Jérôme Vignon intervention, President of Semaines sociales de France, pronounced in the context of the XXXVIII Meeting Ipse, 4 and 5 October 2012 in Dublin.

Jérôme Vignon, President of Semaines sociales de France

True to its vocation as a leader for the conscience of social protection in Europe, Ipse wanted this 38th European meeting to be an opportunity for us to confront constructive tension: between a refusal to simply accept austerity on the one hand, and on the other hand the desire to promote what we call “new developments.””.

Can the European Charter of Social Protection Providers help us confront the urgency born from the crisis?

Its adoption illustrates a vigorous step forward in the quest for identification and European visibility that “social protection providers” rightly deserve. As a voluntary charter, it is perfectly in line with institutions that demonstrate their support for mandatory social security while demanding autonomy and the freedom to take initiatives. I would like to praise the tenacity of Ipse’s leaders, who have spent the past two years pushing ahead with the very challenging task of providing a common face to the multitude of institutions working to advance social protection.

 However, a candid look at the crisis compels us to ask disturbing questions. Is not this charter defensive in nature, aiming to promote the values and singular identity of the signatory organizations? These organizations are fighting to create an alternative to financial insurance companies, but is this battle equal to the task of the “systemic social protection reforms” we spoke of this afternoon?

I would thus like to compare the European charter adopted last spring, upon the recommendation of Ipse, with the message we heard during the previous round table. My personal answer to these questions is a resounding yes, which leads me to say a few words about the crisis. If we take a comprehensive and systemic view of it, we can but lose heart, as no one seems able to untangle all the strands. On the other hand, if we ask ourselves what we can do, as slight as our contribution may be, then things can indeed change. The Ipse charter represents a change that social protection institutions can bring about together, a change that holds the key to ending the crisis without repeating failed measures.

Nevertheless, my optimistic declaration comes with certain conditions. My first point will be to show that the principle of solidarity, to which signatories of the charter are committed, is more than a mere value or conviction. Belief in solidarity also entails a vision, a way of looking at things that makes it possible to discover pertinent solutions concerning the structural reforms that social protection requires. In a way, solidarity opens up new horizons.

My second point will emphasize concrete conditions for implementing the charter. On its own, this document will not lead to creation or organization. That takes new energy and determination.

Solidarity is visionary

The charter brings new developments to light, not simply because it rejects a model based on competition, calls for tender or submissions, and instead supports goals that serve the general interest. It brings new developments to light by offering its own vision of what is called social effectiveness or social utility. This vision is strengthened by the fact that the organization signing the charter employs solidarity-based practices in its daily operations. I would like to focus on three aspects of this “solidarity-based clairvoyance.”

These aspects are supplementary pensions, intergenerational solidarity and long-term healthcare.

•  In terms of supplementary pensions, the solidarity-based vision goes beyond individuals to distinguish the reciprocal bonds linking different generations, economic sectors and even professions. That is because it was born of a collective notion of labor, rather than the tendency towards ever-greater fragmentation and dehumanization. Today, labor transformations trend towards personalization and symbiotic relationships, and not necessarily fragmentation. Sensible human resources managers apply strategies combining personal adaptability, participation in collective work organization and shared intelligence as per its goal. The future of a profession or branch depends less than ever before on the skills of a few individuals and more on the perception of a collective destiny. Solidarity-based solutions to the issue of pension adequacy find a profound justification in this notion of collective destiny. At the same time, these solidarity-based solutions prove more effective than individual or customized insurance models, as shown by the powerful jointly-managed pension funds in the Netherlands.
• Likewise, the solidarity-based vision is particularly relevant today to give substance to the new realities of generational interdependence. This model no longer simply redistributes new workers’ contributions to retirees. Defects in our labor markets, which are paradoxically increasingly inaccessible for young people, highlight the importance of better organizing solidarity between generations leaving and entering the workforce. This transition should serve to foster relationships of cooperation, welcoming and learning, engendering true transmission of culture and experience. What could be better than co-determination to successfully manage this transition, which is much more complex than simply “making room for young people?” The charter encourages this principle, with signatory organizations undertaking to maintain a governance model that brings together and implicates the natural persons for whom they work. In any case, this is the essence of pioneering initiatives put in place by social protection organizations, such as “Ensemble demain (Together tomorrow),” which systematically organizes intergenerational commingling, from schools to retirement homes; “Emploi jeunes (Jobs for young people),” which rallies employees to contribute to the success of young people entering the workforce without a degree; “L’outil en main (Tools in hand),” a network of mutualist craftsmen who help young people discover the important links between a skilled mind and a skilled hand; and finally the “Fonds pour le bien être et le bien vieillir (Fund for well-being and vital aging),” launched at the initiative of a group of mutual and paritarian organizations.
• Finally, solidarity can also mean kindness. That is the case when it guides developments in personal care through genuine attentiveness to the needs of each individual. In this sense, it is indeed an alternative to an approach focusing on standardized solutions grouped together in a “healthcare market.” Standardized approaches always produce service fragmentation that is incompatible with the preventive healthcare strategies advocated by all international institutions. Preventive care requires proximity with people, proximity that the charter rightly defines as a major strength, a kind of trademark. Putting people back in the center of the system of protection for weak, vulnerable or disabled people is not always possible. However, it is at the very least an ambition that social protection organizations, upon signing the charter, commit to pursue when they develop activities involving long-term care. This ambition leads them to “new developments,” as they focus on offering integrated services rather than hyper-specialization.

