Top investors to investigate worker treatment at world's biggest companies but will it change anything?

Some 79 asset managers overseeing a combined $8tn have signed up to the "Workforce Disclosure Initiative"

The world's biggest companies are facing questions on their treatment of workers (PA)

A chink of light in the darkness or another silly survey?

A coalition of 79 big institutional investors have signed up to an initiative that you might hope would prod some of the world’s biggest companies into treating their workforces a bit better.

It’s not exactly snappily titled. The Workforce Disclosure Initiative sounds like it was conceived by a Whitehall committee, and, indeed, the Department for International Development has chipped in with some funding.

But its aim, at least, is a worthy one. Under the auspices of pressure group ShareAction, the 79 want 75 mega-companies to answer detailed questions about how they treat their staff around the world.

Another survey is not the natural starting point for a drive to get corporates to behave better, but a start it could be if you consider the fact that the signatures oversee a combined $8tn (£6.2bn).

Even the biggest and most conservative of companies would be unwise to completely ignore capital like that.

Those companies are to be asked about their governance of workforce issues, global workforce composition and stability, training and development of people, and worker engagement.

The signatories hope that by asking the same things of all of them, it should be possible to compare their approaches, and put pressure on those that do badly.

At the same time, Oxfam is preparing on-the-ground case studies highlighting practice in several developing countries where the surveyed companies have operations and suppliers.

There are those who might, at this point, say yes that’s all terribly worthy, but it’s also just a bit woolly.

It’s all very well getting big companies to fill out a few forms before your wagging fingers at the bad boys, but if that’s all you’re going to do it doesn’t get you very far.

Asset managers too often seem to prefer the illusion of action to anything resembling meaningful action when it comes to many more issues than just the treatment of workers and you could easily see this turning into another example of that.

Just look at what has happened, or what has not happened, when it comes bosses pay. It has continued its relentless rise despite scant evidence that it benefits anyone other than the bosses themselves. In response, big investors have indulged in a lot of hand wringing, and there have been innumerable reports published on the subject. But beyond the occasional rebellion when faced with packages that look frankly silly, change has been slow in coming and the upward trend has continued.

It is true that among the 79 signatories are fund managers with a reputation for activism, such as Legal & General. However, there are others that clearly prefer the option of talking a good game to doing anything, and some that don’t even bother with that.

The danger with their signing up to an initiative like this one is that it could simply provide them with cover to continue following the line of least resistance.

It would be a great pity were that to happen. Part of the stated motivation for big asset managers getting involved is that companies that treat their workforces well generate better returns.

But there is a wider context too, and that is the simmering public anger around the world at the gulf in the experience of those at the top of the corporate pole and those on the shop floor.

This has contributed to political instability and the apparent collapse of the centre in favour of extremes in democracies around the world, Britain included, instability that will inevitably hit investment returns, and worse besides.

If this initiative amounts to a recognition of that, then it should be welcomed with open arms.

However, that remains to be seen.