How do the goals and activities of civil society organisations (CSOs) that are active in the field of immigrant welfare rights differ between autocracies and democracies? In this paper, we argue that a mechanism of CSO engagement plays out differently in these two political contexts because organisations adapt their goals and activities to the political regime they operate in. In the empirical analyses, we compare democratic Argentina and electoral‐authoritarian Malaysia using data from CSOs' public mission statements as well as from interviews with CSO members from both countries. We find that in Argentina, more universalistic constitutional provisions and commitments to international treaties allowed CSOs to reference norms of equal treatment, arguing for immigrant access to a variety of programmes, including non‐contributory social assistance benefits. In Malaysia, CSOs relied on moral frames of equality to a lesser extent. Instead, they advocated for inclusion in contributory schemes on the basis of deservingness of migrants given their contributions to society, focusing on minimum standards to guarantee that basic needs are met.

This chapter compares how three International and two regional Organizations, namely the ILO, the WTO, and the World Bank, as well as ASEAN and Mercosur, approach the global governance of labor standards. Defining ‘labor standards’ is notoriously difficult. We therefore use Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (FACB) rights as a benchmark to assess the positions taken by the five regional organizations. We argue that two main discourses have been pursued in the global debate, a ‘social’ discourse, and a ‘neoliberal’ discourse. We find that organizations whose intrinsic features allow for an institutionalized representation of workers’ interests pursue variations of the social discourse, whereas a neoliberal position predominates in organizations where this representation is lacking. This is true both at the international and regional level. Moreover, we show that the coexistence of these two conflicting discourses has led to contestation, but also to exchange and cooperation. We furthermore outline to what extent the two discourses have changed over time. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of future challenges for the global governance of labor standards.

The book was inadvertently published without the acknowledgement texts of the funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 for this book in the opening page of the chapter 3. This has been updated in the book.