C1887822
2021
BS3740
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SPRING ASSESSMENT
C1887822
Word Count: 2100
including references
, C1887822 BS3740
To what extent can the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie
Principles) protect workers in the garment/textile industry? As part of your response,
discuss the particular problems of this industry and the extent to which the provisions and
guidance of the Ruggie Principles can combat these problems.
The UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles) provide a guideline for states outlining
standards and practices that organisations should adhere to in order to prevent human
rights abuses. Within this, they attempt to address problems of multinationals being
international, whilst regulation remains at the state level. This essay argues that the
principles don’t constitute as a “solution to the sweatshop problem” (Esbenshade, 2012 :
541) that face the garment/textile industry, such as unsafe working conditions, low pay and
the exploitation of workers. Whilst it is discernible that the principles aim to protect
workers, they fail to combat problems in the industry as a result of their lack of
accountability and concerns surrounding capital circumventing the state. Consequently, the
extent to which they can protect workers in the industry is limited.
The foundational principles emphasise how states must “prevent…investigate…[and]
punish” (UN Guiding Principles, : 3) organisations for human rights abuses, through
enforcing “policies… [and] legislation” (UN Guiding Principles: 13). This should ensure the
protection of workers against unsafe working conditions. Nonetheless, as was seen in the
case of the Rana Plaza disaster, where “the factory building collapsed”, (Rodriguez and
Quelch, 2013: 1), killing over 1000 workers, the extent to which these guidelines can
effectively protect workers in the garment industry is questionable. This is a consequence of
the principles failing to provide direct worker representation through its emphasis on the
state. Furthermore, the guidelines also provide inadequate accountability to states in the
enforcement of legislations, which has led to negative ramifications for workers in the
garment industry. For example, In Bangladesh “more than 25 members of Bangladesh’s
parliament had direct stakes in the garment industry” (Rodriguez & Quelch, 2013: 5), which
led to government attempts to suppress activities that highlighted the “poor safety
conditions in the country’s garment factories” (Rodriguez & Quelch, 2013:3). This reaffirms
how this emphasis on the state to “mediate on behalf of its more vulnerable members”
(Esbenshade, 2012: 550), is non-binding. Accordingly, this lack of accountability to enforce
legislations fails to protect workers from unsafe working conditions in the garment industry,
as seen in Bangladesh.
The Ruggie Principles outlines operation principles which highlight the dissemination of
“laws and policies …. [that] states should exercise” (UN Guiding Principles: 16). Through
emphasising how the state is “obligated to take actions” (Balch, 2020). This should arguably
protect workers from exploitation in the textile industry. However, as the principles fail to
recognise the “complex and changing interests of the state” (Rosenhek, 2003, 146), workers
may not be provided with sufficient protection. This was seen in India where problems
surrounding the regulation of child labour was contended as “child labour [often occurred]
alongside parents” (Bartlett, 2006). This led to the state permitting children to work within
the “craft industries” (Bartlett, 2006), rather than enforcing legislations to eradicate the
exploitation of child labour. This alludes to the simplistic nature of the principles, which is
reiterated through its corporate terminology, that encourages states to ‘engage’ and
‘consolidate’ (UN Guiding Principles). This outwardly glosses over the tensions and potential
1
2021
BS3740
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SPRING ASSESSMENT
C1887822
Word Count: 2100
including references
, C1887822 BS3740
To what extent can the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie
Principles) protect workers in the garment/textile industry? As part of your response,
discuss the particular problems of this industry and the extent to which the provisions and
guidance of the Ruggie Principles can combat these problems.
The UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles) provide a guideline for states outlining
standards and practices that organisations should adhere to in order to prevent human
rights abuses. Within this, they attempt to address problems of multinationals being
international, whilst regulation remains at the state level. This essay argues that the
principles don’t constitute as a “solution to the sweatshop problem” (Esbenshade, 2012 :
541) that face the garment/textile industry, such as unsafe working conditions, low pay and
the exploitation of workers. Whilst it is discernible that the principles aim to protect
workers, they fail to combat problems in the industry as a result of their lack of
accountability and concerns surrounding capital circumventing the state. Consequently, the
extent to which they can protect workers in the industry is limited.
The foundational principles emphasise how states must “prevent…investigate…[and]
punish” (UN Guiding Principles, : 3) organisations for human rights abuses, through
enforcing “policies… [and] legislation” (UN Guiding Principles: 13). This should ensure the
protection of workers against unsafe working conditions. Nonetheless, as was seen in the
case of the Rana Plaza disaster, where “the factory building collapsed”, (Rodriguez and
Quelch, 2013: 1), killing over 1000 workers, the extent to which these guidelines can
effectively protect workers in the garment industry is questionable. This is a consequence of
the principles failing to provide direct worker representation through its emphasis on the
state. Furthermore, the guidelines also provide inadequate accountability to states in the
enforcement of legislations, which has led to negative ramifications for workers in the
garment industry. For example, In Bangladesh “more than 25 members of Bangladesh’s
parliament had direct stakes in the garment industry” (Rodriguez & Quelch, 2013: 5), which
led to government attempts to suppress activities that highlighted the “poor safety
conditions in the country’s garment factories” (Rodriguez & Quelch, 2013:3). This reaffirms
how this emphasis on the state to “mediate on behalf of its more vulnerable members”
(Esbenshade, 2012: 550), is non-binding. Accordingly, this lack of accountability to enforce
legislations fails to protect workers from unsafe working conditions in the garment industry,
as seen in Bangladesh.
The Ruggie Principles outlines operation principles which highlight the dissemination of
“laws and policies …. [that] states should exercise” (UN Guiding Principles: 16). Through
emphasising how the state is “obligated to take actions” (Balch, 2020). This should arguably
protect workers from exploitation in the textile industry. However, as the principles fail to
recognise the “complex and changing interests of the state” (Rosenhek, 2003, 146), workers
may not be provided with sufficient protection. This was seen in India where problems
surrounding the regulation of child labour was contended as “child labour [often occurred]
alongside parents” (Bartlett, 2006). This led to the state permitting children to work within
the “craft industries” (Bartlett, 2006), rather than enforcing legislations to eradicate the
exploitation of child labour. This alludes to the simplistic nature of the principles, which is
reiterated through its corporate terminology, that encourages states to ‘engage’ and
‘consolidate’ (UN Guiding Principles). This outwardly glosses over the tensions and potential
1
