiating strategic employee

sharing. They think that public authorities would notpromote an employment model to the business sectorwithout proven demand from employers.

Institutional players’ awareness of, or familiarity with,the employment model is identified as an importantinfluential factor for its practical application. This facthighlights the importance of internal structures withininstitutions (notably decision-making autonomy),across them (for example, social dialogue traditions)and the individual representatives within institutionsdealing with strategic employee sharing. It should,therefore, be ensured that higher ranks within theinstitutions are involved as it might otherwise be moredifficult to get full commitment and support.

In France, it is usually the institutions (an employers’organisation, a professional organisation, a regional ordepartmental authority, or a regional service of theFrench state) that come up with the idea that anemployer group could be useful, and then drive itsestablishment. In Belgium, almost all employer groupshave been started in the Walloon region, as this is thesole Belgian area to promote strategic employeesharing. Here, public authorities have given a resourcecentre the mission to develop employer groups and forlocal business agencies, funded by district authorities,to create employer groups to receive public funding. InAustria, the existence of a strong tradition and goodculture of social dialogue was repeatedly mentioned asa positive influence on the process of setting up the firstemployer group and, consequently, designing theframework conditions for strategic employee sharing.

2 Framework conditions forstrategic employee sharing

The concept of strategic employee sharing was born in the French region of Poitou-Charentes in the late1970s/early 1980s. The Regional Secretary of one of the main French unions, the French DemocraticConfederation of Labour (CFDT), the Regional Secretary of the main regional employers in the agricultural sector,the Regional Federation of Unions of Agricultural Operators (FNSEA), and the President of the Regional Chamberof Young Farmers jointly asked the Regional Economic and Social Council (CESR) to support a law on employergroups. There was a good awareness and understanding of the working method to promote and developstrategic employee sharing among governments and representatives of employers and employees. This explainswhy public authorities (that is, regional and state services) co-financed the launch of the regional resource centrein 2001 and why, since then, regional organisations representing employers and employees collaborate inpromoting and encouraging employer groups to become established in the region.

Important preconditions for strategic employee sharing

14

This good social dialogue enables an objectivediscussion of any issues due to the sound level ofmutual trust where no party wants to overreach theothers.

By way of contrast, in Germany, the long establishedinstitutional relationships of the employer groupresource centre have recently been radically reduceddue to internal restructuring in the authorities, resultingin staff leaving the organisation or being assigned todifferent tasks. This means that new contacts need tobe identified, approached and informed about theemployment model, which is challenging and time-consuming for the centre due to limited resources.

Furthermore, because an employer group has to beformally set up as a temporary work agency in Austriaand Germany, the differences between these twoconcepts are not always clear to all public players. Thiscan make them reluctant to try strategic employeesharing because of the poor image of temporary agencywork or of unsatisfactory previous experiences withsuch agencies. This legal situation, in practice, alsodisqualifies some types of organisations from joiningemployer groups, and opens up room for misuse bycompanies which are not legally obliged to assume ajoint responsibility and liability towards sharedemployees.

Active support of strategic employee sharing byinstitutional players also demands a positive attitude toinnovative HR management practices and labourmarket policies/instruments from the government andits authorities (such as the public employment service)and from the social partners. It was, for example, seenin Austria and in Poitou-Charentes that labour marketplayers are quite open to innovation, favouring theintroduction of strategic employee sharing. This is alsoevidenced by public funds being dedicated to supportthe resource centres and the establishment of employergroups. At the same time, it has been made clear thatinnovative measures will not be introduced for theirown sake, but they have to show some positive labourmarket effects. This again challenges the furtherpolitical and financial support for employer groups if nolarger scale or at least potential benefit can beevidenced.

Legal framework

Next to the institutional settings and attitudes, theexistence and characteristics of the legal frameworkrelevant for strategic employee sharing has beenidentified as key to its implementation anddissemination. The stakeholders interviewed in Poitou-Charentes and Languedoc-Roussillon are satisfied withthe general legal framework for employer groups,although they are continuously trying to improve theregulations to avoid practical difficulties and enlargetheir scope. However, they also express some concernsabout legislative changes not directly related to

strategic employee sharing, but which might affect thefunctioning of employer groups (for example,regulations on value added tax). They believe thatemployer groups do not have enough visibility forlegislators to take into account their specific issues inmore general legal regulations.

The previous Belgian legislation was found to beunsuitable for the practical use of strategic employeesharing and was hence recently amended (seeChapter 1). The interviewed stakeholders say that therevised legislation is now more favourable for thedevelopment of the employment model in the country.However, according to them, it created some insecurityfor those not yet familiar with the model becauseauthorisation from the public employment service isnow required, and thus does not seem to fully supportthe spread of strategic employee sharing.

In Hungary, the interviewed stakeholders mention thatthe legal framework is suitable for the practical needs ofthe parties involved in employee sharing. Nevertheless,there are some concerns that the employment modelcould be misused to terminate employmentrelationships and circumvent dismissal protections andentitlements of workers. Furthermore, the legislationleaves a lot of leeway on the individual design of theemployee sharing relationship and this might provedisadvantageous for workers, making them or theirrepresentatives reluctant to consider it as anemployment model. Trade union representatives, inparticular, expressed doubts as to whether strategicemployee sharing would be widely used in practice,given the effort required from the involved parties tonegotiate its implementation (Eurofound, 2015e).However, the experts interviewed in the current projectassumed that these challenges could be easily correctedwith some minor amendments to the current legislation.

The absence of a specific legislative frameworkrecognising strategic employee sharing in Austria andGermany causes some challenges for itsimplementation. The fact that employer groups have tobe formally set up as temporary work agencies not onlyraises the concerns already described amonginstitutional stakeholders, but also has operationalimplications. These include the deposit required whenfounding a temporary work agency; that certain groupsof organisations may be put off by having to apply adifferent collective agreement, and additional costssuch as the value added tax that has to be charged by atemporary work agency. Confronted with a similarsituation, Belgian employer groups can apply for a taxexemption if all participating companies are tax exemptand all of them pursue the same activity. Thisexemption seemed to have been a strong incentive forthe setting up of the employer groups Vert’Emploi,Basic+, and Reso; for the participating companies, itmade the employment model more attractive thantemporary agency work or subcontracting.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

15

There are also concerns about the restricted access ofcertain sectors to temporary agency work; limitations inthe continuous assignment of workers to theparticipating companies, or limited access to publicsupport. More generally, the unclear status also causesinsecurity about how or which regulations related toother legal areas such as civil law, corporation law ortaxation law are to be applied.

Financial support

Another factor influencing the implementation andspread of strategic employee sharing is the availabilityof public financial support for certain measures thatmight help promote it, such as:

£ conducting feasibility studies to explore whetherstrategic employee sharing is a meaningfulemployment model for a particular region andpotentially involved employers;

£ starting pilot employer groups to establish someexamples/role models as a ‘communication tool’for the further spread of the employment model;

£ establishing and funding a resource centre (todevelop standards and supportive material such asdraft contracts or cooperation agreements, shareinformation, assist the start-up of employer groupsand advise them), since full funding of resourcecentre running costs from membership fees paid bygroups or participating companies would initiallybe too high a financial burden, making theemployment model less attractive.

The access to regional funds in Belgium and France foreither resource centres or employer groups has beenidentified as a significant facilitator. For example, thestart-up of the Belgian employer groups Agrinsert,Jobiris, Dynamarch and JobArdent has been assisted bypublic funding (including funding from Europeansources). The recent Austrian experience shows that,particularly when trying to establish the employmentmodel for the first time in a country, public funding isrequired to familiarise institutions, companies and

workers with the concept and to pilot a range ofemployer groups.

Resource centresWhile the interviewed Hungarian stakeholders say theydo not see any need for a resource centre, theinterviewees in the other countries strongly advise thata resource centre helps establish and develop strategicemployee sharing. These different opinions might berelated to the different approaches to strategicemployee sharing across the countries (see Chapter 1).

