Discount Tutor

“GREEN UNIONS IN A GREY WORLD”

Labor Environmentalism and International Institutions

VICTOR SILVERMAN Pomona College

International labor environmentalism, a significant innovation in global politics, centers on the role of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions at the United Nations’ Commission on Sustainable Development and other bodies. Unions face multiple chal- lenges in international institutions, for example, from partnerships that privatize govern- ment functions and from disagreements within unions. Nonetheless, this article finds that environmentalism arising from the character of trade unions and the ideology of leaders has great potential.

Keywords: sustainable development; workplace greening; labor movement; trade unions; global unionism; worker heath and safety; partnerships; United Nations

Labor environmentalism is one of the most important global politicaldevelopments of recent history. Behind this movement lie critical ideas about work, labor, and the environment. These ideas have animated union partic- ipation in powerful new political alignments that manifest in street-level mobi- lization against neo-liberal globalization, newly victorious electoral coalitions, and effective participation in world institutions. Labor has been particularly important in pushing international institutions, particularly the United Nations, to adopt prolabor and/or proenvironment positions. Green unionism holds the promise of a new political synthesis that can revitalize the international Left. Yet fulfilling this promise is not a simple thing. The contradictory impulses of the labor movement itself, the problems of maintaining coalitions with other pro- gressive groups, the powerful sway capitalist market ideas and probusiness groups hold over international bureaucracies, and the nature of international institutions themselves all threaten to derail this transformation. Green unionism faces an intense challenge in a world political system where workplace issues are sup- pressed or ignored, trade unions split over basic goals and methods, and global institutions are designed to contain workers’ power, not enable it.

191

Author’s Note: This article would not have been possible without the generous support of the Pomona College Research Committee. I am also indebted to Lucien Royer, Winston Gereluk, John Evans, and the many other trade unionists who so generously shared their time with me.

Organization & Environment, Vol. 19 No. 2, June 2006 191-213 DOI: 10.1177/1086026606288780 © 2006 Sage Publications

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 191

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The question for my research began as a fundamentally empirical problem: How do trade unions, as organizations functioning in a global context, pursue labor’s interests within the often grey-tweed world of international institutions? Do trade unions face “NGOization,” the cooptation of social movements into for- mal institutions divorced from everyday struggle and more concerned with pro- tecting their privileged relationship to global organizations than with mobilizing workers and fighting for their interests? However, as this research developed, I began to realize that such empirical questions could not be answered without looking at the sources of labor environmentalism. What, I wondered, leads trade unions to engage in global politics? Why do they continue to press world institu- tions to respond to labor’s vision of social and/or environmental balance despite repeated setbacks, internal conflicts, and questionable outcomes? The answers, I believe, lie within the very character of trade unions and the ideology of partic- ular leaders that lead them to make environmentalism central to labor’s activities. That these sources give rise to a green international labor program is no coincidence, but rather indicative of a critical aspect of this story. Despite a narrowness inherent to their traditional purpose of protecting members, contemporary transnational ambitions of trade unions in a globalizing economy have taken on a new impor- tance. The stakes involved in transforming production and consumption to recognize both social and environmental needs are enormous—as one trade union staffer told me “We have to do something about it or we’re all screwed” (L. Royer, personal conversation, January 17, 2006).

To gauge the thinking of international unionists, I reviewed literature pro- duced by the unions at the global level since 1992 and the small body of schol- arly work in the field. I joined in delegations to United Nations–sponsored conferences in 2003, 2004, and 2006 as a participant observer. I was invited to the daily caucus meetings of the labor delegations where they formulated strate- gies for the meetings and sessions where they spoke. I also interviewed formally and informally key members of the delegations. I was given a full access that allowed me to collect substantial information on the ideas and methods of labor activists who participate in global institutions devoted to environmental and SD issues. I participated in four meetings in groups organized by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU): the 11th and 12th annual sessions of the United Nations’ Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD), the 2004 Rome Forum on Partnerships for Sustainable Development, and the Workers’ Initiative for a Lasting Legacy (WILL) 2006 Nairobi Trade Union Assembly on Labor and the Environment.

LITERATURE ON GREEN UNIONISM

Scholars have only recently begun examining the rise and practice of green unionism despite its political importance and the potential such research has for revealing much about labor as a transnational institution and social movement as well as for sketching some of the contours of the emerging global order. This lit- erature is often quite insightful but suffers from two main weaknesses in dealing with what appears to be a global political and social realignment. The first prob- lem is that these studies are nationally, regionally, or locally focused and thus do not consider the level of international institutions. Much of the work in English focuses on North America, though there is material on Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, India, and South Africa. The trade unions themselves have

192 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 192

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

created a number of useful documents. (Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras [CCOO], 2006; Global Unions, 2002, 2005). Although there is a slim yet developing scholarly literature on particular national cases, there is, however, almost no reporting, let alone analysis, of trade union environmentalism at an international level where global standards are set and broad areas of consensus established (Penney, 2001). An exception is Heins (2004), whereas on the Left, Waterman (2001) is more typically dubious of the possibilities of internationalism within the inherited global labor framework.

The second weakness is that the existing studies focus their analysis on dis- cussions of the interests of the alliances, a useful but not complete explanation. Many studies point to the conflicts of interest between labor and environmentalists characterized most commonly as a “jobs versus environment” debate. (Moberg, 2002; Seigmann, 1985). Seeking to explain how blue-green (or red-green in other contexts) coalitions have arisen despite a history of suspicion and often-conflicting interests, observers have pointed to two main factors. Most treat the development of the coalition of labor, environmentalists, and antiglobalization groups as a phe- nomenon arising out of a coincidence of labor interests with those of environ- mental activists and community groups. Particular points of intersection occur with countering neo-liberal trade pacts, reducing the hazardous effects of pro- duction, and pressuring particularly egregious violators of labor and environ- mental standards. (R. Gordon, 1998; Grossman, 1985; Logan & Nelkin, 1980; also see Dewey, 1998; Siegmann, 1985). Yet the problem of deciding just what interests motivate environmentally conscious unionists is quite difficult because people understand and act on their interests, after all, through a web of ideology and other distorting filters. Trade union involvement in environmental and SD issues derives from two main sources. Trade unionists who are directly affected by environmental problems such as pesticide exposure, radiation emissions, and other direct hazards are more open to alliances with environmentalists. Some recent work, notably that of Obach (1999, 2002, 2004a), has also pointed to the role of leadership ability to make political connections on both sides of the environmentalist-labor divide. Moreover, Obach (2004b) argued that “labor repre- sents the weakest link” in the form of unsustainable development that Schnaiberg (1980) named the “treadmill of production,” a process that demands increasing output at the price of the environment. Indeed, he concluded, “a reformed labor movement offers the greatest potential for redirecting the system as a whole” (Obach, 2004b, p. 338).

ROOTS OF GREEN UNIONISM

For much of its existence, labor has been associated with an instrumental view of nature and a belief that more jobs, more goods, and more wealth, whatever the environmental cost, are the solutions to workers’ needs. Nonetheless, green union- ism has its roots in the very character of the trade unions (CCOO, 2006; Gereluk & Royer, 2001; Silverman, 2004). Union environmentalism is based in the particu- larist purpose of unions to protect members and in their more-universalist purpose to promote class mobilization based on solidarity.

