|
GB.274/11
| ||
|
| ||
ELEVENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Report of the Subcommittee on Multinational Enterprises
1. The Subcommittee on Multinational Enterprises met on 15 March 1999. It was chaired by Ms. J. Perlin (Government, Canada). Mr. B. Noakes (Employer, Australia) and Mr. Z. Rampak (Worker, Malaysia) were the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons respectively.
2. The Subcommittee had the following agenda:
- Follow-up on and promotion of the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy:
(a) Consideration of the draft questionnaire for the Seventh Tripartite Survey on the effect given in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy;
(b) Promotional activities, technical advisory services, completed studies and current research by the Office.
- Developments in other organizations.
- Other questions.
3. The Employer Vice-Chairperson referred to what he considered to be the disorderly and confused manner in which the date and time of the Subcommittee's meeting had been fixed: it had changed a couple of times and as a result the meeting was now being held at the same time as the Committee on Employment and Social Policy, of which a number of his colleagues were members. This had inconvenienced his group, and he expressed profound objection to the lack of common sense and normal courtesy vis-à-vis the Officers. He insisted that in future the Office should consult with the Officers concerning the times at which the Subcommittee met.
4. The Worker Vice-Chairperson reiterated the same views, and found the lack of consultations and normal courtesy an unacceptable departure from the tradition of the ILO.
Follow-up on and promotion of the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
(First item on the agenda)
(a) Consideration of the draft questionnaire for the
Seventh Tripartite Survey on the effect given in 1996,
1997, 1998 and 1999 to the Tripartite Declaration of
Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and
Social Policy
5. Introducing the Office paper,(1) the representative of the Director-General (Mr. Abate, Chief of the Bureau for Multinational Enterprise Activities) stated that the Subcommittee had, in March 1997, recommended to the Governing Body that a seventh full-scale survey covering the years 1996-99 (inclusive) on the effect given to the Tripartite Declaration should be undertaken(2) and that the Governing Body had endorsed that recommendation. The draft questionnaire currently before the Subcommittee was one of a series of actions being taken by the Office to respond to the wishes of the Subcommittee and the Governing Body. In response to earlier expressions of concern regarding the length of the questionnaire,(3) the one that the Subcommittee was now dealing with was shorter, yet this had not prevented the Office from identifying issues that needed to be addressed -- and on which the views and responses of constituents should be sought. The Office hoped and expected that this would enable respondents to favour the Office with meaningful information -- and appealed to the tripartite partners to respond at the earliest opportunity. The format of the questionnaire was unchanged, and the questions were simplified. The Subcommittee was being asked to recommend adoption of the questionnaire by the Governing Body, subject to the Subcommittee's approval of its contents, and secondly to set the deadline for the dispatch of the questionnaire and the receipt of replies in the Office.
6. The Employer Vice-Chairperson thanked Mr. Abate for the draft questionnaire. He stressed that the follow-up on the Tripartite Declaration was not an exercise that should be taken lightly. While acknowledging that the questionnaire followed formats from past years, he noted that some changes had been made. He would not propose radical changes to the questionnaire, but would put forward proposals where there were good and sound reasons, and in that context the Employers would propose approximately six or seven revisions or deletions. He noted the deadline proposed for dispatch to constituents and receipt of their input within the time-frame specified so that the report to the Subcommittee and the Governing Body could be prepared in good time, and stressed that it was important that agreement be reached on the precise form of the questionnaire.
7. Mr. Rampak (Worker Vice-Chairperson) felt that the questions were too general and would not elicit sufficient information. The questions needed to be focused to facilitate responses, and he proposed that discussion of the questionnaire be deferred until November. This would allow all those interested in so doing to submit proposals for questions and give the Office time to study them.
8. The representative of the Government of Namibia stated that his Government had no problems with the questionnaire. A more precise definition of a multinational enterprise was needed in order to avoid confusion over who should be involved in the survey. There was such confusion now as a result of changes over the last few years in the manner in which MNEs operated. He did not want to delay this survey, but stressed the need for consideration of this point and for an updating of the Tripartite Declaration in time for the next survey.
9. The representative of the Government of Canada thanked the Office for its efforts on the questionnaire. Noting the upward trend identified by the Office in the sixth survey,(4) she asked if the Office believed this response rate satisfactory, and if not, what efforts were being made to improve it. Her Government found the questionnaire satisfactory, and supported paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Office paper.
