Should We Really Ban All Child Labour in Garment Manufacturing?

 

By Sesilia Plavina & Cristina David

In the past few decades, the focus of fashion consumption has steadily shifted from quality to quantity. By replicating runway designs with cheap fabric and manufacturing, fast fashion brands often create their high turnover at the expense of the environment and low-wage workers. Customers are completely addicted to the variety and abundance and there are no signs that their mindset is set to change in any significant way.

Child labour in developing countries such as India and Bangladesh has been one of the major sustainable and ethical issues that the garment manufacturing industry has faced in the last decade. While certain fashion companies have been monitoring the labour practices of their first-degree suppliers, many others struggle to fully and transparently exercise control over high complex supply chains. As a result, abusive child labour practices can be fairly easily hidden or missed within the supply chain for the garment industry.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines child labour as “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development” [1]. The insurgence of fast fashion puts pressure on garment manufacturers in developing countries to produce clothes as quickly and as cheaply as possible to keep pace with consumer demand. To do so, manufacturers often employ children who do not meet the Minimum Age (C138) [2] and Worst Forms of Child Labour (C182) [3] conventions specified by the ILO. To fight against the employment of child labour, the industry has created various ethical sustainable practices such as the Fair Wear and Fair Trade International. These major movements have been focused on completely eliminating child labour and have raised awareness of its particular prevalence in the garment industry. It remains unclear whether these movements have really improved the lives of working children or whether their “zero child labour” mission is too myopic.

It is important to remember that working children’s parents, who are generally poor and live in slums, love their children just the same as parents in the developed world. They often work very hard trying to provide for their family, but fall short of what they need without the extra income earned by their children. They need (rather than want) their children to work.

The Western view is to argue that working children are deprived of their education, but these kids are frankly unable to study and learn when their basic needs such as food and shelter are not met. “Zero child labour” in developing countries is a utopic and ideal scenario that the international community should aim for in the future. Today, however, it fails to address the immediate reality of impoverished families and children. It may be comforting to believe that a brand that cuts ties with manufacturers who employ children has liberated the youth from their misery, but this decision may actually do more harm than good. Those children may continue to provide for their families through other, more dangerous means like black-market activities and prostitution. They may also become more vulnerable to child trafficking. A parent who sends their child to work does not do so voluntarily, meaning the child will not be able to simply stop working if the garment factory is shut down.

It is important to challenge the idealistic Western (developed) view that all forms of child labour should be illegal and propose a more pragmatic solution that acknowledges the challenges faced by these families while introducing protections and benefits for the children. Placing a blanket ban on child labour when it is such a common practice in the developing world is idealistic and a non-starter for productive dialogue on the topic.

Child employment that is highly regulated, meets strict ethical standards, and offers protection and opportunities for children should be legally admissible. With proper regulations and enforcement, the lives of working children and their families can be improved and risks to children’s wellbeing can be diminished.

The specific standards and criteria under which child employment should be permissible pertain to both the child and the acceptable working conditions. They are detailed below:

Criteria for the Employed Child:

To avoid exploitation, coercion, and harm, employers could only legally employ children that meet the following criteria:

1. Age Requirement

According to the ILO convention, the minimum age for working children is 14 in developing countries and 15 in developed countries. A one-year difference hardly reflects the significant challenges faced by impoverished and often large families in the developing world. The 14-year age minimum just moves younger child labour “underground” and creates an unregulated environment for the children. To be pragmatic and allow these regulations to help the greatest number of working children in need, the minimum age requirement should be set at a level that reflects the realities of current child labour. Realistically, this minimum should be closer to 12 than to 14 in the developing world. In addition, children have different needs and abilities at different stages of development so each requirement in this document should be tiered and staggered depending on the age of the child. For example, younger children should be allowed to work fewer hours per week than older children

2. Consent

For children to first join the workforce, two consents are required – one from the parent and one from the child. A consent from parents will ensure that they are aware of their children’s whereabouts and activities, while a consent from the children will suggest if not confirm that they are willing to work and are not being forced by adults. This will also prevent adults other than a child’s parents or direct family from sending them to work and benefiting from their salaries. The consent from both parties should have a witness and be formalized in the employment contract.

3. Education Level

A minimum level of literacy should be required before children can be legally admitted to a workplace. This prerequisite will encourage children and parents to focus on education while the children are young such that they will be able to apply for employment once they reach the minimum age criteria. This entry requirement will also tie in with the provision of education benefits proposed as part of the working conditions.

4. Demonstrated Need

Children should never be forced to work if there are older family members who can provide for the family instead. Parents whose children are working should be able to demonstrate that both parents are already working (inside or outside the home) or that there is disability in the family that prevents an older relative from working in place of the child. This demonstrated need for child employment should be re-evaluated for each family periodically to prevent children from working unnecessarily.

Source: https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/30/human-rights-supply-chains/call-binding-global-standard-due-diligence

Working Conditions Criteria:

To ensure the wellbeing of working children, the following regulations should be enforced on their working conditions:

1. Wage

There should be a minimum wage for all employed children. This wage may vary by country and by the age of the child. Older children should earn higher wages to incentivize parents to keep children at home and fully focused on their studies for longer.

2. Working Hours

Children should only be allowed to work up to a maximum number of hours per day and a maximum number of days per week. These figures may vary by country and age, but should be set to ensure a balance between playtime, education, and work. Employers should keep time sheets for children to ensure compliance with maximum work hours and to ensure the correct wage is paid for the hours worked.

