Corporate Commitments to Freedom of Association: Is There a Role for Legal Enforcement Under Canadian Law?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we consider whether corporate codes of conduct adopted by multinational enterprises (MNEs) or international framework agreements (IFAs) to which global union federations (GUFs) and MNEs are party could be enforced under Canadian domestic law. We consider first what Canadian workers might gain from undertaking to enforce code and IFA commitments to freedom of association. We then analyze the legal status of corporate codes and IFAs, and how they map on to contract law, labour law, and tort law in Canada. Finally, we examine whether and under what conditions there might be incentives for MNEs to increase the enforceability of these agreements. We conclude that while there may be conditions under which MNEs might accept enforceability of codes of conduct, the main advantages of IFAs lie in dealing with GUFs as interlocutors with respect to freedom of association issues, and that these advantages would likely be undermined, in the view of MNEs, by enforceability.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".