FINAL REPORT: JUNE 2006 - Spirit Consulting Group SL

A PAN-EUROPEAN COMPARATIVE STUDY 

OF WORK CLIMATES: A FRAMEWORK 

FOR IMPROVING INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 

AT THE PLANT LEVEL 

FINAL REPORT: JUNE 2006


Project Coordinator 

SPAIN: ESADE Business School, 

Institute of Labor Studies (hereafter – IEL) 

PARTNERS 

GREECE: ALBA - Athens Laboratory of Business Administration 

THE NETHERLANDS: Erasmus University Rotterdam 

BELGIUM: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, HRM Centre 

ASSOCIATE COLLABORATORS AND PROJECT CONSULTANTS 

ISRAEL: University of Haifa 

UNITED KINGDOM: Cranfield University 

Great Place to Workâ Institute Europe 

Government of Catalonia 

4EU - WORK CLIMATE 

MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH TEAM 

SPAIN: ESADE Business School, IEL 

• Professor Simon L. Dolan – Director of Research, IEL 

Simon.Dolan@esade.edu 

• Professor Joan Manel Batista – Professor of Quantitative Methods 

JOANM.BATISTA@esade.edu 

• Professor Joan Sureda – Professor of Quantitative Methods 

Joan.Sureda@esade.edu 

• Professor Ceferi Soler – Professor of Human Resource Management 

Ceferi.Soler@esade.edu 

• Professor Alfons Sauquet – Professor of Human Resource Management 

Alfons.Sauquet@esade.edu 

• Professor Carlos Obeso – Professor of Human Resource Management 

Carlos.Obeso@esade.edu 

• Professor Carlos Losada – Director General 

Carlos.Losada@esade.edu 

• Mr. Francesc Cribillers Riera – Budget and Liaison Coordinator 

Francesc.Cribillers@esade.edu 

• Ms. Miriam Díez Piñol – Senior Researcher IEL 

Miriam.Diez@esade.edu 

• Mr. Xavier Suriol – Research Assistant IEL 

IEL@esade.edu 

• Ms. Sandra Rubio – Research Assistant IEL 

IEL@esade.edu 

• Ms. Begoña Puente Ordóñez – Research Assistant IEL 

Begona.Puente@esade.edu 

• Mrs. María José Parada – Research Assistant IEL 

IEL@esade.edu

• Ms. Cuca Alonso – Communications 

Cuca.Alonso@esade.edu 

• Ms. Ansley Garner – Communications 

Ansley.garner@esade.edu 

• Ms. Mercé Mach – Research Assistant IEL 

Merce.mach@esade.edu 

• Ms. Desirée Knoppen – Research Assistant IEL 

Desiree.knoppen@esade.edu 

BELGIUM - VLERICK LEUVEN GHENT MANAGEMENT SCHOOL 

• Koen Dewettinck – Researcher 

koen.dewettinck@vlerick.be 

• Katleen de Stobbeleir – Researcher 

katleen.destobbeleir@vlerick.be 

GREECE - ALBA GRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL 

• Olga Epitropaki – Associate Professor of Organizational 

Behavior and Human Resources Management 

oepitrop@alba.edu.gr 

• Zoe Kourounakou – Director, Applied Research & International Projects Department 

zkouroun@alba.edu.gr 

THE NETHERLANDS - ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM 

• Dirk van Dierendonck – dvandierendonck@fbk.eur.nl 

• Marcel Van Marrewijk – mvanmarrewijk@greatplacetowork.nl 

ISRAEL - UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA 

• Shay Tzafrir – stzafrir@research.haifa.ac.il 

1 

Great Place to Work® (referred 

to hereafter as GPTW®) is a 

registered trademark of Great 

Place to Work® Institute, Inc. 

The material related to Great 

Place to Work® cited in this 

paper is the intellectual property 

of Great Place and is owned by 

Great Place to Work® Institute, 

Inc., and includes copyrightable 

subject matter that has been 

registred with the Copyright Office 

of the Library of Congress and 

other international bodies, as 

well as other valuable proprietary 

information. Use of the material 

owned by Great Place to Work® 

Institute, Inc. requires prior 

permission, and must conform 

with generally accepted legal and 

ethical standards of intellectual 

property protection, and with 

the guidelines of Great Place to 

Work® institute, Inc. All efforts 

will be made throughout this 

report to respect copyrights 

of GPTW®. Every mention of 

GPTW should be accompanied 

with an ®, and every mention 

of the Culture Audit should be 

accompanied with a ©. 

UNITED KINGDOM - CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY 

• Emma Parry – Research Fellow 

emma.parry@cranfield.ac.uk 

• Richard Croucher – (Formerly at Cranfield University - currently at Middlesex University) 

IN COLLABORATION WITH THE GREAT PLACE TO WORK® INSTITUTE EUROPE 

• Palle Ellemann Knudsen – CEO GPTW® Europe 

pellemann@greatplacetowork-europe.com 

• Otto Zell – GPTW® Europe (Kopenhagen) 

otz@gptweurope.com 

• Kim Moller (former CEO, GPTW® Europe) currently CEO of the Oxford Group 

kim@oxfordgroup.dk 

Project Coordinator 

5

Contents 

0. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 8 

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................ 10 

1.1. Aim 

1.2. Specific goals 

1.3. Research model 

1.4. European framework 

1.5. Methodology 

2. DETAILED WORK PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 16 

2.1. Preparatory work package .................................................................................................. 18 

2.1.1. Model for comparative European research (D1) 

2.1.2. Press release for the international media (D2) 

2.1.3. Virtual environment of the project (D3) 

2.1.4. Scientific report based on the European data (D4) 

2.1.5. Scientific paper on methodology employed and preliminary results (D5) 

2.2. Main event ............................................................................................................................ 35 

2.2.1. European report with results and conclusions of the survey analyses (D6) 

2.2.2. Publication of the European conference (D7) 

2.2.3. Document with the main conclusions of the local workshops (D8) 

2.2.4. Virtual prototype for self-assessment (D9) 

2.3. Follow-up ............................................................................................................................... 41 

2.3.1. Maintenance of the project web site (D10) 

6EU - WORK CLIMATE

3. TRANSNATIONAL DIMENSION OF THE OPERATION ............................................................... 44 

4. SOCIAL PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED .................................................................. 48 

5. CONTRIBUTION BY THE PARTNERS ......................................................................................... 50 

6. ADDED VALUE OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................... 52 

7. PUBLICATIONS AND DISSEMINATION OF THE RESULTS ...................................................... 56 

8. EFFORTS TO ENSURE A LASTING IMPACT .............................................................................. 58 

9. SOME LESSONS EMERGING FROM THIS EXPERIENCE ........................................................ 60 

10. PLANS TO FOLLOW UP THIS PROJECT .................................................................................. 62 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 65 

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................... 67 

• Annex 1: Relationship between questionnaire items and GPTW® -dimensions 

• Annex 2: Trust Index Questionnaire 

• Annex 3: Press releases associated with main event in Barcelona 

• Annex 4: Press releases associated with the Athens meeting 

• Annex 5: Press releases associated with the Lisbon meeting 

• Annex 6: Organizational Climate Audit 

• Annex 7: List of participants at the main event in Barcelona 

• Annex 8: List of participants at the local workshop, Athens, November 2005 

• Annex 9: List of participants at the local workshop Lisbon, April 2006 

Instituto de Estudios Laborales (IEL) ESADE 

Av. de Pedralbes, 60-62 

08034 Barcelona 

Tel.:+34 932 806 162 - Ext. 5131 

http://www.esade.edu 

e-mail: iel@esade.edu 

Coordinación editorial y diseño 

BPMO Edigrup 

C/ Caballero, 79, 7 Planta 

08014 Barcelona 

Tel.: 933 637 840 

www.grupobpmo.com 

Contents 

7

Introduction 

If quality of life at work could be improved, it would benefit 

and reward not only the individual employee but also the company, 

its customers and society as a whole. 

8EU - WORK CLIMATE 

The EU-WORK CLIMATE project has 

been funded by the Directorate General 

for Employment, Social Affairs & Equal 

Opportunities within the III Sub-Program: 

Improving expertise in the field of Industrial 

Relations. The latter sub-program aims to 

promote social dialogue among parties 

actively involved in industrial relations such 

as companies, workers, public authorities and 

research centers. Taking place at both crossindustry 

and sectorial level, the dialogue aims 

to improve expertise in industrial relations both 

in European and in national terms. 

Since the conclusion of the Lisbon European 

Council of 2000, one of the challenges for 

the European Union has been “to become the 

most competitive and dynamic knowledgebased 

economy in the world, capable of 

sustaining economic growth, with more and 

better jobs, and greater social cohesion”. 

In order to meet this challenge, it is 

necessary to seek a convergence between 

competitiveness and the quality of working 

life; i.e. to reconcile the flexibility essential 

to business with the security needed by 

employees. This reconciliation serves as the 

basis for promoting employee commitment, the 

unleashing of organizational initiatives and the 

development of personal potential. 

Quality of working life (QWL) contains ideas 

stemming from full employment, growth and 

better social cohesion (Dolan, Garcia and 

Richley, 2006; Locke, 1968; McGregor, 1960). 

QWL has been associated with organizational 

changes aimed at increasing the levels of job 

enlargement and job enrichment (Argyris and 

Schön, 1978). Each country in Europe has 

different institutional, cultural and employment 

traditions reflected in distinct models of 

industrial relations and the parallel evolvement 

of various debates on working life throughout 

the continent. If quality of life at work could be 

improved, it would benefit and reward not only 

the individual employee but also the company, 

its customers and society as a whole. In that 

sense, QWL complements the three traditional 

strategies of seeking competitive advantage 

as provided by Porter (1980): cost leadership 

(producing at the lowest cost in the industry); 

differentiation (offering consumers some sort 

of uniqueness in product or service provision); 

and focus (choosing a narrow competitive 

scope within an industry). 

Social dialogue has been identified as 

constituting the driving force behind successful 

economic and social reforms. Negotiations 

between social partners are the best way 

forward on questions related to modernization 

and change management. Therefore, the 

EU-WORK CLIMATE project has intended to 

stimulate co-operative research and promote 

the exchange of opinions and experiences

etween the parties actively involved in 

industrial relations. The associated debate has 

centered on the following central reflection: 

Is there a link between the quality of the work 

climate and productivity? Or, more specifically: 

Can an organization afford to manage their 

human resource policies by emphasizing 

trust, equity and respect?; Is it possible for 

camaraderie and team spirit to co-exist with 

competitiveness”?; What is the importance of 

internal coherence and how leaders can create 

an excellent climate?; and, Can the definition 

of sustained competitiveness and work climate 

be replaced by the concept of organizational 

well-being? 

The debate has been shaped by various 

international and local events and has been 

grounded on the outcomes of a comparative 

analysis regarding working conditions amongst 

14 member countries. This analysis is based 

on standardized information extrapolated 

from the “Great Place to Work®-Europe” data 

bank. The Great Place to Work® Institute, Inc. 

has developed a methodology (standardized 

instruments and data collection procedures) 

over the years enabling the choice of “best 

companies to work for” in each country. The 

data bank includes information provided by 

employees and managers in hundreds of 

companies in each EU member state, compiled 

during the period of 2003-2005 (i.e. three 

consecutive years). The original intention was to 

cover 15 countries, but finally only 14 countries 

were included as Luxemburg’s data were not 

made available. The exact sample of this 

study is made up of 2,578 companies with a 

total participation of 354,476 employees. The 

Institute of Labor Studies (IEL) at ESADE along 

with its other EU partners, has developed a 

strategy to apply secondary data analyses in 

view of further exploring the data and attempting 

to identify trends and benchmark cases at the 

country and industrial sector levels. 

The agreed deliverables of the EU-WORK 

CLIMATE project were: Model for comparative 

European research (D1); Press release 

to the international media (D2); Virtual 

environment of the project (D3); Scientific 

report on the analyses of European data (D4); 

Scientific paper on employed methodology 

and preliminary results (D5); European 

report with results and conclusions of the 

survey analyses (D6); Publication including 

the communications presented at the 

European conference (D7); Document with 

main conclusions of the local workshops 

(D8); Virtual prototype for self-assessment 

(D9); and, Maintenance of the project web 

site (D10). At this stage we may conclude 

that we have successfully accomplished 

the promised deliverables. We deliver more 

than agreed, however, given the additional 

analyses regarding the relationship between 

work climate and financial performance of 

the involved companies. These analyses were 

developed given the recurrence of the theme 

during the international events associated 

with the project. Nonetheless, results of the 

analyses do not allow confirmation of the 

hypothesized relationship, hence the call is 

for further research. 

The structure of the report is as follows. First, 

we will draw the general framework of the 

project; i.e. the aim, specific goals, research 

model, European framework, and methodology 

underlying all activities carried out by the 

different partners. Then, we will comment on 

all the deliverables, in the sequence of the 

main work packages of the project, which 

were constituted by the preparation, the main 

event, and the follow-up. After that, we will 

address other relevant characteristics of the 

project, such as its transnational dimension; 

the social partners/stakeholders involved; the 

contribution by each of the partners; added 

value; the publicized operation; efforts to 

ensure a lasting effect; lessons learnt, and the 

plans to follow up this project. 

The EU-WORK 

CLIMATE 

project intended 

to stimulate 

co-operative 

research and 

promote the 

exchange of 

opinions and 

experiences 

Introduction 

9

Framework 

of the project

Framework 

of the project 

In this chapter we will draw the underlying framework of the 

project. More specifically, we will highlight the general aim, specific 

goals, research model, European framework, and the methodology 

guiding all the associated activities. 

EU - WORK CLIMATE 

12 

1.1. Aim 

The general aim of the EU-WORK CLIMATE 

project has been to improve knowledge on 

employment relations issues, from both a 

pan-European and a comparative country 

perspective. 

1.2. Specific goals 

First, a specific goal of the EU-WORK CLIMATE 

project has been to conduct a comparative 

analysis of employment conditions and quality 

of working life (as perceived by workers) 

amongst 14 member countries of the EU, 

in three consecutive years (2003-2005). 

This comparison is based on standardized 

data supplied by the “Great Place to Work® 

Europe”, and subsequently analyzed by the 

Institute of Labor Studies (IEL) at ESADE along 

with its other EU partners in order to identify 

Europe wide trends and single out benchmarks

for different models of employment relations. 

The second goal of the EU-WORK CLIMATE 

project is to use the results of the study 

as a platform for the exchange of opinions, 

experiences, and good practices, between 

the principal actors in the field of industrial 

relations, such as companies, workers, 

public authorities and research centres. More 

specifically, it was intended: (a) To organize 

Europe-wide activities for the exchange of 

experiences in the field of industrial relations, 

directed at the 14 member countries from 

which the empirical data were drawn; and (b) 

To organize a European conference for the 

different social actors and experts to create 

a forum for the exchange of experiences and 

information in the field of employment and 

industrial relations. 

The third goal of the project has been 

to develop guidelines regarding a future 

framework for optimizing the work climate in 

Europe which reconciles the flexibility essential 

to business with the security needed by 

employees. Currently there is a wide range 

The effective publication of results facilitates 

the ongoing exchange of experiences and 

opinions amongst all involved stakeholders 

of industrial relations models in Europe; 

ideally this would be standardized in order 

to conduct cross-country comparisons, and 

ease of benchmarking. The future of European 

competitiveness relies on the development 

of sound and innovative industrial relations 

frameworks. In turn, this requires the support 

for research into the key characteristics of 

organisations and the linkages between human 

resources and performance and how the latter 

are managed. 

