This article outlines the policy and practice of the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) with respect to multinationals in the sector. It concludes that while the multinational policy of the ITGLWF is in line with other global union federations, the negotiation of International Framework Agreements is proving to be a much harder objective to realize. This can, in part, be explained by an anti-union stance on the part of some multinationals, a plethora of existing voluntary initiatives, and possible collective employer resistance to such a development.

As the auditing model for assuring social compliance in apparel commodity chains is called into question, the global quest continues for institutions, policies and governance structures which can contribute towards the protection of worker rights, the promotion of decent work and an upgrading of working conditions and competencies. One such model, promoted by Neil Kearney, the late General Secretary of the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation, calls for the implementation of mature systems of industrial relations (MSIR) based on trade union recognition, procedural agreements and collective bargaining. This working paper charts the origins of MSIR, deconstructs the approach into its constituent elements and critically assesses these against the backdrop of governance debates in outsourced apparel production. Some conclusions and recommendations are drawn for a future research agenda.

This article highlights the absence of explicit reference to training for European works councillors in both the 1994 Directive and its transposed form in national legislation. Analysis of `Article 13' voluntary agreements reveals a similar lack of attention to the issue. The authors examine the infrastructure of EWC training in Europe and highlight the significance of European Commission funding for transnational meetings in advance of the implementation of the Directive. The absence of a requirement in the Directive and a reduction in Commission funding will have implications for the organization and delivery of EWC training and ultimately for the effectiveness of multinational consultation and information procedures in the future.

Attempts to redefine equality initiatives to fit squarely within the enterprise culture serve only to mask an ongoing conceptual confusion in the area of equality management. This theoretical article attempts to show that this conceptual confusion lies within the narrowness of approaches which address labour market inequalities from both an equality of opportunity and an equality of outcome perspective. The inability of these perspectives to satisfactorily address systemic causes of labour market inequalities pulls our attention towards a more materialist approach which may be found (this side of a capitalist/patriarchal society) within an equality of condition frame of reference. This widens the perspective from which equality management can be pursued so that measures to address the differential distribution of resources, rewards, opportunities and treatment in the workplace are informed by all three equalities: opportunity, outcome and conditions. Such a theoretical approach is inevitably limited in that it only provides a framework for addressing those who are in paid employment, i.e. seeks to reform the capitalist/patriarchal system. However, by posing questions of the crucial pillars of such systems notably status, reward and with that power, the ‘long’ and ‘radical’ agendas of the equality project may once again be picked up.

No abstract