Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy Revisited: Is There a Need for Its Reform?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2019

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 10))

  • 891 Accesses

Abstract

The field of business and human rights has recently seen many seminal developments in the creation of national and international binding and soft law standards in order to protect human dignity of rights holders. This article revisits the function, role and scope of the 2017 version of the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. It asks if there is a need for its reform? It first provides in Sect. 2 a brief historical background and explore the its legal nature. Section 3 examines the contents of the revised Tripartite Declaration focusing on labour and/or human rights provisions thereby providing a critical account of provisions included or omitted. Section 4, thereafter, describes and critically analyses its implementation tools from promotion to interpretation procedure and provides a critical assessment of their usefulness for rights-holders. Equipped with the knowledge from previous sections, Sect. 5 thereafter provides an overall analysis and assessment of the recent revisions of the ILO Tripartite Declaration outlining both its advantages and disadvantages; places it in the wider context of standard-setting in business and human rights and provides some suggestions how to reform it and to better realize its potential. This article, therefore, argues that the ILO Governing Body should rephrase the vague and conditional language of the Tripartite Declaration and improve its implementation tools, particularly the interpretation procedures by opening it to individual claimants. In this way, it would emancipate the rights-holders to enforce the core labour rights included in the Declaration against adverse corporate conduct.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Fifth Edition, March 2017), https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2D%2D-ed_emp/%2D%2D-emp_ent/%2D%2D-multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf (last accessed 21 January 2019).

  2. 2.

    ILO, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Doc. 28197701, OB Vol. LXI, 1978, ser. A, no. 1 (1977).

  3. 3.

    ILO, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Third Edition 2001).

  4. 4.

    ILO, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Fourth Edition 2006).

  5. 5.

    ILO, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Fifth Edition, March 2017).

  6. 6.

    Ibid., “Introduction”, p. 6.

  7. 7.

    Deva and Bilchitz (2013), Clapham (2006), Jägers (2002), Letnar Černič (2010), Muchlinski (2007), Michalowski (2013), Ruggie (2013) and Álvarez Rubio and Yiannibas (2017).

  8. 8.

    Ratner (2001), Vásquez (2005), Kinley and Tadaki (2004), Michalowski (2012), Keitner (2008), Dhooge (2007), Scheffer and Kaeb (2011), Lambooy (2014) and Shamir (2004).

  9. 9.

    Martin Amerson (2012), Bilchitz (2010), Aaronson and Higham (2013), Ruggie (2004, 2013) and Jägers (2011). See also, O’Brien et al. (2016) and de Felice and Graf (2015).

  10. 10.

    Deva and Bilchitz (2017) and Letnar Černič and Carrillo-Santarelli (2018).

  11. 11.

    See in detail Letnar Černič (2009), Diller (2002), Morawetz (1991) and Biondi (2015).

  12. 12.

    Remarks by Mr Guy Ryder (Director-General of the ILO), Panel on “Building coherence and reaching scale on human rights due diligence – International organizations’ leadership perspectives”, United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, 27 November 2018.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  14. 14.

    See, for example, Letnar Černič (2018).

  15. 15.

    Alston (2004, 2005) and Maupain (2005).

  16. 16.

    The Preamble of the ILO Constitution notes in second section: “…whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures;” ILO, Constitution of the ILO, 1 April 1919, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/leg/download/constitution.pdf.

  17. 17.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017. See also Brownlie (1980), pp. 39 and 41.

  18. 18.

    See, for example, Council of the European Union Conclusions on Sustainable Garment Value Chains, Document 9381/17, 19 May 2017; Council of the European Union Conclusions on Business and Human Rights, Document 10254/16, 20 June 2016; Council of the European Union conclusions on the EU and Responsible Global Value Chains, Document 8833/16, 12 May 2016.

  19. 19.

    See, for example, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011 Edition) and UN, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ [‘The Guiding Principles’], UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011.

  20. 20.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, pp. 1–16.

  21. 21.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2D%2D-ed_emp/%2D%2D-emp_ent/%2D%2D-multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf, para. 2.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. 3.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., Section 10.

  24. 24.

    ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, June 18, 1998, 37 I.L.M. 1233 (1998).

  25. 25.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, Section 10.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., Section 11.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., Section 23.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., Section 25.

  30. 30.

    See, for example, ILO Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (ILO No. 29), 39 U.N.T.S. 55, entered into force 1 May 1932; ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (ILO No. 105), 320 U.N.T.S. 291, entered into force 17 January 1959.

  31. 31.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Section 26.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., Section 30.

  33. 33.

    Section 28 provides that “Governments should pursue policies designed to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment, with a view to eliminating any discrimination based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin”, whereas Section 29 stipulates that “Governments should promote equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.”

  34. 34.

