Trade, Labour Markets and the Environment

Part of the Palgrave Studies in Public Health Policy Research book series (PSPHPR)


New trade agreements often include measures promising protection of labour rights and the environment. The section on labour describes how labour rights are said to be protected in such agreements and how (or if) the inclusion of these rights within trade treaties improves labour market outcomes. A key weakness in such provisions is that they become enforceable only if a country lowers its existing labour standards to gain a trade or investment advantage. The section on the environment reaches a similar conclusion. Although having some potential and healthful value, the protections such chapters are said to afford remain secondary to trade concerns. This chapter considers the broader question: are trade treaties the best place in which to locate or enforce labour and environmental protection measures?


Labour markets and trade Labour rights Environmental treaties Environmental protection Trade-related labour and environmental disputes 


  1. 1.
    Benach J, Muntaner C, Santana V. Employment conditions and health inequalities: final report to the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Employment Conditions Knowledge Network (EMCONET); 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muntaner C, Solar O, Vanroelen C, Martínez JM, Vergara M, Santana V, et al. Unemployment, informal work, precarious employment, child labor, slavery, and health inequalities: pathways and mechanisms. Int J Health Serv. 2010;40(2):281–95. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schrecker T. Labor markets, equity, and social determinants of health. In: Labonté R, Schrecker T, Packer C, Runnels V, editors. Globalization and health: pathways, evidence, and policy. New York and London: Routledge; 2009. p. 81–104.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Growth and poverty eradication: why addressing inequality matters. Geneva: UNCTAD; 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Bank. Trade (% of GDP) [Internet]. The World Bank; n.d. [cited 2019 Jan 6].
  6. 6.
    Capaldo J, Izurieta A. Trading down: unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Medford, MA: Tufts University; 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosnick D. Gains from trade? The net effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on U.S. wages. Washington, DC: Centre for Economic and Policy Research; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rose SJ. Is foreign trade the cause of manufacturing job losses? [Internet]. Urban Institute; 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 15].
  9. 9.
    Hufbauer GC, Zhiyaou LL. The payoff to America from globalization: a fresh look with a focus on costs to workers. Policy brief 17-16. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics; 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott RE. Heading south: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA. 2011 [cited 2019 Feb 18]; Briefing Paper No. 308.
  11. 11.
    Floyd D. NAFTA’s winners and losers [Internet]. Investopedia; 2018, October 10 [cited 2019 Feb 18].
  12. 12.
    Sapiro M. Why trade matters. Policy Paper 2014-03. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Labonté R, Stuckler D. The rise of neoliberalism: how bad economics imperils health and what to do about it. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(3):312. Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Labour Organization. Promoting decent work and protecting fundamental principles and rights at work in export processing zones: report for discussion at the meeting of experts to promote decent work and protection of fundamental principles and rights at work for workers in export processing zones [Internet]. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 10]. Table 1.1, Key definitions used by international institutions; p. 4.
  15. 15.
    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Enhancing the contribution of export processing zones to the Sustainable Development Goals: an analysis of 100 EPZs and a framework for sustainable economic zones. Geneva: UNCTAD; 2015.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Labour Organization. Decent work [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 18].
  17. 17.
    Raworth K. Trading away our rights: women working in global supply chains. Oxford: Oxfam; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakner C, Milanovic B. Global income distribution: from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the Great Recession. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper; 2013 Dec 1. Report No.: WPS6719. 10.1596/1813-9450-6719.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wamala S, Kawachi I. Globalization and women’s health. In: Wamala S, Kawachi I, editors. Globalization and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 171–84.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benach J, Muntaner C. Precarious employment and health: developing a research agenda. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(4):276–7. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benach J, Vives A, Amable M, Vanroelen C, Tarafa G, Muntaner C. Precarious employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):229–53. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gresser E. Labor and environment in trade since NAFTA: activists have achieved less, and more, than they realize. Wake Forest Law Rev. 2010;45:491–525.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    International Labour Organization. ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work [Internet]. Geneva: International Labor Organization; 1998 [cited 2019 Feb 18].
  24. 24.
    Embassy of Canada to Colombia. Fifth annual report on Human Rights and Trade Agreement [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Jan 6].
  25. 25.
    Gindin S. NAFTA renewed. Now what? Canadian dimension [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 May 25]; 52(3).
  26. 26.
    Ciuriak D, Dadkhah A, Xiao J. Taking the measure of the TPP as negotiated [Internet]. Ciuriak Consulting; 2016 [cited 2019 Jan 6].
  27. 27.
    McNamara C, Labonte R. Trade, labour markets and health: a prospective policy analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Int J Health Serv. 2017;47(2):277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Labonte R, Schram A, Ruckert A. The Trans Pacific Partnership: is it everything we feared for health? Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(8):487–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruckert A, Schram A, Labonte R, Friel S, Gleeson D, Thow AM. Policy coherence, health and the sustainable development goals: a health impact assessment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Crit Public Health. 2017;27(1):86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kohler P, Storm S. CETA without blinders: how cutting ‘Trade Costs and More’ will cause unemployment, inequality and welfare losses. GDAE Working Paper 16-03, September 2016. Somerville, MA: Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University; 2016.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Confederation Syndicat European Trade Union. New EU framework on public procurement: ETUC key points for the transposition of directive 2014/24/EU [Internet]. Brussels: European Trade Union Confederation; 2014 [cited 2019 Feb 18].
  32. 32.
    Kabeer N. Globalization, labor standards, and women’s rights: dilemmas of collective (in) action in an interdependent world. Fem Econ. 2008;10(1):3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pablo LG. Trade agreements and their relation to labour standards: the current situation. Geneva, Switzerland: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development; 2009. Report No.: 3.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cross C. Legitimising an unsustainable approach to trade: a discussion paper on sustainable development provisions in EU Free Trade Agreements. Berlin: International Centre for Trade Union Rights; 2017.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C, Boltz F, Capon AG, de Sousa Dias BF, et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015;386:1973–2028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Myers SS. Planetary health: protecting human health on a rapidly changing planet. Lancet. 2017;390:2860–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    World Trade Organization. Early years: emerging environment debate in GATT/WTO [Internet]. World Trade Organization; n.d. [cited 2019 Jan 6].
  38. 38.
    Tamiotti L, Teh R, Kulacoglu V, Olhoff A, Simmons B, Abaza H. Trade and climate change: WTO-UNEP report [Internet]. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme, World Trade Organization; 2009 [cited 2019 Feb 18].
  39. 39.
    Neumayer E. The WTO and the environment: its past record is better than critics believe, but the future outlook is bleak. Glob Environ Polit. 2004;4(3):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aspinwall M. Learning from the experience of NAFTA labor and environmental governance. Forbes [Internet]. 2017 Aug 10 [cited 2019 Jan 6].
  41. 41.
    Karpilow Q, Solomon I, Calderón AV, Pérez-Rocha M. NAFTA: 20 years of costs to communities and the environment [Internet]. Sierra Club, Sierra Club Canada, Mexican Action Network on Free Trade, Institute for Policy Studies and Council of Canadians; 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 6].
  42. 42.
    Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: University of Michigan; 1984. 253 pp.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Government of Canada. Text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 14].
  44. 44.
    Morin J-F, Nadeau RG. Environmental gems in trade agreements. little-known clauses for Progressive Trade Agreements [Internet]. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation; [cited 2019 Feb 18].

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology and Public HealthLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations