International Framework

Agreements and Bangladesh Accord

Group members: Katharine Holt
Laura Green
Nuoxi Geng
Zhuopin Guo
Zilin He
Wenjie Zhang
Aida Fiapsheva

International Framework
Agreements

What are IFAs?

IFAs are "negotiated between a
multinational enterprise and a
Global Union Federation (GUF) in
order to establish an ongoing
relationship between the parties and
ensure that the company respects
the same standards in all the
countries where it operates" (ILO
Press Release, 2007)

Hammer, N. (2005) International Framework Agreements: global industrial relations between rights and bargaining,
Transfer. Vol.11 (4), pp. 511-530

The minimum provisions of an IFA are:

It must be a global agreement

Conventions must be referenced to the ILO
It has to require the MNC to influence
suppliers
A Global Union Federation should be
signatory
There has to be trade union involvement in
the implementation
There has to be a right to bring complaints.

Hammer, N. (2005) International Framework Agreements: global industrial relations between

rights and bargaining, Transfer. Vol.11 (4), pp. 511-530

The development of IFAs

IFAs originated in the 1980s and have
been proliferated after 2000.
The first example of an IFA is between
Danone and the International Union
of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,
Restaurant , Catering, Tobacco and
Allied Workers Association (IUF) in
1994.
Hammer, N. (2005) International Framework Agreements: global industrial relations between
rights and bargaining, Transfer. Vol.11 (4), pp. 511-530

The development of IFAs

Two key developments make IFAs possible:
I. The transformation of the former
International Trade Secretariats (ITS)
into Global Union Federations (GUF).
II. The merger of the two largest
international confederations, the
International Confederation of Trade
Unions (ICFTU) and the World
Confederation of Labour (WCL) into the
single International Trade Union
Confederation in 2006.
Hammer, N. (2005) International Framework Agreements: global industrial relations between
rights and bargaining, Transfer. Vol.11 (4), pp. 511-530

The development of IFAs range of company sizes

The International Federation of Building and Wood
Workers (IFBWW) with IKEA in 1998 .
The size of companies ranges from Ballast Nedam
and Prym with 4 000 employees to Carrefour,
DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen with more than
300 000 employees. Differences in company size
and sector highlight the challenges faced by labour
organisations if they are to organise, implement
and monitor such agreements, as well as the
potential of extending framework agreements
along global supply chains.
Hammer, N. (2005) International Framework Agreements: global industrial relations between
rights and bargaining, Transfer. Vol.11 (4), pp. 511-530

How do IFAs enhance

International labour standards?
IFAs establish a platform for international industrial
relations in defining Global Union Federations as
legitimate bargaining partners.
A useful tool to assist trade unions in organising
workers in sectors and regions where trade unions
are weak.
Help Trade Unions in developed countries where its
membership has been declining for many years.
Standardise company behaviour across the
operations of the company.
Provide for ongoing dialogue mechanisms and
increasingly developed dispute handling
procedures.
Hammer, N. (2005) International Framework Agreements: global industrial relations between rights and bargaining, Transfer. Vol.11 (4),
pp. 511-530
Dehnen, V ., Pries, L. (2014), International Framework Agreements: A thread in the web of transnational labour
regulation, European Journal of Industrial Relations. 20(4), PP. 1-16

How effective are IFAs?

For some scholars they are no more than window-dressing, for others they are effective instruments
of transnational regulation. Their effectiveness, however, depends on their interconnection with other
mechanisms of labour regulation.
IFAs are not legally binding ( soft law ). Global standardized sanctions are not present. No cases to
date that have been brought before a court of law on the binding nature of IFAs.
IFAs are not governed by national organisational legislation, thus conflicts must be resolved, if at all,
by company-level bodies and individual actors.
IFAs are selective in the conditions they choose, this could weaken regulation of global labour
standards.
May set a floor of rights in which IFAs mainly relate to minimum conditions and norms.
Some IFAs relate to other topics and thereby bypass the ILO core conventions.
IFAs located in between the arenas of company agreements and discursive legitimacy - difficult to
locate where they are embedded - wholly independent from strict formal legal aspects.
IFAs are agreements with a transnational scope of application because they should apply to all parts of
a company, anywhere in the world. But in practice they may formally exclude selected parts of
companies (as in China, where cooperation with unions is difficult) and the actual scope of application
could even be further reduced in practice.
IFAs informal significance and impact can vary to an extreme degree between companies and even in
one company between different sites therefore challenges relating to enforcement and monitoring can
arise.
Conflict resolution during IFA negotiations differs between countries and from company to company difficult to find a common solution.
Power resources are often unequal between actors - particularly when negotiating the terms and
conditions relating to IFAs.
Ultimately, insufficient instruments to enforce compliance through legal norms as well as opposing
views during intra-oraganisational negotiation on the employee side/between GUFs and other
employee representation bodies - makes negotiation and implementation of IFAs difficult.

Dehnen, V ., Pries, L. (2014), International Framework Agreements: A thread

in the web of transnational labour regulation, European Journal of Industrial

Accord for Fire and Building

Safety in Bangladesh
The Accord is an independent, legally binding
agreement between brands and trade unions
designed to work towards a safe and healthy
Bangladeshi Ready-Made Garment Industry
Unlike International Framework Agreements
which are generally made between one MNC and
GUFs, the Accord covers multiple employers
Source: http://
bangladeshaccord.org

Development of the
Accord

Increasing attention focused on labour

issues within the Bangladeshi garment
sector since mid-2000s onwards
The Rana Plaza disaster game changer
Establishing the Accord
Getting companies to sign the agreement
Mobilising brand pressure
Leveraging institutional position and
threat of collective action
Source: Reinecke J and Donaghey

How the Accord embodies

International Labour Standard
Content
The fire, electrical and building inspection
standards
Worker participation in Occupational Health &
Safety Committees and training
Worker complaints mechanisms and right to
refuse unsafe work
Scope
Parties involved: 180 brands from 20
countries
workers covered: two million workers in over
1500 factories

Source: Reinecke J and Donaghey

Effectiveness and the

enforceability of the
Legally binding
agreement where all
Accord

signatories agree to arbitration

awards or enforcement of fees
The Accord at time of writing has
approximately 130 signatory
companies encompassing those who
source heavily down to companies
who do not source from Bangladesh
Multiple employers coverage

Effectiveness and the

enforceability of the
Accord
Tripartite governance system:
employers, the labour

caucus, comprising of the unions and four labour

based campaign organisations, and the International
Labour Organisation as the independent chair
UNIGlobal, which represents retail workers, also
participated
Complaints procedure which has a legally binding
arbitration system
A failure by a company to adhere to its obligations
may result in an adverse, binding arbitral award
which may then be enforced by a court in the
companys home country

Corporate entities that

oppose the Accord
Many U.S. brands and retailers have refused to sign the
Accord on the sole ground that it contains commitments
that are legally binding
Apparel firms like Gap have claimed that their reluctance
to sign the Accord is based primarily on the concern that
signatory firms risk excessive undefined legal liability
But
Many leading global brands and retailers that have
signed the Accord (e.g. Zara, H&M, Inditex). In doing so,
actually posed the type of liability risks that are being
claimed by Gap and some other U.S apparel firms as an
excuse for non-participation.

Any questions?

Thank You!