Even if history never quite repeats itself, it suffices to look around, at recent events in France and in several rich countries, at the refugee flows, at the evolution to more violence, at the tendency of an increasing part of the population to opt for extreme right and for autocratic leadership. It is very clear: a growing number of people feel disconnected. Even having an employment does not help them to rise above the poverty. Social mobility and meritocracy do not work for them at all, they are the first victims of climate disasters and they feel victimized by climate regulations and the many challenges of these times.

The question is when the pressure will be scaring enough to get the world moving again, as was the case with the foundation of the ILO and the Philadelphia Declaration. Apparently, the consequences of a serious financial crisis, a pandemic, the current wars and widespread discontent are not enough to make governments and economic powers realize that a new kind of policy is needed to save fair governance and democracy.

I agree with Francis Maupain that the world doesn’t take social justice seriously. Look to what happens in reality with promises and commitments, for example the 17 goals of the UN-2030 agenda and the conclusions of the climate conferences.

The analysis is right. The juxtaposition of international organizations in the development of multilateralism was not innocent. This position was reinforced by the Washington consensus with the unconditional choice for the free market which has shifted the focus in several international organizations away from social justice.

Decent work, social protection and the future of work were interpreted in a different way, fundamentally different. We also saw how the same governments took different positions in the ILO, compared with the WTO and the IFIs. IMF researchers who wrote articles about the importance of social dialogue, solidary wage policies and social security for a country's economy could not prevent their organization from forcing countries to cut sharply in education or to reduce or privatize social protection in exchange for loans, which usually led to societal catastrophes.

As strongly as the Declaration of Philadelphia stated that economic and financial policies should be judged according to their effect on social justice, in reality economic and financial policies were entrusted to organizations with other objectives under the control of some great powers.

I was able to participate in discussions with the IMF, the WB and the OECD and had the opportunity with ITUC to promote workers analysis and views to policy makers at G7 and G20 meetings. Undoubtedly useful. But I had to conclude that workers’ rights are only taken seriously by one organisation: the ILO. The standards and the supervisory system remain strongholds, and although there are weaknesses and shortcomings, I cannot imagine the situation in which the workers would find themselves, if they did not have the ILO.

Francis Maupain rightly refers to some breakthroughs, where he discreetly - and to his credit - forgets to mention that he was involved. Towards the end of the Cold War there were tendencies within the three constituents of the ILO to see more benefits in a strong WTO and in a trade policy with social clauses. It didn’t work for the reasons we all know. Progressively and as a kind of alternative the idea gained ground that some labour rights are truly fundamental and must be universally respected, regardless of a country's level of development. The Office has taken risks, made proposals, consulted discreetly and in 1998 the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work was adopted. Eight fundamental conventions became binding on all members and now together with the 2014 Protocol on Forced Labour and two conventions on safety and health, there are 11 binding instruments. I think that the 1998 Declaration is a beacon, for the future too.

In 2019, social justice was the objective of the Global Commission on the Future of Work what is clearly mentioned in its report. The Commission broke through the classical boundaries in bringing together interdependent challenges by proposing an integrated human centred approach to globalization and de-globalization, the ecological and climate transition, which was seen as the main challenge, growing inequality, demographics and migration, automation and digitization up to and including AI, the new organisation of work and quality of work and the current business models. The 10 recommendations and actions included a universal labour guarantee built on the Fundamental Principles. The Centenary Declaration did follow on one important subject, the safe and healthy workplaces. There are two more to go, the limitation of working hours and an effective living wage, which is essential to reach a fair distribution.

It is through that more could be done with the annual recurrent discussions on the strategic objectives of the 2008 Declaration on social justice for a fair globalisation. For example, the recommendations of the Global Commission of 2019, which offered an answer on the interconnected challenges of our times, could inspire the three groups to more concrete conclusions that could lead much more to legal initiatives or other type of actions on the subjects of these times.

In terms of content:

It is about the universal labour guarantee.

The just transition linked to climate and to digitisation and AI.

The platform economy, which is already on the agenda for the coming years.

And I would like to briefly mention the need for a binding treaty on supply chain due diligence. There is no consensus about it, but for me this subject is much closer to the role of the ILO than to the Human Rights Council. Especially because of the supervisory system which is better guaranteed through the mechanisms of the ILO. It will not be an easy task, but social justice requires ambition.

Indeed, the role of the ILO as legislator remains a crucial strength of the ILO. The question is how far, governments and social partners are willing and able to go. That the sense of urgency is not there yet, is shown by the rather weak reaction to DG Gilbert Houngbo's proposal on the Global Coalition for social justice from the other international organizations, but also from the three ILO-constituents.

The implication of the other international organizations is only partly a matter of their managements, who will give a nice, friendly ILO-oriented speech if asked, but it are mainly their constituents who have to give their full support, and these are the governments.

I lack the time to analyse the attitudes and weaknesses of the three constituents, and I recognize them. But my fear is mostly with the employers group. As much as it was the defender of tripartism and social dialogue during the Cold War, so strongly does it force the other groups to fight every ILC only for mentioning in the conclusions some of the basic principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. A belief in the fundamentals of the ILO is essential.

The drive must also come from the ILO, the Office itself, going further in proposals than what can be expected from the Grand Common Denominator of the Constituents. The methodology is important too, maybe some inspiration can be found in what happened in 1989, based on proposals of the Office, followed by informal and delicate consultations, adaptations with trial and error, and bringing the three groups together the moment there is a viable basis of consensus.

Times as these need ambition of everyone. Waiting for the other will never bring a solution. The ILO has the legal potential, it is time to use it.