International Framework Agreements and the democratic deficit of global labour governance

Abstract

Democratization beyond the nation-state level has been on the scholarly agenda of international political economists since the early 1990s. Academic debates have generated a mushrooming literature on the ‘democratic deficit’ of global governance. In the field of industrial relations, scholarly interest on the relevance of democracy has translated into a rich body of literature on workplace democracy. Yet, research has been concerned with the national and local levels largely neglecting the transnational dimension. This article discusses the potential of International Framework Agreements (IFAs) to address the democratic deficit of the global governance of labour. In doing so, it borrows notions largely established in the field of international political economy and applies them to an industrial relations problem (i.e. impact of IFAs on the ground) drawing on case-study evidence from three IFAs in the telecoms, energy and apparel sectors. The article examines what accounts for IFAs’ capacity for representation, legitimacy, accountability and transparency.

Constructing Transnational Solidarity: The Role of Campaign Governance

“…Transnationalism between labour actors in developed countries where labour is firmly institutionalized is a necessary issue, to be sure, but hardly sufficient in creating a global labour movement. If success in transnational labour alliances were to be reconceptualized as the need to strengthen workers and unions in the Global South, there is a clear imperative for local participation in global decisions, in ways that overcome the democratic deficit in global labour governance that Niforou () highlights. This deficit is more apparent in the UNI campaign relative to the IUF's where local interests, strategies and tactics assumed centrer stage.…”

“…Thereafter, networking events with other unions in the region was necessary before Sintracarbon was able to begin a formal process of dialogue with employers that resulted in the successful organization of contract workers in the Colombian mining industry. Niforou (), adopting a global governance perspective in her study of the implementation of GFAs in two cases (Endesa and Telefonica), highlights the difficulties in successfully using GFA provisions for local union organization and recognition for collective bargaining purposes. She suggests that, had local actors been involved, the representation problems noted in the Endesa GFA would have been addressed.…”

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

“…The Accord also stands out for being able to reach a large number of suppliers (in excess of 1500 factories employing more than two million workers) within a sector, backed by legal enforceability, thus avoiding the problem associated with International Framework Agreements which often work best where they are needed least, i.e. in those sites where workers are organised and/or have strong legal support (Niforou, 2014). While not all factories are covered by the Accord, approximately half of all workers in the sector and most of those in directly exporting firms are covered by the Accord.…”

Trade union pedagogy and cross‐border action

“…To date, one can roughly divide research into two overlapping strands. Others questioned their membership base because the blurring of boundaries between industries and sectors can in practice affect its expansion (Niforou 2014). Theoretically informed macro-level discussions on the future of global labour dominate the second strand.…”

“…Sceptics were concerned about GUFs' lack of a formal mandate under national, European or international law that would allow them to represent the interests of their members through negotiation and bargaining (Sobczak 2008). Others questioned their membership base because the blurring of boundaries between industries and sectors can in practice affect its expansion (Niforou 2014). Moreover, most GUF campaigns are usually top-down strategies built on perceived rather than actual shared interests.…”