    Ibid., Section 30.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., Section 48.

  36. 36.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force 23 March 1976, Article 22.

  37. 37.

    European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, entered into force 3 September 1953, Article 10.

  38. 38.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, Section 65.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., Section 66.

  40. 40.

    See Sect. 4.3 of this chapter.

  41. 41.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, Section 68.

  42. 42.

    Report of the Tripartite Ad Hoc Working Group on the Follow-up Mechanism of the MNE Declaration, Governing Body, 313th Session, Geneva, Mar. 2012, GB.313/POL/9 (Rev.), https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_173721.pdf, para. 6.

  43. 43.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2D%2D-ed_emp/%2D%2D-emp_ent/%2D%2D-multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf, Annex 2, pp. 21–25.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., 1a–1c, pp. 21–22.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., 21.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., 21.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Ibid. 21–22.

  49. 49.

    Report of the Tripartite Ad Hoc Working Group on the Follow-up Mechanism of the MNE Declaration, Governing Body, 313th Session, Geneva, Mar. 2012, GB.313/POL/9 (Rev.), para. 10 (c).

  50. 50.

    ILO, Senegal appoints four national focal points and lays the foundations of a national promotion strategy, 2017, https://www.ilo.org/empent/units/multinational-enterprises/WCMS_616830/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

  51. 51.

    ILO, MNE Declaration, Promotion at the national level/Promotion by tripartite appointed national focal points, https://www.ilo.org/empent/areas/mne-declaration/WCMS_570379/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

  52. 52.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, Annex 2, Ibid. 22.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Fifth Edition, March 2017), Annex II, Company-Union Dialogue, p. 23.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Fifth Edition, March 2017), Annex II, Interpretation Procedure pp. 24–25. See generally Shin-ichi (2019).

  60. 60.

    Ibid., Interpretation Procedure, Section 1.

  61. 61.

    Interpretation Procedure, Section 2.a.

  62. 62.

    Interpretation Procedure, Section 2.b.

  63. 63.

    Interpretation Procedure, Section 2.c.

  64. 64.

    Interpretation Procedure, Section 5.

  65. 65.

    Interpretation Procedure, Section 7.

  66. 66.

    Interpretation Procedure, Section 8.

  67. 67.

    2006 Tripartite Declaration, 58.

  68. 68.

    Letnar Černič (2009), p. 31. See Clapham (2006), p. 216; Shin-ichi (2019).

  69. 69.

    Letnar Černič (2009), p. 31.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Biondi (2015), p. 109.

  72. 72.

    Report of the Tripartite Ad Hoc Working Group on the Follow-up Mechanism of the MNE Declaration, Governing Body, 313th Session, Geneva, Mar. 2012, GB.313/POL/9 (Rev.).

  73. 73.

    Implementation strategy for the follow-up mechanism of and promotional activities on the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration), Governing Body, 320th Session, Geneva, Mar. 2014, GB. 320/POL/10. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2D%2D-ed_norm/%2D%2D-relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_236168.pdf.

  74. 74.

    Letnar Černič and Carrillo-Santarelli (2018), Deva and Bilchitz (2017), Blackwell and Vander Meulen (2016) and De Schutter (2016).

  75. 75.

    Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (ILO No. 87), 68 U.N.T.S. 17, entered into force 4 July 1950; Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (ILO No. 98), 96 U.N.T.S. 257, entered into force July 18, 1951.

  76. 76.

    ILO Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (ILO No. 29), 39 U.N.T.S. 55, entered into force 1 May 1932; ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (ILO No. 105), 320 U.N.T.S. 291, entered into force 17 January 1959.

  77. 77.

    ILO, Convention (No. 138) Concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, June 26, 1973, 1015 U.N.T.S. 297 [hereinafter ILO Convention No. 138]; ILO, Convention (No. 182) Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, June 17, 1999, 2133 U.N.T.S. 161.

  78. 78.

    ILO, Convention (No. 100) Concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, June 29, 1951, 165 U.N.T.S. 303; ILO, Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, June 25, 1958, 362 U.N.T.S. 31.

  79. 79.

    International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, March 2017, Section 23–25.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., Sections 26–27.

  81. 81.

    ILO, Resolution concerning decent work in global supply chains, 8 June 2016, https://www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/105/texts-adopted/WCMS_497555/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

  82. 82.

    Ibid, Section 10.

  83. 83.

    Ibid, Section 15.

  84. 84.

    Letnar Černič (2009), p. 33.

  85. 85.

    Farbenblum and Nolan (2017).

  86. 86.

    Letnar Černič (2009), p. 34.

References

  • Aaronson SA, Higham I (2013) “Re-righting Business”. John Ruggie and the struggle to develop to develop international human rights standards for transnational firms. Hum Rights Q 35:333–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston P (2004) Core labour standards and the transformation of international labour rights regime. Eur J Int Law 15:457

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston P (2005) Facing up to the complexities of the ILO’s core labour standards agenda. Eur J Int Law 16:467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez Rubio JJ, Yiannibas K (eds) (2017) Human rights in business: removal of barriers to access to justice in the European Union. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilchitz D (2010) The Ruggie Framework: an adequate rubric for corporate human rights obligations? Sur – Int J Hum Rights 12:199–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi A (2015) New life for the ILO Tripartite Declaration on multinational enterprises and social policy. Int J Labour Res 7(1–2):105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell S, Vander Meulen N (2016) Two roads converged: the mutual complementarity of a binding Business and Human Rights Treaty and national action plans on business and human rights. Notre Dame J Int Comp Law 6(1):51–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1980) Legal effects of codes of conduct for MNEs: commentary. In: Horn N (ed) Legal problems of codes of conduct for multinational enterprises. Springer, pp 39 and 41

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2006) Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Felice D, Graf A (2015) The potential of national action plans to implement human rights norms: an early assessment with respect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. J Hum Rights Pract 7(1):40–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2016) Towards a new treaty on business and human rights. Bus Hum Rights J 1(1):41–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) (2013) Human rights obligations of business: beyond the corporate responsibility to respect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) (2017) Building a treaty on business and human rights: context and contours. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhooge LJ (2007) A modest proposal to amend the Alien Tort Statute to provide guidance to transnational corporations. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 13(2):119–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Diller J (2002) ILO Tripartite Declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. Int Leg Mater 41(1):184–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farbenblum B, Nolan J (2017) The business of migrant worker recruitment: who has the responsibility and leverage to protect rights? Texas Int Law J 52(1):1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Jägers N (2002) Corporate human rights obligations: in search of accountability. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Jägers N (2011) UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: making headway towards real corporate accountability? Netherlands Q Hum Rights 29(2):159–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keitner CI (2008) Conceptualizing complicity in Alien Tort cases. Hastings Law J 60:61–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinley D, Tadaki J (2004) From talk to walk: the emergence of human rights responsibilities for corporations at international law. Virginia J Int Law 44(4):931–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambooy T (2014) Legal aspects of corporate social responsibility. Utrecht J Int Eur Law 30(78):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letnar Černič J (2009) Corporate responsibility for human rights: analyzing the ILO Tripartite Declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. Miskolc J Int Law 6(1):24–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Letnar Černič J (2010) Human rights law and business. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Letnar Černič J (2018) Corporate accountability under socio-economic rights (transnational law and governance). Routledge, Oxon

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Letnar Černič J, Carrillo-Santarelli N (eds) (2018) The future of business and human rights: theoretical and practical considerations for a UN Treaty. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Amerson J (2012) “The End of the Beginning?” A comprehensive look at the business and human rights agenda from a bystander perspective. Fordham J Corporate Financ Law 17:871–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Maupain F (2005) Revitalization not retreat: the real potential of the 1998 ILO Declaration for the universal protection of workers’ rights. Eur J Int Law 16:439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalowski S (2012) No complicity liability for funding gross human rights violations. Berkeley J Int Law 30:451–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalowski S (2013) Corporate accountability in the context of transitional justice. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morawetz R (1991) Recent Foreign Direct Investment in Eastern Europe: towards a possible role for the tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. ILO working papers 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski PT (2007) Multinational enterprises and the law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien CM, Mehra A, Blackwell S, Bloch Poulsen-Hansen C (2016) National action plans: current status and future prospects for a new business and human rights governance tool. Bus Hum Rights J 1(1):117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner RS (2001) Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility. Yale Law J 111:443–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie GJ (2004) Business and human rights: the evolving international agenda. Am J Int Law 101(4):819–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie GJ (2013) Just business: multinational corporations and human rights. WW Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer D, Kaeb C (2011) The five levels of CSR compliance: the resiliency of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute and the case for a counterattack strategy in compliance theory. Berkeley J Int Law 29(1):334–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir R (2004) Between self-regulation and the Alien Tort claims act: on the concept of corporate social responsibility. Law Soc Rev 38(4):635–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin-ichi A (2019) Supervision of international labour standards as a means of implementing the guiding principles on business and human rights. Eur Yearb Int Econ Law 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez CM (2005) Direct vs indirect obligations of corporations under international law. Columbia J Transl Law 43:927–959

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Government and European Studies, Nova univerza, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Jernej Letnar Černič

Authors
  1. Jernej Letnar Černič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jernej Letnar Černič .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Černič, J.L. (2019). The ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy Revisited: Is There a Need for Its Reform?. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2019. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2019_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2019_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22484-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22485-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation