EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Helping Business to
Help Stop Child Labour
Comments on How Company Codes of Conduct, `Child Labour Free' Labels and the Social Clause Can Help Eliminate Child Labour
A 1996 Report by
Anti-Slavery International
NOTE:
the full text of this report can be ordered from Anti-Slavery
International…contact Librarian by e-mail: [email protected]
www.antislavery.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
“In all actions concerning children ... the best interests of the child
shall be a primary consideration.”
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (1989)
Dozens of well-known companies based in the industrialised
countries of Europe, North America and the Pacific region have recently adopted
"codes of conduct" to demonstrate that they are not involved in
exploiting workers or resources in ways consumers might not approve of. Some
cynical observers have suggested that the rush to adopt codes and other
guidelines is simply a marketing strategy, offering opportunists a way to get
ahead of their competitors: instead of selling a better or a cheaper product
than other companies, they are trying to persuade buyers that the conditions in
which their products are made are better than anyone else's.
Just how meaningful are these "codes of conduct"? This report
takes a look at one particular aspect: how companies engaging in international
trade can try to prevent the unacceptable commercial exploitation of children.
While looking at the efforts which companies have taken to curtail other
unacceptable forms of exploitation, it concentrates on the issue of child labour.
It is this issue which has received special attention from some of the
multinational retailing giants, such as Reebok. It has received particular
attention from businesses dealing in goods which are bought by children: toys
and sporting goods. It has also received significant attention from retailers
selling clothes, as children have frequently been employed in the garment
industry in both developing countries and industrialised ones.
The report shows that while campaigns against child labour usually have
the "best interests" of the children concerned at heart, they can
nevertheless end up damaging the interests of some or even many children.
Similarly, it indicates that companies may genuinely want to introduce effective
measures against child labour, but in practice take steps which satisfy their
consumers without necessarily proving helpful for the children concerned.
The report concludes that companies can do something helpful, both
to prevent young children from being exploited and to ensure better conditions
for children who currently have to work. But it also observes that many of the
standards and definitions being applied to child labour are muddled or vague,
and that some of the initiatives which have been taken to help children have
been ill-prepared or even counter-productive.
The report is intended for activists campaigning against child labour and
also for company managers and other policy-makers involved in assessing what is
the most appropriate action to take against child labour. It contains detailed
suggestions about the provisions of company codes of conduct being designed to
prevent the exploitation of child labour (in Chapter 5), commenting on the
choice of standards to be observed, the way codes should be prepared and
introduced, and some of the measures needed to ensure they are being respected.
The report begins by presenting details about the international standards
which already exist as far as child labour is concerned. It emphasises the
importance of the principle guaranteed by the United Nations (UN) 1989 Convention
on the Rights of the Child, that in any decision taken about a child, the
"best interests of the child" should always be a primary
consideration. Some standards on child labour are open to different
interpretations and the most important one, the International Labour
Organization's (ILO's) Convention _ 138 concerning Minimum Age for
Admission to Employment, has been ratified by relatively few countries --
and none of the states in South and Southeast Asia where child labour has been a
major concern. However, it is clear that international standards do not prohibit
all children from working in all circumstances.
Western-based companies and activists sometimes impose the definition of
"child labour" developed in their own countries on developing
countries. The report explains why this is inappropriate. It also points out the
limitations of existing age-based thresholds for allowing children to enter
employment, while explaining that the ILO's Convention _ 138 allows for
14-year-olds in most developing countries to take full-time jobs. Indeed, this
convention allows children aged as young as 12 to be employed on "light
work" in developing countries. The fact that this convention allows
different standards in different countries has permitted both employers and
governments to claim that they are adhering to international standards when in
fact children are being exploited.
In addition to the criterion of age, the report refers to the
international standards which oblige employers to ensure that children do not
work excessively long hours, are not put in "hazardous" jobs, and are
not victims of forced labour or any slavery-like exploitation in the course of
their recruitment.
All sorts of people -- governments, employers and social activists --
have criticised the current international standards on child labour, both
because they do not appear to be effective in preventing the commercial
exploitation of children and because they do not provide a clear enough standard
for objective measurement about what employment for children is or is not
acceptable. The ILO has recently decided to prepare a new convention designed to
prohibit the "most abusive" and "most exploitative" forms of
child labour, which is expected to produce clear agreement by 1999 on what forms
of child labour are definitely not acceptable.
After examining the various international standards concerning child
labour, the report concludes: "One clear implication is that it would not
be appropriate to place a ban on the employment of all young people under
16". Equally clearly, international standards do not envisage any cases in
which children aged 11 or younger can be employed -- even though tens of
millions of children below 12 are reported by the ILO to be in employment around
the world.
As far as working children are concerned who are under an
acceptable age threshold and who are found to be working directly or indirectly
for companies at the time that codes of conduct are adopted, the report stresses
a company's responsibility not to give in to the temptation of simply
dismissing them. Working children of primary school age should be helped to
complete their education, and, while children aged 11 or younger should not be
in employment and employers should reintegrate them into the education system,
companies should ensure that children aged 12 and 13 can continue working and
earning at least on a part-time basis while they are educated.
After looking at the international standards, the report examines an idea
currently supported by many campaigners -- of establishing formal links in
international trade agreements, both multilateral and bilateral, with labour
standards. Many trade unionists and other activists have been campaigning to
make international trade agreements contingent on respect for certain
"core" internationally-recognised labour standards, such as the right
to form trade unions and the right to collective bargaining, and bans on forced
labour and any forms of slavery such as debt bondage. Some campaigners have
called for a ban on child labour to be one of the core standards to be adopted.
The report points out the problems of doing so at present, when there is a lack
of international consensus on exactly what forms of child labour should be
excluded. It also refers to the opposition by employers' organisations to such a
move.
One country whose experience serves to show the possible effects of
making trade contingent on an effective ban on child labour is Bangladesh, where
campaigners in the USA exerted enormous pressure from 1993 onwards. The report
points out some of the counter-productive effects of the way the pressure was
applied and draws a number of lessons, in particular on what the process
should be, emphasising the importance of involving local activists, of taking
decisions on the basis of priorities and needs identified in the country where
children are working -- not just in the industrialised countries which import
products made by children.
The Bangladesh experience shows that if a rule against child labour is
going to be enforced in trade arrangements, it must be based on clear standards
and some common agreement about what the standards are. The case also
illustrates the dangers of purely bilateral action being taken by one powerful
industrialised country against one poor developing country -- for the industrial
power concerned will inevitably be suspected of acting in its own self-interest
and of protectionism.
The report next examines the experience of companies which have adopted
their own code of conduct and cites details of the codes and guidelines adopted
by a wide range of employers. While welcoming the sentiment behind some of the
codes, the report nevertheless criticises the lack of thought given to turning
the codes into reality and stresses the need for monitoring and audit systems.
The report reaches some conclusions about what should be in codes of
conduct as far as child labour is concerned.
1.
A code should apply not just to the company which sells products in
industrialised countries, but also to its suppliers.
2.
A code should specify standards which are precise and measurable. In the
absence of precise and measurable standards (in relation to child labour or
other issues), it is reasonable to conclude that codes of conduct are probably
statements of intent rather than anything more serious. If so, it is reasonable
for consumers (and campaigners) to press for more substantial guidelines to be
introduced.
3.
A code does not have to prohibit all cases of child labour, that
is to say to prohibit all children aged under 18 or under 16 from working. It
should prohibit the recruitment of children into full-time employment if they
have not reached their 14th birthday. It can allow for children aged 12 and 13
in developing countries to be employed for "light work", preferably on
a part-time basis while they finish their schooling. It should certainly
prohibit the employment of children aged 11 and younger.
4.
A code should stipulate that if children of primary school age are found
to be working in enterprises connected to the company, they must be able to
continue attending school or, if they have never attended school, be helped to
attend school. It would be logical to prohibit the recruitment of children of
primary school age, but not simply to dismiss children of this age who are found
to be working. Furthermore, a code should provide for the company to engage in
some process to rehabilitate children below the minimum age who are found
to be working, particularly children of primary school age, as well as to
prevent other young children from entering employment; it is not legitimate for
companies to simply dismiss working children.
5.
As well as any ban on children below a certain age being employed,
company codes should deal with the conditions for children -- anyone under 18 --
who are at work. A code should, as a matter of priority, aim to prevent abusive
or exploitative forms of child labour (which international organisations have
recently called "the most intolerable" forms of child labour).
Employers should recognise that it is undesirable for children entering
employment to be subjected to conditions which are as severe as those of adult
workers. Children under 18 require greater protection than adults -- and
certainly not less. A code should guarantee certain minimum conditions for
children and adolescents under 18 years of age who are employed. It should
ensure that children under 18 years of age are not involved in hazardous
work, that is to say in work which would expose them to physical or other sorts
of harm on account of the job they are doing. It should stipulate some maximum
hours for children to work during the day and week, as extremely long hours of
work can constitute a hazard for young people. It should also guarantee that
children have periodic holidays.
6.
A code should explicitly ban the use of any form of corporal punishment
for child workers.
7.
A code should prohibit the employment of any child (or other employee) on
the basis of debt bondage or any other form of forced labour. Debt bondage (also
known as bonded labour) commonly takes the form of employers or recruitment
agents giving advances of money to parents in return for the children being
pledged to work elsewhere either for a specified period or indefinitely (for
example, until the money is repaid).
8.
Information about new standards has to be communicated in a careful way
when companies adopt codes of conduct, with the code translated into the
language (or languages) which employers and employees usually speak, and
displayed or (if not everyone can read) communicated in a clear way.
9.
Companies have to check whether their code is being respected. This means
checking how a code is monitored -- a company's own quality assurance of the
monitoring process -- and also being prepared to allow independent auditing of
the monitoring procedures to ensure that they are effective and that the terms
of the code of conduct are being implemented.
After reviewing how company codes of conduct work, the report goes on to
look at the experience of labels attached to certain products which have
guarantees about the conditions in which the product was made. In contrast to
the codes of conduct, which tend to have been adopted by individual companies,
labels have tended to set an industry-wide standard. Furthermore, instead of
being developed exclusively by companies importing into industrialised
countries, some labelling schemes have been established in developing countries
at the initiative of local activists who want to give a guarantee about the
conditions in which a product is made, which is backed up by a credible
monitoring system. The report examines the experience of a label in use for
carpets exported from India -- the "Rugmark".
Finally, the report reviews what steps companies and organisations based
in industrialised countries can take to ensure that their employees working in
developing countries do not become involved in the commercial exploitation of
children, either at home or at work. One obvious guideline would discourage or
prohibit the staff of multinational organisations or companies from employing
children as domestic servants; only one organisation is known to have adopted an
explicit rule on this. Local laws against the commercial sexual exploitation of
children -- child prostitution -- are assumed by most employers to be sufficient
dissuasion, although it is evident that in this case too, employers are
reluctant to issue rules about their employees' private lives. Once again, it
would be appropriate to define what is not acceptable by international
standards: it is not just the exploitation of boys or girls who have not reached
puberty which is banned; the employment of 15, 16 or 17-year-old prostitutes is
also incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.