Avainsana: ILO

Julkaistu

Governments, business and stakeholders need to work together for supply chain sustainability

Supply chain social responsibility is on the move this spring. The tripartite ILO International Labour Conference will be a high point with governments, employers and trade unions debating how best to secure human rights and promote decent work. Countries around the world are following up on the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, setting their own National Action Plans. Many sustainability schemes and initiatives are developing and stepping up their own work. The professional social auditors have established their own organisation APSCA to secure and develop audit quality.

It is important to ensure that the activities and programmes are efficient and help bring about positive change. The attention to policy and structures should not move away the focus from real and concrete efforts to improve labour conditions. Taking care of the tools and using them effectively should complement each other, not compete about our attention.

We need broad engagement for sustainable supply chains

Public-private cooperation is an important element of any effective sustainability efforts, also in consumer countries that work on their own social and environmental responsibilities in global supply chains.

Governments need to influence supplier countries to play an active role in ensuring human rights and decent working conditions. They must also set rules for buyer companies and other supply chain participants to follow. Bringing together business and stakeholders around joint objectives and tasks, such as Germany is doing in its textile alliance – – Bündnis für nachhaltige Textilien – is equally essential.

Buyer brands and retailers can and must use their commercial power and know-how to require and help their business partners to behave responsibly. Carefully designed buying practices and agreements can both encourage and enable this.

Trade unions and non-governmental organisations are important partners in this work, enabling and helping workers to participate in setting labour conditions.

GSCP has created a solid base for convergence and cooperation

The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP has done much to help brands and retailers translate their sustainability commitments to concrete action. The GSCP Reference Code and a collection of sustainability tools now form a solid base for effective sustainability engagement. They were all created through a multi-stakeholder process and aim at securing full respect for universal human rights. Furthermore, they set minimum requirements for decent working and employment conditions, based on ILO International Labour Conventions. Key toolbox elements deal with sustainability management systems, both for suppliers and for buyer companies. Others cover all aspects of social auditing and auditor competence, setting minimum standards that should ensure reliable audits.

GSCP was created to drive an upward convergence of social responsibility codes and standards, based on the ambitious reference code and the application guidelines in the toolbox. This would enable mutual recognition of social audit results and help direct more resources to capacity building and remediation at supplier workplaces. The GSCP equivalence process was developed for the analysis and benchmarking that serves this process.

This important initiative by many of the world’s largest brands and retailers has had a much broader impact than only driving its core convergence objective. We have seen a remarkable growth of both awareness and engagement in the business community with activities levels stepped up across many industries. A good and welcome example is the commitment made by the Consumer Goods Forum CGF to play an active role in working for the UN Sustainable Development Goals SDG’s.

The first concrete joint measure by the CGF companies will be launching of an ambitious and welcome project to eliminate forced labour from their supply chains. This will also be reflected in the work of GSCP now that the Reference Code, toolbox and equivalence process are in place. This does not mean that other parts of the Code would be neglected, they will continue to be as important as ever on the agendas and programmes of the individual brands and retailers.

Sustainability schemes and initiatives update their own approaches

Buyers need to be actively engaged if we really want to secure human rights and decent working conditions in global supply chains. Corporate social responsibility CSR schemes and initiatives can contribute to the quality and efficiency of this engagement. To achieve this, both transparency and full civil society engagement are needed.

There have been big changes and efficiency boosts also on the standard and code application side. As an example, Social Accountability Accreditation Services SAAS has further increased the reliability of the already demanding SA8000 Social Standard. The sustainability auditing industry itself has established a new organisation to safeguard audit quality and reliability. The Association for Professional Social Compliance Auditors (APSCA) is an important initiative and I was happy to accept an invitation to join their Stakeholder Board.

Also other sustainability programmes such as Social Accountability International SAI and the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI have updated their codes or standards. They have continued to add more emphasis on remediation and capacity building and have developed new innovative approaches for this. Others, such as the Better Cotton Initiative BCI and the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS are also working on code and standard revisions and the Fairtrade movement has just released a new textile standard.

Improvements in conditions are the test for schemes and initiatives

To improve the instruments is of course not enough. Supply chain workers are still too often working under sub-standard conditions and paid far below what is needed for a decent life. Voices that reject voluntary business initiatives and call for far reaching legislation instead will grow stronger unless concrete and significant improvements at supplier workplaces are made at a faster pace.

There is today a genuine disappointment over the slowness or lack of visible improvements in labour and social conditions in global supply chains. These sentiments go also beyond the many advocacy organisations and trade unions that are actively voicing their frustrations.