Finally, the fourth goal concerns the 

dissemination of results, to be accessible in 

all Member States. The effective publication 

of results facilitates the ongoing exchange of 

experiences and opinions amongst all involved 

stakeholders. 

Figure 1 

Different levels of data gathering and analysis 

EU 

Level of data analysis 

Cluster 



Industrial Sector Country Year (2003 2005) 

Company 

Employee 

Workclimate 

Framework of the project 

13

1.3. Research model 

Work climate refers to the psychosocial 

aspects of the work environment as perceived 

by the workers, reflecting the “chemistry” of 

an ensemble of individuals working together. 

Within the organization, different departments 

may have a different kind of work climate, but 

there is also an overall work climate. Further 

aggregating data, we may say that countries 

also have an overall work climate, based on 

the companies established in that country. 

Given that work climate refers to the individual 

worker’s perception of different facets of 

climate, data gathering takes place at the 

individual employee level. These data are 

aggregated in this project to four different 

levels before they are analysed: (a) country; 

(b) industrial sector; (c) country cluster; and (d) 

year. The latter aggregation (to years) has been 

done in order to evaluate the stability of the 

results. Figure 1 illustrates the different levels 

of data gathering and analysis. 

1.4. European framework 

The European dimension of the project 

becomes apparent in various ways. Data are 

gathered amongst employees of companies 

from 14 member states, leading to a high 

representativeness of the sample employed. 

Furthermore, the involved partners in the 

different stages and associated activities 

of the project cover 4 member states. The 

organized events have taken place in 4 

different countries, guaranteeing diversity and 

multiplicity of approaches and points of view 

in this respect. The European dimension is 

illustrated in Figure 2. 

1.5. Methodology 

A quick overview of the different activities 

and accompanying deliverables of the project 

is given in Figure 3. Within the project, three 

mayor stages have been distinguished. 

First, the preparatory stage aimed to reach 

agreement between the involved partners on 

all aspects of the research model, as well as 

to carry out the transnational analysis of the 

data obtained in the 14 participating European 

countries. The second stage refers to the 

organized events to disseminate and discuss 

the results of the comparative study, as well 

as to promote the exchange of experiences 

Figure 2 

The European dimension of the project 


14 

SPAIN 

NETHERLAND 

BELGIUM 

GREECE 

PORTUGAL 

ITALY 

FRANCE 

IRELAND 

UNITED KINGDOM 

SWEEDEN 

DENMARK 

FINLAND 

LUXEMBURG 

NORWEY 

GERMANY 

GPW Europe 

EU INDICATORS OF WORK CLIMATE AT PLANT LEVEL 

EU WORKERS 

(15 COUNTRIES) 

EU ENTERPRISES 

(15 COUNTRIES) 

EU INDICATORS OF WORK 

CLIMATE AT PLANT LEVEL 

EU WORKCLIMATE

Figure 3 

Overview of methodology 

PREPARATORY: 

D1: Model for comparative European 

research 

D2: Press releases to the international media 

D3: Virtual environment related to 

project contents 

D4: European scientific report with 

results and conclusions of the multivariate 

analysis of European data 

D5: Scientific – type paper on the analysis 

methodology used and the preliminary 

results obtained 

MAIN EVENT: 

D6: European report with results and 

conclusions of the multivariate analysis 

of European data 

D7: Publication including the communications 

presented at the European conference, 

making known projects outputs 

D8: Document with the main conclusions 

of the 3 workshops held 

D9: Virtual prototype for self-assessment 

by companies on their employment 

conditions 

FOLLOW UP: 

D10: Maintenance of 

the project web site 

for use after the end 


among parties actively involved in industrial 

relations in Europe. The third stage refers to 

the follow-up of the project in order to ensure 

the impact and dissemination of its results. 

This final stage also evaluated the usefulness 

of the assessment prototype designed at the 

earlier phase so as to improve its content as 

an instrument for the measurement of good 

practices in social dialogues for companies. 

Per stage, clear deliverables were agreed upon 

and have been consequently developed. The 

next chapter will draw the results for each of 

the deliverables. 

Figure 4 

Detail of methodology 

PREPARATORY 

EU workclimate model 

GPTW databank 

Elaboration 

of preliminary 

analyses 

Proposal of EU 

workclimate model 

revisited 

Preliminary results 

Partner meeting 

(September 

2005, Belgium) 

EU workclimate 

model revisited 

(and approved) 

Action plan 

GPTW databank 

Further analysis of 

data. Preparation 

of reports, articles, 

virtual environment, 

invitations and press 

releases guiding 

upcoming events 

MAIN EVENT 

FOLLOW UP 

Reports, 

scientific articles 

Virtual environment 

invitations and press 

releases 

Qualitative comments 

upon results 

GPTW databank 

Debate of preliminary results: 

- Pan-European scope (November 

2005) - Local scope - Greece 

(November 2005) - Portugal 

(April 2006) - Academic 

debate (internacional 

Additional analyses regarding 

the impact of working conditions 

on performance of companies 

Development of final report 

Refinement of developed 

prototype for self-assessment 

of employment conditions 

Qualitative comments 

upon results 

Local dissemination of results 

Final report 

Prototype for self-assessment 

of employment conditions 

Active web site 

Framework of the project 

15

Detailed 

work program

Detailed 

work program 

We will set out the project outcomes in this chapter, which is 

organized by main stages and the associated deliverables. 


18 

2.1. Preparatory work package 

The preparatory stage aimed to reach 

agreement between all partners on the 

research model, involving the establishment 

of criteria for exploiting the empirical database 

on employment conditions in European 

companies. The stage has also aimed to carry 

out the transnational analyses of the data 

obtained in the 14 participating European 

countries. There are five deliverables linked 

to this stage, which will be detailed in due 

course. 

2.1.1. Model for comparative 

European research (D1) 

Four stages have been relevant in order to get 

consensus on the model for developing the 

comparative European study. An initial kickoff 

meeting between all partners aimed to 

reach an agreement on the work plan, on the 

project quality criteria, and on several financial 

issues. After that, the original GPTW®-model 

was analyzed, and a proposal drawn up based 

on the empirical findings for modifications to 

the said model in subsequent analyses. This 

proposal was agreed upon at a later stage.

Then, a second partners meeting wrapped up 

the previous steps and set the stage for the 

preparation of the main event. The four stages 

are set out below. 

During the meeting, firstly, a general overview 

of the project was presented by Simon Dolan, 

the EU-WORK CLIMATE co-ordinator. Then a 

specific presentation of the Partners Roles in 

the project, the Work Plan detailed schedule 

with the deliverables expected and the project 

budget explanation was presented by Miriam 

Diez and Francesc Cribillers. To complete the 

morning session, Kim Moller presented a 

general overview of the GPTW® Institute. The 

proposal of the timeline was reviewed along 

with the activities of the project and there 

were no significant changes to the timeline 

proposal. All dates and times defined were 

agreed upon by all of the partners. The aim 

of these presentations was to ensure all 

participants used the same framework to start 

the study and thus produce a homogeneouslybased 

EU-WORK CLIMATE project. After lunch,a 

There are five deliverables linked 

to the preparatory stage, which will 

be detailed in due course 

brain storming session was held on the 

conceptual modelling and the methodological 

issues and also to establish some criteria 

for exploiting the empirical data base on 

employment conditions in the European 

companies. 

Among the most important action points 

agreed upon during the meeting, were to: 

1. Request a person in the EU Commission 

to act as the main contact for any 

communication or information needed for 

the project. 

2. Start a participative process to define 

the project research model based on the 

standardized data supplied by GPTW® 

(employees and managers surveys in 14 

EU countries) and aligned with the study 

Table 1 

List of those attending the kick-off meeting in Barcelona 

NAME PARTNERS/STAFF COUNTRY 

Simon L. Dolan ESADE Business School Spain 

Miriam Díez Piñol ESADE Business School Spain 

Juan Sureda ESADE Business School Spain 

Francesc Cribillers Riera ESADE Business School Spain 

Begoña Puente ESADE Business School Spain 

Sandra Rubio ESADE Business School Spain 

Salvador García Sánchez The University of Barcelona Spain 

Koen Dewettinck Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Belgium 

Olga Epitropaki Alba-Athens Laboratory of Business Greece 

Marcel Van Marrewijk Erasmus University Rotterdam The Netherlands 

Shay Tzafrir University of Haifa Israel 

Richard Croucher Cranfield University United Kingdom 

Kim Møller The Great Place to Work Institute Europe Denmark 

Soren Lundgreen The Great Place to Work Institute Europe Denmark 

Kick-off meeting, January 

2005, Barcelona 

The First Partners Work 

Meeting was held successfully 

in Barcelona. All partners 

and associate collaborators 

were invited. The aim of the 

Kick Off meeting was to reach 

agreement on the Work Plan, 

on project quality criteria, and 

on financial issues. The list 

of the partners attending the 

meeting is shown in Table 1. 

Detailed work program 

19


20 

The data for the comparative analyses 

stem from two sources: the Trust Index © 

and The Culture Audit © 

aim of identifying Europe-wide trends 

and benchmarks for different models of 

employment relations. All of the partners 

participated in suggesting 3 Research 

Objectives and 3 Research Questions of the 

Project. 

3. Define how the “Prototype for selfevaluation” 

on living conditions in 

employment, will be designed not to 

interfere with the purpose of GPTW® 

survey. The aim of this prototype is to allow 

organizations to directly assess their strong 

and weak points in relation to employment 

conditions. 

4. Start the Conference planning and coordinating 

activities, asking partners for 

feedback, recommendations or suggestions 

regarding organization of the event. 

Description of the GPTW®- model 

The data for the comparative analyses stem 

from two sources: 1) The Trust Index © and; 

2) The Culture Audit © . Both sources are 

developed by the “Great Place to Work ® 

Institute” as part of a methodology for data 

collection enabling the selection of the “best 

company to work for” in each country. 

The Trust Index© according to the GPTW ® 

furnished documents is a measurement tool 

that evaluates the quality of relationships in 

the workplace as perceived by the employee. 

More specifically, three interconnected 

relationships exist: 

• The relationship between employees and 

management. 


their jobs/company. 


other employees. 

The first relationship (employees-management) 

is based on three dimensions (using GPTW ® - 

definitions): 

• Credibility: Means managers regularly 

communicate with employees about the 

company’s direction and plans - and solicit 

their ideas. It involves co-ordinating people 

and resources efficiently and effectively, so 

that employees know how their work relates 

to the company’s goals. It is the integrity 

management brings to the business. To be 

credible, words must be followed by action. 

• Respect: involves providing employees 

with the equipment, resources, and 

training they need to do their job. It means 

appreciating good work and extra effort. 

It includes reaching out to employees and 

making them partners in the company’s 

activities, fostering a spirit of collaboration 

across departments and creating a work 

environment that is safe and healthy. 

Respect means that work/life balance is a 

practice, not a slogan. 

• Fairness: At an organization that is fair, 

economic success is shared equitably 

through compensation and benefit 

programs. Everybody receives equitable 

opportunity for recognition. Decisions on 

hiring and promotions are made impartially, 

and the workplace seeks to free itself 

of discrimination, with clear appeal and 

arbitration processes for dealing with 

disputes. To be fair, you must be just. 

Finally, the other two relationships mentioned 

above (employees-jobs/company and 

employees-employees) define the last two 

dimensions of the model: 

• Pride and Camaraderie: The final two 

dimensions of the Institute’s model relate to 

workplace relationships between employees 

and their jobs/company (Pride), and 

between the employee and other employees 

(Camaraderie). As companies become 

great, the division between management 

and labour fades. The workplace becomes 

a community. Employees take pride in their 

job, their team, and their company. They 

feel that they can be themselves at work. 

They celebrate the successes of their peers 

and cooperate with others throughout the

Table 2 

Dimensions of the Great Place to Work®--Model 

DIMENSION 

CREDIBILITY 

RESPECT 

FAIRNESS 

PRIDE 

T 

R 

U 

S 

T 

HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN THE WORKPLACE 

- Communications are open and accesible 

- Competence in coordinating human and material resources 

- Integrity in carrying out vision with consistency 

- Supporting professional development & showing appreciation 

- Collaborating with employees in relevant decisions 

- Caring for employees as individuals with personal lives 

- Equity–balanced treatment for all in terms of rewards 

- Impartiality–absence of favoritism in hiring and promotions 

- Justice–lack of discrimination and process for appeals 

- In personal job, individual contributions 

- In work produced by one’s team or work group 

- In the organization’s products and standing in the community 

CAMARADERIE 

- Ability to be oneself 

- Socially friendly and welcoming atmosphere 

- Sense of “family” or “team” 

organization. People take pleasure in their 

work - and in the people they work with - in a 

deep and lasting way. They want to stay and 

pursue their careers inside the company. 

Table 2 gives an overview of the dimensions. 

The dimensions support the broader concepts 

and enable people to see the theoretical 

link between the notion of trust and 

trustworthiness. 

The survey instrument as developed by 

the GPTW ® Institute contains 56 questions 

reflecting the five dimensions and is 

administered in an anonymous fashion. An 

additional question (number 57) is an overall 

workplace satisfaction question (“Taking 

everything into account, I would say this 

is a great place to work”). Answers to the 

questions were rated on a closed 5 level 

evaluation scale (Almost always untrue, Often 

untrue, Sometimes untrue / Sometimes true, 

Often true, Almost always true). The original 

questionnaire was developed in English and it 

has been translated to other languages (e.g. 

Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and French to be 

used in each EU memberstate respectively). 

It was completed by employees in all job 

categories of the participating firms in the 

Great Place to Work ® annual competition/ 

rankings. Annex 1 shows the relationship 

between the questions and the dimension a 

specific question is supposed to measure. 

In this annex we present the questions, 

for clarity purposes, in a structured way; in 

the real questionnaire (Annex 2) this order 

does not exist and respondents have no 

clues about the number and meaning of the 

dimensions. 

The second source for the data was 

obtained from the GPTW Culture Audit © , 

which is provided to all companies that 

choose to participate in a Best Companies 

or Best Workplaces selection process. The 

Culture Audit © asks for both qualitative and 

quantitative information about the company. 

In the vast majority of the cases, the 

respondent was the senior Human Resource 

Manager. The report is very exhaustive and 

covers policies related to Human Resources 

and also seeks information on the philosophy 

of the founders/leaders of the organization, 


21

Table 3 

Company Questionnaire - Culture Audit© 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

Type of organization, Major changes 

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

Full-time, Part-time, Temporary/contract employees (men/women); Job levels; 

Age; Length of Service; Disability; Ethnicity; Departures 

PAY AND OTHER FORMS OF INCOME 

TRAINING/LIFELONG LEARNING 

WORK/LIFE BALANCE 

Job-protected maternity/paternity leave over and above the statutory minimum, 

time off for the care of dependants, child care benefits 

HR PRACTICES 

Job-sharing, Flexitime, Compressed hours working, Working from home/ 

telecommuting, Unpaid career break, Sabbaticals 

DIVERSITY 

WORKPLACE GOVERNANCE 


22 

and the ways in which they try to achieve the 

mission and values of the organization. Given 

the wealth of the data and its volume, Table 

3 only describes the relevant portions of the 

Culture Audit© used for the current study. 

Nonetheless, given that many parameters of 

the cultural audit were produced in qualitative 

format the information was codified and 

converted into a quantitative form enabling 

subsequent statistical analyses. 

A proposed change to the original GPTW®model 

based on preliminary data analyses 

Thus, the gathering of primary data was 

based on the Great Place to Work® data. 

