Cividep’s Pilot Project Shows Potential for Strengthening Workplace Relationships Through Structured Dialogue

By Pradeepan Ravi, Antony Raju V & Preethi Gowda

What happens when workers and management sit down together to discuss workplace concerns? Is it possible to have genuine dialogue? Cividep India’s pilot project sought to answer these questions by facilitating structured dialogue between factory management and workers in two garment factories in Karnataka.

Effective dialogue is crucial for improving working conditions and for mature industrial relations. However, power asymmetry and a lack of will to engage, among other challenges act as barriers to meaningful conversations. In the last two years (2023-2024), Cividep India participated in the Factory Support Programme (FSP), collaborating with two fashion brands and their supplier factories. The pilot project explored whether the process of dialogue could be built to address workplace concerns. The pilot offered valuable insights while revealing the challenges of sustaining these efforts. The lessons learned from this project have contributed to two significant initiatives: Mondiaal FNV’s study on the role of Works Committees in Indian factories and the Netherlands Social and Economic Council’s (SER) ‘Meaningful Dialogue in International Supply Chains’ project. These efforts are shaping broader discussions on meaningful stakeholder engagement within global value chains.

The Need for Effective Statutory Committees as Dialogue Mechanisms 

Factories in India must establish several statutory committees under the Factories Act and the PoSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Act. These include the Works Committee, Grievance Redressal Committee, Safety Committee, Canteen Committee, and the Internal Committee (IC). The committees are supposed to facilitate communication between workers and management, addressing workplace issues through formal channels. However, these committees often fall short as they can be management-led, and the focus tends to be on compliance rather than fostering genuine dialogue. This often leads to ineffective processes that fail to address the real concerns of workers.

Given these challenges, Cividep’s pilot project focused on improving communication between workers and management, rather than engaging directly with the existing committees in the factories. The goal was to create conditions for dialogue first, through facilitated workshops, and secure commitments from the factory management and brands that they would eventually take forward the dialogue process through the statutory committees, making them sustainable in the long run.

Structured Dialogue Workshops

Cividep organised four workshops, each held in two garment factories. The first workshop was with the factory management, encouraging reflection on broader challenges faced by the garment industry, as well as specific concerns of the management such as worker absenteeism and turnover.  The workshop emphasised that dialogue as a method can be beneficial to both workers and management. The sessions also discussed the need for constructive dialogue, allowing both sides to express their views and listen to each other. 

The second workshop was organised with workers to understand their challenges and facilitate open communication with the management. Through interactive activities, workers were encouraged to discuss concerns related to production, health and safety, and amenities inside the factory. While some workers were initially hesitant to speak up, the barriers were largely overcome by the end of the workshop. 

This was followed by a third workshop, in which the Cividep team shared workers’ concerns with the management emphasising the need for mutual dialogue between the two parties. 

The fourth workshop brought both parties together where they discussed absenteeism, worker turnover, production targets, and the need for improved amenities. Although maintaining momentum to continue the dialogue was chall

enging, some productive discussions took place. A final meeting with brand representatives and the factory management discussed how to institutionalise dialogue through formal mechanisms, acknowledging that continued effort and commitment from all parties are essential to promote good workplace relationships between workers and management and to resolve differences.

What Contributed to the possibility of dialogue in these Workshops? 

The limited success of the workshops in ensuring constructive dialogue between workers and management was greatly aided by pre-dialogue activities. Interactive methods such as ice-breakers, team-building activities, and role-plays were carefully designed to manage the inherent power asymmetry between workers and management to some extent, helping to ease tensions and clarify the expectations of both parties. Despite some heated arguments, the workshops led to a common understanding of some key issues. A crucial factor in this process was the dialogue facilitators’ efforts to build confidence within the supplier management team about the process. This was achieved through transparent communication, keeping them updated at every stage, and involving them in reviewing the workshop modules and providing feedback.

Outcomes and Key Learnings

While the workshops offered valuable insights, they highlighted areas that need further attention for credible change. At one factory, the management committed to reinstating the crèche facility and increasing nurse visits, while in the other, improvements to worker transportation were considered. However, the overall outcome was uneven, with a mixed commitment to continuing the dialogue process. Despite some improved communication between workers and management, maintaining long-term momentum remained a challenge.

A key takeaway was the importance of creating conducive spaces for dialogue, where power asymmetry could be acknowledged and managed. In these spaces, an impartial mediator who understands workplace dynamics can initiate dialogue where both management and worker representatives can communicate openly. The mediator’s role is to guide the conversation, promote equal participation, and address biases, helping both sides, especially workers to voice concerns without fear of retaliation while allowing the management to hear critical feedback and respond to it constructively. 

While the workshops sparked meaningful conversations, power asymmetry persisted, largely due to the absence of strong worker leadership and worker representation. One worker noted that these efforts would only succeed with the involvement of worker leaders, emphasising the need for effective worker representation. Although the workshops helped break down some barriers between workers, supervisors, and management, tensions lingered.

Time was another challenge. Despite the brief sessions, both workers and supervisors struggled to find time to participate in the workshops. Supervisors, under pressure to meet production targets, were frequently distracted. Another challenge was the lack of proper meeting spaces inside factories. The workshops were held in workers’ canteens, where they usually have lunch, making it hard to have a conducive physical space for the dialogue processes. These challenges reflect the broader constraints workers and supervisors face in balancing work demands with participatory initiatives.

Gender dynamics also played a role. With mostly male supervisors and managers, and predominantly female workers, the gender divide added another layer to the power asymmetry. Women workers are often hesitant to speak up. Cividep team had to be especially mindful of this, ensuring women workers’ voices were heard and respected.

The pilot also highlighted the need for long-term commitment and robust, legitimate mechanisms for ongoing dialogue. Statutory committees, as currently set up, often fail to facilitate workplace dialogue. While collaborative efforts like this can bridge some gaps, true transformation depends on the commitment of brands and factory management to engage with local dialogue mechanisms and encourage worker representation in factories. In addition, the role of the state labour department in monitoring and ensuring that statutory committees in factories are properly constituted and function effectively is crucial.

Way Forward: Sustaining Dialogue for Addressing Workplace Concerns

The pilot project demonstrated the need for workplace dialogue in fostering better communication between workers and management. While positive outcomes were achieved—such as management’s commitment to address some worker concerns—the key to sustaining these efforts lies in the long-term commitment of both brands and factory management. Essential takeaways include commitment and accountability from brands and manufacturers, active worker leadership and representation, legitimate statutory committees, robust labour administration, and conducive spaces within factories to facilitate communication and dialogue. Moving forward, integrating the dialogue processes into existing structures, such as statutory committees, will be crucial for addressing workplace conditions.

Cividep is keen to build on the insights from this pilot to continue advancing the conversation on workplace dialogue. The experience gained has informed ongoing work with Mondiaal FNV and SER, contributing to global discussions on responsible business conduct and meaningful stakeholder engagement. These initiatives reinforce the need for structured, legitimate and ongoing dialogue as a key component of strong industrial relations.

Ultimately, this pilot underscores that meaningful worker-management dialogue is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process that requires continuous investment in mechanisms, processes, people, and infrastructure. While commitment and accountability are crucial, real change depends on the readiness of supplier management to confront challenging issues and allow for worker representation. Furthermore, the role of the state is key in ensuring that the statutory mechanisms are regularly monitored and function effectively. As brands attempt to explore approaches to responsible business conduct in alignment with the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and other regulations, they must prioritise strengthening local statutory mechanisms in collaboration with their suppliers. This ensures workplaces are not only compliant but also genuinely supportive of workers’ rights and welfare. 

  • Pilot Overview: Structured dialogue between workers and management in two garment factories in Karnataka
  • Objectives: Improve conditions for communication between workers and management
  • Positive Outcomes: Management conveyed they would consider reopening crèches, increasing nurse visits, and improving transport facilities in factories
  • Challenges: Power asymmetry, lack of worker representation, weak worker leadership, and lack of mutually negotiated time for dialogue 
  • Key Recommendations: Legitimate statutory committees, recognise worker leadership and representation, and commitment from suppliers and brands towards ongoing dialogue
  •  Additional Insights: Lessons from the pilot have been integrated into Mondiaal FNV’s study on Works Committees in Indian factories and the Netherlands Social and Economic Council’s (SER) ‘Meaningful Dialogue in International Supply Chains’ project
  • Conclusion: Structured dialogue is necessary to address workplace concerns, but needs legitimate statutory committees and commitment from brands and suppliers