Modern labour law is a product of the industrial revolution. In an earlier age, the rights and obligations of capital and labour were status based, such as master and servant, or landowner and farmworker. The move into factories led to the demise of status‐based based obligations. In the initial stages, the wages‐for‐work performed transaction resulted in harsh working conditions and significant insecurity for most workers who lacked bargaining power. Labour law was developed, based on a notion of ‘employment’ resting on a contractual relationship between employer and employee with rights and obligations, shaped by statutory regulation. In the twenty‐first century, this notion of employment that undergirds labour law has been breaking down as we move into the information age. Technological change led to a digital or gig economy where IT platforms using algorithms can replace managers and workers are no longer employees, where labour law often does not apply, and where full‐time, stable employment is disappearing. The challenge is to devise a new labour law which focuses on the fundamental rights and needs of working people. How these changes will affect any specific country depends on its level of economic development, and its already established mechanisms for responding to disruptive changes. Advanced democratic countries may experience greater disruption and find it more difficult to form the consensus necessary to devise new policies and laws for supporting workers.

Although there is a voluminous literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), there has been a conspicuous silence on what constitutes a socially responsible corporate stance regarding workers in situations that fall within the boundaries of internationally accepted human rights standards. Corporate statements typically avoid any discussion of what a given human right might mean in practice or whether there is some generally accepted statement of what the right means. To highlight the tension between traditional notions of CSR and emerging soft law on the human rights responsibilities of business, this paper reviews the employers' position at the 2012 International Labour Conference challenging the meaning of one International Labour Organization (ILO) core convention. This paper reviews company codes of conduct and how company reporting mechanisms relate to the ILO fundamental principles that embody human rights in the work context. In light of the United Nations (UN) Global Compact and the UN Human Rights Council's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie framework), the paper will critique the view that ILO supervisory bodies cannot authoritatively say what a core convention means.

The author argues that the June 2012 challenge by the ILO Employers' group to the hitherto generally accepted view regarding the right to strike under the Freedom of Association Convention, No. 87, is at odds with the historical understanding of the framework in which the Convention is embedded. She demonstrates how the ILO constituents have consistently recognized that there is a positive right to strike, which is inextricably linked to – and an inevitable corollary of – the right to freedom of association. The article also analyses the relative roles of the ILO supervisory bodies in this regard.

The responsibility of multinational enterprises to respect labour rights in global operations has been widely discussed in the corporate social responsibility and business ethics literature. In recent years, legal scholars have tried to formalize this discussion around the legal concepts of corporate due diligence and corporate liability. This contribution outlines these legal trends. It presents the relevant transnational case law and provides some ideas for interdisciplinary research on multinational enterprises and labour rights.

The author argues that the June 2012 challenge by the ILO Employers' group to the hitherto generally accepted view regarding the right to strike under the Freedom of Association Convention, No. 87, is at odds with the historical understanding of the framework in which the Convention is embedded. She demonstrates how the ILO constituents have consistently recognized that there is a positive right to strike, which is inextricably linked to – and an inevitable corollary of – the right to freedom of association. The article also analyses the relative roles of the ILO supervisory bodies in this regard.