Global Framework Agreements - International Centre for Trade ...

FOCUS ❐ GLOBAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENTSformed a Global Joint Health and SafetyCommittee that oversees the agreement and acts“hands on” with visits to facilities and concreteimprovements in conditions and practices. Overtime, it is very possible that, instead of one agreement,there will be specific, focused agreementswith many companies that reflect joint, positivemeasures to be taken inside companies.Another area where there seems to be room forimprovement is in the understanding and use ofagreements at national level. The same FreeUniversity of Berlin study shows that awarenessof agreements varies significantly. On the managementside, particularly in the US and other difficultcountries, problems might be resolvedmore easily if contents of agreements are thoroughlyexplained to management and signals areloud and clear that managers are expected torespect agreements.“Voluntary” versus legally bindingAt an OECD Forum in May 2011, John Ruggiewas asked if he considered the OECD Guidelinesto be “voluntary”. He responded that the differencesbetween voluntary and binding werebeginning to become blurred. He said that thecontents of the Guidelines were not voluntary –they were agreed by governments, not by companiesand that the human rights standards thathad been added were also agreed by governmentsand were not determined by companies.The application of the Guidelines was determinedby NCPs and not by companies, and, tothe extent that they would be linked to exportcredits or other government incentives, theywould take on a more binding character. In otherwords, they were not legally binding, but theywere not voluntary either.As soft law instruments become more linkedand coherent and as due diligence becomes morecommon in the social area, the nature and role ofvoluntary global agreements may change. Eventhough the vast majority of MNEs have not signedagreements, they are an element in the globalrights architecture. If corporate behaviourbecomes more subject to scrutiny based on universalvalues and standards and if anti-socialbehaviour begins to be more effectively limited atthe global level, the appeal of and interest inglobal agreements might increase.Just as is true at the national level, bargainedagreements are, by their nature, flexible. Theyreflect experience with specific enterprises andsectors. They represent an institutional, mutualrecognition that incorporates the idea of balance ofpower and, even though they are not legally binding,they are agreed, which gives them a fundamentallydifferent character than unilateral declarations.Therefore, in the long run, global agreementsare likely to become more important to companies,but also to policy makers. Among other reasons,they are one way to make principles more bindingin the absence of an effective global legal framework.And, as global rules develop, they providethe “private”, but compatible space to make suchrules workable and applicable.Processes for oversight and evaluation of globalagreements have been becoming more rigorousand most GUFs have developed clear policiesas to contents and implementation andapproval including, in some cases, model agreementsto be used as guidance when they arenegotiated. Agreements are seen increasingly aspart of organising strategies and as important forbuilding organisations (or at least networks)inside companies.If one considers global agreements as a form ofindustrial relations, a missing element is sectoralbargaining. It is also missing at national level inmany countries. The one exception is an agreementbetween an association of shipowners/shipmanagerswith the ITF. But it is not a frameworkagreement, but rather a global collective bargainingagreement that includes detailed provisionson wages, hours and working conditions. It hasbeen constructed, not in isolation, but part of aprocess which has involved the negotiation andadoption of the ILO consolidated maritime convention,relations with State regulatory authoritiesand others. It also reflects a very long tradition ofsocial dialogue in the industry. The ITF is engagingin global dialogue in other transport sectorsas well, but without yet achieving similar agreementsbecause of the different nature of othertransport sectors.Global agreements are not a miracle solutionfor the problems of the world’s workers nor arethey an alternative to global governance or evento global coherence. But, related to those largerprocesses, they have a unique contribution tomake as a direct voice of workers and as an elementto strengthen democracy.Page 9 Volume 18 Issue 2 2011INTERNATIONAL union rights