• Social and Labour Standards
• WTO and labour standards
• Role of the ILO and core labour standards
• Recent debates and proposals
• Social standards in the Forest sector

Social and Labour Standards

Within trade policy circles the term 'social' tends to refer to labour standards, i.e. standards relating to the work place and employees. Debate rarely touches on wider social issues relating to the community or household.

The labour standard debate is less well-developed in WTO circles compared to environmental issues. Debate in recent years has focused on proposals to insert a 'social clauses' into trade agreements. A social clause is a provision which would bind the signatory governments to respect a set of fundamental workers' rights on pain of losing the benefits of the trade agreement or possibly suffering trade sanctions.

Social clauses are very controversial in the WTO. In the context of the WTO, the difficulty with social and labour issues is that they have not been agreed as valid reasons to make exceptions to basic trade rules of Most Favoured Nation and National Treatment, unlike measures to protect human, animal or plant life or health. The comparative advantage of countries in terms of low wages has been asserted a key principle governing discussion of social issues.

Labour issues, specifically core labour standards were discussed at the Singapore Ministerial Meeting in December 1996. The USA made a proposal to include a social clause in WTO agreements and the concept of a social clause was supported by many northern NGOs (for example Oxfam).

However, after considerable debate, the WTO Members rejected the social clause proposal. They reasserted the view that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was the competent body to set and deal with core labour standards and rejected linking trade and labour standards, particularly the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes. It was agreed that WTO and ILO Secretariats would continue their existing collaboration.

The Declararation from the Singapore Ministerial states in paragraph 4:

"We renew our commitment to the observance of internationally recognized core labour standards. The International Labour Organization (ILO) is the competent body to set and deal with these standards, and we affirm our support for its work in promoting them. We believe that economic growth and development fostered by increased trade and further trade liberalization contribute to the promotion of these standards. We reject the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes, and agree that the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-wage developing countries, must in no way be put into question. In this regard, we note that the WTO and ILO Secretariats will continue their existing collaboration"

The full statement can be found at
http://www.mincomes.it/news/wto-dec.htm

Unlike environment issues, labour and social issues have been discussed in the WTO mostly in terms of trade measures undertaken by states and in relation to other states. There has been little discussion of ethical trade schemes based on labour and social criteria, rather the discussion has been in terms of trade measures such as dropping MFN status where labour standards are breached or trade boycotts.

In the late 1990s, the ILO has reasserted its central role in the promotion of labour standards and at the June 1998 International Labour Conference, Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work was made.

The 1997 International Labour Conference had initially debated a proposal for a global social label for all exports from a country. It would be awarded to countries that show comprehensive respect for fundamental rights and principles and agree to submit to reliable and legally autonomous international inspections. However, the proposal was recognised as controversial and rescinded (Raghavan, 1997). This led to a debate on fundamental human rights underlying the core labour standards. At the conference the following year the Declaration was adopted and there there was a broad consensus on strengthening the role of the ILO in the observance of the standards

The full text of the Declaration can be found at
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/10ilc/ilc86/com-dtxt.htm

The fundamental rights that are asserted in the Declaration are:

1. freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
2. the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour;
3. the effective abolition of child labour; and
4. the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

The implications of liberalisation for labour standards has been a concern at the ILO. It has begun a work programme under the auspices of the Working Party on the Social Dimensions of the Liberalisation of International Trade. Outputs so far include a comprehensive study of private sector initiatives such as codes of conduct and social labelling (ILO 1998). Whilst research will continue and be expanded in the next two years, it was felt to be premature for the ILO to promote any recommended benchmarks or verify enterprise performance (ILO, 1999, press release 25-3-99).

The current position of the governing body of ILO on social standards and trade liberalisation is that liberalisation and the removal of the obstacles to international trade has offered opportunities for social progress, but at the same time liberalisation and uncontrolled competition may hamper the efforts of countries to improve standards.

The debate on social labels and social standards being linked to trade is more emotive and perhaps less well-developed than similar debates on environmental standards. Whilst there is growing consensus on the ILO's core labour standards, there is less agreement on how observance of these standards should be strengthened.

The arguments that rage over eco-labels are just as acute with labels and schemes to promote social and labour standards:

• They may be protectionist in intent
• They are selective and only impinge on labour issues in export industries
• Biased towards issues with emotive appeal (e.g. child labour) but potentially ignore trade union rights
• Issues of reliability, accuracy and impartiality of information on labels
  (Lee, 1997: 10).

Most proposals relating to social standards relate to the inclusion of a social clause in trade agreements.

