New guidelines on how to tackle
child labour suggest that the debate about the corporate social
responsibility of retailers is now becoming more sophisticated
The guidelines, detailed in a report by Save the Children, with help
from PricewaterhouseCoopers, offer practical advice for companies
sourcing products in countries where child labour is used.
Big business, small hands, reflects a consensus, now beginning to
emerge among business and non-governmental organizations, that just
ensuring there are no children in the workforce benefits neither the
company, nor the contract supplier, nor the children themselves.
On the contrary, any quick-fix remedy is likely to force working
children into more hazardous employment under worse conditions, the
report argues.
Save the Children invited Lesley Roberts,
group business standards adviser for the Pentland Group, to write the
foreword. The Pentland Group is the parent company of international
sports, fashion and leisure brands such as Speedo, Kickers and Berghaus.
Roberts, who has practical experience of the issues, says it is unwise
for retailers to take business away from suppliers that employ
under-age workers.
‘It can seem quite easy, sitting in
London writing a code of conduct for suppliers, to write ’no child
labour should be employed in the manufacture of our products‘,’ says
Roberts. ‘But the world isn’t that simple. The worst thing we can do is
take production away from the factory, because it will just increase
poverty levels and put more pressure on children to work.’
If sacking child workers or ending contracts with suppliers using child
labour is not the solution, what is? Fiona King, advisor on corporate
social responsibility at Save the Children and co-author of the report,
says companies need to show they are ‘far sighted and courageous’ by
helping suppliers to adopt long-term programmes. This means ‘putting in
rather than pulling out.’
‘Taking a planned, gradual
approach to child labour is far better for children, and business, than
reacting to a crisis where the agenda is dictated externally and
inappropriate strategies are forced into place’, she says.
In the first instance, that means creating stability by reassuring
suppliers the contract is not at risk because they employ children. In
fact, they should be told they may win new business if they work with
the company to tackle the problem.
With this ground rule
established, the report says the first priority is a site visit to
determine the extent and nature of the problem. Save the Children
recommends that local people make these visits; that women interview
female workers; that discussions take place off-site wherever possible,
and that home workers are included. After the site visit, the next task
is to remove children from the most hazardous activities as fast as
possible, even if this means children continue to be employed for a
time in less hazardous jobs.
As children begin to carry
out less onerous tasks, the next priority is education. The report
proposes that companies tell suppliers to pay a stipend to cover a
child worker’s school costs (as Nike has done in Mexico).
Employers may also offer a job at the factory when a child reaches the legal working age.
Attention should then focus on prevention. The guidelines argue that
businesses can reduce the need for child labour by ensuring suppliers
provide fairly paid and secure work to adults, giving them a better
chance of keeping their children at school or home.
The
document contains no detailed costings, but rehearses the usual
arguments, such as possible reputational damage, to make the business
case for preventative measures.
Business can also help by supporting schools and, where no schools exist, by providing education themselves.
Continuous monitoring is the final piece in the jigsaw. Save the
Children says children who leave the workforce should be monitored to
ensure their situation has not grown worse.
The
touchstone of the report, perhaps reassuringly for the business world,
is the emphasis on partnership with NGOs throughout the process.
It makes clear that responsible NGOs are no longer interested in
gaining cheap publicity by exposing unsatisfactory child labour
practices. Many of them are now very keen to work with companies by
lending expertise.
