The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the key political, social and e... more The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the key political, social and economic rights of EU citizens and residents in EU law. In its present form it was approved in 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However its legal status remained uncertain until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009. The Charter obliges the EU to act and legislate consistently with the Charter, and enables the EU's courts to strike down EU legislation which contravenes it. The Charter applies to EU Member States when they are implementing EU law but does not extend the competences of the EU beyond the competences given to it in the treaties.
Workers producing garments in developing countries for European brands are often described as ‘sl... more Workers producing garments in developing countries for European brands are often described as ‘slaves to fashion’. They are denied decent work, a core ILO objective and a UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Instead, they are employed in unsafe factories prone to frequent deadly fires or building collapse, subject to anti-union discrimination and violence. The deprivation of their labour rights and poor working conditions might lead to the conclusion that they are in fact ‘modern slaves’, and thus modern slavery is fuelling the garment supply chain which is, in turn, propelled forwards by the fast fashion demands of European consumers. Modern slavery within supply chains can be tackled by brands and retailers, typically those seen as responsible for such abuse and it can be tackled through trade and development policies by actors such as the European Union (EU). In Bangladesh, the EU is the country’s largest trading partner in garments, and it has considerable leverage to improve ...
The calamitous Rana Plaza factory collapse in 2013 focused international attention on labour righ... more The calamitous Rana Plaza factory collapse in 2013 focused international attention on labour rights’ violations and factory safety in Bangladesh’s dominant ready-made garment industry which is almost wholly dependent on exports to the EU. In response, the EU and the ILO launched the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, with the core objective of promoting continuous improvement in labour rights and factory safety in the industry. The uniqueness of the Compact stems from its nature as a form of experimentalist governance involving both governmental and non-governmental actors. Being primarily an EU-led initiative based on balancing trade, sustainable development and human rights’ objectives, it is underpinned by the possible option, if the Compact fails, of withdrawing trade preferences. This article will examine the rationale for the Compact, its main features, and its effectiveness as a form of ‘global experimentalist governance’.
This report, FRAME 7.2, provides analysis of the EU’s engagement with non-state actors. In the co... more This report, FRAME 7.2, provides analysis of the EU’s engagement with non-state actors. In the context of FRAME, non-state actors (NSAs) are understood to encompass businesses, international financial institutions (IFIs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs), and the report is divided along these lines of analysis. The report relies on both desk research and qualitative, interview-based research to identify and evaluate the means through which the EU and the different types of NSAs engage with each other on human rights. The report begins with contextualising introductions to each of the areas of engagement with NSAs before analysing engagement with each group individually in the subsequent chapters. The report concludes by identifying some cross-cutting issues. The report establishes that engagement with NSAs has the potential to add a great deal of value to the EU’s human rights policies and activities both internally and externally. The EU can draw on the expertise and experience of NSAs when forming policies, utilise NSA infrastructures in third states to gather information or implement policy and, through working with NSAs, generate greater political and financial leverage than the EU would be able to generate on its own. The report identifies a number of cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in order to strengthen engagement with NSAs, such as improving the quality and consistency of public consultations, which serve as a key point of engagement across the EU, and improving the transparency of the process of EU engagement with various NSAs. The EU’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda has evolved as the key source of engagement on human rights issues with businesses. Interviews have provided a rich source of practical experiences of CSR from both the EU institutional and business perspectives. Also, one of the researchers participated in the recent Multistakeholder Forum on CSR where debate took place on further refinements of the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures in a ‘smart mix’ of CSR initiatives. However, as this is a broad policy area, which engages multiple DGs of the Commission and other institutions and bodies within the EU’s infrastructure, there is a risk that the EU’s overall CSR policy will lack coherence and focused direction. This risk is, if anything, amplified by recent changes in configurations of DGs within the EU. We also foresee the need for better engagement with businesses to successfully operationalise the non-financial reporting directive and to improve the remedial structures for human rights violations perpetrated by, or arising within the supply chains of, businesses. Our research shows that the EU’s engagement with IFIs on the subject of human rights, both at project and policy level, is limited. While the EIB has made some laudable steps to incorporate human rights standards in its work practice, as part of its obligations as an internalised ‘EU Bank’, the other IFIs demonstrated a more limited appreciation for the human rights impacts of their activities. The report considers that the EIB’s experience of incorporating human rights norms into its project activities could serve as a useful template for other IFIs and that the EU should actively facilitate this exchange and commence a more regular dialogue with the other IFIs on the subject of human rights. The report also identifies some issues surrounding the EU’s engagement with CSOs on human rights both within the Union and as part of its external action, for example as part of development co-operation and the European Neighbourhood Policy. While we identified a number of useful fora in which the EU engaged with CSOs, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Forum and EU-NGO Forum, our research showed that the EU engaged with a relatively narrow spectrum of CSOs, favouring large, professional, Brussels-based CSOs and CSO platforms. There is a need for the EU to broaden and diversify the range of CSOs it engages with. Our research also highlighted the need to improve communication channels between the EU and CSOs. On one side, the EU needs to improve its communication with CSOs on policy changes and public consultations. On the other side, the EU needs to improve its communication channels between it and CSOs on the ground in order to receive accurate and up-to-date information on the human rights situations in third countries. Finally, while EU engagement with HRDs on human rights was broadly positive and beneficial for both parties, especially with regard to their receipt of funding under instruments such as the EIDHR, our research revealed some problematic issues that need to be addressed if the EU wishes to strengthen engagement. Engagement between EU delegations and HRDs in third countries is worryingly inconsistent. Equally, while there have been significant improvements in the delivery of funding to HRDs in third countries, accessing EU funding remains difficult for them and needs to be made more flexible and less administratively onerous across the board.
In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referen... more In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referendums in France and the Netherlands this article analyses the complex messages delivered by the voters and evaluates key elements of the Constitution from the perspective of European Union (EU) employment law. On the basis of this evaluation the author seeks to establish whether there is anything worth salvaging from the wreckage of the Constitution and, if so, to identify the main priorities in the area of EU employment law and the means to make progress by amending the Treaties or otherwise.
In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referen... more In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referendums in France and the Netherlands this article analyses the complex messages delivered by the voters and evaluates key elements of the Constitution from the perspective of European Union (EU) employment law. On the basis of this evaluation the author seeks to establish whether there is anything worth salvaging from the wreckage of the Constitution and, if so, to identify the main priorities in the area of EU employment law and the means to make progress by amending the Treaties or otherwise.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the key political, social and e... more The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the key political, social and economic rights of EU citizens and residents in EU law. In its present form it was approved in 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However its legal status remained uncertain until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009. The Charter obliges the EU to act and legislate consistently with the Charter, and enables the EU's courts to strike down EU legislation which contravenes it. The Charter applies to EU Member States when they are implementing EU law but does not extend the competences of the EU beyond the competences given to it in the treaties.
Workers producing garments in developing countries for European brands are often described as ‘sl... more Workers producing garments in developing countries for European brands are often described as ‘slaves to fashion’. They are denied decent work, a core ILO objective and a UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Instead, they are employed in unsafe factories prone to frequent deadly fires or building collapse, subject to anti-union discrimination and violence. The deprivation of their labour rights and poor working conditions might lead to the conclusion that they are in fact ‘modern slaves’, and thus modern slavery is fuelling the garment supply chain which is, in turn, propelled forwards by the fast fashion demands of European consumers. Modern slavery within supply chains can be tackled by brands and retailers, typically those seen as responsible for such abuse and it can be tackled through trade and development policies by actors such as the European Union (EU). In Bangladesh, the EU is the country’s largest trading partner in garments, and it has considerable leverage to improve ...