Those who favour the existence of a resource centre stressthat it is essential for there to be an organisation thatfamiliarises institutional players and companies with theemployment model, and lobbies for suitable frameworkconditions for its implementation, especially in thebeginning when the concept is new to thenational/regional labour market. A resource centre is alsoseen as a significant source of support for individualemployer groups. During the start-up phase, a resourcecentre might be needed to assist the employer groupmanagement in approaching relevant parties, assess thesuitability of companies and workers, and coveradministrative tasks and recruitment, until the employergroup management has gained sufficient experience toact independently. Later on, a centre can provide adviceon the choice of the legal form, the design of thecontractual arrangements among the involved parties,and the processes and procedures to be followed,including providing standards/codes ofconduct/guidelines and templates. Centres can also act asa platform for employer groups to exchange information.

In order to provide the required services, theinterviewed stakeholders agree that there needs to bepublic support, at least in the beginning (see below).When the employment model is well established andthere are a sound number of employer groups, it mightbe possible to exclusively finance the activities of theresource centre through membership fees.

Framework conditions for strategic employee sharing

Various public support instruments exist in Poitou-Charentes to help create and develop employer groups.Employer groups outside the agriculture sector can receive funding to partially finance an administrative full-timeposition (that is, the employer group management) during the first three years of operation (€15,000, €10,000 and€5,000 respectively). Existing employer groups can receive €25,000 for developing into a new business sector orfor opening an establishment in a new territory. Furthermore, employer groups can benefit from employmentsubsidies for transforming fixed-term contracts into permanent ones, or for specific groups of workers (such asyounger, low qualified or unemployed).

The start-up of agricultural employer groups is supported by €2,500 if they hire at least one full-time employee ona permanent contract. Additionally, there is an employment subsidy for young workers (18–25 years) hired on apermanent full-time basis.

There is also state support of €686 per year for employer groups organising the accompaniment of unskilled jobseekers, as part of a publicly funded employment contract (contrat de professionalisation).

Public financial support for strategic employee sharing

16

In the two French regions analysed (Poitou-Charentesand Languedoc-Roussillon), the resource centres arebodies jointly formed by the national/regionalgovernment, employers’ organisations and employees’organisations. This is thought to encourage theestablishment and development of strategic employeesharing, which results in the active engagement ofinstitutional players in fostering this employment form.The institutions involved can also help promotestrategic employee sharing among companies andworkers, by taking advantage of direct contacts ororganising publicity.

In France, there are several regional resource centresbut, except for the annual meetings, there is littleinteraction between them and no nationalcoordination. The interviewed experts judge this to be aweak spot in France’s attempt to establish and developemployer groups; the individual resource centres have aweaker role than they would if they acted jointly, whendiscussing the improvement of framework conditionswith public authorities or social partners.

Employer group managementStrategic employee sharing (generally) does not occurspontaneously, but requires an initiator to approachcompanies, inform them about the employment modeland assess with them the feasibility of setting up anemployer group. In some cases, this process is driven bythe resource centre (see previous section), in some byinstitutional players such as regional developmentagencies, and in others by individual employers. Theinterviewed stakeholders agree that after this step istaken, there is a requirement for an employer groupmanagement to administer the start-up and running ofan employer group. Depending on the size and design ofthe employer group, this can be a specifically assignedperson (or management team) working on a part-timeor full-time basis, or it can be carried out by one orseveral of the participating companies on top of theirdaily business activities (see Chapter 1).

Irrespective of the setup, the interviewed stakeholdersagree that a good employer group management is a keyfactor in the successful establishment and operation ofan employer group. It strongly contributes to ensuringsound and fair contractual relationships between theinvolved parties, as well as smooth coordination of thecross-company staff assignments.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

The Resource Centre for Employer Groups (CRGE) was created in 2001 to develop employer groups in Poitou-Charentes. By March 2016, four people were working full-time in this organisation. Together, thePoitou-Charentes Region and the state provide 70% of the CRGE budget, the other 30% coming from members’contributions and the selling of services. The CRGE aims to:

£ promote the strategic employee sharing model among employers and workers;

£ conduct feasibility studies;

£ help employers to set up employer groups (including providing information on available public subsidies);

£ provide services to existing employer groups, such as advice on HR management, payroll accounting andlegal issues.

In spite of being a regional resource centre, CRGE organises an annual meeting with employer groups from otherregions; about half of its members (that is, employer groups) are located outside the region.

The Walloon Resource Centre for Employer Groups (CRGEW), a non-profit organisation that is financed by theWalloon regional public administration in Belgium, was founded in 2008 by the LENTIC research centre of theUniversity of Liège and by the Liège Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The CRGEW was financed by successiveone to two-year programmes and, in April 2016, employed two part-time advisers.

The CRGEW’s main roles are to:

£ approach Walloon companies, raising awareness of the existence and utility of the employment model;

£ support companies in joining other companies with the same part-time workforce needs;

£ carry out media promotion and conduct lobbying activities to adapt legislation to the job market needs;

£ create a platform for existing employer groups to exchange information and advice.

Both CRGE and CRGEW are connected with other resource centres across Europe in the European Informationand Resource Centre for Employers’ Alliances (CERGE).

Resource centres for strategic employee sharing

17

When asked about the requirements related to theemployer group management, the interviewed expertsstress that this must be someone who ‘sees the biggerpicture for the region’, and who aims to improve theoverall economic, labour market and social situation bytaking on the organisation of an employment modelthat has the potential to benefit workers and companiesif well applied. In order to do so, the employer groupmanagement needs to be active and to promote the

employment model in the region among policymakersand companies (Hertwig and Kirsch, 2012).

The employer group management has to be familiarwith the regional business structure and to actively andsystematically approach company owners/managers toexplore their demand for strategic employee sharing,their willingness to participate in such an employmentmodel, and to probe whether initially flagged demandand commitment will be sustainable in practice.

Framework conditions for strategic employee sharing

In order to assess whether strategic employee sharing is the most suitable employment model for a specific HRdemand of a company, the ‘Mehrwert-Check’ (value-added check) was developed in Austria (Baumfeld, 2012)(see Table 2). Using a standardised questionnaire, the employer group manager, together with the companyowner/manager, explores whether strategic employee sharing would be better than other HR solutions (forexample, overtime, part-time, temporary agency work) in terms of:

£ costs;

£ productivity;

£ cost reduction due to flexibility;

£ securing skilled labour in the business location;

£ employer branding.

Each of these aspects is broken down into several components which are individually rated, weighted and thencompared for the various HR solutions (that is, for example, strategic employee sharing versus the currentapplication of overtime). The current HR solution is rated with an average value of five for all aspects, and thealternative model of strategic employee sharing is then rated against this, for example, with seven if the employergroup is assessed to be better, or with three if it is deemed to be worse. A simple comparison of the overall scoresfor the different employment models gives an indication of whether strategic employee sharing is an attractiveemployment model for the specific HR need.

Checking the suitability of strategic employee sharing

Table 2: Example of Austrian value-added check for employer groups

Source: Baumfeld, 2012

Job Marketing expertise

Time horizon AspectWeight/

Relevance

Current solution:Temporary agency

workValue current

solution

Employergroup(0–10)

Valueemployer

group

Short term Costs 25 5 125 4.55 113.75

Short to

medium termProductivity 30 5 150 6.95 208.5

Short to

medium term

Cost decrease throughflexibility

15 5 75 6.8 102

Medium term Ensuring skilled labour 15 5 75 8.3 124.5

Long term

Attractiveness asemployer (employer

branding)15 5 75 6.11 91.65

Value 100 500 640.4

18

Furthermore, it was recommended that the employergroup management should have a good understandingof local businesses in order to anticipate their concernsabout the employment model, and to find ways ofexplaining the model’s potential advantages anddisadvantages in such a way that truly befits the specificneeds of the company. It was also stressed that theemployer group manager needs to be trusted by thelocal businesses and workforce. The employer groupmanager must also be able to facilitate consensusbetween participating companies and to promote trustbetween them.

