In contrast, Smith et al.'s (2018) 'nested scalar approach' to labour control regimes in GPNs takes labour control dynamics at the workplace as an analytical starting point. Smith et al. then suggest analysing how the workplace labour control regime including the labour process, wage relations and forms of worker representation—is shaped on the one hand by dynamics of the 'regional and national political economy of labour control' and by global lead firm dynamics, on the other. Similar to Jonas' (1996) conception of the local labour control regime, Smith et al. (2018: 558) conceptualise the 'regional political economy of labour control' as comprising dynamics of social reproduction and local labour markets as well as local political contexts. The 'national political economy of labour control' is constituted through formal regulatory mechanisms such as national labour laws, labour inspectorates and state policies relating to labour standards as well as through 'the balance of class forces' (ibid.). The workplace labour regime and the regional and national political economy of labour control are in turn shaped by 'lead firm dynamics' comprising supply chain pressures and governance dynamics as well as lead firms' codes of conduct and lobbying practices (ibid.) Fig. 2.5 visualises the different levels of labour control and their articulations in Smith et al.'s 'nested scalar approach' to labour control regimes.

**Fig. 2.5** 'Nested scalar approach' to labour control regimes by Smith et al. (2018). *Source* Adapted from Smith et al. (2018: 558)

From an empirical point of view, Smith et al.'s (2018) work has contributed to our understanding of the *complex, multi-scalar constitution of labour control regimes in garment-producing countries*. Applying their conceptual framework to the Moldovan export-garment industry, Smith et al. illustrate how workplace regimes in Moldovan garment factories are characterised by 'poverty wages', extensive and regular use of overtime, intensification of the labour process and employer resistance to union formation. Smith et al. then identify how these workplace regimes are shaped by lead firms' demands at the global level and by regional and national dynamics and institutions of labour regulation. On the one hand, lead firms' demands for lower prices, higher product flexibility and shorter production times require manufacturers to maximise productivity while keeping labour costs down. On the other hand, poor workplace conditions are shaped by the weakening of labour inspectorates and low national minimum wages due to the asymmetric power balance between employer associations, the state and labour. With their analysis, Smith et al. provide a good understanding of how more general 'network dynamics' intersect with place-specific labour control dynamics at the national and workplace level.

In summary, multi-scalar conceptions of labour control regimes have embedded workplace control dynamics within broader dynamics of labour control at the regional, national and global levels. Moreover, they have promoted a spatial understanding of labour control: labour control structures in GPNs are territorially embedded into and shaped by place-specific social relations and power structures on the one hand, and by global dynamics of capital accumulation on the other hand. Thereby, multi-scalar approaches to LCRs have enhanced our understanding of the multiple processes and dynamics at different scales involved in constructing labour control regimes at specific nodes of the GPN. Moreover, particularly Smith et al.'s (2018) analysis has provided some initial insights into the links between labour process dynamics, lead firm practices and broader political economic dynamics of labour control at the regional and national level. Nevertheless, only recently a pioneering study by Wickramasingha and Coe (2021) has highlighted the links between dynamics at various levels as central for the constitution of labour control regimes. Hence, a more systematic engagement with the relational nature of labour control regimes at specific nodes of the garment GPN is necessary.

#### *2.3.4 Interim Conclusion: Contributions and Shortcomings of Existing Analytical Approaches to Labour Control in GPNs*

This section has introduced three different strands of research on labour control in GPNs and highlighted the insights gained from these research strands as well as their shortcomings: (1) an LPT-informed research strand focussing on the intersection between value chain and workplace control dynamics; (2) a research strand focussing on national and local labour control regimes; and (3) multi-scalar approaches to labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN.

In a nutshell, these research strands have enhanced our understanding of the constraining conditions and the terrain for worker and union agency in global production countries in two regards. First, existing research on labour control in GVCs/GPNs has highlighted the interrelations between global value chain dynamics and workplace exploiting and disciplining dynamics. In particular, past studies have illustrated how lead firm pressures for lower prices and shorter production times give rise to workplace regimes characterised by informalised employment relations, low wages, gender-based exploitation and violations of workers' collective rights.

Second, in particular studies concerned with local, national or multi-scalar labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN have drawn attention to the fact that structures of exploitation and disciplining are not only produced by lead firms at the global scale and by employers in the workplace. They are also produced by various other actors at multiple scales who fulfil central functions in reproducing the broader social relations that secure capital accumulation at specific nodes of a GPN. Hence, to understand the terrain and constraining factors for the agency of local unions in garment-producing countries, we need to look at the practices of these actors and scrutinise their implications for worker and union agency—either concerning the specific constraints they pose for building local unions´ bargaining power or as potential target areas for union interventions.

Despite these critical overall contributions to the literature on labour control in GVCs/GPNs, I argue that three aspects of the 'labour architectures underpinning GPNs' remain underdeveloped in existing studies of labour control (regimes) in GPNs. First, while existing research on labour control in GPNs has revealed the diversity of actors and dynamics at multiple scales involved in the production of labour control regimes, the interrelations and interdependences between labour control dynamics at different levels have so far remained under-researched. I hold that this analytical gap results at least in part from the scalar heuristic underpinning past studies of labour control regimes: The focus on a priori-defined scalar categories creates an artificial analytical separation between processes and dynamics conceptualised as located at different levels (c.f. Marston et al. 2005: 442). However, as Wickramasingha and Coe (2021: 6) have recently stressed, place-specific labour (control) regimes are in reality constituted through "a mix of geographically distant and proximate relations across different scales". In this light, I argue that to gain a more nuanced understanding of the 'architectures of labour control' underpinning specific GPNs and of the implications for labour agency, a relational analytical perspective that emphasises connectivity rather than a priori defined scalar scaffolds can be beneficial.

Second, scalar studies of labour control regimes in GPNs tend to assume a universal socio-spatial order as characterising labour control regimes in GPNs (c.f. Latham 2002: 138). This assumption is also closely intertwined with the pre-supposed 'nested multi-scalar' structure of labour control regimes (c.f. Smith et al. 2018). I argue that such a pre-given assumption of a universal socio-spatial order of labour control regimes constrains the analytical space for empirically carving out the placespecific articulations of geographically more proximate and more distant relationships that constitute labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN (c.f. López 2021; Wickramasingha and Coe 2021).

Lastly, the nested multi-scalar perspective informing existing studies of labour control regimes in GPNs has tended to reproduce a hierarchical 'top-down' conceptualisation of 'global/local' dynamics, in which labour control dynamics at higher levels are unilaterally imposed on local labour (Hastings and MacKinnon 2017: 105). Such a 'top-down' understanding, however, completely ignores the role of workers' as sentient social actors who actively shape economic landscapes, including labour control regimes (Herod 1997; Wickramasingha and Coe 2021). Under repressive state and employer regimes, workers and unions may not have the power to challenge institutionalised frameworks for labour control in their totality; however, workers and unions may still succeed in shaping and transforming specific elements of the labour control regime by stopping selected practices of exploitation. Thus, I argue that to gain a better understanding of how workers and unions in garment-producing countries can achieve lasting improvements for workers, we need an enhanced understanding of the conditions that enable workers to achieve even 'small transformations' of labour control regimes at specific nodes of the GPN (c.f. Latham 2002).

Table 2.2 on the next page provides an overview of the central research questions, contributions and shortcomings of the three research strands/approaches introduced in this section.

To tackle these shortcomings in existing research on labour control in GPNs, and to produce a more nuanced understanding of labour control regimes as relationalstructural contexts for worker and union agency in garment-producing countries, I develop a relational analytical approach to labour control regimes in GPNs (see Chapter 3). This approach conceptualises labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN as emerging from the place-specific articulations of multiple processual relations of labour control that stretch across various distances and link actors through practice relations. I argue that such a practice-oriented, relational approach to labour control regimes in GPNs bears two central benefits for generating a better understanding of the conditions that constrain and enable the agency of workers and unions in garment-producing countries: First, a relational approach conceptualises labour control regimes by means of networked practices and relationships and therefore allows for a closer examination of the complex interdependencies and interrelations between labour control dynamics at various scales. Thereby, a relational approach is well equipped to shed light on the challenges for union agency resulting from the complex networks of practices and relations that constitute the labour control regime. Second, the relational approach developed in this book highlights that the labour control regime is primarily constituted through practices (as opposed to abstract capitalist forces or mechanisms). As a result, it is able to shed light on the 'small transformations' of labour control structures achieved by workers and unions.

Before proceeding to develop my relational approach to labour control regimes in Chapter 3, in the next section, I first turn to review a second body of literature concerned with the agency of workers and unions in GPNs. While research on labour control in GPNs has provided important insights into the constraining conditions and the broader terrain for the agency of labour in garment-producing countries, it has told us little about the conditions that *enable* workers and unions to build the capacities and power to actively challenge labour control structures. Therefore, in the next section, I introduce a second research thread that explores the strategies and enabling conditions for the agency of workers and unions in GPNs.

#### **2.4 Research on Labour Agency in GVCs/GPNs**

Labour agency first became popular as a research subject among Marxist geographers at the end of the 1990s with the emergence of labour geography as a geographical subdiscipline (Lier 2007; Coe and Jordhus-Lier 2011: 213). Labour geography emerged as a critique of the until then predominant conceptualisations of labour in neoclassical and Marxist economic geography, which tended to conceptualise labour either as a mere production factor or as a passive victim of the strategies of capital (1997: 1ff.).

**Table 2.2** Overview of different research strands on labour control in GVCs/GPNs introduced in this section

**Table 2.2** (continued)

*Source* Author

In response, early labour geographers such as Andrew Herod (1997, 2001a) and Jane Wills (2005) sought to shift the attention to "working class people as sentient social beings who both intentionally and unintentionally produce economic geographies through their actions" (Herod 1997: 3).

The research objective of labour geography in its initial phase was to highlight how workers and their organisations shape the geographies of capitalism. Early studies in labour geography tended to conceptualise 'labour agency' in narrow terms as the organised, collective agency exercised by trade unions in manufacturing sectors in developed countries (Coe and Jordhus-Lier 2011: 213). Consequently, early studies in labour geography were predominantly characterised by narrative accounts of "isolated success stories of workers with strong capacities to act and enhance their position vis-à-vis capital" (ibid.). As a result, the theoretical concept of agency initially remained underdeveloped. As Taylor et al. (2015: 10) put it: labour agency "had simply come to mean any meaningful manifestation of collective worker *activity*" (ibid., emphasis in original).

Responding to these shortcomings, labour geographers have, over the last decade, sought to 're-embed' worker agency within the broader structures and social relations that shape the terrain for the agency of unions and workers, particularly in GPNs (Coe and Jordhus-Lier 2010, 2011; Cumbers et al. 2008; Riisgaard and Hammer 2011). These studies have stressed workers' and unions' embeddedness into a set of intersecting 'structural forces' at the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the GPN that enable and constrain collective labour strategies (Arnold 2013). At the *vertical dimension*, these 'structural forces' comprise inter-firm power relations and dynamics of value chain governance, including the CSR and sourcing practices of lead firms (Lund-Thomsen and Coe 2013: 277). At the *horizontal dimension*, these structural forces entail "the formations of capital, the state, the community and the labour market in which workers are incontrovertibly yet variably embedded" (Coe and Jordhus-Lier 2011: 214). The terrain for the agency of workers and unions at a

**Fig. 2.6** Intersecting structural forces and relations at the vertical and the horizontal level that shape the terrain for worker and union agency in GPNs

specific node of the GPN is hence shaped by value chain governance dynamics on the one hand and by territorially embedded social relations (including those constituting local labour control regimes) on the other hand. Figure 2.6 illustrates the intersecting structural forces and relations at the vertical and the horizontal level that shape the terrain for worker and union agency in GPNs.

