Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:02:46.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Transnational Labour Law in Steering Socially Responsible Corporate Governance towards Increased Worker Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2018

Isabelle Martin
Isabelle Martin*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor School of Industrial Relations University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Socially responsible corporate governance (SRCG) is a product of the interaction of corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. These two transnational business governance schemes have converged around the principles of accountability, sustainability, and due diligence. This article will examine to what extent SRCG can be useful in promoting worker protection. It will contend that, as a reflexive regulation, SRCG is normatively indeterminate and may easily be subject to regulatory capture by the traditional actors of corporate governance. This article will argue that these risks may be alleviated by the interaction of SRCG with transnational labour law (TLL). Transnational labour law increases SRCG’s responsiveness to the value of worker protection by offering labour more direct sources of participation to strengthen SRCG’s enforcement and alleviate risks of capture. Moreover, the principles of TLL weave a coherent and meaningful framework which can be used to assess the quality of the various corporate governance initiatives.

Résumé

La gouvernance socialement responsable (GSR) est au carrefour de l’interaction entre la gouvernance et la responsabilité sociale des entreprises. Ces deux systèmes de gouvernance convergent autour des principes de responsabilité, de durabilité et de diligence raisonnable. Cet article examine dans quelle mesure la GSR peut s’avérer utile en tant que mécanisme de protection des travailleurs. L’une des thèses de cet article est qu’en tant qu’outil prescriptif, la GSR est caractérisée par une certaine ambiguïté qui la rend susceptible d’être influencée par les intérêts corporatifs traditionnels. Toutefois, ce risque d’influence peut être modéré par la confluence entre la GSR et le droit transnational du travail (DTT). Le DTT augmenterait la réceptivité de la GSR à l’égard de la protection des travailleurs, et ce, en offrant aux travailleurs une certaine capacité pour renforcer l’application de la GSR et réduire les risques d’influence de la part des intérêts corporatifs. Enfin, les principes du DTT instituent un cadre cohérent et significatif qui peut être utilisé pour évaluer la qualité des différentes initiatives en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise.

Keywords

socially responsible corporate governancetransnational labour lawcorporate social responsibilityreflexive and responsive regulationlabour participationuse of principles in global regulationGouvernance socialement responsabledroit transnational du travailresponsabilité sociale des entreprisescapacité d’action des travailleurs
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 33 , Issue 2: Vers un droit du travail décolonisé : Contributions au droit transnational du travail en émergence / Decolonizing Labour Law: Contributions to an Emergent Transnational Labour Law , August 2018 , pp. 159 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Earlier version of this paper were presented at the 2015 Labour Law Research Network conference in Amsterdam as well as at the Transnational Business Governance Interaction seminar in May 2016 held in York University (Toronto). I would like to thank Adelle Blackett, the anonymous reviewers, and the CJLS editors for their insightful comments. I would also like to thank Emmanuel Cigana for his proofreading assistance. Any remaining errors are my own.

References

1 Gill, Amiram, “Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Research Agenda,” Berkeley Journal of International Law 26 (2008): 452.Google Scholar

2 Morin, Marie-Laure, “Le droit du travail face aux nouvelles formes d’organisation des entreprises,” Revue internationale du travail, 144: 1 (2005): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Parker, Christine, “The Pluralization of Regulation,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (2008): 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Braithwaite, John and Drahos, Peter, Global Business Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 9.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., 529.

6 Ibid., 571.

7 Eberlein, Burkard, Abbott, Kenneth W., Black, Julia, Meidinger, Errol, and Wood, Stepan, “Transnational Business Governance Interaction: Conceptualization and Framework for Analysis,” Regulation and Governance 8 (2014): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Bruner, Christopher M., Corporate Governance in the Common-Law World : The Political Foundations of Shareholder Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Gill, “Corporate Governance,” 463–70.

10 Jensen, Michael C. and Meckling, William H., “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics 3 (1976): 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Hansmann, Henry and Kraakman, Reinier, “The End of History for Corporate Law,” Georgetown Law Journal 89 (2001): 439.Google Scholar

12 Clarkson, Max B. E., “A Stakeholder Framework for Analysing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance,” Academy of Management Review 20 (1995): 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Donaldson, Thomas and Preston, Lee E., “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications,” Academy of Management Review 20 (1995): 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 McBarnet, Doreen, “Corporate Social Responsibility Beyond Law, Through Law, For Law: the New Corporate Accountability,” in The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law, ed. Voiculescu, Aurora, McBarnet, Doreen, and Campbell, Tom (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007), 9.Google Scholar

15 On the move from corporate governance to stakeholderism see Sacconi, Lorenzo, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance,” Journal of Business Ethics 68 (2006): 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Kerr, Michael, Janda, Richard, and Pitts, Chip, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis (Markham (Ont): LexisNexis, 2009).Google Scholar

17 Ibid., 105.

18 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, Off Doc GA UN, 17e sess. (2011) (Guiding Principles).