Labor environmentalism is first and foremost an outgrowth of occupational health and safety (OH&S) concerns. The trade unions represented at the CSD and other institutions have promoted the model of OH&S committees as examples of how successful labor intervention in work organization and process could change

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 193

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 193

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

environmental practices. Most of the delegates I met came from the OH&S side of the labor movement. A few years ago “environment” was added as one of the responsibilities of the Occupational Health, Safety and Environment Working Party, now OHSE, of the ICFTU. Yet the environment and/or sustainability group for years had only one staff person—Lucien Royer who has led multiple delega- tions in New York. As Winston Gereluk and Royer (2001) wrote:

Union achievements in the field of OH&S illustrate how the fight for sustainable forms of production have been central to workers’ historical struggles against unjust and unsustainable conditions of work and community life; indeed, they may be described as the “life and death” aspect of this struggle. (p. 3)

Second, labor environmentalism grows from the unions’ social democratic impulse. Trade unionists—like environmentalists—know that the biggest danger to their interests is from the unchecked growth of capitalist enterprises and free trade in the current era of neo-liberal globalization.11 The power of this system is such that trade unions have had to use their coalition with sympathetic govern- ments and other social groups to advance a workers’ vision of SD. These efforts have achieved some real victories on paper and in the deliberations of the CSD. Agenda 21, the declaration of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, included chapter 29, Strengthening The Role of Workers and Their Trade Unions, which recognized labor as a major group and declared “Workers should be full participants in the implementation and evaluation of activities related to Agenda 21” (United Nations [UN], 1992, Sect. III, chap. 29, ¶1). This was intended to empower unions to par- ticipate in any implementation of SD policies at the workplace—a position not exactly heartily embraced by many larger corporations. Spanish trade unionist Joaquín Nieto (2006) explained in Nairobi in 2006: “Without social participation there can neither be democracy, justice, nor sustainability; neither political democ- racy, social justice, nor environmental sustainability” (n.p.).

CONTRADICTORY ORGANIZATIONS AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF TRADE UNIONS

These two sources of labor environmentalism are only part of the story. It has long been observed that trade unions are contradictory organizations pursuing narrow membership interests and broader social causes, sometimes quite distant from member’s direct needs but nonetheless reacting to workers interests in one way or another (Freeman & Medoff, 1984; Lester, 1958). In the ideal, unions are at once a collective voice for the voiceless and downtrodden but in practice are also business-oriented organizations trying to control labor markets and prices (effectively “conspiracies in restraint of trade” to recall language once used to deny labor rights), class instruments fighting for the interests of all workers, democratic grassroots institutions, forces for social change, and faction-ridden bastions of corrupt officialdom. Unions are social movement organizations that derive their strength from the power of massed workers who assert labor control over the workplace and work relations. Through acts of solidarity and political mobilization, sometimes conceived as ways to advance the narrow interests of members but also generalized in class terms, they also democratize larger social and political processes. Unions are also institutions that act as collective bargain- ing agents representing their members in formalized relations with employers and

194 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 194

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

the state. They are devoted to (and most effective at) protecting the more-privileged sectors of the working class, by controlling labor markets, contractual negotia- tions, and other mechanisms. Finally trade unions are complex, bureaucratized institutions that provide security for members, and institutional sinecures for leadership, but which are nonetheless rife with factional and personal conflicts. Each one of these aspects of unions is represented in the international movement; indeed individual labor unionists and organizations often embrace more than one (Carew, Dreyfus, Van Goethem, Gumbrell-McCormick, & van der Linden, 2000; M. E. Gordon & Turner, 2000; Hyman, 2002).

These differing tendencies of trade unions are further complicated by the prob- lem of institutionalization. As trade unions succeed as social movements they reg- ularize and moderate conflict between workers and managers and, in a larger sense, labor, capital, and the state (Wallace, Rubin, & Smith, 1998). This moderation and/or institutionalization paradoxically reduces the original sources of labor’s strength—the power of an organized, mobilized working class. Union staff and leadership become as dependent for resources, validation, community, and power on their relationship to outside institutions as on their own rank and file. Labor’s success can become its own undoing; as the interests of union officialdom depart from that of the workers themselves leading to disenchantment among members and an inclination to view trade unions as alien bureaucracies—a tendency played on to great effect by antiunion employers. Yet many trade unionists reasonably see such a process—at times termed incorporation—in a positive light because regu- larization and institutionalization can accomplish much for workers. Indeed, for many trade unions, especially in more social-democratic countries, tri- and bipar- tite processes have governed labor relations and labor markets for decades and given workers enviable income, benefits, and security (Grant, 1983; Hartog & Teulings, 1998). Divisions over this institutionalization process appear within the global movement in a number of ways and are at the root of conflicts within the unions and between labor and global institutions.

Elsewhere, (Silverman, 2004) I analyzed the circuitous route by which inter- national trade unionists came to embrace sustainable development and to offer a revision of labor’s position on environmental issues including the place of human beings within nature. Although the jobs versus environment, or more broadly conceived, productivist versus ecologist, conflict is crucial and the problem that bettering the economic conditions of workers sometimes leads labor to accept environmental degradation and unsustainable development, the cases of cooper- ation come from more than simply coincidence of enemies or prior relation- ships among leaders—however crucial these may be. Straddling the explanations that stress interests or politics, this article emphasizes the characteristics of the labor movement as key to understanding its activity in global institutions. As representatives of an international trade union movement composed of an enor- mous variety of organizations with often-conflicting institutional interests and environmental ideologies, international labor and SD activists have to negotiate a complex terrain.

LABOR INTERESTS AND SD

Fundamental to this discussion is the role of “sustainable development” as a goal of labor and as a concept subject to contending definitions. Trade unionists operating at the level of global institutions have for decades been engaged in

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 195

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 195

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

a two-sided struggle over the meaning and practice of SD. On one side, this struggle has been to convince trade unions to recognize SD as a real balancing of partic- ular trade union interests with general social and environmental requirements. On the other side, it has been a constant battle for the unions to get global institutions, environmentalists, and governments to incorporate labor’s perspective into their definitions of and policies for SD. Complicating these efforts, global organizations are appropriate venues for only a portion of labor’s goals.

The experience of labor in attempting to bring a working-class perspective to discussions and plans for SD illustrates clearly the significant problems and, at the same time, the tremendous potential of labor environmentalism. Within the world of international environmental policy making, “sustainable development” has become the key organizing idea; however, it is an idea easier to endorse than enact. Popularized by the 1987 report of a UN Committee headed by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, SD was defined as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission, 1987, p. 23). The 1992 Rio Earth Summit committed the international community to sustainability as a whole set of interrelated concepts and programs and established the CSD to coordinate and further articulate efforts to achieve this goal. Nonetheless, the actual meaning and practice of SD, despite charming rhetoric from world leaders, is not clear. SD is something everyone, no matter their class or institutional interest, can support in principle; however, when it comes to detailing its meaning or actually carrying it out, such unity disappears.

Despite its ambiguity, sustainability has become the core idea and organizing rhetorical position of labor environmentalism. Labor’s version of SD combines an understanding of the necessity of economic and social equity with a commitment to protecting nature and all its creatures—including workers. The way that union- ists have adapted trade union goals and principles to promote a worker-centered concept of SD indicates the centrality of an ecological awareness to a significant portion of the labor movement worldwide. (Of course, many union members may not see the way their ideas are environmentalist at present. SD provides a way for them to think about their own needs in a more universalistic way that allows for coalitions with other groups.) Yet the intense frustration that the unionists have experienced at the UN indicates that actually getting widespread agreement on a labor-oriented policy for SD, let alone actually creating a world in which such development can take place, will be immensely difficult to say the least.

