Exploited Childhoods: The Role of Global Corporations in Perpetuating and Mitigating Child Labour

Child labour represents a severe violation of fundamental human rights, undermining children’s right to education, development, and protection, as indicated in international human rights law. Despite strong international criticism, child labour continues due to policies in multinational firms’ supply networks. This article examines the roles and co-operation of multinational firms in human rights violations regarding child labour, in particular in high-risk sectors such as electronics, clothing manufacturing, and cocoa production. The article aims to analyse corporate due diligence practices, focusing on systemic transparency and accountability gaps, using international human rights tools such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Conventions 138 and 182, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The case studies of Nestlé, Mars, H&M, Zara, Apple, and Samsung are used to show both shortcomings and new  practices. This research paper concludes by offering policy recommendations that emphasize the importance of mandatory human rights due diligence frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and public advocacy. 

Introduction

Child labour is known to be one of the widespread abuses of basic human rights. As of 2020, an estimated 160 million children were forced into child labour, many of them in dangerous conditions that seriously impact their physical, emotional, and intellectual development, despite years of international advocacy and important legal frameworks intended to remove it (International Labour Organization [ILO], UNICEF, 2021). 

Under international law, child labour is defined as any work done by a child that deprives them of their childhood or educational opportunities, or any work that is harmful to their health and moral development (ILO, 1999; United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC], 1989). The rights protected based on international human rights instruments, such as the right to education, the right to be free from exploitation, and the right to adequate standards of living and health, are violated by child labour (UNCRC, 1989; ILO, 1999).

Increased consumer awareness and advocacy by civil society organisations have highlighted the involvement of multinational corporations in child labour. Although many companies support human rights commitments, they remain indirectly complicit in violations of human rights through opaque supply chains, insufficient due diligence procedures, and inadequate accountability systems. Industries such as the production of cocoa, textiles and clothing, and electronics, have been identified as being involved in child labour by international organisations (Human Rights Watch, 2021).

Given this context, it is crucial to explore corporate responsibility in sustaining and reducing child labour. The article examines the direct and indirect contributions of multinational corporations to child labour violations. It also aims to evaluate the effectiveness of existing corporate strategies grounded on human rights frameworks, focusing on practices of ethical sourcing, human rights due diligence, and multi-stakeholder partnerships. 

The research question  addressed in this article is “In what ways do global corporations contribute to human rights violations through child labour, and what human rights-based strategies effectively mitigate such practices?”

This article seeks to contribute to international advocacy efforts to eliminate child labour by offering policy-relevant recommendations that are based on human rights principles.

Background and Human Rights Framework 

Child labour is a serious human rights violation that undermines core protections of children. Every child is entitled to the rights to education, leisure, protection from exploitation, and an adequate standard of living based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN General Assembly, 1989). Under the UNCRC, the States Parties are required to safeguard children from all types of economic exploitation, dangerous work, and employment that interferes with their educational, physical, and mental development (UN General Assembly, 1989). 

The International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions provide clear legal definitions and standards aimed at ending child labour, and further reinforce these protections. ILO Convention No. 138 (1973), which establishes the minimum age for employment, and Convention No. 182 (1999), which addresses the most severe types of child labour, such as slavery, forced labour, trafficking, and hazardous work, are two essential treaties. Both conventions have received widespread ratification, demonstrating the international agreement to denounce child exploitation and protect child rights (ILO, 2022). It is worrisome that there are still gaps between legal obligations and actual enforcement, which allows child labour to go unchecked worldwide. 

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), adopted in 2011, further enhanced corporate responsibility to uphold human rights. The UNGPs give multinational firms explicit responsibilities, including the need for thorough human rights due diligence, a procedure that calls on companies to detect, prevent, mitigate, and rectify negative human rights impacts in their supply chains and operations. (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], 2011). Corporate accountability, transparency, and proactive risk management are essential for preventing and addressing human rights violations, including child labour (Ruggie, 2013).

The UNGPs require due diligence on human rights in various areas.  Corporations are expected to; 

1. Make a public commitment to human rights through declarations and policies.
2. Find abuse risks, especially in supply chains, through conducting comprehensive human rights impact assessments. 
3. Implement policies to prevent and reduce abuse, interacting directly with suppliers and business partners. 
4. Create efficient grievance procedures to address human rights abuses (OHCHR, 2011).
   