The interviewed stakeholders say the employer groupmanager needs to have good networking skills not onlyto liaise among the participating companies andworkers, but also to effectively promote theemployment model among institutional players. It ishelpful if the employer group manager is formally orinformally embedded into the local business networkand has established personal contacts with localcompany owners/managers.

Employer group managers also need to have a soundknowledge of HR management and legal issues relatedto labour and trade law. This is because their taskscomprise the cross-company HR administration,including recruitment, drawing up contracts andoperational processes with workers and companies,registration of workers, payroll accounting and

payment of social security contributions, invoicing ofparticipating companies, the coordination of thevarious work assignments, organising induction andtraining measures and clarifying which collectiveagreement is applicable. They also need managerialskills related to planning, coordination andcommunication, and a high level of problem-solvingability. This is because they play a crucial role in dealingwith unforeseen events that affect the workload,including temporary or permanent changes in theparticipating companies’ needs, the restructuring orbankruptcy of a participating company, layoffs, and themanagement of tensions (Wölfing et al, 2007; Baumfeldand Fischer, 2012).

Company and job characteristicsLittle can be said about structural companycharacteristics fostering or hindering strategicemployee sharing. The existing examples for employergroups across Europe are diverse and cover a range ofsectors, ownership and governance structures of theinvolved companies. While employer groups combiningcompanies from the same sector could facilitateoperational aspects as required skills, and workingconditions might be similar, it might be easier inmulti-sector employer groups to combine thefragmented HR needs of the participating companies asdifferent production or service provision cycles are

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

The manager’s role in an employer group is complex, combining general managerial tasks with HR managementand administration. Managers must also perform as intermediates between participating companies andworkers. Consequently, the University of Nantes in France is offering a university degree course to train strategicemployee sharing managers. With over 250 training hours and around 160 tutorial hours in one year, the courseaims at providing (future) employer group managers with skills covering:

£ administration, financial management and control;

£ marketing;

£ legal issues;

£ communication;

£ human resource management;

£ risk management;

£ strategy;

£ project management.

The distance learning course costs about €3,800 (or between €350 and €1,400 for individual modules). Applicants areselected by a committee of representatives from the university and resource centres for strategic employee sharing.

The resource centre in Languedoc-Roussillon set up a special training programme for its affiliated employer groupmanagers in 2016. It offers training sessions in accounting, human resources management, communication andcommercial aspects. These training sessions address all kinds of skills useful to employer group managers to ensurethey cover the full range of a group’s needs. The resource centre also organises meetings of employer groupmanagers to exchange information on pre-selected topics (for 2016: hiring; training for employer group managers;how to manage vocational training within an employer group, and how to develop an employer group).

Training for employer group management

19

followed. Companies in multi-sector groups might alsobe less worried that the shared workers could leakconfidential information to competitors. Similarly, asregards company size, it could be assumed that strategicemployee sharing is more attractive for smaller firmsthat cannot provide a full-time workload for specifictasks. Nevertheless, there are examples to show thatlarger companies may also be interested in thisemployment form, and probably cooperation betweenlarge and small companies might be a good way toimplement strategic employee sharing effectively.

As for works councils, trade unions or other employeerepresentatives within the companies, there are varyingreports of their influence on the company’s decision touse strategic employee sharing. The availableinformation is very anecdotal as most firms in employergroups do not have a formal staff representation body.In Poitou-Charentes, works councils are generally not infavour of strategic employee sharing as they preferworkers to be directly hired by the company. Incontrast, the interviewees in Languedoc-Roussilloncould not recall any issues raised by any works counciland assumed this was because there were no negativeimpacts on the employment levels caused by strategicemployee sharing. In one of the Belgian employergroups, the union rejected any additional involvementof the company in strategic employee sharing, unlessthe share of temporary agency workers was reduced. Inanother example, the union supported theestablishment of an employer group as part of a processof company restructuring and got involved to guaranteethe rights of the shared workers.

According to the interviewed experts across thecountries, one reason why strategic employee sharing isunderdeveloped is because of a lack of awareness ofthis employment model among companies, theirunfamiliarity with its characteristics and procedures,the related rights and duties of the involved parties andits potential implications. One Hungarian survey, forexample, shows that two years after the amendment ofthe labour code, the new measures it introduced arealmost unknown to most employers (LIGA, 2015). Evenfor France, where employer groups have beenestablished for 30 years, companies have low awarenessor understanding of them.

Furthermore, applying strategic employee sharing wouldrequire a positive attitude towards innovative HRmanagement practices and an ability to use them withoutmuch experience or existing guidance (due to its newnessas an employment model). In general, there is theperception that even the larger employers are hesitant, orreluctant, to change their long-standing practices.

For the establishment and spread of strategic employeesharing, it is also helpful if companies are characterisedby some level of social responsibility so that they do notseek to satisfy their HR needs at the expense of theaffected workers, but aim to provide good working

conditions and job security, even if they just havefragmented HR needs. Furthermore, the availability ofalternative employment can influence a company’sdecision to engage in strategic employee sharing. InIreland, for example, it was mentioned that companiesmight prefer subcontracting fragmented tasks to self-employed workers rather than joining employer groups,because of the significant savings to be made on socialinsurance payments.

In Hungary, it is also assumed that the more traditionalforms of flexible labour provide employers withsufficient alternatives to make using the new formsunnecessary and that the practice of disguisedemployment (where a worker is hired as contractor butoperationally they fulfil the role of a permanentemployee, often to minimise tax obligations), does notfavour the application of strategic employee sharing.These countries’ experiences imply that thecost-effectiveness of strategic employee sharing,compared with alternative employment forms, is asignificant reason for its use. Another driver can also bethe administrative cost-saving potential, caused by theemployer group management conducting therecruitment and induction, as well as the continuous HRadministration (such as payroll accounting).

From another perspective, in Austria, France andGermany (and expected to happen in Hungary), a lack of(skilled) labour in a regional labour market worked asan incentive for companies to participate in strategicemployee sharing, as this was the only option to getaccess to the workforce they needed. This points to thefact that for companies to consider strategic employeesharing an interesting employment model, they need tohave a demand for specific recurring HR needs that donot justify the creation of a full-time position.

Wölfing et al (2007) identify the following types of HRneeds that strategic employee sharing could meet:

£ seasonal work, if combined with counter-cyclical ormore continuous HR needs of other industries;

£ combined part-time work where companies’ HRdemand for certain tasks fluctuates daily or weekly;

£ specialists for whom there is a demand, but notsufficient to justify full-time employment;

£ dormant projects and new developments.

Furthermore, it is required that this HR demand is stableand complementary to the respective HR needs of otherregional companies (that is, quite close geographically),both in the profile of the shared workers and in thetiming of assignments to the individual participatingfirms. This is so it can be combined into the cross-company employee sharing model.

Consequently, the participating companies need tohave some form of medium to long-term HR planning topredict the workload that could be assigned to sharedworkers. In practice, participating companies have tocommit themselves to their flagged HR demand for a

Framework conditions for strategic employee sharing

20

planning period of several months. In this context, andwhile there are some good reasons for smaller firms tojoin employer groups, the small size of businesses inEurope might be an impediment to introducingstrategic employee sharing arrangements. Smallerbusinesses are often characterised by the absence of adesignated HR manager. This contributes to anunsystematic or unstructured approach to HRmanagement, or to a short-term horizon mentalitywhich is not conducive to strategic employee sharing. Itis mentioned that the smaller the employer group, themore important is the reliability of HR plans andstability of HR demand of the individual participatingcompanies. This means that as an employer groupgrows, any sudden deviations from the planned staffassignments can be better coped with.