19 On how principles have a symbolic value that brings together actors and serves as “as anchor-point for regulatory change,” see Braithwaite and Drahos, Global, 528, 571.

20 Trebilcock, Anne, “Due Diligence on Labour Issues—Opportunities and Limits of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,” in Research Handbook on Transnational Labour Law, ed. Blackett, Adelle and Trebilcock, Anne (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2015), 93, 99.Google Scholar

21 On such a use of principles see Braithwaite and Drahos, Global, 528.

22 “Sustainability” may be used in the sense that strong corporate performance results in “sustained profitability and, therefore, enhances shareholder value”: Bombardier, Statement of Corporate Governance Practices, accessed August 17, 2017: http://www.bombardier.com/en/governance.html.

23 Melish, Tara J. and Meidinger, Errol, “Protect, Respect, Remedy and Participate: ‘New Governance’ Lessons for the Ruggie Framework,” in The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Foundations and Implementation, ed. Mares, Radu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 303, 308, 312.Google Scholar

24 Accountability may be used in the narrow sense of “accountability to shareholders”: Solomon, Jill, Corporate Governance and Accountability, 2nd ed. (Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 2007), 14.Google Scholar See for instance: Grunman, Northrop, 2016 Corporate Responsibility Report: 16, accessed August 17, 2017, http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112386&p=irol-irhome.Google Scholar

25 See for instance, the PRI Brochure 2016: Principles for Responsible Investment, Principles for Responsible Investment: An investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Finance Initiative and the UN Global Compact: 4: “we believe that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios,” accessed August 8, 2017: https://www.unpri.org/about: (Principles for Responsible Investment).Google Scholar

26 Melish and Meidinger, 308

27 Parker, “Pluralization,” 358–59; Teubner, Gunther, “Company Interest: The Public Interest of the Enterprise ‘in Itself’,” in Reflexive Labour Law, ed. Rogowski, Ralf and Wilthagen, Ton (Deventer, NL: Kluwer, 1994), 21, 44–45.Google Scholar

28 Martin, Isabelle, “Tying it All Together: The Potential of Legal, Social and Market-Based Control Mechanisms to Enforce Integrated and Sustainable Decision-Making,” Revue générale de droit 44 (2014): 353, 359–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Martin, Isabelle, “Corporate Governance Structures and Practices: From Ordeal to Opportunities and Challenges for Transnational Labour Law,” in Research Handbook, ed. Blackett, and Trebilcock, , 51, 58.Google Scholar

30 Peoples Department Stores Inc (Trustee of) v Wise, 2004 CSC 68, para 42; in the United States, see: In re Caremark Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996).

31 For instance, in the United Kingdom: Companies Act, c. 46 at §§ 8, 112, 172 (2006). In the United States a number of states have adopted constituency statutes: for an overview, see Bradley, Michael, Schipani, Cindy A., Sundaram, Anant K. and Walsh, James P. “The Purposes and Accountability of the Corporation in Contemporary Society: Corporate Governance at a Crossroads,” Law & Contemporary Problems 62 (1999): 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 CSC 69, para 40 (BCE).

33 Teubner, “Company Interests,” 44–45; Kerr, Janda, and Pitts, 79.

34 Rousseau, Stéphane, “Devoirs des administrateurs” in JurisClasseur Québec : Droit des sociétés (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2011), 7–13;Google Scholar Williams, Cynthia A. and Conley, John M., “Is There an Emerging Fiduciary Duty to Consider Human Rights?,” University Cincinnati Law Review 74 (2005): 75, 87–88.Google Scholar

35 Kerr, Janda, and Pitts, Corporate, 331.

36 See for instance : ISO 26000 §§ 6.3-6.4, SA 8000 Standard.

37 Muchlinski, Peter, “Implementing the New UN Corporate Human Rights Framework: Implications for Corporate Law, Governance and Regulation,” Business Ethics 22 (2012): 145, 152; Williams and Conley, 87–91.Google Scholar

38 Especially the possibility for shareholders to submit a proposal at the annual shareholders’ meeting, to vote on these proposals and to elect directors.

