Introduction Child labor refers to the employment of under age children below the age of 18 year for many countries or fourteen years of others (Jones, 2009). Many people refer to this as exploitation of children, and a menace that violates the universal rights for schooling, as well as children rights. The case by Nichols (1993) provides one scenario, which clearly illustrates how multinational companies are employing children to work in their factories. The case illustrates a condition in Lahore whereby, under age children are employed in the firm. This case represents a widespread scenario in many of the developing economies of the world (Shaw, 2009). The case illustrates that while this scenario benefits the firms by lowering the production cost, as well as providing away of alleviating poverty, it also breaks some fundamental children rights. One of the rules is that it tarnishes the reputation for social responsibility of the company (Jones, 2009). It also violates the new Global Guidelines for Business Partners, which prohibits the use of child labor. The case also violates the set laws of the land, which states that no child under the age of 14 should work (Shaw, 2009). As a result of children not going to school, the act of child employment also violates the law set by the Government (Falkenberg and Falkenberg, 2009). Thus, this paper is an analysis of whether child labor practice by multinational corporations in developing economies is justifiable. Both utilitarian theory and Kant theory of duty will be utilized in guiding the discourse. Theories Most of the time child labor is confused with child work. However, Jennings (2008) indicates that there is a clear distinction between child labor and child work. For instance, a child delivering a newspaper in the morning before going to school is perceived as child work rather than child labor. This is because there is no economic pressure that forces the child into the employment. However, the child keeps the wages and spends it with his peers. In this case, the child spends his money on “necessities” such as records, videos, latest jeans and home computers
(McGee, 2010, p. 34). Therefore, in this case there is nobody who forces the child to employment. The author argues that child labor is anything less than those idyllic conditions. As such, child labor has an economic compulsion element in it, and as, Jennings (2008) argues it requires time and energy that affects children ability to engage in other activities such as leisure, playing and education. Furthermore, child labor is the work that impairs the health of children. Audi (2009) provides two reasons that make child labor exists. First, children are an example of “reverse labor”. This implies that when there is high demand of labor, and there is insufficient labor in the market, businesses tend to use children as a backup (McGee, 2010). Secondly, child labor exists in regions that are backwards and unemployment is highest, and at the same time, poverty is severe. Therefore, at this time, children work to reduce the severity of poverty (Jennings 2008). A large number people look it as an exploitation of children. However, viewed from different angles it offers benefits, as well as problems. For instance, children under extreme poverty avoid stressors such as violence, emotional, as well as sexual abuse, and only the best way to keep away from these stressors is by joining the labor force (Audi, 2009). Therefore, this implies that under children point of view child labor is justified. On the other hand, on employers’ view, child labor is not justified because they exploit children to gain competitive advantage. Utilitarian Theory Utilitarian theory indicates that an action is ethical if it brings the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Pies et al, 2010, p. 34). In this regard, the actions of the multinational to use child labor in their firms will be morally right if these actions bring the highest pleasure to the largest number of people. Under this theory, the actions of multinational companies to use children as labor are unethical. As stated, utilitarianism is based on how much happiness an action gives (Pies et al., 2010). Therefore, while making a decision, a person will peak the decision that will promote the greatest amount of happiness, and at the same time producing the least amount of pain (Hoffman et al., 2013). In this regard, this principle heavily relies on quantities. This is because it evaluates the amount of pleasure and pain. However, Pies et al., (2010) argue that while the decision is to be made, someone has to think of quality. Ideally, some pleasures are more valuable and desirable than others. People who have more also require more to promote happiness. In addition, those who have less require less to achieve the same goal. The use of child labor brings more pain than pleasures. To critic from a business perspective, the use of child labor brings more pleasure because they are gaining more profits for cheaper costs than if they could have used skilled labor (Hoffman et al., 2013). In this case, money or a profit is a source of happiness to them. Additionally, meeting their obligations is also source of