It is worth noting that these policies are not only ethical guidelines, but are also part of national and regional legislative measures. An example of this is the European Union’s directive on corporate sustainability due diligence rules, which requires businesses to incorporate human rights scrutiny into their operations. This is an improvement of legal requirements to keep corporations accountable for their actions (European Commission, 2022).

However, there is still a significant gap between corporate commitments and practice despite these explicit frameworks and standards. Many businesses in high-risk sectors struggle or fail to transform these human rights policies into practical realities, frequently continuing systemic abuses like child labour. 

The understanding of child labor emphasizes critical responsibility of multinational corporations, accountable not solely as economic actors but also under international human rights law. The effectiveness of corporate actions depends on the extent to which they adhere to established human rights frameworks and maintain transparency and collaboration with governments, society, and impacted communities. 

Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations 

Cocoa Industry

Child labour has been linked to the cocoa industry in West Africa, specifically in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. These two nations mainly rely on smallholder agricultural practices,  producing more than 60% of the world’s cocoa. Over 1.5 million children are involved in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa production (NORC at the University of Chicago, 2020). The work includes handling agrochemicals, carrying large loads, and using machetes. These practices violates both  ILO Convention No. 182 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Multinational companies like Nestlé and Mars have implemented programmes such as Cocoa for Generations and the Cocoa Plan to solve these issues; however, child labour persists despite their corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. The question arises as to their efficacy. 

Garment Industry

The garment industry, with centres in Bangladesh, India, and other South and Southeast Asian countries, has been criticised for its involvement with child labour. Companies such as Zara and H&M outsource production to factories that are often discovered to use child labour in substandard conditions. ILO Convention No. 138 and the CRC’s provisions on the right to education and protection from exploitation are violated; these children work long hours, have limited access to education, and receive low pay (Human Rights Watch, 2015; Business & Human Rights Resource Centre [BHRRC], 2023; ILO, 1973)

Even though these businesses have implemented codes of conduct and engage with multi-stakeholder programs like the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), the oversight and enforcement systems are either ineffective or symbolic. Factory audits frequently do not extend to informal subcontractors, where labor violations are most common, and are sometimes preannounced or subject to external influence.

Electronics Manufacturing 

Due to its reliance on complex international supply chains, the electronics industry poses a threat to human rights, in particular those involving child labour. The factories of companies such as Apple and Samsung have been exposed in China for using child labour and failing to adhere to basic labour norms (China Labor Watch, 2013). Apple has improved its monitoring system by issuing Supplier Responsibility Reports and firing non-compliant contractors, but its actions have had a limited effect. 

Children as young as seven face these hazardous working conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which makes the lack of regulations even more alarming. Cobalt is a vital component of lithium-ion batteries, which are used in electric cars and cellphones. Amnesty International (2016) states that child labour is used in informal mining sectors that supply key tech companies. Supply chains within this sector often lack full transparency, and the enforcement of conflict minerals legislation and corporate transparency requirements is generally insufficient.

Case Studies 

Nestlé/Mars and Child Labour in Cocoa Farming Communities

Due to their inability to end child labour in cocoa supply chains, Nestlé and Mars have both faced major criticism. Former Mali child labourers filed Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021, accusing these companies of encouraging and facilitating forced child labour on cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire (U.S. Supreme Court, 2021). The lawsuit showed the systematic shortcomings of voluntary CSR frameworks in preventing human rights violations, even though the court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds.

H&M/Zara and Unsafe Working Conditions in Garment Factories

During investigations, exploitative practices in Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar factories were discovered in the clothing supply chains of Zara and H&M. According to reports, females between the ages of 14 and 16 worked long hours in dangerous, claustrophobic settings while frequently being verbally and physically abused. The businesses benefit from using different levels of subcontracting, which distances them from human rights violations that take place in their supply chains, even though they deny direct involvement (BHRRC, 2023). 

Apple/Samsung and Exploitative Conditions in Electronics Supply Chains

Supply chains for Apple and Samsung have frequently been connected to abusive labour practices, especially in China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Samsung was criticised for utilising child labour in the procurement of cobalt, while Apple’s contractors were discovered to be using child labour and violating working hour restrictions (Amnesty International, 2016; China Labor Watch, 2013). Despite business pledges to source responsibly, abuse is still enabled by the lack of enforcement and legally binding human rights due diligence, which needs to be present for every stage of production. 

Systemic Human Rights Abuses Through Corporate Supply Chains

The firms involved in child labour often operate in fragmented supply chains that span various countries. The supply chain is not transparent, leading to complexities arising and to a breakdown in accountability and supervision. There are several contributing elements:

• Negligence: The absence of comprehensive impact assessments on human rights, particularly in high-risk areas. 
• Lack of Transparency: External verification of labour practices is hampered by inadequate traceability methods, particularly in mining and agriculture (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2024; BSR, 2023). 

• Accountability Gaps: CSR frameworks are ‘voluntary’, current corporate standards of conduct are not strictly enforced, and impacted children and families do not have easy access to grievance procedures. 

Although some corporations attempt to reduce child labour, many depend on superficial audits or certificates that are unable to identify or stop exploitation. The systemic factors that permit child abuse do not change while necessary regulations and enforced accountability are absent.

Current Strategies from a Human Rights Due Diligence Perspective

Several multinational firms have adopted corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies to show their commitment to human rights and ethical sourcing as a response to criticism of their involvement in child labour. Human rights-based strategies, however, require methodical due diligence grounded in international norms, especially the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), and require more than voluntary compliance (UNGPs, 2011).

The creation of corporate human rights policies, which specify an organisation’s principles and obligations in compliance with international human rights law, is a fundamental part of these practices. Apple, Nestlé, and H&M have publicly committed to eliminating child labor in their supply chains and conducting risk assessments in accordance with the UNGPs. 

The next part of the corporate strategy involves implementing human rights due diligence processes, which include identifying, preventing, reducing, and accounting for how companies address their actions and effects on human rights. This includes: 

• Mapping supply chains to determine the most risky areas for child labour.
• Interacting with impacted communities, local stakeholders, and non-governmental organisations. 
• Monitoring suppliers and subcontractors through site inspections, audits, and reporting systems.
• Responding to violations, ending supplier agreements, or pursuing corrective measures  (Koula, 2024).

Although many corporations claim to follow these procedures, there are significant differences in the depth and quality of due diligence. As companies rely on third-party audits, which are frequently scheduled in advance and restricted to key suppliers, they ignore subcontractors where infractions are most likely to occur  (Koula, 2024).

Transparent Reporting and Accountability Mechanisms 

The Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) is an instrument that is being used more often now. HRIAs are methodological assessments of how business operations could impact individual and community human rights. Certain companies, like Nestlé and Mars, have included aspects of HRIAs into their programmes (Triponel, 2024). 

The lack of transparency is a major weakness; few corporations publish the complete outcome of their impact assessments or provide details on how abuses are addressed. Another problem is that very few businesses offer easily accessible grievance procedures for children or families who are directly affected by labour abuses, which is a key principle of UNGPs. In the absence of mandatory reporting or legal enforcement, companies have little incentive to reveal harmful practices within their supply chains. 

Fairtrade Certification

Fairtrade International has become an internationally recognised certification method with the aim of assuring fair wages, ethical sourcing, and a ban on child exploitation. In cocoa-producing nations like Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, Fairtrade offers rewards to co-operatives that adhere to its guidelines and support community development projects. It has been successful in reducing economic vulnerability; however, research shows that certification alone does not fully eradicate child labour, especially when local enforcement is weak and market prices are low (Nelson et al., 2013). 

Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI)

ETI is a multi-stakeholder alliance of businesses, labour unions, and non-governmental organisations that works to uphold workers’ rights worldwide. The members, such as H&M and Inditex (Zara), are expected to apply a Base Code of Labour practices and conduct due diligence through their supply chains. The ETI  has admitted that implementation is inconsistent, and civil society has criticised it for failing to ensure accountability in abuse cases due to its reliance on voluntary compliance (Connor et al., 2016; Evans, 2020).

UNICEF Partnerships

UNICEF has collaborated directly with the private sector to advance business practices that prioritise rights of children. It collaborated with the International Cocoa Initiative and well-known chocolate manufacturers to develop tools for monitoring and reducing child labour in areas that grow cocoa (International Cocoa Initiative & UNICEF, 2024). These collaborations emphasise health services for children who are in risky situations, along with access to education and community involvement.

The sustainability of these partnerships depends on governments’ and businesses’  continued dedication, even though they represent a shift toward rights-based, preventative strategies. These initiatives may be limited to pilot projects or public relations campaigns, without systemic changes. 

Evaluation Using Human Rights Criteria

To evaluate corporate strategies, it is important to use a human-rights-based framework, based on three key principles: protection, accountability, and participation. 

• Protection: The strategies must substantially reduce children’s exposure to exploitative labour. This entails addressing underlying issues, including poverty, limited educational opportunities, and family vulnerability, in addition to removing children from hazardous jobs (UNICEF). 
• Accountability: Violations of children’s rights must be reported, investigated, and fixed in order to be effective. Legal repercussions for business negligence, transparent public reporting, and external scrutiny are included as part of the process (Chambers & Vastardis, 2021). 
• Participation: Children and affected communities must have a role and voice in corporate responses. Companies must make sure their policies take into consideration local realities and engage with child-sensitive grievance mechanisms (Dehbi & Martin‑Ortega, 2023). 

Despite the improvements, few corporate methods completely meet all listed requirements. Community voices continue to be underrepresented in decision-making processes, and voluntary standards often lack enforcement mechanisms. The systemic injustices that support child labour, like global supply chain dynamics and economic reliance on exploitative labour markets, are not addressed to the full extent by the majority of initiatives.

Discussion 

Although corporate approaches to child labour have changed significantly in recent years, the majority of these approaches are still weak, reactive, and mostly dependent on voluntary compliance. The ethical sourcing initiatives and corporate social responsibility programmes have raised awareness, but they are still not very effective at preventing child labour in international supply chains. Several flaws have been seen in many industries:

• Lack of supply chain transparency: Subcontractors are the most likely to use child labour. They are not included in monitoring systems since most businesses only track the first tier of suppliers.
  
• Voluntary nature of due diligence: In the absence of legally mandated frameworks, many businesses adopt minimal standards for compliance, motivated more by concerns about their reputation than by legally binding obligations.
  
• Inadequate mechanisms for remediation: Few businesses give children and families affected by exploitative labour access to remedies or child-sensitive grievance procedures (Centre for Child Rights and Business & Save the Children, 2023).
  
• Disconnection from underlying causes: Rather than tackling systemic poverty, inadequate access to education, or a lack of social protections, many strategies concentrate solely on removing children from the workforce (Dehbi & Martin‑Ortega, 2023). 

It is worth noting that some progress has been made in this aspect; tools like HRIAs, the inclusion of ILO norms in supplier contracts, and partnerships with UNICEF reflect growing awareness among corporations of their responsibility to protect international human rights.  However, as these programmes function as isolated programmes, it means that their success is limited. 

Conclusion 

One of the most ethically indefensible human rights abuses in the world is child labour. Millions of children are still exploited and denied access to safety, health care, and education despite campaigning and the ratification of international conventions. The multinational firms, directly or indirectly, contribute to these conditions through a complex supply chain that lacks adequate supervision and accountability. 

This article has shown that voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives have mainly failed to prevent child labour. The projects are not implemented correctly, and are concentrated on reputational management as opposed to structural change. Initiatives such as Fairtrade certification and collaborations with UNICEF and other organisations provide encouraging frameworks; however, the effectiveness depends on further integration, transparency, and legal obligations. 

To prevent child labour, there needs to be a move from performative compliance to enforceable accountability and response. A human rights-based approach requires corporations to take active responsibility, not solely to prevent complicity in abuses but to be part of change; to improve children’s rights and wellbeing. Public openness, victim-centred remedies, multi-stakeholder co-operation, and binding legislation must become necessary rather than voluntary.

Eliminating child labour is a moral obligation shared by all; it is not only a corporate issue. Global firms possess the means, resources, and reach necessary to prevent exploitative structures. They can also ensure that childhood is a protected right for everyone, rather than a commodity in the global market, with the correct laws, persistent regulation, and ethical action.

References

Amnesty International. (2016). This is what we die for: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global trade in cobalt. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/

BSR. (2023, October 4). Nine ways to mitigate risk of child labor across the supply chain. https://www.bsr.org/en/blog/nine-ways-to-mitigate-risk-of-child-labor-across-the-supply-chain

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2023). Falling out of fashion: Garment worker abuse under military rule in Myanmar.  

https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/2023_Myanmar_garment_workers.pdf media.business-humanrights.org

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2024, February 14). Audits are not the answer: Four labor approaches to eliminating child labor on U.S. and global supply chains. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/audits-are-not-the-answer-four-labor-approaches-to-eliminating-child-labor-on-us-and-global-supply-chains/

Chambers, Rachel and Vastardis, Anil Yilmaz (2021). Human Rights Disclosure and Due Diligence Laws: The Role of Regulatory Oversight in Ensuring Corporate Accountability, Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 21: No. 2, Article 4. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol21/iss2/4 

China Labor Watch. (2013.). Chinese workers exploited by U.S.-owned iPhone supplier: An investigation of labor conditions at Jabil Green Point in Wuxi, China. https://chinalaborwatch.org/zh/chinese-workers-exploited-by-u-s-owned-iphone-supplier-an-investigation-of-labor-conditions-at-jabil-green-point-in-wuxi-china/ China Labor Watch

Connor, T., Delaney, A., & Rennie, S. (2016). The Ethical Trading Initiative: Negotiated solutions to human rights violations in global supply chains? Non-Judicial Redress Mechanisms Report Series No. 18. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2889121

Dehbi, F., & Martin‑Ortega, O. (2023). An integrated approach to corporate due diligence from a human rights, environmental, and TWAIL perspective. Regulation & Governance, 17(4), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12538

Evans, A. (2020, July 16). Ethical labels not fit for purpose, report warns consumers. The Guardian. 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/16/ethical-labels-not-fit-for-purpose-report-warns-consumers

European Commission. (2022). Proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0071

Human Rights Watch. (2015). Whoever raises their head suffers the most: Workers’ rights in Bangladesh’s garment factories. https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/22/whoever-raises-their-head-suffers-most/workers-rights-bangladeshs-garment

International Cocoa Initiative & UNICEF. (2024). Accelerating TOGETHER action against child labour in Ghana: A joint launch of multi‑stakeholder and multi‑sectoral initiatives. UNICEF Ghana. https://www.unicef.org/ghana/press-releases/accelerating-together-action-against-child-labour-ghana-joint-launch-multi

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2022). Ratifications of ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C182 

International Labour Organization (ILO) & UNICEF. (2021). Child labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward. https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_797515/lang–en/index.htm

Koula, A. C. (2024). Corporate responsibility to respect human rights defenders under the UNGPs and steps towards mandatory due diligence. Liverpool Law Review, 45(2), 335-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-023-09359-1 

Nelson, V., Opoku, K., Martin, A., Bugri, J., & Posthumus, H. (2013). Assessing the poverty impact of sustainability standards: Fairtrade in Ghanaian cocoa. London: DfID UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a4fed915d3cfd0006d0/APISS-FairtradeInGhanaianCocoa.pdf 

NORC at the University of Chicago. (2020). Assessing progress in reducing child labor in cocoa production in cocoa growing areas of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdfs/NORC%202020%20Cocoa%20Report_English.pdf 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2012). Guiding principles on business and human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/reference-publications/guiding-principles-business-and-human-rights

Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights. W.W. Norton & Company.

The Centre for Child Rights and Business, & Save the Children. (2023). Child rights risks in global supply chains: Why a ‘zero tolerance’ approach is not enough. https://childrights-business.org/resources/study-child-rights-risks-in-global-supply-chains-why-a-zero-tolerance-approach-is-not-enough.html

Triponel, A. (2024). Making HRIAs meaningful: Assessment of increasing HRIA adoption but noting transparency gaps and insufficient stakeholder engagement. We Are Human Level. https://www.wearehumanlevel.com/content-hub/making-hrias-meaningful

UN General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

UNICEF Child Rights & Business. (n.d.). Human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. https://www.unicef.org/childrightsandbusiness/workstreams/law-policy/human-rights

U.S. Supreme Court. (2021). Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (19-416). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-416_i4dj.pdf