Works councils, whether in private or public companies or establishments, are far from homogeneous. Their management and financing arrangements differ greatly depending on how the companies developed. They may originally be from the private sector or they may have been public and then nationalized, or they may have transformed from an administration to a private company. A new labor representation ordinance was introduced in France in 2017 and this editorial questions the impact of the subsequent creation of centralized bodies of social and economic councils (CSE), asking, for example, whether their implementation has facilitated a more collective approach within organizations. We also ask whether the impact of the adoption of this reform varies according to the public or private trajectory of companies, or whether other criteria such as size, sector or type of management are more significant. As the only country in Europe to have integrated social and cultural activities in this way, we question whether there are other specificities in France in relation to the financing and consultation arrangements for social activities. This editorial seeks to answer these questions through a review of the literature, followed by a presentation of the articles in the issue that address the heterogenous nature of the implementation of the reform of works councils. Several articles suggest that the public or private status of the company is less significant than the relations between trade union and professional organizations, which differ according to status, size, sector and country. Despite this heterogeneity, however, most French cases appear to indicate that the power of representation of wage-earners or agents is being weakened. This issue also includes articles dealing with different experiences in Great-Britain, Germany and the US.