The calamitous Rana Plaza factory collapse in 2013 focused international attention on labour righ... more The calamitous Rana Plaza factory collapse in 2013 focused international attention on labour rights’ violations and factory safety in Bangladesh’s dominant ready-made garment industry which is almost wholly dependent on exports to the EU. In response, the EU and the ILO launched the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, with the core objective of promoting continuous improvement in labour rights and factory safety in the industry. The uniqueness of the Compact stems from its nature as a form of experimentalist governance involving both governmental and non-governmental actors. Being primarily an EU-led initiative based on balancing trade, sustainable development and human rights’ objectives, it is underpinned by the possible option, if the Compact fails, of withdrawing trade preferences. This article will examine the rationale for the Compact, its main features, and its effectiveness as a form of ‘global experimentalist governance’.
This report, FRAME 7.2, provides analysis of the EU’s engagement with non-state actors. In the co... more This report, FRAME 7.2, provides analysis of the EU’s engagement with non-state actors. In the context of FRAME, non-state actors (NSAs) are understood to encompass businesses, international financial institutions (IFIs), civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs), and the report is divided along these lines of analysis. The report relies on both desk research and qualitative, interview-based research to identify and evaluate the means through which the EU and the different types of NSAs engage with each other on human rights. The report begins with contextualising introductions to each of the areas of engagement with NSAs before analysing engagement with each group individually in the subsequent chapters. The report concludes by identifying some cross-cutting issues. The report establishes that engagement with NSAs has the potential to add a great deal of value to the EU’s human rights policies and activities both internally and externally. The EU can draw on the expertise and experience of NSAs when forming policies, utilise NSA infrastructures in third states to gather information or implement policy and, through working with NSAs, generate greater political and financial leverage than the EU would be able to generate on its own. The report identifies a number of cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in order to strengthen engagement with NSAs, such as improving the quality and consistency of public consultations, which serve as a key point of engagement across the EU, and improving the transparency of the process of EU engagement with various NSAs. The EU’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda has evolved as the key source of engagement on human rights issues with businesses. Interviews have provided a rich source of practical experiences of CSR from both the EU institutional and business perspectives. Also, one of the researchers participated in the recent Multistakeholder Forum on CSR where debate took place on further refinements of the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures in a ‘smart mix’ of CSR initiatives. However, as this is a broad policy area, which engages multiple DGs of the Commission and other institutions and bodies within the EU’s infrastructure, there is a risk that the EU’s overall CSR policy will lack coherence and focused direction. This risk is, if anything, amplified by recent changes in configurations of DGs within the EU. We also foresee the need for better engagement with businesses to successfully operationalise the non-financial reporting directive and to improve the remedial structures for human rights violations perpetrated by, or arising within the supply chains of, businesses. Our research shows that the EU’s engagement with IFIs on the subject of human rights, both at project and policy level, is limited. While the EIB has made some laudable steps to incorporate human rights standards in its work practice, as part of its obligations as an internalised ‘EU Bank’, the other IFIs demonstrated a more limited appreciation for the human rights impacts of their activities. The report considers that the EIB’s experience of incorporating human rights norms into its project activities could serve as a useful template for other IFIs and that the EU should actively facilitate this exchange and commence a more regular dialogue with the other IFIs on the subject of human rights. The report also identifies some issues surrounding the EU’s engagement with CSOs on human rights both within the Union and as part of its external action, for example as part of development co-operation and the European Neighbourhood Policy. While we identified a number of useful fora in which the EU engaged with CSOs, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Forum and EU-NGO Forum, our research showed that the EU engaged with a relatively narrow spectrum of CSOs, favouring large, professional, Brussels-based CSOs and CSO platforms. There is a need for the EU to broaden and diversify the range of CSOs it engages with. Our research also highlighted the need to improve communication channels between the EU and CSOs. On one side, the EU needs to improve its communication with CSOs on policy changes and public consultations. On the other side, the EU needs to improve its communication channels between it and CSOs on the ground in order to receive accurate and up-to-date information on the human rights situations in third countries. Finally, while EU engagement with HRDs on human rights was broadly positive and beneficial for both parties, especially with regard to their receipt of funding under instruments such as the EIDHR, our research revealed some problematic issues that need to be addressed if the EU wishes to strengthen engagement. Engagement between EU delegations and HRDs in third countries is worryingly inconsistent. Equally, while there have been significant improvements in the delivery of funding to HRDs in third countries, accessing EU funding remains difficult for them and needs to be made more flexible and less administratively onerous across the board.
In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referen... more In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referendums in France and the Netherlands this article analyses the complex messages delivered by the voters and evaluates key elements of the Constitution from the perspective of European Union (EU) employment law. On the basis of this evaluation the author seeks to establish whether there is anything worth salvaging from the wreckage of the Constitution and, if so, to identify the main priorities in the area of EU employment law and the means to make progress by amending the Treaties or otherwise.
In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referen... more In the aftermath of the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in referendums in France and the Netherlands this article analyses the complex messages delivered by the voters and evaluates key elements of the Constitution from the perspective of European Union (EU) employment law. On the basis of this evaluation the author seeks to establish whether there is anything worth salvaging from the wreckage of the Constitution and, if so, to identify the main priorities in the area of EU employment law and the means to make progress by amending the Treaties or otherwise.
Uploads
Papers by Jeff Kenner
The report relies on both desk research and qualitative, interview-based research to identify and evaluate the means through which the EU and the different types of NSAs engage with each other on human rights. The report begins with contextualising introductions to each of the areas of engagement with NSAs before analysing engagement with each group individually in the subsequent chapters. The report concludes by identifying some cross-cutting issues.
The report establishes that engagement with NSAs has the potential to add a great deal of value to the EU’s human rights policies and activities both internally and externally. The EU can draw on the expertise and experience of NSAs when forming policies, utilise NSA infrastructures in third states to gather information or implement policy and, through working with NSAs, generate greater political and financial leverage than the EU would be able to generate on its own. The report identifies a number of cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in order to strengthen engagement with NSAs, such as improving the quality and consistency of public consultations, which serve as a key point of engagement across the EU, and improving the transparency of the process of EU engagement with various NSAs.
The EU’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda has evolved as the key source of engagement on human rights issues with businesses. Interviews have provided a rich source of practical experiences of CSR from both the EU institutional and business perspectives. Also, one of the researchers participated in the recent Multistakeholder Forum on CSR where debate took place on further refinements of the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures in a ‘smart mix’ of CSR initiatives. However, as this is a broad policy area, which engages multiple DGs of the Commission and other institutions and bodies within the EU’s infrastructure, there is a risk that the EU’s overall CSR policy will lack coherence and focused direction. This risk is, if anything, amplified by recent changes in configurations of DGs within the EU. We also foresee the need for better engagement with businesses to successfully operationalise the non-financial reporting directive and to improve the remedial structures for human rights violations perpetrated by, or arising within the supply chains of, businesses.
Our research shows that the EU’s engagement with IFIs on the subject of human rights, both at project and policy level, is limited. While the EIB has made some laudable steps to incorporate human rights standards in its work practice, as part of its obligations as an internalised ‘EU Bank’, the other IFIs demonstrated a more limited appreciation for the human rights impacts of their activities. The report considers that the EIB’s experience of incorporating human rights norms into its project activities could serve as a useful template for other IFIs and that the EU should actively facilitate this exchange and commence a more regular dialogue with the other IFIs on the subject of human rights.
The report also identifies some issues surrounding the EU’s engagement with CSOs on human rights both within the Union and as part of its external action, for example as part of development co-operation and the European Neighbourhood Policy. While we identified a number of useful fora in which the EU engaged with CSOs, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Forum and EU-NGO Forum, our research showed that the EU engaged with a relatively narrow spectrum of CSOs, favouring large, professional, Brussels-based CSOs and CSO platforms. There is a need for the EU to broaden and diversify the range of CSOs it engages with. Our research also highlighted the need to improve communication channels between the EU and CSOs. On one side, the EU needs to improve its communication with CSOs on policy changes and public consultations. On the other side, the EU needs to improve its communication channels between it and CSOs on the ground in order to receive accurate and up-to-date information on the human rights situations in third countries.
Finally, while EU engagement with HRDs on human rights was broadly positive and beneficial for both parties, especially with regard to their receipt of funding under instruments such as the EIDHR, our research revealed some problematic issues that need to be addressed if the EU wishes to strengthen engagement. Engagement between EU delegations and HRDs in third countries is worryingly inconsistent. Equally, while there have been significant improvements in the delivery of funding to HRDs in third countries, accessing EU funding remains difficult for them and needs to be made more flexible and less administratively onerous across the board.
The report relies on both desk research and qualitative, interview-based research to identify and evaluate the means through which the EU and the different types of NSAs engage with each other on human rights. The report begins with contextualising introductions to each of the areas of engagement with NSAs before analysing engagement with each group individually in the subsequent chapters. The report concludes by identifying some cross-cutting issues.
The report establishes that engagement with NSAs has the potential to add a great deal of value to the EU’s human rights policies and activities both internally and externally. The EU can draw on the expertise and experience of NSAs when forming policies, utilise NSA infrastructures in third states to gather information or implement policy and, through working with NSAs, generate greater political and financial leverage than the EU would be able to generate on its own. The report identifies a number of cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in order to strengthen engagement with NSAs, such as improving the quality and consistency of public consultations, which serve as a key point of engagement across the EU, and improving the transparency of the process of EU engagement with various NSAs.
The EU’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda has evolved as the key source of engagement on human rights issues with businesses. Interviews have provided a rich source of practical experiences of CSR from both the EU institutional and business perspectives. Also, one of the researchers participated in the recent Multistakeholder Forum on CSR where debate took place on further refinements of the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures in a ‘smart mix’ of CSR initiatives. However, as this is a broad policy area, which engages multiple DGs of the Commission and other institutions and bodies within the EU’s infrastructure, there is a risk that the EU’s overall CSR policy will lack coherence and focused direction. This risk is, if anything, amplified by recent changes in configurations of DGs within the EU. We also foresee the need for better engagement with businesses to successfully operationalise the non-financial reporting directive and to improve the remedial structures for human rights violations perpetrated by, or arising within the supply chains of, businesses.
Our research shows that the EU’s engagement with IFIs on the subject of human rights, both at project and policy level, is limited. While the EIB has made some laudable steps to incorporate human rights standards in its work practice, as part of its obligations as an internalised ‘EU Bank’, the other IFIs demonstrated a more limited appreciation for the human rights impacts of their activities. The report considers that the EIB’s experience of incorporating human rights norms into its project activities could serve as a useful template for other IFIs and that the EU should actively facilitate this exchange and commence a more regular dialogue with the other IFIs on the subject of human rights.
The report also identifies some issues surrounding the EU’s engagement with CSOs on human rights both within the Union and as part of its external action, for example as part of development co-operation and the European Neighbourhood Policy. While we identified a number of useful fora in which the EU engaged with CSOs, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Forum and EU-NGO Forum, our research showed that the EU engaged with a relatively narrow spectrum of CSOs, favouring large, professional, Brussels-based CSOs and CSO platforms. There is a need for the EU to broaden and diversify the range of CSOs it engages with. Our research also highlighted the need to improve communication channels between the EU and CSOs. On one side, the EU needs to improve its communication with CSOs on policy changes and public consultations. On the other side, the EU needs to improve its communication channels between it and CSOs on the ground in order to receive accurate and up-to-date information on the human rights situations in third countries.
Finally, while EU engagement with HRDs on human rights was broadly positive and beneficial for both parties, especially with regard to their receipt of funding under instruments such as the EIDHR, our research revealed some problematic issues that need to be addressed if the EU wishes to strengthen engagement. Engagement between EU delegations and HRDs in third countries is worryingly inconsistent. Equally, while there have been significant improvements in the delivery of funding to HRDs in third countries, accessing EU funding remains difficult for them and needs to be made more flexible and less administratively onerous across the board.