本文的目的在於比較德國與台灣在代議性勞工參與制度化過程的經驗，從比較中試圖闡明社會對話在產業民主發展上所扮演的積極性角色。本文的模式強調代議性勞工參與的成功發展需要仰賴建設性社會對話。所謂建設性社會對話係勞資政三方以一種建設性與互惠的方式進行互動以協商勞資關係的規則與程序的過程。要使這種對話產生，有利的制度環境必須存在來促進勞資政三者之間的互信與共識。德國戰後在代議性勞工參與的發展經驗較能驗證本文的模式。而台灣的案例似乎隱涵著一種相對的教材，說明著缺乏這種對話不利於勞資關係民主化的發展。

This paper compares the differences in the experiences of institutionalizing representative workers’ participation between Germany and Taiwan and attempts to shed light on the role of social dialogue in the developments of industrial democracy. Our model posits that the successful developments of representative workers’ participation depend upon the productive social dialogue in which industrial relations actors interact to negotiate new rules and regulations governing labor relations in a constructive and reciprocal way. For such dialogue to take place, favorable institutional environments should exist to facilitate mutual trust and agreements among industrial relations parties. German postwar experiences in representative workers’ participation seem to support our arguments, while the case of Taiwan tends to imply that a lack of such dialogue and complementary institutional factors lead to unsuccessful democratic developments in industrial relations.