Written by Matti Mikkola

Economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights are human and fundamental rights designed to ensure respect for human value and to provide equal opportunities for everyone. Their function is to protect individual and collective rights of workers, social security of citizens, and educational rights of everyone. They are enshrined in universal and European human rights treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and national constitutions, documents frequently cited in significant public discourse. A notable characteristic of these ESC rights, however, is that in political practice, they have proven to be the most contested and least enforced part of the European human and fundamental rights architecture.

This essay examines the development of ESC rights in Europe and their regulation as part of the real, ideological, and political transformation of European societies. The analysis draws upon the author’s recently published monograph on Fundamental Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Europe (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2026).  

Context and provisions of the ESC rights

The development of ESC rights began in the late 19th century within the context of industrialisation and the liberal state, influenced by the ideas of classical liberalism. They gave rise to the concepts of protecting workers, combating poverty, and educating the population. The construction of the welfare state expanded these ideas to a new level, ensuring basic living conditions for everyone: decent income, standard housing and public social, health and educational services. This was the policy during the latter half of the 20th century; yet it increasingly encountered demands for lower taxation and more market-oriented policies.

These demands gained further momentum following the 2008 financial crisis. It led governments to prioritise investments, particularly in export-oriented production by offering attractive return expectations, corporate subsidies, and tax relief over a functioning home market and social protection. Europe transitioned into an era of competitive state, deteriorating the situation and well-being of the most disadvantaged, and social stability.  

The legal foundation for these rights is robust, as their minimum level is established by international human rights treaties and regional and national constitutions. In addition, these rights are governed by ordinary legislation and collective agreements. In Europe, these rights are safeguarded by democratic states, respect for the rule of law, and functioning social dialogue between the social partners.

Provision of Fundamental ESC Rights in Europe

Key global instruments on ESC rights are established by conventions of the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Within Europe, these rights are also addressed in three major instruments: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the European Social Charter (ESC), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU). The application of these legal instruments is overseen by two courts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and one quasi-judicial committee: the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR). The rulings delivered by these bodies over the decades define how ESC rights are interpreted and ought to be applied in Europe.

The scope of this regulation encompasses the rules of the labour market, as well as terms of employment, livelihood, housing, social and health services, education, and participation of civil society. Key principles underlying these rights include safeguarding the inherent dignity of everyone, promoting equal opportunities, and fostering solidarity toward the disadvantaged. Within the European regulatory framework, specific support is directed toward children and young people, the elderly, persons with disabilities, immigrants, and those at risk of social exclusion.

The roots of the ESC rights lie in 19th-century classical liberalism

The development of labour rights began in the late 19th century, spurred by the ideas of classical liberalism. During this period, various parts of Europe took the first steps toward the emergence of “contractual societies.” The compulsory service obligations and traditional service relationships characteristic of estate-based societies were replaced by employment contracts entered into by employers and employees.

To ensure that such agreements were genuine—and at least to some extent equitable—states began to regulate the terms of employment. These regulations were primarily designed to protect the weaker party: the employee. This marked the genesis of labour law.

In line with classical liberal thought, the aim was to curb workplace accidents and remove the use of child labour and obstruct the suppression of wages below the poverty line, while also securing a livelihood for those injured on the job and for ageing workers. This was pursued through factory legislation, accident insurance, primary education, experiments with minimum wages, and finally with social insurance. The underlying objectives were to ensure an adequate labour supply, foster the skills required for increasingly mechanised production, and mitigate social unrest.

In Europe, the first steps toward combating in-work poverty were taken as early as the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries in England, where attempts were made to compensate for wages falling below the poverty line through public subsidies of the Speenhamland System. However, the provision of these subsidies led employers to pay even lower wages, which ultimately resulted in the termination of these experiments and the establishment of poor relief centred on workhouses.[1]

More successful measures to combat poverty were implemented in the autumn of 1881 by the Prussian government, led by Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898). At that time, the government established a social insurance programme designed to secure the livelihoods of workers injured in workplace accidents—as well as their family members—and of ageing workers. Beyond securing livelihoods, these measures had broader societal impacts. According to Eberhard Eichenhofer, a professor of social law at the University of Jena, a significant outcome was that Germany gained a modern social security system, a moderate labour movement, and a unified state.[2] Over the following decades, the Bismarckian model of social security spread to other parts of Continental Europe.  

A centralised method for determining wages emerged significantly later than the practice of negotiating individual employment terms. It required the organisation of labour market parties, a process accelerated by the economic downturns and wars that accompanied industrialisation.

Among the Scandinavian countries, collective bargaining began earliest in Denmark, where a framework agreement for the labour market was concluded as early as the late 19th century. Norway and Sweden followed suit in the wake of the 1930s depression and the rise of the Social Democrats to power. Social dialogue subsequently became an integral part of the political systems in the Scandinavian countries.

In Finland, the development of labour market relations required a more severe social crisis. In January 1940, the Red Army was massing for a second wave of its offensive toward Helsinki. This prompted employers—in what became known as the “January Engagement”—to agree to bargain collectively with trade unions, provided that the enemy threatening the nation’s independence was first repelled through a joint effort.

The European Social Model

Social, economic, and cultural rights evolved into their current form following especially the Great Depression of the 1930s and the ruins of World War II. This era’s industrial and societal development was characterised by social dialogue and the construction of the welfare state.

Social dialogue is based on freedom of association and freedom to contract. It encompasses all conditions of employment, most notably wages, working hours and time off, health and safety at work, and job security. Regulation is achieved through both collective agreements and individual contracts. The former involves negotiations between organisations, aimed at concluding a collective agreement. If the other party or the government is in a dominant position or can dictate the outcome of the negotiations, the process cannot be considered free contracting, nor a dialogue.

The state may participate in these negotiations as a third party, but it cannot dictate the outcome. The key function of the state is, in this respect, to ensure freedom of contracting on equal footing of the parties and equal opportunities for the parties to negotiate, as well as the fairness of agreements. Alongside collective bargaining, this takes place through labour legislation and its implementation.

Ultimately, the purpose of labour legislation is to ensure 1) the freedom of contracting, 2) a balanced situation of the parties, 3) fairness of collective agreements and individual employment contracts, 4) to establish minimum standards regarding wages, working hours, rest periods, occupational safety, and employment security, and 5) to guarantee legal protection for all parties involved.

At the core of the welfare state’s activities is the safeguarding of the entire population’s livelihood, housing, social and health services, and educational opportunities. In these respects, European states developed at different paces, yet they ceased their investments in the welfare state at very much the same time.

A report published in November 1942 by a committee led by the British Liberal politician Lord William Beveridge became the guiding blueprint for the post-war European welfare state. Its core concepts included active labour market policy, comprehensive social insurance, a safety net of last-resort social assistance, and free national health services.[3]

The Beveridge Report became a bestseller. It offered the citizens of war-torn Great Britain a promise, akin to an engagement, that welfare would be extended to everyone, provided they first emerged victorious in the war against Germany.

Beveridge’s argument in support of the welfare state was that all citizens (Englishmen) are important, and that a more equitable distribution of income boosts demand and accelerates national economic growth. He anticipated that the costs of social security could largely be covered through economic growth.

The development of the welfare state in other parts of Europe was also built upon these ideas. Following these ideas, the construction of the welfare state began in Western Europe in the 1950s, in the countries that lost the war and in Eastern Europe in the 1960s, and in the South as the nations returned to the path of democracy in the 1970s.

A political model of societal development antithetical to the welfare state also emerged in Great Britain, implemented under the leadership of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Its core message was: “more market, less government.” Within the European Union, efforts to further develop welfare policy met their first constraints with the drive toward a single currency (EMU), which was initiated by the Maastricht Treaty in 1991. It imposed limits on inflation, budget deficits, and public debt.  These monetary policy measures constrained cyclical policy efforts and shifted the focus from the role of citizens toward businesses and the market. The transition from a welfare state to a competitive state began.

At the same time, the third socioeconomic revolution—also referred to as the new economic and social order—began. It was enabled and propelled by microprocessors, digital technology, the end of the Cold War, which opened up global markets, and the emerging dominance of neoliberal thinking.

This new era gained further momentum from the 2008 financial crisis. Governments shifted their support for corporate subsidies, particularly for nationally important companies that drive the export economy in European and global markets. Financial support was targeted at their innovations, energy consumption, transport, and infrastructure subsidies. States campaigned with attractive return expectations for investors and tax relief, and contributed to better productivity and competitiveness of the companies, with lower wages and lower work-related costs than the other states and their competing enterprises. The measures had a negative impact on the purchasing power of citizens, the growth of domestic markets, employment and tax revenue, which increased the need to direct austerity measures to social security and public welfare services. For all that, European economies lagged behind the growth seen in the rest of the world.

Fundamental rights of the EU

Amidst all this upheaval, the European Union established fundamental rights to protect its citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU) was agreed upon as a declaration in Nice in December 2000, and in a binding form as part of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007.[4] The treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009 and contains provisions regarding the fundamental rights of citizens of the EU’s 27 member states. It encompasses all human rights set out in the ECHR and the ESC, and links to them in terms of detail through references contained in the “travaux préparatoires” (explanations) for each article.[5]

Provisions of the Social Dialogue in Europe

The provisions of the CFREU are built upon the rights enshrined in the ECHR and the ESC, and the level of protection they provide may not fall below the standards set by these instruments. This link to human rights treaties is reinforced by Article 52§7, which establishes the explanations of the CFREU as a legal source for the interpretation and application of it. Consequently, the provisions of the CFREU oblige not only states but also—indirectly—courts to respect the rights and standards contained in the ECHR and the ESC. However, the judges of the EU Court of Justice have long and, from their perspective, successfully resisted any binding connection to human rights practice.

Rights in the books and violations in practice

ESC rights are intended, above all, to safeguard those with the fewest resources. If and when austerity measures are used to cut income support or public services, the negative impacts fall mainly on the most vulnerable and those unable to defend themselves. The losers are children, young people, families with children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, immigrants, and those at risk of social exclusion. The winners are those who derive income from capital, as well as managers and other high-income earners.

The major question is how the law functions and what significance human and fundamental ESC rights hold as guarantors of protection, for which they were conceived. The conclusions of the monitoring body of the ESC, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), contain alarming signs that well-being in various European states in the 2020s is crumbling:

In 2020, the ECSR examined the situation in 33 countries in relation to a) equal enjoyment of labour rights for all, b) forced labour and labour exploitation, c) unemployment and job creation, d) poverty, social integration and participation of persons with disabilities.

The Committee adopted 349 conclusions, including 97 conclusions of conformity and 152 conclusions of non-conformity with the rights and standards of the ESC. In 100 cases, the Committee was unable to assess the situation due to insufficient information (“deferrals”).[6]

In 2021, the control of the ECSR focused on social protection and particularly on issues such as: a) infant and maternal mortality, b) epidemic, endemic and other diseases, c) life expectancy, d) minimum level of social security, e) level of last resort social assistance, f) resources for older persons enabling them to lead a decent life and play an active role in the community, and g) the situation of migrants and platform workers as recipients of benefits and support.

The Committee adopted 401 conclusions and found 110 conclusions of conformity and 165 conclusions of non-conformity. In 126 cases, the Committee deferred its conclusion, being unable to assess the situation due to insufficient information.[7] Finally, the Committee concluded that in many countries the poverty level is too high, and the measures to remedy this fundamental problem have been insufficient.

In 2023, the ECSR focused on possible a) inadequate protection against dismissal whilst pregnant or on maternity leave and on ceilings on the amount of compensation that may be awarded in the event of unlawful dismissal; b) inadequate supply of social housing, ineffective remedies for excessive waiting times for social housing, or discrimination as regards access to social housing; and c) equal treatment of nationals of other State Parties regarding the payment of family benefits.

In the same control cycle, the ECSR noted that in many countries d) the rate of children at risk of poverty is and remains too high. The Committee also observed in a number of states e) an inadequate prohibition of employment under the age of 15, insufficient monitoring of child labour, insufficient protection of children from all forms of violence, exploitation and abuse in the digital environment, in particular sexual exploitation and abuse and solicitation for sexual purposes (grooming).

In the framework of the reporting procedure, the ECSR adopted 799 conclusions and found 415 conclusions of conformity and 384 conclusions of non-conformity.[8]

In 2025, while examining the situation of labour rights in the contracting states, the ECSR encountered rights violations to a significant extent on a) barriers to collective bargaining, b) unfair remuneration, c) excessive working time, d) failures to address new and emerging risks, and e) inadequate protection for vulnerable categories of workers.

The Committee adopted a total of 213 conclusions, including 27 conclusions of conformity and 186 conclusions of non-conformity.[9]

Austerity measures have also extended to cultural and educational rights. In 2023, the ECSR monitored how the states fulfilled their obligation to establish and maintain an education system that is both accessible and effective according to Article 17§2 of the ESC. In 11 States, the Committee considered that the situation was in conformity with the requirements of the provision. In 12 cases, the ECSR considered that the situation was not in conformity on the grounds that a) the net enrolment rate in secondary education is too low, b) the dropout rate is too high, or c) Roma children are subject to segregation.

Conclusions

In many states, the development of the welfare state and consensus-based society has stalled, and living conditions have weakened for many for nearly two decades. At the same time, the respect for human and fundamental rights has eroded in the states, which fuels confrontation and puts the stability of society and the political system to the test.

Finding a new direction requires that those who have lost their standing either rise up to actively defend their rights or migrate in large numbers to countries where the prospects for the future are brighter. Also, an intensifying external threat might help to understand the arguments of Lord Beveridge that all citizens are important and that a more equitable distribution of income boosts demand and accelerates national economic growth. The time to come will tell!

– – – – – – – – –

Matti Mikkola is Professor of Labour Law (emer.) at the University of Helsinki. He was a member, vice chairman and chairman of the European Committee of Social Rights from 1995 to 2006. Earlier, he served as legislative counsellor at the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health for thirteen years and functioned as an adviser to Estonia, Bulgaria, and Ukraine on social law reforms in the 1990s, and worked with the Russian Federation on social development from 2001 to 2014.  

---

[1] The Speenhamland System (1795); The Poor Law Amendment (1834).

[2] Eichenhofer Eberhard, Sozialrecht. Edition 10, Mohr Siebeck 2017.

[3] Beveridge William, Social Insurance and Allied Services. 1942.

[4] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012/C 326/02) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

[5] Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Version 2007) https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2010/6/9/11b81cf7-22fc-4463-873f-1db65a733a8c/publishable_en.pdf

[6] Conclusions 2020 of the ECSR Press Briefing elements, p. https://rm.coe.int/esc-press-briefing-conclusions-2020-final-en/1680a1dff8

[7] Conclusions 2021 of the ECSR Press Briefing elements, p. 2 https://rm.coe.int/conclusions-2021-press-briefing-final-en/1680a5eed6

[8] Conclusions 2023 of the ECSR Press Briefing elements, p. 3  https://rm.coe.int/press-briefing-elements-conclusions-2023-eng-to-publish-2/1680aefdbb

[9] Conclusions 2025 of the ECSR Press Briefing elements, p. 3 https://rm.coe.int/press-briefing-elements-conclusions-2025-eng/48802bbf38

---