Subsequently, the robustness and stability of 

the conceptual model were studied. Secondary 

analyses revealed that the GPTW® model was 

stable over the 3 years studied (2003, 2004 

and 2005) and for each of the participating 

countries. This gave us reasonable confidence 

to conclude that the data structure remains 

fairly consistent over time. Nonetheless, after 

a series of factor and LISREL analyses a single 

factor emerged not clearly supporting the 

orthogonality of the dimensions proposed by 

the GPTW® Model. The same picture arises 

when tested for each country and year. Thus, 

an attempt was made to develop a simple 

and more parsimonious model using only 

subsets of the data. For strategic as well as 

for psychometric reasons, it was decided that 

new subsets of data be used for the remainder 

of the analyses. Using only 34 relevant 

statements (see Table 4) provided sufficient 

psychometric properties (as to reliability and 

validity) to justify the subsequent analyses. 

Lastly, the selected dimensions have been 

rearranged in five newly derived “facets”. 

Only “camaraderie” is repeated. This derived 

model was content validated through direct 

debate and semi-Delphi methods amongst the 

partners and consultants participating in this 

study. All of the study partners have taken part 

in this process. The methodology employed is 

often referred to in the academic literature as 

an “expert panels” one.

LEVEL OF 

ANALYSIS 

Relations amongst 

employees 

Relations between 

employees and the 

firm in general 

Relations between 

Employees and 

Management 

DIMENSION/ 

FACTOR 

CAMARADERIE 

Alpha = 0.856 

CFI =0.998 

EQUAL 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Alpha = 0.831 

CFI = Model perfectly 

identified (no test available) 

PRIDE IN JOB & COMPANY 

Alpha = 0.851 

CFI = 0.999 

FAIR & SOUND HR 

PRACTICES 

Alpha = 0.828 

CFI = 0.998 

MANAGEMENT 

COMPETENCY & 

CREDIBILITY 

Alpha = 0.954 

CFI = 0.980 

ITEMS 

• You can count on people to co-operate 

• When people change jobs or work units, they are made to feel right 

at home 

• People care about each other here 

• There is a “family” or “team” feeling here 

• We are all in this together 

• People here are treated fairly, regardless of age 

• People here are treated fairly, regardless of race 

• People here are treated fairly, regardless of sex 

• My work has special meaning, this is not “just a job” 

• When I look at what we accomplish, I feel a sense of pride 

• I feel good about the ways we contribute to the community 

• I am proud to tell others I work here 

• I feel I make a difference here 

• People here are paid fairly for the work they do 

• People are encouraged to balance their work life and personal life 

• If I am unfairly treated, I believe I will be given a fair shake if I 

appeal 

• We have special and unique benefits here 

• People celebrate special events around here 

• Our facilities contribute to a good working environment 

• Everyone has an opportunity to get special recognition 

• Management makes its expectations clear 

• I can ask management any reasonable question and get a straight 

answer 

• Management shows appreciation for good work and extra effort 

• Management is approachable, easy to talk with 

• Management genuinely seeks and responds to suggestions and 

ideas 

• Management keeps me informed about important issues and 

changes 

• Management has a clear view of where the organization is going 

and how to get there 

• Management involves people in decisions that affect their jobs or 

work environment 

• Management does a good job of assigning and co-ordinating people 

• Promotions go to those who best deserve them 

• Management delivers on its promises 

• Managements actions match its words 

• Management is competent at running the business 

• Management is honest and ethical in its business practices 

Table 4: Description of the facets resulting from the factor analysis with its corresponding items 

and coefficients of homogeneity (Alphas) as well as goodness of fit (Comparative Fit Index, CFI) 

Note: The survey tool Trust Index© and each individual statement is copyrighted and protected 

intellectual Property of the Great Place to Work® Institute, Inc. 


23

Figure 5 

The GPTW® model facets and the derived facets 

COLUMN A 

GPTW R Model 

CAMARADERIE 

CREDIBILITY 

FAIRNESS 

PRIDE 

RESPECT 

COLUMN B 

NEW DERIVATE 

WORK CLIMATE FACETS 

Camaraderie 

Management Competency & Credibility 

Equal Opportunities 

Pride in Job & the Company 

Fair & Sound HR practices 

Figure 5 shows the GPTW® 

facets (left column - A) and 

the derived facets/factors 

(right column). Note that 

the modified factors do not 

include the same statements 

as the GPTW® model, but 

have been reorganised. These 

modified factors (described 

in column B) will be used 

throughout the remainder of 

this study. A multilevel factor 

analysis on this modified 

model shows an equal 

structure of work climate 

through the three consecutive 

years, as well as through the 

participating member states. 


24 

Overall, the proposed form and facets along 

with the empirical data can be interpreted as 

follows (with regard to what constitutes an 

excellent work climate): 

• Where Management seems to be 

competent and credible, 

• Where HR Practices are perceived to be fair 

& sound 

• Where Equal opportunities in its various 

facets are felt throughout the organization, 

• Where employees feel pride in their job & 

the company they work for, and, 

• Where Camaraderie is highly valued and 

evident. 

Partner meeting, September 2005, 

Ghent, Belgium. 

The preliminary study results were presented 

after explaining and agreeing upon the change 

in the original EU-WORK CLIMATE model 

(the reduction of used items of the GPTW® - 

questionnaires and the associated re-labeling 

of some of the dimensions of the model, 

as commented in the previous section). 

Consequently, the discussion during this 

partner meeting covered several themes: 

• The different perception of the evaluations 

between the countries, due to differences in 

cultures, expectations, management models, 

and samples. An additional cause was 

constituted by the possibility of translation 

problems. 

• The theme of Corporate Social Responsibility 

and the clear country types as well as big 

differences between countries which become 

apparent. These results are consistent over 

3 consecutive years. 

• The gap analyses, which reveals clear 

country types and the crystallization of 

attitudes. In that regard, a distinction was 

made between pre-formed opinion vs. postformed 

opinion, exemplified by Question 

1 (“This is a friendly place to work?”) 

versus Question 57 (“Taking everything into 

account, I would say this is a great place 

to work?”). This result is consistent results 

over 3 consecutive years. 

• Comparisons with other studies were made.

Job quality indicators such as satisfaction 

with working conditions, satisfaction with 

job, or work does not endanger health 

had lower results among the countries 

of southern Europe (Eurostat, EFILWC, 

European Household Panel). In the current 

study France, Italy, and Spain clearly scored 

lower on related indicators. For Spain, this 

situation is explained by its high percentage 

of involuntary temporary work (25%). 

Furthermore, traditionally there have been 

more barriers to dialogue with the trade 

unions. 

• Key questions of the debate were if, in the 

future, the companies could offer stable 

occupational conditions to their employees 

in a world of uncertainty. We have seen that 

job security is one of the most important 

factors to ensure employee satisfaction with 

working conditions. Furthermore, the future 

roles of business and unions in improving 

the Industrial Relations scene in EU was 

discussed. 

The list of people attending this initial partner 

meeting is shown in Table 5. 

2.1.2 Press release to the 

international media (D2) 

Four international events have been organized 

in order to disseminate and discuss the 

results of the comparative analysis: the main 

event in Barcelona, local workshops in Athens 

and Lisbon, and a meeting with the GPTW®partners 

in Barcelona. Press releases have 

accompanied the former three events and are 

summarised below. 

Main event in Barcelona, November 2005 

An invitation letter for the main event was 

send to various academic, professional 

associations, government agencies and unions 

in various countries based on a data bank 

compiled by the research team. The event 

was also placed on the internet in order to 

give it maximum exposure. Collaboration was 

also sought via the European Institute for 

the Study of working conditions and quality 

of work in Dublin and the International Labor 

Office. The letter was signed by Prof. Simon 

Dolan, Research Director of the Institute for 

Labour Studies of ESADE Business School. 

The letter provided brief information on the 

project objectives, the main stakeholders, the 

Table 5 

List of participants of the partner meeting in Ghent 

NAME SCHOOL COUNTRY 

Dolan, Simon Esade - IEL Spain 

Sureda, Joan Esade - IEL Spain 

Diez Piñol, Miriam Esade - IEL Spain 

Dewettinck, Koen Vlerick Mgmt School Belgium 

Huyghe, Tine Vlerick Mgmt School Belgium 

Destobbeleir, Katleen Vlerick Mgmt School Belgium 

Parry, Emma Cranfield University United Kingdom 

Kourounakou, Zoe Alba Business School Greece 

Van Marrewijk, Marcel Erasmus The Netherlands 

Kim Moller Great Place To Work Denmark 


25

academic partners, and the project sponsor. 

A reference was made to the project web site 

(http://www.euworkclimate.com/), for further 

information on the event. The main event 

was furthermore promoted via several press 

releases, as shown in Table 6. Annex 3 shows 

some representative examples of these press 

releases. 

Local workshop in Athens, November 2005 

The workshop was advertised in the Greek 

media. A press release was sent in advance 

in order to attract as many participants as 

possible. 500 invitations were sent to HR 

Managers and CEOs and phone calls were 

made in order to follow up. In two weeks, 

the amphitheatre where the workshop would 

take place was fully booked. A package with 

presentation materials was distributed to the 

audience and the presentations were uploaded 

to ALBA’s web site where they were accessible 

for all interested parties. 

A press release was sent following the 

workshop to all Greek media. The release 

presented the main results of the surveys and 

was accompanied by two presentations. The 

information appeared in 12 daily and monthly 

publications. Table 7 gives the publication 

details and Annex 4 shows some examples. 

Local workshop in Lisbon, April 2006 

The workshop was organized by Companhia 

dos Sítios & RH Magazine as part of FORUM 

RH, and it was co-organized with ESADE 

Business School. It took place on Thursday the 

6th of April 2005 and was attended by around 

45 people connected with the Portuguese 

HRM community. Currently in its 12th edition, 

FORUM RH is one of the major Portuguese 

HRM events, and attracted around 100 

participants over the 2 days. 

The workshop was advertized in the 

Portuguese media. A press release was 

sent in advance in order to attract as many 

participants as possible. 50 invitations 

were sent out to the 50 largest Portuguese 

companies. 20,000 event brochures were 

sent to HR Managers and CEOs. 40 press 

releases were sent to the principal Portuguese 

media and follow-up phone calls were made. 

A package containing the DVD from the 

Barcelona Workshops and presentation 

material was handed out to the audience 

and the final presentations (interactive 

Table 6 

Overview of press releases on the main event in Barcelona 

MEDIUM TYPE DATE DAILY/WEEKLY/MONTHLY 


26 

Cinco Días Madrid newspaper 11-11-2005 daily 

Metro Directe Barcelona newspaper 11-11-2005 daily 

Metro Directe Madrid newspaper 11-11-2005 daily 

Diario de Avisos TENERIFE newspaper 13-11-2005 daily 

La tribuna de Albacete newspaper 13-11-2005 daily 

EL PROGRESO (MERCADOS) LUGO Sunday newspaper 13-11-2005 weekly 

LA VOZ DE ASTURIAS (LUGONES) newspaper 13-11-2005 daily 

DIARIO PALENTINO newspaper 13-11-2005 daily 

DIARIO DE PONTEVEDRA newspaper 13-11-2005 daily 

DIARIO DE AVISOS TENERIFE newspaper 13-11-2005 daily 

EL NUEVO LUNES MADRID newspaper 14-11-2005 weekly 

DIARI DE TARRAGONA (ECONOMÍA Y 

NEGOCIOS) TARRAGONA 

Sunday newspaper 20-11-2005 weekly

Table 7 

Overview of press releases on the Athens workshop 

MEDIUM TYPE DATE DAILY/WEEKLY/MONTHLY 

Apogevmatini Sunday Newspaper 18/12/2005 Daily 

Daily Fax 

Newsletter sent to 

thousands of Greek 

19/12/2005 Daily 

employees 

Executive Naftemporikis * Newspaper 3/1/2006 Weekly 

EXPRESS * Newspaper 16/12/2005 Daily 

Geniki Dimoprasion Newspaper 15/12/2005 Daily 

HMERHSIA * Newspaper 16/12/2005 Daily 

HR Newsletter * 

Newsletter sent to HR 

Managers 

16/12/2005 Weekly 

HR Professional * * Magazine January Monthly 

KARIERA Newspaper 16/12/2005 Weekly 

Kathimerini * * * Sunday Newspaper 24/12/2005 Daily 

KERDOS * * * Newspaper 11/01/2006 Daily 

NIKH Newspaper 17/12/2005 Daily 

* In these publications a picture of the workshop was included 

* * This publication included an interview of Prof. Simon Dolan 

* * * One full page article 

CD) will be sent to all participants by mail, 

with photographs and final analyses of the 

workshop. Following the workshop, a press 

release was sent to all the Portuguese media 

presenting the main results of the surveys, 

along with Prof. Simon Dolan’s presentation. 

There were 6 publications in daily and monthly 

media formats. Table 8 gives an overview of 

the associated press releases and Annex 5 

shows some examples. 

Table 8 

Overview of press releases on the Lisbon workshop 

MEDIUM TYPE DATE DAILY/WEEKLY/ 

MONTHLY 

4sir * Newsletter sent to Company CEOs 2/1/05 Weekly 

EXAME ** *** Business Magazine 2/20/05 Monthly 

RH Magazine * Specialized HRM Magazine 2/26/06 Bimonthly 

Veriag Dashofer * Newsletter sent to HR Managers 3/1/06 Weekly 

EXPRESSO Emprego * Newspaper 3/18/06 Weekly 

Jornal de Negócios **** Newspaper 4/11/06 Daily 

RH Magazine *** Specialized HRM Magazine 5/26/06 Bimonthly 

* These publications i 

nclude a photo of the workshop 

** This publication include an 

interview with Prof. 

Simon Dolan 

*** Full-page article 

**** Half-page article 


27


28 

2.1.3 Virtual environment 

of the project (D3) 

A project web site was designed and set up on 

the ESADE server (http://www.euworkclimate. 

com/) in order to disseminate project results 

and outputs. The site was also used as 

an information medium for the European 

Conference and subsequent local workshops in 

Greece and Portugal. More specifically, the site 

currently contains all documents covering the 

1st European Forum on Industrial Relations, 

held in November 2005 in Barcelona: 

• executive report of the statistical analyses 

(see annex); 

• presentation by Joan Sureda (ESADE), 

further explaining the statistical results; 

• presentation by Shimon Dolan (ESADE), 

complementing the statistical results with 

qualitative comments and opening the 

agenda for debate; 

A project web site was set up on the ESADE 

server (http://www.euworkclimate.com/) in 

order to disseminate project results and outputs 

• presentation by Palle Elleman Knudsen 

(GPTW © -Europe), explaining the GPTW ® - 

model and methodology; 

• presentation by Carlos Obeso (ESADE), 

providing additional data on labor markets 

trends of 14 countries of the EU; 

• presentation by Mario Raich (ESADE), 

explaining a methodology to for evaluating 

the relationship between work climate and a 

company innovative capacity; 

• presentation of a benchmark case: Danone 

(Spain) 

• presentation of a benchmark case: Octrium 

(the Netherlands) 

• presentation of a benchmark case: 

Caja Madrid (Spain) 

• agendas and presentations of the parallel 

workshops. 

