Comment: John Morrison of the Institute for Human Rights and Business hopes that as the world picks up the pieces after Covid-19 there will be a fundamental change to the relationship between workers and companies

The 2019 incarnation of the coronavirus has ravaged many lives and the worse is still to come, particularly in the least developed or war-torn economies, where health systems are ill-equipped to deal with chronic symptoms than can arise. The virus has not been the “great leveller” as some have claimed; rather it has highlighted and exasperated inequality worldwide. The bravery of frontline workers has not always been matched by our leaders, with virtue-signalling from populist politicians and some business leaders crying force majeure: letting long established employee or supplier relationships fall like dominos.

But it is not such frailties that we will remember. It is the personal sacrifice of health workers, care workers, supermarket staff, delivery drivers, agricultural workers and many others. Those responsible companies that have stood by their supply chains, repurposed their production for societal need and furloughed their workforces on near full pay, and trade unions that fight for the most marginalised, whether they be members or not (such as informal workers, migrants and those in the gig economy).

Is now is the right time to reorganise the relationship between the world’s peoples and those that claim to act in their interests

It is fitting then to ask whether now is the right time to reorganise the relationship between the world’s peoples and those that claim to act in their interests? For example, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has restated its call for a “new social contract” for workers and communities globally, backed by NGOs and even some business leaders.

But what is meant by a new social contract? Is it desirable? Is it achievable?

Are we just the co-opting this crisis to advance a pre-existing political agenda?

In this article I want to open up this Pandora’s box a little, with the hope that all of our thinking and talking can lead to some definitive actions.

Social contract thinking can be traced back to Greek philosophy, but is most readily associated with Enlightenment thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. At its root is the idea that society is best-served if a government or other type of institution takes on executive or sovereign power with the consent of the people (Hobbes invokes the image of an ancient sea-monster, the “leviathan”).

In more modern times, John Rawls advanced a similar idea in his “theory of justice”: part of which allows for inequality within society, provided it benefits its poorest and most marginalised members. There is not one singular social contract theory, and there is not space here to go deep into nuances, but in my 2014 book The Social License I draw out three foundational components that are particularly relevant to societal actors such as businesses and NGOs, as well as governments:

Trust All organisations claiming to be societal actors enjoy the confidence of their peers and those most affected by their actions;

Legitimacy The organisation must have the support of society and rule in a way that benefits even its poorest members;

Consent Members of society must actively grant special permissions.

There are, of course, many other aspects that are critical (benefits, power, remedies and so on) but it is perhaps best to stick with the three foundational aspects for the purposes of this short article. In calling for a new social contract as a result of the Covid crisis, the ITUC is clear that governments are not the only leviathans of the modern age. It points specifically to the accumulated power of multinational corporations as unbalancing the 1919 social contract of the International Labour Organization (ILO) between governments, unions and employers.

A new social contract would need to address the fact that while over a billion people have been lifted out of abject poverty over the past 30 years, in large part through globalisation, inequalities within nations have increased dramatically.

Donald Trump, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and India’s Narendra Modi have offered strong measures to protect their nations from forces lying beyond their borders – a new social contract fuelled by nationalism and populism. These leaders constantly invoke “the will of the people” when consolidating executive power.

In contrast, the social contract advanced by the ITUC differs in that it is based on the labour standards of the ILO. It is, in other words, a social contract in which partnerships to tackle poverty and exploitation transcend national borders.

Business is heavily linked to just about every Covid-related salient human right you care to mention. The ILO estimates that up to 25 million workers are in immediate jeopardy of losing their work, and this will spiral upwards if the downturn deepens. The crisis has shone a spotlight on how reliant we all are on “essential workers” to feed and protect us in times of adversity: workers who at the same time are often poorly paid and vulnerable to many forms of human rights abuse. This correlation between what we truly need from our global economy and protecting the rights of those central to its delivery will be more clearly stated when we emerge from Covid-19. Added to this, shortages and bottlenecks have raised awareness of who makes what and for whom: we might now see more scrutiny about where essential commodities, products and services are derived.

Read the whole article following the link above