Sustainability does not really mean anything on its own—it is only in the process of doing something about it that sustainability will develop and we will be able to see whether this practice protects labor and wider social interests. Labor’s participation insured that the UN’s definition of sustainability included a fundamental commitment to workers’ freedom of association, to empowering labor at the workplace, and to improving conditions of employment for labor. Unions fought long, hard, and successfully to get the CSD to include “the social dimension” as a key element of SD. Indeed, Lucien Royer claimed that the unions were the only group outside of business that could claim success at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (World Summit on Sustainable Development [WSSD], 2002) in Johannesburg (Trade Union Caucus Orientation Meeting, New York, April 27, 2003, author’s notes). Trade union concerns were reflected in Sect. III of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation that called for “major groups” (including trade unions) to participate in changing unsustainable

196 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 196

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

patterns of production and consumption (WSSD, p. 7). What this has meant in reality is another story, as battles at the UN are more often over principles than practice. At Johannesburg, the ICFTU with the help of the South African unions organized an enormous delegation with hundreds of activists who lobbied, marched, and made real connections. Commission for Sustainable Development delegate Jasna Petrovic of the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia told me, “We had a feeling we were changing the world, in a little way perhaps, but changing it” (personal interview, April 30, 2003).

However, just how are they changing it? There are some fundamental ambigu- ities about SD. Indeed, the process at the UN of establishing the principles of SD has been, not surprisingly, highly politicized. The ideas that emerge have often, therefore, represented attempts to please contrasting and even opposed constituen- cies. It is often difficult to read the documents produced in the discussions of sus- tainability. They use arcane, highly technical language filled with jargon that hides an underlying vacuousness. An excellent example of this took place at the 2006 Nairobi Conference where in a session on corporate social responsibility partici- pants discussed how to press corporations more effectively to actually abide by their claims of social responsibility. African trade unionists in the room argued that mobilizing workers to force companies to abide by their promises was the best hope for real corporate social responsibility. The chair of the session, a UN Environment Program staffer, suggested that what they meant was “multistake- holder engagement” a phrase that the union “stakeholders” in the room objected to but that appeared in the final report of the conference as “multistakeholder participation” (Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR] Session, WILL Nairobi, January 16, 2006, author’s notes; WILL, 2006; see Ackers and Payne [1998] for a useful critique of the language of “stakeholders” and “social compacts” in the British case). Although there is little to object to beyond inelegance in the phrase multistakeholder participation per se, it hardly reflects the militant language of trade unionists. Although the commitment to social partnership works quite well for unions in countries with widespread acceptance of social democractic princi- ples, it provides a problematic goal for trade unions seeking to build a movement or transform the desperate conditions facing so many workers around the world.

The trade unions have made an enormous effort—supported by other progressive groups and a few sympathetic governments—to make SD into something that will serve the interests of the vast majority of people of the world. They have ensured that at the UN, at least, SD includes a fundamental commitment to improving the lot of poor people and workers, and to securing basic labor rights to organize unions, to take power, and to better their lives. Despite this often-Herculean effort to influence an unwieldy and unfriendly process, the content of SD remains unclear. Just what is it? Does it apply only to “developing countries”? Only the poorest? Only to agricul- ture? What does it actually look like? How can you tell it is happening? The CSD has developed a number of measures of SD, and there has also been much ink expended (and trees sacrificed) in discussion and debates about the actual standards to be used in deciding when SD has been reached. Yet these measures do not, as far as I can tell, incorporate the concerns of labor at their core. The main indicators are listed in various CSD documents (United Nations Environment Program, Government of Canada, and UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2000; UN Commission on Sustainable Development [CSD], 2001, 2005a).

For the unions, even getting to suggest labor-oriented answers to these ques- tions about SD has been a long-term process. In 1996, 4 years after the Rio Earth

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 197

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 197

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Summit, the CSD recognized the unions as a “major stakeholder.” They received a name plaque for the session—a symbolic victory perhaps, but a key step for participating in discussions to make the union voice heard by the governments and the UN. In practice, this meant that the unions could more effectively push for what came to be called the “social dimension” of SD. Indeed, one of the most significant achievements, according to Royer, was the inclusion of the word “workplace” in the discussions (Trade Union Caucus Orientation Meeting, April 27, 2003, author’s notes).

Obviously, if it is such a struggle to get workplaces and production recognized as central, then there are significant limitations to the trade union role in SD. The limitations develop, on the one hand, out of the power of antilabor forces in the world and, on the other, out of divisions within the labor movement itself. Trade union environmentalists have had to find creative ways to contend with each problem.

“The whole process of the Commission on Sustainable Development has been disempowering, frankly,” delegate Winston Gereluk admitted (Trade Union Caucus Orientation Meeting, April 27, 2003, author’s notes). For all the good plans and thoughtful programs, for the success in inclusion of the social dimension, the unionists experienced significant frustration. Many of the labor delegates at the CSD 11 expressed anger at the painfully slow process at the UN. It was hard for them to see the point of traveling thousands of miles and sitting through days of proceedings simply to offer “snippets of words” in Royer’s phrase (Trade Union Caucus Orientation Meeting, April 27, 2003, author’s notes). Josephilda Nhlapo- Hlope, then a staffer of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), told me that she was fed up with the painfully slow process of the UN. To her, grassroots activism seemed the only way to make a real difference in poverty and consumption patterns. She argued that the UN and the CSD were designed to avoid taking action. Others expressed similar frustrations, especially at the vari- ous governments’ abilities to keep labor’s contribution to a minimum. The CSD was “just governments talking to each other,” exclaimed Nhlapo-Hlope (personal interview, April 28, 2003).

Where the meetings were not simply hot air, the issues were often framed in ways unfavorable to labor. Labor’s small victories have come through persever- ance, through the kind of in-your-face militancy that makes for good organizing. However, the chair at the CSD 11 sessions—though a representative of the African National Congress government of South Africa—was hardly interested in hear- ing from the unions; the discussions at the meetings tended to be statements made by government ministers or experts without substantial consideration of labor’s viewpoint. Thomas Heide of the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO) Development Unit explained, “We have to push ourselves into the discus- sion” (Trade Union Caucus Meeting, New York, April 30, 2003, author’s notes). Although the political victories of left governments in Latin America and Europe in the last 4 years have improved labor’s reception at UN venues, the substance of the challenge remains the same.

Bhekie Ntshalintshali, Deputy General Secretary of COSATU and the highest ranked member of the labor delegation at CSD 11, emphasized: it is “important to make our point, to contest the point in each discussion” (Trade Union Caucus Orientation Meeting, April 27, 2003, author’s notes). The unions did make their point. They managed to maneuver the chair of the CSD to begin the session with songs by the New York Labor Chorus to honor the April 28 International

198 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 198

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Commemoration Day (ICD) ceremony for workers fallen ill or killed by their jobs. Labor delegates also sang “We Shall Not Be Moved” at the close of the session. However, these symbolic achievements have only partially turned into substantive accomplishments.