A very decisive factor for the establishment and furtherspread of strategic employee sharing is the companies’willingness to cooperate with other regional firms in HRarrangements. For example, it was mentioned that inBelgium there is a growing individualism amongentrepreneurs which militates against an employmentmodel based on companies’ collaboration. In Austriatoo, the general collaborative spirit of many businessesis questioned.

The joint and several liability towards the sharedworkforce may also hinder the participation of firms asthey might end up being held responsible for themisconduct of other businesses beyond their control.Furthermore, particularly within single-sector employergroups, companies might be afraid that shared workerscould contribute to spreading confidential informationto other participating firms and/or that rivalry amongthe firms could hinder cooperation.

A cooperative spirit across regional firms, as well asmutual trust among the participating firms, is also animportant precondition for strategic employee sharing(Delalande and Buannic, 2006). However, this needstime to evolve. The existence of a tight regionalcompany network (such as regional clusters orcooperatives) or pre-existing company cooperation, canhence be beneficial for the establishment of employergroups and can also foster their development as‘success stories’ which might interest more companiesin joining.

Workers

The interviewed stakeholders agree that there are veryfew preconditions, related to the shared workers, thatneed to be given to establish or further developstrategic employee sharing. While they assume that, aswith policymakers and companies, workers have a lackof awareness and familiarity with this employmentform, they do not see this as a particularly big problemin its establishment. The reason for this is that theemployees have a standard employment contract andthe particularities of employer groups can be well

explained to them when a group becomes operational,allowing them to decide whether this employment formis suitable for them.

This suitability is mainly influenced by the workers’adaptability and flexibility which is required, to somedegree, to enable them to work in different companies,at different tasks, and with different teams andsuperiors, without causing them additional stress. Thisalso implies that they need to have certain social skills,such as good communication, openness to diversity andbeing good ‘team players’.

At the same time, they need to be able to workautonomously, be reliable and willing to engage incontinuous learning, so that their assignments indifferent companies do not cause additionalsupervisory efforts in either the participating companyor the employer group management.

In this context, one of the interview partners suggeststhat strategic employee sharing might be a more suitableemployment model for slightly more mature workers(around the age of 40), as they might have a morerealistic idea of employment relationships. They might,for example, understand better that workers need tomake some concessions for an employment relationshipto work well, and that the ‘perfect job’– according to theirexpectations – can hardly ever be achieved. However, thescattered available data show that employer groups arealso well used by a younger workforce (see Chapter 1).Similarly, the existing employer groups across Europeprovide job opportunities for a wide range of occupationsand skills levels.

From a more macro-level perspective, while a lack ofskilled labour might drive companies to consider joiningan employer group (see previous section), such a labourmarket situation might have the opposite effect onworkers. Those who have skills in high demand are in apowerful position and can negotiate the best possibleemployment conditions, which in most cases will be apreference for ‘standard employment’; that is,permanent full-time employment with a singleemployer. This hypothesis can be supported by theexperience of the Belgian interview partners who reportthat most workers employed by employer groupspreviously had a relatively precarious job. The entry toan employer group is therefore typically necessity-driven, and a potential labour market characteristic forthe effective implementation of strategic employeesharing is perhaps a high rate of unemployment, wherethe workers are more likely to accept this employmentform. Even if this has not been mentioned in theinterviews, it could partly explain the unequaldevelopment of strategic employee sharing acrossBelgium. There are, for example, no employer groups inthe Flanders region where the unemployment rate is farlower than in the Walloon and the Brussels regions.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

21

Implications for workersGiven the limited application of strategic employeesharing across Europe and the absence of structuraldata or surveys on the topic, it is difficult to present acomprehensive analysis of its effects on theemployment and working conditions of the workersinvolved. Furthermore, as can be seen, workingconditions differ between employer groups and evenbetween individual participating companies within aspecific employer group. Nevertheless, someindications can be given, mainly based on the expertinterviews conducted in this project.

There is a strong agreement among the interviewpartners that strategic employee sharing benefits theworkers involved, and that the advantages clearlyoutweigh any disadvantages. The most positive aspectof strategic employee sharing is that it contributes tojob stability and reduces precariousness, as it createspermanent full-time jobs for workers that could not beoffered by a single employer. The limited data available(see Chapter 1) show that permanent full-time contractsare dominant in this employment form. Severalinterview partners (in those countries where employergroups do not have to be set up as temporary workagencies) highlight the considerable advantage in thefact that strategic employee sharing can be designed ona permanent basis, while temporary agency work islegally limited to a certain period of time. Furthermore,if the employer group has reached ‘critical mass’, a fullworkload can be guaranteed to the worker, even ifindividual participating companies cannot provide thework that was initially promised. In such cases, theemployer group management will search for alternativeassignments in other participating firms.

Particularly in economically challenging times whenindividual employers are more hesitant to offerpermanent full-time jobs, strategic employee sharingcan not only positively influence working conditions,but also improve the shared workers’ quality of life if theemployer group gives them a permanent employmentcontract. An anecdotal example from France shows thatpeople are more likely to be granted a bank loan if theyhave a permanent full-time position, which is a problemgiven that it has become more common for employersto initially offer new workers a fixed-term contract.

Strategic employee sharing not only offers access tostable jobs, but also local ones, saving shared workersfrom having to commute or relocate. This is assumed tobe particularly true for qualified workers in regionsdominated by small businesses that are not big enoughto offer a full-time workload to specialists.

Shared workers have a standard employment contractin line with the relevant labour laws, benefiting from thesame rights and protection of a traditional standardemployment relationship and the conditions enjoyed bythe core staff of the participating companies. This iscommonly referred to as the ‘equal pay, equaltreatment’ condition, inherent to this employmentform. For each individual employment relationship, therights and obligations of the employer group, theparticipating companies and the workers are clearly setout, resulting in a high level of legal security for allinvolved parties. With health and safety regulations, forexample, it is common practice that the employer groupmanagement clarifies that it is the responsibility of theparticipating companies to inform the shared workersabout the applicable procedures and legal frameworksin their respective companies, providing them with allrelevant information, equipment and training.Consequently, if an accident happens, it is the soleliability of the respective company, not the employergroup management or other participating companies.Therefore, the situation is no different from a singleemployer relationship.

Combining part-time assignments into a full-time jobthrough the employer group also gives the worker theadvantage of having a single formal employer. This notonly facilitates negotiations on, for example, wages andbenefits (Antoine and Rorive, 2006), but also avoidssituations where a worker would have to coordinatedifferent part-time jobs for different employers, withreluctance from the employer to accept that the workeris already committed to work somewhere else.Compared with, for example, casual work or temporaryagency work, this coordination by the employer group,

3 Potential benefits and risks ofstrategic employee sharing

In Poitou-Charentes, after the 9/11 terrorist attackon New York’s World Trade Centre in 2001, twocompanies participating in an employer groupfaced a sudden drop in their orders, whichtriggered the need to find new assignments for26 shared workers. This was achieved throughnetworking among employers and the activeparticipation of the affected workers.

Ensuring a continuous workload

22

with the aim of providing a continuous workload as wellas the intention that the workers repeatedly return tothe same participating companies, results in a higherpredictability of work assignments for the worker.

Shared workers are assessed as having highemployment security as they are seen to be multi-skilled with the experience and willingness to adapt todifferent work environments. Furthermore, they havethe opportunity to increase their employability bydeveloping their skills through performing differenttasks in different companies (that is, informal and non-formal on-the-job-training). This can positivelycontribute to their career development as it is oftenobserved that employers appreciate job candidates’experience in different work environments, andstrategic employee sharing offers this in parallel ratherthan in sequence. In general, provision of formaltraining will depend on the size and budget of anemployer group. In France, it is observed that thetraining expenses in employer groups are twice as highas in other companies.