Regarding the latter point, the virtual 

environment contains the content of four 

workshops that were held during the European 

conference. The workshops dealt with the 

following themes: 

• “Can organizations afford to manage their 

HR based on Trust, Equity and Respect?” 

chaired by Dr. Shay S. Tzafrir (University 

of Haifa, Israel). Workshop summary: 

experience in many firms suggests that trust, 

equity, and respect - if properly managed - 

add significant value to employees´ loyalty 

and commitment as well as affecting their 

behavior and thereby leads to increases in 

productivity. However, while trust, equity, 

and respect, are desirable attributes in 

any organization, finding processes and 

methodologies to get them adopted as core 

values by all members of the firm is no easy 

task. The workshop will pool the experience 

of firms that attempted to use these values 

and will look at the economical and social 

costs of developing such a climate. The 

workshop also looks in the cost-benefit 

equation for organizations in various sectors 

and industries. Colleagues who address the 

theme and those concerned with the positive 

as well as the negative effects of trust 

were invited. Participating companies were: 

EBS building society (Ireland); Land’s End 

GmbH (Germany); and Johnson and Johnson 

Medical (Portugal). 

• “Is it Possible For Camaraderie and Team 

Spirit to Co-Exist with Competitiveness?” 

chaired by Dr. Dirk van Dierendonck 

(Erasmus University, the Netherlands). 

Workshop summary: while many companies 

know that teams play a significant role in 

competing in a globalized economy, the 

quest for team spirit and camaraderie 

seems a never-ending one. For example, 

very few companies base their HR policies 

at the team level (we still pay individuals, 

train individuals, select individuals, etc.). 

The workshop will present cases of EU 

companies that attempt to promote 

camaraderie and team spirit and show that 

the latter does not necessarily conflict with

competitiveness. Participating companies 

were: Clontarf Castle Hotel (Ireland); Morgan 

Stanley (Italy); and Visma Spcs AB (Sweden). 

• “The Importance of Consistency: What You 

Say is What You Do” chaired by Dr. Ingwer 

Borg (Justus Liebig University, Germany). 

Workshop summary: Very often leaders 

in organizations develop a high-falutin’ 

vision and mission statement but have 

tremendous difficulties in sharing it with 

other members of the company simply 

because it bears no relationship to people’s 

daily work. Phrases such as: “our people 

are fundamental resources” are becoming 

a cliché. The workshop will examine the 

importance of consistency between company 

policies and statements and what the firm 

actually does. Cases of companies making 

a genuine attempt to be make their deeds 

match their words and to foster staff 

loyalty, commitment, and productivity were 

discussed. Participating companies were: 

Guidant Corporation (Italy); Nackageriatriken 

AB (Sweden); and E.ON (Germany). 

• “How Can Leaders Create an Excellent Work 

Climate?” chaired by Olga Epitropaki (Alba 

University, Greece). Workshop summary: 

Great workplaces are characterized by 

a unique organizational climate in which 

people feel they can let their talents and 

abilities soar. The role of leadership in 

developing such an affirmative climate 

is crucial. The workshop looked at those 

key factors that help leaders unleash the 

positive energy of their staff. Specific 

questions explored were: “What are the 

critical competencies of leaders that help 

them create an excellent work climate?”; 

“Which specific tools and practices do they 

use in order to create a stimulating climate 

and get results?”; What is the role of middle 

versus top management in this process? 

Can we detect a rippling effect in terms of 

competencies and characteristics that starts 

from top management and cascade through 

the rest of the company?” Participating 

companies were: FIM group (Finland); Kanal 

5 (Sweden); and L´Oréal (Greece). 

The workshop looked at those key factors 

that help leaders unleash the positive 

energy of their staff 

2.1.4 Scientific report based 

on the European data (D4) 

There are two types of scientific reports linked 

with the project. First, the report on the survey 

analyses of the European data is currently in 

progress. It has not yet been published, as 

submission cycles of scientific journals are 

very long (ranging from 1-3 years!). Second, 

the results of the culture audit (i.e. the various 

analyses on cultural data) are presented in the 

following. 

Descriptive results of the Culture Audit© 

analyses 

One of the study aims at the survey analyses 

was to test whether there was a link between 

staff perception of working conditions and a 

host of organizational outcomes that were 

available through the culture audit data (i.e. 

human resource policies and practices, size of 

workforce, field of activity, etc.). 

Only data for the year 2004 was made 

available at the company level in the data 

bank received from the GPTW © Institute. We 

had thus information for 547 companies in 

the 14 countries taking part in the study. 

This qualitative data was re-coded to enable 

statistical treatment. This section presents the 

most significant results, bearing in mind that 

analyses were performed at several levels: 

Level 1 - An uni-variate analysis was carried 

out during the first stage of all the variables 

included in the Culture Audit © . Wherever 

possible, ratios were generated that allowed 

international comparisons to be made. 

Furthermore, the trends found amongst the 

various country clusters were compared to see 

whether there were concentrations of certain 

corporate profiles in given countries. 


29

Level 2 - Company data concerning 

organizational and cultural characteristics 

(Culture Audit©) was compared with data 

covering work climate and/or the financial 

results of firms. 

Differences by country clusters 

The results obtained for the descriptive results 

of the Culture Audit© revealed significant 

differences for the three clusters of countries 

identified (see Tables 9 and 10): 

• In general, companies without public equity 

are more common amongst the three 

clusters of countries in the study than 

those with. Cluster 2 (comprising Belgium, 

Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Sweden and 

UK) was a notable exception in this respect 

(122 of the 175 companies from these 

countries had some form of public equity). 

• Private Equity Companies Such firms 

predominated in the country clusters. It 

appears that the differences between public 

and private companies are of greatest 

relevance in Cluster 3 (comprising Finland, 

France, Italy, and Spain). 

• In all of the EU member states in the 

study, companies not forming any kind of 

partnership were the most common. 

Table 9 

Significance only shown at the

Table 10 

ANOVA (Significance only shown at the

Figure 6 

Relationship between country cluster and resign ratio of full time personnel (%) 

0,15 

95% Ci Voluntary full time quit ratio 

0,12 

0,09 

0,06 

0,03 

0,00 

1 2 3 

Cluster 

• Significant differences were also found 

between several dimensions of work climate 

and certain organizational characteristics 

(see Tables 11 and 12). In general, private 

companies scored highest when it came to 

work climate factors. Companies owned 

by multinationals scored lower than nonmultinational 

companies. These differences 

appear to be stronger in the first country 

cluster in which local companies (i.e. nonmultinationals) 

scored higher on work 

climate. With regard to governmental and 

non-governmental agencies, the biggest 

differences were found in the companies 

Cluster 2. 

Figure 7 

Relationship between country cluster and number of dismissals of full time personnel (mean) 

0,04 


Mean of invol_FT_QR 

0,035 

0,03 

0,025 

0,02 

1 2 3 

Cluster 

32

Table 11 

ANOVA of work climate dimensions by firm ownership (governmental agency versus private) 

WORK CLIMATE DIMENSIONS 

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY 

NO 

YES 

Camaraderie 4.2282 4.0415 

Management Competency & Credibility 4.3193 4.0262 

Equal opportunities 4.8216 4.6208 

Pride in job & the company 4.5103 4.3162 

Fair & Sound HR practices 4.1271 3.9404 

Table 12 

ANOVA of work climate dimensions by type of ownership (non foreign based versus foreign based) 

WORK CLIMATE DIMENSIONS 

OWNED WHOLLY OR PREDOMINATELY 

BY A FOREIGN-BASED COMPANY 

NO 

YES 

Camaraderie 4.2173 4.0539 

Management Competency & Credibility 4.3022 4.1955 

Equal opportunities 4.1155 3.9676 

Pride in job & the company 4.5016 4.4191 

Fair & Sound HR practices 4.1155 3.9676 

• Certain tendencies were noted in connection 

with the perception of work climate and the 

relative proportions of full-time and part-time 

workers as well as with gender. In general, 

men perceived work climate more negatively 

than women. Men who worked full time 

perceived work climate more negatively than 

other workers. Part-time women perceived 

work climate in the most positive manner. 

2.1.5 Scientific paper on 

employed methodology 

and preliminary results (D5) 

Several scientific papers, grounded upon 

the preliminary and definitive results of this 

study have been written and presented at the 

main academic conferences and in journals. 

These papers have focused on sub-themes 

of the study in order to deepen insights, 

facilitate local discussions and advance the 

development of the final conclusions. 

A first paper in that regard is titled “A 

Triangulation Analysis of Value Congruency in 

Corporate Spain: American Dream or Spanish 

Reality?” It was published in the International 


33


34 

A strong tendency for men and women to be 

employed in different hieraarchical positions 

is demonstrated and discussed 

Journal of Human Resource Management, an 

A-class journal according to the Financial Times 

(A is the highest ranking of scientific journals). 

The paper was based only on the Spanish data 

stripped from the GPTW data bank, but it was 

supplemented by two additional sources of 

data (HR executive survey and data obtained 

on the company extrapolated from the web 

page of the firm). Besides presentation and 

discussion of the results during academic 

conferences, the findings were disseminated 

by inclusion of the paper in the conference 

proceedings. The final full paper is attached to 

this booklet. The abstract is the following: 

The construct of value congruency has become 

the center of scholarly as well as practitioner’s 

attention in the last two decades. Theoretical 

reasoning, however, has mainly originated 

in an Anglo-Saxon context accompanied by 

scarce and contradictory empirical results. 

Therefore, the aim of this paper is to further 

explore the construct and determine its 

presence in the relatively unexplored cultural 

context of Spanish organizations. A novel 

triangulation measure is proposed and 

values are assessed by three independent 

data sources, representing three different 

constituencies in the company: non-managerial 

employee’s groups, HR directors and a blend 

of senior management and communication 

directors inferred by the corporate web sites 

of the firms studied. The later is a relatively 

new media for companies to shape and instill 

values, and is assessed by means of content 

analysis. Results show that value congruency 

is rather rare for the organizations of the 

sample studied and discussion revolves around 

issues of culture, possible clashes between 

values and the respective impact on the 

hypothesized sequence: Values-satisfactionperformance. 

It is proposed that it may be 

more relevant in subsequent research to focus 

on incongruencies or ambiguities. 

Second, the paper titled “A Comparative 

Analysis of The Use of Work Life Balance 

Practices in Europe: Do Practices Enhance 

Gender Diversity?” was presented at the 

EURAM conference (the European Academy 

of Management, the European counterpart 

of the prestigious American Academy of 

Management) in May 2006. The findings were 

disseminated through the presentation and the 

subsequent debate, and through the inclusion 

in the conference proceedings. The final full 

paper is attached to this booklet. The abstract 

is the following: 

Growing public pressure and a realisation of 

the competitive advantage of having women 

in management positions has led to interest 

by European companies in improving the 

opportunities for women’s advancement in 

the management field. As a result, firms have 

launched numerous work-life balance practices 

and policies that try to reconcile family and 

work-life. Various welfare state systems, family 

formation policies, legislation and gender 

ideologies influence the way companies in each 

country implement these practices. This study 

reports findings for companies’ involvement 

in work-life balance practices in 14 European 

countries. Moreover, country differences in 

women’s participation in the labour force and 

a strong tendency for men and women to be 

employed in different hierarchical positions 

is demonstrated and discussed. The impact 

of work-life balance practices and policies on 

women’s career advancement is examined. 

A third paper is in progress and develops the 

work climate construct. Based on statistical 

analyses, the paper analyzes the relative 

relevance of the underlying dimensions of 

the climate construct. A potential outlet for 

the paper is the European Journal of Work 

and Organizational Psychology (Taylor and 

Francis). Associated to this paper is ESADE´s 

proposal to organize a track dealing with Work 

Climate and Trust in organizations in the next 

EURAM (European Academy of Management) 

conference, to be held in Paris on 15th-19th 

May 2007 and organized by École Centrale 

Paris, HEC and INSEAD. Currently, ESADE is

talking with the partners that participated in 

the EU-Work Climate project (Alba, Vlerick, 

Erasmus, Haifa and Cranfield) to jointly take 

care of the organization of the track. 

2.2 Main Event 

The second stage of the main event aimed to 

disseminate the comparative results of the 

European study and improve the exchange 

of knowledge and experiences between 

the stakeholders (universities, research 

organizations, public authorities, company 

managers, H.R. heads, social actors, etc.). 

2.2.1 European report with 

results and conclusions of the 

survey analyses (D6) 

The full European report with the results and 

conclusions of the survey analyses is attached 

to this booklet. The report contains five main 

sections: (1) an introduction; (2) a description 

of the sample; (3) details of data reduction and 

the proposed new sub-sets of facets; (4) the 

principal results; and (5) the conclusions and 

agenda for debate. In the following we only set 

out some of the main results and conclusions. 

For further detail, please consult the attached 

full report. 

The report first presents results for each of 

the three years of the study (2003, 2004, 

and 2005), given the presence of relevant 

differences between the yearly results 

(p=.0000). Therefore, the results are of a 

cross-sectional as well as of a longitudinal 

nature. 

Results on the country level 

• Camaraderie: the interpretation of the 

relatively lower scores is evident: Italian 

firms have systematically lower scores than 

the rest of the countries in Europe. In 2004, 

France joined Italy to manifest relatively 

lower scores in this respect. The picture with 

regard to those countries scoring highest 

on Camaraderie is not as clear-cut. There 

is a large block of countries where the 

differences are minimal. Yet, Austrian firms 

show a higher score for all the three years, 

followed by Scandinavian countries in the 

other years, and the UK. 

• Management Competency and Credibility: 

Italy seemed to score lowest over the 3 years, 

and was joined in 2004 by Finland. Greece 

was one of the countries with the highest 

average, particularly in 2003 and 2004. 

• Equal opportunities: One of the results 

that stand out in comparison with the other 

dimensions presented so far is the high 

dispersion of marks according to country. 

Nonetheless, Italy maintains the lowest 

score on this dimension. 

• Pride in job and company: The charts 

for each period reveal the absence of any 

response pattern over the period. However, 

some countries, such as Italy, have the 

relatively lowest score in each year. One 

should also note that Spain (along with Italy) 

also appeared in the lower score for 2003. 

• Fair and sound human resource practices: 

Italy, France and Spain were consistently at 

the bottom end of the scale over the 3-year 

period. 

Results on the level of country cluster 

Big differences exist between countries on 

several scores and go beyond demographic 

variables. It is surprising to note that different 

perceptions of the evaluations exist per 

country. Furthermore, cluster analysis based 

on the five factors and the Ward algorithm 

(Hair et al., 2005) show three clearly distinct 

clusters of countries that present similar 

behavior on the cluster level: 

• Austria, Greece, the Republic of Ireland, 

and the Netherlands have the best work 

climates; 

• Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, 

Sweden, and UK have intermediate levels of 

work climate; 

• Finland, France, Italy, and Spain score lowest 

on work climate. 


35


36 

Results on the level of industrial sector 

In an attempt to identify some benchmarks 

sectors across the EU, the companies 

profiled in the data set were re-grouped 

into the following categories: Automotive; 

Financial Services; Consumer Goods / Food 

& Beverage Industry; Construction; Consulting 

& Auditing; Healthcare; Hotels; Restaurants; 

Catering and Tourism; Information Technology 

& Telecommunications; Public service / Non- 

Profit; Manufacturing & Production Industry; 

Media; Retail and Distribution; Transport; 

Textile/Clothing/Leather and Services 1 . 

In terms of this classification, the most 

represented sectors within the sample were: 

Financial Services; Information Technology; 

Pharmaceuticals, and Consumer Goods. 

Participants’ scores in each of the work 

climate dimensions and for each sector show 

considerable dispersion. However, we found 

that automobile, transport and public service 

sectors consistently scored towards the 

bottom of the scale. By contrast, employees 

working in the media scored towards the top of 

the scale. 

In summary, the various results indicate big 

differences between countries on some items/ 

dimensions. These country differences go 

beyond demographic variables; i.e. differences 

in distribution of gender, age, type of job, 

years of service, work status, racial/ethnic 

mix between countries do not fully explain 

the differences in work climate. On the other 

hand, the specific country cluster to which 

each country may be assigned does have a 

high explanatory power; i.e. the analyses have 

detected similar behavior regarding working 

climate in countries belonging to the same 

clusters. 