THE PROBLEM WITH PARTNERSHIPS

A key problem has been with the idea of “partnerships.” Business and conser- vative governments pushed the idea of “partnerships for sustainable develop- ment” through the 2002 WSSD. These partnerships are in effect UN endorsement of privatization of responsibility for the environment. The fight at the CSD is thus part of the larger battle against neo-liberal practices that have destroyed living and working conditions for workers and reduced social control of economic resources and natural environments.

The prospects and possibilities for trade unions in SD policy making were well illustrated at the International Forum on Partnerships for Sustainable Development, a meeting sponsored by the Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory in cooperation with the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Despite labor involvement, the meeting, which took place at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) headquarters in Rome from March 4-6, 2004, reinforced the proposition that existing partnerships tend to neglect the social pillar established by Agenda 21. Moreover, at this time there are no con- crete definitions nor agreed set of practices and standards for partnerships that will ensure that partnerships actually promote SD in general, let alone reinforce the social pillar that the unions and other groups have fought so hard to include in international agreements on SD.

Partnerships have been a key part of the international strategy to create SD out- comes (called “type 2 outcomes” within the development world) for several years, ever since the Monterrey Conference on Development and the Bali preparatory committee meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development of Spring 2002. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and UN General Assembly Resolution 58/129 confirmed partnerships as a key technique for organizing and funding projects (UN, 2003a; WSSD, 2002). The UN’s (2003b) Bali Principles called for partnerships between governments of the north and south and between governments and major groups that would support SD. Moreover, the Bali Principles hold: “Partnerships should integrate the economic, social, and environ- mental dimensions of sustainable development in their design and implementa- tion” (n.p.) They should “involve a range of significant actors” including, NGOs, international institutions, regional groups, national governments and “private sec- tor partners” (n.p.). To be effective, partnerships must involve local communities, that is, use a “bottom-up approach.” The partnerships must have tangible results and be a new arrangement “developed within the framework of the WSSD” (UN, 2003b).

Trade unions along with many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) had been suspicious of the push for partnerships because they suspected they were a cover for privatization of public policy implementation (de la Motte & Hall, 2003). Their experience at the Rome Forum on Partnerships and at the 2004 CSD confirmed their fears. The Rome Forum was called to “enhance the contribution of partnerships towards: The implementation of sustainable goals and objec- tives . . . [and] the development of models of technology transfer and use of

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 199

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 199

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

innovative financial mechanisms” (UN, 2003c, n.p.). It offered “an important opportunity to identity . . . the essential elements of partnerships for sustainable development and the lesson learned from experience to date” (UN, 2003c, n.p.). Despite the emphasis put on partnerships in earlier meetings and the hundreds of partnerships now registered with the CSD, trade unions and other major groups at the CSD, as well as participants at the Rome Forum seemed to have real difficulty agreeing on the nature of effective partnerships. The trade unions themselves have long been critically supportive of partnerships. Many of the partnership ini- tiatives presented in Rome simply ignored the social pillar and did not include “a range of significant actors.” Others could not be distinguished from earlier forms of development aid or of corporate charity. Delegates from many different civil society groups present raised serious questions about the partnerships presented and of the implementation of partnerships in general. The Rome Forum demon- strated that the trade unions need to continue to push for partnerships that pro- vide for the social aspects of SD by empowering workers and their organizations.

Indeed a simple survey I conducted of the partnerships registered with the UN Division of Sustainable Development provides a very disturbing portrait of the recent practice of partnerships as they pertain to trade unions, labor standards, and workers’ concerns. Trade unions are very rarely included as partners in these efforts, and workers’ concerns are generally ignored in the design, purpose, and implementa- tion of partnerships. Only five of almost 300 registered partnerships in 2004 involved trade unions as partners. Just eight included the International Labor Organization. Only two explicitly promoted the labor goals articulated in chapter 29 of Agenda 21 whereas three mentioned other labor standards or goals. Two wanted to include labor organizations or labor goals but had not done so yet. Overall, only 11, that is less than 5% of registered partnerships, had made an effort to include labor institutions and labor issues in their goals, practices, or makeup (see appendix).

WORKPLACE ASSESSMENTS AND SD

The unions attempted to turn the partnership strategy on its head. They have responded by arguing that they are the pioneers in partnerships because contracts between labor and employer should be considered partnerships. More important, the ICFTU promotes an idea of Workplace Assessments (WAs) as the model for what partnerships should be. WAs promise to be one of the most-important meth- ods for actually ensuring labor participation in SD. The message that the dele- gates tried to promote was that WAs provide an excellent way to improve environmental practices at the point of production while empowering workers. A WA is essentially a tripartite process involving organized workers, employers, and government representatives who jointly evaluate a workplace for its environ- mental and labor practices. By including unions in design and implementation, WAs ensure that environmental review will not be used to exploit labor. They contrast WAs to Taylorist or Fordist “scientific” management that “implies an unhealthy relationship of workers to their work, giving them little or no say in the terms and conditions of work and no responsibility for the product or process” (Gereluk & Royer, 2001, p. 9). WAs thus combine the social democratic and par- ticularist sides of labor in a synthesis intended to protect the environment and empower workers at the same time.

Indeed, WAs will empower workers just as OH&S committees do. Moreover, as proposed, the WA evaluates a variety of “social indicators.” The union-designed

200 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 200

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

evaluation is a way of ensuring that workers’ quality of life and of work, their freedom to organize, and the general conditions of employment are recognized as part of SD. The pioneering example of this sort of agreement was the Brazilian benzene agreement of 1995 that empowered workers in plants to regulate expo- sure and use of the dangerous solvent as part of a tripartite system of regulation. The agreement covers 300 workplaces and more than 40,000 workers (Global Unions, 2002). The development of WAs and the SD they promote, Gereluk and Royer (2001) argued, goes “beyond narrow, technical problems, and becomes part and parcel of the same struggle over work relations that has defined the history of trade unionism” (p. 9).

TRANSFORMING PROBUSINESS INITIATIVES FOR SD?

Although the unions have been able to develop an effective approach to trans- forming probusiness initiatives at the CSD, divisions within the unions themselves require a different approach. Labor is not a simple movement; it often expresses contradictory political and social impulses. At times, some unions act only in terms of narrowly conceived interest in protecting members’ jobs and income, whereas at other times they seek broader, even radical change. Examples of this contrast are easy to find. For instance, in the United States, the Teamsters, under the now- discredited but nonetheless reformist Ron Carey, opposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. James Hoffa, the more-conservative current president, supports it. Similarly, the United Auto Workers supported the Clean Air Act and then dragged its feet on increasing car fleet mileage standards. A quick examina- tion of American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL- CIO) environmental policy leaves the impression that the U.S. union movement’s central federation is not doing much to advance SD beyond a few speeches. It does not have a clear policy on sustainability. Individual unions and locals do have fully articulated environmental positions; however, the AFL-CIO as a whole does not have much of a policy and devotes few resources to it. There were no Federation representatives at the CSD, and most AFL-CIO members present came because of their personal commitment to the principles of SD, not as representatives of their organizations. The exception were members of Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE), including health and safety officer Eric Frumin. It is ironic to note, the AFL-CIO despite its disagreements with its government has mirrored the Bush administration with its lack of substantive par- ticipation in UN environmental efforts. The split in the American labor movement in 2005 has not changed the picture. The Change to Win Coalition has not entered this arena to date. A comparison of the U.S. trade unions’ minimal involvement to that of the British Trades Union Congress, let alone the most-committed orga- nizations, reveals an enormous gap between American labor and that of other movements. King (2005) gave a good sense of the substantial commitment on the part the British. Even the more left side of American labor still makes headlines when it adopts an antipollution stance, such as the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union recently did with its call for cleaning up ports (Raine, 2006).