The best way for the business community to respond is to step up their contributions to bring about real improvements of human rights and labour conditions in the supply chain. The new Consumer Goods Forum CGF forced labour initiative is a good example of this and can lead to substantial positive change. This is a sign of success also for the patient work done by GSCP, to build awareness and drive convergence in the sustainability work of global buyers. The challenge is now to use the significant commercial power of these world class companies to translate this commitment into real action. GSCP will have an important role in making this possible, as will also cooperating sustainability schemes and initiatives.

Sustainability initiatives and mainstream labour relations can complement each other

The best approach to improve labour conditions includes organised social partners, effectively applied labour legislation, collective agreements and an efficient labour inspection system. As this is still a distant dream in large parts of the world also other approaches are needed. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is a manifestation of this.

Voluntary schemes and initiatives are there also to help buying brands and retailers respect their obligations. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights could hardly be applied without these business-driven or multi-stakeholder programmes which build on social auditing and focus on remediation and capacity building.

We should remember that all leading schemes demand full respect for freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Also unions and advocacy organisations could and should use this for supporting organising efforts.

Colder labour relations climate hurts supply chain cooperation

Buying brands and retailers are targeted also without valid reasons and the CSR concept itself is put in question. Often this relates to anti-globalisation drives and is more general and political than referring to concrete supply chain issues. It does also reflect an overall polarisation of opinions and a deterioration of labour relations where social partnership gives way for the struggle over dwindling resources.

Recession pitches business and unions against each other. Having negotiated how the fruits of growth are shared, capital and labour are now engaged in a combat over who shoulders losses. High unemployment and deteriorating social services add to conflicts. Unions are pushed into defence by business circles and their political supporters who want to get rid of collective agreements and legal regulations that are seen as restrictive.

Supply chain sustainability cooperation is clearly affected by this lack of confidence.

Conflicts at home is not an excuse to forget joint obligations

The commercial workers’ trade unions engaged themselves for improving supply chain conditions during the time that I was in charge of UNI Commerce Global Union. We joined the advisory and stakeholder boards of initiatives such as Social Accountability International SAI, the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI and the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP.

These decisions were not made without thorough considerations. Many of the large retailers that we came to work with were formidable opponents in their own employer roles. What made us sign up to these initiatives was the conviction that our own conflicts should not be played out at the expense of the already hard pressed and badly treated supply chain workers and their families.

This was a very mature and responsible stance by the large commerce trade unions around the world that were our members. Something of the same spirit would be needed also today. This would require also many buyer brands and retailers to take a more positive stance to involving workers and their unions in supply chain sustainability work.

Julkaistu

Germany’s G7 social supply chain agenda calls for more positive business and union attitudes

UN - Palais Wilson in Geneva
Palais Wilson in Geneva is the UN human rights headquarters. The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights created a solid basis on which Germany’s G7 Presidency can now try to launch a new and more socially responsible approach to global supply chains. Geneva is also the home of the global social dialogue and tripartite cooperation at the International Labour Organisation ILO. Governments and the social partners need to see to it that they use the opportunity that they now have thanks to the German government and bring justice and humanity to the people who produce much of what the more well to do parts of the world consume.

The German Presidency of the G7 Group of leading industrialised countries deserves much appreciation for their activity in supporting human rights and better labour conditions in global supply chains. The Summit on Sunday and Monday at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria could set conditions that drive real improvements in conditions which still are unacceptably bad in many producing countries. At a G7 Conference earlier this spring in Berlin, where I participated on behalf of the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS, the German development and labour ministers Gerd Müller and Andrea Nahles made their country’s commitment to improve supply chain conditions very clear. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Chancellor Angela Merkel herself in the run up to this weekend’s G7 Summit.

The obligation to ensure proper living and labour conditions for supply chain workers and their families is of course with the national governments, and the employers directly concerned. This does not mean that the international community would be free of responsibility and lack influence. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are quite clear about this, both when it comes to government and business.

As labour conditions in general, the basic protection of supply chain workers should be set through legislation. This comprises the universal human rights conventions and includes the fundamental rights as defined in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Woirk and its Core Conventions which forbid child labour, forced labour and discrimination. Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining is also one of these fundamental rights, although all too many employers conveniently try to forget it.