In this context, Coe and Jordhus-Lier (2011) have coined the notion of 'constrained agency' to highlight the paradigmatic shift in labour geography from affirmative research telling 'isolated success stories' of worker struggles towards a more relational and holistic study of the complex socioeconomic practices and relationships shaping the terrain for labour agency in different places and industries.

As mentioned earlier, the central objective of this book is to develop a more nuanced understanding of the conditions that enable and constrain union agency in garment-producing countries, following the assumption that only by shifting the local capital-labour balance sustained improvements for workers can be achieved. With this in mind, the remainder of this section gives an overview of the various concepts and analytical approaches adopted so far by studies at the intersection of labour geography and GVC/GPN analysis to study the collective agency strategies of workers and unions in GPNs. It is important to note that, in this book, collective worker agency or union agency are by no means limited to the agency of formal, multi-level trade union organisations that prevail in the Global North. The focus of this study is on worker organisations in garment-producing countries—and specifically in India. As a result, this book adopts a broader notion of collective worker agency as has been forwarded in debates on 'social movement unionism'. These debates have

**Fig. 2.7** Research strands on labour agency in GPNs. *Source* Author

highlighted the variety of collective worker organisations in the Global South, which also encompass politically independent grassroots unions or worker-led community organisations (see e.g. Fairbrother 2008; Fairbrother and Webster 2008; Moody 1997; Nowak 2017). Within these organisations, boundaries between workplace organising and community organising and between class and other social categories are increasingly blurred (Castree et al. 2004: 225). The notion of labour agency adopted in this study hence includes various forms of collective worker organising and is sensitive to the intersection of class with other lines of social differentiation, such as gender or race (c.f. Valentine 2007).

In the remainder of this section, I review existing studies on collective worker and union agency in GPNs. I classify existing studies on labour agency in GPNs into three main research strands working with different conceptual and analytical approaches: (1) a research strand drawing centrally on the *concept of worker or union power resources*; (2) a research strand adopting a *scalar approach to labour agency;* and (3) a research strand concerned with the constitution and structural effects of *'Networks of Labour Activism'* (Fig. 2.7).

In the following, I will introduce the major conceptual and empirical contributions made by each strand of work and point out research gaps, before explaining how this book contributes to closing these gaps.

#### *2.4.1 Approaching Union Agency Through the Lens of Worker and Union Power Resources*

The 'power resources approach' has been widely used by labour geographers as a conceptual tool to assess the conditions that constrain and enable labour and union agency in GPNs (Schmalz et al. 2018; Webster et al. 2008; Webster 2015). The power resources approach is based on the assumption that labour can successfully advance its own interests vis-à-vis capital by collectively and strategically mobilising different types of power resources (Schmalz et al. 2018: 114). 'Power' is generally defined in the context of the power resource approach as "the ability of actor A to make actor B do something that B would not otherwise do" (Zajak 2017: 1012; Knight 1992). The groundwork for this conceptual approach was laid by Wright's (2000) distinction between *structural power* deriving from workers' position within the economic system and *associational power* deriving from workers' capacities to form collective organisations. This primary distinction has subsequently been refined and expanded by other labour scholars. Silver (2003), for example, has proposed to distinguish between *marketplace bargaining power* and *workplace bargaining power* as two subtypes of structural power. Brookes (2013) and Schmalz and Dörre (2014) have introduced the notion of *institutional power* to refer to worker and union power resources that are derived from formal and informal rules, regulations and mechanisms, such as labour laws or collective bargaining mechanisms.

Debates on strategies for trade union renewal in the Global North (Dörre et al. 2009) as well as debates on 'social movement unionism' in newly industrialising countries of the Global South (Moody 1997) have further added to the concept of worker and union power resources. In this context, scholars have pointed at several 'new' trade union power resources (Webster 2015), which might be able to compensate for workers' decreasing structural and associational power under globalised capitalism. For example, authors like Brookes (2013) or Schmalz et al. (2018) have pointed at *coalitional power* as a broader form of associational power that workers and unions may activate through building relationships of external solidarity with community organisations, social movements or consumer organisations. Lastly, several authors have pointed to new resources of *moral power,* which unions may activate by creating awareness for labour rights violations or struggles in public and media discourses (Webster et al. 2008; Schmalz et al. 2018). Webster (2015) has proposed to subsume coalitional and moral power under the category of 'societal power', since both derive from workers' or unions' collaboration with other societal groups. Figure 2.8 gives an overview of the different types of power resources that workers and unions may potentially activate in GPNs.

In the remainder of this section, I will introduce each power resource in more detail and summarise findings from existing studies regarding the potential of different power resources to help local unions build sustained bargaining power vis-à-vis employers.

#### **<IP_ADDRESS> Structural Power: Marketplace and Workplace Bargaining Power**

*Structural power* derives from the specific position of workers within the economic system (Wright 2000: 962). When analysing the structural power of workers in GPNs, we can distinguish between marketplace and workplace bargaining power as two sub-forms of structural power (c.f. Silver 2003).  The exercise of marketplace bargaining power is thus not necessarily tied to collective

**Fig. 2.8** Worker and union power resources. *Source* Author

forms of agency, but instead it could also be exercised by individual workers. In contrast, *workplace bargaining power* accrues to workers "who are enmeshed in tightly integrated production processes, where a localised work stoppage in a key node can cause disruptions on a much wider scale than the stoppage itself" (Silver 2003: 13). Whether or not workers and unions at a specific node of a GPN are able to exercise structural power hence depends on their position within intersecting value chain dynamics at the vertical dimension and labour market dynamics at the horizontal dimension of the GPN.

Past studies have stressed, first and foremost, the *constraints for workers in garment-producing countries to leverage structural power resources*. On the one hand, workers' workplace bargaining power tends to be severely curbed by the geographical fragmentation of production networks and retailers' ability to relocate their sourcing activities in reaction to wage increases or strikes (López 2021). On the other hand, workers in the export-garment industries of the Global South generally possess low marketplace bargaining power due to the little skill and knowledge intensity of the larger share of tasks in garment production (c.f. López et al. 2021). However, Kumar (2019a, 2019b) argues that, in more recent years, the emergence of 'oligopolistic suppliers' in garment GPNs has endowed garment workers with new structural power resources. These new structural power resources result from lead firms' increasing dependence on a smaller number of large 'oligopolistic' tier one full-package suppliers. These full-package suppliers increasingly take on strategic logistics and inventory management functions for lead firms (see also Azmeh and Nadvi 2014; Merk 2014). Consequently, Kumar (2019a: 355) argues that for workers

and unions at these tier one suppliers' "structural power (…) increases alongside the degree of market spatial inflexibility". Since these large suppliers can capture greater value shares, unions at these suppliers are more likely to succeed in pressuring employers into collective bargaining through work stoppages and other forms of collective action.

The emphasis on disruptions to the production process through work stoppages inherent to the notion of 'structural power', makes it clear that to mobilise structural power resources, workers need the strategic capacities to plan and perform collective action. Therefore, 'structural power' cannot be thought independent from the second basic form of workers' power, which is associational power.

#### **<IP_ADDRESS> Associational and Organisational Power**

*Associational power* accrues to workers from their capacities to form collective organisations and to act collectively (Wright 2000: 962). The mobilisation of associational power resources thus requires organising and training processes directed to build workers' capacities to develop and execute collective action strategies (Silver 2003: 13ff.). Since associational power is tied to workers' abilities to act collectively, trade unions and other forms of collective worker organisations are a central driving force for the exercise of associational power. However, it is important to note that the formal existence of a trade union is not enough for workers to exercise associational power. Unions as organisations need to foster specific types of relationships and capacities for agency among their members (c.f. Hauf 2017: 1003; Lévesque and Murray 2002). In particular, unions need to cultivate and synthesise the 'social capital' of their members "so that they identify themselves as part of a collectivity and support its purpose and its policies" (Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman 2013: 30).

This qualitative understanding of associational power has led Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman (2013) to introduce the notion of *organisational power*  as a sub-form of associational power. Organisational power refers to the capacities of a union to build the social capital and strategic capacities of its members and functionaries as well as to foster a 'cohesive collective identity' among their members. Hence, to build organisational power, unions need to foster a solidary mindset among union members that goes beyond individual motives of obtaining personal benefits or protection through the membership. This solidary mindset is achieved through stimulating lively communication and relationships among members and through actively involving members in union life (Lévesque and Murray 2010: 336f.). Moreover, unions need to foster internal democratic structures and practices to develop their members' strategic capacities. To this end, Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman (2013: 30) stress that unions need to nurture "a culture favouring discussion between rank and file and officials and [through] educational work to ensure that policies are well understood and reflect the conditions experienced on the ground".

Regarding the *ability and opportunities of workers and unions in garmentproducing countries for building associational and organisational power,* past research has highlighted the various constraints resulting from repressive employer and state regimes (Anner 2015a, b; López 2021; Ruwanpura 2015). Given the price pressure by lead firms in global garment value chains, employers in export-garment sectors of the Global South frequently rely on disciplining practices to suppress collective worker organising. These include threatening, dismissing or co-opting union activists. Likewise, public rallies or demonstrations for higher wages are not seldom shattered by the police (e.g. Anner 2015a, b; Padmanabhan 2012). In addition, various studies have highlighted constraints for building workers' associational power—particularly in Asian countries—resulting from the internally fragmented nature of labour movements (see e.g. Arnold 2013; Hauf 2017). Established trade union federations in Asian countries are often affiliated to political parties and dominated by rent-seeking union leaders (ibid.). As a result, over the last decades, in many Asian countries, an increasing number of 'independent' trade unions and worker organisations have emerged (Kumar 2014; Jenkins 2015). This proliferation of worker organisations often hampers the ability of workers in garment-producing countries to exercise associational power through coordinated joint action in the political sphere, for example in the context of national minimum wage negotiations (Arnold 2013).

#### **<IP_ADDRESS> Institutional Power**

Next to associational and structural power, institutional power represents the third 'traditional' power resource that workers in GPNs may be able to draw on. Institutional power accrues to workers from their ability to invoke formal and informal rules and mechanisms that structure capital-labour relationships. Sources of institutional worker power are represented, for example, in national labour legislation and in institutionalised dispute settling, wage setting or collective bargaining mechanisms (Brookes 2013: 188). However, in the context of global capitalism, 'traditional' sources of workers' institutional power are dwindling due to neoliberal state policies of labour market flexibilisation (see e.g. Cumbers et al. 2016; Fairbrother and Webster 2008; Webster et al. 2008). This is particularly true for many garmentproducing countries, where states have pushed global market integration through regulatory reforms that have severely curtailed institutionalised labour representation. Governments of garment-producing countries have, for example, frequently set up so-called Special Economic Zones for export industries, which are exempt from national minimum wage regulations or from the right to collective bargaining and freedom of association (FoA) (Ruwanpura 2015).

Against this backdrop, studies concerned with (potential) power resources for unions in the garment GPN have pointed at transnational private or public-private social regulation mechanisms, such as *codes of conduct (CoC), multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSI) or Global Framework Agreements as potential 'new' institutional power sources for workers and unions in garment-producing countries* (see e.g. Anner 2012; Lund-Thomsen and Coe 2013; Zajak 2017). In response to sustained pressure from anti-sweatshop movements, almost all international garment brands

and retailers have introduced corporate CoC that set supplier labour standards. In addition, many retailers and brands are members in MSI, which include NGOs as independent monitoring organisations to increase firms' accountability (Fütterer and López Ayala 2018: 15ff.). It is important to note, however, that—as opposed to national labour laws and institutionalised bargaining mechanisms—(semi-)private transnational regulatory mechanisms are not the outcome of prior labour struggles, in which workers successfully shifted the capital-labour power balance through exercising associational and structural power. (Semi-)private transnational regulatory mechanisms, such as CoC or MSI, are voluntary initiatives by retailers, which are usually introduced as a response to consumer criticisms from the Global North (Hauf 2017: 1003). As a result, rather than institutionalising labour power, CoC and MSI seek to institutionalise 'business models of ethics' (Scheper 2017: 1086) based on discourses of corporate responsibility and conflict management.

In view of this, several empirical studies pointed at the limits of CoC, and related auditing and complaint mechanisms to be used as sources of institutional power by workers and unions in garment-producing countries. For example, Anner (2012) and Egels-Zandén and Merk (2014) studied two prominent transnational MSIs in the garment GPN: the Fair Labour Association and the Fair Wear Foundation. They found that local unions' complaints about garment manufacturers' union-busting practices in most cases had no effect. Lund-Thomsen and Coe (2013) in turn highlight that CoC may represent an effective institutional power resource for unions in garmentproducing countries when used as an organising tool or as a reference in public campaigns. They illustrate how local unions in Pakistan achieved improvements in working conditions by using Nike's CoC as a reference in worker organising campaigns and in public media campaigns conducted in collaboration with several national NGOs. Hence, as opposed to 'traditional' institutional power sources such as labour laws, which workers and unions can deploy autonomously, to deploy private regulatory mechanisms as a power source, workers and unions depend in part on other societal actors to advocate for their rights.

In the light of the limitations for workers to leverage traditional institutional power resources, several scholar have argued that workers' abilities to build coalitions with other societal actors and to influence public discourses are central for leveraging new 'societal power resources' (see e.g. Webster et al. 2008; Webster 2015).

#### **<IP_ADDRESS> Societal Power: Coalitional and Moral Power**

Webster (2015: 1) employs the term 'societal power' to refer to workers' and unions' capacities to build coalitions with social movements and to influence public and media discourses. Societal power can be further divided into coalitional power and moral power as two sub-forms. *Coalitional power* is defined by Schmalz et al. (2018: 122) as the ability of unions to build relationships of external solidarity with other social actors. These social actors may be mobilised for public campaigns or they may provide other types of support (e.g. financial support, capacity-building). *Moral power*, in turn, refers to workers' and unions' ability to discursively frame labour

issues and solutions "in line with prevailing views of morality" and therefore able to attract public support (Schmalz et al. 2018: 123).3 This framing may be achieved, for example, by invoking notions "of the struggle of 'right' against 'wrong', providing a basis for an appeal to both, the public and politicians, as well as to allies in civil society" (Webster et al. 2008: 12).

Research on labour agency in garment-producing countries has debated in particular the *possibilities for unions in garment-producing countries to deploy coalitional and moral power resources to effectively compensate for the lack of structural and institutional power resources* (Zajak et al. 2017: 907). This debate has been motivated by the widespread argument in labour studies and social movement literature that workers and unions 'at the bottom' of GPNs can shift the local power balance by harnessing the so-called boomerang effect (Wells 2009; Merk 2009). The term 'boomerang effect' refers to generating "Northern pressure to support workers' rights in the South", usually through transnational consumer campaigns (Wells 2009: 571). However, empirical studies of union agency in the garment GPN have found that moral power through consumer campaigns remains limited when unions lack a strong local associational and structural power base (Anner 2015b; Kumar 2014, 2019b; Zajak 2017). Anner (2015b), for example, found that the transnational campaigns carried out by local unions at college apparel suppliers in Honduras and El Salvador in collaboration with student anti-sweatshop movements in the US were only effective in cases of particularly crude and violent labour rights violations. In these cases, "the very extreme nature of the threat of bodily harm" allowed anti-sweatshop activists to frame labour rights violations "in a way that resonates with larger values of human decency" and hence to mobilise broad public support (Anner 2015b: 165). In his research on union agency in the Indian garment industry, Kumar (2014, 2019a) similarly finds that unions without a strong associational power base have only occasionally achieved some 'isolated victories' by activating moral power resources through transnational consumer campaigns. According to Kumar, unions were more successful in achieving lasting improvements for workers when they used moral power from transnational consumer campaigns to strategically support workplace organising and collective bargaining processes (Kumar 2019a: 360ff.).

In summary, existing empirical studies on how unions in garment-producing countries use 'new' societal power resources have shown that "only if strength is established domestically does a positive reinforcement effect across different power sources become possible" (Zajak 2017: 1008f.). However, it remains a central issue for empirical studies to develop a more nuanced understanding of how specifically unions can use moral and coalitional power resources to support the building of associational power in the workplace. I argue that to generate such an understanding, we still need more insights into the interplay between different power resources as well as into the structural effects that transnational consumer campaigns have on

<sup>3</sup> Literature from labour studies uses various terms to refer to this type of power resource. The term 'moral power' that I adopt in this book has been coined by Chun (2009) and Schmalz et al. (2018) originally refer to this type of power resource as 'discursive power'. A third common term for this type of power resource is 'symbolic power' (see, e.g. Webster 2015).

local garment unions' organising practices and internal relations. First insights by Hauf (2017) and Zajak (2017), for example, illustrate how close cooperation with transnational consumer campaigning networks can also constrain unions' capacities for building associational and organisational power: Relying on the 'borrowed' moral power of consumer campaigning networks can, for example, decrease unions' investments into members' strategic capacities and into fostering internal union democracy (Zajak 2017: 1019f.; Hauf 2017: 997).

Motivated by these observations, this study aims to better understand how different forms of mobilising coalitional and moral power resources may enhance or constrain associational power building. I argue that we can benefit from adopting a relational perspective on union agency to gain such an understanding. Taking on such a perspective, we can conceptualise the agency strategies of local unions in garment-producing countries as emerging at the intersection of various relational spaces of labour agency that workers and unionists construct themselves. These spaces for labour agency comprise the union itself as a relational space as well as networks with other unions and NGOs at various levels. In this context, it is essential to pay attention to the spatial and scalar dynamics shaping unions´ interactions with other actors (Coe 2015). In the next section, I therefore introduce a second branch of work that approaches agency strategies of unions in GPNs through the lens of scale as a central spatial analytical category.

Before doing so, to conclude this section, Table 2.3 summarises the definitions of the various power resources and their sub-forms (marked with →) that have been introduced in this section.

#### *2.4.2 'Scaling' Worker and Union Agency in GPNs: 'Scale-Jumping' and 'Up-Scaling'*

While the concept of worker and union power resources has been progressed primarily by labour sociologists and industrial relations scholars, labour geographers have highlighted workers' and unions' scalar strategies. According to Coe and Jordhus-Lier (2011: 219), "scale is particularly useful [as an analytical concept] as that it captures the double nature of the spatiality of labour agency: not only do the actions of labour play out in complex social geographies, but they can be understood as spatial phenomena in themselves. In other words, both the conditions and the strategies of labour agency are spatial". However, scale as a theoretical concept has been scarcely theorised in research on labour agency in GPNs. Generally, Coe and Jordhus-Lier (2011) argue that we can distinguish between three analytical moments in which the concept of scale has been employed in research on labour agency in GPNs: to define the level at which bargaining takes place, to refer to the group of workers for whom decisions are made, and to demarcate the territories across which solidarity is being sought.

**Table 2.3** Union and worker power resources and their definitions

*Source* Author's elaboration drawing on Brookes (2013), Schmalz et al. (2018), Silver (2003), Webster et al. (2008) and Wright (2000)

The engagement of research on labour agency in GPNs with the concepts of space and scale hence reflects the approach to these concepts adopted in labour geography more generally. As mentioned before, research on labour agency in GPNs has developed at the intersection of labour geography and GPN analysis. It has been driven to a large extent by labour geographers' concern for understanding the spatial conditions and strategies of labour agency in the context of globalised production. Originally, labour geographers' concern with scale has been informed by the empirical observation that capital—while seeking to 'up-scale' its own operations—is simultaneously interested in 'downscaling' labour relations: capital aims to contain the bargaining of wages and working conditions at the local or workplace level as a means to play workers in different locations off against each other (Merk 2009: 603). Hence, labour geographers have frequently pointed out that 'jumping scale' and 'bridging space' are important strategies for labour agency under global capitalism since they allow workers to match capital's organisational scales (Castree et al. 2004; Herod 2001a; Merk 2009).

Labour geographers' concern for workers' scalar and spatial strategies has been informed by the political assertion that "workers actively produce economic spaces and scales in particular ways" and hence "shape the location of economic activity and the economic geography of capitalism" (Herod 1997: 24f.). In this vein, labour geographers have explicitly distinguished their theoretical perspective from the one forwarded by regulatory international political economy, which has traditionally been dominant in GPN analysis. Studies from the field of regulatory political economy conceptualise the "spatial scales at which social life is organised" as constructed and shaped predominantly by capital and state actors (Herod 2007: 29). Herod (2007) argues that such a perspective leads to a view of local, national and international scales for labour action as "areal containers of discrete absolute spaces" that are premade by capital and state actors and which contain workers' activities. According to Herod (2007), this perspective "denies [labour] actors the social agency to construct the geography of global capitalism in different and varied ways, for it suggests that the global scale of capital organisation is something that simply exists, waiting to be discovered and used, rather than something that had to be made and is constantly remade through the actions of diverse social actors".

Against this background, it has been a central concern of research at the intersection of GPN analysis and labour geography to enhance our understanding of the different scalar strategies that workers and unions employ to "reconfigure political landscapes and [to] renegotiate social hierarchies in ways which are more beneficial to the interests of workers" (Coe and Jordhus-Lier 2011: 219). In this light, various studies from labour geography have analysed the 'multi-scalar strategies' deployed by unions in globalised industries or service sectors (see e.g. Alford et al. 2017; Anderson 2009; Tufts 2007; Wills 2002). These studies have enhanced our understanding of workers' scalar agency in GPNs in two important ways. First, these studies have highlighted that while transnational alliances can help to increase workers' leverage vis-à-vis globally organised capital, there is no substitute for local organising (Herod 2001a; Wills 2002). Second, these studies have highlighted the diverse scales of labour organising and alliance building within GPNs, which range between workplaces, communities, cities, regions or the globe (Alford et al. 2017).

Which scales of organising and alliance building are most apt for workers at a specific node of a GPN depends on the spatial configurations of capital organisation and on workers' and unions' positionality within the broader production system. Particularly for workers in the industrial export sectors of the Global South, where transnational lead firms shape working conditions, literature has stressed the importance for workers to engage in transnational organising and campaigning to exercise leverage on geographically distant lead firms (Anner 2015b; Hale and Wills 2005; Kumar 2014; Merk 2009). With this in mind, Merk (2009), for example, illustrates how local unions in garment-producing countries can use the 'urgent appeal system' provided by the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC)—a campaigning network led by European consumer organisations—as tool for 'up-scaling' workplace struggles. The urgent appeal system allows workers or unions in garment-producing countries to submit a complaint about labour rights violations in garment factories to the CCC together with a request for action. The CCC member organisations then engage in various actions to harness brands' leverage over local garment manufacturers. Actions carried out by the CCC range from sending letters or emails to brands' management teams, to planning and carrying out full public campaigns. This includes publishing fact-finding reports and the naming and shaming of brands embroiled with the factory where the labour rights violations occurred (Merk 2009: 607). According to Merk, the CCC's urgent appeal mechanism "provides a grassroots based system to build labour solidarity across space, which may help [workers in garment-producing countries] to regain leverage over capital" (Merk 2009: 599).