In international labor, the same differences have appeared. Organizations within global unions have clashed over environmental issues and have often divided along national and industrial lines. In the International Metalworkers Federation, for instance, pro- and antinuclear power unions have prevented the

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 201

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 201

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

organization from taking a consistent stand. Labor environmentalists, as I noted above, have generally come out of groups working on OH&S. Yet there has been intense conflict within the institutions about whether or not environmentalism and sustainability distract the organizations from their main purposes, drain badly needed resources, and give the movement little in return. Although the labor movements of a few countries (such as the South African, Spanish, Brazilian, and Scandinavian) are deeply committed to green unionism, many others are seriously divided. Even the movements deeply involved in SD policy disagree on the way it should be implemented and the efficacy of the UN model of incorporation.

Promoters of SD within international labor organizations have few resources to bring to bear. The people who push the international trade union agenda—the people I spent time with at the UN—often face serious conflicts. Royer of the ICFTU Occupational Health, Safety and Environment Working Party—the only official body in the world bringing together all sector or regional trade union organizations—acknowledges persistent tendencies within the group to weaken the SD focus or to change track completely. A faction did not want to expand the existing occupational health, safety, and environment focus to encompass a larger SD agenda. Even so, a growing number of committed people has moved the union movement in unexpected directions. It is largely because of the efforts of Royer and his group of internationalist environmentalists that the ICFTU has embraced SD and been so deeply involved in the articulation of UN SD programs. “We are pushing the envelope with the UN and the CSD,” says Winston Gereluk of the Public Services International, “the trade unions are behind us—but not strongly” (personal interview, May 3, 2003).

LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND NGOS

Parallel divisions arise in the complicated alliances of labor and environmen- talist organizations that have transformed world politics in the past few years. Some have argued that the success of labor-environmentalist coalitions has been based on narrow labor interests in job preservation or in the health of their members coinciding with an apparently more far-sighted green vision of ecolog- ical balance. Ntshalintshali of COSATU recently remarked that NGOs involved in the environment “often see trade unions as the opposition on a number of issues” (Trade Union Caucus Orientation Meeting, April 27, 2003, author’s notes). Middle- and upper-class environmentalists, for their part, have tried to claim a longer view of the difficulties involved in domination over nature and to call for a sacrifice of economic opportunity in pursuit of a universal good—a sacrifice that usually does not directly affect the middle and upper class as much it does workers. Nongovernmental organizations trying to support disenfranchised groups such as women or indigenous people have also been suspicious of trade unions in the past. These mutual suspicions have made cooperation often diffi- cult. Yet Royer is rightly proud of the achievements of the unions in forging alliances with the socially conscious NGOs. In the first years of the CSD after its founding in 1992, the trade unions were part of an NGO caucus. They separated from the other NGOs in the mid-1990s, becoming what the UN calls a “major group” (an organization with particular rights of consultation and participation in meeting sessions). The unions and the NGOs, nonetheless, have maintained close

202 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 202

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

cooperation at the UN sessions. Royer’s diplomatic success in this regard reflects the politically powerful nature of the idea of SD in allowing for the perpetuation of this coalition. The unions at the UN were even able to have an effective dialogue with some business groups—it is this achievement that paved the way for the suc- cess of the unions in pushing through the labor plank at the Johannesburg World Summit in 2002 (L. Royer, personal correspondence, May 17, 2003).

Similarly at the 2004 CSD, the trade unions organized efforts among NGOs to protest UN support of water privatization efforts. They particularly protested the UN secretary general’s creation of an Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation that “the majority of whom publicly favor privatization.” The unions and the other NGOs defended the ideas promoting social control over development that had been articulated at previous meetings: “We feel that this appointment under- mines the principles and the spirit of Agenda 21 and JPOI and the trust of the partners committed to the multistakeholder process” (Statement of Concern of Civil Society Groups, 2004). The ICFTU delegation with the expert advice of David Boys of the Public Services International stimulated a strong debate on water privatization plans but was unable to forestall the secretary general’s policy proposals.

The proliferation of groups attending the CSD since 1992, often with ques- tionable ability to represent those who they claim to represent, initially meant a dilution of the workers’ voice. Nonetheless, labor now is a key element of the environmentalist and sustainability movements, with trade unions from Europe, Canada, South Africa, and Brazil taking leadership roles. At the CSD, the unions have been the only major group that has been able to advance a coherent overall program.

LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Labor’s unflagging efforts to make an impact in the UN world have recently begun to meet with more substantial success. The WILL 2006 conference in Nairobi was of key significance in this growth. The meeting brought together trade unionists from around the world to Nairobi to meet with representatives and staff of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and several government ministers. The meeting, according to Joaquín Nieto, president of the union-sponsored foun- dation SustainLabour, “began a new stage for us and for the UN Environment Program” (Nieto, 2006, p. 2).

Indeed the commitment on the part of UNEP and the ILO to work with trade unions to develop environmentally oriented programs and to commit substantial resources is a significant step. Interestingly for the argument stressing the impor- tance of leadership in bringing labor and environmentalists, Dr. Klaus Toepfer, outgoing executive director of UNEP, played a critical role in moving UNEP in this direction. The fact that so many trade unions committed themselves to this environmental work and sent delegations led by top officials and the resolution of the UN agencies and the ILO to work with the unions certainly indicates a high-level involvement. “What was most significant at the meeting” John Evans of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, explained,

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 203

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 203

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

was the degree of commitment expressed by elected national and international trade union representatives as well as experts from both the North and South to work with the UNEP, ILO and WHO on the most urgent problems facing us—how to achieve sustainable development. (Trade Union Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [TUAC], 2006, n.p.).

These undertakings promise, at the least, more meetings in the future. Yet as ICFTU General Secretary Guy Ryder explained at the first plenary session in Nairobi: “There is no automatic win-win on sustainable development.” The meet- ing, Ryder warned, “can be historic or it can be forgotten” (WILL Nairobi, January 15, 2006, author’s notes of plenary speeches). That the head of ICFTU at a world gathering could express such reservations is a mark of the ambiguity surrounding trade union success in international SD policy.

LABOR’S MISSION AND BLUEWASHING

The reason the international trade union movement has succeeded (as much as it has) is that during the past 30 years labor developed an environmental program growing from its own philosophy and traditions about the interactions of people and the natural world—whether or not the entire movement recognizes this. Rather than being a complete change of direction for the unions, this environ- mentalism develops from the movement’s longstanding concerns with OH&S, worker empowerment, and community protection, that is, with some of the basic principles of trade unionism. The union environmentalists believe that “sustainable development is not tangential, but essential to its [labor’s] mission” (W. Gereluk, personal interview, May 3, 2003). This essential quality is nonetheless at times difficult to see, as Ryder put it in Nairobi, “the jobs versus environment issue is outmoded as an idea, but in practice this is wishful thinking” (WILL Nairobi, January 15, 2006, author’s notes of plenary speeches).

