PRINT

EU Intervention - ILO Reform Process - Informal governmental consultations in preparation of the 355th Session of the Governing Body

15.09.2025
Geneva
Press and information team of the Delegation to the UN in Geneva

EU intervention on ILO Reform Process

Informal governmental consultations in preparation of the 355th Session of the Governing Body

15 September 2025

 

Director General,

I am taking the floor on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania*, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, and the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway align themselves with this position.

 

General remarks

  1. We would like to thank the Office for organising this consultation with the governments and for presenting a paper on the upcoming item INS/7 of the 355th Governing Body regarding “ILO in a changing multilateral environment: Towards better effectiveness and efficiency.” and for the complementary information provided ahead of the consultation which includes figures and options for consideration. We thank the Office for the additional note, which we will study thoroughly and come back with feedback in due course.

  2. We strongly support reform of the ILO in these challenging times. It is important that the reform is fully aligned with the 3 work streams of the UN80 process and seeks synergies and efficiencies across specialised UN agencies.

  3. The reform process has to be transparent, inclusive and meaningful, and with the strategic vision to strengthen the ILO by putting it on sustainable footing.

  4. The ILO should be fit-for-purpose, ensuring that it can effectively deliver on its core mandate, the centre of which lies in its normative role, reinforcing a strong, functioning normative system with standard setting and an effective monitoring system.

  5. The reforms have to be geared towards effectiveness and efficiency as main criteria, without undermining the capacity or credibility of the ILO. The case for reform measures has to be underpinned by a clear cost-benefit analysis.

  6. We note that the reform paper lacks clear figures/data on increased efficiency. To express an informed position, we need to have more figures on all the implications and risks in the short mid/ long term, including hidden costs and possible immaterial costs, as well as the impact on the functioning of the organisation of the different proposals. 

  7. We note the potential measures presented in the complementary note in case of a significant budget cut, and we are ready to engage further on this matter.

  8. Assessing the ambition of cost cuts depends on a detailed overview of the financial state of the ILO.

  9. We raise concerns regarding the regular practice of delayed payments, and call on all ILO Member States to pay their assessed contributions on time and in full.

  10. This is a critical phase for ILO and all UN staff. We underline the importance of social dialogue. The ILO has to be faithful to the values it promotes. The involvement of the ILO’s staff in the process and a human-centred approach are essential.

 

ILO mandate and avoiding duplications with other UN agencies

  1. The reform should be used as an opportunity to further strengthen the ILO's profile in relation to its mandate, rather than simply being used to push through necessary cuts.

  2.  We would have expected to find a review of the ILO’s mandate in light of where it might overlap with other UN agencies. We also would have wanted to see what needs to be done to have an aligned approach without duplication or competition between agencies. This is the essence of the UN-80 reform process.

  3. We prefer to see a specific focus put on international labour standards as a core element of ILO’s mandate: ILS are at the core of ILO’s activity and should, as a matter of fact, be identified as such in the paragraph on the core mandate.

  4. It would also be useful to have some more information, including concrete examples on the deprioritization of initiatives, programmes and activities that fall outside the ILO’s mandate as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the consultation note.

 

Restructuring

  1. We are happy to see the reduction in management positions, which contributes to making the ILO less top heavy. 

  2. However, it is important that it be done in a balanced manner so as not to downgrade the priority and resources devoted to the core normative mandate, with gender equality and non-discrimination as cross-cutting objectives. We noticed the newly expanded portfolio given to the DDG, who would oversee not only all the priority action programmes but also all the policy departments. The proposal could create imbalance in the organisation. Policy has previously been solely under one DDG, but the responsibilities and accountabilities were distributed in a way that ensured a system of checks and balances. We should aim to continue a realistic and balanced distribution of departments between the DDG and ADGs. 

  3. It will be important to have a DDG candidate with strong competences regarding policies under ILO core mandate and experience with tripartism.

  4. We would like to see a more detailed organigram of the organisation so we can have a better idea of the different branches and units under the bigger departments.

 

Relocation

  1. We support the plan to reduce costs through appropriate relocation while increasing synergies and reinforcing the ILO core mandate. 

  2. We have been supportive of relocation to the field as it is important to have the competences closer to the ILO’s constituents.

  3. We also see value in relocation of functions and departments to contribute to the cost-saving exercise.

  4. Relocation of functions and departments has to be meaningful and consistent with ILO’s normative work, which is at the core and centre of its mandate. It has to follow a clear strategy and increase the impact of ILO’s work, its effectiveness and efficiency. Preserving the synergies and effectiveness of departments engaged in the core normative work across the four pillars of the Decent Work Agenda is a priority.

  5. We would like to receive additional information on what to relocate and the related benefits and costs, including how relocation would affect access and visibility of evaluation and oversight functions.

  6. When considering relocation of functions and departments, due consideration needs to be made of the record of potential host countries, in terms of their clear commitment to and implementation of fundamental principles and rights at work, in particular tripartism and social dialogue.

  7. Moreover, we value that due consideration is given to the ILO’s existing assets in the context of the relocation proposals.

 

Other efficiencies

  1. We welcome savings linked to non-staff cost, such as the use of AI and the discontinuation of printing of official documents. In this context, the costs of the initial investments must be kept in mind.

  2. As regards the sectoral meetings, instead of reducing the number from six to four, we were wondering, if alternative innovative cost-saving approaches were considered.

  3. We would like to call on you to explore savings on staff benefits and other non-staff related costs, including on rules related to business travel, in particular travels in business class.

 

* North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.