39 Williams and Conley, 89–99; O’Rourke, Anastasia, “A New Politics of Engagement: Shareholder Activism for Corporate Social Responsibility,” Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (2003): 227, 228;Google Scholar Wagemans, Frank A. J., Koppen, Kris van, and Mol, Arthur P. J., “The Effectiveness of Socially Responsible Investment: a Review,” Journal of Integrative Environmental Issues 10 (2003): 235, 240.Google Scholar

40 Richardson, Benjamin J., “To Govern and Be Governed: The Governance Dimension of SRI’s Influence,” in Socially Responsible Investment in the 21st Century: Does it Make a Difference for Society? ed. Louche, Céline and Hebb, Tessa (Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2014), 247–72, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See, for instance, Ontario Securities Commission, National Instrument 81-106, Investment Fund Continuous Disclosure, part 10 (Accessed on August 9 2017) http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/SecuritiesLaw_rule_20050603_81-106_if-cont-disc.htm.Google Scholar

41 Parker, “Pluralization,” 358.

42 Teubner, Gunther, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” Law & Society Review 17 (1983): 239, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 On process-oriented regulation, see Parker, Christine, “Meta-Regulation: Legal Accountability for Corporate Social Responsibility,” in The New Corporate Accountability, ed. McBarnet, Doreen, Voiculescu, Aurora, and Campbell, Tom, 207, 215–16, 233.Google Scholar

44 McBarnet, Doreen, “Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility and the New Accountability,” in Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations, ed. Campbell, Tom and Miller, Seumas, (Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004), 63, 77.Google Scholar

45 Villiers, Charlotte, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Participatory Labour Laws,” in The Role of Labour Standards in Development: From Theory to Sustainable Practice? ed. Novitz, Tonia and Mangan, David, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 171, 178.Google Scholar

46 For instance, in BCE, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a decision which clearly favoured shareholders and had negative repercussions on debentureholders.

47 Anabtawi, Iman, “Some Skepticism About Increasing Shareholder Power,” UCLA Law Review 53 (2005): 561, 579.Google Scholar

48 Stout, Lynn A., The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public (San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Pub., 2012), 69.Google Scholar

49 Institutional Shareholder Services, Canada Proxy Voting Guidelines for TSX-Listed Companies, Benchmark Policy Recommendations, January 4 2018, https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/active/americas/Canada-TSX-Voting-Guidelines.pdf,Google Scholar at 47. The Institutional Shareholder Services manages 61% of the market for proxy advisory services: Robyn Bew and Richard Fields, “Voting Decisions at US Mutual Funds: How Investors Really Use Proxy Advisers,” Tapestry Networks/IRCC, June 2012 https://irrcinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Voting_Decisions_at-US_Mutual_Funds1.pdf, p. 6

50 Waitzer, Ed and Jaswal, Johnny, “Peoples, BCE, and the Good Corporate ‘Citizen,’” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 47 (2009): 439–96; Sacconi, 302–03.Google Scholar

51 Mainly through the business judgment rule: Rock, Edward B. and Wachter, Michael L., “Islands of Conscious Power: Law, Norms, and the Self-Governing Corporations” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149 (2001): 1619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Waitzer and Jaswal, para 93.

53 BCE, para 40.

54 In theory, stakeholders could have access to the judicial procedures of derivative action (S. 238 Canada Business Corporations Act, RSC 1985, c C-44 (CBCA) and the oppression remedy (S. 241(1) CBCA): Rotman, Leonard I., “Debunking the ‘End of History’ Thesis for Corporate Law,” Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 33 (2010): 219.Google Scholar However, in practice, only shareholders, debentureholders, and creditors are granted access by the courts: Ben-Ishai, Stephanie and Puri, Poonam, “The Canadian Oppression Remedy Judicially Considered: 1995–2001,” Queen’s Law Journal 30 (2004): 79.Google Scholar

55 Such as ss. 103(2), 106(3), 162 and Part XV CBCA.

56 S 241 CBCA.

57 S 239 CBCA.

58 National Policy 62-202 Take-over Bids—Defensive Tactics. The BCE attempted buy-out stands as a good example of the impact of such policies. Indeed, the Superior Court noted that the process put in place during BCE rearrangement “was based on the premise that once BCE was in play, the overriding duty of the Board was to maximize the value for its shareholders” (BCE inc. (Arrangement relatif à) 2008 QCCA 935 (CanLII): para 98, rev’d BCE).

