IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v54y2025i2p278-323..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging the Gap Between Labour Law and Company Law: Wedderburn’s Legacy: An Appreciation

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Villiers

Abstract

The paper surveys the extensive writings of the late Professor Lord Wedderburn and explores the interactions between company law and labour law. A set of case studies illustrates labour law’s relative weakness in the contemporary corporate law context. Whilst it does change over time, company law has largely remained consistent with its two fundamental principles of separate legal personality and limited liability and its complementary prioritisation of the shareholders’ interests. These stable features provide a foundation that grants powerful corporate actors considerable freedom to pursue their interests and to organise their corporations however they please with little regard for those providing labour. Labour law finds itself constantly having to adapt to changing economic (and connected political) realities, fraying further the already threadbare protections for workers, especially in the context of global trade. With modern globalisation and financialization, a variety of “shareholders” and increasingly byzantine corporate structural arrangements have emerged presenting few opportunities to mitigate the impacts of their harmful activities. Investors and managers extract value with exploitative and detrimental consequences for the workers and other stakeholders. Fundamental reforms to company law are required for more effective workers’ voice and protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Villiers, 2025. "Bridging the Gap Between Labour Law and Company Law: Wedderburn’s Legacy: An Appreciation," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 54(2), pages 278-323.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:278-323.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:278-323.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.