Social Labelling and Trade Union Efforts to Fight Child Labour

Some comments to the Hilowitz Report 
(GB271/WP/SDL/1/2)

The report by Janet Hilowitz, "Labelling child labour products: a preliminary study", concludes that "It is far too early now to predict what the final weight of this kind of labelling will be vis-à-vis all the other initiatives and programmes that have been set up to combat child labour. Those who sponsor social labelling initiatives are exploring a new way of helping that should be watched with interest, and accepted as part of the international panoply of efforts to improve the lives of working children."

This conclusion is not surprising, and it can hardly be argued with. The report examines labelling of only one product - carpets - and with only one objective - elimination of child labour. All the examined labelling programmes have only a few years of experience.

The issue of social labelling should, however, be discussed on a much broader basis, just as the struggle against child labour cannot be isolated from other issues of human rights and international justice. The report however gives very valuable information and raises some interesting questions.

The carpet industry is one of the relatively few where large groups of children work on products mainly for export. The overall picture is that only 5 % of child labour worldwide goes into export goods. (1) (This is true even when including export-oriented commercial agriculture, which is estimated to employ about 2 % of the world's child labourers. (2) ) 
On the other hand, as the report clearly shows in describing the operations of the different programmes, the structure of the carpet industry makes monitoring very difficult.

The Report gives the very interesting example of the Abrinq labelling initiative in Brazil. This labelling programme aims not at the export industry but at goods and services for the home market. Operating in the home market obviously makes the monitoring process less difficult, and consumers are given an opportunity to join in the defence of children's rights in their own country.

In discussing "Fundamental requisites for a social labelling initiative to combat child labour" (in Part Three: Some relevant issues) the involvement of trade unions in the labelling schemes is not mentioned. This is a weakness that the carpet labelling programmes have inherited from older programmes in other sectors, notably the food sector. It was in this sector that social labelling as a way to address the issue of international justice was first introduced in programmes which are today jointly known as "Fair trade initiatives". 
The first products included in these programmes were all produced by smallholders, so there were no unions in production, and since these programmes started by establishing their own production line including their own "alternative " shops, there were no foodworkers or retail unions in the consumer countries, either. When the Fair-trade organisations started to work with tea, which is mainly produced on large estates, it became apparent that some kind of involvement from unions was necessary, and cooperation between Fair-trade organisations and trade unions is increasing. (3)

The most important role of labelling programmes, whether they promote social justice, workers' rights or environmentally sustainable development, is the effect they have on the mainstream market. Once the market share of labelled products reach 10 % or more, the attitude of these consumer groups becomes important to major producers and retailers. This will create the opportunity for trade unions to negotiate Codes of Conduct with producers or retailers. Trade unions have an objective interest in promoting fair trade, workers rights and sustainable developments, and can strive to have all these considerations met in a single code of conduct. If successfully negotiated and with credible monitoring, these Codes of Conduct will eliminate the need for any human rights or environmental label, and the brand name of the product will serve as the only label necessary.

Trade unions also have an objective interest in uniformity in the values promoted by social labels and codes of conduct. It is a very positive tendency that more and more initiatives recognise the Core Conventions of the ILO as benchmarks when it comes to workers' and human rights. (4)

Most of the labelling programmes described in the Hilowitz report generate funds for activities that benefit children removed from work. This is an aspect that is shared by the Fair-trade initiatives, and which now is being more and more reflected in Codes of Conduct signed between workers and employers. In the future, workers will challenge employers not only to abstain from the use of child labour and the purchase of goods made by child labour, but to contribute financially to activites in their own sector to combat child labour, and in particular to assisting children removed from work and their families in the transition period.

As described above, social labelling and Codes of Conduct seen together form an important area for the trade union struggle against child labour. In a few years, a fair number of products will be available for consumers who want to contribute to social justice through responsible buying. The same opportunity will be available to workers and their unions in sectors where there is no child labour, such as the health sector, public administration, and so on. The ability to reward those who respect international standards, rather than punishing those who do not, will give new impetus both to consumer involvement and trade union action.

While trade based on respect for workers' and human rights seems a long way ahead, the trade union movement is determined to contribute to the development in this direction , and to support the efforts of the ILO. The development and negotiation of Codes of Conduct may seem the most fruitful way ahead from the trade union perspective, but this does not exclude learning from the experiences of programmes of social labelling. (5)

31 May 1998 Geir Myrstad

1. US Department of Labour 1994: "By the sweat and toil of children - volume I: The use of child labour in American imports"
2. Melchior, Arne: "Child labour and trade policy", in Grimsrud & Melchior (eds): Child Labour and International Trade Policy", Oslo 1977
3. During 1997, contacts were established between the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation International (FLO) and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF). With the support of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the ACTRAV child labour project, a meeting between FLO, IUF and tea plantation unions from Asia and Africa was held in Bonn October 10 - 11 1997. The meeting recommended that FLO and IUF co-operate in the following ways:

• IUF can become an associate member of FLO and take part in policy development
• IUF can nominate a member on the Tea Registration Board, where all information concerning conditions in participating tea gardens is examined 
• IUF Regional Committees can nominate a representative to participate in the biannual Regional Producers' Meeting of the FLO. 
• At the national level, FLO can seek information and advice from IUF affiliates through informal consultations. This would be particularly important in the selection of new suppliers.

4. The very important Ethical Trading initiative (ETI) in the UK for instance uses the ILO Core Conventions to define workers' rights
5. While activly supporting International Trade Secretariats who seek to develop Codes of Conduct to be negotiated with multinational companies, ACTRAV is also gathering information on experiences from social labelling, especially with the Fairtrade initiatives, the certification programme for tropical wood, and the Flower Label Program.
   

Back to top