10. The representative of the Government of Italy expressed satisfaction with the document, and had no objections regarding the format of the questionnaire. With regard to Namibia's comment on the question of definition, while defining a multinational enterprise was no easy task, most people knew what was meant by the term.
11. The representative of the Government of the United States expressed satisfaction with the questionnaire, but was prepared to consider suggestions for possible changes.
12. The Employer Vice-Chairperson stated that the definition of an MNE was dealt with in paragraph 6 of the Declaration and that it was not within the competence of the Subcommittee to enter into a revision of the Declaration. He requested the Office to explain the possible consequences of the proposal by the Worker Vice-Chairperson to defer decision on the questionnaire until November.
13. The Chief of the Bureau for Multinational Enterprise Activities indicated that the Office would have no problems in redrafting the questionnaire along the lines that may be suggested. However, such a redrafting would affect the time- frame of the entire exercise: unless the Subcommittee was prepared to recommend otherwise, it was normal to give tripartite partners one year to deal with the substantial responses required. If a decision were taken to delay consideration of the questionnaire until November 1999, responses would, under the current practice, be expected by early 2001 -- which could well mean that the Governing Body would discuss the reports and analysis towards the end of 2001, thus delaying the whole exercise -- and as a consequence negatively affecting the rhythm of the surveys that may follow.
14. The Employer Vice-Chairperson reiterated that the questionnaire was an important exercise and the Employers did not want to see the survey delayed. The pace of change was so fast that six-year surveys would not result in appropriate outcomes. He proposed that the Subcommittee delegate authority to the Officers to reach agreement on the form of the questionnaire by June. He asked the Office about the consequences of such a decision.
15. The representative of the Director-General stated that if the Officers were given the authority to agree on the questionnaire, and such agreement was reached by May or June 1999, the Governing Body could be asked to consider approving it at its post-Conference session in June. On the assumption that this was done, the Office would then dispatch the questionnaire in July or August, a couple of months later than the usual deadline. He would not be able to judge the consequences of such a delay on the ability of governments, employers' and workers' representatives to respond by the deadline of 29 February 2000.
16. The Worker Vice-Chairperson supported the proposal by the Employer Vice-Chairperson.
17. The Chairperson then summarized as follows the understanding reached: members of the Subcommittee would submit to the Office in writing, by mid-April at the latest, any proposals they may have on amendments to, additions to and deletions from the questionnaire; at the close of the deadline the Office would send to the Officers and all Subcommittee members a revised text of the complete questionnaire for information and comment, if any; the Officers would then meet in May or June to finalize the draft questionnaire, in time for submission to the Governing Body for approval at its 275th (post-Conference) Session; the approved text would be dispatched to constituents in July-August 1999, a few months later than currently foreseen, on the clear understanding that the current time-frame (i.e. receipt of replies by 29 February 2000, reports on the survey to be submitted to and discussed by the Governing Body in November 2000) would be respected. In the event that the Officers could not agree on and submit a final text to the Governing Body in June 1999, the Subcommittee would be called upon to deal with the matter in November 1999.
18. The representative of the Government of the United States asked if the members of the Subcommittee would see the questionnaire before it went to the Governing Body.
19. The Chairperson stressed that there would be full consultation and an opportunity for comments.
20. The representative of the Government of Italy was prepared to approve the proposal as clarified.
21. In response to a question by the representative of the Government of the United States, the Chief of the Bureau for Multinational Enterprise Activities stated that everything possible would be done by the Office to ensure that the deadline now in the paper was maintained. Furthermore, replying to the query by the Government of Canada, he referred to paragraphs 10 to 15 of the report of the Working Group which had analysed the submissions for the sixth survey.(5) He believed that 74 country responses was a credible response rate. Those replying included those from which MNEs originated and those where they had their most significant activities. The OECD member States, the "dynamic Asian economies", the major FDI hosts in Latin America, Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, and other Asian countries formed part of this group, as did a number of LDCs implementing policies to encourage inward FDI. However, given that much broader participation would enhance the value of the survey, the Office would do whatever it could to increase responses, and he appealed to governments, employers' and workers' representatives to respond in time and to encourage others to do so.
