hide message

Hello! Welcome to the Resource Centre.

We hope you find our free tools and resources useful. Did you know we also work directly with community advocates, providing them with the skills and resources to document corporate human rights abuses and effectively communicate with business?

This is only possible through generous donations from people like you.

Please consider supporting our work.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

China labour law reform

China's proposed labour law reform

- concerns about US & European industry association lobbying
- company responses & non-responses

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

Nike

    - 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.

 

Get RSS feed of these results

Related stories and components

Company response
1 May 2007

Response by Ericsson: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read full response

Article
28 March 2007

China's proposed labour law reform: concerns about US & European industry association lobbying; company responses & non-responses

Author: Compiled by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited several US & European companies to respond to concerns about the positions taken by industry associations regarding China's proposed labour law reform....

Read more

Company response
7 February 2007

Response by Walt Disney: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read full response

Company non-response
17 January 2007

ABB did not respond to: Labour groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read more

Company non-response
17 January 2007

AT&T did not respond to: Labour groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read more

Company non-response
17 January 2007

Carrefour did not respond to: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read more

Company non-response
17 January 2007

DuPont did not respond to: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read more

Company non-response
17 January 2007

Maersk (part of A.P. Moller - Maersk) did not respond to: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read more

Company non-response
17 January 2007

Microsoft did not respond to: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform. Click here

Read more

Company response
17 January 2007

Response by General Electric: Labor groups raise concerns about positions of multinational & their business organizations regarding China’s proposed labour law reform.

Read full response