Introduction
In Dilemma 4, a company manager is concerned about whether he should stop doing business with two of his suppliers for violating international child labor laws. The suppliers are based in a foreign country where it is legal to employ underage children so long as they are not doing dangerous work. However, the manager understands that the UN passed a convention that prohibits all forms of child labor, and that this convention is binding upon all party states. The ethical dilemma is that if the manager stops doing business with the two companies, his company will run short of essential supplies, which will lead to increased costs and loss of customers. Ultimately, competitors will catch up with the company in two of its most profitable markets.
On the other hand, if the manager decides to continue doing business with the two companies, it will erode the reputation of his company when the matter gets to the media. A negative reputation will be too costly to the company. Either way, the decision to continue or stop working with the two companies will result in some form of negative consequences for the company. This paper uses the ethical principle of utilitarianism to analyze the ethical dilemma in this case and determine the best course of action.
Analysis of the Dilemma
Although there are many ethical perspectives for analyzing the above dilemma, the utilitarianism principle offers the best perspective for determining the best decision. The utilitarianism philosophy states that in all situations, people should act in a manner that results in the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people (Risse, 361). Proponents of utilitarianism hold that actions are good to the extent that they tend to promote happiness and bad to the extent that they promote the reverse of happiness. Here, the happiness of an individual is of paramount importance. Any decision, action or behavior that does not result in happiness should, according to utilitarianism, not be pursued. Therefore, the manager in the case study is bound to make a decision that results in the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number of stakeholders (Snyder, 187-192).
In accordance with the dictates of the utilitarianism principle, the manager should consider every stakeholder’s interests as being equal. Thus, if the underage children working in the foreign companies can make a living from their work, they should be allowed to continue working. This means that the manager should not stop buying goods from the two companies because doing so would result in the underage workers losing their jobs. Besides, if utterly poor families depend on the underage workers for survival, it is unethical for the manager to take any action that will deny the families their means of livelihood. By working with companies that use child labor, the manager will be promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people (in this case the children and their families as well as the consumers of the company). The poor families remain intact because of the little income brought by the underage workers while the manager (and his company)’s consumers obtain low priced goods from the two companies (Meyers, 323).
According to Meyers (324), decisions to hire underage workers in poor countries are ethical, and the judgments to work with companies that hire such children are justified under the utilitarianism principle. According to this author, many families in developing countries such as India, Bangladesh and Vietnam live in abject poverty. The depth of poverty in such families is so severe that children as young as five years have no option but to work alongside their parents to maximize daily income. It is for this reason that in India, children work in dusty mines and other dangerous industries for meager income to supplement the little that their parents get. In other cases, some parents (especially fathers) have neglected their families or avoided their parental responsibilities, thus forcing children to fend for themselves. Moreover, governments have no resources to institute functional welfare programs for people from poor families. This forces children to look for jobs in any industry just for the sake of survival.
Zwolinski (159-160) agrees with this line of thought by arguing that majority of the developing countries, besides being poor, have no laws banning child labor. For example, in the case study, it is stated that in the country where the two companies are located, use of child labor is allowed. Therefore, it is morally right for the companies to use child labor, notwithstanding the UN convention against such a decision. After all, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, many of the developed countries (such as Britain, Australia, and the United States), which have banned child labor, were developing. For many years that these countries were poor and developing, they condoned the practice of using child labor in industries and farms. When their economies improved and universal education became a reality, they implemented child labor laws to prohibit this practice. In fact, developed countries were the major sponsors of the UN Convention against the use of child labor. Therefore, in the present, developing countries are justified to use child labor as a strategy for fighting poverty in households.
According to Risse (361-365), the manager has a moral obligation to the utilitarianism principle to continue working with the two companies despite them using child labor. This is because imposing sanctions on the companies will most likely result in the children being dismissed from the workplace. In effect, this will leave the children vulnerable to other exploitative employments elsewhere and negative health implications due to increased poverty in their families (if indeed they have families considering that some of them could be street children). A common trend in many of the developing countries is that children from poor backgrounds not only fend for themselves but also live in the streets for lack of accommodation. Most of these children end up working in hazardous environments despite their young age and not having the right skills.
Snyder (187-192) argues that stopping doing businesses with companies that use child labor may not be entirely an optimal decision as it can exacerbate destitution in families already hit by high levels of poverty. If such a decision is taken, it can heighten vulnerability to child trafficking as parents might be forced to sell their children to avoid the burden of providing for the children. Studies indicate that child trafficking cases are more prevalent in poor countries and that most of the children trafficked are from poor families. To minimize such risks, the manager should continue supporting the foreign companies to enable them to guarantee the jobs of the underage workers. As for the other stakeholders (the company’s consumers and shareholders), it will ensure a constant supply of inexpensive goods and high profitability for the company. For the media and child welfare groups, they should be made to understand that denying the underage their only means of livelihood would do more harm than good, in contravention of the utilitarianism principles.
Zwolinski (159-162) refutes the above argument saying that child labor produces a small amount of happiness for a small amount of people (child laborers and their families) but causes considerable suffering for the children by denying them an opportunity to enjoy education and their childhood. He further argues that doing business with companies that employ child laborers tarnishes the corporate reputation and hence causes loss of happiness for shareholders. Although Zwolinski’s argument sounds logical, it falls short of recognizing the fact that child labor is used mostly in poor countries where alternative sources of income are non-existent. In such case, underage children from poor backgrounds have legitimate reasons to work. Ideally, companies should not refuse to hire underage workers if doing so can lead to death or other forms of unjustified suffering for the workers. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the foreign suppliers employed children.
Conclusion
Under the utilitarianism principle, the manager has a moral duty to promote the wellbeing of all stakeholders including the child laborers. For the manager to ensure elimination of child labor within his company’s supply chain, he should first look to a company with the foreign country’s national laws on child labor. Where the national laws are set to a lower standard than international laws (such as the UN Convention), then the manager should endeavor to meet these higher laws while taking into consideration the interests of the child laborers. Most importantly, the manager should be advised to pursue human rights due diligence to a level proportionate to the risks of child labor in its supply chain as well as the ability of the company to impact positively on the child labor issues at stake in the foreign companies.
One of the most effective measures that the manager can take to eliminate child labor from his company’s supply chain is to offer support for the foreign companies for them to remove children from the workplace. For example, the manager can create a charitable organization to support education and skills training for the children working in the foreign companies. In so doing, the children will be better educated and skilled to look for better jobs as adults. Moreover, the children will not be exploited by companies paying meager wages.
For long-term outcomes, the manager should initiate new strategies for combating the issue of child labor in the company’s supply chain. Such a strategy should, among other things, lead to eventual elimination of any form of child labor and improvement of employee conditions within the supply chain. It should be tackled as a collaborative process involving all stakeholders in the company’s supply chain. Fundamentally, the foreign suppliers should be encouraged to adopt international labor standards for them to participate competitively in international trade. By increasing demands for accountability and taking on a collaborative approach, the manager can foster fruitful working relationships, which will result in the greatest good for all stakeholders.
Works Cited
Meyers Chris. Wrongful Beneficence: Exploitation and Third World Sweatshops. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35 (3) (2004): 319-333. Print.
Risse Mathias. Fairness in Trade I: Obligations from Trading and the Pauper-Labor Argument. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 6 (3) (2007): 355-377.Print.
Snyder Jeremy. Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (2) (2010): 187-213.Print.
Zwolinski Matt. Structural Exploitation. Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1) (2012):154-179.Print.
