Mobilising tensions: transnational union network formation in the Asia-Pacific region

Abstract

Trade unions are an important actor in the social regulation of the transnational corporation. How and why trade unions engage with the continued rise of global corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives remains largely under-researched, particularly in transnational arenas beyond Europe. Transnational trade union networks are a concerted development intended to advance collective worker voice and influence, especially in contexts without a history of strong social dialogue. Our qualitative fieldwork centres on a transnational trade union network comprised of global, national, and local union representatives from different countries in the Asia-Pacific representing workers from one Germany-headquartered multinational corporation in the chemical sector. We examine how labour actors involved in the network engage with global CSR initiatives to advance worker voice and influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Our micro-sociological and relational approach focused on the practices, relations, and affective dimensions of building and sustaining a transnational network. What emerged is the centrality of tensions and how actors creatively utilise and shape those tensions into resources for building the network. We analyse the nature of the tensions and their effects and discuss how key actors work generatively with tensions.

Introduction

In the face of extraordinarily complex and interrelated social and ecological crises, demands for stronger democratic involvement of workers in regulating the corporation to be more just, equitable, and sustainable are renewed and amplified (Anderson, 2017; Ferreras et al., 2022; Reinecke and Donaghey, 2023). Scholarship evaluates the effectiveness of emerging forms of organisational and institutional experimentation for more democratic work and outlines the capability development needed for trade unions, workers, management, and other social partners (Gesualdi-Fecteau et al., 2023; Lévesque et al., 2022; Murray et al., 2020). Labour actors in particular traverse a persistent tension of the potential gains and fundamental inadequacies of working with private and voluntary forms of labour governance arrangements (Kuruvilla, 2021). Driven to create and sustain meaningful change for workers at the blunt end of global supply chains, labour actors consider whether and how to engage with ‘embryonic’ forms of transnational social dialogue aware of the tensions and trade-offs (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2023: 194).

Trade unions are an important actor in the social regulation of the transnational corporation (Casey et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2021; Preuss et al., 2015a; Sobczak, 2011). How and why trade unions engage with the continued rise of global corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives remains largely under-researched, particularly in transnational arenas beyond Europe. Transnational trade union networks are one potential mechanism for advancing collective worker voice and influence, especially in contexts without a history of strong social dialogue (Ford and Gillan, 2022). Our qualitative fieldwork centres on a transnational trade union network comprised of global, national, and local union representatives from different countries in the Asia-Pacific representing workers from one Germany-headquartered multinational corporation in the chemical sector. We examine how labour actors involved in the network engage with global CSR initiatives to advance worker voice social dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region. Our micro-sociological and relational approach to empirical analysis focused on the practices, relations, and affective dimensions of building and sustaining a transnational network, encompassing the view from local, national, and global labour actors. What emerged from the abductive analysis of the empirical material is the centrality of dynamic and multi-faceted tensions – a feature noted in scholarship but worthy of more detailed discussion. Rather than ignoring, minimising, or resolving tensions, we analyse the nature of the tensions, their effects on the network, and how key actors creatively work with tensions towards productive outcomes.

Our paper is structured as follows: we begin by exploring trade union attitudes to and forms of engagement with CSR initiatives and then review research into transnational trade union networks. We detail our research design and outline the contextual background for the German MNC and Asia-Pacific transnational union network. We then present our empirical findings structured around three key tensions that emerged from the data. Our analytical discussion closely engages with Putnam et al. (2016) from which we further interpret the data and appraise implications for transnational social dialogue and union networks.

Trade unions and corporate social responsibility

CSR is a form of private and voluntary regulation whereby the company undertakes a responsibility for the environmental, social, and ethical concerns of various stakeholders (Preuss et al., 2015). While CSR is a contested concept, much of the literature focuses on the ‘business case’ for CSR (Lohmeyer and Jackson, 2023), in which employees and trade unions ‘play almost no role’ (Jackson et al., 2018: 5). Employment relations scholarship has been cautious to engage with CSR debates. Heeding the call to ‘take CSR more seriously’ especially from a critical and relational perspective (Jackson et al., 2018: 7), scholarship investigates trade unions’ attitudes towards, and engagement with, CSR, as well as the outcomes and effects for workers (Bartley and Egels-Zandén, 2016; Harvey et al., 2017; Locke et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2021; Preuss et al., 2015a). This literature distinguishes between company-controlled CSR initiatives (such as codes of conduct) and joint-controlled CSR initiatives (such as global framework agreements, GFA) (Martin et al., 2021). The opportunities, outcomes, and limitations are analysed and compared (e.g., Egels-Zandén and Hyllman, 2007). Joint-controlled CSR initiatives are clearly preferable yet hardly mainstream (Egels-Zandén and Merk, 2014), so labour scholars and actors are confronted with decisions about whether and how to engage with less adequate CSR initiatives.

Trade unions approach corporate-controlled CSR with ‘considerable suspicion’ (Preuss, 2008: 157). Concerns and critiques are raised about the power asymmetries in a company-controlled initiative; the risk of union interests and processes being obstructed, diluted, or co-opted; and fundamental inadequacies of transparency, independence, and legitimacy in the implementation, monitoring, and reporting requirements (Ashwin et al., 2020; Egels-Zandén and Hyllman, 2007; Haipeter et al., 2021; Meardi and Marginson, 2014). Alongside scepticism, avoidance, and ambivalence, some trade union actors express a more opportunistic and strategic attitude towards CSR (Martin et al., 2021; Preuss et al., 2015a), pointing to CSR's potential to have ‘positive impacts on employees, and may complement traditional institutions of worker voice’ (Jackson et al., 2018: 10). Labour actors may use CSR commitments to initiate forums for dialogue and cooperation with management and other stakeholders at the workplace and the international level (Preuss et al., 2015a).