There are no data available to assess whether strategicemployee sharing is a stepping stone into standardemployment with a single employer. Anecdotalevidence from some of the existing employer groupsshows incidences of one of the participating companiesindividually offering a permanent full-time post toshared workers, once there was enough demand for therespective resource. Such a situation would bediscussed with the other participating companies andwould need to be flagged well in advance to ensure thatthe other participating companies are not confrontedwith the sudden loss of a required worker. In situationswhere this occurred, this was resolved according to theagreed procedures without causing any difficulties inthe employer group, which resulted in a single employercontract for the worker. However, it should be notedthat such a transition is not the intention of the strategicemployee sharing model and hence should not be seenas a way to attain full-time employment.

For Belgium, it was mentioned that shared workers tendto have a longer tenure than workers in a singlecompany employment relationship. Consequently,employer groups are seen as having a higher potentialfor developing career paths. Interviewees from othercountries, however, raised the issue that as sharedworkers are assigned to individual companies on a non-continuous basis, they might be given less responsibletasks with a lower potential for career progress.

Job security, combined with the ‘equal pay, equaltreatment’ condition, also results in income securityand decent wage levels for the involved workers. Theymight be confronted with some income fluctuations ifthere are remuneration differences across thecompanies in an employer group, or if differentcollective agreements have to be applied. However, theinterviewed experts observe that, in practice, these

differences are not considerable (mainly as thecollective agreements applied across the participatingcompanies are quite similar) and do not seem tonegatively affect the shared workers. One reason for thisis that they know in advance to which company they willbe assigned and at which point in time – as well as theincome they will receive – so they can plan and adjustwell ahead.

In Hungary, the legal framework allows participatingcompanies and shared workers (who consent) to choosewhich collective agreement they wish to be applied.While, in general, the collective agreement applicable inthe company paying the wages is selected, parties mayagree to apply a collective agreement that is lessfavourable to the worker. Whether this results in lowerincome for the shared workers, in practice, will dependon their labour market situation; highly skilledprofessionals that are in demand will not accept theapplication of unfavourable collective agreements,while those in a weaker position might have to. Again,according to the limited experience available so far, thishas not been an issue as all shared workers preservedthe wages and benefits (as well as other workingconditions) they enjoyed before the strategic employeesharing arrangement.

Another positive effect of strategic employee sharing isthe work content given to shared workers. Although theinterviewed experts stressed again that thisemployment model is not suitable for every worker (seeChapter 2), they pointed out that, for those whovoluntarily engage in this employment form, thediversity of tasks across the different work assignmentsis a benefit as it prevents monotony. Furthermore, theinterviews highlight that the combination of differentassignments increases the workers’ chance of beingcontinuously assigned tasks that correspond to theirskills, rather than having to conduct more menial tasksdue to the lack of specialised work in a single company.It is thought that this renders the work more interestingand increases job satisfaction.

It is acknowledged that shared workers are somewhatdisadvantaged compared to core staff as they have tocommute to different companies. However, in practice,this is taken into consideration by the employer groupmanagement and when coordinating the different workassignments, efforts are made to ensure that thecommuting distance is not too great.

Shared workers tend to have less flexibility as regardsthe choice of their working time and (possibly) holidayplanning as they are assigned to the participatingcompanies according to HR needs. Employer groupmanagers try to take into account the workers’preferences as much as possible when schedulingindividual work assignments. However, to make theemployment model work, the companies’ requirementswill generally be the starting point for such scheduling.Some of the interview partners mention that this is

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

23

Potential benefits and risks of strategic employee sharing

compensated by the higher job security, as well as a‘flexibility premium’ that is added to the sharedworkers’ wage.

As shared workers are not permanently present in theparticipating companies, they might be less wellintegrated into the business than core staff. This couldmean a more limited access to company relatedinformation, or that the relationship with co-workersand superiors might not be quite as affable as for corestaff. In some of the existing employer groups, this isaddressed by keeping the shared workers informed (forexample, through established mailing lists) on alldevelopments going on in the companies they areregularly assigned to, and by treating the sharedworkers as core staff when planning social events in theparticipating firms.

The fact that shared workers repeatedly have to changecompanies might cause them stress as they try to adaptto different work environments and processes, tasks,management practices and team dynamics. They mayalso feel under pressure from expectations that they willadjust quickly to ensure efficiency and productivity.Shared workers might also experience a sequence ofhigh intensity phases across their work assignments ifthey are requested by the different participatingcompanies at peak times. If such a situation continues,shared workers are faced with a higher risk of burnoutor other negative effects on their physical and mentalhealth. To avoid this, employer groups try to apply long-term planning and to be clear with workers andcompanies about the specific times when a worker willbe in a particular workplace, and the related tasks.

From the available examples of strategic employeesharing, a limited level of representation can be seen.Formal employer groups (in the countries in which thisconcept exists) like any other employer, have theopportunity to establish works councils or otheremployee representatives, as specified in nationallegislation. However, in practice, there are very few suchbodies. As regards shared workers’ representation byworks councils (or similar bodies) in the participatingcompanies, the evidence is mixed. While some councilsconsider shared workers’ interests in the same way ascore staff, others consider them as subcontracted staffthat are not to be covered.

The employment model is also thought to help the corestaff of the participating companies. Anecdotalexperience from existing employer groups shows thatcore staff previously had to complete tasks nowassigned to the shared workers by working overtime orat a higher work intensity. Furthermore, some of theinterview partners said core staff preferred strategicemployee sharing to other employment models, inwhich other workers temporarily join the company, asthere is more continuity with the same personrepeatedly coming back to the company. This facilitates

work flows and cooperation as the core staff and theshared workers have better opportunities to get toknow each other and can be clearer about realisticmutual expectations.

One interview partner also mentioned that, particularlyin small companies, the use of strategic employeesharing allowed company owners/managers to delegatedaily business activities to the shared workers, resultingin more time for them to deal with strategic companydevelopment. Furthermore, strategic employee sharingmight not only directly contribute to job creation (forthe shared workers), but also indirectly by positivelyaffecting the company development.

Implications for companiesThe main advantage of strategic employee sharing forthe participating companies is their access to (skilled)HR that is needed on a flexible level and which could notbe otherwise obtained as no permanent full-timeposition can be provided – or that could only beobtained through employment models that incur highercosts, employment risks or less reliability for the firm.While participating companies have to commit toproviding a certain workload for the shared workers, inpractice, an employer group allows some flexibility inadapting to the emerging workload. However, it shouldbe mentioned that due to planning and commitmentrequirements, strategic employee sharing is less flexiblethan other new employment forms, as was, for example,found in a French survey (Everaere, 2014). The model isthought to be a particularly interesting employmentform for SMEs which have a limited need for specialistsand tend to be considered as less attractive on thelabour market than larger competitors. Furthermore,strategic employee sharing results in efficiency gains forthe participating companies.

On the one hand, this is caused by the fact that HRadministration (such as recruitment, registration andpayroll accounting) is covered by the employer groupmanagement which is run on a non-profit basis, hencewith the lowest possible level of administrative costspassed on to the participating companies. On the otherhand, as has been mentioned, the employment modelallows for workers to be used according to their skillsand qualifications, so avoiding having to assignqualified workers to more menial tasks due to ashortage of specialist tasks. Furthermore, as the sameworkers are repeatedly returning to the company, thereis less need for induction and supervision. There is alsoa higher level of motivation and commitment from theworkers compared with other forms of flexibleemployment, resulting in higher efficiency andproductivity. The companies may also benefit from thehigher adaptability and greater skills sets of the sharedworkers, including the expertise and experiencegathered from their other assignments.

24

This could even result in the introduction of improvedprocesses and procedures leading to better workorganisation, workflow efficiency, product/serviceimprovements or even innovation.

This indirect exchange of good practices through ashared workflow can also result in theprofessionalisation of HR management, for example, bymore strategic HR planning when participating in anemployer group, or by introducing HR practices that arecommon in other participating companies. Such achange can contribute to improving working conditionsin the company, so that core staff are also bettermotivated and committed. If this is publicised by thecompanies, they can improve their employer brandingand hence become more attractive in the labourmarket.

