I. Theoretical and legal approaches to the regulatory role of trade unions

In the context of European integration and the reform of social legislation, the analysis of the role of trade unions as actors not only representing workers’ interests but also participating in social dialogue is gaining increasing importance. In the European Union, this role has been shaped by a multi-level legal framework, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, EU Directives and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Meanwhile, in Ukraine – especially under conditions of armed conflict and ongoing labour law reforms – the legal status of trade unions is undergoing significant transformation, influencing their ability to effectively perform regulatory functions.

The practical aim of this article is to assess the extent to which trade unions in the EU and Ukraine perform the role of actors managing social risks – such as mass dismissals, enterprise relocation, flexible forms of employment, or violations of labour rights during martial law. In particular, it raises the question of whether trade unions are capable of helping prevent legal uncertainty, safeguarding the institutional stability of social dialogue and effectively responding to risks emerging in the labour sphere.

Although no normative act explicitly defines the regulatory function of trade unions as a mechanism for risk management, contemporary trends in the development of labour law demonstrate a gradual recognition of this role in case-law, ILO recommendations, as well as national and European legislation. However, amid uncertainty, the declining role of collective protection and the tension between market flexibility and social justice, a range of legal issues arise. These include: What scope of powers do trade unions have in rule-making and the implementation of labour market policies? To what extent does their legal status allow them to effectively influence public and private decisions containing elements of social risk? Is there a model of effective interaction between the state and trade unions that could be adapted to the Ukrainian context?

This article first analyses the normative and institutional foundations of the regulatory functions of trade unions in the EU (Section II), then examines the Ukrainian context and key challenges for the trade union movement (Section III). Section IV provides a comparative analysis and formulates proposals for strengthening the role of trade unions in systems of social risk management.

Modern labour law reforms cannot be viewed outside the context of global economic trends, particularly the influence of neoliberal reforms on labour regulation. Dukes and StreeckFootnote ¹ (2023) in their research analyse the transformation of labour law following the era of neoliberalism, emphasising that neoliberal policies have significantly weakened collective workers’ rights and expanded the role of market mechanisms in labour relations. The authors also note that the shifting balance between individual and collective rights creates additional challenges for trade unions attempting to adapt to new conditions while maintaining effectiveness in protecting workers’ rights. These findings provide an important theoretical foundation for analysing Ukraine’s reform of trade union legislation, particularly in the context of harmonisation with European standards and the management of social risks.

Trade unions have traditionally been regarded as institutions tasked with protecting individual and collective workers’ interests through bargaining with employers, participating in collective agreements, organising strikes and representing workers in labour disputes. Yet contemporary labour law increasingly refers to the concept of trade unions as co-regulators of labour relations, assuming the role of active participants in law-making, policy implementation and responses to social risks – such as economic instability, mass downsizing, digitalisation of work or the transformation of employment forms.

This approach finds support in the doctrines of co-regulation and soft law, which recognise that effective labour regulation requires not only statutory rules but also the active involvement of social partners in developing norms governing specific working conditions. Of particular significance is the concept of risk management, which shifts attention from addressing consequences to preventing potential threats. In this context, trade unions may be viewed as “systemic actors” capable not only of reacting to existing violations of rights but also of shaping a safe and stable working environment.

Within the European Union and its Member States, this role of trade unions is theoretically grounded in several legal and political principles: the principle of social dialogue enshrined in Article 152 TFEUFootnote ² and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,Footnote ³ emphasising the role of social partners in developing and implementing EU policy; the ILO normative framework, including Conventions No. 87,Footnote ⁴ No. 98Footnote ⁵ and No. 154,Footnote ⁶ which recognise the participation of trade unions in shaping labour policy as part of the democratic process; the theory of “institutionalised social partnership,” which provides for the structural participation of trade unions in regulatory processes through tripartite bodies, supervisory boards and the governance of social insurance funds.

In contrast, in many post-Soviet countries, including Ukraine, the regulatory function of trade unions remains more declarative than actual. A formalistic approach prevails, whereby trade unions act merely as representatives rather than equal partners in rule-making. This creates asymmetry in the regulation of labour relations and reduces the effectiveness of responses to labour-related risks. This is particularly evident during periods of social turbulence – such as the COVID-19 pandemic, full-scale war and economic recession.

Thus, at the theoretical level, there is a clear gap between the instrumental understanding of trade unions within labour market regulation in Western European systems and their limited mandate within Ukraine’s legal system. The following sections analyse how this gap is manifested in practice and what legal and institutional prerequisites may support its reduction.

II. The legal status of trade unions in the European Union

The legal status of trade unions in the European Union is shaped by the interplay between international human rights standards, EU primary and secondary law, and the multi-level jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The institutional development of the EU trade union movement demonstrates a complex dynamic between preserving the autonomy of social partners and gradually institutionalising their role within the system of European governance.

The development of trade union regulation in both Ukraine and the EU should be analysed within the broader theoretical debate on the role of labour law in promoting social change. Breznik (2024)Footnote ⁷ argues that contemporary labour law should not be viewed merely as an instrument for correcting market failures or regulating employment relations. Instead, drawing on empirical evidence from collective organising in Slovenian companies, the author demonstrates that the interaction between individual and collective labour rights may create the conditions for transformative social change and strengthen workers’ collective capacity. In this context, collective labour rights and trade union activity are presented not only as mechanisms of protecting employees’ interests but also as institutions capable of shaping broader social and economic relations. This perspective provides an important theoretical basis for considering the reform of trade union legislation as a systemic response to contemporary labour-market challenges rather than merely a process of legislative amendment.

At the origins of the European legal regime of freedom of association lie universal standards – primarily the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human RightsFootnote ⁸ and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,Footnote ⁹ which establish the right of everyone to form and join trade unions. The European Convention on Human Rights, in Article 11,Footnote ¹⁰ reaffirms these guarantees, while the case-law of the ECtHR in Demir and Baykara v. Turkey Footnote ¹¹ and Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v. Turkey Footnote ¹² significantly expanded the doctrine of freedom of association by incorporating the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike as integral elements of a democratic society.Footnote ¹³

Within the EU legal order, these standards were integrated through the Maastricht Social ChapterFootnote ¹⁴ and the 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,Footnote ¹⁵ Article 12 of which guarantees freedom of association and Article 28 recognises the right to collective bargaining and collective action. Secondary legislation, particularly Directive 2002/14/ECFootnote ¹⁶ on information and consultation of employees and Directive 2001/23/ECFootnote ¹⁷ on safeguarding employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, institutionalises the obligation of social dialogue and recognises the representative role of trade unions in restructuring, business transfer and social risk management.

Despite the formal consolidation of broad guarantees, the case-law of the CJEU since the early 2000s has demonstrated inconsistency in balancing economic freedoms and social rights. The judgments in Viking LineFootnote ¹⁸ and LavalFootnote ¹⁹ became pivotal in shaping critical debate on the prioritisation of the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment over the right to collective action. Contemporary scholars emphasise that such approaches create a “chilling effect” on the exercise of the right to strike and limit the scope for effective trade union mobilisation in cross-border contexts.Footnote ²⁰ In the British case British Airways,Footnote ²¹ these concerns became even more pronounced, as judicial control over the proportionality of strike action significantly narrowed unions’ discretion in conducting collective disputes.

The EU enlargements of 2004Footnote ²² and 2007Footnote ²³ brought to the fore the issue of divergent levels of social protection and unequal bargaining power between trade unions in “old” and “new” Member States. Extensive use of the posted workers mechanism created fertile ground for social dumping and necessitated a rethinking of trade union strategies within the integrated labour market.Footnote ²⁴ This influenced the development of transnational forms of solidarity,Footnote ²⁵ Footnote ²⁶ actively promoted by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which increasingly functions as a norm-shaping actor at EU level through the conclusion of autonomous framework agreements, such as those on telework and workplace violence.