There is a gradual trend towards convergence 

and harmonization of labor policies in the 

EU. In this respect, one should note that all 

EU countries (and sectors) will eventually 

operate within the same legal framework. 

However, given the mosaic of cultures, values, 

historical institutions and other environmental 

factors characterizing each state, one can 

reasonably ask whether extending the logic 

of harmonization will necessarily lead to 

sustained competitiveness. The above findings 

reveal the differences in work climate among 

the various countries, industries and cluster 

of countries. This means that the road to 

company excellence is somehow different in 

the various countries, given that their definition 

of what constitutes a good work climate varies. 

2.2.2 Publication of the European 

conference (D7) 

A double-DVD has been edited covering the 

full contents of the 2-day during 1st European 

Industrial Relations Forum, held in Barcelona 

between the 10th and 11th of November 

2005. The DVD is of an interactive nature, and 

thus facilitates to select portions of the full 

coverage of the Forum: 

a) The opening ceremony (by Carlos Losada, 

Director-General of ESADE); 

b) The main conclusions of the work climate 

study for the 14 EU countries (by Simon Dolan, 

Research Director IEL-ESADE and Project 

Manager EU-Work Climate; Joan Sureda, 

ESADE Business School team; and Palle 

Ellemann, GPTW® -Europe); 

c) The EU Commission Perspective (By 

Dominique Bé, European Commission); 

d) The round table on work climate and 

employment relations: Observations and 

Experiences Based on the Main Actors 

Involved in Spanish Industrial Relations (by 

Ramon Valle, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 

Sevilla, Spain; Carlos Obeso IEL-ESADE, Spain; 

Mario Raich, ESADE; Josep Montoya, General 

Workers Union, Catalonia); 

e) The parallel workshops “Can Organizations 

Afford to Manage their HR Based on Trust, 

Equity and Respect?” (chaired by Dr. Shay 

S. Tzafrir, University of Haifa, Israel); “Is it 

Possible for Camaraderie and Team Spirit to 

Coexist with Competitiveness?” (chaired by Dr. 

Dirk van Dierendonck, Erasmus University, the 

Netherlands); “The Importance of Consistency: 

What You Say is What You Do” (chaired by 

Dr. Ingwer Borg, Justus Liebig University, 

Germany); “How Can Leaders Create an

Excellent Work Climate?” (chaired by Olga 

Epitropaki, Alba University, Greece). 

f) The three benchmark cases (by HR 

managers of Caja Madrid, Danone, and 

Octrium). 

g) The closing ceremony (by Alfons Sauquet, 

Vice-Dean for Research and Knowledge, 

ESADE) 

The DVD was sent to all participants of the 

forum, to several EU commissioners, to all 

the academic partners, to Spanish public 

administrations, and finally, to all ESADE 

faculty members. It will also be sent to the exalumnae 

of ESADE’s MBA program of ESADE, 

who may further disseminate the results in the 

companies/ institutions in which they work. 

The DVD has been attached to this report. 

2.2.3 Document with the main conclusions 

of the local workshops (D8) 

Local workshops were held in Athens and 

Lisbon, and there was a meeting in Barcelona 

of those from GPTW®. The local workshops 

discussed the results of the comparative 

analyses from a more local perspective, taking 

into account the particular background of 

each country. The discussion points and main 

conclusions of each of these meetings and 

workshops are set out below: 

Local workshop, November 2005, 

Athens, Greece 

In the first part of the workshop, Prof. Simon 

Dolan presented the results of the EU-WORK 

CLIMATE study, which was based on the BEST 

Workplaces Competition data gathered over 

the last 3 years. According to the study results, 

all 14 European countries taking part in the 

competition could be placed in one of 3 main 

clusters based on the employees’ replies to 

the 34 questionnaire questions (5 dimensions 

of Great Place to Work® Model). 

One of the main subjects for discussion in the 

workshop was the fact that Greek companies 

scored similar to countries such as Austria, 

Ireland and the Netherlands and that this 

The local workshops discussed 

the results of the comparative analyses 

from a more local perspective 

group scored higher than the remaining 

countries. Although the audience expected to 

see Greece to be placed in the same group 

with the other Mediterranean countries such 

as Italy and Spain, they were astonished 

by the fact that Greece scored as high as 

The Netherlands, Ireland and Austria. The 

discussion focused on the cultural differences 

but also on the sample characteristics. 

The main argument focused on the fact 

that the Greek companies participating in 

the Best Workplaces competition are a selfselected 

sample, i.e., they are good companies 

that believe they had a chance of winning 

the competition and therefore they cannot 

be considered representative of the whole 

population of the country. Therefore, the sample 

companies could be expected to have plenty 

of benefits and keep their employees satisfied 

in general. There was another explanation why 

the Greek employees scored so high in the 

competition and it is related to employees’ 

expectations of the company. Taking for granted 

the economic situation of the market at the 

macro level, and having knowledge of the 

competitive companies, it is possible that Greek 

employees have relatively low expectations 

of their companies. Therefore, when these 

employees work in a company that offers them 

more than they expected, they rate the firm 

particularly highly. The audience deployed the 

same argument to explain why countries such 

as Italy scored lower than expected. Maybe the 

expectations of Italian employees are very high 

and therefore tend to mark their companies 

down when those expectations are not met. 

Another interesting subject for discussion was 

to compare the results of EU-Work Climate 

study with the various studies presented by the 

EC representatives (EUROSTAT etc). It would 

be interesting to examine whether all these 

studies show similar results. 


37


38 

The companies have the chance 

to benchmark themselves and to design 

their action plan for the future 

Finally, the audience discussed the applicability 

of the values-based management approach 

(presented by Professor Dolan) in the Greek 

Market. There was considerable interest in 

exploring this issue further, especially by a 

specific company which invited Prof. Dolan to 

re-visit Athens in order to further discuss the 

approach. 

In the second part of the workshop, Dr. 

Olga Epitropaki (Associate Professor of 

Organizational Behaviour and HRM in ALBA) 

and Mr. Dimitris Ganoudis (Senior Consultant 

at the GPW Hellas Institute) presented the 

results of the Greek study on Employee Benefits 

Importance and Satisfaction. The survey was 

held in November 2004 and it included 4,199 

employees’ questionnaires administered to 

38 companies. The scope of the study was 

to explore how important HR benefits are to 

employees and whether they are satisfied with 

them. According to the results of the survey, 

it seems that employees highly rate benefits 

such as private health insurance and pension 

plans, while benefits such as Work-life balance 

practices score lower. In addition, employees 

appeared to emphasize career development 

plans and training that will make them 

employable in the future. 

The audience raised a number of questions 

concerning the size of the companies sampled 

as well as the representativeness of the 

sample in general. The main results of the 

discussion were that since such a survey had 

not been conducted before in Greece, the 

results were still very useful regardless of 

sample size and representativeness issues. 

The audience agreed that both surveys 

are innovative and they provide a valuable 

feedback to HR managers and executives. The 

companies have the chance to benchmark 

themselves and to design their action plan for 

the future. 

Local workshop, April 2006, Lisbon, Portugal 

One of the main subjects for discussion in the 

workshop was the fact that the work climate 

in present-day Portuguese companies scored 

higher than expected within the context of the 

European average and much higher compared 

with Spanish companies. Camaraderie among 

colleagues, equal opportunities, a sense of 

pride at belonging to the organization, good 

human resource practices and the credibility 

of authority figures are dimensions which 

Portuguese workers rate positively, placing 

Portugal in a position above the EU average. 

The dimensions rated highest by Portuguese 

workers were equal opportunities, with an 

average of 4.8 points, and a sense of pride in 

belonging to their companies, which scored the 

highest of all participating 14 European Union 

countries in 2005. In the other dimensions, 

Portugal presented results that are around the 

European average. 

The main argument focused on the fact that 

the Portuguese companies participating 

in the Best Workplaces competition are a 

self-selected sample, i.e., they were good 

companies that considered they had a chance 

of winning the competition, and therefore 

they cannot be considered representative of 

the country as a whole. It is possible that 

employees working in a company that offers 

them more than they expected tend to rate 

their firms particularly highly. 

Another interesting subject for discussion 

was the use of dimension facets to predict 

some organizational outcomes and empirically 

explore the relationships between company 

climate and bottom line. Using a stepwise 

multiple regression analysis, it was found that 

the single most important climate dimension 

is Pride in Job and Pride in the Organization. 

Another main conclusion delivered by Prof. 

Dolan was that no significant results emerge 

for either the low or the high cluster countries. 

However, in the medium-score countries, 

Credibility emerged as the most significant 

climate dimension connected with ROTA. 

Following Prof. Dolan’s explanation of the study 

results, Ms. Sandrine Lages (GPTW® Portugal

General Director) presented the results of 

the Portuguese study on “Employee Benefits: 

Importance and Satisfaction”. The “best 

companies to work for” have created around 

4,000 new jobs over the last 12 months (a 

figure which represents a working population of 

one million people). The study shows that, in 

addition to a handful of benefits, the secret to 

a good work climate lies in trust. 

Independently of the sector, the dimension, or 

the country, the “100 Best Companies to Work 

For in Europe” have something in common: 

excellent company relations, both between 

the company bosses and workers, and among 

the workers themselves. The balance between 

employees’ personal and professional lives is 

a priority in the agenda of the Best Companies. 

This conclusion, obtained following extensive 

research involving more than 125,000 workers 

in 14 European countries, is borne out by 

the statements made by 85% of the workers 

surveyed, who say they cut their working 

hours when needed. The following are some 

examples of how various policies related to the 

balance between private and professional life 

have been implemented in the last few years 

by this group of 1,000 companies. In 2004, 

the Danish subsidiary of the giant oil company 

Shell sponsored a half-day workshop aimed 

at training its managers to handle stress 

at work and at home better. Microsoft also 

encourages a balance between the private and 

professional lives of its employees through 

various programmes such as flexi-time, 

making available facilities such as crèche or 

kindergarten, children’s play areas for workers’ 

children and a support service agreement 

for domestic issues (e-neighbourhood). At 

Hewlett-Packard Austria, 31 of the female 

executives work part-time, demonstrating the 

respect for this issue shown by the company’s 

management. 

Like last year, six Portuguese companies are 

listed among the top “100 Best Companies 

to Work For in Europe”. This year, the best 

companies are Real Seguros, BP, Bristol 

Myers Squibb, Mapfre, Microsoft and Procter 

& Gamble. From the Portuguese list in 2004, 

Microsoft was the only company among the 

Top 10 of the “100 Best Companies to Work 

For in Europe”, although this result was based 

on the average of the 12 Microsoft companies 

that took part in the European study. In the 

same year, BP Portugal was nominated in 

the “Pride” Category of the Innovation Award, 

along with the companies Trocaire (Ireland) 

and Hexal (Germany). In addition, BP, Mapfre, 

Merck Sharp & Dhome, Microsoft, TNT and 

DHL formed part of the 100 Best Companies; 

the last of these also being highly rated in 

2003, when it shared the limelight with Bristol 

Myers Squibb and Accenture. 

Professor Helena Gonçalves from the 

Portuguese Catholic University presented 

“The Importance of the Conduct Code, 

Organizational Climate and Demonstrated 

Culture, in the Corporate Sustainability Reports 

The study shows that, in addition to a 

handful of benefits, the secret to a good 

work climate lies in trust 

Valuation”. Sustainable development refers 

to those endeavours that satisfy present 

needs without jeopardising the capacity of 

future generations to cover their own needs. 

To identify the values of the organisation and 

put them into practice, integrating them into 

the company’s business strategy, helps to 

reduce risks, and protects and strengthens 

the identity and the image of the organisation, 

which in turn implies a competitive advantage. 

The ethical climate of an organisation 

is a complex question and is part of an 

organisation’s global culture. It is an element 

or manifestation of organisational culture 

and has its roots in the company’s value 

system. Within a company, the ethical climate 

is based on the perceptions that members 

have of the organisation’s rules (procedures 

and practices) regarding ethical behaviour. 

More specifically, it is concerned with the 

work climate aspects that determine what 


39


40 

Culture is more closely linked with the deepest 

levels of beliefs, values and suppositions, 

whereas climate is more easily observable 

constitutes ethical behaviour in the workplace. 

Culture is more closely linked with the deepest 

levels of beliefs, values and suppositions, 

whereas climate is more easily observable. 

In their annual reports for shareholders, 

all stock market quoted companies with a 

minimum of 500 workers are invited to publish 

their “triple bottom line results”, which rate 

their performance with respect to economic, 

environmental and social criteria. Companies 

in the EU have the opportunity to demonstrate 

and publicise their global adhesion to the 

OECD guidelines for multinational companies, 

or other comparable guidelines. We should 

not forget the teachings of Peter Drucker: 

“Organizations have the responsibility to find 

an approach to the basic social problems in 

accordance with their characteristics or profile, 

turning social problems into opportunities for 

the organization.” 

After a short break, Mr. Rui Alves, HR Director 

for Johnson & Johnson Medical Portugal 

(one of the top 20 winners of the Portuguese 

Competition ‘Best Workplaces 2005’), 

presented how J&J manages HR based on 

Trust, Equity and Respect. He explained that 

the spirit of J&J can be sensed immediately 

at the company’s reception desk, where 

visitors are attended by friendly, professional 

staff. Leading by example is the Managing 

Director, Jon Bachman, North American who 

has operated a ‘no-ties’ policy throughout the 

company since 1998. The family atmosphere 

is seen in details such as drawings and other 

children’s handicrafts that decorate many of 

the offices of the 140 employees who work at 

J&J. Several best practices for benchmarking 

have been defined by J&J: (a) Communication; 

(b) Internal survey (an action plan for the 

human resources area, drawn up based on 

strategic business planning); (c) Training; (d) 

Professional assessment (e.g. full payment of 

undergraduate and postgraduate programmes; 

in-house English classes); (e) Collaborator 

involvement; (f) Benefits; (g) Flexitime; (h) 

Informality (permanent informal dress code); 

(i) Gender equality (the company forms 

part of the Women Leadership Initiative, an 

incentive programme for the promotion and 

professional development of women within the 

J&J organization); (j) Camaraderie (birthday 

cards signed by the General Manager, sent to 

each worker; summer get-together and lunch; 

Christmas party for workers and their children 

and relatives; Energy Celebration as part of the 

Energy Week). 

To round off the EU-Work Climate Lisbon 

Event, Bernardo T. Diniz, Victor Rodriguez 

and Urbano Oliveira from Spirit Consulting 

Group, presented Show 2 Business – How 

to be an excellent company to work for!... 

There’s a solution! “Show2Business” is a 

new communication methodology aimed 

at stimulating emotions among members 

of the organization and linking them to the 

corporation’s strategic objectives. This 

process facilitates effective people alignment 

and it uses a dynamic set of tools and 

communication devices. It is recommended 

for use during an important event, where the 

effectiveness of the corporate message is 

imperative. Using techniques borrowed from 

“role playing” where everybody is involved, 

the Spirit Consulting Team, along with all the 

participants, built a strategy map following 

the Barcelona Workshops final conclusions, 

and depicted it in tangible graphical forms and 

specific actions. The message was clear and 

had a very positive impact on all concerned (as 

they say, one needs to keep an open mind in 

order to absorb changes before one can create 

happiness). 

