Conference Agenda

From early in 2020, COVID-19 generated an unprecedented global demand for medical equipment and supplies. While states and businesses were faced with the practical challenges to secure high volumes of PPE with the right specifications on cost, speed, and quality, it is likely that the human and labour rights risks in the supply chain often took the backseat.

The pandemic also put under increased spotlight the connection between PPE production and forced labour, with both the media and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) publishing a great number of alarming reports on the topic. The two high-risk issues that received considerable public attention were the use of vulnerable migrant workers in Malaysia, which supplied the majority of rubber gloves during the pandemic, and a high dependence on procurement of PPE equipment such as masks and aprons from China, some of which are produced using state-imposed forced labour of Uyghur workers in Xinjiang or other provinces.

This paper explores how states can exercise their leverage to assess, prevent and mitigate human and labour rights risks in their supply chains. Three forms of leverage are analysed, trade import restrictions, transparency in supply chain regulation, and public procurement processes. These tools are explored in relation to three states: the USA, UK and Sweden, although also referencing developments in other states where appropriate.

Research questions:

1) What tools and approaches can states use to address human and labour rights risks in their supply chains?

2) How do these find expression in the USA, UK and Sweden?

3) How did the use of these tools change in face of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Methodology:

This paper presents desk-based research on the normative and regulatory frameworks in three countries (USA, UK and Sweden).

Contribution to the literature: This paper presents a joint analysis of three different regulatory tools which are seldomly studied together: trade/import bans, transparency in supply chains laws and public procurement. It also adds to the emerging literature on how to address human rights in public supply chains.

Findings:

• While each approach has its benefits, none of them was effective in preventing human rights and labour abuses in PPE supply chains during the pandemic.

• Further research is needed to articulate how to combine the three regulatory approaches to make them more effective in addressing human rights and labour abuse in health supply chains, both during a time of crisis and in general.

The world of work has witnessed massive transformations in employment and labour relations. COVID 19 induced pandemic has aggravated job loss; a sharp drop in domestic and international tourism; drop in household demands such as transport, restaurants, tourism, and recreation (Maliszewka et al. 2020) within the existing inflexible business model (Sobieralski 2020) across the globe. In India, it has affected sectors like tourism, service, aviation and manufacturing in terms of employment (Kapoor 2020). The nature of collective bargaining or the domineering capacity of the unions also impacts how business models are revised (Lange et.al .2015). Taking the case of the terminated contractual Indian cabin crew of an international European airline; this study seeks to address key research questions - What are their experiences of becoming and unbecoming global labour? How is collectivism expressed given a situation of employment crisis? An online survey of terminated contractual cabin crew and follow-up through select in-depth interviews, courtroom observations and a review of secondary literature were adopted. Literature reflects that unstable job security among airline employees acts as a new work stressor post-COVID (Seongseop (Sam) Kim et.al. 2022; Görlich and Stadelmann. 2020). The study findings reveal that none of the participants was employed in any form of regular employment. All the participants as plaintiffs were members of their affiliate union. Faction amongst the permanent and contractual employees had created divisiveness and distrust. Interactions and observations within the labour courts and outside reiterate the undeniability of collective bargaining in understanding the processes of cabin crew collectivism (Taylor and Moore 2015) for employment protection, as demonstrated through ongoing litigation under the Industrial Dispute Act (IDA) 1947 in Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Delhi with the company is crucial. Institutional mechanisms like these enable collectivism while also creating tensions and frictions as witnessed recently with the Tatas take-over of Air India and the imposition of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as a redundancy measure. Santanu Sarkar (2020) argues that the need for a bottom-up approach is very much contingent upon the emergent political situation for national labour unions and or organisations towards ‘labour transnationalism or internationalism’. Selective measures and differential treatments globally (Sankey Kaya 2021) were exacerbated where collectivism was weak during the pandemic. International institutions must respond to integrate as transnational labour and guarantee social protection, accountability and dignity of work given the global economy is in its path towards recovery.