Why does Governance Determine Transition Outcomes?
In this commentary on the TASC Platform's Preparing Governance for Just Transitions: A Policy Guide and Readiness Framework, Konstantinos Papadakis reflects on why governance, rather than technological or environmental change alone, ultimately determines the outcomes of green and digital transitions. Drawing on the ILO's work on social dialogue, labour governance, and institutional reform, he explores the importance of policy coherence, institutional readiness, meaningful participation, and coordinated governance in shaping fair and inclusive transitions.
By Konstantinos Papadakis, Special Adviser, Labour Governance and Sectoral Policies Department, ILO
Let me begin by saying that I found this Policy Guide extremely useful, particularly for the policy community. It combines solid theoretical foundations with very practical diagnostic and policy implications, and it offers a strong basis for diagnosing how institutions and governance systems respond to the green and digital transitions in different national contexts.
What I also appreciated is that the Guide clearly adopts what we at the ILO could call an “inclusive governance approach” to transitions. In many respects, it resonates strongly with Chapter 4 of the ILO Social Dialogue Report 2024 as well as with other recent ILO publications, which examined the role of social dialogue in the “twin” – digital and green – transition.
I will first make a couple of general observations before sharing a few reflections on selected aspects of the Guide.
The outcomes of transitions are not predetermined
My first general observation is that the impacts of the green and digital transitions on the world of work are not predetermined. It is not technology itself – including artificial intelligence – nor environmental change alone that determines outcomes. What matters are the choices we make through policies and institutions.
This is, in fact, one of the central messages of the 2026 ILO Director-General’s Report to the 114th Session of the International Labour Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Decent Work: technological change does not determine outcomes on its own. Governance does.
In every transition, there are winners and losers. And the distribution of costs and benefits is fundamentally a governance and political question, not only a technical one.
Since its creation, the ILO has defended a simple principle: those affected by policies must have the possibility to shape them. This is why the ILO places a lot of emphasis on “social dialogue” – whether through peak-level national dialogue, collective bargaining, bipartite or tripartite consultations, or other institutional forms, at all levels.
Institutional readiness and trust in institutions are interrelated
My second general observation concerns the issue of institutional “readiness”, which is at the heart of the Guide. Readiness matters not only for policy effectiveness. It also matters for democracy itself.
Across many countries, we see declining public trust in institutions. Often this happens because institutions are perceived as not “fit for purpose”, not “future-ready”, and unable “to respond effectively” to contemporary challenges.
The Guide addresses two of the three major transitions shaping our societies today, and for which citizens around the world have many expectations from policy makers: the green and digital transitions – the third being demographic change.
Therefore, I would like to congratulate the authors not only for the practical policy contribution of this Guide, but also for its broader democratic relevance.
Allow me now to share a few reflections on selected aspects of the Guide, notably several core findings with which I strongly agree.
Social dialogue adjustments in the twin transition era
The Guide rightly emphasizes the need to better target the actual recipients of regulation; the need for social dialogue and participatory governance mechanisms to be integrated into regulatory action; and the need for those directly affected – including platform workers and firms – to participate meaningfully in policymaking processes. In short, policymaking itself must modernize and become fit for purpose.
In that respect, what the ILO observes globally is a rather mixed picture regarding one core component of democratic participation – social dialogue.
The 2024 ILO Social Dialogue Report shows that across the world social dialogue institutions are adapting their mandates to deal with the green and digital transitions. However, in many countries these issues are still treated as peripheral or outside the traditional scope of labour governance. And even where institutions exist, actors frequently lack the information, technical expertise or organisational capacity to participate effectively – I return to this point later in my comment.
In parallel, in many countries, weak trade unions, or limitations on freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, remain major obstacles to genuinely participatory policymaking.
The importance of diagnostics
A second reflection concerns the strong emphasis the Guide places on “diagnostics”.
The old “one-size-fits-all” approach to governance reform is no longer credible. As governance experts, we cannot simply arrive in countries with copy-pasted institutional models and expect them to work.
Timing is also key. Governance and social dialogue processes need to begin early – before tensions and conflicts become entrenched. One of the Guide’s key observations is that labour governance often adapts more slowly than economic transformation.
The example of Kenya’s digital economy is very illustrative. Platform work expanded much faster than labour law could adapt to this new reality. However, this is not unique to Kenya. We see this globally, partly because there are still important regulatory gaps at the international level. This is precisely why the ILO is currently discussing the possibility of developing the first international labour standard on decent work in the platform economy to bring greater coherence internationally and, eventually, nationally.
The coordination challenge
Another very important contribution of the Guide is what it calls the “coordination challenge”. Trade, labour, climate, industrial and digital policies are often developed in separate institutional silos, producing fragmented governance and contradictory incentives.
The need for a “whole-of-government” approach was explicitly recognized in the Doha Declaration of the Second World Summit for Social Development, complementing its call for “whole-of-society, people-centred and integrated approaches aimed at achieving social development for all.”
Very often, discussions on labour matters involve Ministries of Labour, while Ministries of Finance, Trade, Industry or Digital Economy remain insufficiently involved - even though these actors are central to shaping the transition. Conversely, policies on economic development, trade, innovation, digitalization and public finance are often developed without sufficient consideration of their implications for the world of work or the meaningful involvement of labour ministries.
The Guide is therefore absolutely right to emphasize the importance of policy coherence. No law or institution alone can resolve coordination failures if public authorities remain confined to administrative silos.