The audience raised questions during the 

discussion stage concerning the size of the 

company sampling and showed their initial 

surprise at seeing Portugal ahead of Spain 

in all of the dimensions presented in the 

study. If productivity is in fact related to an 

organization’s work climate, why, in terms 

of productivity, are the Portuguese still at

the tail end of Europe? The problem is not 

in the human capital of our companies but 

in how these are organized. We should not 

forget that the Portuguese companies in this 

European study may not reflect the country’s 

firms in general. Finally, the audience agreed 

that both surveys are innovative and that they 

provide valuable feedback to HR managers 

and executives. All of the information provided 

is a good tool for companies and gives them 

the chance to benchmark themselves and to 

design their own action plan for the future, 

focusing on real work climate improvement. 

Meeting with GPTW ® Institution, 

November 2005, Barcelona 

Members from the GPTW ® Institution met in 

Barcelona, in November 2005. Debate evolved 

around the European report with the results 

and conclusions of the analyses. 

2.2.4 Virtual prototype 

for self-assessment (D9) 

A phased approach was taken to the 

development of the EU-WORK CLIMATE 

prototype instrument. During the first phase, 

the dimensions were inspired by the results 

of the EU-WORK CLIMATE analysis and the 

associated five dimensions. In the second 

phase, a sixth dimension (trust) was added 

and based on the conceptual framework 

developed earlier and independently by two 

members of the EU-WORK CLIMATE (Prof. Shay 

Tzafrir – Haifa University and Prof. Simon L. 

Dolan – ESADE) (Tzafrir and Dolan, 2004). 

In the third phase, a measure using a series 

of yes/no answers was developed, based 

on the 6 previously identified dimensions: 

(1) camaraderie; (2) equal opportunities; (3) 

pride in job and company; (4) fair and sound 

human resource practices; (5) management 

competencies & credibility; and, (6) trust. In 

the fourth phase, a semi-Delphi procedure was 

used in order to validate the questions and 

increase its reliability. The project’s academic 

partners contributed in this validation 

procedure. Consequently, some items were 

The newest site content consists of 

the virtual prototype for self-assessment 

of work climate 

replaced or rephrased and content validity 

was increased. Finally, in the fifth phase, 

an attempt was made to develop an on-line 

instrument which may help companies obtain 

a dynamic barometer of EU-WORK CLIMATE. 

Once empirical data become available, the 

reliability of the measure can be further 

increased. The online measure will be 

completed in the next couple of weeks and 

posted on the project web site (http://www. 

euworkclimate.com), but a paper version of it 

is attached in Annex 6. 

2.3 Follow-up 

The aim of the third and final stage was to 

ensure the impact and dissemination of the 

results of the comparative study. Furthermore, 

this stage evaluated the usefulness of the 

assessment prototype designed at the earlier 

phase with a view to enhancing its value as 

an instrument for measuring best company 

practices. 

2.3.1 Maintenance of the project 

web site (D10) 

The project web site (http://www. 

euworkclimate.com) was intensively used 

before, during, and after the main event 

organized in Barcelona. The content of the 

presentations and the parallel workshops is 

still available on the site. The newest site 

content consists of the virtual prototype for 

self-assessment of work climate (Deliverable 

9). In that regard, the site permits companies 

from all over the world to assess their 

work climate using a uniform terminology 

and methodology, facilitating subsequent 

comparisons. 


41


42 

2.3.2 Additional analyses to the 

deliverables: the impact of climate 

on performance 

Note that this section entails an initiative of 

the partners that occurred though the results 

of the main event. Although this was not an 

integral part of the study, the partners thought 

that some additional data collection (financial 

data) respective analyses would be worthwile. 

A recurrent discussion thread during the 

various workshops and the main event was 

the hypothesized positive impact of a good or 

outstanding work climate on the bottom line 

results of a company. Therefore, an attempt 

was made to develop an additional deliverable, 

regarding the impact of EU-WORK CLIMATE 

on the financial performance of participating 

companies. 

A recurrent discussion was the hypothesized 

positive impact of a good of outstanding work 

climate on the bottom line results of a company 

Consequently, 6 financial indicators were 

obtained from over 300 companies of the 

GPTW® sample. The selected measures 

constitute standard measures of firm efficiency 

and resource utilization, and are important to 

every industrial sector: profit margin, return 

on capital employed (ROCA), return on total 

assets (ROTA), net assets turnover (NAT), the 

ratio in percentage terms between employee 

cost and operating revenue and, last but not 

least, EBITDA margin (earnings before interest, 

tax, depreciation and amortization). 

The ratios were calculated as using the 

following formulas: 

Profit Margin: Net Income/ Revenues 

This is a profitability ratio calculated by 

dividing net income by revenues. It measures 

how much out of every dollar of sales a 

company actually keeps in earnings. 

Profit margin is very useful when 

comparing companies in similar industries. A 

higher profit margin indicates a more profitable 

company that has better control over its costs 

compared to its competitors. Profit margin 

is displayed as a percentage; a 20% profit 

margin, for example, means the company has 

a net income of $0.20 for each dollar of sales. 

Return on capital employed (ROCE): (EBIT / 

(total assets-current liabilities)) x 100 

The return on capital employed measures 

the return on shareholders after subtracting 

from revenues not only operating expenses 

(such as cost of goods sold, employees 

expenses) but also provisions, depreciations 

and amortizations. Therefore ROCE indicates 

the efficiency and profitability of a company’s 

capital investments. ROCE should always be 

higher than the rate at which the company 

borrows capitals; otherwise any increase in 

borrowing will reduce shareholders’ earnings. 

ROTA (return on total assets): 

earnings/total assets 

The rate of return on total assets measures 

a firm’s success in using assets to generate 

earnings, independent of the financing of those 

assets. It is a useful number for comparing 

competing companies in the same industry. 

This value varies widely across different 

industries. Capital-intensive industries (like 

railroads and nuclear power plants) yield a 

low return on assets, since they have to own 

such expensive assets to do business and 

they have to pay to maintain these assets too. 

Shoestring operations (software companies, 

consulting firms) have a high ROTA because 

their required assets are minimal. 

Net assets turnover (NAT): total revenue/ 

average net assets for the period. The net 

asset turnover ratio calculates the relation 

between sales and investment in property, 

plant, equipment. Net asset turnover 

measures a company’s efficiency in using its 

assets. Firms that make investments in fixed 

assets and planning to expand their business 

for future growth have a higher net asset 

turnover than other firms. Therefore, if net 

assets turnover tends to be high, then profit 

margin tends to be low and vice versa.

Employee cost / operating revenues %: 

(personnel expenses / revenues ) x 100 

This measure calculates the percentage of 

employee cost for each unit of revenue. For 

example, in labor intensive companies this 

index can be 40%; it means that employee 

costs can be 40% of revenues. 

EBITDA or Operating Margin: (operating 

income / revenues) x 100 

EBITDA is the operating income before 

interest, tax, depreciation and amortization. 

Operating margin is a measurement of what 

proportion of a company’s revenue is left over 

after paying for variable costs of production, 

such as wages, raw materials, etc. Operating 

margin determines the quality of a company; 

it is useful to look at the change in operating 

margin over time and to compare the 

company’s yearly or quarterly figures to those 

of its competitors. A high margin indicates a 

healthy company. 

Drawing from literature on accounting and 

finance economics, all these indicators are 

represented in the form of ratios, enabling 

inter-company comparisons. The financial 

measures were obtained from two data 

sources: (1) the Amadeus Database; and 

(2) every Annual Report (comprising Balance 

Sheet, Income Statement and Notes) of every 

single company in the sample. Companies 

reporting Consolidated Financial Statement 

were excluded from the analysis, given that 

this particular analysis focuses on given 

subsidiaries operating in a given market and 

in a given country. The calculations of the 

ratios were based on average data for 2002, 

2003, and 2004 (data from 2005 were still 

not available). Such financial analyses are 

common in order to avoid possible distortions 

(which may be due to company vicissitudes (for 

example a reorganization), which can cause big 

changes in one year balance data). 

After various analyses comparing financial ratios 

and work climate indicators, we were not able 

to reach a significant conclusion pertaining to 

a possible direct relationship between work 

climate and a company’s bottom line financial 

results. A possible reazon for the lack of 

statistical empirical support has to do with the 

nature of the data; one needs not forget that 

the GPTW data has very limited variance due 

to the fact that only companies who consider 

themselves to be an excellent company 

participated in the survey. Thus, we do not 

have data about low score companies on the 

said work climate measure, and this restricted 

variance perhaps did not allow correlations with 

companies financial performance. However, our 

analyses have increased our understanding of 

the potential relationship and future research 

will build on this. 

Our analyses have increased our 

understanding of the potential relationship 

and future research will build on this 


43

Transnational 

dimension 

of the operation

Transnational 

dimension of the operation 

The international profile of the participants 

of the various events illustrates the transnational 

dimension of the EU-WORK CLIMATE project. 


46 

The transnational features of the project 

are reinforced on four fronts: (1) Four of the 

countries where the empirical data was gathered 

were directly involved in the project as active 

partners; (2) The project outputs belonged 

to the then 15 EU member countries and 3 

applicant countries, increasing its transnational 

character; (3) The origin of the data (from 14 EU 

member countries) means that various industrial 

and socio-cultural models in Europe are wellrepresented: 

the Nordic, Central European and 

“Mediterranean” or “Southern Europe” (which 

also includes Ireland and Portugal) and, (4) The 

participants of the various events organized 

in the context of this project stemmed from 

different countries, companies and institutions 

which facilitates further dissemination of results. 

The following will detail the latter two aspects. 

Profile of sample on which 

the study was grounded 

While the study was intended to cover 15 

countries, finally only 14 European Countries 

were used as Luxemburg’s data were not

made available. The final sample is made up 

of 2,578 companies, with a total participation 

of 354,476 employees. Due to the objectives 

and the methodology employed by GPTW®, 

some countries have a greater number of firms 

participating in the survey than others. For 

example, the larger contingents of participating 

employees (of the total population) were 

from Germany (16.8%), Italy (12.2%) and 

the UK (10.6%); while the lowest numbers 

of participating employees were from the 

Netherlands (2.7%), Portugal (3.5%) and 

France (3.8%). Table 13 summarizes the 

distribution of the sample by year and country 

while also indicating the participation of 

companies and employees (participants). 

The participants of diverse 

international events 

The international profile of the participants of 

the various events illustrates the transnational 

dimension of the EU-WORK CLIMATE project. 

Those attending the main event came from 

Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, 

Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, 

Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Slovakia, Spain, 

Sweden, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the UK. 

Annex 7 gives an overview of the participants. 

In the local workshops in both Athens and 

Lisbon, the audience mainly consisted of 

Human Resources Managers, Chief Executive 

Officers, Consultants and Executives involved 

in Human Resources Practises. Some of the 

participants were aware of the EU-WORK 

CLIMATE research results in advance, or 

they had participated in the past in the BEST 

Workplaces Competition. For others, it was the 

first time they had participated in the industrial 

relations Forum and they therefore provided 

valuable input to the group. Annexes 8 and 9 

provide an overview of the participants, the 

company or institution they work for and their 

role, for Athens and Lisbon respectively. 

Table 13 

Sample description by Year and Country 

2003 2004 2005 TOTAL 

Columna1 Companies Participants Companies2 Participants2 Companies3 Participants3 Companies4 Participants4 

Austria 56 7.100 57 7.280 49 7.176 162 21.556 

Belgium 50 6.148 61 7.327 43 5.462 154 18.937 

Denmark 88 11.681 70 10.428 67 9.188 225 31.297 

Finland 55 6.745 53 7.973 35 4.646 143 19.364 

France 49 5.938 23 3.026 27 4.577 99 13.541 

Germany 125 17.356 175 18.014 108 24.006 408 59.376 

Greece 50 5.408 50 5.651 39 4.200 139 15.259 

Ireland 101 10.422 83 9.781 75 9.060 259 29.263 

Italy 71 13.384 60 14.663 62 15.134 193 43.181 

Portugal 39 3.395 33 4.550 33 4.388 105 12.333 

Spain 109 11.819 38 6.242 49 7.722 196 25.783 

Sweden 66 8.909 30 4.074 29 4.676 125 17.659 

The Netherlands 17 1.656 23 2.498 27 5.356 67 9.510 

United Kingdom 101 12.289 98 11.859 104 13.269 303 37.417 

Total 977 122.250 854 113.366 747 118.860 2.578 354.476 

* note to the table: please note that in this table a period represents a comma, due to the fact that 

this table was imported from a statistical package 

Transnational dimension of the operation 

47

Social 

partners/stakeholdes involved 

The Social dialogue is the driving force 

behind successful economic and social 

reforms. Negotiations between social 

partners are the most suitable way forward 

on questions concerning modernisation and 

change management. The social partners, 

as representatives of employees and 

employers, exercise particular influence in 

the world of work. One of their responsibilities 

is to reinforce their co-operation within the 

different sectors to assure best possible 

representation. 

This project was linked to some of the 

relevant topics, such as working conditions, 

organisation of work and working time, to 

reconcile flexibility and security in several 

professional sectors. The goal was for all 

the information (outputs) generated by 

the project to be accessible in all Member 

States. Accordingly, one of the aims was to 

use the results of the study as a platform 

for exchanges of opinions and experiences 

between several main social actors and heads 

of European companies in the field of industrial 

relations in order to explore benchmark 

models in industrial relations and guidelines 

for developing future frameworks for optimizing 

working climate in Europe. An intangible result 

of this has been the strengthening of links 

between the various social, business and 

public authority actors linked to the field of 

industrial relations. 

This strengthening of such links was achieved 

through: 

• (1) The measures described in the Project 

Work Plan, and particularly in the European 

Conference, which was held in Barcelona 

in November 2005. Those taking part in 

the conference included trade unions, 

companies, and public administrations. 

• (2) Each of the project partners also 

disseminated the study findings (through 

web pages and a DVD on the European 

Conference) to the most important 

stakeholders in each EU member country. 

Details of some of the international networks 

helping to disseminate to trade unions and 

project stakeholders are set out below: 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) 

American Assembly of Collegiate Business Schools (AACSB) 

Consejo Latinoamericano de Escuelas de Administración (CLADEA) 

Community of European Management Schools (CEMS) 

Programme in International Management (PIM) network 

European Doctoral Association on Management and Business Administration (EDAMBA) 

European Doctoral School on Knowledge and Management (EUDOKMA) 

European Academy of Business in Society (EABiS) 

International Labour Organization (ILO) 

Social partners/stakeholdes involved 

49

Contribution 

by the partners 

The project involved four official partners: ESADE Business School; 

Alba Graduate Business School; Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management 

School; and Erasmus University Rotterdam. 

In addition to these academic partners, the 

project collaborated with the Great Place to 

Work® Institute Europe. All these partners 

contributed to planning, development, and 

diffusion of the main event. 

Two new partners were added during 

execution of the project: the University of 

Haifa, and Cranfield University. These partners 

were specifically brought in to validate the 

conceptual model underlying the analyses, 

for developing the strategy for the statistical 

analyses, and for jointly executing the 

analyses. 

Contribution by the partners 

51

Added value 


A principal added value of the project 

stems from its pan-European comparative approach. 

Previous studies were predominantly 

national in scope, and thus difficult to 

compare given different operationalizations 

of the QWL concept. This study, on the other 

hand, developed and employed European 

multidimensional indicators of working 

conditions. This means that different industrial 

and socio-cultural models in Europe are 

represented in the indicators: the Nordic, 

Central European and Mediterranean models, 

thus enhancing the impact of the project 

results on new countries joining the EU and 

with different models of industrial relations. 