It is obvious that the G7 countries and others need to put effective legislation in place to ensure that businesses based in these countries respect these norms also when they are active abroad. This would be welcome also for those responsible buyer companies that take their supply chain commitment seriously as it would create a level playing field where good corporate behaviour would not hurt their competitiveness. This follow up to the UN Guiding Principles is in fact already in motion in many industrialised countries, large and small.

All the necessary elements for decent work are not covered by the UN Guiding Principles or Core ILO Conventions. This we can see also by looking at leading supply chain codes and standards such as the GSCP Reference Code or the SA8000 Social Standard – and many of the Fairtrade Standards – which are much more complete.

Labour legislation can define minimum requirements and thus hinder at least the most serious forms of rights violations and exploitation that could push also general conditions down. In a developed industrial relations system, laws are completed by employers and trade unions through collective agreements and social dialogue on different levels.

We are still very far from this in most important producer regions and it could take very long before local tripartite structures would bear the responsibility for regulating wages and conditions. This is of course a main reason that the UN Guiding Principles has come about.

Here we need public-private partnerships, to help make good intentions and principles into reality. The German authorities have clearly understood this and involved brands and retailers, trade unions and other stakeholders. Hopefully the business and trade union communities will also grow up to the challenge. They need to cooperate on these supply chain issues even when other interests may pitch them against each other.

Both business and unions have indeed been active as the G7 Summit comes closer.

We have seen some concrete commitments from leading businesses, in addition to general support statements for Germany’s G7 initiatives. Leading global food brands and retailers have promised to take concrete action to help realize the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which will be formally agreed on later this year. In a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel on behalf of the 400 Consumer Goods Forum member companies, the CEOs of Royal Ahold and Nestle commit these leading retailers and food brands to acting concretely to help secure and improve human rights and labour conditions in global supply chains.

These companies will now have to deliver on their promises which I am very optimistic about. The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP, which works independently but is hosted by the Consumer Goods Forum, will have to play an important coordinating and supporting role. The corporate social responsibility CSR schemes and initiatives will be important tools and resources for practical on the ground work.

Maybe also the International Trade Union Confederation ITUC needs to take a new look at what CSR organisations such as SAI SA8000, ETI, FWF, BSCI and others are doing today. They have nothing to do with the paternalist approach to human resource management that sometimes has been labelled as corporate social responsibility. The CSR organisations which all involve civil society and build on third party verification of conditions in the supply chain have their main focus on capacity building and remediation of conditions at supplier workplaces. All of them have codes or standards that are clear on supporting freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Sometimes it is difficult for me to understand why they are not mobilised to support efforts to organise workers, gain employer recognition and negotiate fair and decent conditions.

It is equally important that buying brands and retailers and the business community more broadly understand how important it is in supplier countries that workers can organise freely and that proper structures and practices for collective agreement negotiations and social dialogue are established.

Julkaistu

As governments get more active business and stakeholders need better supply chain cooperation

Will this year be a game changer when it comes to protecting and promoting human rights, labour conditions and environmental sustainability in global supply chains? Much is now happening on different arenas and if things work out as they should, we may see major positive changes.

There is important government activity in main consumer regions of the world. Many countries are transposing the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights into national legislation. Germany is committed to drive these issues within the G7 agenda during its Presidency this year. ILO, OECD and the World Bank are all stepping up their supply chain cooperation and activities.

Also the business community is on  the move. Many of the world’s  largest brands and retailers send signals about a more active grip and closer cooperation on their supply chain sustainability issues. A key player is the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP which already has a widely accepted Reference Code in place, complemented by a well furbished toolbox for its implementation.

Public-private cooperation is the proper and most effective way for consumer countries to positively influence social and environmental conditions in the global supply chains.

To ensure maximum efficiency and results, brands and retailers on one side and unions and advocacy organisations on the other side need to develop a constructive and pragmatic cooperation and overcome their adversarial relations in supply chain work. Conflicts in other issues should not be allowed to undermine the work for human rights and better conditions for the often very disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families. This is an area where all efforts are needed and different approaches should be accepted and supported.

Julkaistu

Berlin Conference: G7 German Presidency drives stronger human rights and labour protection in global supply chains – world brands and retailers should step up their participation

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and ILO Director General Guy Ryder at the podium of the German G7 Presidency Conference on sustainable supply chains in Berlin on 10-11 March 2015.

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and ILO Director General Guy Ryder at the preparatory G7 Conference in Berlin in March this year.

A new approach to labour conditions in global supply chains is fast emerging. Human rights and labour standards will be applied in global supply chains more effectively than today. This came clearly out from the recent (10.-11.3.) G7 Conference on sustainable supply chains, arranged in Berlin by the German Presidency.

The Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh opened our eyes to the inhuman working conditions in major supplier countries. Those that may have thought that this will be fast forgotten have been proven wrong.

If the German government gets its way, the changes could be closer than we may think. The G7 Presidency is a solid platform for launching the initiative. Having participated in the Berlin Conference, I have no doubts: The political leadership of Europe’s and the European Union’s leading economy is clearly committed to change.

The intention today is to keep the approach voluntary. If the business sector lives up to its obligations, it could remain so. If real change does not happen, we may well see more legislation, sanctions and other binding measures. This would surely be the case also when countries apply the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

During two days, stakeholders from leading schemes and initiatives joined NGOs, business associations, governments and others, altogether 300 participants, in discussing the best ways to approach challenges. Germany’s labour and development ministers Andrea Nahles and Gerd Müller, as well as many of their minister colleagues from other countries, participated personally much of the time, joined by top government officials.

Major developments are on their way.

In Berlin, the top leaders of the ILO, OECD and the World Bank sat in the same panel, for the first time ever.  They committed their organisations to major roles in bringing about a social dimension to global supply chains.

Chancellor Angela Merkel took a personal interest and issued an important statement on the world economy and its social dimension, together with ILO Director General Guy Ryder, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.

Surprisingly few large brands and retailers were present. Those who were there included Carrefour, H&M and Ikea – not surprising perhaps, when one knows how seriously they approach their supply chain responsibilities.  Otherwise the business community – unless I have missed someone – was represented only through organisations, and by a number of German small and medium enterprises who are really focused on sustainability.

To stay away from the meeting was not a good choice.

Most large German brands and retailers question the government’s plans to introduce a sustainability label for consumers. Until now they have tended to distance themselves from the national tripartite textile alliance, the “Textilbündnis”.

The Berlin conference may well change this reserved approach, and hopefully it will. It does not have to mean that the companies give up their substance reservations, and if they really want to promote them they would need to be present.

Brands and retailers also tend to think that they are unable to take responsibility for anything below their first level suppliers. They point at the complicated structures of supply chains and say they are impossible to monitor effectively.

Not only brands and retailers are to be blamed for a lack of concerted action.

Social campaigners and many trade union organisations like to say that buyer companies just want to shy away from their responsibilities, focusing on generating as much profits as they can from their supply chains.

This may be true at times, and surely is, but far from always. There is a clear commitment to decent supply chain standards also in the business community and if the right approaches are found, real improvements will come about.

Taking formal responsibility for a long and complicated supply chain is definitely a serious decision that cannot be made lightly. The same is true about consumer labels. If even advanced monitoring schemes such as the Fair Wear Foundation does not believe even in certifying factories, and SA8000 has decided not to use consumer labeling, then one can ask whether it is really possible to apply this on a general level.

Back to Berlin, business should have participated more actively in the conference. Also for those who have strongly divergent views it would have been better to have them around the table.

Business should indeed be careful and alert. There is a post Rana Plaza world which will not continue to tolerate an economy that allows and even relies on poor and dangerous working conditions and extremely low wages. If a consensus between governments and all stakeholders is not found, we will see political solutions and legislation.

Social campaigners and trade unions should reflect whether it is really smart to dismiss the relevance of multi-stakeholder and business driven CSR initiatives – or social auditing for that. Without the engagement and active participation of buying brands and retailers it will be very difficult to apply any standards. The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP can be very effective and useful here, and I will surely take some initiatives at our forthcoming board and member company meetings in Los Angeles.

So, what will then happen now?

  • The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights will be applied through national legislation in all major industrialised countries. There is no doubt about this. There will also be a legal dimension and home countries of buyer companies will require that obligations are respected.
  • The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises will be more effectively applied and national contact points will play more of a role, this was made clear by Secretary-General Angel Gurria.
  • The world Bank will substantially upgrade social conditions as part of its development projects and is adding to its dedicated staff in cooperation with ILO, as its President Kim told the Berlin meeting.
  • Next year’s International Labour Conference will focus on global supply chains as a major issue.

I am further convinced that a living wage for all workers will soon be required all through the global supply chains.

When the G7 Presidency actively, openly and forcefully promotes environmental and social conditions in global supply chains, it would be smart to listen very carefully. We may well be witnessing the beginning of a new CSR era that brings a real change to the better for the supply chain workers and their families.