Few empirical studies examine the different ways in which trade unions practically engage with CSR ‘on the ground’. Gold et al. (2020) offer a typology of scenarios for union engagement with CSR, using empirical illustrations from a pan-European study of primarily national and sector-level unions (see also Preuss et al., 2015). The union default position regarding CSR is described as the ‘comfort zone’ whereby trade unions use CSR to defend members’ interests and established union agendas to reinforce ‘traditional repertoires of contention’ (Gold et al., 2020: 141). The second mode of engagement – and of relevance to our study – is ‘reaching out’, in which trade unions connect CSR to broader labour or societal interests, such as using health and safety standards to connect with environmental issues or improving labour standards throughout the global supply chain. The third mode of engaging is ‘collaborating’ with other societal actors (NGOs, academics, and other associations) to push forward relevant agendas. The fourth mode is ‘non-conforming’ whereby unions choose not to actively engage with CSR discourse or initiatives, stemming from union scepticism or disinterest.

In a study of Canadian and Peruvian union actors, Martin et al. (2021) identified how labour actors, particularly Global Union Federation (GUF) actors, actively mobilised and worked with CSR in a ‘dynamic and strategic’ way (Martin et al., 2021: 61). In one case, the GUF activated company CSR principles (such as health and safety policies) to build union and worker knowledge about their rights and connected specific CSR policy to labour demands for freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. CSR mechanisms, such as attending shareholder meetings and reporting violations to the UN Global Compact, were activated to ‘tip the balance of power’ (64) and ultimately build towards a GFA. As evident in Gold and colleagues’ study, some union actors may engage with CSR while pushing for superior alternatives to it. Both studies outline that labour actors build alliances with other actors and forge mutual interests, although we note that transnational union networks were not identified.

Overall, what emerges from the few empirical studies is that union engagement with CSR is a complex and multi-faceted terrain, characterised by ‘various pitfalls and tensions, as unions grapple with competing interests and objectives’ (Gold et al., 2020: 149). Trade union attitudes and engagement strategies are ‘more complex and nuanced than the outright rejection professed by many actors’ (Martin et al., 2021: 65). Labour actors wrestle with the ‘fundamental dichotomy’ of CSR as both ‘a threat and an opportunity’ (Rees et al., 2015: 214). We need to better understand how labour actors, from local level to global, engage with corporate-controlled CSR initiatives in the face of these fundamental dichotomies and tensions and what new repertoires of action, contention, and collaboration result. Such an inquiry responds to calls from CSR scholars to better explore ‘the role of individuals confronted with potential tensions, paradoxes and dysfunctionalities’ in the engagement with or implementation of CSR (Gond and Moser, 2021: 19). Current CSR research has ‘little to say’ about how micro-politics, interactions between people (especially labour actors), and interactions across levels and within networks shape the deployment of CSR (Gond and Moser, 2021: 19). Rarely does CSR and trade union research connect with discussions about developing transnational networks for worker voice and representation – a body of literature to which we now turn.

Transnational union networks

Transnational union networks are ‘one of the main trade union innovations for the social regulation of transnational firms’ (Fairbrother et al., 2013: 16). A range of important and significant initiatives for building global labour solidarity involving labour and union actors have emerged, for instance, the SIGTUR (Southern Initiative on Globalization and Trade Union Rights) that addresses labour interests in the Global South, and labour-CSR NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch (see Scipes, 2024 for an overview). Our inquiry focuses on networks comprised of exclusively trade union actors from different countries representing workers from a single multinational corporation, with a specific focus on protecting and advancing the rights of workers at this singular MNC (Dufour-Poirier and Hennebert, 2015). Emerging research outlines the multiple and varied forms, actions, and objectives of trade union networks (e.g., Anner et al., 2006; Brookes, 2013; Ford and Gillan, 2015; Helfen and Fichter, 2013; Martínez Lucio, 2010). In general, transnational union networks aim ‘to open up a space for dialogue and negotiation with the management of MNCs at the transnational level in order to ensure respect for workers’ fundamental rights wherever the companies do business’ (Dufour-Poirier and Hennebert, 2015: 74). Networks may be accompanied by a signed GFA (Helfen and Fichter, 2013). Little is known about developing and sustaining a network that emerges prior to or in the absence of a signed GFA.

Research into transnational trade unionism more broadly discusses how union actors in local, national, and international arenas need to work together to build complementary identities, develop strategic capabilities, craft shared interests, and commit to joint actions (Barreau et al., 2020; Fairbrother et al., 2013; Gordon and Turner, 2000; Lévesque and Murray, 2010a, 2010b; Lévesque et al., 2018; McCallum, 2013). Research has usefully outlined the potential of cross-border union networks to improve local working conditions (wages, health and safety, working time, etc.), strengthen communication between unions and employers, and build the capacity of local labour actors (see Bourguignon and Hennebert, 2021; Haipeter et al., 2021; Oka, 2016; Rennie et al., 2017). A few studies outline the complex challenges and contestations that networks navigate internally, in which asymmetrical power relations, resources, and capabilities between levels of the network are widely evident (Dufour-Poirier and Hennebert, 2015; Ford and Gillan, 2022; Lévesque and Murray, 2010b; Lévesque et al., 2013).

