abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapelocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewprofilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathtagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

This page is not available in اللغة العربية and is being displayed in English


China labour law reform

China's proposed labour law reform


Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited several US & European companies to respond to concerns about the positions taken by industry assocations regarding China's proposed labour law reform.  In particular, we sought responses to the following items:

- "China Drafts Law to Empower Unions and End Labor Abuse", David Barboza, New York Times, 13 Oct 2006

- “Behind the Great Wall of China – U.S. Corporations Opposing New Rights for Chinese Workers”, Global Labor Strategies, Oct 2006

- “Multinationals Accused of Hypocrisy over China Labour Law Reform”, Intl. Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF), 26 Oct 2006

The three industry associations highlighted in the report are: European Union Chamber of Commerce in ChinaAmerican Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, and US-China Business Council.  Click here for further reports about this issue & the full text of some of the industry association submissions to the Chinese Govt.

Links to a follow-up report by Global Labor Standards, including analysis of the company responses, are below.


Company responses / companies that declined to respond (as of 6 Feb 2007)

ABB declined to respond

AT&T declined to respond

Carrefour declined to respond

DuPont declined to respond

Ericsson response [PDF]

General Electric response [DOC]

Google response [DOC]

Intel response [DOC]

Maersk declined to comment on the draft law specifically but referred to Maersk's Fundamental Business Principles [PDF], saying that they would apply in this case.

Microsoft stated it had no comment at this time


    - ITGLWF statement: “Nike Repudiates AmCham Position on Chinese Labour Law Reform
    - Nike letter to American Chamber of Commerce in China [PDF]

Nokia response [DOC]

Procter & Gamble response [DOC]

PSA Peugeot Citroën response [DOC]

Sara Lee stated that it is no longer a member of the US-China Business Council

Shell response [DOC]

Tesco response [DOC]

Total declined to respond

UPS declined to respond

Wal-Mart declined to respond

Walt Disney response [DOC]


Follow-up report by Global Labor Strategies

"Undue Influence: Corporations Gain Ground in Battle over China's New Labor Law" - Mar 2007


commentary: "In Fear Of Chinese Democracy", Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, 4 Apr 2007.  US-China Business Council response to Harold Meyerson, 5 Apr 2007.

ردود الشركة


لا جواب


لا جواب


لا جواب


لا جواب

General Electric (GE) عرض الرد
Google (part of Alphabet) عرض الرد
Maersk (part of A.P. Moller - Maersk)

لا جواب


لا جواب

Procter & Gamble عرض الرد
PSA Peugeot-Citroën عرض الرد
Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) عرض الرد

لا جواب


لا جواب


لا جواب

Walt Disney عرض الرد

Story Timeline