Reimagining Labor Governance in Global Value Chains: Lessons from the Mathadi Model for Adapting Wage Boards to Transnational Labor Governance

There is growing evidence that private corporate and multi-stakeholder initiatives-often termed 'Supply Chain Solutions'-are failing to address the social and environmental challenges arising from the governance of Global Value Chains (GVCs). GVCs themselves challenge traditional labor laws and employment regulations due to their multi-tiered supply structures, the dynamics of private power, and the cross-border reach of contracting firms. These factors render traditional labor law tools largely inaccessible or irrelevant to workers in the lower tiers of GVCs. Efforts to regulate labor in GVCs, such as corporate Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) legislation, have fallen short. These top-down approaches, typically originating in the Global North, lack input from affected communities in the Global South, exclude meaningful worker participation, and often lack enforcement mechanisms. This raises a critical question: can labor law address the harsh working conditions created by GVC dynamics under supply chain capitalism? This Article explores whether localized tripartite models of labor regulation-specifically wage boards that institutionalize bargaining between unions, employer associations, and state representatives to set working conditions, social security, and wages-could be scaled up to address the low labor standards in GVCs. One particularly promising model is the Mathadi Boards in Maharashtra, India, which have successfully improved the working conditions of informal workers who carry loads on their heads in markets, construction sites, industrial sites, and ports. This Article investigates whether the Mathadi Board model could be adapted to protect precarious workers in global and domestic value chains in the Economic South and North. It also examines which institutional features of the Mathadi Boards are most transferable to GVC labor regulation and which features are specific to the historical and social context of headload carriers in Maharashtra. The Mathadi model offers important lessons, particularly in its approach to multi-tiered bargaining. We propose adapting the Mathadi Board model into a multistakeholder bargaining forum. This forum would include local unions representing workers, global union confederations providing perspectives from other value chains, state representatives, and both local employers and buyers. Such multi-tiered wage boards have the potential to redistribute power and funds across different links in the supply chain. The boards would make public many issues that are currently addressed privately within supply chain solutions and provide enforcement mechanisms that are missing in most current models. Enforcement can be more robust under this model, with dedicated personnel to impose state-backed sanctions, unions wielding collective power to sanction violating employers, and buyers able to exert economic pressure on non-compliant suppliers. The model would be economically self-sustaining and autonomous, funded through levies collected from suppliers and buyers. While it may raise labor costs for suppliers, these costs would be shared by buyers, thus distributing the financial burden. Finally, one of the key strengths of the proposed model is its localization. By operating under the laws of 'host countries,' it avoids the pitfalls of HRDD laws currently proliferating in the OECD, which often fail to reflect local realities. This localized approach enhances the model's relevance and effectiveness in regulating workers' rights in GVCs. In conclusion, this Article argues that multi-tiered wage boards, modeled on the Mathadi system, offer a viable solution to addressing the inequities in GVCs, providing a more effective and equitable approach than current supply chain solutions.