Julkaistu

SAI and SA8000 remain quality leaders in supply chain sustainability work – board meets in Palo Alto

Social Accountability International meets this week in Palo Alto in California. Hosted by IT -giant Hewlett Packard, the SAI Advisory Board will confirm major changes and improvements in the SA8000 Social Standard and its world-wide application.

SA8000 is not only the best known social supply chain standard, but together with SAI also the most advanced major initiative. Brands and retailers and their suppliers use SA8000 to ensure that human rights are respected and proper labour conditions applied when goods and services are produced.

Alice Tepper Marlin and Robin Cornelius

Working at a SAI Advisory Board meeting in Florence, Italy in 2011. Board member Robin Cornelius at the left is the founder and chairman of Switcher, a socially and environmentally ground-breaking Swiss textile company. Here together with SAI President Alice Tepper Marlin. The Advisory board is tripartite, with representatives of business, trade unions and NGOs and independent academia.

The Standard as well as the entire SAI system does much more than verifies that International Labour Organisation ILO Standards and national labour legislation and collective agreements are respected. While social audits continue to be important and violations need to be acted on, emphasis is already on helping suppliers build social and labour management systems.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights require companies and other actors to apply due diligence in their activities to make sure that human rights are not violated. Core minimum labour standards are set in ILO International Labour Conventions and Recommendations.

To respect and apply these global rules, employers need to have management systems. SAI helps suppliers to build up these resources, through training and other capacity building activities. Much of it is done through SAI’s Social Fingerprint program.

The Social Fingerprint concept is especially innovative, helping workplaces to develop their social compliance with SA8000 and build up their sustainability management systems. It aims at making sure that remediation of human rights and labour conditions will lead to lasting results and a continuous growth process at workplaces, finally serving both companies and their workers.

In addition, Social Fingerprint serves the new and improved SA8000 certification  process, linking auditing and certification to remediation in a unique way, helping to build capacity and social compliance management systems.

Alice Tepper Marlin and Jan Furstenborg Helsinki 2006
With SAI President Alice Tepper Marlin at a corporate social responsibility conference that we arranged in Helsinki in 2006, together with the Finnish social partners in commerce and leading retailer Kesko.

Working in the major producer regions and countries is often complicated. Cultural, social and economic conditions are generally highly different from those in the consumer countries of the west. Finding the right balance is important, between confidence and control, and between encouraging and demanding remediation and change.

For many years, I have followed the work and activities of SAI teams, be they at headquarters in New York or out in the regions where people work in supplier factories and farms. As a typically European understatement I can say that I am really impressed. A superb combination of commitment and professionalism by the SAI people has lead to better conditions at numerous difficult workplaces.

SAI and its ground-breaking work has influenced the whole concept of corporate social responsibility, in many positive ways. Today, its multi-stakeholder approach to solving issues and helping to build up a better working life is an ‘industry standard’, also for business driven schemes. When Alice Tepper Marlin created SAI some 15 years ago there was often not even a dialogue, not to speak about concern for social supply chain matters.

To apply the SA8000 Standard and to work with SAI calls for businesses to be really committed, be they suppliers or buying brands or retailers. Of course, there must be a balance between time and expenses, and reliability and results. SAI has knowingly positioned itself at the upper end of this quality scale.

Compared with most other schemes and initiatives, SAI does lead the way. An example of this is the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI, which today joins together over 1,400 mainly European brands and retailers.

In a process which I actively supported and engaged in, BSCI and SAI created close links with SA8000 as the common base. The standard and the system to apply it is still very much the reference point for the Brussels based initiative and its own code and activities.

Theis week’s SAI Advisory Board meeting in Palo Alto is particularly important also in other ways. I do really regret not being able to participate this time.

Alice Tepper Marlin who created SAI and is its President has decided to retire as the organisation’s chief executive officer at the end of next year. Eileen Kaufman, her closest colleague and Co-CEO will take her retirement at the end of this year.

Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman who retires from her position as Co-CEO at the end of the year has played a central role in developing SAI into a leading initiative in the global sustainability landscape. “She has been a key leader in advancing SAI’s ambitious mission and a soul mate” says SAI founder and president Alice Tepper Marlin, acknowledging Eileen’s great contributions. Here she is at an Advisory Board meeting in 2007 in Hamburg, Germany.

Working with Alice and Eileen has always been and always is both pleasant and inspiring. Their commitment, knowledge and skills are second to none in the CSR community which I have benefited enormously from in a continuous intellectually demanding learning process.

