Matrix Assessment Tool Introduction Matrix Example

Hypothetical Demonstration of the Matrix Framework
En Español

The matrix framework can be used to assess compliance with a single core labor standard — in this example, freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining — for a hypothetical country.

It uses the 37 principal indicators discussed in the report: 21 "A" indicators for evaluating the extent to which a country's system of laws and regulations are in compliance with international norms, 13 "B" indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of a government's performance in implementing compliance, and 3 "C" indicators for overall outcomes. Figure 2 shows how one assessor might evaluate the legal framework in the country, government performance in implementing compliance, and overall outcomes. Figure 3 shows how a second assessor — or a critic of the first assessor — evaluates the same data.

Figure 2: Hypothetical assessment of country X's compliance with freedom of association and right to collective bargaining by assessor A.

Figure 3: Hypothetical assessment of country X's compliance with freedom of association and right to collective bargaining by assessor B.

What has been accomplished by utilizing the matrix framework? It leads both assessors through an extensive review of what the committee considers the major indicators of compliance. Whether each assessor has undertaken with the same degree of thoughtful integrity, and brought the same degree of expertise, to this task, as opposed to engaging in a mere pro forma check-off of the lists of indicators, is of course unknowable. In light of this, the format for structured comparison shows both assessors — and outside observers — where the divergences lie, and invites discussion of alternative judgments and inferences.

In this case, the two hypothetical assessments differ in the importance accorded to laws that make citizenship of members a precondition for establishing a trade union (A-5) and laws that forbid sympathy strikes (A-15). They also differ in the importance accorded to delays in the prosecution of employers who retaliate against strikers (B-2), in the importance accorded to government interference in freedom of association by declaring martial law or "state of crisis" (B-4), and in the importance accorded to frequency of labor inspections (B-8). The two assessments further differ in the interpretation of whether an increase in the number of strikes between two periods of comparison (C-2) represents an increase in repression of workers, a relaxation in repression of workers, or more extensive reporting.

It is not possible to provide specific guidelines on where to draw the line between characterizing a country's compliance problems as "extensive" or "severe." But the matrix framework at least makes the value judgments and data interpretations of assessors explicit and exposes them to challenge and debate.