Little reveals the limitations of the trade union effort better than the 2005 CSD declaration. The document reflected some labor concerns and provided positive language on poverty reduction, the role of government in regulating basic services, such as water and sanitation, and in the key area of employment. On “cross cutting issues,” the CSD promised to address problems with “particular attention given to the requirements of women, youth and workers.” It was a small victory, but one that the ICFTU and TUAC staff believed important. Similarly, the CSD declared workplaces should be encouraged in sustainable production and consumption—a key idea promoted by unions. Yet the absence of reference to core labor standards, or the need for more than voluntary reporting systems on compliance with SD standards weakened the document. Although the trade unions celebrated the inclu- sion of employment planning as part of national SD programs and of a continuing role for the public sector, they could not obtain language on the role of trade unions, the importance of labor rights, or key labor standards (CSD, 2005b; International Confederation of Free Trade Unions-Occupational Health, Safety and Environment Working Party [ICFTU-OHSE], 2005).

Perhaps underlying the challenges labor faces in international institutions is what one ILO research unit called “widening dichotomy between economic and social governance.” This dichotomy limits the power of “global economic gover- nance” that “in turn imposes constraints on national policy makers, markets and firms, and reduces the space for social dialogue” (International Labor Organization

204 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 204

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

[ILO], 2005). Of course, “social dialogue” is the purpose of the ILO as a tripartite organization; it is a worthwhile end; however, it hardly makes a good slogan for mobilizing workers. Thus even this implied critique of the inadequacies of UN global policy does not address the critical trade union issue of mobilization of the workforce or counter the virtually unchecked power of capital.

According to one observer, trade unions are “actively looking into ways to integrate aspects of sustainable development into the daily life of workers” (Heins, 2004, p. 14). Heins (2004) argued that

the growing debate on corporate social responsibility is challenging unions to re- think the link between societal and workplace issues. As management has started to grasp that the traditional distinction between business’ interests and societal interest is no longer clear cut, labor unions are also becoming aware that busi- ness today is taking on a new, more integrated meaning. It can thus be expected that the role of unions in global networks for enhancing sustainability, such as the Global Compact, and the sustainable consumption and production debate will become more important. (p. 14)

Indeed, the increasing participation of trade union leaders in SD policy making during the past decade indicates recognition of the importance of the UN institu- tions and the global process.

Yet what is this “new, more integrated meaning?” The experience of the Global Compact has been mixed. For instance, many NGOs complain that its lack of enforcement and clear reporting requirements have turned it into a form of “bluewashing”—using the UN logo to cover corporate misbehavior (Global Policy Forum, 2004a, 2004b). The ICFTU does participate; however, only 4 of 10 Global Union Federations and a mere handful of national organizations have joined. Although well-intentioned corporations should be encouraged to continue to adhere to the core standards articulated in the Compact, the agreement itself is not useful to trade unions confronting corporate powers that refuse to accept lim- itations on their power let alone labor’s legitimacy as a social and political force. Diller (1999) surveyed global standards and guidelines through nonlegislated, private agreements, labeling, and codes of conduct and found that they are of mixed utility—a finding borne out by many other studies (Armbruster-Sandoval, 2005; Elliott & Freeman, 2003; Esbenshade, 2004; Pines & Meyer, 2005).

PROSPECTS FOR GREEN UNIONISM

Labor, divided among itself, on the defensive in so many places around the world, opposed by some of the most-powerful countries and institutions will only be able to counter the corporate vision of sustainability if it maintains its coalition with other groups and with sympathetic governments. Although there remain great differences between NGOs and trade unions in terms of whom they represent and how responsible they are to their members, there are profound bases for agreement. These organizations have developed a program that combines traditional trade union concerns (about freedom to organize, wages, working conditions, occupa- tional health, and social security) with environmental initiatives and ecological con- sciousness based on the complementary principles of sustainability and solidarity. The recent eagerness of UNEP, WHO, and the ILO in addition to environmentalist NGOs to work with labor is telling of the importance of this development.

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 205

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 205

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Will this green coalition be enough to overcome the grey power of corporations and neoliberal governments to create a future that is truly sustainable, that is, one that does not destroy human lives and human possibilities along with the environment? It is doubtful in the near term that this grouping will make significant gains in the UN and its associated institutions, let alone in the world at large. The forces arrayed against green unionism are quite powerful, the labor movement and the larger Left are sometimes very divided, often riddled with conflicted motivations and interests. Most of all they need powerful gov- ernments to push the UN to act on its good intentions and pretty words. No progress is possible as long as the rulers of the great economic powers remain wedded to the principles of growth at any price and to containing and control- ling labor.

Nonetheless, there are grounds for optimism about what can happen when governments and labor work together. One of the most promising developments to come out of the unions involved in the CSD was a proposal by the ICFTU, the TUAC, the Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) of Spain and various regional trade union bodies to establish SustainLabour, a foundation “promoting trade union interests in sustainable development” (Royer, 2004). SustainLabour organizes support and arranges financing for labor-based SD pro- jects. Its purpose is to empower grassroots labor organizations that promote envi- ronmentally sound production. Yet what has it accomplished to date? The WILL 2006 Nariobi conference, organized in large part by SustainLabour, and overseen by key labor organizations, succeeded in bringing together a variety of trade unionists from around the world with strong representation from the global South. At the time, the jury remains out on whether this involvement will trans- late into actual SD responsive to workers’ needs. SustainLabour may indeed ful- fill its promise in providing the institutional support needed for trade unions to continue to push their own version of SD.

The forces arrayed against labor’s SD agenda within the unions and in the larger global policy-making world are formidable. The challenge for the unions is to mobilize the social movement base of their organization while remaining engaged in an institutional arena designed to contain such movements. Willie Madisha, president of COASATU explained in Nairobi in 2006 that what matters in labor environmental activism, is “implementation not resolutions” (personal conversation, WILL 2006, January 17, 2006). Or, as Marina Silva, minister of the Interior of Brazil’s Worker’s Party government and a former rubber tapper, told the union delegation in 2003, the point is “to make change with the people not for the people” (Trade Union Caucus Meeting, New York, April 30, 2003, author’s notes).

APPENDIX

Methodology: A search of the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) Partnership database for the keywords labor or labour or trade union or trades unions or 29 returns 22 projects of which the following 11 have trade union or International Labor Organization (ILO) involvement or directly address workplace issues. This was deter- mined by searching for references to those issues in the texts of the UN Partnership data- base’s Web page and the Web sites of the partnerships themselves where these existed.

• Partnership database, Accessed September 27, 2004 o (http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/browse.do)

206 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 206

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

• 295 listed partnerships • In the search pages listing for themes involved:

o There is no option for trade union or labor themes. o The searchable themes do include the social pillar of sustainable development

(SD) in the following themes: changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production education gender equality human settlements industrial development institutional framework for SD means of implementation (trade, finance, technology, transfer, etc.) poverty eradication

• 11 partnerships or less than 5% of all registered partnerships involve trade unions, explicitly address the goals of chapter 29 of Agenda 21, or include more general labor concerns such as following labor standards.