Also with this natural generation change, both Alice and Eileen will have a lot to contribute to the continuing work of SAI, Alice being the founder hopefully continuing as President of SAI, even if in a new and different kind of a role.

Most important is of course the difference that SAI has made for so many workers and their families in the global supply chains. The issues on the meeting table in Palo Alto – and particularly the impressive preparation work that I have observed from close up – show that SAI and the SA8000 Social Standard will continue to be both at the center and at the cutting edge when sustainability and social responsibility find their place at the core of global supply chains.

Julkaistu

New kids on the CSR block are popular and interesting – but ILO Conventions remain the core reference for supply chain social responsibility

The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights is an important and welcome addition to handling supply chain labour relations. Governments and buyers are reminded of their human rights responsibilities.

Not so good are the attempts to market it as the new main reference for supply chain social responsibility. This role will stay with the tripartite International Labour Organisation ILO and its International Labour Conventions.

Professor John Ruggie and his Harvard University based team did a big service for universal human rights when they produced a new social responsibility building block that adds to the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies, the ILO Multinationals Guidelines, and other international agreements and recommendations.

The UN Guidelines both support and encourage the business driven and multistakeholder voluntary schemes and initiatives which work for social responsibility in the global supply chains. They call on buyer brands and retailers to take responsibility also for their suppliers’ human rights related action. This can add to the coverage, relevance and credibility of the voluntary initiatives.

The guidelines should encourage also those businesses who are still passive to join one of the many schemes or to launch their own initiatives.

The UN principles have been picked up by the OECD in a recent revision of their guidelines, and will surely find their way also to the ISO 26000 Standard once it will be reviewed.

On the business driven or multi-stakeholder CSR arena at least the Global Social Compliance Programme ( GSCP ) Reference Code and the Social Accountability International ( SAI ) SA8000 Social Standard will soon be up for scheduled updating, and can be expected to pick up some principles and approaches from the UN Guidelines.

These Guidelines that have been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 do not cover all the issues that are important for supply chain workers. The protect, respect, remedy approach focuses on human rights while many essential labour conditions fall outside.

The document recognises freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, and the other Core Labour Conventions, but does not really address worker empowerment and involvement. Here, the core ILO Conventions and Recommendations give more concrete guidance – and rules.

In no way does this lower the value of the UN Guidelines. They are an important tool for promoting human rights, both at work and in other areas where businesses have an impact on peoples’ lives. Demanding due diligence from brands and  retailers in their global supply chains brings a new dimension to what has been driven by activist pressure and consumer opinion.

Also the ISO 26000 Standard can contribute to corporate social responsibility, as a useful tool particularly for larger companies. It could bring CSR values higher up on corporate agendas and encourage to the due diligence expected by the UN Guidelines.

The Standard is pretty complicated and not available for free. This is a treshold for many and create a lack of transparency, and thus credibility. It is somewhat hard to see how useful the ISO 26000 can really be when dealing with global supply chains.

Let us also remember that this standard does not set working life norms, this was agreed at an early stage between ISO and ILO. A company cannot be certified for compliance with the Standard. This has been made clear by the ISO itself and any certification approaches are business activities of commercial auditors and consultants.

Politicians have been fast to respond to all these CSR developments, which of course is good. Regrettably, the recent European Parliament resolution bore the fingerprint of activists who wanted to promote their own project work. This was not the right context for that, whatever one thinks about the suggested project itself. We will surely see some changes in it when it moves further through the EU machinery.

Also in the United States, the government is on the move. Bangladesh has been warned that unless they get their house in order when it comes to work safety in the garment factories, they may lose their trade privileges.

Still, something has not changed and should not change. That is the agreed and established principle that international labour norms are set by the International Labour Organisation ILO, and by ILO only.

The ILO is the only United Nations organisation where employers and trade unions work alongside governments, for the common aim to ensure decent working conditions around the globe. International Labour Conventions remain the global constitution for working life. This is correctly acknowledged in all the other guidelines as well as by the voluntary CSR schemes and initiatives.

Only ILO Conventions are enforceable in the way that governments have a formal responsibility to see that they are implemented in full in their countries. The core conventions that address human rights issues do not even have to be ratified, they bind all member countries. Governments that do not take their responsibility for this can be sanctioned, although that would be extremely rare.

Even more important is that the mainstream labour relations system builds on social dialogue and collective agreements between workers and their trade unions, and the employers. Already the ILO process itself reflects this principle which should be carefully defended.

The new kids on the block can bring much added value, but their work can also be used to support paternalist approaches, which should not be supported.