Role of multinational buyers in ensuring worker voice through social dialogue: an exploratory study of the export oriented garment industry

Recent studies reported that workers in export-oriented garment supplier factories in Bangladesh have limited space to raise their voices through social dialogues (Latif and Vang, 2021; Schreiber, 2021). Bangladeshi garment factory workers have no effective platform to use to expedite their voices to secure their interests (Alamgir and Alakavuklar, 2020). Although labour unions are widely accepted as a platform to ensure workers’ well-being through social dialogues between workers and supplier management (Ashraf and Prentice, 2019; Alamgir and Banerjee, 2019), numerous garment exporters in Bangladesh strategically circumvent the establishment of labour unions within their factories (Anner, 2020). Accordingly, it hinders garment workers’ fundamental rights to raise their voices and limits their negotiating and bargaining power with the management to ensure their well-being (Latif et al., 2021; Anner, 2020). In this scenario, it is crucial to bolster social dialogue opportunities to ensure that worker voices are heard in supplier factories. Furthermore, the involvement of multinational buyers is essential in promoting workers’ voices, especially in factories where formal labour unions are absent. In addition, multinational corporations (MNCs) are consistently under pressure to secure worker voices and rights within supplier factories in emerging markets. Garment suppliers, facing limited capabilities and various challenges, find it difficult to initiate development measures in the buyer-driven garment industry of Bangladesh without the support of multinational lead buyers (Hoque, 2022; Rana et al., 2019; Sinkovics et al., 2018; Fernandez-Stark et al., 2011). Therefore, buyers need to be involved in this process to ensure worker voices through social dialogues in supplier factories. In light of this, pertinent questions arise:

• Why are garment workers unable to voice their concerns in the buyer-driven garment industry?

• What is the necessity and method for multinational buyers to involve themselves in the social dialogue process where workers have limited capacity to assert their voice?

• What current role do buyers play to facilitate social dialogues between workers and their management, and what role should they assume in the future?

The current study aims to address these research questions.

Social dialogue is a process of discussion and negotiation between employers and workers, designed to foster harmonious relationships within the workplace by providing a platform for workers to raise their voices (Lévesque et al., 2018). Social dialogue has already demonstrated effectiveness by ensuring workers’ equality and well-being and reducing gender discrimination and sexual harassment within the garment industry (Sultana et al., 2020; Turker and Altuntas, 2014). Social dialogue can also ensure industrial democracy in garment supplier factories (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021). Worker voices through social dialogue are also useful in increasing efficiency, productivity, product quality and flexibility (Hoque et al., 2022; Latif et al., 2021; Bryson et al., 2006). Given that numerous stakeholders have emphasized the importance and necessity of a decent work environment in the upstream segment of the global garment value chain, there is a pressing need for worker voices to be heard in garment supplier factories. This is because worker voices are an essential component of decent work conditions (Christ et al., 2020; Hoque and Rana, 2020; Soundararajan et al., 2018; Bryson et al., 2006). However, despite being crucial players in the global garment value chain, garment suppliers are not always receptive and supportive of avenues for worker voice-raising, such as labour unions. They do not want union-type initiatives as they suspect unions will increase workers’ wages and other fringe benefits and instigate counter-productive work behaviour, such as unrest, theft, strike, etc. (Hoque and Shahinuzzaman, 2021; Anner, 2020). Against this backdrop, multinational lead buyers in the downstream part of the global garment value chain need to play an active role in ensuring worker voices through social dialogues. Moreover, multinational lead buyers tend to place more emphasis on aspects such as working conditions, working hours, workers’ living wages, occupational health and safety and issues related to child labour in garment supplier factories rather than on promoting the escalation of worker voices through social dialogues (Egels-Zandén, 2007). This critical buyer−supplier relational governance for social dialogues and worker voices in the global garment value chain remains largely unexplored or inadequately explored to date. This study illuminates this under-researched area, focusing particularly on the bipartite social dialogues between employers and workers, namely, dialogues between garment suppliers and workers. In addition, it examines the role of multinational lead buyers in facilitating these dialogues within garment supplier factories.

Following a qualitative research approach and multiple embedded case study method, this study selected two multinational garment buyers and their four suppliers in Bangladesh. Both focus group discussion (FGD) and face-to-face in-depth interviews were used to collect data related to buyers’ role in raising worker voices through social dialogue. Narratives were developed based on the collected data, and the narratives were used for within and cross-case analysis. This study explores that multinational lead buyers’ role is not optimal for ensuring worker voices in their sourcing partners in upstream of the global value chain (GVC). This study also identifies the short- and long-term strategies that multinational lead buyers could consider to facilitate raising worker voices in garment supplier factories. Moreover, this study demonstrates how social dialogues can meet the expectations of buyers and suppliers, outlining the benefits of social dialogues. The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing debate about forming unions or restricting them in garment supplier factories. In addition to that, the study findings contribute to the GVC, human relations and international business literature by showing how buyers and suppliers can play their due roles to ensure worker voices through social dialogues and why lead buyers need to play an active and critical role in meeting the mutual benefits of buyers and suppliers. Indeed, this study is unique in its approach, as it combines the roles of both buyers and suppliers to expand the scope and opportunities for social dialogue within garment supplier firms. Examining both aspects, this study provides a more comprehensive insight into how these interactions can be used to promote better working conditions and employee representation in the garment value chain.

The remainder of this study has been structured as a review of relevant literature in Section 2, methodology of the study in Section 3, findings and analysis in Section 4 and discussions in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion of the study is presented in Section 6.