However, on the negative side, interview partners pointto the participating companies’ joint responsibility andliability as a potential disadvantage, particularly if theemployment model is misused by some of themembers. Unexpected problems can also occur if one ofthe partners is genuinely unable to fulfil theirresponsibilities towards the shared workers and theothers have to cover this partner’s costs.

Strategic employee sharing might also cause somedifficulties in the workflow and work organisation of theparticipating firms. If, for example, a shared workercannot finish a particular task during one assignment,the work is suspended until the shared worker comesback, or it is carried out by core staff, whose other tasksmight then require rescheduling.

Another kind of problem may emerge if shared workersarrive at a firm, exhausted from an overly intensiveassignment in another participating company. Tomitigate this problem, several Belgian employer groupshave stated in their internal rules that each usercompany must control work intensity.

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

In Belgium, it was observed that strategic employee sharing favours the exchange of good practice amongparticipating companies through the shared workers who spread these practices from one company to the other.For instance, in the employer group Ferm’Emploi, the strategy of a participating company related to productdiversification and local product distribution inspired another participating company to develop its activity in thesame way. As another example, vocational training organised at the demand of a particular participatingcompany may have an unforeseen positive impact on the practices of another.

Capitalising on workers’ assignments

Strategic employee sharing –a new employment form in EuropeStrategic employee sharing is an employment form inwhich several regional companies jointly offerpermanent full-time positions to workers in situationswhere it would be impossible for them individually to doso due to lack of sufficient workload. Hence, it satisfiesthe need for flexible employment experienced by thecompanies while, at the same time, provides security toworkers who otherwise might have to accept moreprecarious employment forms.

Strategic employee sharing is currently (summer 2016)used in only a handful of Member States and, evenwhere it has been introduced, it is a marginal labourmarket phenomenon. This can be explained by the factthat strategic employee sharing is a solution for aspecific type of HR demand and cannot be used for eachand every employment situation. However, there is thegeneral feeling among strategic employee sharingexperts across Europe that the potential of thisemployment form is underdeveloped. Although theEuropean labour markets are still dominated bystandard employment forms, atypical employment andother new forms of employment are increasinglyemerging, particularly to cater for the need on the partof employers and workers for more flexibility. In severalcases, this results in insecure employment relations forthe workers, disadvantageous working conditions oreven precariousness. Hence, the question arises whysuch employment forms are more widespread thanstrategic employee sharing, which satisfies similarrequirements, but has a better win–win potential forboth companies and workers.

Fostering and hamperingstrategic employee sharingin EuropeAs a consequence, this research explored whatinfluences the establishment and further developmentof strategic employee sharing in Europe. It concludesthat these decisive factors can be grouped into fourspheres which mutually influence each other.

£ Demand: Aspects related to participatingcompanies or the business sector;

£ Supply: Aspects related to shared workers or thelabour market;

£ Framework: Aspects related to public institutionsand legal frameworks;

£ Operational support: Aspects related to resourcecentres and employer group management.

The favouring and hindering aspects of each of thesefour dimensions will be summarised in the followingparagraphs, while an overview of the main aspects canbe found in Figure 3.

Due to its specific characteristics, strategic employeesharing is not an employment form that should beimposed on companies and workers, but should beavailable to them as an alternative that could beapplied if it suits both parties. As a consequence, theawareness of employers and workers that thisemployment model exists, and their willingness toengage in it (which is also related to the existence ofalternative employment models), have been identifiedas key determinants for the establishment and furtherspread of strategic employee sharing in Europe.

From the company perspective, this also implies thatthe organisations need to be open to HR managementinnovation and to cooperate with other regional firms.Furthermore, they must have a specific HR demand thatis suitable for the employment model, and the HR needsof individual firms must be complementary so that theycan be combined into the cross-company employeesharing concept inherent in this employment form. Toensure an effective implementation of strategicemployee sharing, the HR needs must be flagged earlyon and be reliable, requiring some strategic HRmanagement approach in the participating firms. Fromthe workers, strategic employee sharing requires somelevel of adaptability, flexibility, autonomy, reliabilityand social competencies.

The current research clearly highlights that, while thecompany demand for this employment form isessential, the public framework conditions can alsoeither encourage or impede strategic employee sharing.Labour market players, including governments andtheir authorities, as well as social partners, need toactively support this form of employment for it tobecome established or more widely spread. Thisrequires:

£ the design of suitable legal frameworks;

£ financial support for the establishment and runningof resource centres, and for the start-up phase ofemployer groups;

£ provision of information to companies and workers,essential to counteract the low levels of awarenessabout this new employment form.

4 Conclusions and policy pointers

25

26

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

Finally, it was highlighted that strategic employee

sharing does not occur automatically in practice, but

needs some impetus. Consequently, operational

support through resource centres and employer group

managers is important. Tasks that need to be fulfilled by

these bodies again relate to awareness-raising and

lobbying for this employment form, as well as more

practical aspects. This includes the drafting and

dissemination of codes of conduct/standards for the

running of the employment model, ensuring that it is

only applied when and for whom it is really suitable,

and covering the various related administrative tasks

for the participating companies. For this, the individuals

working in resource centres and as employer group

managers need to be trusted by all stakeholders, have a

good understanding of the needs of companies and

workers, have strong networking skills and be aware of

managerial issues and the legal frameworks.

Implications of strategicemployee sharingAs with most new employment forms, particularly those

for which some alternative models are more common,

the question arises whether strategic employee sharing

should be spread more widely or perhaps avoided. This

very much depends on the implications of the

employment form for workers and companies. An

assessment, for example, can be very subjective and

may also differ from country to country or even from

employment relationship to employment relationship,

depending on the individual design and framework of

the employment form. Nevertheless, some more

general pointers have been identified by this research.

To start with, there is a common agreement among the

interviewed stakeholders that strategic employee

sharing has a clear win–win potential for companies and

workers as it provides employers with access to flexible

employment while offering stability and predictability

to workers, particularly when compared to other

atypical job arrangements. Nevertheless, a more

differentiated analysis needs to be considered as

strategic employee sharing is certainly not the perfect

employment form, having both advantages and

disadvantages for participating companies and workers

that need to be considered. A summary of the findings

Figure 3: Influencing factors for the establishment and further development of strategic employee sharing

Source: Eurofound

FrameworksOperational

support

DemandSupply

Public institutions

Legal framework

Resource centre

Employer group management

Workers

Labour market

Companies

Tasks

£ Lobbying, awareness raising

£ Provision of codes of conduct, guidelines, templates

£ Check suitability of companies and workers

£ Coverage of administrative tasks and recruitment

Capabilities

£ Trustworthy

£ Knowledgeable about regional firms

£ Relational and networking skills

£ Legal, strategic and operationalknowledge

£ Managerial skills, planning,coordination, communication,problem solving

£ Awareness among institutions

£ Active support by institutions

£ Openness to innovation in labourmarket policy/ employment models

£ Suitability of legal basis

£ Public support

£ Adaptability to work in differentcompanies

£ Social competences

£ Autonomy, reliability, continuouslearning

£ Availability and attractiveness ofalternative employment forms

£ Awareness/understanding of theemployment model andimplications

£ Openness towards innovative HRpractices

£ Demand for specific HR

£ Complementarity of HR needsacross firms

£ Availability and attractiveness ofalternative employment forms

£ Medium to long-term reliable HRplanning

£ Mutual trust, cooperative spirit

27

of the current analysis is given in Table 3; furtherinformation is offered below.

The discussions are mainly limited to the micro level(that is, participating companies and workers) as thecurrently available quantitative and qualitativeevidence does not make it possible to give ascientifically sound assessment of the macroeconomiceffects of strategic employee sharing (that is, on theoverall labour market or business structure). This ispartly because of the limited scale and scope of thisemployment form in Europe, as well as the comparativenovelty of the employment model in most of thecountries where it is used.

For companies, the main advantage of strategicemployee sharing is the access to (skilled) workerswhen they are needed, without having to offer them anindividual permanent full-time position with aninsufficient workload. It is, therefore, a cost-effectiveemployment form for a specific type of HR demand.Furthermore, the fact that the same workers repeatedlyrejoin the company and that some HR administrationtasks are covered by the employer group manager,contributes to increased efficiency and productivity inthe participating companies. Furthermore, spill-overeffects resulting from the cross-company HR

cooperation can benefit the firms in operationalactivities and HR management. It could also increasethe participating companies’ attractiveness on thelabour market as it might result in better employerbranding.

Potential disadvantages for participating companiesmay arise in cases of misconduct or of unforeseenbusiness problems in other participating firms, whenthe joint responsibility and liability within the employergroup obliges the companies to cover for thedeficiencies of others. Furthermore, as individualcompanies do not exclusively and continuously haveaccess to the shared workers, this might result inchallenges related to workflow and work organisationand negatively influence productivity levels.

From the participating workers’ perspective, the clearadvantage is the access to permanent full-time jobs inthe region which otherwise could not be offered by asingle employer. This implies job and income security.Furthermore, the parallel involvement in severalcompanies is generally seen as an opportunity for skillsdevelopment and increasing employability (hence,employment security) and is seen as beneficial in termsof work content as the diversity of tasks reducesmonotony. Workers are employed on a standardcontract and so benefit from the full rights andprotections of a permanent employee. They are alsoguaranteed the same pay and treatment as the corestaff of the participating companies.

The limited anecdotal evidence available suggests thatstrategic employee sharing also positively influencesthe working conditions of the core staff of theparticipating firms, and both directly and indirectlycontributes to job creation in the region.

On the negative side, the need to regularly changecompanies can increase workers’ stress levels,particularly if they are always assigned to high workintensity phases in the different firms. Furthermore,they are less likely to be able to influence the schedulingof their working time and might be less well integratedinto the work organisation of the individual firms. Therepresentation of shared workers also seems to berather limited, as very few employer groups havespecific representation bodies, and those in theparticipating companies have different views onwhether to represent the interests of shared workers.

Policy pointersStrategic employee sharing has been identified as a newemployment form which has the potential to result in awin–win situation, providing flexibility for employersand security for workers. It is an employment model fora specific type of HR need and hence could never applyto the majority of employment relations in Europe.Nevertheless, for the particular employment situationsin which it is suitable, it can generally be considered as

Conclusions and policy pointers

Table 3: Implications of strategic employee sharing

for companies and workers

Source: Eurofound

Companies Workers

Advantages Better coverage offlexible HR needs

Increased efficiency inHR administration andworkflow operation

Benefiting fromsharing HR practicesand improvingemployer branding

Increased job, incomeand employmentsecurity

Standard employmentcontract

Single employer

Predictability of workassignments

Equal pay, equaltreatment

Meaningful workcontent

Skills development

Improved workingconditions forcore staff

Job creation

Disadvantages Risk to cover for thedeficiencies of othercompanies due to jointresponsibility/liability

Negative impact onwork flow/workorganisation due toresource issues

Negative impact onproductivity due toresource issues

Less flexible workingtime

Less integration and(potentially) poorerrelationships withmanagement andcolleagues

Higher stress levelsand work intensity

Limitedrepresentation

28

more advantageous for employers and workers thansome of the other, currently more widespread,employment alternatives.

The current study has shown that certain preconditionsneed to be in place in order to establish strategicemployee sharing in Europe and to develop its potentialin the countries where it already exists. In order to(better) ensure these preconditions, a set of policypointers can be derived, which are presented in thefollowing paragraphs.

Awareness and active engagement

As strategic employee sharing exists only in a fewMember States and only on a marginal scale, there is ageneral lack of awareness and understanding amonglabour market players that this employment form exists,how it works and what the implications are for workersand companies. Consequently, information provisionshould be enhanced both at European and nationallevels. This should be targeted at institutions such asnational and regional governments, public employmentservices, social insurance providers, social partners,cluster organisations and other forms of businessnetworks, as well as at companies and their advisers(for example, lawyers or business consultants) andworkers.

At national level, the importance of joint tripartiteapproaches (governments, employers’ representativesand workers’ representatives) has been highlighted,which also emphasises the necessity for active supportof and engagement with these players (at the mostsuitable levels) for this employment form. Theinformation provision should be as practical as possible,using examples of existing employer groups as rolemodels to make the concept more tangible. This couldalso be carried out through cross-regional and cross-national exchange and through media reporting onstrategic employee sharing and experiences with thisemployment model. Initiatives such as these would helpfamiliarise the general public with its characteristics,potential advantages and disadvantages.

Legal clarification of the employmentmodel

As the employment model might be confused with othermore widespread employment forms, particularlytemporary agency work, a legal clarification of theconcept would be beneficial. The formal recognition ofstrategic employee sharing/employer groups and thedefinition of the rights and duties of all involved partieswould facilitate its operational implementation,including its consideration in social dialogue andcollective agreements. This would give employers andworkers clear guidelines on the application of theemployment model (including, for example, whichcollective agreement to be applied in case ofmultisector employer groups), as well as a better

understanding of the situations where the concept isuseful, and when to choose an alternative employmentform. A clear and tailor-made legal framework mightalso help to counteract suspicions about the model. Thelegal basis does not necessarily need to be a stand-alone regulatory framework; it could be embedded intoexisting structures.

Indeed, the experts interviewed for this study are of theopinion that relatively minor amendments of the labourcode or additions to temporary agency work regulationscould be quite easily made to facilitate the developmentof strategic employee sharing in their country. This alsosupports the experts’ suggestion that such regulationsmust be designed in such a way that they translateeasily into practice. They should take into account thespecific characteristics of the employment form, whichimplies that changes should not only focus on individualand collective labour law, but also on other aspects ofregulation such as corporation or taxation law. It shouldalso be stable and as easy to implement as possible sothat it can be used by companies of all sizes. Theimportance of involving employers’ and employees’representatives in the design of an adequate regulativeframework was strongly emphasised.

The role of resource centres

It was highlighted that strategic employee sharing doesnot occur automatically but needs to be initiated. In thiscontext, the importance of resource centres andemployer group managers was pinpointed. At the sametime, there was a strong agreement among theinterviewed experts that their role goes far beyond that.

Resource centres are essential for awareness-raisingand lobbying for the employment form, for providingcodes of conduct and standards for strategic employeesharing, and for actively supporting employer groups intheir start-up phase and later operation. Part of thecosts arising through these activities can be covered bymembership fees from employer groups. However,making them cover the full cost would lower theattractiveness of the employment model. Hence, someshare of public funding is recommended. This could, forexample, come from regional governments as resourcecentres are mainly regional organisations. At the sametime, there should be some national level coordinationand a platform for exchange of information betweenregional resource centres.

As regards the governance of resource centres,involvement of a wider set of institutional players,particularly governments and social partners, isrecommended. This would contribute to raising theirawareness and active support, as discussed earlier. Itwould also open up access to a wider range ofresources, not only financial but also, for example,publicity, communication and the creation ofrelationships with other institutions, companies orworkers. When considering the establishment of a

New forms of employment: Developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

29

Conclusions and policy pointers

(regional) resource centre, already existing structurescould be co-opted to capitalise on what has alreadybeen developed and is working well. This could includecluster organisations, employer-oriented publicemployment services, regional development agencies(such as the Austrian Wirtschaftsagenturen) or trainingnetworks (such as Ireland’s Skillnets).

Support and training for employer groupmanagers

The employer group management could be supportedparticularly in the pre-start-up and start-up phase;experience has shown that conducting feasibilitystudies and actively approaching companies to set upan employer group (which is seen as essential) are time-consuming processes that cannot be dealt with as a sideissue. Consequently, subsidies for setting up employergroups, particularly if the employment model is new tothe country, are helpful.