59 Richardson, “To Govern,” 253–54; Curtiss, Frank, Levine, Ida, and Browning, James, “The Institutional Investor’s Role in ‘Responsible Ownership,’” in The Future of Financial Regulation, ed. MacNeil, Iain G., and O’Brien, Justin (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2010), 303.Google Scholar

60 Curtiss, Levine, and Browning, 305.

61 Richardson, “To Govern,” 253.

62 Such as Bâtirente in Québec. Unions’ pension funds must be distinguished from public pension funds such as CalPERS and from workers’ pension funds that are not managed by their union, such as Teachers.

63 Agrawal, Ashwini K., “Corporate Governance Objectives of Labor Union Shareholders: Evidence from Proxy Voting,” The Review of Financial Studies 25, no. 1 (2012): 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Anabtawi, Iman and Stout, Lynn, “Fiduciary Duties for Activist Shareholders,” Harvard Law Review 60 (2007): 1255, 1286.Google Scholar

65 Agrawal.

66 Schwab, Stewart J. and Thomas, Randall S., “Realigning Corporate Governance: Shareholder Activism by Labor Unions,” Michigan Law Review 96 (1998): 1018;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Prevost, Andrew K., Rao, Ramesh P., and Williams, Melissa A., “Labor Unions as Shareholder Activists: Champions or Detractors?” Financial Review 47 (2012): 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Agrawal.

68 Schwab and Thomas.

69 Richardson, Benjamin J., “Fiduciary and Other Legal Duties,” in Socially Responsible Finance and Investing: Financial Institutions, Corporations, Investors, and Activists, ed. Kent Baker, H. and Nofsinger, John R. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2012), 69, 74.Google Scholar

70 Ibid., 82.

71 Schwab and Thomas, 1082, 1090. For a recent update on labour union shareholders’ practices see Agrawal.

72 A proposal may not be submitted again if at a previous annual meeting of shareholders it did not receive between 3 per cent and 10 per cent of the total number of shares voted: S. 137, (5) d) CBCA and s. 51 of Canada Business Corporations Regulations, SOR/2001-512. See Dhir, Aaron A., “Shareholder Engagement in the Embedded Business Corporation: Investment Activism, Human Rights, and TWAIL Discourse,” Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (2012): 99, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Co-optation is the “process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence”: Selznick, Philip, TVA and the Grass Roots (New York: Harper, 1949), 13.Google Scholar

74 Laffont, Jean-Jacques and Tirole, Jean, “The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (1991): 1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Mattli, Walter and Woods, Ngaire, “In Whose Benefit? Explaining Regulatory Change in Global Politics,” in The Politics of Global Regulation, ed. Mattli, Walter and Woods, Ngaire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 1, 12.Google Scholar

76 See literature review in Jacobsen, Ben, “Increasing the Effectiveness of SRI Corporate Engagement on Climate Change through a Responsive Regulation Framework,” in Socially Responsible Investment in the 21st Century: Does It Make a Difference for Society?, ed. Louche, Céline and Hebb, Tessa (Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2014): 149, 156.Google Scholar

77 Conley, John M. and Williams, Cynthia A., “Engage, Embed, and Embellish: Theory Versus Practice in the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement,” The Journal of Corporation. Law 31 (2005): 1, 37Google Scholar

78 SustainAbility, Gearing Up: From Corporate Responsibility to Good Governance and Scalable Solutions September 1, 2004, accessed August 10 2017, http://sustainability.com/our-work/reports/gearing-up/Google Scholar

79 Conley and Williams, “Engage,” 36.

80 In Canada see: Lian v Crew Group Inc, 2001 Canlii 28063 (ON SC); In the United States, Doe v Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 572 F. 3d 677 (9th Cir 2009).

81 Blackett, Adelle, “Global Governance, Legal Pluralism and the Decentered State: A Labor Law Critique of Codes of Corporate Conduct,” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 8 (2001): 401, 422.Google Scholar

82 Ballinger, Jeff, “The Threat Posed by ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ to Trade Union Rights,” in Fair Trade, Corporate Accountability and Beyond, ed. Macdonald, Kate and Marshall, Shelley (London: Routledge, 2010), 223, 236.Google Scholar

83 Richardson, Benjamin J., Socially Responsible Investment Law: Regulating the Unseen Polluters (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84 O’Rourke, “A New Politics.”

