Global Labour‐Standards Advocacy by European Civil Society Organizations: Trends and Developments

Abstract

In recent years, developments in intergovernmental organizations and transnational private governance organizations have created new opportunities and constraints for the promotion of global labour-standards governance by civil society organizations (CSOs). This article describes how European CSOs (including trade union organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) respond to these developments. It argues that European civil society is witnessing a threefold shift in priorities of labour-standards advocacy: frompushing regulatory approaches to organizational capacity building; from corporate responsibility strategies focused on compliance to strategies focused on transparency; and from fair labour standards within the sustainable development agenda to a host of other issues. The overall result is that labour-standards advocacy in general and private labour governance in particular are receiving less attention from European CSOs.

After Rana Plaza: Building coalitional power for labour rights between unions and (consumption-based) social movement organisations

“…Global supply chains pose a particular challenge to traditional forms of regulating labour in that they are often used explicitly to avoid regulation. Amidst growing debate on new forms of private, transnational governance, scholars have focused both on the shifting role of "traditional" actors within global labour governance, such as organized labour, as well as the role of "new" actors, such as consumers and collective actors who attempt to mobilise consumption power (Fransen and Burgoon, 2013). As a fragmented and polycentric patchwork of regulatory initiatives and hybrid forms of governance emerge, it has remained unclear what roles different actors play, how they can assert power in supply chain actors and how they can meaningfully cooperate.…”

“…Bartley, 2007), the mere threat of such activities may suffice to alert companies to avoid inflicting damage on their actual sales or reputation of their brand, which has become a significant intangible asset in the global economy (Lury and Moor, 2010 (Locke, 2013) or by adopting private labour standards (e.g. Bartley, 2007;Fransen and Burgoon, 2013).…”

When Industrial Democracy Meets Corporate Social Responsibility — A Comparison of the Bangladesh Accord and Alliance as Responses to the Rana Plaza Disaster

“…Yet, organized labour itself has been conspicuously absent from the definition, design and governance of CSR. This is surprising given that many CSR initiatives are aimed at the improvement of labour standards (Fransen and Burgoon ; Locke ). An alternative approach to the regulation of labour within global supply chains that puts workers at the centre of the design and implementation of initiatives to improve their conditions is grounded in Industrial Democracy.…”

Civil Governance in Work and Employment Relations: How Civil Society Organizations Contribute to Systems of Labour Governance

“…As indicated already, novel and innovative forms of private regulation at transnational level, such as labour codes of conduct, which have become prominent features of the global governance landscape, often involve input from CSOs (e.g. Bartley 2007;Fransen and Burgoon 2013;Donaghey et al 2014;Locke 2013;O'Rourke 2005). Within national-level settings, however, much of the attention which has been devoted to the regulatory role of CSOs relates to how they give working people, particularly those in precarious employment, voice, representation and protection, mainly through efforts to influence state policy (e.g.…”

“…Burchell and Cook 2013;Yaziji and Doh 2009), particularly with regard to how far their interventions induce corporations to behave in more socially responsible ways (e.g. Fransen 2012; Fransen and Burgoon 2013). Much of this concern relates to the efforts of CSOs to regulate the behaviour of firms, through governance arrangements that enable them to exercise oversight over, and influence, business policy and practice (Newell 2008).…”