22. The Governing Body may wish to endorse the agreement summarized in paragraph 17 above.
(b) Promotional activities, technical advisory services,
completed studies and current research by the Office
23. The representative of the Director-General stated that the Office paper covered a tripartite round table on labour and social issues in FDI/MNE activities held in Hanoi, Viet Nam, and preparatory work done for a similar undertaking in Ho Chi Minh City later in 1999. It provided succinct information with regard to Office contacts and activities with the European Round Table, a Conference/Workshop in San Francisco, activities in New York, Amsterdam and Vancouver. It referred to an OECD meeting in Budapest convened to consider a review of its Guidelines on MNEs, which the ILO had attended and addressed, and paragraph 40 referred to a symposium in Tokyo, Japan, organized in cooperation with TCM, an organ of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation. Attendance at the symposium had also made possible discussions with the Japan Councils of the International Transport Federation (ITF), International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF), International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM), International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (FIET), International Federation of Building and Wood Workers (IFBWW) and the Secretary-General of JTUC-RENGO. With respect to the Tokyo mission, he expressed appreciation on behalf of the Director-General for the initiatives by TCM and RENGO in Japan and elsewhere in Asia in minimizing MNE-related labour and social conflicts, and in the process complementing ILO work in this area; secondly, he thanked Assistant Minister Iwata and the Ministry of Labour, the Secretary-General of RENGO, as well as Mr. Ito, Worker member of the Governing Body, for their valued cooperation. Paragraphs 41 and 42 reported on the positive after-effect of a previous promotional activity undertaken by the Office. Part II of the document provided succinct information on the status of research and publications.
24. The Employer Vice-Chairperson found the document interesting, but not useful. It seemed biased towards trade union attitudes and contacts. While the paper referred to many contacts with trade unions, there was only one reference to a contact with a national employers' organization and none with international employers' organizations. The business groupings contacted, like the ERT in Europe, were not legitimate employers' organizations. The document consisted of a repetition of trade union and NGO views on codes of conduct, social auditing and external auditing. While relieved that there was no direct contact with MNEs themselves, he noted that there were many contacts with business groups but not legitimate employers' organizations. The Office needed to consult employers' organizations more. The Employers were pleased to see the enlightened views expressed in paragraph 6(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) addressed to trade unions. Regarding the account of discussions with the ICFTU, which contained the sentence, "Since it is being reported that rapid globalization, driven by MNEs, is accentuating labour problems, the discussions included ways that the ILO and ICFTU could work more closely in minimizing conflict", he asked how the ILO and ICFTU were to work more closely together and asked about the nature of the conflict, particularly between whom and about what. If the ILO wanted to extend its reach, it might consider contacts with legitimate representatives of ILO constituents. He objected to any proposed partnership with MNEs and national enterprises with regard to codes of conduct. He also noted problems with the Office's contacts with NGOs, while it ignored employers' organizations. In general he was disappointed with the creeping legitimization of codes of conduct that characterized the document. The Employers' view was that codes were not mandatory, or to be linked to FDI or trade. Employers did not accept notions of compulsory social auditing or external auditing. They maintained their position that codes must remain voluntary in nature and that they were not an issue specific to MNEs. He expressed strong objections to the involvement of fringe groups which were not legitimate representatives of employers. If the Office was going to engage national and international workers' representatives, it should be counterbalanced by international and national employers' organizations, which would have led to a more balanced paper being presented.
25. The Worker Vice-Chairperson indicated that his group's views differed from those expressed by the Employer Vice-Chairperson. The Workers believed that there was a need for a strong linkage between codes of conduct and the Tripartite Declaration, otherwise the Declaration would become irrelevant. The Workers' group thanked the Office for the detailed report on the activities in which it had been involved since the meeting of the Subcommittee in March 1998. The Workers emphasized the importance of this field of activity for the whole ILO perspective. The programme and budget proposals for the coming biennium should translate into adequate resource lines in the coming months, and in so doing overcome the severe budgetary constraints under which the programme on MNEs had had to operate until now. He recalled that in March 1998 the Workers had called for intensive promotional activities in developing countries, but unfortunately only one activity, the round table in Viet Nam, had been organized. He re-emphasized the previous call for a proactive stance in promoting the Tripartite Declaration in developing countries, and supported the preparation of translations in other languages, since a Vietnamese translation had now been completed. The Workers' representatives did not like the reference in the summary of the Hanoi round table to the use of strikes as a last resort, and suggested that, equally, employers should have been called on to stop the practice of lock-outs, and governments to promote and apply labour standards. He asked if there had been any follow-up on the round table in Viet Nam. He welcomed the involvement of the Office in codes of conduct, and reiterated that codes should not be a substitute for national legislation but seen as a useful tool, if accompanied by a reliable monitoring mechanism, and needed to use the Declaration as a guidance instrument. With regard to social auditing, the ILO should take a proactive stance and set standards in the field. He also wondered why the research component of the programme had not examined the effect of the Asian financial crisis on MNEs and employment in Asia, as had been requested.
