Industrial relations in the privatised coal industry: continuity, change and contradictions.

This study seeks both to describe and account for the patterns of industrial relations which have emerged in the UK coal industry since privatisation in 1994. In doing so, it also aims to address some of the wider questions concerning the relationship between ownership and industrial relations. A series of hypotheses are advanced concerning how changes in ownership might affect industrial relations within the industry, and whether such changes would have positive or negative implications for organised labour. A case study approach is utilised to analyse labour relations developments at a number of collieries, and it is shown that the industrial relations strategies adopted by management within the new coal enterprises have had a determining effect upon the patterns of labour relations within the privati sed industry. This study also demonstrates that the emergent pattern of labour relations in the privatised industry is characterised by both continuity and change. However, whilst continuity with the patterns of labour relations established during the final decade of public ownership is shown to have had negative implications for organised labour within the industry, the changes associated with privatisation are demonstrated to have been a more ambivalent force. Change has, in different contexts, had some positive implications for organised labour, but in the majority of cases, the implications for labour have been negative. Overall, therefore, this study concludes that privatisation has had a significant influence upon industrial relations within the coal industry, and that organised labour has been detrimentally affected by these developments.

Exploring the contradictions between Brazil’s role in the global climate change regime and its position in regional environmental governance.

Similar to other developing countries Brazil’s position on climate change emphasises national sovereignty and the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. However, in recent years Brasilia has also announced voluntary reductions in carbon emissions, making Brazil one of the leading emerging countries in its approach to climate change, while enhancing its international reputation and legitimacy. Compared to its neighbours Brazil has older and more developed domestic environmental institutions and movements. Yet, Brazil’s global leadership on climate change does not translate into a similar role in regional environmental governance. In the 2000s Argentina and Uruguay became embroiled in a bitter environmental conflict involving a shared natural resource, the Uruguay River. Brazil not only refused to mediate, but also kept it out of regional forums insisting on the conflict’s bilateral nature. Furthermore, Mercosur’s environmental agenda has progressively become eroded while Brazilian-led Unasur lacks an institutional framework dedicated to environmental concerns. This indicates that environmental concerns are far more important for Brazil’s global image than for its role as a regional leader. It also highlights the limited scope of the climate change negotiations which focus narrowly on reducing carbon emissions, without taking wider concerns over energy generation or environmental and social justice into account. Brazil has promoted hydropower generation, portrayed as “clean” energy. Yet, these projects have sparked strong domestic and regional civil society opposition due to their social and environmental costs which make it difficult for Brazil to claim a regional leadership role on environmental concerns.