Breathing life into the charter..

However, the charter’s ability to generate European support for these new developments, which we will discuss tomorrow, can only be confirmed if implementation of the charter becomes the opportunity for collective renewal of social protection organizations themselves. The crisis got their attention; the charter must put them on the right path. I submit to you three conditions for such a renewal to be possible.

1. First of all, to bring perceptible “new developments” to light at the EU level, the means to maintain and fulfill the charter’s commitment to social development are indispensable. Let me quote the charter once again: “As motors of inclusion and defense of social bonds, social protection organizations undertake to be pioneers, identifying new needs and delivering the solutions they have developed.” This resolution requires methodical organization, as nothing is more conservative than a personal protection and collective insurance institution. We must take advantage of mergers and restructurings among social protection organizations, spurred on by the crisis, to examine best practices and generate research into solidarity. Such research must fulfill the prospective mission of developing these pioneering functions, gathering experimental knowledge and promoting inclusion by highlighting information inspired by social action and which points the way to the future
2. Secondly, active implementation of the charter for new developments undoubtedly means that our Institute, Ipse, can play a somewhat less “soft” role than that invoked by our President Alain Chenot this afternoon, who spoke of a tool for dialogue and cooperation among all social protection partners. To be effective, the charter calls for a form of monitoring, to drive signatory organizations forward and give their commitment an “audience.” Among the tools for such monitoring would be peer review, establishment of specific goals, implementation of participatory processes, the ability for Ipse to issue recommendations, etc. Would Ipse then be nothing more than a research institute? Certainly not. But the “new developments” we are expecting must also include more collective governance of social protection, and therefore of organizations in the Ipse community.
3. Finally, one last condition applies if the charter for social protection providers is to become truly European. In two years, we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the great enlargement that brought the number of EU Member States from 15 to 27. But how many of these Member States are convinced that social protection organizations fill the gap between mandatory social security and private insurance? We complain that the Council of Ministers does not push for a European statute for mutual organizations. But what have we done to find partners in Eastern, Central and Northern Europe who espouse this idea? Are we not sometimes victims of a kind of inferiority complex displayed by the founders? Why could a European dimension not help us come closer to a world of complementary labor pensions that shares our values of solidarity and plays a decisive role influencing European directives? Why should we not benefit from the momentum that Commissioner Barnier is now giving to “social enterprises?” Their domain may go beyond insurance, but they could fully adhere to our charter’s assertion that “economic performance is at the service of the public interest and the needs of the individual.”

Perhaps, to echo the wistful phrase of our Delegate General, hope consists of devoting all our energy to things that are out of our control. Nevertheless, I am sure that hope and confidence are being reborn in communities that are once again inclined to put a human face on their future. As social protection organizations, we are one of those communities. The charter, illustrating the creative power of solidarity, lays the foundation for our hope to contribute to a European renewal.