The model, based on the GPTW approach, 

demonstrated a statistically stable structure 

of work climate over the three consecutive 

years measured, as well as in the participating 

member states. The developed indicators 

were thus good estimators of work climate 

that facilitate comparison between the 14 

Added value of the project 

53


54 

countries. More specifically, the indicators 

suggest an excellent work climate in those 

companies: 

• Where Management seems to be 

competent and credible, 

• Where HR Practices are perceived 

to be fair & sound 

• Where Equal opportunities in its various 

facets are felt throughout the organization, 

• Where employees feel pride in their job & 

the company they work for, and, 

• Where Camaraderie is highly valued and 

evident. 

The longitudinal nature of the study helped in 

the sense that empirical data were gathered 

during three consecutive years and confirmed 

the robustness of the employed model over 

time. Previous studies did not cover a time 

span but rather gave a random indication and 

therefore could not show stability over time. 

The subsequent debate, grounded upon 

the value of the indicators in each of the 

14 participating member states, led to the 

following conclusions: 

1. Given the different (increasingly positive) 

results for each consecutive year of the 

analyses, we believe that companies are still 

very active in improving their work climate. 

It seems that initiatives like the current one, 

or the GPTW® contest, raise companies 

awareness and readiness for action to actually 

improve the quality of working life. 

2. An excellent quality of working life is still 

not a “sin qua none” in European companies, 

demonstrated by the great inter-country 

differences, which go beyond demographic 

differences. More specifically: 

• Italy consequently performs worse than other 

member states, which might be explained by 

Italian workers’ relatively high expectations 

on the one hand, and low compliance by 

Italian companies on the other (Athens 

workshop, November 2005). A big gap 

between expectations and compliance may 

lead to stress (ref) and a low rating of work 

climate. 

• Greece, another Mediterranean country, 

scores surprisingly high (its scores are 

comparable with The Netherlands, Ireland 

and Austria). Following a similar argument 

to the Italian case, it was reasoned that 

this situation was due to workers’ relatively 

low expectations, who take adverse labour 

market conditions for granted. Consequently, 

when a company offers these workers more 

than they expected, they tend to rate their 

companies more highly than would otherwise 

have been the case. 

• Some countries score low in some 

areas: France scored low in 2004 on the 

camaraderie dimension; Finland scored low 

in 2004 on the Management competency 

and credibility dimension; Spain scored low 

in 2003 on the pride in job and company 

dimension. These specific deteriorations in 

climate seem to be due to country-specific 

events in the associated time frames. 

3. The equal opportunities dimension shows 

the highest variation between countries. We 

therefore believe that member states may 

learn from each other regarding this dimension 

and thus improve pan-European performance. 

4. The intra-European analyses reveal 

benchmark countries on the general level of 

work climate: 

• Austria, Greece, Ireland, and the Netherlands 

have the best climates; 

• Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Portugal, 

Sweden, and UK have intermediate levels of 

work climate;

• Finland, France, Italy, and Spain score worst 

on work climate. 

5. More specifically, the intra-European 

analyses reveal clear benchmark countries 

for some dimensions of work climate. In this 

regard: 

• Austria, following by Scandinavian countries 

and the UK constitute the benchmark for 

camaraderie; 

• Sweden and UK, though in the intermediate 

country cluster regarding the general score 

on work climate, score very high on the fair 

& sound HR practices dimension. 

6. Analyses at the sectoral level reveal 

considerable disparity between industry 

and year. Automobile, transport, and public 

service sectors consistently appear towards 

the bottom of the scale, whereas employees 

working in the media scored towards the top 

of the scale. Lessons can also be learnt from 

better performing industries. 

The foregoing conclusions helped gain 

further understanding as to whether a 

European business model is emerging 

(convergence) and on the cultural dimensions 

that affect people-management issues in 

European countries (divergence). There 

is currently a gradual trend towards labor 

policy convergence and harmonization. 

Taking into account the mosaic of cultures, 

values, historical institutions and other 

environmental factors, we believe that the 

road to company excellence is different in 

each member state. Country-specific efforts 

for effective dissemination of the results 

have already been started by the participating 

partner countries (Belgium, Greece, Portugal, 

the Netherlands, Spain, UK) during the 

development of the current project and as 

proved by the various associated deliverables. 

Finally, the project adds value given the way 

it reinforces links between the various social, 

business and public authority actors involved 

in the industrial relations field. The 1st 

European Industrial Relations Forum, held in 

Barcelona, in November 2005, as well as the 

local workshops, facilitated debate and the 

exchange of opinions and best practices. For 

example, networks have been built between 

academics and HR managers with similar 

The foregoing conclusions helped gain further 

understanding as to whether a European 

business model is emerging (convergence) 

research interests. There seems to be synergy 

between innovative HR-practices in companies 

on the one hand and rigorous research on 

the other, to build credible models that might 

stimulate the wider corporate community to 

initiate and foster HR-practices for improving 

European employees’ work conditions. 

Added value of the project 

55

Publications 

and dissemination of the results 

Two types of publications and associated dissemination 

efforts may be distinguished. First, publications and dissemination 

aimed at HR practitioners. 

In this regard, several press releases were 

announced and covered the results of the 

main events and the local workshops. The 

European report was distributed to all the 

participants of the various events, and 

provided detailed background information 

about the project methodology and results. 

Second, publications and dissemination 

aimed at the academic community included 

papers published in scholarly journals and 

conferences. The detailed report on the 

survey analyses is still in progress, given 

the large throughput time for publication. 

Furthermore, ESADE has proposed organizing 

a track at an international academic 

conference (EURAM) in 2007, in collaboration 

with the same partners as the current project, 

to continue the discussion on EU-WORK 

CLIMATE. 

Besides the more traditional forms of 

dissemination, this project employed two novel 

media. The DVD covering the presentations of 

the main event allows for lively dissemination 

of the results, allowing people to select 

those parts of the conference they are most 

interested in. The web site gives people 

universal access to the insights contained 

in the EU-WORK CLIMATE project, as well 

as providing companies with an easy way to 

dynamically assess their own work climates. 

Publications and dissemination of the results 

57

Efforts 

to ensure a lasting impact 

Effective dissemination 

takes only place when all parties 

in the industrial relations field 

are involved. 

In this regard, the international events were 

attended by relevant stakeholders, such as 

companies, workers, academic institutions, 

and public authorities. At this stage, it is vital 

that the discussion between the stakeholders 

continues. The European report with the results 

and conclusions of the survey analyses, the 

DVD on the main event, and the project web 

site will help maintaining the debate alive in 

practitioner circles. The web site provides 

an invaluable virtual instrument for selfassessment 

of work climate, helping taking 

the debate over the next few years. The fact 

companies from all over the world can access 

this tool should ensure thorough dissemination 

of the project message. An additional advantage 

of the virtual instrument is that it allows 

researchers to gather a considerable amount of 

empirical data for further work in this field. 

Scholarly publications will continue to 

disseminate the results to a broad academic 

audience over the coming years. New research 

lines will be defined that build upon the results 

of the current study. A first research line 

covers the projected relationship between work 

climate and companies’ bottom line results. 

Based on the statistically significant results 

of the Culture Audit© (see Deliverable 4), 

more analyses will be performed to explore 

this relationship. A second research line will 

be organized around a track on work climate 

and trust within the context of an international 

academic conference (EURAM). This line is 

currently being developed in co-ordination 

with the same project partners. The rigorously 

written European research report ensures that 

future studies will correctly use the outcomes 

of the present study. 

In order to demonstrate cross-fertilization 

of fields and the involvement of institutions, 

it is important that future research lines 

compare the present results with those of 

other European studies, for example the 

one presented by the EC representative in 

Barcelona, during the main event (Be, 2005). 

The link between further academic explorations 

of the theme and management reality will 

be fostered via the MBA programs of the 

project partners. In this regard, the discussion 

continues between academics and practitioners, 

and new research lines will be consistent with 

companies and workers’ needs. 

Efforts to ensure a lasting impact 

59

Some lessons emerging 

from this experience 

This project gives insights into what the 

“best places to work” are like in various European countries. 

In order to gain evidence about the relationship 

between high quality HR-practices and 

business success, two things would seem to 

be needed: 

• a research project that gathers information 

about financial performance in order to 

empirically investigate whether Great places 

to work outperform their competitors. 

• further longitudinal research to increase our 

understanding about causal relationships (to 

provide rigorous and well-grounded insights 

on the above mentioned relationships). 

Another lesson learnt pertains to methodology. 

No survey is perfect, and there is always room 

for improvement. The most important limitation 

(recognized by the research partners) is that 

the sample for the study was self-selected 

(i.e. it was constituted by the excellent 

companies wishing to participate in the 

GPTW® -competition). In addition, a relatively 

high proportion of the questionnaires was 

answered by top management, who tend to 

idealise the work climate in their companies. 

Consequently, the variance explained by 

the various factors is relatively low (i.e. very 

limited). Another limitation was the length of 

the questionnaire (57 items), which may lead 

to a fixed pattern amongst the answers. Finally, 

future longitudinal studies will need to control 

when data is gathered, to rule out mood 

swings among workers (who may feel happier 

about their company’s “work climate” in sunny 

August then they do in rainy January, as an 

example). 

Some lessons emerging from this experience 

61

Plans to follow 

up this project 

There are plans to continue the project. In particular, it is expected 

that more countries will join the EU and consequently the study. 

Subsequent analyses and results will then 

represent 25 member states. The virtual 

instrument for self-assessment provides 

an accessible and easy to use tool for 

practitioners. In that regard, it aids in data 

gathering for future research lines. 

Given the self-selected characteristic of the 

current sample, subsequent initiatives will aim 

to obtain a more probabilistic sample to draw 

a full picture of working climate in EU member 

states. We therefore propose deepening 

insights by comparing the scores of companies 

in various countries in order to analyze country 

impact without the pervasive impact of 

company characteristics. 

Project continuity will also be furthered by 

plans to conduct a longitudinal study to explore 

trends in industrial relations models over 

the next few years. The academic partners’ 

network built throughout the current project 

will continue collaborating in future studies, 

exemplified by the proposed track on work 

climate and trust at an academic conference 

(EURAM 2007). 

The projected relationship between a good 

or excellent work climate and bottom lines 

results of a company will be explored further. 

It is expected that the statistically significant 

results of the Culture Audit© will prove useful 

in this regard. Thus, new statistical analyses 

will be performed for the same sample of 

over 300 companies for which six financial 

indicators were calculated, new and additional 

statistical analyses will be performed. 

Plans to follow up this project 

63

References 

Argyris, C.; Schön, D. A., 1978. Organizational learning: a theory 

of action perspective. Mass. Addison-Wesley. 

Be, D., 2005. The EU Commission Perspective: “Labour relations 

and work climate in 21st Century Europe”, presentation at the 

1st European Industrial Relations Forum, Barcelona. http://www. 

euworkclimate.com/day1.php 

Dolan, S. L.; Garcia, S.; Richley, B., 2006. Managing by values: 

a Corporate Guide to Living, Being Alive, and Making a Living. 

Hampshire, England. Palgrave MacMillan. 

Dolan, S. L., Mach, M., Sierra, V., HR contribution to a firm’s 

success examined from a configurational perspective: 

An Exploratory Study Based on The Spanish CRANET Data, 

Management Review (The international Review of Management 

Studies), 2005(2): 272-290. 

EU communications: Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 

of 2000, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm 

EU communications: green paper “Promoting a European 

Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility” http://ec.europa. 

eu/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper_en.pdf 

Locke, E.A. 1968. Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and 

Incentives. Organizational behavior and Human Performance, May: 

157-189. 

McGregor, D., 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York. 

McGraw-Hill. 

Porter, M. E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for 

Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York. Free Press. 

Tzafrir, S.; Dolan, S.L., 2004. Trust-ME: A scale for measuring 

manager-employee trust, Management Research (the Journal 

of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management), 2(2): 115-132. 

References 

65

Annexes 

• Annex 1: Relationship between questionnaire items and GPTW® -dimensions 

• Annex 2: Trust Index Questionnaire 

• Annex 3: Press releases associated with main event in Barcelona 

• Annex 4: Press releases associated with the Athens meeting 

• Annex 5: Press releases associated with the Lisbon meeting 

• Annex 6: Organizational Climate Audit 

• Annex 7: List of participants at the main event in Barcelona 

• Annex 8: List of participants at the local workshop, Athens, November 2005 

• Annex 9: List of participants at the local workshop Lisbon, April 2006 

Annexes 

67

Annex 1. Relationship between questionnaire 

items and GPTW® dimensions 

PRIDE 

FAIRNESS 

RESPECT 

CREDIBILITY 

Management keeps me informed about important issues and changes 

Management makes it expectations clear 

I can ask managementany reasonable question and get a straight answer 

Management is approachable, easy to talk with 

Management is competent at running the business 

Management does a good job of assigning and coordinating people 

Management trusts people to do a good job without watching over their shoulder 

People here are given a lot of responsibility 

Management has a clear view of where the organization is going and how to get there 

Management delivers on its promises 

Management actions match its words 

I believe management would lay people off only as a last resort 

Management is honest and ethical in its business practices 

I am offered training or development to further myself professionally 

I am given the resources and equipment to do my job 

This is a psychologically and emotionally healthy place to work 

This is a physically safe place to work 

Our facilities contribute to a good working environment 

Management shows appreciation for good work and extra effort 

Management recognizes that honest mistakes are part of doing business 

Management genuinely seeks and responds to suggestions and ideas 

Management involves people in decisions that affect their jobs or work environment 

People are encouraged to balance their work life and personal life 

Management shows a sincere interest in me as a person, not just an employee 

I am able to take time off from work when I think its necessary 

We have special and unique benefits here 

People here are paid fairly for the work they do 

Everyone has an opportunity to get special recognition 

People avoid politicking and backstabbing as ways to get things done 

Managers avoid playing favorites 

Promotions go to those who best deserve them 

People here are treated fairly regardless of race 

People here are treated fairly regardless of sex 

People here are treated fairly regardless of age 

People here are treated fairly regardless of sexual orientation 

People here are treated fairly regardless of disability 

I am treated as a full member here regardless of my position 

If I am unfairly treated, I believe Ill be given a fair shake if a appeal 

I feel I make a difference here 

My work has special meaning, this is not “just a job” 

I plan on working here until I retire 

When I look at what we accomplish, I feel a sense of pride 

People here are willing to give extra to get the job done 

Im proud to tell others I work here 

People look forward to coming to work here 

I feel good about the ways we contribute to the community 


68 

CAMARADERIE 

When you join the company, you are made to feel welcome 

When people change jobs or work units, they are made to feel right at home 

This is a friendly place to work 

People celebrate special events around here 

This is a fund place to work 

I can be myself around here 

People care about each other here 

There is a “family” or “team” feeling here 

Were all in this together 

You can count on people to cooperate 

Taking everything into account, I would say this is a great place to work

Annex 2. Trust Index 

Questionnaire 

Annexes 

69

Annex 2. Trust Index 

Questionnaire 


70

Annex 3. Some press releases associated 

with the main event in Barcelona 

Annexes 

71


with the Athens workshop 


72


with the Lisbon workshop 

Annexes 

73

Annex 6. Organizational Climate Audit 

A prototype assessment of critical climate dimensions Developed by Simon L. Dolan © 2006 for the EU-WORK CLIMATE project 

The following 30 statements describe different facets of an 

organizational climate. Read each statement, and decide 

Çif it is true or not in relation to your organization. 

We understand that deciding about some statements may not be 

as easy, yet we still need you to choose whether it is true or not. 