85 Glass Lewis & Co, Proxy Paper Guidelines: 2014 Proxy Season, 2014 http://www.glasslewis.com/assets/uploads/2013/12/2014_GUIDELINES_Canada2.pdf: 29-30.

86 O’Connor, Marleen, “Restructuring the Corporation’s Nexus of Contracts: Recognizing a Fiduciary Duty to Protect Displaced Workers,” North Carolina Law Review 69 (1991): 1189, 1210 ff.Google Scholar

87 Baker, Max, “Re-conceiving Managerial Capture,” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23 (2010): 847, 848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88 Briggs, Thomas W., “Corporate Governance and the New Hedge Fund Activism: An Empirical Analysis,” The Journal of Corporation. Law 32 (2007): 681;Google Scholar Stout, Lynn A., “The Toxic Side Effects of Shareholder Primacy,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161 (2012):Google Scholar 2003, 2009. Furthermore, in Canada, activist investors gain additional leverage from the s 150 (1.1) CBCA which allows proxies solicitation without publicly circulating a dissident proxy circular as long as no more than 15 shareholders are solicited. On s 150 (1.1) CBCA, see Sarra, Janis, “Shareholders as Winners and Losers under the Amended Canada Business Corporations Act,” Canadian Business Law. Journal 39 (2003): 52, 80.Google Scholar

89 Brown, Judy and Fraser, Michael, “Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: An Overview of the Conceptual Landscape,” Business Strategy & the Environment 15 (2006): 103, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90 From the title of the fascinating debate between progressive corporate law scholar Kent Greenfield and his more traditional counterpart, Gordon Smith: Greenfield, Kent and Gordon Smith, D.. “Debate: Saving the World with Corporate Law?” Emory Law Journal 57 (2007): 947–84.Google Scholar

91 Parker, “Pluralization.”

92 Parker, “Meta-Regulation,” 231.

93 Hepple, Bob, Labour Laws and Trade Global (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2005), 4;Google Scholar Trubek, David M., Mosher, Jim, and Rothstein, Jeffrey S., “Transnationalism in the Regulation of Labor Relations: International Regimes and Transnational Advocacy Networks,” Law and Social Inquiry 2000:1194.Google Scholar

94 Nonet, Philippe and Selznick, Philip, Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 78, 95.Google Scholar

95 Ibid., 79.

96 The 1998 Declaration identifies four principles enshrined by eight ILO fundamental Conventions: Freedom of association (C 87, 98); elimination of forced labour (C29, 105); abolition of child labour (C 138, 182); and elimination of discrimination (C 100, 111).

97 International Finance Corporation, Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, April 30 2006, accessed August 14th 2017 http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainability/our+approach/risk+management/performance+standards/environmental+and+social+performance+standards+and+guidance+notes#2006Google Scholar

98 See for instance: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Environmental and Social Policy, May 2014, accessed August 16, 2017: http://www.ebrd.com/news/publications/policies/environmental-and-social-policy-esp.html; African Development Bank Group, African Development Bank’s Integrated Safeguards System—Policy Statement and Operational Safeguards, 1 (December 2013), 49, accessed August 16, 2017: https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/Google Scholar

99 Compa, Lance, “From Chile to Vietnam: International Labour Law and Workers’ Rights in International Trade,” in Critical Legal Perspective on Global Governance, ed. de Bùrca, Gràinne, Kilpatrick, Claire, and Scott, Joanne, (Oxford: Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2014), 143 at 154;Google Scholar Islam, Muhammad Azizul and Mcphail, Ken, “Regulating for Corporate Human Rights Abuses: The Emergence of Corporate Reporting on the ILO’s Human Rights Standards within the Global Garment Manufacturing and Retail Industry” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2011): 790, 799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

100 Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs des Couche-Tard de Montréal et Laval — CSN et Couche-Tard inc., 2011 QCCRT 0449.

101 RRCSN, “Proposition No. 6,” in Circulaire de sollicitation de procurations de la direction, Alimentation Couche-Tard, 2011, ann. C: 8, accessed August 17, 2017, http://corpo.couche-tard.com/relations-investisseurs/rapports-annuels-trimestriels/.Google Scholar

102 Dubuc, André, “Couche-Tard : l’entente surprend deux spécialistes,” October 30 2013, La Presse Affaires, online : http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/commerce-de-detail/201310/30/01-4705249-couche-tard-lentente-surprend-deux-specialistes.php.Google Scholar

103 Araya, Fshazion and Tekle v Nevsun Resources Ltd., Notice of Civil Claim, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver registry, Nov. 24 2014, S-148932: allegations 34 and 33.