happiness. Hoffman et al. (2013) indicate that one of the social responsibilities of a firm is to provide profits for shareholders. In this regard, the author argues that in order for the business to lower its costs it has to take advantage of these global opportunities. On the other hand, according to utilitarian theory the use of child labor is morally wrong because it brings more pain than pleasure. In this case, children have their rights to be in schools. However, instead of being in schools, circumstances such as poverty force them to work. In addition, children suffer a lot and in some cases, they are not paid. Hoffman et al. (2013) argue that using children bring more pain than pleasure because child labor brings a little pleasure for the family, as well as the child involved. Then again, it leads to a manifold of suffering and prevents the child from gaining education and enjoying their childhood rights. Furthermore, child labor produces ignorant citizens with short life expectancy and with little help to the society (Pies et al. 2010). Besides, children suffer a lot while doing the work. For example, a case highlighted by Falkenberg and Falkenberg (2009) shows an Indian kid clothing company beating children and failing to pay them. According to Pies et al. (2010), the employers take advantage of children punishment because it is allowed in many countries. In addition, they take advantage of the children because they do not know their rights. Conversely, Arnold et al. (2010) provides another view indicating that the use of child labor is ethically right as it brings pleasure to a large number of people. They indicate that child labor can be good or bad depending on the context it takes. This is because child labor reduces the cost of production, as well as take children off the streets, as a result, it brings more pleasure to children than pain (Arnold et al., 2010). Moreover, as a result of cheap labor, businesses make profits and also produce cheap products, which are less costly thus bringing a noteworthy pleasure to consumers. They further indicated that employment provide a way in which the child contribute to the family and help alleviate poverty. It provides food and sometimes shelter to the child. Furthermore, if children were not employed they could be far worse than when they are working. Kant’s Theory of Duty The theory of duty indicates that every person has a moral right to oneself and others (Barnett et al. 2005). This is developing one’s talent and keeping the promises to others. The basis of the theory is that the only intrinsically good is the good will. He argues that an action is morally right way, people must work from duty. It is not the consequences that judge the action whether right or wrong. However, it is the motives of the person (Barnett et al. 2005). The theory also states that every human being should be treated with dignity. According to this theory, child labor is wrong. This is because it not only affects them physically, but it also affects them mentally. Therefore, in this case, where children go to work and not go to school is wrong and violates the law of nature. In this case, children are supposed to go to school and not go work. As Baxley (2010) argues, the main motive of the organization is to make profits for shareholders. Therefore, the use of children as labor is good will to help them alleviate poverty, but a way of exploiting them. For instance, in case, the “the young kids who come with their mothers do more than you think, they are paid nothing” (Barnett et al. 2005, p. 34). This is a clear illustration that their actions are not to help children. The theory also indicates that to treat a person “as an end and not as means to an end”. According to Baxley (2010, p. 54), this implies that people should be treated with dignity and not as instruments. However, from the case, children are not treated with dignity. Therefore, these actions constitute ethical actions. Ballet et al. (2014) indicates that ethical actions, as Kant see them the actions of person, as in this case a corporate could not be judged by the prevailing culture rather than universally. In this regard, the actions should not be self-contradictory. Therefore, the actions of the organization to employ children should not be based on the culture of the people. Additionally, these actions fail the ethical test under Kant’s theory because they do not emphasize on taking responsibility of people. Kant’s argues that people have a responsibility to take care of others. This implies not only for a friend, but it is a precautionary principle to take care of other creature, environment of future generations (Ballet et al., 2014). However, in this case, the multinational corporations fail to achieve this. This is because, while they children should be going to schools to secure their future, they are being exploited by the company with the name of helping them. Reasoning from this theory is that, as a result of children not being adults, children going to work violate the natural law of nature. A case reported by Ballet et al. (2014) illustrates that companies have changed their policies due to increased globalization However, Ballet et al. (2014) argue that having child labor is ethical. This is because employing children provide them with a good life that they cannot get when not employed. For instance, Montero (2011) argues that poverty forces families to send their children out to go and find something they can do to make the family survive. Kolk and Van Tulder (2002) support this point by indicating, “children income is far from supplementary, they may be de facto ‘breadwinners’ support other member of the family Montero (2011). Therefore, these actions show that employers are helping children who have the responsibility of helping their families. As a result, the company is seen as socially responsible company. Although there is greater awareness of exploitation, some companies will see it as an advantage to exploit the children. Criticism of the Theories One of the open criticisms of utilitarian theory is that there is a problem of distinguishing degrees of pain and happiness. According Crane and Matten (2012), the method of measuring happiness, which is felicific calculus has never been developed. The second criticism is that the pleasure in utilitarianism theory is neutral. This implies that the pleasure of sadist is equal to that for altruist (Stratton-Lake, 2000). Although the theory can indicate that sadist result to more harm, and altruist to more happiness, the two scenarios would require utilitarian to condemn sadist and condone altruist. Another criticism is that the greatest happiness of the majority leaves those minorities in the society under disadvantaged condition. Herath and Sharma (2007) indicate that utilitarianism requires actions that are contrary to people’s intuition, especially when it suggests sacrificing human being for the benefits of others. In this regard, human beings are viewed as intrinsic being and should not be viewed expendables (Stratton-Lake, 2000). The theory also focuses only on pleasure as the highest value, but only suggests the reason to be that human being naturally desire it. Scholars criticize Kant’s theory because of its stringent demands that they make on ordinary people. In this regard, Herath and Sharma (2007) argue that Kant’s theory of duty present an implausible picture of actors that that judges their actions rationally to a conceptual principle of universalism. Crane and Matten (2012) also indicate that the model of the theory is inflexible. This implies that there is no room for the complexities and contradictory ideas regarding ethical decision-making. This implies that the Kant theory is devoid of any room for morality emanating from motivational factors such as, empathy or compassion, or culture. The theory dismisses these factors as anthropological, which could somewhat be innate. Discussion From the discussion, there seems to be two schools of thought that see child labor as acceptable. This is because it keeps children out of the street and away from prostitution (Herath and Sharma, 2007). In this regard, some businesses strive to be labeled as socially responsible because they are helping children with food, shelter, right to health and safety measure (Pies et al. 2010). However, these businesses claim that they provide these benefits, there is nobody knows what goes on behind the curtains of these multinational organizations in the developing economies. Overall, it is evident that companies are claiming to provide paybacks; while on the other hand, they are infringing the rights of children (Falkenberg and Falkenberg, 2009). A study by Crane and Matten (2012) indicate that the disadvantages of starting to work at an early age are that the companies fires workers when they attain adult age. In addition, Herath and Sharma (2007) indicate that, although companies claim to be providing food to the children workers, this does not in any way mean that they living healthy. A study conducted in 28 countries indicates that the calorie of these children per day ranges between 73 and 89 percents, and is even lower in some area (Montero, 2011). The study also indicates that apart from increasing nutritional requirement it also predispose children to infectious diseases, tuberculosis and malnutrition. Therefore, this is an implication of the company not caring for children. The above two theories support the notion that the act of using child labor in the developing world by multinational will never be justified. From the utilitarian theory point of view, it is unethical because it does not produce the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. However, Kolk and Van Tulder (2002) argue that child labor offer more pleasure that pain because they provide the company with cheap labor for the companies, which translate cheap products and high profits for shareholder. Audi (2004) supports the above idea by averring that employing children provides a way that they can help their family. However, Falkenberg and Falkenberg (2009) argue that there is a need for looking at the quality of pleasure. For instance, the author argues that using children labor produces minimal pleasure to the family, as well as the child involved. Moreover, using children results to society with illiterate people (Kolk and Van Tulder, 2002). As a result, there is more suffering than before. To reduce pain among the children, it would be better they have education so that they can be employed with better pay in the future. This case is supported by initiative made by some multinationals companies such GAP. The company, in recent years has made efforts to rebrand itself as social responsible company. This is by ensuring that they are not sourcing unethical products. In addition, other companies such as, Primark have as well undertaken measures not to trade with suppliers who took their clothing off the shelf. Under the Kant’s theory, the use of child labor will never be justified. This is because the companies are not there to help the children but to exploit them. Stratton-Lake (2000) indicates that one of the social responsibilities of business is to maximize profits for the shareholder. Also, Hoffman et al (2013) claim that the companies outsource and relocate their firms to take advantage of cheap labor. Additionally, Stratton-Lake (2000) also claim that the reason why companies use children is because they are easy to command and they do not know their rights. Therefore, this is a clear indication that companies do not employ children to help them, but to benefit from cheap labor (Herath and Sharma, 2007). The main aim of companies is to compete for a competitive edge in order to remain relevant in the business platform. Friedman’s theory of business indicates that businesses work for money and not anything else. In this regard, exploit an opportunities they can employ to outsmart competitors (Herath and Sharma, 2007). As the theory indicates, reducing cost is one of the strategies, companies use to gain competitive advantage and satisfy shareholders. Therefore, companies’ motive to use child labor is not based on the good will to help children, but to exploit them. Thus, according to Kant’s theory, it is unethical to use children as labor force. Conclusion The discussion evaluated if the use of child labor in the developing world by multinational companies is justifiable. Through the analysis of the two theories, utilitarian theory and Kant’s theory of duty, the use of children for labor will never be justifiable because it is unethical. It is unjustifiable because under utilitarian law, it does not produce the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people. Besides, it is unjustifiable under the Kant’s theory of duty because the companies have no good will in helping children other than human resource exploitation for their selfish gains. Therefore, child labor will ever remain non-justifiable for a number of multinational companies in developing economies. References Arnold, D. G., Audi, R., & Zwolinski, M. (2010). Recent work in ethical theory and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 559-581. Audi, R. (2004). The good in the right: A theory of intuition and intrinsic value. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Audi, R. (2009). Business ethics and ethical business. New York: Oxford University Press. Ballet, J., Bhukuth, A., & Carimentrand, A. (2014). Child Labor and Responsible Consumers From Boycotts to Social Labels, Illustrated by the Indian Hand-Knotted Carpet Industry. Business & Society, 53(1), 71-104. Barnett, C., Cafaro, P., & Newholm, T. (2005). Philosophy and ethical consumption. In:Harrison, Rob; Newholm, Terry and Shaw, Deirdre eds. The Ethical Consumer. London, UK: Sage, pp. 11–24 Baxley, A. M. (2010). Kant’s theory of virtue: The value of autocracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2012). Managing business ethics. Los Angeles [u.a.: Sage Falkenberg, A. W., & Falkenberg, J. (2009). Ethics in international value chain networks: the case of Telenor in Bangladesh. Journal of business ethics, 90(3), 355-369. Herath, G., & Sharma, K. (2007). Child labour in South Asia. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Hoffman, W. M., Frederick, R. E., & Schwartz, M. S. (Eds.). (2013). Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality. John Wiley & Sons. Jennings, M. (2008). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic. Jones, D. A. (2009). A novel approach to business ethics training: Improving moral reasoning in just a few weeks. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 367-379. Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2002). Child Labor and Multinational Conduct: A Comparison of International Business andStakeholder Codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 291-301. McGee, R. W. (2010). Analyzing insider trading from the perspectives of utilitarian ethics and rights theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 65-82. Montero, J. (2011). Neoliberal fashion: the political economy of sweatshops in Europe and Latin America (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University). Pies, I., Beckmann, M., & Hielscher, S. (2010). Value creation, management competencies, and global corporate citizenship: An ordonomic approach to business ethics in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2),
265-278. Shaw, W. H. (2009). Marxism, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 565-576. Stratton-Lake, P. (2000). Kant, duty, and moral worth. London: Routledge.