In the sphere of social governance during crises – from the COVID-19 pandemic to economic shocks and large-scale corporate reorganisations – trade unions play a crucial role in mitigating social risks. European studies show that union involvement in occupational safety plans, crisis-response agreements, short-time work schemes, and collective redundancy procedures significantly reduces the social costs of crises, enhances the transparency of employers’ decisions, and contributes to the legitimacy of state regulatory measures.Footnote ²⁷

The European Court of Human Rights, unlike the CJEU, demonstrates a more consistent approach towards an expanded interpretation of trade union rights. In a series of judgments, the Court has stressedFootnote ²⁸ Footnote ²⁹ that freedom of association is not merely a formal right but one requiring genuine opportunities for collective bargaining, conclusion of collective agreements and the exercise of the right to strike. In this context, the ECtHR affirms the doctrine of the state’s positive obligations to protect trade union rights against private actors – a doctrine increasingly influencing the national legal orders of EU Member States.Footnote ³⁰

Trade unions also play an increasingly prominent role in promoting equality in the labour market. Under Directives 2000/43/ECFootnote ³¹ and 2000/78/EC,Footnote ³² trade unions are expected to represent workers who face discrimination and to negotiate anti-discrimination clauses in collective agreements. However, scholars note that the economic consequences of crises and the fragmentation of labour markets limit unions’ ability to represent diverse groups equally, including migrants, non-standard workers and platform workers.Footnote ³³

The future development of trade union rights in the EU largely depends on the ability of European institutions to restore the balance between economic freedoms and social rights. Recent initiatives – from the European Pillar of Social Rights to Directive (EU) 2022/2041Footnote ³⁴ on adequate minimum wages – demonstrate a shift towards strengthening the role of social partners and reinvigorating the concept of “Social Europe.” The Directive explicitly promotes collective bargaining by requiring Member States with collective bargaining coverage below 80% to establish action plans aimed at increasing its coverage.

The development of the legal status of trade unions across EU Member States illustrates significant variations in models of social dialogue, which considerably affect the effectiveness of collective rights. In the Scandinavian countries – particularly Sweden and Denmark – the model of “collective autonomy” predominates, whereby the state intervenes minimally in labour regulation, leaving the primary regulatory function to trade unions and employers. Research by Kjellberg A.Footnote ³⁵ shows that high levels of union density and collective bargaining coverage in these countries ensure the most stable balance between economic and social interests. According to OECD (2025),Footnote ³⁶ Sweden and Denmark continue to maintain among the highest levels of collective bargaining coverage in the OECD, despite gradual declines in trade union density.

In Germany, by contrast, social dialogue is built upon an institutionally embedded system of co-determination (Mitbestimmung). In addition to co-determination, the German model is characterised by a strong tradition of sectoral collective bargaining (Tarifautonomie). However, recent OECD data indicate that collective bargaining coverage has gradually declined over the past two decades, reflecting increasing decentralisation of collective bargaining and changes in the organisation of industrial relations.Footnote ³⁷ According to L. Goerke and M. Pannenberg,Footnote ³⁸ worker participation in supervisory boards not only enhances the transparency of managerial decisions but also creates additional mechanisms for early conflict prevention in the labour market. The French model, on the other hand, is characterised by extensive legal regulation, a significant role of the state and relatively low union density. Yet, as noted by B. Amossé,Footnote ³⁹ even with low union membership, French trade unions retain substantial influence through institutional mechanisms of representativeness and the mandatory extension of collective agreements.

Post-socialist states – Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia – joined the EU with traditionally weaker systems of social dialogue. The works of M. SedlákováFootnote ⁴⁰ and S. HunglerFootnote ⁴¹ show that the transformation of these systems is accompanied by fragmentation of the trade union movement, political fluctuations and substantial influence of foreign investors on the formation of labour standards. Hungary in the 2010s is a striking example of a “revision” of the classical European model, as a number of changes to labour legislation limited the scope for trade union action and collective protection. S. HunglerFootnote ⁴² emphasises that this tendency creates risks of “competition based on lower standards” within the EU. OECD (2025) data likewise demonstrate substantially lower collective bargaining coverage across most Central and Eastern European Member States than in the Nordic countries, illustrating the continuing fragmentation of industrial relations within the EU.Footnote ⁴³

The diversity of national industrial relations systems within the European Union is reflected not only in institutional design but also in measurable differences in trade union membership and collective bargaining coverage. Figure 1 illustrates these differences across selected EU Member States and demonstrates the varying capacity of trade unions to influence labour regulation through collective bargaining mechanisms.

Figure 1.

Comparison of trade union density and collective bargaining coverage in selected European countries (latest available OECD data).

As Figure 1 demonstrates, the Nordic countries maintain both high trade union density and extensive collective bargaining coverage, reflecting the effectiveness of the collective autonomy model. Germany and the Netherlands display comparatively lower levels of union membership while preserving broad collective bargaining coverage through institutional mechanisms of social partnership. Particularly noteworthy is the French case, often described in academic literature as the “French paradox”: despite relatively low trade union density, collective bargaining coverage remains exceptionally high due to legal mechanisms extending collective agreements beyond union members. By contrast, Poland and Hungary exhibit substantially lower levels of both indicators, illustrating the continuing fragmentation of social dialogue systems in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. These differences confirm that the effectiveness of collective labour rights depends not solely on union membership rates but also on the institutional architecture of industrial relations.

Significant attention in European academic literature is devoted to transnational trade union interaction. In the works of M. SeeligerFootnote ⁴⁴ and J. Waddington, T. Müller and K. Vandaele,Footnote ⁴⁵ it is emphasised that the effectiveness of trade unions in cross-border situations depends on their capacity to build transnational solidarity networks and act beyond purely national legal regimes. The experience of Italian and Spanish trade unions in collective actions against mass restructurings and industrial closures demonstrates the effective use of European legal instruments – ranging from applications to the CJEU to participation in European Works Councils (EWCs). Trade unions in these countries are increasingly influencing the processes of economic adaptation to digital transformation, ensuring workers’ bargaining position in matters of automation and changes in the structure of employment.Footnote ⁴⁶

The Dutch experience is also illustrative: the tripartite model of social partnership (the Polder Model) ensures systematic collective bargaining and broad inclusion of trade unions in shaping employment policy, pension reform and working time regulation. Empirical research by W. Salverda and J. van der HartogFootnote ⁴⁷ demonstrates that this model fosters high levels of trust among social partners and contributes to labour market stability even during economic crises.

Incorporating these national models into the broader European debate reveals that the prospects for the development of trade union rights in the EU are shaped not only by Union-level law-making but also by academic thought. European scholars – including M. Mailand M,Footnote ⁴⁸ M. Akgüç, M. Kahancová and J. MassoFootnote ⁴⁹ and S. RainoneFootnote ⁵⁰ – emphasise the need to revise the doctrine of proportionality in trade union actions and to recognise the special status of social partners as carriers of the public interest. It is this academic discourse that forms the foundation for reconsidering the CJEU’s approach and returning to the concept of “Social Europe,” in which trade union rights are viewed as a structural pillar of democracy rather than an exception to the regime of economic freedoms.

III. The Ukrainian model: the evolution of trade unions amid reforms

The legal status of trade unions in Ukraine has developed within a prolonged institutional transformation shaped by the Soviet legacy, the transition to a market economy, and the contemporary reforms driven by European integration and the state of martial law. The constitutional foundations of trade union activities, enshrined in Articles 36 and 44 of the Constitution of Ukraine,Footnote ⁵¹ guarantee freedom of association in trade unions, the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. The fundamental act defining their legal status is the Law of Ukraine “On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity” of 1999.Footnote ⁵² Despite its declared high level of guarantees, this law combined elements of democratisation with a strong influence of Soviet administrative practices from the outset, which constrained the development of trade union autonomy and the formation of a modern model of social partnership.Footnote ⁵³

The historical evolution of the trade union movement demonstrates significant continuity of the Soviet institutional model, within which trade unions primarily performed functions related to the distribution of social benefits and the management of sanatorium, recreational and cultural facilities, rather than the protection of labour rights. This legacy persisted even after the proclamation of independence. Trade unions received broad formal powers; however, their actual capacity to influence labour policy and mobilise workers remained low. As Ukrainian scholars note, the absence of deep institutional reform and the lack of political support for social dialogue prevented the establishment of an effective tripartite model akin to EU practices.Footnote ⁵⁴

The launch of large-scale labour law reforms after 2022 intensified debate regarding the role of trade unions within the system of social and labour relations. The introduction of the legal regime of martial lawFootnote ⁵⁵ transformed the substance of labour guarantees, significantly narrowing the scope of collective agreements and reducing trade union activity. Law No. 2136-IX “On the Organisation of Labour Relations under Martial Law”Footnote ⁵⁶ delegated a significant portion of labour regulation directly to the individual employment contract level, effectively weakening trade unions’ positions in monitoring compliance with labour rights and participating in negotiation procedures. Subsequent changes related to Law No. 5371,Footnote ⁵⁷ which introduced a “contractual” regime for small and medium-sized enterprises, and Law No. 3677-IXFootnote ⁵⁸ on the optimisation of state supervision, raised concerns among international experts, including the ILO, due to the risks of erosion of collective rights.

Judicial practice has also played an important role in defining the status of trade unions. The Supreme Court, in a number of decisions (particularly in cases concerning the protection of trade union activists and unlawful interference by employers in the activities of trade union organisations), has affirmed the state’s obligation to ensure guarantees of trade union independence. At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights, in cases against Ukraine such as Veniamin Tymoshenko and Others v. Ukraine,Footnote ⁵⁹ has emphasised the inadequacy of mechanisms protecting trade union activity, especially in ensuring the right to strike and freedom of association under Article 11 of the ECHR.Footnote ⁶⁰

The effectiveness of Ukrainian trade unions remains limited due to weak protest mobilisation and insufficient institutional capacity. Even amid declining real wages, increased underemployment and rising labour conflicts, large-scale collective actions are almost non-existent. This stands in contrast to EU countries, where trade unions play an active role in social dialogue and policy formation at both national and EU levels.

The contemporary Ukrainian model of the trade union movement is characterised by internal contradictions: on the one hand, a formally well-developed legal framework grants extensive trade union guarantees; on the other hand, the actual exercise of these rights is constrained by institutional and political factors, including a lack of worker trust, fragmentation of the trade union landscape, competition between trade union centres and the weakening of social dialogue during wartime. Thus, the evolution of the trade unions’ status in Ukraine reflects a combination of formal expansion of rights and a factual narrowing of the possibilities for their realisation. The further development of trade unions will depend on the state’s ability to ensure effective mechanisms of social partnership and on trade union organisations’ capacity to modernise their strategies, strengthen their representative functions, and shift from a “social service” model to one focused on the genuine protection of labour rights.

IV. Comparative analysis of trade union models: The Ukrainian context and European standards

A comparison of trade-union instruments of influence demonstrates a significant asymmetry between the Ukrainian and European models. In EU countries, trade unions actively employ mechanisms of institutional social dialogue, sectoral bargaining, tripartite agreements and tools for participation in public-policy formation. Ukrainian trade unions, by contrast, are characterised by limited protest activity, insufficient influence on economic reforms, and low levels of membership mobilisation – a trend confirmed by studies conducted by Inshyn et al.Footnote ⁶¹ as well as by reviews of social dialogue in transition economies. To a large extent, these limitations stem from historically embedded practices that emphasised the socio-cultural rather than the labour-protective function of trade unions, combined with weak institutional support from the state.

In the context of labour-market risk management, Ukrainian trade unions display certain potential; however, their capacities fall significantly short of those of European organisations. Research by Ukrainian scholars O. V. Pankova and O. Y. KasperovichFootnote ⁶² demonstrates that trade unions can act as stabilising actors through participation in social dialogue, the promotion of decent-work principles, and strategic partnerships with the state and employers. Nevertheless, limited resources, weak analytical capacity, and insufficient digitalisation hinder the implementation of modern risk-management models that are actively evolving in EU countries. According to Eurofound,Footnote ⁶³ European trade unions have long integrated digital tools into negotiation processes, organising strategies, and the monitoring of labour risks, whereas Ukrainian structures are only beginning to adapt to these trends.

