As it happens, I've just spent the morning reviewing CAI labour and environment clauses. The CAI provisions on labour (Sub-Section 3) reaffirm the parties’ “right to regulate” (Section IV, Articles 1-2); require the parties to “strive” to ensure laws provide for “high levels” of environmental and labour protection; and recognise that it is “inappropriate” to promote investment by reducing environmental or labour rights protection (Section IV, Sub-Section 2, Article 1, and Sub-Section 3, Article 1). The latter two clauses establish significant statements of principle, but their wording makes them hard to enforce.

Other CAI commitments require the parties not to waive or derogate from their environmental or labour laws, or fail to effectively enforce these laws, in order to encourage investment. These provisions are more directly enforceable, but their effectiveness depends on national law: if this sets the bar low, investments that adhere to it could still cause harm. The “right to regulate” clauses make it clear that each party has the right “to establish its own levels of domestic labour and environmental protection” (Section IV, Sub-Section 2, Article 1 and Sub-Section 3, Article 1), though the parties must “strive” towards “high levels” of protection.

On labour rights, the CAI also requires each party to “work towards the ratification of the ILO fundamental Conventions” it has not yet ratified, and to “make continued and sustained efforts on its own initiative to pursue ratification of the fundamental ILO Conventions No 29 and 105”, which deal with forced labour. Worded in reciprocal language, these clauses primarily reflect concerns about labour rights in China, which is yet to ratify four of the eight “fundamental” ILO Conventions: Conventions No. 29 and 105 on forced labour, and No. 87 and 98 on freedom of association and collective bargaining. Thus, CAI's ratification commitments only establish “best-effort” obligations, without defining deadlines and lacking any legal teeth.

I also wonder, do we really think that this H&M debacle changes the EU stance? Reading between the lines of CAI, it seems the compromise has already been reached and the decision is to work with China on China's terms.