3. Working Environment

Employers that employ children must demonstrate that children work in conditions that meet health and safety requirements (which may be stricter for children than for adults). For example, manufacturers should position children workspaces far from chemicals used in the dyeing process and children should be given comfortable seating to keep their posture healthy as they grow. Regular inspections, along with a health and safety grading scale, can strengthen compliance.

4. Acceptable Work Tasks

In addition to placing children away from hazardous environments, garment manufacturers should ensure children are not given tasks that could be physically or mentally damaging. As long as proper seating is provided, acceptable and ‘physically light’ activities may include sewing buttons, cutting and trimming thread, folding, moving and packing garments (provided that the weight of garments is controlled), embroidering, sequinning and smocking (making pleats).

5. Education Provisions

All working children should have compulsory education tied to their employment contract. This provision will help these children learn to hopefully eventually overcome poverty through better full-time employment. Garment manufacturers should work with local schools to coordinate this obligatory schooling with the children’s work schedule. Perhaps some classes can even be held in a spare room in the factory if the school is far away. The schools must keep track of attendance and share results with employers, who should terminate contracts for children who consistently do not attend their required courses. With these provisions, families literally have a financial incentive to send their children to school.

Impact                                                                                                

The implementation of the legalization of certain forms of child employment with the strict regulations detailed above will benefit working children, their families, garment manufacturers, fashion labels, and finally customers.

For working children and their families, the policy both acknowledges some families’ need for child employment and seeks to ensure the child’s safety, fair pay, educational advancement, and consent. The approach does not ask the families to choose between their child working and their child going to school. Children will not need to forgo their education in order to help their families and they will not need to turn to even more dangerous and inhumane sources of income like prostitution. With more education, the child and the entire family are set up for a brighter future.

From the garment manufacturers’ perspective, there are additional costs associated with the implementation of these regulations. Wages will increase, working conditions must be improved, and additional operational costs may be incurred. Manufacturers must pass on these additional expenses to their customers (the major fashion companies).

Fashion brands may see their supply costs increasing, but with proper marketing, they could also increase their demand and improve their brand image by building a reputation as a company that helps regulate child labour, incentivize youth education, and improve working conditions in developing countries. Customers will also benefit from a more transparent and regulated supply chain and a clearer conscience.

Overall the proposed provisional legalization would be game-changing because it aligns brands and their manufacturers to provide better working conditions and education that helps lift working children and their families out of poverty. This is the right first step to that lofty goal of “zero child labour”.

Implementation Risks

The implementation risks come from the complex web of stakeholders that must agree to the terms in order for this to work.

For regulated legalization of child labour with compulsory education to be implemented, government buy-in is critical. Governments that have already signed the ILO convention (promoting zero child labour) will be difficult to convert. Therefore, there is an opportunity to pilot this business model with a developing country like Bangladesh that has not yet signed the ILO C138 Convention for Minimum Age. Since Bangladesh was the top garment manufacturing country in 2015 [4], successful regulation of child labour there could sway other governments to join.

Fashion brands must also be on board and agree to the terms. Garment manufacturers are businesses and they will respond to the demands of their customers. Brands must pledge to only use factories that comply with child labour regulations as a minimum. A critical mass of brands must join this effort, given that the associated increase in costs could be a source of competitive disadvantage if only a few brands comply. Fashion companies will need to carefully explain the benefits of this model to customers or risk facing damaging press coverage that they are profiting from child labour.

Fashion companies and governments alike will be influenced by NGO’s like the ILO and the UN. This proposal is likely to face strong opposition from established NGOs who may argue that child labour should be banned rather than regulated and that poverty alleviation efforts should be focused on approaches that do not make use of children. As Bolivia has discovered, implementing legal regulated child employment requires financial investment [5], therefore a new NGO should be formed to promote the provisioned legalization of child labour and to coordinate stakeholders from families, schools, manufacturers, governments, and brands to effectively implement the policy and track its results. This new voice among NGO’s will help spur a dialogue and evidence-based discussion with the more traditional NGO view. it cannot be rolled out without the right infrastructure

Has this been implemented somewhere?

No player in the garment manufacturing industry is currently implementing the legalization and strict regulation of child labour. There is, however, research suggesting that banning child employment neither eliminates it nor helps working children in the developing countries [6] [7]. It is also worth noting that in 2014, Bolivia reduced the legal child labour from 14 years old to 10 years old [8] [9]. Although this does not cover the garment manufacturing industry, there is a potential for implementing this age reduction to the garment manufacturing provided it is done in a controlled way with the appropriate financial support to administer the law.

In summary, the use of child labour in garment manufacturing is currently banned largely because of the Western presumption of what is the best for impoverished children and families in the developing countries. If child labour in the garment industry is legalized with strict controls over age minimums, wages, consent, education requirements, and working conditions, the total long-term benefits can help raise families out of poverty and eliminate the need for child labour in the future.

References:

[1] http://libguides.ilo.org/child-labour-en

[2] http://ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C138

[3] http://ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C182

[4] http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/east-africa-the-next-hub-for-apparel-sourcing

[5] http://time.com/4322522/bolivia-child-labor-law-la-paz-unatsbo/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/18/child-labour-un-ban-damaging-mistake

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/26/ban-child-labour-developing-countries-imposes-naive-western-ideals-complex-problems

[8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/bolivia/10977794/Bolivia-becomes-first-nation-to-legalise-child-labour-from-age-10.html

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/24/is-child-labour-always-wrong-the-view-from-bolivia-podcast-transcript