26. The representative of the Government of the United States recalled that it had in previous meetings urged the Office to promote the Declaration, and was thus pleased at the considerable amount of promotion done. He took note of the Employers' and Workers' comments and stressed that the Tripartite Declaration was important and one of the ILO's good pieces of work, and that it needed to be promoted widely.
27. The representative of the Government of Japan thanked the Office for the paper. It was useful to obtain information on the promotional activities carried out by the Office, and these would facilitate the attainment of the objectives of the Tripartite Declaration. She expressed her Government's deep appreciation for the Office's role in carrying out promotional activities in Japan.
28. The representative of the Government of Italy thanked the Office for the precise and interesting document submitted. He noted the growing interest in non-binding instruments, as presented in paragraph 24, as well as the lack of effective participation by some groups in discussions, as indicated in parts of the document.
29. The Chief of the Bureau for Multinational Enterprise Activities indicated that the Declaration had been translated into 30 languages, but that if there were other languages into which it should be translated, the Office would welcome suggestions and assistance from the tripartite partners in arranging those translations. In response to the Employer Vice-Chairperson he stressed that the ILO was not in a position to determine the composition or venue of, or participation in, meetings it did not convene, but to which it was invited. There was a need to respond positively to requests for information on the Declaration by those who were using it as a reference, and it was important to recall that the Governing Body had consistently called for promotional work to be intensified, "... including through closer cooperation with governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in activities relating to FDI, economic development, human rights, and particularly workers' rights ...".(6) Wherever missions were undertaken, all three constituents were systematically visited, and if the current report showed more dealings with trade unions, this was because they were the ones that had sought assistance and services from the Office. The Office could not force itself into meetings to which it was not invited, or impose activities that were not sought. Nevertheless, he would urge a proactive attitude on this matter, and the Office would be pleased to be of service to all constituents. The Tripartite Declaration was a text, in the framing of which governments, employers and workers had been closely involved, and promotional activities meant discussing it in its entirety. There were hence no grounds for concern that there would be any deviation from its contents. There was no creeping legitimization of codes of conduct, but as was well known, the Office was, in accordance with the approved work programme, conducting a survey/study on codes, and thus needed to discuss issues with relevant organizations and those that had provided inputs and sought to understand what it is the Office is doing. He stressed that with regard to research and documentation, staff shortages had put limits on what could be done, but even then initial steps had been taken and contacts established to give effect to requests for research.
30. The Employer Vice-Chairperson said that the Office seemed confused about the Organization's constituents on the Employers' side. The document should concern the Office's promotional activities, and any objective reading of the document showed that this was not so.
31. The Worker Vice-Chairperson noted with satisfaction that the Tripartite Declaration had been translated into 30 languages, and requested the complete list of the languages concerned to be provided in future. With regard to the seminar in Viet Nam, he stressed that paragraph 6(b) was one-sided, and that there was a need for greater balance.
Developments in other organizations
(Second item on the agenda)
32. The representative of the Director-General stated that the Office paper(7) provided some information, albeit cryptic, on what was being done in other organizations whose work programme covered guidelines, codes or similar instruments relating to MNE activities. The document included substantive replies from the European Commission, FAO, OECD and WHO. Since the publication of the document UNIDO had sent a reply and the OECD had updated its contribution.
