According to the ILO, social dialogue is defined to include all types of negotiation, consultation or simply exchange of information between, or among, representatives of governments, employers and workers on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy. The definition and concept of social dialogue vary from country to country and from region to region, and they are still evolving. The enabling conditions for social dialogue are as follows: (1) strong, independent workers’ and employers’ organizations with the technical capacity and access to the relevant information to participate in social dialogue; (2) political will and commitment to engage in social dialogue on the part of all the parties; (3) respect for the fundamental rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining; and (4) Appropriate institutional support. For social dialogue to work, the State cannot be passive even if it is not a direct actor in the process. It is responsible for creating a stable political and civil climate that enables autonomous employers’ and workers’ organizations to operate freely, without fear of reprisal. Even when the dominant relationships are formally bipartite, the State has to provide essential support for the parties’ actions by providing the legal, institutional and other frameworks that enable the parties to act effectively. Social dialogue takes many different forms. It can exist as a tripartite process, with the government as an official party to the dialogue, or it may consist of bipartite relations only between labour and management (or trade unions and employers’ organizations), with or without indirect government involvement. Concertation can be informal or institutionalized, and often it is a combination of the two. It can take place at the national, regional or enterprise level. It can be inter-professional, sectoral or a combination of all of these. Social dialogue institutions are often defined by their composition. They can be bipartite, tripartite or “tripartite plus”. The key tripartite actors are the representatives of government, employers and workers. At times, and depending on specific national contexts, the tripartite partners may choose to open the dialogue to other relevant actors in society in an effort to gain a wider perspective, to incorporate the diverse views of other social actors and to build a wider consensus. Social dialogue can take a variety of forms, ranging from the simple act of exchanging information to the more developed forms of concertation. The following is intended as a short-list of the most usual forms of social dialogue: (1) Information-sharing is one of the most basic and indispensable elements for effective social dialogue. In itself, it implies no real discussion or action on the issues but it is nevertheless an essential part of those processes by which dialogue and decisions take place. (2) Consultation goes beyond the mere sharing of information and requires an engagement by the parties through an exchange of views that in turn can lead to more in-depth dialogue. (3) Tripartite or bipartite bodies can engage in negotiations and the conclusion of agreements. While many of these institutions make use of consultation and information-sharing, some are empowered to reach agreements that can be binding. Those social dialogue institutions that do not have such a mandate normally serve in an advisory capacity to ministries, legislators and other policy-makers and decision-makers. (4) Collective bargaining is not only an integral – and one of the most widespread forms of social dialogue, but it can be seen as a useful indicator of the capacity within a country to engage in national-level tripartism. Parties can engage in collective bargaining at the enterprise, sectoral, regional, national and even multinational level. Social dialogue takes into account each country’s cultural, historical, economic and political context. There is no “one size fits all” model of social dialogue that can be readily exported from one country to another. Social dialogue differs greatly from country to country, though the overriding principles of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining remain the same. Adapting social dialogue to the national situation is key to ensuring local ownership of the process. There is a rich diversity in institutional arrangements, legal frameworks and traditions, and practices of social dialogue throughout the world. This is well illustrated by the series of country studies published by the InFocus Programme on Social Dialogue between 2001 and 2005. Social dialogue plays a key role in achieving the ILO’s objective of promoting opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equality, security and human dignity. See: Collective bargaining; Freedom of association and protection of the right to organize