Furthermore, the analysis has shown that the tasks andthe required skills of employer group managers gobeyond traditional occupations. Training to providecurrent and future employer group managers with therequired skills is therefore recommended. This could bein the form of formal training, as exemplified by theuniversity course offered in France, or more informal

training through the resource centres. Supporting theemployer group management in their networkingactivities with companies is also advantageous. Thisagain could be aided through institutional support, inthis case particularly by business organisations orestablished business networks.

Companies’ willingness to engage

Finally, the willingness and ability of companies toengage in strategic employee sharing was identified asone of the main influencing factors for (further)developing the potential of this employment form. Toshare employees successfully, companies must be opento cooperating with other regional firms, and there iswidespread opinion that a collaborative spirit amongbusinesses could be further developed through anumber of initiatives. Again, existing business networkstructures could be used as a means of spreadinginformation about the employment model, andinformation about examples of good practice can behelpful. Figure 5 shows how strategic employee sharingrequires some form of medium to long-term strategicHR planning to ensure that the flagged HR demand isreliable and sustainable. For this, activities to familiarisesmaller companies with simple-to-use HR planningtools that are not too time-consuming or costly, couldcontribute to a better use of strategic employee sharing.

Figure 5: Main challenges and policy pointers for (further) developing the potential of strategic employee sharing

Source: Eurofound

£ Among institutions

£ Among companies

£ Through media reporting

£ Creation of a cooperative spirit and openness towards innovative and longer-term HR practices

£ Active approach of companies

£ Codes of conduct, standards, certification, templates

£ Training provision for employer group managers

£ Active engagement of institutions

£ Establishment and running of regional resource centres

£ National coordination of regional resource centres

£ Establishment of employer groups (setting up pilot employer groups to create role models)

£ Clarification of the employment model (differentiation from temporary agency work)

£ Clarification of its impact (for instance, employment contract, representation, legal form,taxation, applicability of collective agreements)

£ Fit for purpose, complexity and stability

Awareness

Legal framework

Support

Operational

31

Antoine, M. and Rorive, B. (2006), Employers pools inBelgium, Monitoring Innovative Restructuring in Europe(MIRE) project, Liège, Belgium.

Baumfeld, L. (2012), Kompetenzen teilen durchArbeitgeberzusammenschlüsse. Endbericht Teil 3:Handbuch: AGZ-Mehrwert-Check [Skills divide byemployer associations. Final report, part 3: Manual:AGZ-value-added check], ÖAR, Vienna.

Baumfeld, L. and Fischer, M. (2012), Kompetenzen teilendurch Arbeitgeberzusammenschlüsse. Endbericht Teil 1:Bedarfsanalyse und Machbarkeitseinschätzung für AGZ inNÖ-Mitte [Skills divide by employer associations. Finalreport, part 1: Needs assessment and feasibilityassessment for AGZ in Lower-Middle Austria], ÖAR,Vienna.

CERGE (Centre Européen de Ressources desGroupements d’Employeurs) (2008), Antwort auf dieacht gemeinsamen Grundsätze für den Flexicurity-Ansatzder Europäischen Kommission [Response to the eightcommon principles of flexicurity approach of theEuropean Commission], Brussels.

Dares (2013), ‘Emploi et chômage des 15–29 ans en2012’, Publication de la direction de l’animation de larecherche, des études et des statistiques, No. 73.

Delalande, F. and Buannic, L. (2006), Groupementsd’employeurs, mode d’emploi [Employer groups andhow they work], Éditions Eyrolles, Paris.

Eurofound (2015a), New forms of employment,Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Eurofound (2015b), New forms of employment, Employeesharing, Germany, Case study 2: Policy analysis.

Eurofound (2015c), New forms of employment, Employeesharing, Belgium, Case study 4: Policy analysis.

Eurofound (2015d), New forms of employment, Employeesharing, France, Case study 13: Policy analysis.

Eurofound (2015e), New forms of employment, Employeesharing, Hungary, Case study 15: Policy analysis.

Eurofound (2015f), New forms of employment, Employeesharing, Austria, Case study 65: Policy analysis.

Everaere C. (2014), Les emplois atypiques. Quellesréponses au besoin de flexicurité? Rueil-Malmaison,Éditions Liaisons, Paris.

Fadeuilhe, P. (2012), ‘Les groupements d’employeurs:responsabilité solidaire et exigences égalitaires’[Employer groups: Several liability and equalityrequirements], Droit social, No. 10, pp. 899–905.

Hädinger, N. (2006), Juristische Expertise: DerArbeitgeberzusammenschluss in der Rechtsform desVereins [Employers’ alliances in the legal form of theassociation], CERGE, Berlin.

Hertwig, M. and Kirsch, J. (2012),‘Arbeitgeberzusammenschlüsse als Instrument derinternexternen Flexibilisierung und Fachkräftesicherungfür kleine und mittlere Unternehmen’ [Employerassociations as an instrument of internal–externalflexibility and security professionals for small andmedium-sized enterprises], in Bullinger, A., Möslein, K.M., Eichler, L. and Trinczek, R. (eds.), Flexibel, stabil,innovativ – Arbeit im 21. Jahrhundert [Flexible, stable,innovative – Work in the 21st Century], Cuvillier,Nuremberg, pp. 147–155.

Kerbourc’h, J-Y. and Chevalier, H. (2016), Lesgroupements d’employeurs à la lumière de leurs enjeux,Étude économique et sociale des groupementsd’employeurs dans les Pays de la Loire, DIRECCTE(Directions régionales des entreprises, de laconcurrence, de la consommation, du travail et del’emploi), Nantes, France.

Kozma, A. (2012), ‘A több munkáltatóval fennállómunkaviszony’, in Kardkovacs, K. (ed.), A MunkaTörvénykönyvének magyarázata, HVG-ORAC Kiadó,Budapest.

LIGA (2015), Elemző tanulmány: Az új MunkaTörvénykönyvének hatásvizsgálata, A FüggetlenSzakszervezetek Demokratikus Ligájának.

MSA (2016), L’emploi salarié dans les groupementsd’employeurs agricoles en 2014, Mutualité SocialeAgricole, France.

Osthoff, K., Langbein, M. and Hartmann, T. (2011),Verbindung von Stabilität und Flexibilität.Arbeitgeberzusammenschlüsse als regionales Instrumentzur Fachkräftesicherung für KMU [Combination ofstability and flexibility: Employer associations as aregional instrument for securing skilled labour forSMEs], Working Papers: Economic Sociology Jena, No.10/2011, Friedrich Schiller Universität, Jena, Germany.

Wölfing, S., Wünsche, G. and Hartmann, T. (2007),Arbeitgeberzusammenschlüsse in Brandenburg – einBeitrag zur Umsetzung des Flexicurity-Ansatzes[Employer associations in Brandenburg – A contributionto the implementation of flexicurity], Ministerium fürArbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Familie LandBrandenburg, Berlin.

Bibliography

EF/16/43/EN

TJ-0

6-1

6-0

31-E

N-N

ISBN: 978-92-897-1554-6

doi:10.2806/539027

Although standard employment is still dominant

in European labour markets, an increasing range

of new employment forms is emerging that differ

in their implications for working conditions.

This study explores strategic employee sharing,

an employment form for companies that have

specific HR needs that do not justify a permanent

full-time position, but are often recurring,

by hiring one or several workers who work on

assignments, and whose skills and time are shared

among a group of companies. These companies

have joint responsibility and liability towards the

shared workers who are ensured ‘equal pay,

equal treatment’ with core staff. Yet in spite of the

win–win potential of this employment form for

both companies and workers, it is not widely

known and only marginally used. This report

explores the preconditions for a further spread of

strategic employee sharing as well as its impact

on employers and employees.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of

Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) is a

tripartite European Union Agency, whose role is to

provide knowledge in the area of social and

work-related policies. Eurofound was established in

1975 by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1365/75,

to contribute to the planning and design of better living

and working conditions in Europe.