Voice is a multidimensional construct (Dyne et al., 2003). LePine and Van Dyne (1998, p. 854) defined voice as a “nonrequired behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge with an intent to improve rather than merely criticize”. Dyne et al. (2003) viewed voice not as an organizational process, but instead as a behaviour exhibited by workers or employees. LePine and Van Dyne (1998, p. 853) addressed voice behaviour as “speaking out and challenging the status quo with the intent of improving the situation”. Worker voice refers to workers’ work-related communications with managers and supervisors (Latif and Vang, 2021). It is a means for employees and workers to have a say regarding different organizational matters (Wilkinson et al., 2021). While workers occasionally voice their constructive ideas, thoughts, opinions and views, contributing to work and its organizations, there are times when they remain silent, refraining from sharing their thoughts or ideas (Dyne et al., 2003). Silence and voice are two opposites based on worker behaviour (Sherf et al., 2021; Dyne et al., 2003). Dyne et al. (2003) stated that silence is not an absence of voice; it is, instead, in different forms and driven by workers’ different motivations. They identified three types of employee/worker silence: acquiescent silence, i.e. “withholding relevant ideas, information, or opinions, based on resignation” (p. 1366); defensive silence, i.e. “withholding relevant ideas, information, or opinions as a form of self-protection, based on fear” (p. 1367); and prosocial silence, i.e. “withholding work-related ideas, information, or opinions with the goal of benefiting other people or the organization – based on altruism or cooperative motives” (p. 1368); and three types of employee/worker voice: acquiescent voice, i.e. “the verbal expression of work-related ideas, information, or opinions – based on feelings of resignation” (pp. 1372–1373); defensive voice, i.e. “expressing work-related ideas, information or opinions – based on fear – with the goal of protecting the self” (p. 1372); and prosocial voice, i.e. “expressing work-related ideas, information, or opinions based on cooperative motives” (p. 1371). While acquiescent silence is based on fear, defensive silence is based on the feeling of workers’ limited ability to make a significant difference (Morrison and Milliken, 2000).

Worker voices can come in different institutionalized forms (e.g. trade unions, work councils, direct hall meetings, etc.) to solve collective problems (Cazes et al., 2019). Moreover, a worker’s voice is important for innovation, continuous learning and improvement (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998). Workers can solve organizational and personal problems by raising their voices indirectly or consulting directly with their management (Cazes et al., 2019). However, workers’ implicit beliefs restrict them from raising their voices in their workplaces, particularly in the garment industry (Latif and Vang, 2021). Implicit belief is an individual-level tacit and stable belief of an employee or worker (Detert and Edmondson, 2011). This implicit belief develops throughout an employee/worker’s life and acts as a hurdle to raising their voice (Morrison, 2014; Detert and Edmondson, 2011). Detert and Edmondson (2011) identified that psychosocial voice barriers affect workers’ intention to raise their voices (Subhakaran and Dyaram, 2018). Detert and Edmondson (2011) identified five implicit voices that hinder employees/workers from raising their voices:

• presumed target identification, i.e. managers/supervisors consider worker voices as their criticism;

• complete/solid solutions to speak up, i.e. workers need comprehensive knowledge and understanding to recommend any improvement;

• do not bypass the boss upward, i.e. workers’ voice raising is considered as a dishonour/disloyalty to their supervisor/manager;

• do not embarrass the boss in public, i.e. a supervisor/manager does not prefer to receive any negative information in front of any other staffs; and

• fear of negative career consequences of voice, i.e. voice raising may hurt their career growth (Latif and Vang, 2021).

Though workers may not often voice their opinions, their infrequent contributions are not always valued by their supervisors (Islam et al., 2020). Consequently, workers often harbour a fear of voicing their concerns or objections to the decisions of their supervisors and managers (Latif and Vang, 2021; Wilkinson et al., 2021). Workers often refrain from voicing their concerns due to this fear and ingrained beliefs (Besieux et al., 2021), which are influenced by their national, social and organizational cultures (Morrison, 2014; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). Research suggests that individuals in high-power distance cultures tend to experience greater fear in expressing their opinions compared to those in low-power distance cultures (Kwon and Farndale, 2020; Lee et al., 2017; Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Morrison and Milliken, 2000), where supervisors are more receptive to employee input in decision-making (Kwon et al., 2016). Furthermore, individuals in positions of power may exhibit more discretion and assertiveness in their behaviour (Lee et al., 2017; Pfeffer, 2013), shaping workers’ perceptions of engagement with management (Lee et al., 2017). However, worker voice-raising is necessary to ensure long-term sustainable improvement of labour standards (Pike, 2020).

Social dialogue has been proven significant in ensuring worker voices (Latif and Vang, 2021; Kuruvilla, 2006). A fundamental pillar is providing a decent working environment with workers’ freedom of speech in any organization (Sultana et al., 2020; Bryson et al., 2006). Lévesque et al. (2018) stated that establishing dialogues between management and worker representatives is significant and beneficial for any firm. Banarjee (2008) suggested dialogues and engagement with all stakeholders. International Labour Organization (ILO, 2018) addressed social dialogue as “all types of negotiation, consultation or simply an exchange of information between, or among, representatives of governments, employers, and workers, on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy’’. It is “a process, in which actors inform each other of their intentions and capacities, elaborate information provided to them, and clarify and explain their assumptions and expectations” (Rodrigues et al., 2002, p. 25). Social dialogue “can exist as a tripartite process, with the government as an official party to the dialogue or it may consist of bipartite relations only between labour and management (or trade unions and employers’ organizations), with or without indirect government involvement” (Kuruvilla, 2006, p. 178). Based on the intensity of dialogue, social dialogue is classified as “exchange of information”, i.e. just sharing information about a matter without any real discussion; “consultation”, i.e. involving in a detailed in-depth discussion on the matter; and “negotiation”, i.e. consultation with decision-making power (Ishikawa, 2003). The meaning of social dialogue varies from context to context (Alam et al., 2022; Ishikawa, 2003). It can occur at different levels: international, national/local, regional, sectoral and firm levels (Ishikawa, 2003). For instance, Reinecke and Donaghey (2021) found workers have limited abilities and opportunities for social dialogues and voice raising in the garment supplier firms in Bangladesh. Antal and Sobczak (2007) presented the significance of social dialogue between workers’ representatives and the management of firms in France. Although social dialogues can ensure worker rights in workplaces, their effectiveness depends on the capacity to mobilize the capabilities of managers and workers (Lévesque et al., 2018). However, social dialogue can improve any adversarial relationships between value chain partners (workers and supervisors/managers) through mutual understanding of any problem/crisis and exploring alternative solutions to the problem (De Prins, 2022; Ebbinghaus and Philip, 2001). Halme et al. (2020) addressed worker involvement through social dialogue as an indicator of social performance. Social dialogue is an effective way of reducing social tensions and conflicts between managers and subordinates (Kabir et al., 2022; Haque and Yamoah, 2021; Nechanska et al., 2020).