104 International Finance Corporation, “Performance Standards.”

105 Ibid., 7.

106 On this definitional role of ILO standards see Zandvliet, Ruben and Heijden, Paul van der, “The Rapprochement of ILO Standards and CSR Mechanisms: Towards a Positive Understanding of ‘Privatization,’” in Global Governance of Labour Rights, ed. Marx, Alex, Wouters, Jan, Rayp, Glenn and Beke, Laura (Cheltenham: Edward Eldgar, 2015), 170, 183.Google Scholar

107 See generally Ayres, Ian and Braithwaite, John, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 57;Google Scholar see specifically Melish and Meidinger, 322.

108 On the adoption level of CSR policies see Klink, Dennis, “Compliance Opportunities and the Effectiveness of Private Voluntary Standard Setting—Lessons from the Global Banana Industry,” in Global Governance (cf note 106), 230, 237.Google Scholar

109 See generally Ayres and Braithwaite, 56. See specifically Fenwick, Colin, Howe, John, Marshall, Shelley, Landau, Ingrid, Labour and Labour-Related Laws in Micro and Small Enterprises: Innovative Regulatory Approaches, SEED Working Paper (ILO, 2007), 94–97.Google Scholar

110 On the importance of participation, see Melish and Meidinger, 316–17. On the numerous obstacles faced by unions when seeking to enforce regulation transnationally, see Sukthankar, Ashwini, “Global Organizing and Domestic Constraints,” in Research Handbook, ed. Blackett, and Trebilcock, , 37.Google Scholar

111 Blackett, Adelle and Trebilcock, Anne, “Conceptualizing Transnational Labour Law,” in Research Handbook, ed. Blackett, and Trebilcock, , 3, 8.Google Scholar

112 Davidov, Guy, “Collective Bargaining Laws: Purpose and Scope,” International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations 20 (2004): 81.Google Scholar

113 On how the ILO may help build institutional capacity and guide multi-stakeholder dialogue, see Diller, Janelle M., “Pluralism and Privatization in Transnational Labour Regulation: Experience of the International Labour Organization,” in Research Handbook, ed. Blackett, and Trebilcock, , 329, 334.Google Scholar

114 Estlund, Cynthia, “A Return to Governance in the Law of the Workplace,” in The Oxford Handbook of Governance, ed. Levi-Faur, David (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 540, 547.Google Scholar

115 Fenwick et al., 106.

116 Dukes, Ruth, “Hugo Sinzheimer and the Constitutional Function of Labour Law,” in The Idea of Labour Law, ed. Davidov, Guy and Langille, Brian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 57;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Martin, Isabelle, “Corporate Social Responsibility as Work Law? A Critical Assessment in the Light of the Principle of Human Dignity,” Canadian Journal of Employment and Labour Law 19 (2015): 255.Google Scholar

117 Langille, Brian, “Labour Law’s Theory of Justice,” in The Idea of Labour Law, ed. Davidov, and Langille, , 101.Google Scholar

118 Sergio Gamonal, C. and Rosado Marzan, Cesar F., “Protecting Workers as a Matter of Principle: A South American View of U.S. Work Law,” Washington University Global Studies Law Review 13 (2014): 605.Google Scholar

119 On how weaker parties such as labour can only oppose principles with other principles, see: Braithwaite and Drahos, 507, 527, and 530.

120 Blackett and Trebilcock, “Conceptualizing,” 4.

121 See generally: Braithwaite and Drahos, 529. On how the 1998 Declaration has achieved the status of “incontestable social facts,” see Islam and McPhail, 796.

122 On how international conventions may provide such a consensus, see: Richardson, “Fiduciary,” 77.

123 Webb, Kernaghan, “ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Standard as ‘Proto Law’ and a New Form of Global Custom: Positioning ISO 26000 in the Emerging Transnational Regulatory Governance Rule Instrument Architecture,” Transnational Legal Theory 6, no. 2 (2015): 466, 477–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

124 Ibid., 478.

125 Ibid.

126 Araya; Anvil Mining Ltd. v Association canadienne contre l’impunité, 2012 QCCA 117; Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414; Garcia v Tahoe Resources Inc., 2015 BCSC 2045.