At the same time, effective coordination depends on political will and on the willingness of the relevant actors to engage across institutional boundaries and participate meaningfully in these discussions.
The role of skills and social protection
A third point I wish to highlight concerns skills or the “missing middle” as referred to in the Guide.
The Guide’s emphasis on skills is extremely important. Strengthening our skills systems is essential for any transition. I would add that the same is true for social protection.
Indeed, not everyone will be able to transition successfully or rapidly through upskilling or reskilling alone, and many workers will require income protection and support during periods of adjustment.
Skills and social protection therefore need to be integrated into industrial, labour and digital policies from the outset - not treated as an afterthought.
But there is another “skills” dimension that deserves equal attention: the skills/capacities of the governance actors themselves.
Very often, even where participatory institutions exist, trade unions, employer organizations - and sometimes governments themselves - lack the technical capacity to engage effectively on highly complex issues related to AI, digitalisation or climate transitions.
ILO research on industrial policies conducted for the ILO Social Dialogue Report 2024 found exactly this pattern. In some countries, for example South Africa, trade unions and employers’ organisations have participated in industrial policy design through established social dialogue mechanisms. But while businesses were generally well prepared technically, this was not always the case for organized labour or even all government departments outside the core economic ministries. (For more on the role of social dialogue in shaping industrial policies, you may wish to consult ILO Working Paper 113.)
Therefore, capacity-building for governance actors is itself part of transition readiness.
Regulatory frontiers and misfits
Let me also briefly comment on what the Guide calls “regulatory frontiers”. I think the discussion on “regulatory misfit” is particularly important. In many cases, governance systems still target the wrong legal categories or actors. This often reflects a broader problem of representation and institutional voice. If groups are not organised - or not represented institutionally - they struggle to influence policy. Platform workers are an obvious example.
To address this, several measures are needed, including incentives for workers and firms to organize; mechanisms enabling their representation in institutional processes; and the adaptation of existing social dialogue structures - or the creation of new, dedicated ones where necessary.
The ILO has documented many interesting examples globally. In France, for instance, a dedicated authority for labour relations in digital labour platforms has been established to organize representation and facilitate agreements on pay and working conditions of platform workers.
We also increasingly see traditional trade unions adapting their statutes to represent freelancers and self-employed workers (for instance in Germany, Italy and Spain). In parallel, employers’ organizations are adjusting their services to reach out to businesses that are under-represented in social dialogue, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and firms that rely heavily on digital technologies.
Fragmented responsibility
Finally, let me conclude with one final reflection concerning the Guide’s discussion of “fragmented responsibility” and multi-actor governance. I agree strongly that many contemporary labour issues cannot be addressed solely through the traditional direct employer relationship (represented by the traditional social partners). Supply chains, platforms, subcontracting systems and cross-border production networks have fundamentally changed how power is exercised in labour markets.
Relyling on dialogue processes that include multiple stakeholders - beyond the traditional social partners – can help inform better policy. It can also improve the prospects for implementation, as ownership remains a key ingredient of successful implementation.
At the same time, I would add one caveat. For the ILO, social dialogue has a very specific meaning. It refers to bipartite or tripartite engagement between governments, employers and workers’ organizations, with a view to shaping labour and social policy.
Once we start including a broader range of actors, we move towards what is better described as “multi-stakeholder dialogue”. Such dialogue can be valuable - but the two types of dialogues are not identical.
Workers’ and Employers’ organizations are institutionalized actors with legal mandates, accountability structures and representational legitimacy. This is not always the case newer or more fluid actors, including civil society organisations. And while social dialogue often produces binding agreements and institutional follow-up mechanisms, multi-stakeholder processes may sometimes generate softer outcomes without clear accountability arrangements.
I therefore fully agree that governance structures must become more participatory and inclusive. But we also need to ensure that participation remains meaningful, accountable and capable of producing real outcomes – not simply consultative exercises without meaningful implementation or accountability.
This is why, from the ILO perspective, strengthening existing representative actors and institutions remains extremely important, even as we adapt them to new realities, and even as multistakeholder dialogue may be a valuable complement to policy making.
Let me conclude by saying that I fully agree with Maria Mexi’s final message: “Justice is not only about what people receive; it is about whether the institutions governing their lives have the capacity to mediate change in ways that are accountable, responsive, and fair.”
I think this captures very well the central governance challenge of our times.
Thank you very much.
References
Campbell, D., Kim, K., Clayton, T. 2025. The return of the visible hand: Social dialogue and the making of 21st-century industrial policy, ILO Working Paper 153. Geneva: International Labour Office.
United Nations General Assembly, 2025. Doha Political Declaration of the “World Social Summit” under the title “the Second World Summit for Social Development”, A/RES/80/5, 4 November
ILO, 2026. A moment of choice: Harnessing artificial intelligence for decent work – Report of the Director-General, Geneva: International Labour Office.
ILO, 2026. Realizing decent work in the platform economy, Geneva: International Labour Office.
ILO, 2026. Institutionalizing social dialogue for the green and digital transitions in Europe and Central Asia, ILO Brief, Geneva: International Labour Office, May.
ILO, 2024. Social Dialogue Report 2024: Peak-Level Social Dialogue for Economic Development and Social Progress, Geneva: International Labour Office.
Papadakis, Konstantinos. 2021. “Social Dialogue at the Dawn of the ILOs Centenary: Sorting Out Challenges, Setting Priorities for the Future”. In The Governance of Labour Administration: Reforms, Innovations and Challenges, edited by Jason Heyes and Ludek Rychly, 43–67. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.