However, studies focussing on the 'up-scaling' of workplace conflicts through transnational consumer campaigning have, at the same time, received criticism from various scholars. These scholars argue that the narrow focus on 'up-scaling' through transnational campaigning has shifted the analytical focus from the agency of workers to the agency of consumer groups or NGOs in the Global North. As a result, the latter are perceived and presented as the main agents of change (see e.g. Hauf 2017: 989; Wells 2009). Contradicting this notion, Wells (2009: 568) stresses that the mobilisation of extra-local leverage through transnational campaigns merely represents *one*  of *many* strategic actions that workers and unions in the Global South usually employ when leading a labour struggle. To achieve sustained improvements in working conditions, he argues, workers' and unions' strategic actions at the workplace or at the community level are equally important (Wells 2009: 577). Similarly, Wills (2002) and Tufts (2007) emphasise that 'up-scaling' specific labour struggles should not be seen as an isolated strategy but as part of a broader ensemble of networks and institutional arrangements with which unions engage. They, therefore, stress that analyses of 'multi-scalar' agency strategies should not be limited to identifying the most appropriate scale for action. Instead, they argue, studies of 'multi-scalar' labour agency strategies in GPNs should explore the different types of resources that unions can leverage through actions at *multiple* scales (Tufts 2007: 2387).

In summary, scalar approaches to labour agency in GPNs have contributed to enhancing our understanding of the diverse spatial strategies at various scales that workers and unions in GPNs may employ. However, we still need a better understanding of how workers and unions can *strategically link* actions at various levels in the context of specific struggles. I argue that we need a better understanding in particular of the following three aspects of workers' and unions' multi-scalar strategies. First, we need a better grasp of the different power resources that unions can activate through building relationships at *different* scales—from intra-union relationships over building alliances with local community organisations to engaging with transnational consumer campaigning networks (c.f. Nicholls 2009; Tufts 2007). Second, I contend that we need a better understanding of the different resources and capacities that unions may access and develop in different relationships and networks at the *transnational* scale. Studies of the 'multi-scalar' agency of workers and unions in GPNs have tended to conflate all transnational networks and relationships constructed by local unions under the notion of 'up-scaling', be it relationships with consumer campaigning networks or with international worker networks. However, this conflation has obscured the fact that different kinds of transnational networks may be constituted through very different practices, therefore enabling unions and workers to access very different types of resources (c.f. Lohmeyer et al. 2018; Fütterer and López Ayala 2018; López and Fütterer 2019). Third, we need a better understanding of how unions' strategies and networks at different scales not only complement but also shape and influence each other. Understanding the interplay of unions' actions at various scales is important particularly in the light of the findings of studies working with the power resources approach. These studies found that unions' practices of engaging in transnational alliances can directly impact unions' internal organisational practices and workplace organising strategies (see Sect. 2.4.2).

To tackle these gaps, in this book, I develop a practice-oriented, relational approach to union agency in GPNs that emphasises practices and relationships instead of a priori-defined scalar categories (see Sect. 3.3). To this end, I build on a third strand of work within research on labour agency in GPNs focussing on 'Networks of Labour Activism', which is introduced in the next section.

#### *2.4.3 Network Approaches to Labour Agency in GPN: 'Networks of Labour Activism'*

The 'Networks of Labour Activism' (NOLA) approach was first introduced by a group of interdisciplinary scholars in 2017. The approach centres explicitly on the practices, actions and relationships of workers and labour organisations in the Global South positioned "on the bottom rungs of the globally networked economy" (Zajak et al. 2017: 916; see also contributions to Forum Debate 2017 of Development and Change Vol. 48, Nr. 5). The NOLA approach is motivated by the observation that labour-intensive export sectors in Asian countries "have also become the testing ground for new forms of networked worker agency and activism" (Zajak et al. 2017: 900). These new forms of networked worker agency are based on workers' construction of solidarity networks and relationships with a broad range of actors in varying geographical distances. Actors with whom workers construct solidarity networks range from local community organisations over national union coalitions to transnational consumer activist networks (Zajak et al. 2017: 901).

Contrary to scalar approaches to labour agency in GPNs, which have focussed rather one-sidedly on workers' transnational 'up-scaling'-strategies, the NOLA approach conceptualises workers' agency in GPNs as multi-directional and multilayered. The agency of workers and unions is *multi-directional* since it is performed in and through relationships with a variety of actors, including potential targets as well as potential allies. In addition, workers' agency is *multi-layered* since it is performed through relationships that stretch across various distances—i.e. relationships at multiple scales (Zajak et al. 2017: 904). Nevertheless, the NOLA approach still emphasises '*cross-border strategising'* as a central feature of networked labour agency in GPNs (Zajak et al. 2017: 905). Cross-border strategising is essential for workers 'at the bottom' of GPNs due to the structural context of supply chain capitalism within which they are embedded. Supply chain capitalism refers to global value chains as a system of capital accumulation that is based on Northern lead firms' practices of dis-embedding the labour-intensive production steps from regulated, unionised environments through outsourcing (Tsing 2009). Therefore, to tackle geographically distant lead firms, which ultimately determine labour conditions along the supply chain, workers need to engage in cross-border strategising. Cross-border strategising refers here to strategic practices of building solidary relationships with potential allies in different countries on the one hand, and to strategic practices of targeting actors or institutions located in a foreign country on the other hand (Zajak et al. 2017: 905).

It needs to be noted here that a central difference to 'up-scaling' literature which has also been concerned with workers' cross-border strategies—consists in the explicitly constructivist perspective of the NOLA approach. Whereas 'up-scaling literature' has put emphasis on how workers and unions *use* the leverage of transnational alliances to enhance their position vis-à-vis local capital (or the state), the NOLA approach shifts the attention to the practices and relationships through which workers and unions *construct* these alliances in the first place (Zajak et al. 2017: 903). It is within these alliances that workers and unions develop specific strategic capacities and power resources which may in turn contribute to strengthening workers' domestic associational power base (Zajak et al. 2017: 1009). At the same time, the NOLA approach recognises that 'networks of labour activism' become "their own structural forces" (Zajak et al. 2017: 1020). In other words, the interactions and learning processes within these networks shape the behaviour of the actors involved in it.

Empirical studies using the NOLA approach have provided a range of important insights on the structural effects of various types of solidarity networks on the practices of unions in garment-producing countries. Hauf (2017), for example, has studied the effect of local unions' engagement with the Play Fair Campaign in Indonesia, an MSI led by Northern NGOs and global trade union federations. Hauf found that participation of Indonesian unions in the transnational Play Fair campaign helped unions to forge new networks with other local garment unions, since they had an incentive to develop a common position. However, he also finds that the potential of these new solidary networks at the local and national level for building sustained associational power was limited. Practices of collaboration between unions were strictly confined to interactions within the framework of the Play Fair campaign. Consequently, these interactions did little to bridge the political and ideological differences between local unions in the Indonesian garment sector and thus to establish the foundation for collaborations on other issues (Hauf 2017: 988).

Hauf's findings are further supported by Zajak (2017) in her study of Bangladeshi garment unions' engagement with the Bangladesh Accord for Fire and Building Safety.4 She finds that local unions' interactions with the transnational stakeholder network of the Bangladesh Accord have, on the one hand, strengthened local unions' organisational power. For example, trainings conducted by these stakeholders have enabled local unionists to develop important strategic capacities for reframing workplace issues so that they fall under the mandate of the Accord (Zajak 2017: 1017). But, on the other hand, she finds that local unions' increased engagement with international organisations and Northern NGOs has also led to new divisions and relations of competition between local unions and hence to a weakening of associational power at the national level (Zajak 2017: 1019).

Whereas Hauf (2017) and Zajak (2017) have focussed on the practices through which local garment unions engage with transnational multi-stakeholder networks, Lohmeyer et al. (2018) have analysed how Asian garment unions engage with transnational labour networks. In their study of the TIE ExChains network, which links Asian garment workers with German fashion retail workers, they illustrate how solidary relationships within the network are constructed through practices of facilitating shared experiences and of developing a common interpretation of labour rights violations along the chain. At the same time, Lohmeyer et al. (2018) illustrate potential tensions between practices of performing cross-border solidarity campaigns within the network and practices or local workplace organising. These tensions arise because cross-border solidarity campaigns are usually centred on specific issues and therefore have a rather short-term outlook. Workplace-organising practices are, in turn, usually embedded within a unions' long-term strategy. Against this background, Lohmeyer et al. (2018) stress that a careful strategic alignment of transnational campaigning practices with unions' long-term strategic goals and organising strategies is necessary to ensure that transnational campaigning strengthens unions' local associational power base instead of undermining it (Lohmeyer et al. 2018: 417).

In summary, network-centred approaches to worker and union agency have enhanced our understanding of union agency in GPNs in three ways. First, networked approaches to labour agency have contributed to breaking up the 'black box' of unions as collective actors. This has been achieved by making visible how "union strategies evolve through contested socio-spatial relations both within unions themselves and with other social actors" (Cumbers et al. 2008: 369). Second, through engaging with the power resources approach, studies of workers' networked agency have opened up analytical space for assessing the potential of different 'networks of labour activism' for strengthening local unions' associational power base. Third, network-centred studies of labour agency in GPNs have enhanced our understanding of how workers and unions forge their own relational geographies and add new layers to existing GPNs.

<sup>4</sup> The Bangladesh Accord Bangladesh Accord for Fire and Building Safety is an independent, legally binding agreement between international fashion retailers and global and Bangladeshi trade unions to improve building safety in the garment industry in Bangladesh. The agreement was negotiated and signed in response to international pressures by consumer and labour organisations in the aftermath of the Rana Plaza building collapse on 24 April 2013, which killed more than 1300 garment workers (Zajak 2017: 1008f.).

Notwithstanding these critical insights into the agency of local workers and unions in garment-producing countries, a central dimension of labour agency in GPNs has hitherto remained underexplored in NOLA studies: the spatial dimension of labour's agency. The neglect of space as an analytical category is reflected, first, in Zajak et al.'s (2017) proposal of 'cross-border strategising' a central characteristic of networks of labour action. 'Cross-border' refers, on the one hand, to networks that connect actors across borders. On the other hand, it also refers to a situation in which workers build alliances with other social groups at the local or national level to target actors located in a different country. However, this subsumption of local, national and transnational networks under the same category of 'cross-border action' ignores that very different practices and mechanisms are involved in constructing networks at different scales. Second, subsuming networks that span across different territorial extensions under the same category of 'cross-border strategising' neglects the fact that networks forged *within* particular places and networks forged *across* great distance may play distinct but complementary roles in building local union power (c.f. Nicholls 2009). Last but not least, the neglect of the spatial dimension of labour agency is reflected in the little attention paid by studies working with the NOLA approach to the place-specific structures of labour control that constrain labour's spaces and options for agency.

Therefore, in this book, I build on the network perspective of the NOLA approach and integrate relational perspectives from economic geography on the one hand, and with literature on labour control regimes on the other. Drawing on these different bodies of literature, I develop a relational approach to labour control and labour agency in GPNs. Before doing so, in the next section I first summarise the contributions and limitations of existing research on labour agency in GPNs.

#### *2.4.4 Interim Conclusion: Contributions and Shortcomings of Existing Analytical Approaches to Labour Agency in GPNs*

This section has introduced three different research strands on labour agency in GPNs: (1) a research strand drawing on the concept of worker and unions power resources; (2) a research strand adopting a scalar approach with a focus on workers' 'up-scaling' strategies; and (3) a research strand that analyses labour agency in GPNs through the lens of 'Networks of Labour Activism'. Table 2.4 on the next page provides a synthesised overview of the central research questions, main insights and shortcomings of each research strand.

In a nutshell, I argue that we can learn three critical lessons from existing research on labour agency in GPNs regarding the conditions that constrain and enable the agency of workers and unions in garment-producing countries:

First, by re-embedding the agency of workers and unions into structural sets of social and economic relations—encompassing value chain dynamics at the vertical

**Table 2.4** Overview of different research strands on labour agency in GVCs/GPNs

**Table 2.4** (continued)

dimension and state, labour market and cultural relations at the horizontal dimension—existing research on labour agency in GPNs has highlighted *potential structural constraints for building local union power* 'at the bottom of GPNs'. The analysis of different worker and union power resources in combination with a focus on 'constrained' labour agency has contributed to a more fine-grained understanding of the conditions that curb local unions' opportunities to build sustained bargaining power vis-à-vis employers. In this regard, past studies have highlighted how value chain governance dynamics at the vertical dimension of the GPN curtail the structural power of workers and unions in garment-producing countries. Moreover, repressive state and employer labour control regimes at the horizontal level significantly constrain workers' opportunities for collective organising and building associational power resources, as well as workers' opportunities for leveraging institutional power sources, such as legal frameworks.

Second, existing research on labour agency in GPNs has also provided insights into *potential enabling conditions for building local union power* in garment-producing countries. Since geographically distant lead firms represent the locus of power in these GPNs, existing research has stressed opportunities for local unions in garmentproducing countries to 'up-scale' local labour struggles to the transnational level. 'Up-scaling' labour struggles can enable unions to leverage coalitional and moral power resources through consumer campaigns in the Global North and thereby to exert pressure over lead firms and manufacturers. Nevertheless, existing research has also pointed out that activating coalitional and moral power resources through 'upscaling' strategies cannot substitute associational power resources on the ground. In this line, past studies of labour agency in GPNs have highlighted that transnational consumer campaigns only contribute to building local union power, when local unions strategically deploy them to create spaces for collective organising and bargaining on the ground.

Third, in particular the NOLA approach has contributed to our understanding of the constraining and enabling conditions for building local union power in garmentproducing countries. It has highlighted that not only capital, state and labour market relations but also the networks constructed by workers and unions themselves represent enabling and/or constraining contexts for labour agency. On the one hand, workers and unions can develop and build capacities and power resources through and within these networks. On the other hand, unions' and workers' embeddedness within 'networks of labour activism' can also pose constraints for unions' capacities of building associational power. In this line, studies using the NOLA approach have highlighted how the participation of local unions in transnational NGO-led multistakeholder networks can hamper internal union democracy and create inter-union divisions within garment-producing countries.

Notwithstanding these important contributions of past research on labour agency in GPNs, three important aspects of union agency remain underdeveloped and require further research. First, for a more nuanced understanding of how local unions in garment-producing countries can build sustained bargaining power, we still need a better understanding of how unions can link actions at *various* scales to exercise leverage over employers. In this context, labour geographers' argument that workers and unions can activate and develop different power resources through actions at different scales requires further exploration. Labour geographers have stressed that scales of labour action traditionally encompassed the workplace and the international level and also multiple scales in between, such as the community, the city or the national level (c.f. Anderson 2009; Tufts 2007; Wills 2002). In particular when studying unions in the Global South, where non-traditional forms of 'social movement unionism' have emerged, a stronger analytical focus on the implications of unions' engagement with community actors for building bargaining power vis-à-vis employers is necessary.

Second, past research on labour agency in GPNs has tended to conflate the variety of practices through which local unions engage with transnational networks under the same notions of 'up-scaling' or leveraging 'coalitional power'. However, this conflation has concealed essential differences in the everyday practices and power relations that constitute local unions' relationships with different types of transnational networks. There are important differences, for example, between the practices through which consumer campaigning networks exercise solidarity compared to grassroots worker networks (see Lohmeyer et al. 2018). Consequently, if we take the lesson from NOLA studies seriously that also the networks constructed by unions themselves have structural effects on unions' associational power resources, we need to be more sensitive to the different practices and relationships that constitute different 'networks of labour activism'. Only an analytical perspective that is sensitive to such differences will allow us to evaluate to which extent the engagement in *different*  transnational networks allows local unions to build strategic capacities and power resources.

Third and last, studies concerned with the agency of labour in GPNs have only superficially engaged with studies of labour control (regimes) in GPNs. Studies on labour agency in GPNs have generally highlighted that repressive labour control regimes in the export industries of the Global South constrain workers' and unions' opportunities for building and leveraging associational and institutional power resources. However, these studies have not yet provided a more fine-grained analysis of the specific capital and state practices that constrain the agency of workers and unions. Moreover, studies on labour agency in GPNs have so far neglected the role of workers and local unions 'at the bottom' of GPNs in co-shaping and potentially transforming labour regimes at specific nodes of a GPN. Therefore, to fully understand the dialectical relationship between labour's agency and labour control regimes as structural contexts within GPNs, we need to look closely at how unions tackle and transform specific state and capital practices that constitute labour control regimes.

To tackle these shortcomings and to further develop our understanding of the constraining and enabling factors for building sustained union power in garmentproducing countries, in the next section, I develop a relational approach for studying labour control regimes and labour agency in GPNs.

#### **References**

its place: labour process analysis and global value chains. Palgrave Macmillan, London and New York, pp 135–151

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Chapter 3 Towards a Relational Approach for Analysing Labour Control Regimes and Union Agency in GPNs**

**Abstract** This chapter introduces central tenets of relational thinking in economic geography and then develops a relational approach for analysing labour control regimes and union agency in GPNs. It conceptualises place-specific labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN as emerging from the articulation of six horizontal (i.e. territorially embedded) and vertical (i.e. network embedded) processual relations: the labour process and workplace, wage, labour market, employment and industrial relations at the horizontal dimension, which in turn intersect with sourcing relations at the vertical, 'network' dimension of the GPN. Moreover, it develops a relational heuristic framework for analysing union agency in GPNs through the lens of three interrelated spaces of labour agency that unions construct through practices of building relations: (1) spaces of organising comprising internal union relations as well as unions organising practices; (2) spaces of collaboration constructed by unions through building relationships of collaboration with other labour and nonlabour actors at various levels; and (3) spaces of contestation constructed by unions around specific labour struggles through building antagonistic relationships with employers, lead firms and state actors as well as through practices of drawing other allied actors into spaces of contestation to activate moral power resources.

**Keywords** Relational economic geography · Practice-oriented approaches · Global production networks · Labour control regimes · Union agency · Labour agency

Since the 2000's, relational analytical approaches have become popular in economic geography as a conceptual alternative to scalar approaches for analysing the global economy (Amin 2002; Dicken et al. 2001; Hudson 2004; Jones and Murphy 2010a, 2010b). Relational approaches have been developed and advanced by scholars such as Ash Amin (2002, 2004), Nigel Thrift (1996, 2008) and Doreen Massey (1994, 1999). These scholars have emphasised 'network practices' and 'relational connectivity' as key features of economic geographies emerging under globalised capitalism (c.f. Amin 2002: 389ff.). Due to their focus on practices as central constituents of social and economic phenomena, relational approaches to the global economy insert themselves within a broader body of practice-oriented work in economic geography.

Practice-oriented work in economic geography is unified by the general concern to connect context, structures and individual agency. This is done through a focus on

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2023

T. López, *Labour Control and Union Agency in Global Production Networks*, Economic Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27387-2\_3

practices, which are defined as "stabilised, routinised, or improvised social actions that constitute and reproduce economic space" (Jones and Murphy 2010b: 366). In this light, two central meta-theoretical assumptions can be identified that are common to relational approaches in economic geography. Ontologically, relational approaches can be characterised as broadly underpinned by a constructivist paradigm. They do not take economic structures, such as markets, institutions or class relations as conceptual pre-givens, but instead regard them as actively constructed, continuously reproduced and potentially contested in and through socio-economic practices (Hudson 2004: 451; Jones and Murphy 2010b: 372). From this ontological assumption follows the epistemological belief that "to understand higher-order (i.e., local, regional, national, or global scale) economic and social outcomes (e.g., performance, innovation, integration, inequality, exploitation, markets) it is necessary to […] closely observe and understand the micro-social activities (i.e., practices) carried out and performed by people living, labo[u]ring, and creating in the everyday economy" (Jones and Murphy 2010b: 376).

In this chapter, I adopt the focus on practices as constituents of socio-economic structural phenomena as well as a conceptual emphasis on networks and connectivity to develop a relational, practice-oriented approach for analysing labour control regimes and labour agency in GPNs. By doing so, I address the limitations of hitherto dominant scalar approaches, which have not sufficiently explored the interconnections and interdependencies between processes, relationships and practices of labour control and labour agency at different levels (see Sects. 2.3.4 and 2.4.4).

The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: In the next section, I first outline central conceptual contributions of relational approaches regarding the analytical categories networks, place/space, scale and territories. Thereafter, I develop heuristic frameworks for analysing labour control regimes and union agency in GPNs from a relational perspective.

#### **3.1 A Relational Perspective on Networks, Space/Place, Scale and Territories**

A central aim of relational approaches in economic geography is to develop a conceptual alternative to scalar interpretations of the socio-spatialities of globalisation (Amin 2002, 2004; Dicken et al. 2001; Massey 1994, 1999; Thrift 1996). These scalar interpretations emphasise, how under globalisation socio-spatial orders are being transformed through the 're-scaling' of specific socio-economic processes and practices, which are moved from 'higher' to 'lower' scales or vice versa (see e.g. Brenner 1999; Cox 1998; Smith 1993). Scales tend to be understood in the context of scalar interpretations of globalisation as separate, bounded territorial entities that precede and contain social activities and provide "an already partitioned geography" (Smith 1993: 101; see also MacKinnon 2011: 24). Relational thinkers in economic geography, such as Amin (2004: 33), oppose such a 're-scaling' imaginary for ignoring the intertwined flows and connections that characterise contemporary economic geographies, where local territories—such as cities and regions—form constitutive parts of broader global economic networks. In addition, relational approaches have criticised scalar approaches to globalisation for privileging one particular scale or a bifurcation of scales (e.g. global–local) and hence to develop analyses that "preclude alternatives and that obscure subtle variations within, and interconnections between, different scales" (Dicken et al. 2001: 90).

Against this backdrop, relational approaches in economic geography propose to replace the imaginary of hierarchically nested territorial scales as central ordering features of the global economy with the imaginary of multiple horizontally intertwined *networks* that connect actors, practices and places across various distances (Dicken et al. 2001). From a relational perspective, networked relationships represent the central socio-spatial ordering features of the globalised economy. Relational approaches conceptualise the networks of actors and practices constituting the economy as "relational processes, which, when realised empirically within distinct and time- and space-specific contexts, produce observable patterns in the global economy" (Dicken et al. 2001: 91). From a relational perspective, networks as central socio-spatial ordering features are both relational and structural: Networks are relational, since they are constituted through practices of routinised interactions between various actors. These interactions are driven by actors' interests and intentions (Dicken et al. 2001: 96). At the same time, networks are structural in that the specific composition of intertwined relationships between variously powerful actors "constitute structural power relations in which exclusions and inequalities exist" (Dicken et al. 2001: 95). Hence, while networks are constituted through routinised interaction practices in the first place, they also provide the structural context for these interactions. Within networks, spaces for the agency of specific actors are determined by actors' power to shape the nature of interactions and to include or exclude other actors (Dicken et al. 2001: 94f.).

The conceptual imaginary of structural/relational networks as central ordering features of the global economy has specific implications for interpreting key geographical analytical concepts such as space, place and scale and territories (c.f. Jessop et al. 2008). Following this imaginary, economic *space* can be understood as constituted through a mesh of horizontally intertwined and spatially stretched networks, within which money, resources and power flow between actors and places (Amin 2004: 34). Such a relational notion of space rejects the assumption that space "exists as an entity in and of itself, over and above material objects [or actors] and their spatiotemporal relations and extensions" (Jones 2009: 491). Rather, space emerges from and is constituted through networks and event relations that connect actors, material objects and places. As such, space has no a priori hierarchical order, but such order may emerge from power flows within the networks that constitute space (c.f. Schmid 2020: 108).

From this point of view, *places,* in turn, can be conceptualised as nodes within broader networks, where multiple relationships of different lengths intersect and become spatially immanent in specific moments of articulation (Amin 2002: 391). In this sense, Schmid (2020: 71) argues that "the notion of place contextualise[s] (global) power relations that are always produced in concrete sites". Whereas this understanding of 'place' refers to 'the local' as a specific part of broader 'space', a second reading of 'place' is possible from a relational perspective. This reading comprehends place in the sense of concrete sites for human interaction that are constituted through the links of "bodies, artefacts, things, meanings and practices that meet in time and space" (Schmid 2020: 69). In both readings, however, places inevitably need to be understood as constitutive elements of those network relations constituting broader 'space'.

This dialectical understanding of space and place has important implications for the concept of *scale*. Dicken et al. (2001: 95) point out that from a relational perspective, "it becomes meaningless to talk of [ontologically distinct] local versus global processes as in much of the global–local literature". Consequently, relational approaches have proposed an alternative conception of the scales of social and economic life as "practices and relations of different spatial stretch and duration" (Amin 2002: 389). Relational approaches are congruent with scalar approaches in that they recognise the spatiality of social and economic relationships, which give rise to specific socio-spatial orderings. However, relational approaches reject a priori assumptions about specific, reified 'architectures of scale' (c.f. MacKinnon 2011: 22). Instead, the socio-spatial order of specific networks needs to be carved out empirically by mapping its constitutive social relations (c.f. Marston et al. 2005: 426). In this sense, relational analytical approaches are compatible with multi-scalar heuristics, as long as scales are not understood as hierarchical, discrete entities, but rather as spatial stretches that are interwoven in specific networks. Such a relational understanding of scale allows us to understand actors, processes, relationships and practices at various scales—including the workplace, the neighbourhood, the nationstate and the globe—as equally and mutually constitutive of the globalising economy (Dicken et al. 2001: 95).

Whereas in global networks, relationships at various scales are interwoven, networks themselves may also exist at multiple levels. Some networks are boundless, connecting actors and places across various countries and territorial boundaries; other networks are relatively localised in the sense that the relationships that constitute them are bound to specific territories (Henderson et al. 2002; Hess 2004 see also Sect.2.1). In this sense, relational approaches are not opposed to the concepts of 'territory' and 'territoriality'. However, in contrast to 'territorial' spatial approaches which tend to treat territories as conceptual givens, relational approaches emphasise the social construction of *territories* through practices and relationships (Jones 2009: 494; Paasi 2003). In a relational understanding, territories are constructed through practices of 'classifying by area', i.e. of categorising people and things located in space, and enacted through practice relationships between actors within that area (Paasi 2003; Jones 2009). Consequently, from a relational standpoint, territories are not "frozen frameworks" but "typically contested and actively negotiated" (Paasi 2003: 110).

In summary, relational approaches emphasise the interweaving of practices, actors, places and territories within economic space. Therefore, networks—or, more accurately, networked relationships—become the central socio-spatial ordering feature of the economy. These networks are both structural and relational; they represent contested fields within which actors exercise power by including or excluding other actors and places from these networks. Networks may go beyond territorial boundaries or they may be tied to specific territories, whereas, in the latter case, networks and territories may also be considered as mutually constitutive.

As laid out in Sect. 2.1, this type of relational thinking informed the inception of the GPN framework as a "relational framework for analysing the global economy" in the early 2000s (Dicken et al. 2001; Coe et al. 2008: 272f.). However, as illustrated in the preceding literature review, particularly within literature on labour in GPNs, relational perspectives have been overshadowed by scalar analytical perspectives. Against this background, with this book, I aim to bring the relational perspective that informed the early GPN framework back into debates on labour control and labour agency in GPNs. To this end, I highlight the networked character of the 'architectures of labour control' underpinning GPNs and of local unions' agency strategies in GPNs. With the two heuristic frameworks developed in the remainder of this chapter, I aim to reveal how everyday practices of labour control and labour agency in GPNs are intertwined in multiple processual relationships stretching across various distances and territories. I propose that it is only by focussing on the dialectic and mutually constitutive relationship between 'local' and 'global' processes and practice relations, and between territorially embedded and network dynamics that we can really comprehend the relational constitution and workings of labour control and labour agency in GPNs. Such comprehension is in turn crucial to understand the conditions that constrain and enable the building of local union power in garment producing countries, as will be shown in the empirical analysis in Chapters 6 and 7.

In the following two sections, I develop two heuristic frameworks for studying labour control and union agency in GPNs through the lens of a relational perspective.

#### **3.2 A Relational Approach to Labour Control Regimes in GPNs: Intertwining Processual Relations of Labour Control**

Gaining a refined understanding of the 'labour control architectures' underpinning a particular GPN is crucial for understanding the structural contexts and constraining conditions that shape and potentially limit spaces for the agency of local unions. In this section, I develop a relational, practice-oriented approach for analysing these labour control architectures. I start from the conceptual assumption that we need to understand GPNs not primarily as networks of firms but rather as networks of *territorially embedded labour processes*, which lie "at the heart at the heart of all systems of commodity production" under capitalism (Cumbers et al. 2008). Labour processes are necessarily territorially embedded because they are tied to the practices of labouring bodies who are located in space and who—as David Harvey (1989: 19) famously stated—'need to go home every night'. Moreover, many labour processes depend on specific material infrastructure that is (at least temporarily) fixed in specific places (Harvey 1989). This is the case particularly in the labour-intensive export industries 'at the bottom' of GPNs, which produce mass consumer goods in Fordist production arrangements. Labour processes in these industries are usually tied to material infrastructure in the form of large factories hosting workers, machines and production facilities (see e.g. Kumar 2014; Ngai and Smith 2007; Smith and Pun 2006).

To ensure the extraction of surplus value *in* and the unobstructed reproduction *of*  territorially embedded labour processes at specific nodes of a GPN, labour control regimes are necessary (see Sect. 2.3.2). In this light, I propose that we can think of the 'labour control architectures' underpinning GPNs as a mesh of intertwined, place-specific *labour control regimes*. These place-specific labour control regimes emerge around labour processes at specific nodes of the GPN from the intertwining of various institutionalised, *processual relations,* which, together, ensure the reproduction of the labour process in its profit-maximising form. All these processual relations are constituted through networks of routinised practices of labour control that link diverse actors across various distances. Drawing on Neethi's (2012) extended notion of labour control (see Sect. 3.2), *labour control practices* are defined here as encompassing exploiting and disciplining practices, on the one hand, and all practices that directly or indirectly ensure the smooth reproduction of the labour process on the other hand. Therefore, I consider the following three types of practices as labour control practices: (1) *exploiting practices* directed at minimising labour costs while maximising labour productivity; (2) *disciplining practices* directed at undermining or preventing collective labour organisation; (3) *practices that contribute to (re-) producing the broader conditions for capitalist production*.

As a result, the processual relations intertwined in labour control regimes are linked to the labour control process in various ways and fulfil different functions in relation to the capitalist accumulation process. More specifically, processual relations that are interwoven in labour control regimes either (1) directly *shape the labour process* through exploiting practices directed at maximising surplus value, (2) *ensure the subordination of labour to the labour process* through disciplining practices or (3) *secure the broader conditions for the reproduction of the labour process*, such as securing adequate labour supply.

In doing so, processual relations that are interwoven in labour control regimes also *shape the terrain for labour agency* at a specific node of the GPN in two regards. On the one hand, these processual relations represent 'contested fields' (c.f. Levy 2008), that are the *subject of potential disputes* between capital and labour and that may be challenged and transformed when the capital-labour balance is shifted in favour of workers. But, on the other hand, the processual relations that constitute the labour control regime *constrain the opportunities for workers and unions to build and/or activate the power resources* that would enable them to shift the capital-labour power balance.

Without claiming this to be an exhaustive list, in this study, I identify six processual relations that intersect with the labour process at specific nodes of a GPN and constitute labour control regimes. These six relations are: sourcing relations at the vertical 'network' dimension of the GPN, and territorially embedded wage relations, workplace relations, industrial relations, employment relations and labour market relations at the horizontal dimension of the GPN. These processual relations show distinct socio-spatial features and linkages to the labour process. The following list gives a short characterisation of each type of relations, including their spatial extension, the actors and practices that hang together in them, their function within the broader labour control regime (i.e. exploiting, disciplining or securing the broader conditions for capital accumulation), the intersections of these labour control relations with the labour process and their implications for labour agency.

emerge around place-specific legal-institutional frameworks for worker representation, worker-management dialogue or co-determination. The way these legalinstitutional frameworks are enacted in a specific site of production is highly shaped by capital-labour power relations in the workplace. In workplaces where workers have low bargaining power, workplace relations potentially represent a domain of labour control since managers are then able to construct workplace relations through disciplining practices directed at suppressing collective worker organisation. In contrast, when workers possess high workplace bargaining power due to strong collective organisation and/or their strategic position in the GPN (see Sect. 2.4.1), they may be able to construct workplace relations through practices of genuine worker management dialogue that can help to improve workers' conditions.

and Meil 2011; Flecker et al. 2013). As a result, employment relations represent a potential field of contestation for workers and unions, who may seek to challenge employers' practices of constructing exploitative employment relations. However, employers' employment practices may also constrain workers' and unions' capacities to build associational power resources.

• *Labour market relations* are defined here as the practices and relationships that secure adequate labour supply and thereby contribute to ensuring the broader conditions for capital accumulation at a specific node of a GPN. Practices that constitute labour market relations include recruiting practices, linking employers, workers and potentially third-party actors such as head hunters or recruiting agencies. Moreover, labour market relations are constituted through training and skilling practices, which link workers and employers with educational and training organisations. Compared to wage, workplace, industrial and employment relations, which are usually spatially delimited, the spatial extension of labour market relations is flexible. Labour market relations may be rather localised, when they are constructed around local or regional (often informal) networks (see e.g. Kelly 2001; Padmanabhan 2012). Labour market relations may, however, also be rather unbounded when they are constructed around national or international migration regimes that link workers and employers from different regions within a country (see e.g. Ngai and Smith 2007) or even across countries (see e.g. Azmeh 2014; Pye 2017). Labour market relations represent an important structural context for the agency of labour since the nature of the relations and practices that constitute labour markets may enhance or constrain workers' marketplace bargaining power at specific nodes of the GPN (see Sect.2.4.1). In situations of limited local labour supply, workers' marketplace bargaining power increases, enabling workers to demand higher wages. In these cases, to hedge labour's increased marketplace bargaining power, employers need to expand the territory of the labour market, e.g. through setting up migration regimes to channel surplus labour force from geographically more or less distant places into localised labour processes.