GVCs have become a dominant feature of world trade and investment, encompassing all economies, including developing, emerging and developed ones. The production process of goods and services of MNCs, starting with sourcing raw materials to finished products, is increasingly becoming fragmented and carried out in locations with necessary skills and materials available at competitive cost and quality (Lévesque et al., 2018; Kowalski et al., 2015). MNCs apply coercive power and threats to less powerful value chain partners to relocate their production (Lévesque et al., 2018). Against this backdrop, GVCs have emerged as a blessing to developing countries because these countries have the opportunity to participate in the value chains. As opposed to what was required in the past, within the value chain, a country can specialize in one or several activities in which it has a comparative advantage. While GVCs have created enormous opportunities for developing countries, nothing is an unmixed blessing. The opportunity to create jobs and income comes with the cost of employee exploitation, deprivation and a lack of employee rights (Nikulin et al., 2022), with women being the most vulnerable in these countries (Palpacuer, 2008). Another challenge comes from the powerful multinational global buyers to meet their strict demands and standards (Touboulic and Walker, 2016). Increasingly, MNC buyers prefer to work only with suppliers that comply with labour, social and environmental standards (Villena and Gioia, 2020). MNCs anticipate socially responsible behaviour and have thus developed code of conduct (COC) for their suppliers, such as Nike, H&M, Puma and other renowned buyers have private COC intending to improve the working environment in supplier firms within their GVCs (Kashmanian, 2018; Lévesque et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2015). These COCs clearly outlined worker participation scopes and opportunities, and suppliers must comply with the COCs to secure future orders. As the buyer−supplier relationship is linked to the working environment, social dialogue based on better working conditions in a supplier factory strengthens buyer−supplier relational governance (Hoque and Rana, 2020). When lead buyers find that their sourcing suppliers are giving opportunities to workers to participate and contribute in decision-making and problem-solving, they rate suppliers positively and consider for future business relations (Huq et al., 2016). For example, H&M, a fashion retailer, categorizes their most compliant buyers as platinum suppliers, entering into three-year contracts with them. These contracts guarantee a fixed order volume over the three years and ensure that workers in supplier factories receive a living wage (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2016). Moreover, MNCs leverage their value chain position as lead actors to foster workplace social dialogues (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021). As the garment industry is buyer-driven (Fouji and Hoque, 2021) and most garment suppliers depend entirely on buyers to secure orders, only buyers can force suppliers to give opportunities to the workers to raise their voices.

Given the challenges that suppliers from developing countries may face in meeting these standards, buyers tend to impose rigorous scrutiny and measures to compel the suppliers to uphold and enhance their working conditions (Soundararajan et al., 2018). Besides the powerful multinational buyers, these issues concern the attention and interests of various other actors in the GVCs, including local government, buying houses/sourcing agents, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society (Donaghey et al., 2014; Levy, 2008). Despite pressures from different actors and especially from the lead buyers to pay special attention to working conditions and labour-related issues by adopting standards and certifications to promote workers’ social welfare, such practices have not contributed much to this reform (Soundararajan et al., 2016). Among the reasons why multinational buyers could not realize many benefits from installing these practices, the liability of foreignness is the strongest one (Soundararajan et al., 2018), which limits the buyers’ monitoring and ensuring such practices in these countries at arm’s length. While most suppliers follow or pretend to follow the formally monitored part of the standards, they tend to bypass other essential and informal components of the code (Hoque et al., 2016; Sinkovics et al., 2016, 2018). For example, one study by Egels-Zandén (2007) confirmed such practices by Chinese toy suppliers. While these suppliers adhere to formally monitored codes concerning aspects such as working hours, the minimum wage, elimination of child labour, employment contracts and health and safety education, they can often overlook or marginalize other important issues. These might include the voice of the workers, their bargaining power and other forms of workers’ rights, which are equally crucial for a fair and balanced work environment. Indeed, the inherent challenges and barriers related to foreign operations, such as geographical distance and a lack of personal involvement, can cause buyers to lose visibility over the processes at the supplier level. This “liability of foreignness” may lead to a lack of oversight or understanding of the actual conditions in which the workers operate. Against this backdrop, social dialogue from the perspective of MNC buyers and their intrinsic interests in pacifying potential supply chain problems offers great promise (Villena and Gioia, 2020). Currently, MNC buyers are facing challenges from their end consumers as the consumers are demanding a standard workplace with the necessary worker rights and benefits in supplier factories where garment products are produced in developing countries (Anner, 2020). Thus, buyers can show their responsibilities and initiatives for worker well-being, ensuring participation in decision-making and voice-raising through social dialogue for their problem-solving (Perry et al., 2015).

The study makes use of a qualitative research approach and a multiple-embedded case study method (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014) to gain a deeper understanding of the current state of worker voices in the garment industry, the hindrances to raising workers’ voices in garment supplier factories and the role of multinational buyers in guaranteeing workers’ voices through social dialogues in garment supplier factories. The research also looks into the mutual benefits this approach provides for both buyers and suppliers.

The export-oriented buyer-driven garment industry of Bangladesh is the context of this study. The industry is characterized as buyer-dominated because multinational lead buyers hold significant influence, using their discretion to select sourcing suppliers from developing countries and define the terms of their business relationships, thereby influencing suppliers’ operations (Anner, 2020). Due to power imbalances, Bangladeshi suppliers must meet multinational buyers’ expectations to ensure future orders (Rana et al., 2019). The industry is considered as a context for a few reasons:

• working conditions and workers’ lives in garment factories are the key concerns for many stakeholders, particularly for multinational buyers and suppliers;

• following the tragic incidents at Rana Plaza and the Tazreen Factory, lead buyers have started to give special attention to the well-being of workers; and

• workers’ voice raising is not significant in the industry.

The garment industry is the leading source of export earnings for Bangladesh, and the country holds the second position among global garment exporters (Faroque et al., 2022; Faroque et al., 2021a; Hoque and Rana, 2020). The industry contributes 83% to the country’s total export earnings, demonstrating its significant role in the nation’s economy (Hoque, 2021). In 2021–22, this industry earned US$42.613bn from garment exports (BGMEA, 2022). The industry comprises more than 4000 garment suppliers registered in the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), and more than four million workers rely on this industry for their living, and more than 80% of those workers are female (BGMEA, 2022). Despite being operational for more than four decades, the garment industry continues to struggle to establish a healthy working environment in supplier factories (Hoque and Rana, 2020). The precarious working environment in factories is a key issue for multinational lead buyers and other stakeholders (Hoque et al., 2022). However, workers have limited rights and space to raise their voices and settle with management to improve working conditions (Latif and Vang, 2021). Workers are also responsible for limited voice-raising as they have limited knowledge, skills and experience (Maalouf and Hoque, 2022). Despite providing a COC to foster a cooperative management environment in supplier factories, multinational lead buyers have taken limited initiatives to guarantee worker representation through social dialogues (Hoque et al., 2022). Recently, the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), a tripartite alliance comprising companies, NGOs, and trade unions, has been working to facilitate social dialogues in supplier factories in Bangladesh. ETI collaborates closely with garment suppliers to amplify worker voices in factories through various training programmes aimed at enhancing the knowledge and skills of managers, supervisors and workers.

Data were collected through two focus group discussions (FGD1 and FGD2) at the office of one of the authors in Dhaka (see Table 1) and in-depth interviews with garment workers, supervisors and managers in garment supplier factories and at their head offices, and with buyers’ representatives at their host country offices in Dhaka, Bangladesh (see Tables 2 and 3).

Two European buyers and their four corresponding large garment suppliers in Bangladesh were selected as case companies for detailed investigation through in-depth interviews. The buyers assisted in getting access to supplier factories. While sourcing information from supplier firms via buyers’ assistance could potentially create bias amongst respondents, this issue was mitigated by cross-verifying the data collected from one manager with the responses from other managers. The two buyers have established a long presence in Bangladesh and maintain a longstanding relationship with the four supplier cases under consideration. To maintain anonymity, the two multinational buyers were designated MLB1 and MLB2, and the four suppliers were labelled GS1, GS2, GS3 and GS4 (refer to Tables 2 and 3 for details).

A total of ten respondents participated in FGDs, and eight buyers’ representatives, 28 workers, four supervisors and 12 managers (see Table 4) were interviewed in four garment supplier factories using an interview guide (see  Appendix).

Data were collected from the respondents based on the three pre-selected broad themes: “social dialogues and worker voices”, “barriers of social dialogues and worker voices” and “lead buyers’ role for increasing worker voice through social dialogue”. The open-ended interview guide was developed considering these three themes and used to collect data from managers in supplier firms, workers in supplier factories and the representatives of MNC buyers at their local offices. Therefore, broad theme selection is deductive and sub-theme development is inductive. The participants of FGDs freely shared their views and opinions in a friendly setting. All in-depth interviews at buyers’ offices were conducted in English, and interviews with workers, supervisors and managers were conducted in both Bangla and English as some of the interviewees were comfortable in English and others in Bangla, particularly supervisors and workers (Sinkovics and Penz, 2011; Welch and Piekkari, 2006). The interviews were completed between 2021 and 2022. Some in-depth interviews and two FGDs were recorded on an audio device with permission from the interviewees, and other interviews were written down in a notebook. Bangla interviews were transcribed and translated into English and then re-translated into Bangla again to ensure data validity (Miles et al., 2014). All audio-recorded information was transcribed from the device.

Data were analyzed following the qualitative data analysis techniques suggested by Nag et al. (2007), Corley and Gioia (2004), Miles et al. (2014) and Yin (2014). Data gathered by FGDs were analyzed manually to develop a broader initial understanding of buyers’ role and contribution to supplier initiatives and efforts to facilitate workers’ voices through social dialogues. The preliminary understanding and insights were extended further through face-to-face in-depth interviews. Narratives were developed for each case company based on the collected data from managers, workers and buyers’ representatives, and the narratives were shared with interviewees to confirm the validity of the collected data. Authors read the narratives repeatedly to be familiar with and understand the core meaning of the collected data and to develop sub-themes under each broad theme (Miles et al., 2014). To develop an overall understanding, the developed narratives were used for within and cross-case analysis (Cloutier and Ravasi, 2021; Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). Through within and cross-case analysis, researchers identified and compared similarities and dissimilarities found in each case’s narratives (Yin, 2014). Only representative verbatim codes were used to reflect the three broad themes of social dialogue, worker voices and buyers’ initiatives and sub-themes under each broad theme (Nag et al., 2007; Corley and Gioia, 2004). As tables increase the transparency and trustworthiness of qualitative data, we used necessary tables for the suitability of data presentation (Cloutier and Ravasi, 2021).

The Bangladesh garment industry encompasses numerous world-class supplier firms equipped with the necessary amenities for worker well-being, crucially including worker involvement and contribution in decision-making processes. Even so, worker voices through social dialogues are not optimal in many garment supplier factories. In many supplier firms, management still follows a top-down decision-making approach rather than participatory decision-making. Thus, garment workers’ space for frequent sharing of ideas, opinions and views is limited. Although labour union is a common platform for protecting worker interests, many garment suppliers do not give their workers any space to create labour unions in their factories as they think it may negatively impact their regular operations. The industry experienced many counterproductive worker behaviours due to the limited space for workers to raise their voices. However, garment suppliers are obliged to form a “Worker Participation Committee (WPC)”. This WPC is a recognized platform for workers to share their problems, grievances and ideas. Yet, WPC is more formal than acting as an effective bargaining agent to protect workers’ rights and interests (see Table 5).

Although workers want to share their ideas and opinions with their superiors to solve problems, they cannot do that due to the absence of any effective platform for sharing. Moreover, workers do not get any motivation to raise their voices; instead, sometimes, they are forced not to raise their voices. However, each factory floor has a complaint box, allowing workers to communicate their concerns or issues anonymously (see Table 6).

Although buyers are keen on workers’ well-being, freedom of speech, eliminating gender discrimination and social compliance in supplier factories, workers, in most cases, cannot contact any lead buyers directly to share their problems. Therefore, buyers know the workers’ issues through routine audits and documentation that suppliers must maintain to comply with buyers’ COC. Other key stakeholders, such as the Bangladesh Labour Ministry and multilateral entities like the ILO, provide guidelines to garment suppliers for safeguarding labour rights and welfare. Yet, none of these stakeholders appear fully committed to the implementation of these prescribed welfare measures, nor do they ensure regular auditing or control mechanisms (see Table 7).

Workers face various obstacles when attempting to voice their concerns in garment supply factories. The inability to raise these issues is a responsibility shared by the factory management and the workers. Moreover, the passive roles of various stakeholders, particularly multinational lead buyers, contribute to the limited opportunities for workers to voice their concerns. Consequently, social dialogues and worker voices are not highly visible in garment supplier factories (see Table 8).

Although workers have many issues to share with management, they cannot share those due to their lack of understanding or partial knowledge about a problem. Furthermore, they lack the proper know-how to communicate effectively with management for support or issue resolution. The majority of workers, being illiterate or having only completed primary education, often feel inferior or hesitant to communicate and share their concerns with management (see Table 9).

Workers are not free to share any problems directly with the management as they have to primarily report to their supervisor for any issues in a production line on the factory floor. Thus, they cannot bypass supervisors to participate in any decision-making process. Supervisors may react negatively if workers attempt to communicate directly with management or bypass them (see Table 10).

At times, supervisors caution their workers against revealing any information regarding their conduct or practices in front of top management and buyers’ representatives. Even supervisors do not like to receive any complaints in front of co-workers. They encourage workers to report any issues directly to them, particularly those of a negative nature, instead of taking these matters directly to higher management (see Table 11).

Workers constantly face the threat of job loss if they lodge complaints against supervisors or managers. They also worry that their work life would become more challenging if they were to lodge complaints about their supervisors. Consequently, they often refrain from voicing their concerns about their supervisors and managers to secure their current employment positions (see Table 12).

Multinational lead buyers, retailers and brands in the downstream part of the global garment/apparel value chain are more concerned about the working conditions in the export-oriented garment industry in Bangladesh, particularly after the Rana Plaza building collapse in 2013 and the Tazreen Fashion fire blaze in 2012. As freedom of speech is a pre-condition of a decent work environment, lead buyers, retailers and brands want to ensure worker voices in garment supplier factories in upstream of the global garment/apparel value chain. Lead buyers always check whether suppliers are giving a necessary opportunity to workers to share their opinions and thoughts (see Figure 1). However, their roles are not optimal due to the liability of foreignness (see Table 13).

To receive continuous orders from lead buyers, export-oriented garment suppliers must comply with the labour and social standards of lead buyers’ COC (see Figure 1). To secure worker well-being, they must also ascertain various social welfare initiatives in supplier factories. If buyers find a factory in a dissatisfactory condition, sometimes they directly cancel orders, and sometimes they give threats to cancel orders. Thus, suppliers must comply with lead buyers’ expectations to qualify for further orders (see Table 14).

Multinational lead buyers regularly check the availability of different indicators of social dialogues in garment supplier factories, such as the availability of the WPC, welfare officers, worker representatives in WPC, providing suggestion boxes, helplines, etc. (see Figure 1). In cases where buyers identify deviations from their standards within factories, they prepare a Corrective Action Plan for their suppliers to help rectify the situation and improve conditions. If suppliers fail to improve the situation within the deadline, they face different challenges from the buyers. However, lead buyers tend to merely dictate terms to suppliers rather than jointly taking responsibility for the resolution of certain problems with them (see Table 15).

As reflected in interviews, buyers positively intend to see workers’ freedom of speech in supplier factories. However, the buyers’ role is not optimal to ensure freedom of speech. Thus, buyers need to be more active and instrumental in creating social dialogue opportunities in garment supplier factories in the upstream global garment value chain (see Table 16).

Although it is difficult for multinational lead buyers to monitor and control social dialogue standards and opportunities in garment supplier factories, they must enhance their focus with new strategies to increase worker voices (see Figure 1). Moreover, they can increase the priority of worker voices in addition to other social compliance measures (see Table 17).

Multinational lead buyers can discern the reasons why workers are hesitant to voice their concerns. They also have the potential to collaborate with supplier management at the factory level to eliminate or alleviate barriers to worker communication. These buyers can be pivotal in involving all stakeholders in their due functions, ensuring workers are heard through social dialogues within supplier factories (see Figure 1) (Table 18).

However, the following table presents some of the possible short- and long-term roles that multinational lead buyers, retailers and brands could play to increase worker voice through social dialogue in sourcing factories (see Table 19).

This study is partially in line with the studies of Latif and Vang (2021), Reinecke and Donaghey (2021), Sultana et al. (2020), Gallo and Thinyane (2021) and Granath (2016). While previous research has explored social dialogues in garment supplier factories, most of these studies have treated social dialogue as a proxy. Our study considers social dialogue as a key construct in understanding worker voice behaviour using cross-border buyer−supplier dyadic roles in the GVC. The common perspectives that earlier studies considered are voice behaviour for lean implementation, social dialogues for partnership and gender equality, social dialogue as a part of political CSR and digital technologies for social dialogues; previous studies have not investigated why unskilled and semi-skilled, low-literate workers struggle to voice their concerns, as well as the reasons and methods by which multinational lead buyers must take an active role in ensuring worker voices are heard through social dialogues within garment supplier factories. The current study focuses on bipartite social dialogues to understand their impact on worker voices and multinational lead buyers’ role in ensuring social dialogues in their supplier factories.

MNCs, often acting as lead buyers, bear responsibility for modern slavery within GVCs and factory operations, particularly in supplier facilities (Rašković, 2023). Stringer and Michailova (2018) identified three key factors contributing to modern slavery: the complexity of GVCs and their governance, business models that facilitate exploitation and conducive conditions for slavery. This issue predominantly occurs in garment supplier factories where subcontracted production is common, impeding MNCs’ oversight of labour practices, including worker representation through social dialogues (Dunning and Lundan, 2008; Stringer and Michailova, 2018). Consequently, the governance mechanisms used by lead buyers with their suppliers, alongside the organizational capabilities of suppliers and the institutional frameworks within supplier countries, influence the implementation of worker representation in garment supplier factories (Rašković, 2023).

Social dialogues have more potential to contribute to any crisis or disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, labour strikes and counterproductive worker behaviour pandemics (Hoque and Shahinuzzaman, 2021; Katsaliaki et al., 2021; Sultana et al., 2020). COVID-19 represents a type of crisis that we have recently endured and continue to navigate. This pandemic compels garment suppliers to acknowledge the importance of fostering social dialogues between management and workers to create effective response plans incorporating necessary health guidelines like social distancing, mask-wearing, hand hygiene, etc. Suppliers would struggle to tackle any crisis with isolated initiatives without creating space for raising worker voice opportunities through social dialogues. As garment suppliers depend on lead buyers, they need to seek support to develop a sustainable crisis management capability. Multinational lead buyers also need to realize that they need to design their COC in a way so that factory floor workers can get an opportunity to be involved in any sudden resilience initiative as key beneficiaries. Social dialogues are also necessary to mitigate any regular problems and challenges garment suppliers face to deal with their daily operations. For instance, lead buyers need to direct their suppliers to create space for workers’ voices to improve social sustainability performance in supplier factories to meet their expectations. Although the situation has significantly improved due to pressure from multinational lead buyers and suppliers’ initiatives, there are scopes and opportunities to improve.

Multinational lead buyers in global garment value chains create pressures to reduce production cost which force garment suppliers to minimize workers’ wage expenditures (Kano et al., 2020). As a result, working conditions deteriorate and opportunities for workers to voice their concerns diminish in garment supplier factories (Hoque and Rana, 2020). Usually, lead buyers control their suppliers using different mechanisms such as direct monitoring, external certifications, incentives, direct involvement and so on (Modi and Mabert, 2007; Humphrey and Schmitz, 2002). However, lead buyers need to coordinate suppliers to improve social dialogues in supplier factories in addition to controlling them (Zeng et al., 2023). Buyers can also consider incentivizing social dialogue performance to motivate suppliers to create opportunities for social dialogue. In addition, suppliers need to take proactive steps in implementing social dialogue initiatives to attract buyers and differentiate themselves from other competitors in both domestic and global markets.

As garment suppliers have limited capabilities to meet lead buyers’ expectations (Rana et al., 2019), they need to check all possible opportunities to improve their performance to be competitive in the global apparel market. As a key actor in upstream of the global garment value chain, Bangladeshi garment suppliers compete with their counterparts such as China, Vietnam, India, Pakistan and Myanmar to secure orders from multinational buyers showing superior performance. Worker voices through social dialogues can be an important option to enhance suppliers’ performance in some key areas in garment supplier factories, such as labour efficiency, productivity, product quality, production flexibility, counterproductive work behaviour, social and environmental sustainability, supervisor−employee relations and other development areas. Earlier studies such as Latif and Vang (2021) and Bryson et al. (2006) found a positive relationship between worker voices and efficiency, productivity, quality and flexibility. Therefore, buyer−suppliers need to create an opportunity and scope for workers to share their opinions, views and suggestions with the management in supplier factories. Buyers must also confirm social dialogues in supplier factories to receive their expected quality products at a reasonable price within a short lead time. Furthermore, multilateral organizations and NGOs should support buyers and suppliers to keep a decent work environment with workers’ freedom of speech.

Workers must also be concerned about their basic rights to share voices and the reasons behind their ineffective voice behaviour. If workers do not become self-motivated to raise their voices, or if they do not learn how to raise voices, their management will not willingly create the space for them to raise their voices. The management in supplier factories also needs to realize that worker voices not only satisfy workers’ interests but also meet the expectations of suppliers. If suppliers do not encourage workers to share voices using a formal or informal channel, it will affect actors in the upstream and downstream parts of the global garment value chain. For instance, downstream consumers in developed countries are becoming increasingly concerned about workers’ interest in developing countries where garment suppliers are located. They want to know in which environment workers are working, for how many hours, with what occupational health and safety measures and what facilities they have for freedom of speech. Thus, worker voices need to be ensured in garment supplier factories through a well-planned strategic decision to meet the collective interest of all actors in the global garment value chain. The discussion mentioned above has drawn three-sided benefits of the social dialogue. It shows that social dialogue is a way of raising voices that can bring advantages to garment suppliers, garment workers and lead buyers. Thus, the study would like to propose an integrative framework in this regard (see Figure 1).