The study of trade unions’ roles in post-socialist countries requires consideration of the impact of workers’ bargaining power on income distribution and labour conditions. Petreski and TanevskiFootnote ⁶⁴ show that the effectiveness of collective bargaining is directly correlated with the share of income received by workers and with trade unions’ ability to influence economic policy in transition economies. The authors emphasise that weak bargaining power often leads to the marginalisation of trade unions, reduced influence on social protection and increased economic inequality. These findings help to better assess the challenges faced by Ukrainian trade unions under current reforms and socio-economic shocks – particularly during wartime and labour-market transformation – and highlight the need to strengthen their institutional powers to ensure effective representation of workers’ interests.

An important distinction between the Ukrainian and European models lies in the level of institutional capacity of trade unions. European researchFootnote ⁶⁵ confirms that unions with stable organisational structures, independent funding sources and access to decision-making mechanisms are better positioned to manage risks effectively, ensure social balance and contribute to labour-market resilience. Ukrainian trade unions often operate in an environment where institutional guarantees of social dialogue are merely declaratory, narrowing their real ability to influence employment policy, the regulation of new forms of work, vocational training, or the integration of vulnerable groups – as evidenced by empirical findings presented by N. Samoliuk,Footnote ⁶⁶ I. NovakFootnote ⁶⁷ and others.

Thus, comparative analysis shows that the Ukrainian model of trade-union activity is formally moving towards European standards; however, the institutional implementation of these standards remains incomplete. Trade unions demonstrate a growing role in labour-market risk management, yet their potential is constrained by structural barriers, weak institutional autonomy, and insufficient digital transformation. Gradual convergence with the European model requires not only normative changes but also deeper institutional modernisation aimed at strengthening trade unions’ capacity to act as full-fledged actors in social dialogue, economic governance and risk management.

V. A risk-based approach to reforming trade union legislation: conceptual foundations and prospects for implementation

An analysis of contemporary trends in the regulation of labour relations demonstrates that the effective protection of workers’ rights largely depends on the quality of contractual regulation. Economic-theoretical models by Durandard & GhersengorinFootnote ⁶⁸ show that, in order to reduce labour-related risks and ensure a balance between employer flexibility and worker protection, “robust” regulation of employment contracts is necessary – including clear minimum guarantees and restrictions on the most high-risk contractual forms. The authors argue that insufficiently detailed or overly formal legislative regulation may lead to legal uncertainty, the marginalisation of labour rights and a reduction in the effectiveness of social dialogue. The findings of this research are directly relevant to the reform of trade union legislation in Ukraine, as they underline the need to improve legal mechanisms of collective protection and enhance the role of trade unions in shaping working conditions.

The integration of a risk-based approach into trade union law reform creates opportunities for a systemic renewal of the model of social dialogue and the modernisation of mechanisms for representing workers’ interests. This approach relies on the application of methods for identifying, assessing and mitigating legal, social, and institutional risks that accompany labour-market transformations and the activities of trade unions under conditions of political instability, war, migration flows and the spread of hybrid forms of employment. It enables the alignment of the national labour-law system with ILO international standards and modern European trends in regulatory policy. In practical terms, this approach involves the systematic identification of risks affecting the exercise of trade union rights, the assessment of the impact of legislative reforms on collective bargaining and social dialogue, and the development of preventive legal measures to strengthen workers’ representation, particularly in the context of digitalisation, platform work, labour migration and wartime labour-market disruptions. To illustrate the practical implications of this concept, Figure 2 presents the main labour-market risks, the corresponding legal instruments for their mitigation within trade union law, and the expected regulatory outcomes.

Figure 2.

Practical implementation of the risk-based approach in trade union law reform.

As shown in Figure 2, the practical implementation of a risk-based approach extends beyond the identification of labour-market risks. It requires the integration of risk assessment into legislative reform, collective bargaining and social dialogue mechanisms, thereby enabling trade unions to respond more effectively to structural changes in employment and to strengthen the protection of workers’ rights.

One of the key directions for integrating a risk-based approach is the improvement of occupational health and safety legislation, where such a concept has already demonstrated its effectiveness. As noted by Novak,Footnote ⁶⁹ the introduction of a risk-oriented model contributes to reducing workplace hazards and increases compliance with international standards by shifting from reactive to proactive risk management. The author stresses that a risk-based approach motivates employers and workers to adhere to occupational safety rules while reducing administrative pressure and ensuring greater flexibility in responding to technological change and production-process renewal. The success of this reform creates a foundation for extending this model to the sphere of trade union activity and collective labour relations.

In the field of trade union law reform, a risk-based approach enables a systematic response to the marginalisation of trade unions, the narrowing of their collective rights, the weakening of their representative capacity, and the rise of social conflicts. As I. YatskevychFootnote ⁷⁰ observes, legal uncertainty, unclear trade-union competences, and the persistence of the Soviet institutional legacy create systemic obstacles to effective social dialogue in Ukraine. As a result, trade unions have limited capacity to protect workers’ rights, conduct collective bargaining, and influence employment policy. In this context, a risk-based paradigm offers tools for assessing the impact of regulatory change on social stability, forecasting potential conflicts, and strengthening trade-union autonomy. These tools may include mandatory ex ante assessments of the impact of draft labour legislation on collective bargaining institutions, regular monitoring of risks to trade union freedoms, and the incorporation of risk assessment into national social dialogue mechanisms.

The experience of post-socialist countries is particularly important for understanding the transformation of the trade-union movement and its ability to influence the socio-economic structure of workplaces. In their study, Breznik and ManceFootnote ⁷¹ analyse the interaction between trade-union strategies and the stratification of workers within the workplace environment, demonstrating that, in post-socialist settings, trade-union effectiveness is often constrained by historical legacies, structural economic changes, and the unequal distribution of rights and resources among workers. The authors emphasise that weak mobilisation capacity and insufficient organisational adaptability lead to the marginalisation of certain groups of workers – an issue that requires particular attention when reforming trade union legislation and social policy.

An important component of modern reforms is the improvement of regulatory policy based on risk assessment. The study by Veale,Footnote ⁷² conducted in the context of the British model, outlines a key dilemma of regulatory reforms: the need to balance the protection of the public interest with the risk of excessive or, conversely, insufficient regulation. According to the author, an effective risk-management system can prevent both regulatory pressure that inhibits innovation and chaotic deregulation that weakens worker protection and undermines trade-union guarantees. Although the study was conducted within the specific British context, its conclusions are relevant for Ukraine, where labour-law reforms are often influenced by political and budgetary considerations rather than a systematic assessment of risks to social stability.

A risk-based approach also offers a conceptual framework for the institutional strengthening of trade unions in response to contemporary socio-economic challenges. War, rising forced migration, transformations in employment regimes, and the digitalisation of labour generate multiple risks – from the loss of membership bases to the complication of organising efforts and increased vulnerability of workers. Under such conditions, trade unions require the modernisation of their organisational structure, the expansion of analytical capacities, the development of digital participation tools, and enhanced ability to engage in law-making at national and sectoral levels. A risk-based model provides tools for setting strategic priorities for such modernisation and for understanding how the institutional capacity of trade unions influences the reduction of social risks and the strengthening of labour-market resilience.

In summary, a risk-based approach to reforming trade union legislation forms a new analytical perspective aimed at increasing the effectiveness of trade unions, ensuring their compliance with international standards, and strengthening their capacity to respond to societal crises. This model makes it possible to move away from fragmented changes towards systemic modernisation that takes into account the interconnections between regulatory, social and political risks. The further implementation of risk-oriented approaches may become a key element in shaping a modern Ukrainian model of social dialogue capable of ensuring genuine protection of labour rights in a dynamic socio-economic environment.