In a nutshell, labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN emerge from the intertwining of the six processual relations listed above with the localised labour process. All processual relations of labour control either shape the labour process or secure its reproduction. As illustrated, each set of processual relations has its own socio-spatiality: Sourcing relations are territorially unbounded and usually stretch across various countries, they are therefore characterised by *network embeddedness*  (see Sect. 2.1). On the contrary, wage relations, workplace relations, industrial relations and employment relations are characterised by *territorial embeddedness* (see Sect. 2.1). They link actors only within the workplace or within a specific region or country, where they also intersect with place-specific social and power relations constructed around categories of age, gender or ethnicity. Moreover, wage relations, workplace relations, industrial relations and employment relations are usually constructed around and (to varying extents) shaped by institutional-legal frameworks linked to specific local, state or national administrative territories. Labour market relations, in turn, vary regarding their territorial extension and type of embeddedness, since they may link workers and employers only within one region or country and across countries. Hence, the place-specific nature of 'local' labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN does not result from the localised nature of the practices and relationships that constitute the labour control regime. Instead, the place-specific nature of the labour control regime at a specific node of a GPN results from the particular articulations of multiple processual relations of labour control stretching across various distances with the labour processes at that particular node of the GPN. The various labour control regimes at different nodes of a GPN—that together constitute the 'architectures of labour control' underpinning a GPN—are hence characterised by distinctive socio-spatialities that cannot be assumed a priori but that need to be deduced (c.f. Schmid 2020).

Figure 3.1 illustrates how labour control regimes at specific nodes of the GPN emerge from the articulation of the six sets of processual relations at the vertical and horizontal dimensions that intersect with localised labour processes.

Linking the labour control regime back to the central question of this study, we can summarise that the labour control regime at a specific node of the GPN represents an important structural context for local union agency for two reasons. First, it shapes the terrain for the agency of local unions since it is constituted through various exploiting practices by capital and state actors that unions need to challenge and transform to

**Fig. 3.1** Labour control regime at a specific node of the GPN as constituted through place-specific articulations of processual relations of labour control. *Source* Author

improve workers' conditions. Second, the labour control regime constrains workers' opportunities to build and/or activate structural, associational and institutional power resources through the disciplining practices that are interwoven in it. Consequently, at nodes of a GPN with tight labour control regimes, workers and unions need to construct their own spaces for agency through constructing processual relations that are not dominated by capital and pro-capital state actors. These spaces can then provide structural contexts, within which workers and unions can develop strategic capacities and build power resources. In the next section, I develop a relational heuristic framework for analysing how unions construct such 'spaces for labour agency'.

#### **3.3 A Relational Approach to Union Agency in GPNs: Linking Spaces of Labour Agency**

As labour geographers have reiterated, the agency of workers and unions in GPNs is not limited to contesting the networked processual relations of labour control that emerge from the intertwined exploiting and disciplining practices of capital and state actors. In addition, workers and unions forge their own relational networks across various distances and thereby add their own relational layers to the GPN (see e.g. Cumbers 2015; Hastings 2019; Pye 2017). The relational networks constructed by workers and unions within GPNs are of great analytical importance since they represent structural contexts (besides labour control regimes) that may potentially have *enabling* effects on workers and unions.

In this light, I propose that we can conceptualise the relational networks constructed by labour actors through the lens of different '*spaces of labour agency*'. As opposed to labour control relations, in which firm and state actors monopolise planning and decision-making practices, spaces of labour agency are primarily constructed through planning, analysing and solidarity-building practices performed by workers, unions and/or their allies (see also Sect. 2.4.4). Within the routinised interactions that constitute spaces of labour agency workers and unions can develop the individual and collective capacities that are fundamental to shifting the capitallabour power balance (see also Gindin 1998). Consequently, spaces of labour agency can provide *enabling* contexts, within which local unions in GPNs can develop and/or activate different types of power resources and thereby bring about sustained improvements for workers. At the same time, it is essential to note that the processual relations that constitute spaces of labour agency are in themselves structured through flows of resources and power, which may not be distributed equally among all actors. As a result, where power and resources are monopolised, for example by labour's allies (e.g. NGOs or consumer organisations), the local unions' strategic capacities and hence their associational and organisational power may be limited.

I distinguish between three *spaces of labour agency* that are constituted through different types of processual relationships constructed by workers and local unions at specific nodes of a GPN: (1) spaces of organising, (2) spaces of collaboration and (3) spaces of contestation. In the following, I will briefly characterise each space, giving an overview of the practices and actors that are intertwined within these spaces, their spatiality, and of the potential capacities and power resources that workers and unions may build within these spaces:

Unions construct *spaces of organising* through practices of building solidarity among workers around common interests with the aim to act collectively vis-àvis capital and state actors. Three types of practices create and constitute spaces of organising: practices of membership recruiting, practices of internal solidaritybuilding within the union and practices of training and capacity-building. Practices of membership recruiting are directed at building relationships with workers in a specific factory, sector or community to make them become a part of the union. Practices of internal solidarity-building include building relationships among workers as rank-and-file-members, and between rank-and-file-members and union leadership. Practices of training and capacity-building, lastly, are directed at developing workers' 'oppositional consciousness' (Cumbers et al. 2010) and enabling workers to participate in union life. Practices of training and capacity-building may include teaching knowledge on relevant legal frameworks or training workers to participate in collective strategy-building and decision-making processes. Hence, within spaces of organising unions build associational power resources but also organisational power resources.

*Spaces of collaboration*, in turn, are constructed by local unions through building relationships of collaboration with other labour and non-labour actors. These actors may, for example, be NGOs, consumer campaigning networks, international organisations, community organisations or worker organisations. Unions may construct relationships with these actors for different purposes—from acquiring financial resources through funded project collaborations to activating consumers' moral power in specific labour struggles. Whereas past studies have highlighted network building by Global South unions with actors from the Global North (see e.g. Anner 2015b; Kumar 2014; Zajak 2017), it is important to note that relationships of collaboration are not limited to transnational relationships. Local unions at a specific node of the GPN may, for example, also build solidary relationships with local community organisations to organise workers outside of formal employment relationships (see Sect. 2.4). In a nutshell, spaces of collaboration serve unions to build 'coalitional' or 'societal' power resources in the form of moral power or access to financial and informational resources. When collaborative relations with allies involve processes of joint strategy-building and decision-making, these interactions may enhance the strategic capacities of union leaders and members, and thereby contribute to strengthening the union's organisational and associational power resources.

Lastly, *spaces of contestation* are those spaces that unions construct around specific labour struggles. Spaces of contestation differ from spaces of organising and spaces of collaboration in that they are constructed primarily through antagonistic relationships with employers, lead firms and, in some cases, state actors as well. At the same time, to exercise leverage against these actors, unions frequently 'draw' other allied actors into spaces of contestation to activate moral power resources. As a result, the specific practices through which unions construct spaces of contestation in struggles targeting capital and/or state are interrelated with unions' practices of building solidary relations within spaces of organising and spaces of collaboration. Only if unions have previously forged solidarity relations within these spaces and thereby built associational and coalitional power resources, will they be able to activate these power resources when constructing spaces of contestation around specific labour struggles. Spaces of contestation are therefore constituted by the intertwining of antagonistic and solidary relationships at various levels. Spaces of contestation may be constructed as territorially embedded spaces when only local capital and state actors, workers and allies are drawn into a conflict. However, spaces of contestation may also intertwine territorial and network spaces when actors in other countries, such as lead firms or consumer groups, are drawn into the conflict. The extent to which union leadership and rank-and-file members are able to develop strategic capacities within spaces of contestation depends, in turn, on the extent to which union leaders and workers actively participate in planning and executing the antagonistic interactions with capital actors that are at the core of spaces of contestation.

It is important to note that the three spaces outlined above are not discrete containers for social action. Instead, they need to be understood as dynamic networks of relationships that variously fold into each other: The collaborative relationships that unions maintain with external actors, for example, influence how unions construct intra-union relations and relations with workers as potential members. At the same time, the practices through which unions construct antagonistic relations with capital actors in specific labour struggles are shaped by unions' internal relationships and external collaborations. Therefore, to evaluate a union's strategic approach regarding its capacity for building lasting bargaining power, we need to analyse the practices through which unions construct all three spaces of agency and how these influence each other.

Figure 3.2 provides an exemplary (and non-exhaustive) graphical representation of the different processual relations that potentially constitute each space of labour agency. It is important to note that the actors in the graphical representation do not represent an exhaustive list of all actors with which local unions may potentially build relations but rather an exemplary selection.

In summary, each space of labour agency is constituted through a mesh of networked relationships constructed by unions, with each space linking unions to different actors across varying spatial stretches. Neither space can, however, be equated a priori with a specific scale of labour agency. Different unions may construct spaces of organising, collaboration and contestation across different distances. Therefore, the distinctive socio-spatialities of the spaces of labour agency created by a specific union need to be deduced empirically.

The following section summarises the relational approaches to labour control regimes and union agency in GPNs developed so far in this chapter and discusses their analytical benefits.

**Fig. 3.2** Spaces of labour agency in GPNs. *Source* Author

#### **3.4 Interim Conclusion: Benefits of a Practice-Oriented, Relational Approach to Labour Control and Labour Agency in GPN**

In this chapter, I have developed a relational approach for studying labour control and labour agency—or, more specifically, union agency—in GPNs. In doing so, I have sought to develop a conceptual alternative to dominant scalar approaches for analysing labour control and labour agency in GPNs. My relational approach to labour control in GPNs proposes to conceptualise place-specific labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN as emerging from the articulation of various horizontal (i.e. territorially embedded) and vertical (i.e. 'network') processual relations. Together, these relations ensure the reproduction of the localised labour process in its profit-maximising form. Horizontal, territorially embedded processual relations include, for example, workplace relations, wage relations and industrial relations, which are usually constructed around specific locales of production, or within specific administrative territories to which legal-institutional frameworks for wages or collective bargaining are applicable. Vertical, 'network' processual relations, in turn, include sourcing relations, which link globally acting lead firms with local suppliers at particular nodes of a GPN. In this light, the 'local' character of labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN does not result in the first place from the fact that the practices and actors that constitute it are 'local' ones. Instead, placespecific labour control regimes at specific nodes of a GPN emerge from the unique articulation of territorially embedded processual relations that link actors within a specific workplace, city, region or country and cross-border processual relationships embedded with the broader production networks.

I argue that understanding the interrelations and interdependencies between the various relations constituting labour control regimes at particular nodes of a GPN is paramount to understand the structural context for local union agency in GPNs in two regards. First, a relational perspective focussing on the interconnections between different practices, processes and relations of labour control can advance our understanding of the conditions that constrain unions' capacities for building and leveraging associational and institutional power resources. I argue that the great challenge for local unions lies specifically in the complex, intertwined nature of labour control regimes in GPNs, in which manifold exploiting and disciplining practices performed by actors in more or less distant places enable and shape each other. As a result, a more nuanced understanding of the relational constitution of the labour control regime as structural context for labour agency is, second, crucial for developing networked labour agency strategies that simultaneously address multiple actors and practices (see Sect. 2.4.3).