33. UNIDO's comments related to its offers of technical assistance to countries. By balancing concerns for a competitive economy, sound environment and productive employment -- the three Es -- the social dimension of industry in development was reflected in almost all of UNIDO's activities. The provision of catalytic support to make private business increase its contribution to development lay at the heart of UNIDO's technical assistance activities. It fostered economically viable international industrial partnerships between enterprises from developed and developing countries and countries in transition, as well as from within the developing world, thereby strengthening south-south cooperation endeavours. This included capacity-building for institutional development, that is, assistance in the establishment of new, or in the upgrading of existing, national investment promotion agencies; industrial subcontracting and supply chain management; the establishment and strengthening of national industrial research and technology institutes; and the development of a private financing for infrastructure framework. Capacity-building for partnership development included assistance in the formulation of investment and technology-promotion strategies; the identification, formulation and appraisal of specific industrial investment and technology projects; and support in the focused promotion of partnership opportunities. UNIDO had in 1997-98 carried out a project entitled: "Responses to Global Standards: A Framework for Assessing Social and Environmental Performance of Industries -- Case Study of the Textile Industry in India, Indonesia and Zimbabwe". The project document, as well as the benchmarking software which was developed, had an extensive inventory of national, international (ILO/World Bank and others) and corporate norms and codes of conduct.
34. In its update, the OECD reported that negotiations on the MAI were no longer taking place. However, member countries had indicated that they remained committed to the goal of establishing international rules for investment, and were considering the value of further exploratory and multidisciplinary work on investment at the OECD. This work could address all aspects of the relationship between international investment agreements and the task of host countries to regulate economic activity. The work should be carried out in a transparent manner, and should include interested non-members, as well as civil society. OECD Ministers would decide on a new work programme on international investment issues at their annual meeting on 26-27 May 1999.
35. Paragraph 57 of the Office paper, concerning UNCTAD's contribution, may perhaps be of special interest, given that what was reported on related to discussions on a possible Multilateral Framework on Investment. The Office had been a participant in the dialogue with the ICFTU on 9 December 1998, following which the Secretary-General of UNCTAD had written, asking the Office for suggestions on how best its desire to associate civil society with its work on investment could be enhanced.
36. The Employer Vice-Chairperson said that his remarks on the previous paper applied equally to the Office paper concerning this agenda item, and expressed concern that it raised issues of labelling, codes of conduct, and social auditing in a biased way. He cited the references to individual views of participants in the EU/US symposium in paragraphs 7, 9 and 12. He emphasized that there had been no consensus at the symposium, as paragraph 16 suggested. He also expressed concern that the phrase "civil society" in paragraph 57 did not reflect the Office's constituency. Referring to the "blurring" of the activities of MNEs and national enterprises, he stressed that the activities of many of the international and regional organizations mentioned in the report were not specific to MNEs. Finally, he insisted that MNEs did not target people in countries, as suggested in the paper, but responded to market demand.
37. The Worker Vice-Chairperson recalled that the Subcommittee's mandate concerned multinational enterprises, and the items cited could clearly be dealt with. The paper covered interesting issues, but lacked information on cooperation between the ILO and other organizations. In March 1997, the Workers' group had requested the Office to include such information, so that such work could be assessed. The ILO should give a social dimension to investment-related matters dealt with in other institutions. Despite this request, the Office had not systematically followed up on these issues. In paragraph 7 concerning the EU/US symposium on codes of conduct, the NGO mentioned was probably the Ethical Trading Initiative which, he stressed, was not a regular NGO, as claimed by the Employer Vice-Chairperson, but an alliance of companies, NGOs and trade unions. It included MNEs and many of the largest retail companies in the United Kingdom. The recent resolution of the European Union on codes of conduct and a European Monitoring Platform were also of interest, and he invited the Office to follow and report on this development. He reiterated the importance of external monitoring and verification (paragraphs 17 and 18), and of the need to include trade unions in setting up such exercises. The ILO should take a role in establishing benchmarks for monitoring. He objected strongly to the suggestion that NGOs could play a more important role where local trade unions did not exist, and the Office should reflect a more balanced view. He underlined that codes could not be credible without the agreement of workers. Finally, as regards certification, he stressed that certification could encourage MNEs to merely use the suppliers already using the code, instead of promoting a real change in the existing supply chain. On the question of the OECD and MAI, he felt that abandoning the MAI had been a sound decision. The ILO should request a role and not be an observer in any future negotiations. Regarding the FAO, he praised the adoption of the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent procedure for hazardous chemicals in international trade by 62 countries already.
38. In the sections concerning UNCTAD and the World Bank, there was a list of activities undertaken, but little or no information was supplied on their concrete output and related relevance. For this reason the Workers again stressed the need for the Office to enrich future reports by expanding the qualitative analysis, as it did for the European Commission, rather than the quantitative array of information. For example, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA, paragraph 59) had already adopted provisions for not using forced labour, and this could have been reflected in the report. Regarding UNCTAD, the Workers referred to a positive seminar that the international trade union movement had held with UNCTAD in December 1998 on globalization: the Workers were convinced that not only the Office, but also the social partners should establish contacts with such institutions in order to promote their agenda. Another report could have been made on the UN Secretary-General's speech at the economic summit in Davos, in which he had called on MNEs to respect and apply labour standards.
39. The representative of the Government of China thanked the secretariat for the detailed paper. In paragraph 67, he requested a correction, where the name Taiwan was used. He reminded the Office that it should read "Taiwan, China."
40. The Chief of the Bureau for Multinational Enterprise Activities stressed that it was not for lack of vigilance on the part of the secretariat that the name Taiwan had been used. He stressed that the document was a reproduction of a paper from another organization. In all ILO documents the proper format was used.
41. The representative of the Government of Japan considered that the US/EU symposium was an interesting development. The points which emerged from the discussion, including the relationship to international labour standards and monitoring, needed further study and discussion by the ILO in the Subcommittee or in the Working Party on the Social Dimensions of the Liberalization of International Trade.
42. The representative of the Government of Italy expressed appreciation for the Office paper. The main items of interest were the issues in the symposium and in the OECD.
43. The representative of the Government of Namibia observed that when the ILO interacted with other organizations, the principles of the Tripartite Declaration should be made fully known to them.
44. The representative of the Government of the United States observed that the Tripartite Declaration did not exist in isolation. There were many other organizations dealing with MNEs, and it was interesting to see how the ILO's Declaration fitted into those processes. As regards the US/EU symposium, what was referred to was a summary of proceedings, not a consensus. He believed it fairly represented what had been said during the sessions.
45. With reference to the comments by the Worker Vice-Chairperson in particular concerning paragraph 7, the Employer Vice-Chairperson emphasized that it should be understood that the Subcommittee was not involved in a redrafting of the document.
46. The Worker Vice-Chairperson stated that the Workers had merely exercised their right to express their views.
47. The Chief of the Bureau of Multinational Enterprise Activities noted that paragraph 1 of the document stated that it was a summary of responses and stressed that the document reviewed "... developments in, and the activities of, various international and regional intergovernmental organizations which have codes, guidelines or some form of instrument relating directly or indirectly to multinational enterprises and their activities ...". Successive meetings of the previous Committee and Subcommittee in the past had dealt with these frames of reference.
Other questions
(Third item on the agenda)
48. The Chairperson informed the Subcommittee that the Officers had discussed its title. Should it remain a Subcommittee, or should it revert to its old title of Committee?
49. The representative of the Director-General stated that the Subcommittee had initially been established in November 1980 as the Committee on Multinational Enterprises. This had been changed to Subcommittee in 1993, following consideration by the Governing Body of recommendations on improving its functioning; however, the arrangements for reporting, terms of reference, and its functions had not changed. Given this, and the fact that there were no financial savings or any improvement resulting from the change of name, the Officers had discussed whether it was appropriate to suggest renaming it the Committee on MNE Activities.
50. The Employer Vice-Chairperson said there was no particular advantage or disadvantage in changing names. However, it was not the appropriate time to consider it. Since a new Director-General had been appointed, he may have organizational changes to propose, and furthermore the status of the original Committee had been changed as a result of a report of the Working Party in 1992. The Employers did not believe this should be dealt with in isolation from a review of the functioning of the Governing Body and its committees as a whole.
51. The Worker Vice-Chairperson expressed the Workers' support for reverting to the term "Committee". This would confer greater relevance to the body in the envisaged new ILO structure. He agreed that the issue should be discussed at the next meeting.
52. The representatives of the Governments of the United States and Japan agreed with the Employer Vice-Chairperson.
Geneva, 19 March 1999.
Point for decision: Paragraph 22.
6. GB.268/MNE/1/2, para. 236 (report of the Working Group entrusted with analysing the reports submitted by governments and by employers' and workers' organizations for the sixth survey on the effect given to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy).