Voice in Supply Chains: Does the Better Work Program Lead to Improvements in Labor Standards Compliance?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a six-year study of Better Work Lesotho (BWL), this article examines whether the ILO’s Better Work initiative leads to improvements in labor standards compliance. Data include 55 focus group discussions conducted with 426 workers during four waves of data collection between 2011 and 2017. In-depth qualitative research with workers before, during, and after BWL reveals the root causes underlying noncompliance. Findings indicate that improvements across a number of compliance areas are enabled by collective worker voice mechanisms established by BWL at the factory level. Workers also highlight additional positive impacts of these improvements beyond the workplace. The author concludes that worker voice is essential to long-term sustainable improvements in labor standards compliance. This study makes an empirical and a methodological contribution by demonstrating the importance of worker voice in both the implementation of Better Work and its evaluation and impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it