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.