Planting Seeds for Social Dialogue: An Institutional Work Perspective

Abstract

The paper seeks to understand how social dialogue can emerge in an anti-union context. Building from an institutional work perspective, we investigate how Dole in Costa Rica went from resisting to accepting social dialogue with two pineapple unions. The findings show that social dialogue is the result of a combination of convening, enabling, empowering and monitoring work involving a triadic relationship between supplier, international buyer and unions. Four stages were identified during which actors learned to collaborate and power relations were transformed. The paper highlights the importance of the dynamic nature of the triadic relationship in influencing social dialogue in a global value chain where production is located in an anti-union environment. The findings provide unique evidence on the role of the international buyer in supporting social dialogue as convener, facilitator, mediator and advisor. Acknowledegment:JEL Codes: J53, Q13 #1464 AbstractThe paper seeks to understand how social dialogue can emerge in an anti-union context. Building from an institutional work perspective, we investigate how Dole in Costa Rica went from resisting to accepting social dialogue with two pineapple unions. The findings show that social dialogue is the result of a combination of convening, enabling, empowering and monitoring work involving a triadic relationship between supplier, international buyer and unions. Four stages were identified during which actors learned to collaborate and power relations were transformed. The paper highlights the importance of the dynamic nature of the triadic relationship in influencing social dialogue in a global value chain where production is located in an anti-union environment. The findings provide unique evidence on the role of the international buyer in supporting social dialogue as convener, facilitator, mediator and advisor.

Rights without remedy: the disconnection of labour across multiple scales and domains

“…Thus the lead firm plays multiple roles at odds with the norms of natural justice, often acting as arbiter on abuses perpetrated by their own intermediaries or suppliers, in whose actions they may be implicated (for example, Anner, 2015aAnner, , 2019Bartley 2018b: 158). While accepting there are exceptions where the brokerage role of international buyers may lead to compromise that favours labour's interests (for a positive example, see Gansemans et al, 2021), it remains the case that for the majority of cases the reputational investment of the lead brand may rely on plausible deniability of onward subcontracting or intermediary roles. Thus, the circuit of capital makes assignment of accountability a slippery task, while promises on labour rights made by international brands do not 'trickle down' precisely because it is not in the interest of the various supply chain actors that they should.…”

Uneven Development, Uneven Response: The Relentless Search for Meaningful Regulation of GVCs

“…A number of studies have recently emerged which look at the issue of labour leverage (Niforou 2014; Wright 2016). In particular, Wright (2016) highlights how brands have become key targets in implementing governance initiatives and this is of relevance for Gansemans et al .’s (2020, this volume) contribution to this volume, in which they highlight the major challenges of achieving ‘social dialogue’ in a hostile environment for trade unionism. Their case is set in the Costa Rican pineapple industry where there was no IFA to reference, but rather an international alliance of civil society organizations, including trade unions (EUROBAN), used a consumer campaign that highlighted poor working conditions and violations of trade union rights.…”

“…This contributed to the international buyer performing a brokerage role between local trade unions and employers, thereby highlighting the ways ‘institutions change through (inter)actions of multiple actors’ (Gansemans et al . 2020, p. 2 online version). Their article highlights the ways in which a multiplicity of actors — employers, workers, civil society, multi‐stakeholder initiatives, trade unions and brands — in the international arena provide opportunities that may, ultimately, assist in the attainment of better work.…”

“…Their article highlights the ways in which a multiplicity of actors — employers, workers, civil society, multi‐stakeholder initiatives, trade unions and brands — in the international arena provide opportunities that may, ultimately, assist in the attainment of better work. The role of lead firm as broker in Gansemans et al .’s (2020) case is an example of the multiple, simultaneous functions undertaken by international capital (Bartley 2018a). However, it must be remembered that at the centre of the entire debate over the regulation of work in GVCs, particularly in labour‐centred efficiency–driven GVCs, lies the predisposition of international buyers to avoid regulation and governance, particularly public regulation.…”

“…However, it must be remembered that at the centre of the entire debate over the regulation of work in GVCs, particularly in labour‐centred efficiency–driven GVCs, lies the predisposition of international buyers to avoid regulation and governance, particularly public regulation. Ganseman et al .’s (2020) example highlights the scope that now exists for the corporation to occupy different roles, in this case as a promoter of worker representation in a price‐sensitive supply chain over which they preside. While support for social dialogue might at first glance appear incompatible with corporate interests, there may be no contradiction in operation as having the discretion to occupy different roles may simply increase the scope for corporate power to choose priorities and mould behaviours throughout the supply chain.…”