Statement 

1. Most people would tell you that they feel proud to be working for this organization 

2. Management makes its expectations clear 

3. In this organization people care about each other 

4. People in our organization are treated fairly – Race does not really play any role preventing people to 

be promoted and to succeed in general 

5. Whatever managers say they will do, they deliver (management delivers on its promises) 

6. People in my organization cooperate with each other 

7. People in our organization are treated fairly – Political orientation does not really play any role preventing 

people to be promoted and to succeed in general 

8. Members of the team share the special meaning of the workplace – they feel that they are not only 

doing just a job 

9. All in all, the human resource policies in our organization are sound and fair 

10. The word high camaraderie is a good word to describe the kind of relationships that are typical 

amongst members of our organization 

11. Most managers trust their employees 

12. People in our organization are treated fairly – people interest and hobbies outside the workplace does 

not really play any role in decisions about promotions 

13. We are proud to tell others what we do 

14. people in our organization are paid fairly for the work they do 

15. managers are trained to find solutions to our problems and not to find excuses and justifications for 

work that was not completed 

16. Interpersonal trust in our organization is very high 

17. If people discover that someone is treated unfairly by management, something will be done to restore 

fairness 

18. trust in the organization is being reinforced and encouraged as a prime core value in our culture 

19. People in our organization are treated fairly – Age does not really play any role preventing people to be 

promoted and to succeed in general 

20. Trust amongst people in general in the organization is very high 

21. People in general feel very committed to their job as they share a sense of pride 

22. The human resource people in our organization are constantly seeking ways and means to improve 

the quality of the workplace 

23. management keeps us informed about important issues and changes 

24. People in general in our organization will do utmost to help each other 

25. People in our organization are treated fairly – Gender (sex) does not really play any role preventing 

people to be promoted and to succeed in general 

26. We are proud to tell others where we work 

27. People in our organizations are encouraged to balanced their work and personal life 

29. Management is competent at running our organization 

30. This organization can be characterized as having a spirit of a “family” 

True 

or Yes 

Not true 

or Not 


74 

INTERPRETATION 

Add up all the statements in each block of variables. For each statement the score is 1 (if you marked yes) and 0 (if you marked no): 

For each block, a score of 4-5 represent high on the dimension, a score of 3 is an average, and a score of 1-2 represent low on the dimension. 

All in all, a total score less than 12 points, represent a problematic climate in the organization, and, by contrast, a score higher than 24 represent a good 

and healthy organizational climate 

• 3,6,10 ,24,30 

• 4,7,12,19,25 

• 1,8,13,21,26 

Last revision: Thursday, 01 June 2006 

English correction 23rd June 2006 

CAMARADERIE 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES 

PRIDE IN JOB AND COMPANY 

• 9,14,17,22,27 

• 2,5,15,23,29 

• 11,16,18,20,28 

FAIR AND SOUND HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES 

MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES & CREDIBILITY 

TRUST

Annex 7. List of participants at the main 

event in Barcelona 

NAME COMPANY / INSTITUTIONS COUNTRY 

Ionescu Open Society Institute Hungary 

Klarsfeld Groupe Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Toulouse France 

Durán FRINOVA, S.A. Spain 

Galofré ALEX GALOFRÉ Spain 

Sauquet ESADE Spain 

Nowak University of Warsaw Poland 

Oliveira Barata PT Comunicações Portugal 

Sopena ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS S.L. Spain 

Castellano Capdet ESADE Spain 

Nilsson GPTW Sweden 

Droussiotis Intercollege Cyprus 

Garner ESADE Spain 

Lasaga Asea Brown Bovery, S.A. Spain 

Papachristou UCB S.A Greece 

Rossi GPTW Finland 

Carroll Clontarf Castle Hotel Ireland 

Puente IEL - ESADE Spain 

Teixeira Diniz Spirit Consulting Group Portugal 

Brohmé Nackageriatriken AB Sweden 

Richley ESADE Spain 

Rijmenams Institute for Equal Opportunities for men and women Belgium 

Esteve Viatges Turo Spain 

Losada ESADE Spain 

Obeso ESADE Spain 

Mincu 

Institute for Business and Public 

Admin.Bucharest-ASEBUSS 

Rumania 

Sola-Morales Escuela Turismo Sant Ignasi-ESADE Spain 

Straub IEL - ESADE Spain 

Soler ESADE Spain 

Turnbull IEL - ESADE Spain 

Orsen IEL - ESADE Spain 

Möll Europakontoret i Skåne AB Sweeden 

Isakson GPTW Sweden 

Mcelwee ESADE Spain 

Folguera Bellmunt ESADE Spain 

Alonso de Mercader ESADE Spain 

Annexes 

75




Rezania IEL - ESADE Spain 

Keenan EBS Building Society Ireland 

Hartmann E.ON Group Germany 

Ganoudis GPTW Greece 

van Dierendonck Erasmus The Netherlands 

Be European Commission Belgium 

Correiai CREDIBOM - Instituição Financeira de Crédito, S.A. Portugal 

Krikke Octrium The Netherlands 

Colomer Autoritat Portuària de Barcelona Spain 

Rodriguez R, CABLE Y TELECOMUNICACIONES GALICIA, S.A Spain 

Breuker Pentascope The Netherlands 

Verreet Vacature Belgium 

Durieux Shell International BV Netherlands 

Krikke Octrium The Netherlands 

Iglesia Management Outplacement Administration sa Spain 

Cribillers IEL - ESADE Spain 

Nolla PRYSMIAN CABLES Y SISTEMAS, S.L. Spain 

Martínez Rius Danone Spain 

Cruzeiro Costa HR Magazine Portugal 

Borg Die Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Germany 

Glória Pedras Grupo Pestana - Hotels & Resorts Portugal 

Llopis NEWARK CATALANA S.L. Spain 

Forsbom FIM Group Finland 

Urgell Consorci per a la Normalització Lingüística Spain 

Pusvaškis Baltic Management Institute Lithuania 

Sureda IEL - ESADE Spain 

Espanyó IEL - ESADE Spain 

Montoya UGT Spain 

de la Osa 

Spain 

Faase KDLP B.V. Netherlands 

Berg Kanal 5 Sweden 


76 

Fillova 

CzechInvest - Investment and Business 

Development Agency 

Czech Republic 

Dewettinck Vlerick Belgium 

De Wachter Fedex Belgium 

Blas ARBORA & AUSONIA SLU Spain




Tara Elion Ettevõtted AS Esthonia 

Bourrellier ESADE Spain 

Theodorakis L’OREAL HELLAS Greece 

van Marrewijk Erasmus The Netherlands 

Martí Ripoll ESADE Spain 

Bennetts IEL - ESADE Spain 

Reyes Transportes Ave Fénix Peru 

Diaz Vidana VIGEO France 

Raich ESADE Spain 

Fernandes GPTW Portugal 

Bueno Vigata Caja Madrid Spain 

Huková Timan s.r.o. Slovakia 

Mach IEL - ESADE Spain 

Arderiu MERCE ARDERIU HUIX Spain 

Diez Piñol IEL - ESADE Spain 

Ventosa GPTW Spain 

Bilici Universidad de Hacettepe (Ankara) Turkey 

Epitropaki Alba Graduate Business School Greece 

Nachtmannova Faculty of Business Management Slovakia 

Stella Guidant Corporation Italy 

Kyvik IEL - ESADE Spain 

Ellemann Knudsen Great Place to Work Denmark 

Kaartinen Nokia Finland 

Valle Cabrera Universidad Pablo de Olavide - Sevilla Spain 

Tsahkna Elion Ettevõtted AS Spain 

Rossi Morgan Stanley Italy 

Dahlberg Visma Spcs AB Sweden 

Alves Johnson & Johnson Medical Portugal 

Huddle GPTW UK 

Rubio IEL - ESADE Spain 

Pérez FUNDICIONES DE ODENA, S.A. Spain 

Lage GPTW Portugal 

Rizzo University of Malta - Centre for Labour Studies Malta 

Ezama SNACK VENTURES, S.A. Spain 

Tzafrir Haifa University Israel 

Dolan IEL - ESADE Spain 

Annexes 

77




Sreibere Banking Institution of Higher Education Lithuania 

Kusyk IEL - ESADE Spain 

Volkova Banking Institution of Higher Education Lithuania 

Eichner Lands´End GmbH Germany 

Mc Daniel CEU Graduate School of Business Hungary 

Huyghe Vlerick Belgium 

Lingham ESADE Spain 

Huisman Unilever Belgium 

Blagoev International University Sofia Bulgary 

Rodriguez Ardura 

Spain 

Kundrotas ISM University of Management and Economics Lithuania 

Bielecki 

Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship 

and Management 

Poland 

Liñan Danone Spain 

Suriol IEL - ESADE Spain 

Zhang IEL - ESADE Spain 

Kourounakou Alba Graduate Business School Greece 

Dvo áková University of Economics, Prague Czech Republic 


78

Annex 8. List of participants at the local workshop, 

Athens, November 2005 

NAME ROLE COMPANY 

Ms. Aggeliki Mylona Training - HR Department AGRO BANK OF GREECE S.A 

Ms. Maria Simosi Training - HR Department AGRO BANK OF GREECE S.A 

Ms. Marina Gryllaki Executive Development Director ALBA 

Mr. Nikos Ebeoglou Managing Director ALBA 

Dr. Olga Epitropaki Associate Professor of OB and HRM ALBA 

Ms. Zoe Kourounakou 

Director, Applied Research & International 

Projects Department 

ALBA 

Mr. Alexandros Kostiroglou Marketing Director ALBA 

Ms. Evi Pallili Career and alumni Manager ALBA 

Mr. Stathis Petropoulos Business Development Manager ALBA 

Ms. Haris Synodinou Communication & Corporate Relations Director ALBA 

Mr. Panagiotis Tarsinos 

Applied Research & Int. Projects Manager, 

Best Workplaces Evaluator 

ALBA 

Prof. Nickolaos Travlos Dean ALBA 

Ms. Gardika HR - Training Department ALPHA BANK S.A 

Ms. Aliki Zervou Training & Recruitment Manager BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM HELLAS S.A 

Mr. Evangelos Tartaris Security Department Assistant CITIGROUP 

Mr. George Hatzis Human Resources Director ELSA S.A 

Mr. Kosmas Mavillidis HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION EMA S.A 

Mr. Kyriakos Korolis Human Resources Director ERNST&YOUNG HELLAS S.A 

Prof. Simon Dolan Director of Research ESADE 

Ms. Dorothee Marshall Organization and Training Director EXODUS S.A 

Mr. Dimitris Kyrgiopoulos Human Resources Director FAGE S.A 

Ms. Pepi Papazafeiriou Personnel Development Supervisor FOODLINK S.A 

Mr. George Matsoukas Compensation & Benefits Manager GERMANOS GROUP OF COMPANIES 

Ms. Marina Nikolopoulou Compensation & Human Relations Manager GOODY’S S.A 

Mr. Niko Kritsantoni Human Resources Director HALIVOURGIKI S.A 

Ms. Sonia Georgiadou Human Resources Director HSBC BANK PLC 

Mr. Michael Simou Human Resources Director INFORM LYCOS S.A 

Mr. Theodoros Berdousis HR Assistant INTERFRANCHISE ... 

Mr. Manolis Theodorakis Human Resources Director L’OREAL Hellas 

Ms. Kostoula Kallas Compensation Benefits & HR Administration Manager OPEN 24 S.A 

Ms. Maria Billi Compensation Manager P&G 

Ms. Niki Nychtari Human Resources Director P&G 

Mr. Nikos Hiotis General Manager PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

Mr. Aris Bouloubassis HR Advisor PISCINES IDEALES S.A 

Mr. Stelios Stavridis CEO PISCINES IDEALES S.A 

Annexes 

79

Annex 8. List of participants at the local workshop, 

Athens, November 2005 


Ms. Lila Argyropoulou Marketing Assistant PISCINES IDEALES S.A 

Mr. Mihalis Tsogkas 

Ms. Maria Fratzikinaki 

Ms. Anthi Tsentou 

Mr. Dimitris Ganoudis 

Mr. George Mavros 

Managing Director, ITG 

HR Co-ordinator 

Great Place to Work Hellas Institute, Project Manager 

Great Place to Work Hellas Institute, Senior Consultant 

Great Place to Work Hellas Institute, Managing 

Director 

PRC GROUP THE MANAGEMENT 

HOUSE S.A 


HOUSE S.A 


HOUSE S.A 


HOUSE S.A 


HOUSE S.A 

Mr. Vaggelis Bertsekas HR Assistant Manager PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS S.A 

Mr. George Papaioannou Deputy HR Director of Production Public Power Corporation S.A 

Ms. Katerina Taliatouda HR Assistant VIOTER S.A 


80

Annex 9. List of participants at the local 

workshop Lisbon, April 2006 


Jurema Pereira HR Director AAA Serviços Financeiros 

Andreia Ferreira Consultant Select 

Nuno Peiriço HR Director CGEP 

Sérgio Mourão HR Director Marcopolo 

Faurecia Teresa Oliveira HR Director Fabrica Moldados 

Sofia Veríssimo HR Assessment Dep. TRECAR 

Adilia Pereira HR Director EDP 

Adroaldo Azevedo HR Director EPUL 

João Carvalhoe Melo HR Senior Manager Galp Serviços 

Maria José Campos Consultant Galp Serviços 

Inês Maria Rebocho HR Assessor Galp Serviços 

Ludgero Lemos HR Director Globe Motors Portugal 

Mónica Lira HR Technical Support Globe Motors Portugal 

Eunice Vieira HR Director Grohe Portugal 

Maria do Carmo Bessa CEO Homens & Sistemas 

Armando Marques HR Director IEFP 

Francisco Nunes Co-ordinator IGF da Segurança Social 

Marta Pires HR Technical Support IGF da Segurança Social 

Elsa Caldes HR Director Labicer – Lab. Industrial Cerâmico 

João Vieira HR Director LNP - Logística 

Maria Conceição Teixeira Senior Manager Select 

Maria Jesus Leitão HR Director MECI 

Francelina Costa HR Technical Support MECI 

Ana Bonito HR Technical Support MECI 

Patrícia Garcia HR Director Maco Mestre 

Laura Graça HR Technical Support Maco Mestre 

Elsa Cristina Correia HR Technical Support Metropolitano de Lisboa 

Sofia Graça Carrasco HR Technical Support Metropolitano de Lisboa 

Raquel Lourenço HR Technical Support Metropolitano de Lisboa 

Maria Teresa Madureira HR Technical Support Metropolitano de Lisboa 

Cristina Isabel Godinho HR Technical Support Ministério da Defesa Nac. da Marinha 

Carlos Andrade CEO Office Share 

Ana Cristina Curado HR Director RAR - Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas 

Eduardo Martins HR Director Rural Informática 

João dos Santos HR Technical Support Santa Casa da Misericórdia 

João Manuel Pacheco CEO SDO Consultores 

Bernardo Teixeira Diniz Managing Partner Spirit Consulting Group 

Victor Rodriguez Ardura Managing Partner Spirit Consulting Group 

Urbano Oliveira Consultant Spirit Consulting Group 

Cristina Menezes Consultant Spirit Consulting Group 

Frederico Cruzeiro Costa PR Senior Manager Spirit Consulting Group 

Rui Alves HR Director Johnson & Johnson Medical 

Helena Gonçalves Academic Universidade Católica Portuguesa 

Sandrine Lages CEO GPTW® Portugal 

Simon L Dolan Academic ESADE Business School 

Ana Rijo da Silva General Director RH Magazine 

Augusto Lobato Neves CEO RH Magazine 

Vanessa Henriques Executive Manager RH Magazine 

Cláudia Antunes Executive Mana ger RH Magazine 

Annexes 

81

FINAL REPORT: JUNE 2006

FINAL REPORT: JUNE 2006 - Spirit Consulting Group SL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?