Much of the trade union movement is in favour of social clauses. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, ICFTU, has published a statement on the Agenda for Seattle. It calls for an assessment of the effects of trade liberalisation and recognises the ILO's core labour standards. Its main proposals are as follows

"The 3rd WTO Ministerial Conference should explicitly make provisions to:-

• include core labour standards on the agenda of future WTO negotiations;
• start an examination of how to incorporate the issue of labour standards and trade into WTO mechanisms and processes. Such a work programme should enhance ILO-WTO collaboration, on an equal basis, in areas such as WTO trade policy reviews and disputes settlement procedures and oversee the incorporation into the WTO's existing mechanisms of core labour standards. It should consider issues such as the gender implications of trade liberalisation. A monitoring committee should meet at regular intervals to review the results of the process and make recommendations to ensure its success"

More specifically, there is a proposal to create a committee on labour standards similar in function to the Committee on Trade and the Environment to examine the relationship between trade and core labour standards. Such a committee would have full role for the ILO.

The Statement and other material on the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions can be found at:
http://www.icftu.org/

Whilst most international union bodies are in favour of social clauses, Indian unions are opposed. Whilst supporting the overall objectives, they feel that social clauses are inevitably protectionist.

The USA made proposals for a social clause in the WTO at the Singapore Meeting. Proposals for a social clause have been repeated for the Seattle meeting in a call for a 'forward work programme', i.e. a working group, to address abusive child labour, the operation of export processing zones etc.

This has met with opposition from many, not least from developing countries, often for traditional trade policy reasons. However, others have noted the irony of such a position coming from US which has ratified very few ILO conventions and with a poor record on trade union recognition.

The EU has not supported social clauses at the WTO level but has argued for a closer working relationship between the ILO and the WTO and support for ILO's observership at the WTO. The EU has proposed reducing tariffs below Most Favoured Nation level for products meeting criteria on child labour and animal testing (Markandya in Zarilli et al, 1997: 14).

Many developing country states and intellectuals have argued vociferously against the linkage between labour standards and trade. The Third World Intellectuals and NGOs Statement against Linkage notes that many proposals regarding labour standards focus on developing country issues such as child labour rather than international labour issues (such as low levels of unionisation and sweat shops that are found in developed countries).

For many countries, cheap labour is the basis of their comparative advantage. However, the core labour standards do not direct address wages but other labour issues directed at respecting workers' rights.

Another key issue is whether the WTO should tackle labour and social issues itself or leave this to another competent body. The competent body usually put forward is the ILO, with the implication being that efforts would be made to strengthen the observance of basic labour standards through non-trade-related means (Lee, 1997, page 5). The issue that would then arise is which Agreements from which body would take precedence in the event of conflict. Critics of the WTO suggest that trade liberalisation objectives have dominated others in international fora.

A wider review of labour standards in the context of globalisation is:
Eddy Lee (1997) Globalization and labour standards: a review of issues, International Labour Review, volume 136, no 2 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/180revue/articles/lee97-2.htm

The ILO forest sectoral office is concerned with working conditions of employees of forest enterprises throughout the world. One key area of concern is health and safety as forestry is one of the three most dangerous occupations in most countries. All segments of the forestry workforce -- but in particular contractors, self-employed and forest farmers -- are exposed to high accident risks including many fatalities and serious health problems.

The ILO has recently published a code of Code of Practice for the design and implementation of safety and health management at all levels from country through enterprises to the forest enterprise. ILO Codes of Practice are not legally binding. They are international guidelines based on the technical expertise of representatives from industry, workers' organisations and governments in the most important producer countries.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/235press/pr/1997/21.htm

Forest certification is often viewed as primarily an environmental measure, however the FSC has several social principals, viz:

Principle #2:	Tenure and Use Rights And Responsibilities
Principle #3:	Indigenous Peoples' Rights,
Principle #4:	Community Relations and Worker's Rights

Core labour standards motion at FSC General Assembly,1999 The following motion was passed: The FSC take a proactive stance to include workers and/or their representative organisations where they exist in its activities. This includes: Integration of social criteria and indicators that cover workers issues into national and regional standards; Clear consideration of core international labour organisation conventions in the certification assessments; and Certification bodies shall involve forestry workers and/or their representative organisations in their stakeholder consultation processes. Core ILO Conventions: # 87 - Freedom of association and protection of the right to organise (1984) # 98 - Right to organise and collective bargaining (1949) # 29 - Suppression of forced labour (1930) # 105 - Abolition of forced labour (1957) # 100 - Equal remuneration (equal payment for work of equal value) (1951) # 111 - Prevention of discrimination (1958) # 138 - Abolition of child labour (1973)

Implications

Back to introduction
Back to NRET homepage