ABSTRACT
This chapter applies these critiques to a widely circulated policy discussion entitled 'Ratcheting Labor Standards: Regulations for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace', prepared by Charles Sabel, Dara O'Rourke, and Archon Fung (2000; see also Fung, o~Rourke, and Sabel 2001a, 2001a). Sabel, O'Rourke, and Fung agree that codes of corporate conduct addressing labour standards offer a potentially powerful but currently limited approach to labour regulation. They propose a competition-based alternative they call 'ratcheting labour standards' (RLS). The decidedly low-tech metaphor of a ratchet wrench in the context of economic globalisation seems intended to focus attention on the historical parallels with nineteenth-century industrialisation: at both moments, a shift in the paradigm of economic growth has occurred and, at both moments, shocking labour conditions in newly constructed spaces have led to a need to rethink existing regulatory approaches. The authors contend that their third way can improve the social performance of firms, by calling upon four principles discussed below-transparency, competitive comparison, continuous improvement, and sanctions. Although their quest for alternative regulatory models is compelling, this chapter responds that re-regulatory initiatives in relation to labour must be held up to the light of central labour regulatory goals. When held up to these goals, the measures are revealed to be deeply limited.