As Bangladeshi garment workers are mostly illiterate or unskilled, they need a different approach to being involved in social dialogues than workers in garment industries in other countries. Thus, customized context-oriented policies and practices are required to make social dialogues successful. Therefore, lead buyers need to offer a customized COC for each sourcing destination. Relevant stakeholders also need to act to create an opportunity for workers so that they can share their voices freely. As a significant stakeholder, the government of the country can play an active facilitating role by formulating industry-specific and need-based policies for worker voice-raising through social dialogues. Government assistance is necessary to ensure the implementation of the policies through strict enforcement of requisite rules and regulations (Faroque et al., 2021b). In this regard, the government can dedicate different agencies to look after the policies for the sustainability of social dialogues and worker voices in garment supplier factories (Faroque et al., 2021a). Furthermore, other relevant actors in the global garment value chain need to pay attention to increasing social dialogues between workers and the management of supplier factories. For instance, ILO needs to be more active and instrumental so that all actors/stakeholders must comply with the set rules of freedom of speech for workers. Moreover, suppliers must be rewarded for better social dialogue practices and punished for hindering social dialogues in their factories.

Multinational lead buyers have the opportunity to adapt successful platforms from various industries and countries to the garment industry context. For instance, models like Toyota’s supplier support centre, Nissan’s equity position and e-learning platforms used in the auto industry could be implemented to foster interaction between lead buyers and suppliers, as well as facilitate social dialogues between suppliers’ management and workers in garment supplier factories (Modi and Mabert, 2007; Liker and Choi, 2004). Labour unions are one of the platforms that can be used as an effective way to raise worker voices in garment supplier factories. Although it is an acceptable association of workers in different countries, garment supplier firms have a negative perception of labour unions in the garment industry of Bangladesh. As the “Worker Participation Committee” is not a highly effective platform for raising worker voices through social dialogue and labour unions are perceived negatively, buyers need to consider a suitable alternative to these two. Previous research also indicated that various technologies can enhance the efficacy of social dialogues. For instance, “technology-based multilingual mobile apps” have the potential to improve voice-raising opportunities for workers through social dialogues (Gallo and Thinyane, 2021). This type of app may make social dialogues convenient for unskilled and illiterate workers who feel too shy to share their expectations and are unable to explain problems in front of top management of a garment supplier firm. Therefore, garment suppliers can bring the necessary technologies, and buyers can provide the required support to develop suppliers’ technological capabilities.

Multinational buyers have different types of relationships with their suppliers, such as short-term transaction-oriented and long-term collaboration-oriented relationships (Rana et al., 2019). These varied relations may affect buyers’ initiatives differently for supplier development. More established buyers are long-term oriented and take different initiatives for social dialogues and worker voices. However, it is worth noting that not all MNCs necessarily support labour unions or are willing to engage in social dialogue. Buyers alone cannot guarantee social dialogues in supplier factories, highlighting the need for tripartite involvement to enhance worker voices and foster dialogues from various perspectives. Suppliers should explore engaging additional stakeholders, including government bodies such as the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) in Bangladesh, to facilitate social dialogues. By leveraging government support, buyers can fulfill their responsibility of assisting suppliers in this regard. Private initiatives such as the ETI can broaden and intensify their impact in supplier factories by expanding their reach to more garment suppliers and implementing diverse training initiatives aimed at enhancing worker engagement and promoting voices through social dialogue.

Despite Bangladesh’s garment industry having a substantial role in the global garment value chain, workers in garment supplier factories often face limited opportunities to voice their concerns due to the lack of social dialogue platforms. Many stakeholders can be held responsible for these suppressed worker voices, such as multinational lead buyers, suppliers’ management, workers and labour unions within supplier factories, among other parties. The findings of this study demonstrate that space for workers’ voice raising through social dialogue in garment supplier factories is limited for various reasons, and the multinational lead buyers’ role is not optimal in this regard. This study also shows that buyers can take short-term and long-term initiatives to ensure social dialogues. Moreover, this study presents how social dialogues can meet the expectations of multinational buyers and their garment suppliers. However, this study highlights the current situation of worker voices in the garment industry of Bangladesh, the reasons for poor worker voices, the role of multinational lead buyers in ensuring worker voices and the potential benefits from better worker voices. Though all lead buyers have their COC to control the behaviour of garment suppliers, they pay less attention to active social dialogues between workers and supplier management in garment supplier factories. As many industries accept social dialogues as an effective approach to maintaining decent work in factories in developing countries, it is expected that social dialogues would be an opportunity to raise worker voices in garment supplier factories in the upstream value chain. However, previous research has not delved into why garment workers cannot raise their voices, the obstacles that prevent them from expressing their ideas and views and how multinational lead buyers can ensure social dialogues in garment supplier factories to promote worker voices. Using a qualitative research approach, this current study explores that garment workers cannot share their voices due to certain implicit beliefs; supplier management does not welcome worker voices; and multinational lead buyers do not play an active role. This study also shows that lead buyers can significantly ensure worker voices in garment supplier factories through bipartite social dialogues between workers and the management. Furthermore, this study presents that buyers can take short-term initiatives to increase worker voices and long-term initiatives to ensure sustainable worker voices through active participation in social dialogues.

This study contributes to the social dialogue and worker rights literature integrating worker voice and international business literature demonstrating buyers’ role in ensuring social dialogues in supplier factories in the global garment value chain and the potential of workers’ voices to contribute to supplier development in the upstream value chain. Considering a cross-border buyer−supplier business setting, this study contributes theoretically by presenting multinational lead buyers’ initiatives to create scopes and opportunities for worker voices in the export-oriented garment industry in a developing country such as Bangladesh, where suppliers are mostly reacting to lead buyers’ instructions and bound to create social dialogue opportunities for workers if buyers want. Moreover, it contributes to the dynamics of critical relations between management and workers in the garment industry, showing how social dialogues can improve relations for mutual benefits, where workers are mostly unskilled or semi-skilled, and workers’ contributions are crucial for the development and survival of the industry. This study enhances our understanding by outlining how worker voice behaviour in a labour-intensive industry can meet the mutual expectations of workers, export-oriented suppliers and multinational lead buyers. The study findings provide insights into how lead buyers from developed countries can effectively engage in a developing country context. This includes initiatives such as increasing formal audits, conducting regular visits to supplier factories, sharing expertise, enriching COC, holding formal and informal meetings with workers and enhancing compliance transparency. If lead buyers play an active role and workers cooperate with supplier management, the working environment in garment supplier factories will change dramatically and a congenial environment will prevail in the industry where formal institutions are weak. Furthermore, the findings of this study would give a better insight into the management of cross-border buyers and suppliers to realize their roles in mitigating management−worker tensions in suppliers’ factories and buyer−supplier tensions in the global garment/apparel industry. The findings will enhance the knowledge of how participatory management and cooperative attitudes between stakeholders can contribute to the continuous progress of the garment industry. The study’s findings also contribute to practice showing how co-actions between different value chain partners, i.e. buyers and suppliers, suppliers’ management and workers, can be increased for the betterment of the garment industry. Moreover, this study shows the significance of social dialogues in discovering workers’ potential, increasing their efficiency and well-being; mitigate worker unrest and counterproductive behaviour in supplier factories. The findings of this study may act as an eye-opener for the participants in the global garment value chain and the relevant stakeholders in the garment industry to realize their roles in facilitating social dialogues in garment supplier factories in developing countries.

Whereas the garment industry of Bangladesh has more than 4,000 registered garment suppliers, and exports to many countries across different continents, this study considered only two buyers from Europe and only four Bangladeshi garment suppliers. Thus, the generalizability of the findings may be questioned. This study considered only four garment suppliers from Bangladesh’s two garment clusters (Dhaka and Narayanganj). Thus, this study may not depict the whole scenario of the entire industry. Future studies could consider buyers from different continents and suppliers from all garment clusters in Bangladesh for a holistic understanding. In addition, this study only conducted interviews with a limited subset of workers from each supplier factory, and these interviews took place in a controlled factory environment. Thus, the findings of this study may be biased. There may be some psychological dimensions involved in managerial resistance or marginalization of workers’ voices, emanating from culturally acquired norms in Eastern societies, compared to the Western counterparts, which we could not investigate and verify in this research. Future studies could interview workers in their residences outside of the factory premises. As this study concentrated only on the lead buyers’ role to ensure social dialogue in supplier factories, it was difficult to isolate the role of other stakeholders for the same purpose. Thus, future studies could explore the role of different stakeholders such as government, multilateral organizations, NGOs, civil society, etc. Future studies could investigate how worker voices can influence and contribute to garment suppliers’ economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Part A: Preliminary/Qualifying Questions for Buyers and Suppliers

Q1. What is your name and position in your company?

Q2. What is your experience in your current company and your total experience in the garment industry?

Q3. What are your roles and responsibilities in your company?

Q4. What type of products does your company produce/sell?

Q5. What is the size of your company?

Q6. Where do you export/import? Who are your key buyers/suppliers?

Q7. How many employees and workers do you have?

Q8. What is the ratio of male and female employees/workers?

Part B: Questions for Supplier Management

Q1. Do you think that workers’ voice is necessary and significant for garment suppliers? If yes, explain how and why.

Q2. Do you think that workers’ voices can be raised through social dialogues? If yes, explain how and why.

Q3. What is the status of social dialogues in your factory?

Q4. Who is involved in the social dialogues?

Q5. What issues do social dialogues cover?

Q6. Do you think that social dialogues have a significant impact on the working environment of your firm? If yes, how?

Q7. What opportunities do you provide your workers to engage in social dialogues?

Q8. Do you think workers can contribute significantly to your development through social dialogues?

Q9. What role are multinational lead buyers playing in ensuring social dialogues in your factory?

Q10. Do you think that the buyers’ current role is sufficient? If not, how can buyers increase their role and in which areas?

Part C: Questions for Workers

Q1. Do you know anything about social dialogue and workers’ voices? If yes, share what you know.

Q2. Do you think that workers have the potential to contribute to suppliers’ development?

Q3. Do you raise your voice when necessary? If yes, share when and how.

Q4. Can you share your thoughts with your supervisor and managers freely? If no, share why not.

Q5. How do youraiseyourvoice?

Q6. What are the consequences of raising your voice?

Q7. Do you think that your management considers your opinions and suggestions?

Q8. If you cannot raise your voice, please share why not and who restricts you from sharing.

Q9. Do you think that the labour union/WPC is not playing their role? If yes, share why and how.

Q10. What are your suggestions to raise your voice through social dialogue in garment supplier factories?

Part D: Questions for Buyers/Brands/retailers

Q1. Do you have any idea about social dialogue and workers’ voices? If yes, explain in brief what you know.

Q2. Do you have any social dialogue practices in your company?

Q3. Do you want to ensure social dialogue in your supplier factories?

Q4. Do you care about worker voices rising in supplier factories?

Q5. Do you have any initiative in supplier factories to ensure social dialogues? If yes, share the initiatives in detail.

Source: By authors