To develop and carry out networked agency strategies, local unions need to build their own relational networks independent of those constructed by capital. This is necessary to create spaces in which workers and unions can build power resources and strategic capacities. The relational framework for analysing union agency in GPNs developed in this chapter has proposed to conceptualise unions' agency strategies as emerging at the intersection of three relational spaces of labour agency: (1) spaces of organising, (2) spaces of collaboration and (3) spaces of contestation. *Spaces of organising* are constituted through practices and relations that link unionists and union members, on the one hand, and unionists and workers who are not (yet) union members, on the other. Spaces of organising are hence spaces where workers and unions can develop strategic capacities for communicating and mobilising, as well as an active internal union life to build associational and organisational power resources (see Sect. 2.4.2). *Spaces of collaboration,* in turn, are constructed through unions' practices of building alliances with other societal actors. By constructing spaces of collaborations, unions and workers may build coalitional power resources granting unions access to financial or informational resources and moral power resources that can be leveraged vis-à-vis capital or state actors. Lastly, *spaces of contestation*  are constructed by unions around specific labour struggles targeting capital and/or state actors. Spaces of contestation consequently differ from spaces of organising and spaces of collaboration in the sense that they are constructed primarily through antagonistic relationships. However, solidarity relations also play a role in spaces of contestation: workers and unions may draw allies into spaces of contestation to activate coalitional and moral power resources. It is important to note that the three spaces are not discrete entities or vessels for social actions, but that the relations they constitute variously shape and fold into each other.

What are the benefits of such a relational, practice-oriented approach for studying labour control regimes and spaces of labour agency at specific nodes of a GPN? I argue that the relational approach to labour control and labour agency in GPNs developed in this book can overcome the limitations of dominant scalar approaches to labour control and labour agency in GPNs. It can provide novel insights that enhance our understanding of the conditions that constrain and enable local union power at particular nodes of a GPN. The *relational approach to labour control regimes* can enhance our understanding of the constitution of labour control regimes as complex, structural contexts for the agency of local unions at specific nodes of a GPN in three regards: First, the relational approach to labour control regimes developed in this chapter is able to reveal the manifold intertwined practices and relations through which labour control regimes as structural contexts for labour agency are constituted and reproduced. In doing so, the relational approach allows us to grasp the complex, networked structures of labour control, within which various exploiting and disciplining practices enable and shape each other, and to evaluate resulting constraints for union agency.

Second, a relational approach is more sensitive towards the complex sociospatialities of labour control regimes at different nodes of a GPN. Whereas scalar approaches have tried to fit the spatialities of labour control regimes into universal, pre-defined scalar categories (see Sect. 2.3.4), a relational, practice-oriented approach follows the empirical connections between practices and actors that stretch across various distances. Therefore, a relational analytical approach is able to reveal the distinct socio-spatialities of empirically existing labour control regimes at different nodes of the GPN. This, in turn, allows us to produce more refined analyses of the spatial labour control practices and dynamics that constrain workers' and unions' abilities of building power resources.

Third, I argue that the relational analytical perspective developed here allows for an enhanced conceptualisation of the dialectical relationships between labour control and labour agency in GPNs. From a relational perspective, labour control structures are constituted through spatially situated practices and processual (power) relations that may be contested and transformed by labour. A practice approach to labour control structures, thus, gives visibility to the 'small transformations' (Latham 2002) through which workers and unions may bring about important improvements for workers.

The *relational concept of spaces of labour agency* developed in this book is, in turn, well-equipped to generate a more fine-grained understanding of the conditions, contexts and networks that *enable* workers and unions to challenge and transform practices or even broader relations of labour control. I argue that, particularly in comparison to scalar approaches, the relational approach introduced in this chapter presents three benefits: First, scalar approaches have mostly neglected intra-union relations as an important scale for the agency of workers and unions. However, as laid out in Sect. 2.4.1, unions internal organising practices matter since building democratic intra-union relations and actively involving members in union life is a central condition for building associational and organisational power. By shifting the focus to the networked practices and relations through which unions construct spaces of organising, the here-developed analytical approach is well-equipped to identify organising practices and relations that contribute to building sustained associational and organisational power.

Second, the relational heuristic framework of 'spaces of labour agency' developed here allows for a higher sensibility towards variations in the practices through which workers and unions may construct different types of solidary relations at the same scale. Scalar approaches have conflated very different sets of transnational relations forged by workers and unions under the same notion of 'up-scaling'. By focussing on the practices and power flows that constitute unions' collaborative networks, the relational analytical approach developed in this chapter sheds light on the distinct constitution of each collaborative network. Moreover, it reveals the distinct capacities and power resources that unions can access in different networks—independent from the scale at which these networks are forged.

Third, the here-developed relational approach allows for a better understanding of how the different types of relationships that workers and unions construct influence each other. The proposed concept of 'spaces of labour agency' understands all sets of relations as power-laden and, therefore, structural. Consequently, uneven power flows may create uneven opportunities for capacity development for various powerful actors. By highlighting the structural effects of the networks constructed by workers and unions, the concept of 'spaces of labour agency' can grasp the interrelations between external and internal union relations. More specifically, it is able to assess which *external* relations enable workers and unions to develop *internal*  strategic capacities for building sustained associational and organisational power (see Sect. 2.4.2).

Before applying the relational approach for studying labour control regimes and union agency in GPNs to the Bangalore export-garment cluster, in the next chapter, I first lay out the research design and methodology underpinning this study.

#### **References**

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Part III Research Design and Methodology**

## **Chapter 4 Grounding Dynamics of Labour Control and Labour Agency in GPNs Through an 'Extended Single Embedded Case Study Design'**

**Abstract** This chapter introduces the research design and methodology of this study. It starts by setting out the key philosophical assumptions underpinning this study, characterised by a constructivist or reflexive research approach. Drawing on Burawoy's extended case study method and Yin's single embedded case study model, the chapter then develops an 'extended single embedded case study' design for studying the interrelations between place-specific dynamics of labour control and labour agency, and broader governance dynamics in the garment GPN. The chapter further illustrates how, for this study, the Bangalore export-garment cluster was constructed as a single case with three local garment unions representing embedded sub-units of analysis. Thereafter, the data collection process through participant observations and in-depth interviews is described. In this context, the chapter discusses challenges and strategies for interviewing managers and state actors as well as workers and unions in light of the power relations, which structure interactions between the researcher and the research subjects. The chapter concludes by outlining the data preparation, analysis and interpretation process.

**Keywords** Extended case study method · Single embedded case study · Positionality · Power relations in the field · Participant observations · In-depth interviews

This chapter introduces the research design and methodology of this study. The research objective of this study is two-fold. Firstly, it aims to assess the extent to which different agency strategies of local grassroots unions in the garment GPN enhance or constrain the building of labour bargaining power, following an understanding of labour's agency as embedded within wider structural conditions (Coe and Jordhus-Lier 2010). Second, this study seeks to better understand the mechanisms and practices that (re-)produce the 'labour control architectures underpinning GPNs' (Baglioni 2018). To this end, this study employs a qualitative research approach that seeks to 'empirically ground' dynamics of labour agency and labour control within GPNs by studying how these dynamics materialise at a specific node of the garment GPN (c.f. Yeung 2020). The node of the garment GPN that this study focusses on is the Bangalore export-garment cluster. Following Yin's (2014) embedded case study design, I construct the Bangalore export-garment cluster as the primary unit of analysis, with three local garment unions as embedded sub-units of analysis. To analyse the dynamics of labour control and labour agency in the Bangalore export-garment cluster as constituted through territorially embedded practices and relationships and at the same time shaped by broader 'network forces', I combine the single embedded case study design with Burawoy's (1998, 2009) extended case method.

Section 4.1 introduces the broader research design of this study. After that, Sect. 4.2 discusses the field research and data collection process. Lastly, Sect. 4.3 outlines the data preparation, analysis and interpretation process.

#### **4.1 Research Design: The 'Extended Single Embedded Case Study'**

A study's research design provides the broader perspective with which a specific topic is approached and thereby requires specific methods of data collection (Leavy 2017: 14). The research design of this study combines a qualitative single embedded case study design (Yin 2014) with the ethnographic 'extended case method' developed by Burawoy (1998). The following section illustrates the scientific-philosophical assumptions underpinning the research design of this study. Thereafter, I demonstrate how I constructed the Bangalore export-garment cluster with the presence of three local garment unions as a single embedded case study (Sect. 4.1.2). Last, I introduce the 'extended case method' representing the second tenet of the research design underpinning this study (Sect. 4.1.3).

#### *4.1.1 Scientific-Philosophical Positioning of This Study*

*"Philosophy is to research as grammar is to language, whether we immediately recognise it or not. Just as we cannot speak a language successfully without following certain grammatical rules, so we cannot conduct a piece of research without making certain philosophical choices. Philosophy, like grammar, is always there."* (Graham 2005)

As the quote by Graham exemplifies, philosophical assumptions are a central element of every research process. They significantly influence all decisions of the research process, "from topic selection all the way down to the final representation and dissemination of research findings" (Leavy 2017: 11). In line with the practiceoriented, relational perspective adopted in this book, the philosophical assumptions underpinning this study can be characterised as broadly informed by a *'reflexive' or* *'constructivist' paradigm* (Burawoy 1998; Flick et al. 2004: 88ff.). Whereas these two paradigms are further differentiated and not entirely congruent with each other, several common assumptions can be identified. From an ontological point of view, the reflexive paradigm and (some positions within) the constructivist paradigm hold that no 'objective' social reality independent from human perception and agency exists 'out there'. Instead, social reality is constructed through human interaction. Hence, different people experience and attribute meaning to the social world in different ways (Burawoy 1998: 14f.). This ontological assumption has two significant epistemological consequences. First, the central research interest of studies adopting a reflexive or interpretivist perspective consists in generating insights into the social processes involved in creating certain social phenomena (Flick et al. 2004). Second, from a constructivist or interpretivist perspective, the research process itself is constituted through various social interactions, within which knowledge and interpretations are constructed (Flick et al. 2004: 6). As a result, knowledge and interpretations generated in the research process are always situated, i.e. produced by specific people and under specific circumstances (Burawoy 1998: 14).

Given the situatedness of knowledge, feminist and critical scholars have stressed the need for the researcher to reflect upon their positionality in the research process (Rose 1997; Sultana 2007). In this context, the term 'positionality' is used to refer to the researcher's pre-study beliefs and values (Holmes 2020: 2) and to his or her position within the 'multidimensional geography of power' (Rose 1997: 308). This position is shaped by the researcher's embeddedness in the grid of social relations of gender, class, race, educational status and geographical provenience inter alia. Given the assumption that a researcher's position has a significant impact on all stages of the research process—from study design, over data collection to the interpretation of research findings—critical and feminist scholars have reiterated the importance for researchers to adopt a 'reflexive research approach' (McDowell 2001; Sultana 2007). Adopting a 'reflexive research approach' means that researchers should critically reflect and be transparent about the impact of their positionality on research-related decisions and relationships with research participants (Rose 1997). In this light, reflections on my own positionality and how it has shaped decisions concerning research design, data collection and interpretation will be included in all remaining sections of this chapter.

Flick et al. (2004: 6) propose that studies within the reflexive/constructivist paradigm may be well suited with ethnographic research designs, since these are particularly apt to produce "descriptions of processes of creation of social situations". Accordingly, the research design adopted in this study builds on the ethnographic methodological approach of Burawoy's (1998, 2009) 'extended case method', in combination with Yin's (2014) 'single embedded case study' design. In the next section, the construction of the Bangalore export-garment cluster with the presence of three local garment unions as a single embedded case study is outlined.

#### *4.1.2 Constructing the Bangalore Export-garment Cluster and Local Garment Unions as a Single Embedded Case*