Bartley and Egels-Zandén (2016) note that research on cross-border labour solidarity is rarely brought into conversation with CSR scholarship. Their study investigates how Indonesian garment and textile unions gain support from foreign NGOs and international unions to leverage the CSR commitments of global brands and retailers to ‘shrink the gap’ between CSR's symbolic promises and on-the-ground realities for workers. The authors identify four modes of leveraging that trade unions engage to more tightly couple CSR policy and practice: bringing brands into negotiations through warnings, whistleblowing, and naming and shaming campaigns and – of most interest for our inquiry – mobilising a ‘preparing’ logic of ‘cooperative local capacity-building’ (242). This least-common mode of leveraging entails local trade unions using company declared CSR commitments (e.g. freedom of association in a code of conduct) to proactively negotiate with global brand managers and local factory managers to set mutually agreed standards and implement local initiatives (e.g. union access to company information; union communication with and access to workers). While the gains for workers were modest in the sense that some favourable accommodations are made to unions but without affecting the balance of power, the goal is for unions’ capacities to increase over time. The study concludes that CSR can be a platform that enables transnational worker voice ‘from below’, albeit a ‘weak and unreliable one’ (250). The authors urge future research to probe the role of strong and weak ties between local and global labour actors especially in the Asia-Pacific region where ties between local and international labour actors are ‘more recent and less stable’ (238).

In sum, building transnational labour solidarity and cooperation is a ‘contingent and contradictory process’ marked by potential conflict and competition (Fairbrother et al., 2013: 4). Scholars are encouraged to explore the micro-politics and informal processes that ‘strengthen the influence of unions in countries where their rights are limited’ (Bourguignon and Hennebert, 2021: 343), such as the Asia-Pacific. More nuanced understandings of how transnational and local actors work together in a variety of networked configurations to progress worker voice in the face of enduring challenges and tensions, and often over long time periods, are needed (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2023). In further contribution to those debates, our study inquires into how labour actors involved in a transnational trade union network engage with global CSR initiatives to build and utilise social dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region.

Research design

This study draws from a larger empirical research project that investigated several Germany-headquartered MNCs with global operations including in the Asia-Pacific region. The broader project inquired into the forms, practices, successes, and challenges of building transnational worker voice and participation in the Asia-Pacific region. We utilised a qualitative research design entailing semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 68 key actors across several levels: management (headquarter and local), union (global, German, and local), NGOs, and other experts. This article focusses specifically on one company in which labour actors are intent on building a transnational union network with the goal of being recognised as global social dialogue partner.

The transnational union network is the unit of our analysis. Recent employment relations research invites scholars to better understand the complex relations, interactions, micro-politics, and social practices that take place between various levels of actors in networks (Brandl et al., 2022; Pulignano, 2022; Zajak et al., 2017). To this end, we, the authors, conducted 21 interviews with 20 actors directly related to the GCorp case. This included four senior GCorp executives (HQ and local), 14 labour actors (German, global union, regionally based global union actors, and local), and two NGO actors. Informed by an interpretive and relational sociological perspective (Crossley, 2010; Cunliffe, 2011), our open-ended interviews sought to understand the lived experiences and practical knowledges of each participant (Alvesson and Ashcraft, 2012). Interviews took place over Zoom (due to pandemic travel restrictions) from 2021 to 2023 and lasted between 40 and 80 min long. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Document analysis was also conducted of relevant publicly available company annual reports, company reports submitted to the UN Global Compact, and trade union reporting and case studies of the GCorp transnational union network.

Initially, we organised the data into three general themes relating to the work of building and sustaining the network: the skills and capabilities developed, the accomplishments and successes, and the challenges or difficulties. Included in this were actors’ reflections about their motivations and concerns about the network and impressions of future prospects. The analysis followed an abductive approach (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007). We read and re-read the data paying particular attention to the interdependencies between different actors across the network; the narrated microprocesses between the actors; the commonalities and divergencies between actors; moments of internal wrestling or questioning; and continuities and disjunctures between actor's data and publicly available documents. What became apparent was how various knotted tensions simultaneously and interactively permeate the work of building transnational worker voice. The hard graft of navigating tensions is rarely closely examined in existing relevant literature.

We identify tensions as an umbrella term to communicate varying degrees of severity and complexity of conflict, friction, dispute, and relational risks (Casey and Delaney, 2022; Putnam et al., 2016). Tensions are dynamic and variously perceived and experienced by actors (Langley and Sloan, 2011). Actors generally accepted tensions as a ‘fact on the ground’ with varying response including to ignore, negotiate, manage, or mobilise into creative or generative new action. Working with tensions may include reflective adjustments, renewed vigour, or innovative and experimental shifts in interactional ‘tactics’ or modes of interaction (Casey and Delaney, 2022). We identified the three most salient tensions in the ‘on-the-ground’ interactional work of the network actors and conducted a close analysis paying attention to the actor's language and efforts to clarify or communicate micro-features of her/his interactions in the network to explore the meaning of the tension, the effects, and responses (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2024). In our analysis, three tensions broadly categorised as relating to heterogeneity, power asymmetries, and durability structure the empirical findings section, which we turn to following a brief overview of the company and network context.

MNC case context

Headquartered in Germany, GCorp operates in the chemical sector, with operations in over 90 countries including in China, India, Malaysia, and South Korea. In the Asia-Pacific region, most subsidiaries are wholly owned, although some are joint ventures. The company engages with more than 70,000 suppliers globally. GCorp has operated in the Asia-Pacific region for several decades, and the second largest number of GCorp employees (after Europe) are located in the region. Company reports state the region is a key area for future growth and investment.

GCorp is a long-standing member of the UN Global Compact and one of the first large German companies to create a ‘Chief Compliance Officer’ function. The company's global code of conduct incorporates human rights, labour, and social norms (among other principles) as outlined in United Nations Global Compact, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Company communications state that the human rights, labour, and social standards outlined in the global code of conduct are expected to be applied to ‘agency workers and freelancers’ worldwide. A separate supplier code of conduct based on environmental, social, and governance standards, the UN Global Compact, and ILO principles is expected to be embedded in supplier contracts. Suppliers are in turn expected to implement the code's standards with their suppliers and subcontractors.

An extensive global compliance function implements and monitors the global code of conduct. This includes compulsory compliance training; risk assessment procedures; an externally managed compliance hotline; and audits undertaken by internal and external parties. Alongside the corporate compliance function, the company states that ‘platforms for cooperation’, ‘mutual exchange’, and ‘social dialog’ with stakeholders (such as employee representatives, international organisations, and NGOs) are an important aspect of implementing and monitoring the global code of conduct (company report). Regional transnational union networks have been established. Further due diligence measures are in place due to the recent German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, including the establishment of a chief human rights officer and associated cross-functional advisory committees. Top-level compliance reporting is publicly provided, such as the number of hotline complaints received and upheld investigations. Annual reports to the UN Global Compact reveal some detail, but the company also ‘chooses not to disclose’ several relevant items including instances of ‘adverse impact’ related to labour rights issues and the percentage of workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement or involved in a trade union. Nonetheless, one GUF actor who works with several MNCs in the Asia-Pacific region states that compared with other MNCs, GCorp ‘headquarters are very committed to their promises, in terms of implementing those promises’ (Labour Actor 3, Regional GUF).

The Asia-Pacific transnational union network

Over recent decades, global, German, regional, and local union actors have been building a global union network of GCorp unions comprised of several regional networks. Labour actors report that the GCorp European Works Council is ‘well established and strong’ (Labour Actor 2); the North American council of unions has ongoing dialogue with management; and the Latin American network ‘works very well’ and has established ongoing dialogue between local management and local unions (Labour Actor 4, Germany). So ‘the missing picture was [an] Asia Pacific’ network of unions (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe).

German labour actors, participating in our study, have extensive experience with the system of industrial relations, co-determination (Mitbestimmung), and social dialogue institutions in Germany (including union, works council, and supervisory board experience). Building a network in the Asia-Pacific has required European-based labour actors to more fully recognise the differences in worker rights for home and host country workers and to move beyond ‘a somewhat superficial view of Asia’ to understand the heterogeneity and complexity of the vast and populated region and sub-regions (Labour Actor 4, Germany). The Asia-Pacific region is home to a ‘bewildering diversity’ of political, economic, historical, cultural, religious, and social structures (Gillan, 2017). Following a period of uneven yet rapid industrialisation and globalisation, various stages of economic development are evident ranging from highly developed economies (such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea) to middle-income–developing economies (including Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia) and middle-income–transitional economies (China, India, and Vietnam) (Lee et al., 2019). Different politico-economic structures co-exist such as hierarchical market economies, socialist market economies, and variants of liberal and coordinated market economies (Lee et al., 2019) with differing levels of state power and intervention especially regarding employment relations and state–union relationships (Cooke et al., 2017; Gillan, 2017; Landau and Cooke, 2017). Asian societies, including work cultures, are strongly influenced by diverse cultural and religious values and traditions including Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity (Cooke and Kim, 2017; Lee et al., 2019). Across the region, the fragmentation of labour markets is deepening social and economic inequalities between genders, ethnic groups, age, and class/caste status, exacerbated by the proliferation of informal employment (Lee et al., 2019).

Industrial relations law, institutions, and practices differ greatly within and between nation states in the region. Different expressions of labour movements are evident including state-dominated unionism, political unionism, business unionism, social partnership unionism, militant unionism, and NGO-style advocacy activism (Lee et al., 2019). Alongside these differences, union movements across the region share common challenges of low union density, difficulties of organising informal workers, lack of union capacity and resources, low levels of relevant skills among union officials, inter- and intra-union rivalries, employer tactics and retaliations, repressive state interventions, and entrenched law-practice gaps (Cooke et al., 2017; Gillan, 2017; Landau and Cooke, 2017; Lee et al., 2019). The task of valuing the distinctiveness while understanding commonalities to build local capacity and organise interventions is a key focus for GUFs, which have established offices and personnel in the Asia region (Ford and Gillan, 2022).

The GUF in our study has a long-term and established presence in the Asia-Pacific region and plays a key role in the coordination and capacity building of the GCorp Asia-Pacific union network. The shared goal of the network is to develop transnational social dialogue to enhance labour rights, decent work, and sound industrial relations across the company's operations. Informed by the ILO definition of social dialogue, German trade union and Europe-based GUF actors seek to craft cooperative relations with company management at all levels in order to negotiate corporate concessions, indeed agreement, to labour demands and formalise this agreement for roll-out across the global company (see Papadakis, 2021). To this end, GUF actors are focused on ‘strengthening’ the knowledge, skills, and coordination of the Asia-Pacific network, in order to establish a global network (comprised of the other three regional networks) that is recognised by management ‘as a social bargaining partner at the global level’, ultimately with a signed GFA (Labour Actor 2, GUF). Some German labour actors are not especially focused, at this time, on attaining a GFA; rather their focus is on building transnational actors’ (labour and management) skills, relationships, and practices described by one as ‘global competence. . . aligned with labour union participation’ (Labour Actor 4, Germany).

The Asia-Pacific union network typically meets annually in the region for a 2–3-day workshop. The GUF, in partnership with a German labour-oriented foundation that contributes funding towards the meeting expenses, co-ordinates the network and designs the structure and content of each workshop. The workshop content includes disseminating knowledge about company strategy and CSR commitments (e.g. the UN Global Compact and global code of conduct), learning about German industrial relations structures and processes, sharing local knowledge and challenges, collaborative problem-solving, and demand formation. Participants are primarily labour actors, including local union representatives, German trade union representatives, the head of the Works Council in Germany, GUF actors, and union representatives from the other regional networks. Local representatives are in attendance from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Vietnam, with reports from absent countries. China worker representatives are not included in the present network as the GUF only allows democratically elected trade unions to become affiliates. Labour actors report that management actors have not attended for the last several years of network meetings. Local union representatives across the region maintain communication between meetings via online chat groups. A local union leader is selected as the Asia-Pacific regional coordinator for the network responsible for building communication between meetings and participating in the other regional network meetings to share knowledge, experiences, and practices.