Format scheme:

1) Name

a) purpose b) labor or ILO involvement c) inclusion of chapter 29 of Agenda 21 or of other labor standards d) URL of Web site in UN database e) URL of Partnership Web site

1. Introduction of social standards in production (1) Its purpose is to implement a social charter for faber Castelli plants in India

based on ILO standards. (2) This partnership involves the trade union IG Metall. (3) The charter especially addresses ILO guidelines on child labor, working hours,

trade union activities, and health issues at the work place. (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/167.html

2) National Capacities for Upscaling Local Agenda 21 Demonstrations (1) helps national government expand local projects that pertain to Agenda 21 (2) ILO listed as one partner but not trade unions (3) It does not list workers’ rights or chapter 29 of Agenda 21 as one of the areas

addressed by the project. (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/116.html

3) Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) Initiative: People Shaping their Sustainable Futures (1) promotes access to resources in rural areas, better practices in agriculture and

fair conditions of employment for agricultural workers (2) includes ILO as partner, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,

Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), and national trade unions

(3) doesn’t mention chapter 29 but does stress working conditions and labor rights

(4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/28.html

4) The Intersect HIV/Violence Against Women & Children Project (1) supports building of coalitions against HIV/AIDs and violence against women

and girls

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 207

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 207

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(2) proposes involving trade unions but no work at the time of report with trade unions in Web site of the organization (www.intersect-worldwide.org/home.html) or on UN partnership site

(3) Does not mention chapter 29 or specific labor standards (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/203.html

5) Global Alliance for Building Sustainability (GABS) (1) promotes sustainable practices in building, construction, development indus-

tries by facilitating cooperation among government and construction industry representatives and professional organizations (chartered engineers, architects, etc.) but no trade unions that I could discern

(2) ILO is one partner (3) specifically mentions that its actions will strengthen implementation of chapter

29 of Agenda 21 (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/51.html

6) Global Partnership for Capacity Building to Implement the Globally Harmonized System for Chemical Classification and Labelling (GHS) (1) to spur harmonization of chemical classification systems and thereby reduce

the harm done to people and the environment by hazardous chemicals (2) International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’

Unions (ICEM) and ILO participation as partners (3) does not mention chapter 29 or labor standards (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/210.html

7) HIV/AIDS in the world of work: A tripartite response in the Caribbean (1) prevent spread of HIV/AIDS by involving workers’ organizations and businesses

in Caribbean. Use ILO standards as methods of measuring progress toward goal (2) involves ILO and Caribbean Congress of Labor (3) does not mention Chapter 29 or labor standards (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/156.html (5) http://mirror/public/english/protection/trav/aids/

8) Local Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) (1) supports better planning for dealing with environmental problems at the local

level (2) ILO is a partner, but no trade union involvement (3) doesn’t mention chapter 29 or specific standards (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/106.html (5) http://www.unhabitat.org http://www.unep.org

9) Local Procurement for Development and Sustainability (1) promotes the use of SD considerations in purchasing for local authorities (2) does not mention ILO, or trade unions as partners (3) does not mention labor standards, or trade unions but does recommend

consideration of labor conditions in purchasing (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/105.html

10) The Seed Initiative (1) supports the activities of local, entrepreneurial driven partnerships that

promote SD (2) proposes to include a variety of organizations in support of its goals, including

labor organizations, but does not list any currently involved. (3) does not mention chapter 29 (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/923.html (5) http://seedinit.org

208 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 208

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

11) Workplace Assessments (WAs) Partnerships (1) promotes partnerships with trade unions to implement WAs (2) includes Interational Confederation of Free Trade Unions and/or Trade Union

Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (ICFTU/TUAC) and ILO as partners

(3) doesn’t mention chapter 29 but does mention Agenda 21 (4) http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/search/partnerships/906.html

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 209

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 209

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

T ra

d e

U n io

n

In te

rn a ti

o n a l

L a b o r

In cl

u d es

In

cl u d es

O th

er In

cl u d es

G en

er a l

In vo

lv em

en t

O rg

a n iz

a ti

o n I

nv o lv

em en

t C

h a p te

r 2 9

L a b o r

S ta

n d a rd

s L

a b o r

G o a ls

1. I

nt ro

du ct

io n

of s

oc ia

l st

an da

rd s

in p

ro du

ct io

n ye

s ye

s ye

s ye

s ye

s 2.

N at

io na

l ca

pa ci

ti es

f or

u ps

ca li

ng l

oc al

A ge

nd a

21 d

em on

st ra

ti on

s no

ye s

no no

no 3.

S us

ta in

ab le

A gr

ic ul

tu re

a nd

R ur

al D

ev el

op m

en t

(S A

R D

) In

it ia

ti ve

: P

eo pl

e sh

ap in

g th

ei r

su st

ai na

bl e

fu tu

re s

ye s

ye s

no ye

s ye

s 4.

T he

I nt

er se

ct H

IV /V

io le

nc e

A ga

in st

W om

en &

C hi

ld re

n P

ro je

ct no

no no

no ye

s 5.

G lo

ba l A

ll ia

nc e

fo r

B ui

ld in

g S

us ta

in ab

il it

y (G

A B

S )

no ye

s ye

s no

no 6.

G lo

ba l

P ar

tn er

sh ip

f or

C ap

ac it

y B

ui ld

in g

to I

m pl

em en

t th

e G

lo ba

ll y

H ar

m on

iz ed

S ys

te m

f or

C he

m ic

al C

la ss

if ic

at io

n an

d L

ab el

li ng

( G

H S

) ye

s ye

s no

no ye

s 7.

H IV

/A ID

S i

n th

e w

or ld

o f

w or

k: A

t ri

pa rt

it e

re sp

on se

i n

th e

C ar

ib be

an ye

s ye

s no

no ye

s 8.

L oc

al e

nv ir

on m

en ta

l pl

an ni

ng a

nd m

an ag

em en

t (E

P M

) no

ye s

no no

no 9.

L oc

al p

ro cu

re m

en t

fo r

de ve

lo pm

en t

an d

su st

ai na

bi li

ty no

no no

no ye

s 10

. T

he S

ee d

In it

ia ti

ve no

/w an

ts t

o no

no no

no 11

. W A

s pa

rt ne

rs hi

ps ye

s ye

s no

ye s

ye s

210

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 210

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

NOTE

1. The most famous example being the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment in the northwest United States which brought steelworkers and tree huggers together to fight Charles Hurwitz’s Maxxam company. Yet it is not only the common enemy of particular corporations—such as Maxxam—but also the whole system of market-driven aggressive- ness and the abandonment of mid-20th-century models of corporate-labor cooperation that unites the turtles and the Teamsters, to use the phrase made popular after the Seattle anti- World Trade Organization demonstrations of 1999. The continuation of this alliance was apparent in the halls of the United Nations’ (UN) building with the trade unions working more or less closely with a nongovernmental organization (NGO) coalition.

REFERENCES

Ackers, P., & Payne, J. (1998). British trade unions and social partnership: Rhetoric, reality and strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3), 529-550.

Armbruster-Sandoval, R. (2005). Workers of the world unite? The contemporary anti- sweatshop movement and the struggle for social justice in the Americas. Work and Occupations, 32, 464-485.

Carew, A., Dreyfus, M., Van Goethem, G., Gumbrell-McCormick, R., & van der Linden, M. (Eds.). (2000). The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO). (2006). Labour and environment: Some experiences of Spanish trade unions in environment. Madrid, Spain: Author.

de la Motte, R., & Hall, D. (2003). The European Commission’s guide to successful public-private partnerships—A critique. Greenwich, CT: Public Services International Research Unit.

Dewey, S. (1998). Working for the environment, organized labor and the origins of envi- ronmentalism in the United States. Environmental History, 1, 45-63.

