Trade and Labour: Rethinking The Multilateral Conversation
In his opening intervention to the Geneva Dialogue on Trade and Labour, held during Geneva Trade Week 2026 as part of the WTO Public Forum, Matthew Wilson, Ambassador to Austria, Italy & Switzerland; Permanent Representative of Barbados to the UN, WTO & other International Organisations in Geneva, and Chair of the ILO Governing Body for 2026-2027, examines the increasingly urgent relationship between trade and labour. He highlights tensions around competitiveness, labour standards and protectionism, and the need for greater coherence as the world of work changes.
Read on as Ambassador Wilson sets out the key questions shaping the evolving relationship between trade and labour at the multilateral level.
This article forms part of TASC Platform’s Geneva Dialogue on Trade and Labour blog series, drawing out research and perspectives shared during the 2026 Dialogue at the WTO Public Forum.
Good morning,
I am certain that everyone in this room agrees that there is a relationship between trade and labour. I am also equally sure that there is no agreement in this room and certainly not outside of this room as to how and where to comprehensively address this relationship between trade and labor at the multilateral level.
At the regional level, and in a number of bilateral agreements, we have always seen trade, labour and many other elements like sustainability, gender, and human rights, sit in the same agreement. This is, however, not the case at the global level.
Instead, we have many discussions about the inter-relationships of all of these elements, but that discussion often stops at the point of rulemaking, of real accountability, and sometimes even transparency.
“We have two organizations which have these two terms, trade, and labor, in their title. World Trade Organization and the International Labour Organization so what exactly is the problem?”
I imagine one of the problems is that increasingly some are seeing labor policy being used as an important part of trade competitiveness. In other words, it is not just about working conditions and labour rights. It is also about wages and labour costs and the impact that they have on the cost competitiveness of products and services, and hence the competitiveness of countries in international markets.
There is another section of the community that looks at it from a more people-centred perspective:
“is globalization delivering on its promise of greater prosperity for all working people and enterprises, not just the select few? And do trade rules, regulations, and the actual practice of trade, including the production cycle respect the rights of workers and ‘level the playing field’ for enteprises?”
Hence there should be no forced labor, there should be no modern day slavery, there should be equal pay for equal work, there should be freedom of association and collective bargaining, there should be adherence to occupational health and safety standards and fairness within the supply chains, and as seen by the recent successful conclusion of the negotiations at the ILO on the platform economy, the new gig economy must also follow certain rules and regulations.
The overriding problem has often been one of lack of trust about how some of these concerns could be misused to gain a competitive edge, while eroding the competitive edge of others.
For decades, I believe there was a tacit understanding between the trade and labour communities that at the global level, the two organizations responsible for the rulemaking and the norm setting around these areas would be the central architects. But that there was much value in greater collaboration and exchange of information between these agencies.
That has worked to a point. But with rapid digitalization and automation, the growth of the platform economy, and accelerating climate change transforming the world of work there is increasing urgency to better connect these two worlds and ensure that they work towards similar goals i.e. development and growth.
Now all of you know labour standards are not part of the WTO’s enforceable rules and disciplines.
At the 1996 Singapore Ministerial Conference members drew a clear and distinctive line between trade and labour, affirming that the ILO is the competent body to set and deal with international labour standards. At the same time, they reaffirmed WTO members' commitment to internationally recognized core labour standards and rejected the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes.
But we know the debate did not end there. Some developed countries have continued to argue that core labour standards - such as freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the elimination of forced and child labour - should have a place within the WTO framework as part of ensuring fair competition.
And many developing countries feel that this push is just a form of protectionism and yet another one of the methods used to keep developing countries on the lower rungs of economic growth.
I hope today we will get a sense on where you stand on this.
As many of you know the ILO is the only tripartite organization in the UN system, it brings the voices of governments, employers and workers to the same table. It is a reminder that economic policy ultimately has to work for all three. This is unlike the WTO where it is just governments at the negotiating table. The question that could be asked is whether we could or should negotiate labour commitments in the absence of this tripartite configuration?
Recent ILO analysis points to three areas that deserve particular attention:
First, trade matters for job quality.
Trade can provide an important pathway to more formal and better paid work. But opportunity remains deeply uneven - across countries, enterprises and workers.
Second, the future of trade is green and digital. Something we have heard from both the ILO DG and the WTO DG
So where will the jobs of the future come from? What skills will workers need? And how do we ensure these jobs are decent and productive? The ILO's work on just transitions reminds us that environmental and technological change can only succeed if workers and enterprises are equipped to navigate it.
Third, we need greater coherence across international institutions.
Despite messages to the contrary, international cooperation has become more important, not less. Trade does not operate in isolation, and its benefits are not automatic. Trade, labour, industrial and investment policies increasingly intersect.
Dialogue between the ILO and WTO communities matters
The question is no longer whether trade and labour should interact, but:
How we make that interaction work better. How can trade deliver better employment outcomes?
How can labour institutions strengthen productivity, competitiveness and resilience?
How do we ensure that the gains from globalization, digitalization and decarbonization are more broadly shared?
And crucially,
How can the ILO and WTO work together in practical ways that respond to the realities facing workers, employers and governments?
I hope today's conversation will help advance that discussion. I look forward to hearing your perspectives and to a rich exchange of ideas.
The Trade and Labour Programme convenes stakeholders across trade and labour research, policy and practice to examine how economic transitions can deliver more just and inclusive outcomes. Through fieldwork, multistakeholder dialogue, and policy engagement, the programme is building momentum for a global trade system that is socially responsive, economically resilient, and fit for the future of work, and the future of working together.
📬 Interested in joining this dialogue? Get in touch with us.