Empirical findings

The effort, over several years, to strengthen and sustain the GCorp transnational union network in the Asia-Pacific region requires labour actors to continually navigate several enduring tensions. We structure the empirical findings around three tensions in particular: (1) crafting common ground amidst heterogeneity; (2) strengthening worker voice and influence amidst asymmetries and avoidances; and (3) persisting amidst concerns, criticisms, and frustrations.

Crafting common ground amidst heterogeneity

The first tension concerns trying to build common interests and demands in a region as diverse and heterogeneous as the Asia-Pacific. Labour actors, experienced with building transnational worker voice in Europe and Latin America, note that in comparison with other regions ‘there are more obstacles in Asia’ (Labour Actor 1, Labour foundation). Familiar and recurrent challenges relating to ‘language barriers’ (Labour Actor 1, Labour foundation) are navigated using translators. More significantly, labour actors highlight the very different stages of economic and social development between countries as diverse as South Korea, Indonesia, India, and Japan. The hugely diverse economic, political, and industrial relations realities (noted in the case context above) become apparent during the meetings when country-level reports are shared, revealing social and labour issues ‘that had nothing to do with each other. The only thing where they have some common ground were technical and organizational matters’ (Labour Actor 4, Germany).

One GUF actor gives the example of a South Korean trade unionist coming to the network meeting and criticising the low ‘quality of the collective bargaining agreement and industrial relations information’ from another Asian country. The unionist felt ‘we [in South Korea] are much better. Why am I here? There is nothing I needed to learn about … I don’t want to come back [to the network meeting] again’. The regional GUF actor explains his ‘disappointment’ at this attitude and tries ‘to persuade him “Oh, you just share your experience, [it's] very meaningful for [other] Asian unionists”’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). It proves difficult to persuade parties to share without return given that some participants must take holiday or unpaid leave to attend the network meeting and travel some distance on indirect travel routes across the region. The local actors are focused ‘on their own situation’ and haven’t yet formed a more global or interdependent mindset or identity (Labour Actor 5, Germany).

That tension between actors oriented to a local focus and those keen to extend into a transnational one – i.e. of connecting local concerns and achievements to company-wide shared interest expression – is a significant dynamic. It can amplify an enduring tension of pursuing individual – in this case individual workplace or union – and collective, transnational interests. A further tension occurs in the fluctuation of participants, such as in established and experienced actors, and newcomers to the network with little prior operational knowledge. How network actors respond to these tensions of difference or heterogeneity of perspective and focus are crucial to the viability of the network.

Some of the German labour actors suggest that the divergence in quality and robustness of strategic knowledge and dialogue within the network is hampering its ability to progress or reach its potential. Some question ‘whether we should divide the Asia network’ (Labour Actor 4, Germany) into clusters of sub-regions with similar socio-economic situations to gain more traction and hasten local union actors’ recognition of shared interests at the transnational level. In comparison, the GUF actors are committed to working with the challenge of diversity and seek to build common ground among the representatives. This entails building pragmatic commonalities. The GUF, in conversation with the German labour foundation, selects ‘main themes’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional) that matter to all the countries, such as digitalisation, global CSR commitments, and health and safety and design training programmes that advance the member's knowledge about these themes. The intention is to ‘narrow the gap of understanding between the German friends and Asian friends’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional) and to make what can be ‘very complicated’ global CSR initiatives ‘meaningful’ and ‘very concrete tactics which can be used at the factory when they return’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). GUF actors therefore try to address the tensions of similarity and difference, local and distant, by translating global CSR initiatives into practical tactics at the local level.

Building shared interests amidst complex diversity importantly entails attending to the affective and relational ties, the ‘togetherness of the network’ (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). Some feel that there is a ‘real spirit of friendship’ and ‘a clear reason to be united’ (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). Under this approach, the tension of diversity is recast and seen anew as ‘a strength’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional), and cultural and religious differences are celebrated and honoured: ‘coming together physically … to eat together and have social time together… to learn from and about each other’ is very important to sustaining the ‘spirit’ of the network when they are geographically distant (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). Communication between the meetings tends to be ‘not regular, not stable’ so getting together is a ‘boost’ to the group morale (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). In this action, potential fragility entailed in heterogeneity tension is crafted into a vital qualitative resource of a ‘spirit’ of togetherness.

Some feel the network has ‘come quite far’ towards building common interests and demands – a significant outcome and ‘success in itself’ (Labour Actor 1, Labour foundation). In particular, the network has come ‘to a common understanding of what should be communicated with the employer on a regional level … to push to be recognized as a regional network and as a regional social dialogue partner’ (Labour Actor 1, Labour foundation). These topics, to name a few, include occupational health and safety, precarious work, and women's empowerment, which are of great importance to workers in the Asia-Pacific region. This ‘push to be recognized’ is proving difficult, however. Local management recognition of the Asia-Pacific union network is slow and poor, despite recognition of and engagement with the other regional networks. According to a German labour actor, management apparently perceives little value or ‘benefit’ of the network ‘because of the weakness of the talks’ – referring to the difference in the skill level and expectations between European and local labour actors (Labour Actor 5, Germany). Senior local managers express surprise and a dismissive attitude to the existence and viability of the network: it is ‘honestly unrealistic’ (Regional Senior Executive 1). Management ‘just cannot imagine that somebody would want to put this [network] regionally together or globally together’ because each country has ‘such different interests’ (Regional Senior Executive 1). That lack of recognition and respect expressed by regional managers exposes a further significant tension of under-recognition and avoidance. Labour actors face challenges of building workers’ voice and social dialogue. Evidence shows their navigation of that tension and power asymmetry.

Building worker voice and influence amidst asymmetries and disregard

The second tension centres on the challenges of building collective worker voice and influence in a context that constrains and disrupts those efforts. Labour actors work with this tension by activating vertical and horizontal knowledge sharing and problem-solving. Network participants share their local working conditions and industrial relations practices; others compare and question: ‘why not in our country?’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). Such questioning can lead to action. For example, South Korean network participants revealed that local management are more willing to share basic financial information with the local unions. One Indonesia labour actor compared how local management are ‘very reluctant to disclose those kinds of basic information to build up sound industrial relations’ despite the global company commitments to the financial disclosure principles outlined in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). With the support of the GUF and German union, the Indonesian labour actors formulated similar disclosure demands to the local management. Local labour actors feel they have ‘the back-up’ of the global and German unions and therefore feel more emboldened to ‘speak up’ to management (Labour Actor 6, Indonesia). However, some German labour actors’ express discomfort about local actors asking them to ‘put the pressure on’ management and would prefer for local labour actors to develop their own ‘sovereignty’ to independently solve local issues without asking German actors to step in (Labour Actor 4, Germany). That expression of discomfort, respondents stressed, does not indicate reduced support for the network but makes salient the imperative to strengthen local confidence and demand and reduce regional and HQ asymmetries in social dialogue effectiveness. In other words, labour actors use that tension of discomfort to encourage local intervention towards the tension of local management disregard. German HQ labour actors and local ones strive to rework that tension into a capacity.

The building of worker voice in India despite entrenched obstacles is described by many as ‘a very successful story’ that illustrates how key labour actors activated global CSR commitments to advance local worker voice and influence (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). Starting as a fledging single site company union, the leaders had ‘no experience, just pure heart’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). But with the support of the GUF, the Indian union leaders ‘did their best to take advantage of the [global corporate CSR] policy strategy and network strategy to fight back the employers’ demands (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). They invoked a CSR clause in the company's Global Compact to legitimise establishing unions in the diverse company sites throughout India, created a national federation of all the company unions as well as unions from other chemical companies in India, and hold regular meetings and elections.

Several years ago, the union leaders set out to ‘educate all our members [in India]’ about the global code of conduct (Labour Actor 7, India) and to learn how the local realities differed from the global promises. They used this knowledge to ‘question the management that “you are upgrading the global but you are not applying in the local”. So, with the help of the documents [global code of conduct] and everything from the [GUF] we raised the issue. So, we are in front of the management, Indian management’. The union demanded, and local management agreed ‘that they will respect [the company's] global code of conduct locally’ (Labour Actor 7, India). Management agreed to form a joint committee to ‘sit together and point out which areas are the areas for improvement’ in implementing the code of conduct (Labour Actor 7, India). This has resulted in several significant outcomes for local workers, such as the reduction of working hours (from 48 to 42 h a week in one instance), and agreement not to differentiate ‘the facilities and working conditions of officers and the workers’, an enduring issue in India (Labour Actor 7, India). The union have also demanded that ‘full company disclosure’ is given to the union in advance of any proposed mergers, acquisitions, and divestments in India and for greater disclosure about the increasing use of contract workers in the company's operations (Labour Actor 7, India). Local senior management state that ‘the [local unions] are well respected and they are updated and informed on a lot of topics’ (Local Senior Executive 1, India).

Labour actors, while acknowledging the accomplishments, recognise the fragilities and limitations. Indian labour actors are aware that without the joint ‘monitoring system’ of a GFA, there is no formal ‘mandate’ for building ongoing dialogue with company actors (Labour Actor 7, India) beyond that provided in the Global Compact. Evidence of a tension between dialogue and compliance emerges. Local unions may use global CSR commitments to activate possibilities in their sphere of influence, as in the case of India. But German labour actors recognise that the global code of conduct is tightly controlled by the company: it is ‘not a joint effort with us overseeing it… it is managed by the management through the compliance channel, not in collaboration with the employees’ (Labour Actor 8, Germany). Management admits that ‘what is much more important to our [compliance] activities in Asia … is the interaction with NGOs’ (HQ Senior Executive 1). NGOs are seen to be a ‘very important stakeholder’ and ‘much more effective’ than trade unions when it comes to monitoring labour and social concerns in the supply chain (HQ Senior Executive 1). The company will ‘meet in a regular roundtable with NGOs to just make sure that we are looking into their concerns and that we have a very good and convincing answer for all the concerns that are shared with us’ (HQ Senior Executive 1). German labour actors see the opportunities for greater union involvement in the implementation and monitoring of human rights throughout the supply chain although, as one respondent put it, ‘we haven’t thoroughly worked out these nuances and found our own role in this complex landscape’. He nonetheless perseveres through the tensions: ‘I’m working on it because I haven’t given up on it’ (Labour Actor 4, Germany).

Persisting amidst concerns, criticisms, and frustrations

As outlined in the data above, the network has enabled improvements that matter to local workers in multiple transnational Asia-Pacific sites, such as sharing of financial and strategic information, reduction in working hours, regular local union–management dialogue forums, and articulation of collective demands to company management. However, questions remain about the effectiveness and prospects of the network. HQ and regional management – despite corporate commitment to social dialogue and engagement with other regional networks – are slow to recognise, or actively avoidant of, the Asia-Pacific network. Noting the ‘two major problems’ (the vast diversity of the region and the absence of China) hampering the network, some German labour actors perceive a need for strategic review and possible reconfiguration and are experimenting with different network configurations. One effort entailed creating a sector-level–transnational group comprised of HQ and local managers from prominent German chemical companies operating in the region. This network would be comprised of ‘globalization specialists’ implementing ‘best practices’ of ‘union-oriented employee participation’ and who ‘have the ambition and perspective to achieve the maximum potential with regard to implementing social and union practices and participation’ in the Asia-Pacific (Labour Actor 4, Germany). They would meet in a ‘series of seminars’ for ‘collective discussion’. One such meeting took place in China. The nascent stage of the initiative at the time of data collection invites future research to evaluate the progress and outcomes.

The GUF actors appear to play a particularly important role in sustaining the network through patience, tolerance, and pragmatism. They work generatively with a temporal tension of present and future and understand that ‘it's a long process’ to ‘develop the skills and trust and commitment’ between the different parties (Labour Actor 1, Labour foundation). They understand and tolerate that the process does not follow a straight line, ‘there's often problems, you know?’ (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). They actively seek out information to understand the obstacles and weaknesses of the network and speak frankly about ‘how to develop it’ and what to ‘push’ more (Labour Actor 5, Germany). A German labour actor describes this mindset as perhaps ‘pessimistic’, but he believes ‘we have to see it in that way [the weaknesses] to keep [the network] alive’ (Labour Actor 5, Germany). GUF actors understand that ‘part of our role is to encourage’ local labour actors to persist (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe).

Asia-based GUF actors demonstrate a criticality and resolve, a both–and rather than either–or thinking, in their work. One actor articulates his suspicions about engaging with corporate-controlled CSR initiatives and compliance mechanisms, which can be designed to ‘exclude workers and unions’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). Despite this, he is committed to ‘interpret this legal tool [the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act] into union weapons. Yeah, the tasks still remain. Yeah, that must be done’ (Labour Actor 3, GUF regional). This resolve, alongside suspicion, to keep innovating and improving is shared by local labour actors who understand the rare opportunity the network presents for workers in globally dispersed, under-represented, and economically precarious sectors of a globally networked company and economy.

The shared learnings and value commitments between global and local labour actors fuel and sustain the continued effort. GUF actors gain a detailed understanding of the working realities in the Asia-Pacific. Seeing the progress, compromised or limited though it may seem from a European perspective, is hugely ‘motivating’ for global labour actors who realise ‘if they [local unions] were alone and without the unions in the region and in Germany and Latin America being at the end of an email, I think they would have been in a much weaker position’ (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). The GUF actors articulate a deep respect regarding the capacity of local labour actors to develop and see the GUF's role as ‘providing the space for the information to be shared because a lot of the knowledge and expertise is just there in the unions and it's a question of allowing it to be shared out’ (Labour Actor 2, GUF Europe). This willingness from global labour actors to learn with and from local union actors would appear a vital attitude to sustaining the network.

In sum, our data illustrate local, regional, national, and global actors crafting shared interests, building cooperative relations, and traversing persistent tensions within the vast and disparate landscape of the Asia-Pacific. Labour actors strategically and practically activate company CSR initiates to build shared knowledge, formulate demands, and co-create local actions to pressure management to honour the Global Compact and related code of conduct, despite its voluntarism and company obfuscations. Our data illustrate that the process of network-building involves articulating, reshaping, and persisting in and through salient tensions of similar and different, individual and collective, local and global, strength and weakness, compliance and dialogue. These tensions have the potential to both advance and hamper the success and viability of the network. Further discussion of the nature and effects of tensions and how actors can respond is warranted.

Discussion

Building and sustaining transnational union networks and alliances across borders has always been a contested terrain marked by competing logics, resources, and interests of different actors (Dufour-Poirier and Hennebert, 2015; Helfen and Fichter, 2013; Lévesque et al., 2013). As trade unions ‘move out of the comfort zone’ and experiment with new ways of mobilising CSR in emergent configurations, tensions will arise (Gold et al., 2020: 134). Current research details the cognitive, strategic, and moral capabilities that actors need to develop when crafting complex cross-border social dialogue (Barreau et al., 2020; Bourguignon and Hennebert, 2021; Casey et al., 2021; Dufour-Poirier and Hennebert, 2015; Lévesque et al., 2018). Our inquiry contributes to these debates by proposing that developing the relational capabilities to work more generatively with tensions and to mobilise them into innovative actions is a key practice in transnational social dialogue efforts.

Drawing on dialogical and relational perspectives, we conceptualise tensions as the ‘push-pull dilemmas’ that arise in the ongoing, dynamic interplay between presumed opposites (Putnam et al., 2016). What may appear to be opposite poles in a tension (such as global–local, individual–collective) are instead seen as mutually constitutive and interdependent, and it is the movement between that can ‘be a source of energy, creativity, and dialogue’ in organisational life (Putnam et al., 2016: 11). Tensions can provoke feelings of incongruence, anxiety, and frustration, spurring individuals to withdraw, avoid, deny, or focus on singular choices. Mistrust and scepticism can arise. Opportunities for voice, dialogue, and participation can become closed off (Putnam et al., 2016). Management's lack of engagement with the network can be understood from this perspective. Navigating a tension of compliance–dialogue, senior regional management actors resolve the tension by favouring the company-controlled compliance function as the ideal mechanism for handling social and labour concerns in the region (rather than in shared dialogue with unions). In doing so, management actors reproduce the status quo rather than actively contributing to network experimentation. Further studies of how power surfaces and moves in the interplay of tensions in transnational union networks are needed.

Our data also indicate how tensions can be engaged with to maintain or open up participation and dialogue practices (Casey and Delaney, 2022; Putnam et al., 2016). Our data show that labour actors can recast some tensions into resources for further collective use, as evident in the example of recasting difference as a strengthening resource for collective unity and ‘spirit of friendship’. Some local labour actors respond to the frustrations (arising from tensions of the network) with ‘either–or’ thinking (e.g., focusing on the local, immediate, similar). This can result in defensiveness and withdrawal as evident in the South Korean labour actor intending to leave the network as he saw low individual value. The regional GUF actor who encouraged the South Korean actor to continue to participate and engage was in effect inviting the actor to reframe and ‘live with’ the tension for the benefit of the collective. These micro-moments of recasting and coaching through the tensions would appear to be vital relational work for participants and leaders involved in transnational organisational experimentation.

GUF actors demonstrate an ability to respond to tensions by practicing ‘both–and’ thinking, which involves reframing presumed opposites as interdependent and mutually constitutive. GUF actors appear to accept the existence of tensions and can move back and forth between differing demands. They can appreciate the value of both the global and local, the individual diversity and shared interests, and the immediate needs and long-term goals and see the potential for learning and connection at the site of these tensions. GUF actors don’t openly frame the tension as signs of weakness or criticism; rather they appear to ‘live with’ the tensions, welcoming dualities to co-exist and enrich the network. GUF actors pragmatically activate CSR commitments to focus and catalyse network knowledge and action – to keep the network in movement and avoid stagnation. Cultivating a ‘both–and’ response to tensions is therefore one important capability to build the ‘persistence and growing resilience’ that key actors need in organisational experimentations for better work (Murray et al., 2023: 151).

Actors can also engage in ‘more–than’ thinking as another response to tensions (Putnam et al., 2016). This can take many forms, both individual and collective, such as reframing or reformulating the opposites, or engaging the tensions to create new and experimental spaces for dialogue. Some of the labour actors demonstrate a ‘more–than’ response to the persistent tensions of the network by experimenting with a new sector-level–transnational labour and management group in China while still participating in the extant network. This ‘third space’ group of cross-sector management and labour ‘globalisation specialists’ in the region reflects a pragmatic and creative effort to bring more stakeholders into dialogue on labour issues. Understanding how this experimental space may interact with the network would be worthy of further research.

On the whole, our study finds that skilled and creative labour actors are weaving and knotting, albeit unevenly and in fragile conditions, a transnational union network engaged in concerted knowledge exchange, demand formation and expression, and negotiated dialogical relations at transnational subsidiary and supplier firm levels. The engaged actors strive to negotiate the tensions in ways that produce improved labour relations, less risk of exploitation, and greater constraint on corporate power. Navigating and mobilising tensions permeates the work of building towards a carefully calibrated transnational cooperation that aims to create benefits for workers across the network and to press towards the institutionalisation of those gains in sustained company–labour relations through formal social dialogue and transnational company agreement.

Our study suggests that how leadership engages with tensions is an understudied yet important element in the emergence and sustainability of transnational union networks. Leadership plays a pivotal role in modelling, encouraging, and developing a ‘repertoire of responses’ (both individual and collective) to tensions (Putnam et al., 2016: 75). Informed by collective and relationship leadership theory, leadership is a dynamic, interactive, and emergent process involving multiple actors (formal and informal) who engage in various practices to influence collective action, coordination, and change (Ospina and Foldy, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006). In our case, leadership emerges and shifts among multiple individual actors within the network, such as the collaborative work of bringing diverse actors together to forge shared interests (Europe-based GUF actors); the relational work of encouraging local actors to persist despite frustrations (regional GUF actors); the translational and strategic sense-making work of local and GUF actors to mobilise global CSR initiatives into local union strategies; and the bridge-building work of German labour actors to forge dialogue and connection with HQ management. Future research could draw from leadership theory to examine the emergence and expression of various leadership practices in a given network context and explore the outcomes on the strength and resilience of the network. The ability to collectively lead through tensions contributes to emerging frameworks of cross-border trade union education and transnational competence that highlight the role of communicative and emotional competencies (Föhrer et al., 2021; Niforou and Hodder, 2020).

Conclusion

Tensions are baked into the history and heart of transnational efforts to improve worker voice, participation, and social dialogue for more prosperous futures. Labour actors wrestle with dilemmas about whether and how to engage with company-controlled CSR initiatives such as codes of conduct to advance worker interests. Our study has shown that actors generate and experiment with social dialogue interventions. Transnational union networks focused on a global company are an ongoing work in progress. The skilful navigation and indeed mobilisation of diverse tensions accomplish strong bonds in the network in the midst of significant on-going challenges and fragilities. The network in this study demonstrates achievement of social dialogue developments at local levels even as aspirations for more expansive and robust democratic institutional accomplishments remain to be realised. Building the knowledge, skills, and relationships at the local level and in connection with global actors is vital to proceeding towards incremental advancement. Labour actors in our study demonstrate steadfast patience, pragmatism, and resolve in their long-term commitment to advancing transnational social dialogue. Democratically elected union representatives are vital and significant actors in utilising company CSR instruments that enable at least some degree of regulatory effect on corporate power.

Through our empirical investigation of one enduring transnational trade union network in the Asia-Pacific region – a region not often included in research but of significant importance – our study illustrates the tensions that actors continually navigate relating to heterogeneity, power asymmetries, and durability. These tensions can be a source of strength and creativity that help develop and sustain the network, just as they can cause members to become frustrated and withdraw from the network. Our discussion, drawing on a dialogical and relational understanding of tensions, naturalises the existence of tensions and illustrates the different responses available to actors. The relational capacity to work generatively with tensions is especially vital yet difficult to cultivate when polarising patterns of zero-sum and either–or attitudes pervade. The existence of tensions is to be expected, cultivated even, in complex transnational cooperation and not evidence of the futility or inadequacy of such efforts. Learning how to craft shared interests with those who may be distant or different, and managing feelings of disappointment, frustration, or ambivalence, would appear to be crucial capabilities to develop individually and collectively when rising to the challenge of crafting transnational social dialogue.