Diller, J. (1999). A social conscience in the global marketplace? Labour dimensions of codes of conduct, social labelling and investor initiatives. International Labour Review, 138(2), 99-129.

Elliott, K. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2003). Can labor standards improve under globaliza- tion? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Esbenshade, J. (2004). Monitoring sweatshops: Workers, consumers, and the global apparel industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Freeman, R., & Medoff, J., (1984). What do unions do? New York: Basic Books. Gereluk, W., & Royer, L. (2001). Sustainable development of the global economy: A trade

union perspective. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organization. Global Policy Forum. (2004a). Global Compact Counter Summit, June. Available at www.

globalpolicy.org/reform/business/2004/0623countersummit.htm Global Policy Forum. (2004b). Joint civil society statement on the Global Compact and

corporate accountability, July 2004. Available at www.globalpolicy.org/reform/ business/2004/07gcstatement.pdf

Global Unions. (2002). Fashioning a new deal: Workers and trade unions at the World Summit for Sustainable Development. Paris: Author. Available at www.icftu.org/www/ pdf/reportsouthafricaenglish.pda

Global Unions. (2005, November). Contribution by workers and trade unions. Retrieved December 2005, from http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=E/CN.17/ 2006/5/Add.6&Lang=E

Gordon, M. E., & Turner, L. (2000). Making transnational collaboration work. In M. E. Gordon & L. Turner (Eds.), Transnational cooperation among labor unions (pp. 256-262). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 211

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 211

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gordon, R. (1998). Shell no! OCAW and the labor-environmental alliance. Environmental History, 3(4), 460-487.

Grant, W. (Ed.). (1983). The political economy of corporatism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grossman, R. (1985). Environmentalists and the labor movement. Socialist Review, 82-88, 63-87.

Hartog, J., & Teulings, C. (1998). Corporatism or competition? Labour contracts, institu- tions, and wage structures in international comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heins, B. (2004). The role of labour unions in the process towards sustainable consump- tion and production: Final report to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Paris, France. Available at www.ecologic.de/download/projekte/1850-1899/1883/1883_study.pdf

Hyman, R. (2002). The International Labour Movement on the threshold of two centuries agitation, organisation, bureaucracy, diplomacy. Arbetarrörelsens arkiv och bibliotek, Stockholm. Available at www.arbarkiv.nu/pdf_wrd/Hyman_int.pdf

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Occupational Health, Safety and Environment Working Party (ICFTU-OHSE). (2005). UN adds workers, workplaces, jobs & government to solutions for sustainable development, Paris – 2 May. Available at www. Globalunions.org/pdf/ohsewpO_4i.EN.pdf

International Labor Organization (ILO). (2005). International Institute for Labor Studies - ILO, research program. Available at www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/research/ research1.htm

King, C. (2005). A fair and just transition—Research report for greening the workplace. London: Trades Union Congress, Trade Unions Sustainable Development Advisory Committee). Available at www.tuc.org.uk/extras/fairandjust.doc

Lester, R. A. (1958). As unions mature: An analysis of the evolution of American unionism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Logan, R., & Nelkin, D. (1980). Labor and nuclear power. Environment, 22(2), 6-34. Moberg, D. (2002, April 1). Fueling the flames: Labor and greens must join forces to stop

Bush’s assault on the planet. In These Times, p. 11. Nieto, J. (2006, January 15). Address [Transcript of speech to Workers’ Initiative for a

Lasting Legacy [WILL] 2006, translation by the author]. Available at www.will2006. org/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1137601344&archive=&start_from=&ucat= 1&x=speeches

Obach, B. K. (1999). The Wisconsin labor-environmental network: A case study of coalition formation among organized labor and the environmental movement. Organization & Environment, 12, 45-74.

Obach, B. K. (2002). Labor-environmental relations: An analysis of the relationship between labor unions and environmentalists. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 82-100.

Obach, B. K. (2004a). Labor and the environmental movement: The quest for common ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Obach, B. K. (2004b). New labor: Slowing the treadmill of production? Organization & Environment, 17, 337-354.

Penney, J. (2001). Work in progress: Major unions in Canada are pushing for a win-win scenario. Alternatives, 27(1), 18.

Pines, G. L. S., & Meyer, D. G. (2005). Stopping the exploitation of workers: An analysis of the effective application of consumer or socio-political pressure. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1/2), 155–162.

Raine, G. (2006, March 4). Shipping’s dirty cargo: Port pollution poses huge health threat, says union. San Francisco Chronicle, pp. C1-2.

Royer, L. (2004, November 2). Governments & trade unionists pose, sustainable devel- opment challenges for new foundation. Madrid, Spain: SustainLabour.

212 ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT / June 2006

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 212

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Siegmann, H. (1985). The conflict between labor and environmentalism in the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States. New York: St. Martin’s.

Silverman, V. (2004, Fall). Sustainable alliances: The ideology of international labor envi- ronmentalism. International Labor and Working Class History, 66, 118–135.

Statement of concern of civil society groups about the SG’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation. (2004, April). Available at www.sdissues.net/SDIN/docs/CSD12/NGO ConcernStmtSGBoard.aspx

Trade Union Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006, January 30). UNEP & trade unions develop common programme for environment & sustainable development. Paris. Available at www.tuac.org/News/ default.htm#UNEP

United Nations (UN). (1992, June 3-14). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro. Available at www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter29.htm

United Nations (UN). (2003a). Bali guiding principles. Available at www.un.org/esa/sust- dev/ partnerships/bali_guiding_principles.htm

United Nations (UN). (2003b). First announcement: International Forum on Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Available at www.minambiente.it/Sito/settori_azione/pia/ docs/forum_sd_eng.pdf

United Nations (UN). (2003c). Towards global partnerships: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/58/129). Available at http://daccessods.un.org/access.nsf/Get? Open&DS=A/RES/58/129&Lang=E

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). (2001). Information and institutions for decision-making, report of the secretary-general (E/CN.17/2001/PC/3). Available at http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3770558.html

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). (2005a). CSD theme indicator framework. Available at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isdms2001/ table_4.htm

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). (2005b). Report on the thirteenth session (E/2005/29/E/CN.17/2005/12). Available at http://daccess-ods.un .org/TMP/3107132.html

United Nations Environment Program, Government of Canada, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2000, September 25–28). Report of the International Expert Meeting on Information for Decision Making and Participation. Château Cartier Resort Aylmer, Canada. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/susidev/scd/iem- info-report.pdf

Wallace, M., Rubin, B. A., & Smith, B. T. (1998). American labor law: Its impact on working- class militancy, 1901-1980. Social Science History, 12(1), 1-29.

Waterman, P. (2001). Emancipating labor internationalism (from the C20th working class, unions and socialism). Global Solidarity Dialog. Available at www.antenna.nl/~waterman

Workers’ Initiative for a Lasting Legacy (WILL). (2006, January 26). Final resolution of the Trade Union Assembly at its first meeting. Available at www.will2006.org/documents/ TUALEfinalresolution-ENG.pdf

World Commission. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future [Brundtland report]. Available at http://daccess-ods. un.org/TMP/3289463.html

World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Summit) (WSSD). (2002). Plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (JPOI). Available at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIChapter3.htm

Silverman / LABOR ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 213

O&E288780 (WITH RULE).qxd 4/21/2006 9:44 PM Page 213

at DEPAUL UNIV LIBRARIES on June 17, 2015oae.sagepub.comDownloaded from