Dissensus and Deadlock in the Evolution of Labour Governance: Global Supply Chains and the International Labour Organization (ILO)

Abstract

Global supply chains (GSCs) present the International Labour Organization (ILO) with a challenge that goes to the heart of its founding mandate and structure, one built on the prominence of nation states and national representatives of employers and workers. In February 2020, discussions in the ILO on the rise of GSCs reached deadlock. To fully understand why the ILO has been unable to address decent work deficits in GSCs greater attention needs to be paid to contestation, power and legitimacy in the deliberation of labour governance. Drawing on the concept of agonistic pluralism we examine the evolution of the ILO’s attempt to establish a new labour standard on GSCs under three empirical phases between 2002 and 2020. We argue that shifting power asymmetries between the tripartite constituents of governments, employers and workers, increased counter-hegemonic contestation, and intensified questioning of the deliberative legitimacy of the adversaries, explain the dissensual relations at the ILO. This article contributes to the literature on labour standards in GSCs in demonstrating how and why contestation underpins the evolution of labour governance over time.

Global Social Policy Digest 24.2: Recalibrating investment at the global level

“…In recent years, governance initiatives aimed at holding companies accountable for human rights abuses and environmental impacts along supply chains have picked up pace. While this does not hold true for the ILO's attempt to address its regulatory shortfalls in fighting decent work deficits in global supply chains, 10 several nation states and the EU have enacted supply chain laws. Human and social rights are covered by the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD, entered into force on 5 January 2024), 11 the legal initiative to prohibit products produced by forced labor from the EU's single market, and the adjusted Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).…”

Global South States’ Views on Building Partnerships with Corporations: An Agonistic Struggle in the UN and Beyond

“…Over the past few years, an increasing amount of studies in business ethics have drawn inspiration from Mouffe's (2005Mouffe's ( , 2013 ethico-political conceptualisation of agonistic pluralism (e.g. Fougère & Solitander, 2020;Barthold & Bloom, 2020;Brand et al, 2020;Brown & Tregidga, 2017;Burchell & Cook, 2013;Sorsa & Fougère 2021;Couch and Bernaccio, 2020;Dawkins, 2015Dawkins, , 2021Dawkins, , 2022Edward & Willmott, 2013;Rhodes et al, 2020;Thomas & Anner, 2023;Tregidga and Milne, 2020;Winkler et al, 2020).…”