# data[].attributes.body
Ethics is what you see as morally correct. Others may view it as just being a kind caring person.

# data[].attributes.body
Nestle has been proved guilty in multiple cases for using child labor is this considered ethical?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite global efforts and petitions from humanitarian groups, there are still many major companies around the world that employ child labour - knowingly or otherwise - in order to make a profit. As business rely on increasingly globalised supply chains, the ethical and legal practices of the contractors and subcontractors that they use can become murky, and while many of the organisations on this list make the right noises about ending such practices, the reality is that they need to take a lot more responsibility for how their products are sourced and manufactured.

We, as consumers, also have a responsibility, too. Although it might be easy to turn a blind eye to the world of child labour, it is something that continues to deserve our scrutiny and concern. These companies might be doing great things in their field, but by using work crews that include children, they are enabling the growth of an illicit and miserable industry. Drawing public attention to their activity - or lack of, in many cases - might be our best hope of making a real and lasting change.

With this in mind, here are 10 companies that use child labour.

1. Nestlé

Despite signing an industry agreement in 2001 to eradicate child labour from their Ghana and Ivory Coast-based cocoa farms, Nestlé - one of the largest and most recognisable consumer brands in the world - continues to receive criticism for the ongoing employment abuses in their supply chain. In 2005, a lawsuit bought against the company by former child workers lead to a damning investigation by the Fair Labor Association (FLA), and although the confectionary giant subsequently introduced new measures to tackle the problem, clearly they have not worked.

Terry Collingsworth, the human rights lawyer who filed the original lawsuit, alleged in October 2018 that Nestlé has since failed to meet its own eradication targets, with the US appeals court allowing his longstanding legal challenge to proceed; the Swiss-based food producer are now also facing a separate class-action lawsuit from US human rights activist Dannell Tomasella, who claims that the company are lying to consumers by failing to disclose their ongoing involvement in child labour. For their part, Nestlé acknowledges that the 'risk of child labour' in its supply chain cannot be 'fully removed' but that they are 'determined to tackle the problem'.

2. H&M

Swedish fashion retailer Hennes & Mauritz - better known as H&M - are no strangers to human rights controversies; it has faced allegations of neglect in regards to workers' rights across its various production factories, while its sustainability practices have also drawn criticism in recent years. Perhaps the most alarming charges levelled at the fast fashion giants, though, concern the reports that they have been using child labour in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Cambodia - and paying as little as 13 pence an hour for the privilege.

An alarming drop in their 2018 profits suggests that customer patience may be growing thin, but H&M seems undeterred about their ethical and moral role in this process; in a public statement, the company was quick to point out that the legal working age in Myanmar is 14. Unfortunately, despite the issuing of a token condemnation of general child labour practices, this blaise attitude suggests that H&M are unlikely to change their ways anytime soon.

3. Philip Morris

The tobacco industry has long been comfortable in its role as public enemy number one, and it's therefore unsurprising to find no less than three of its biggest players on this list; one of them, the US cigarette giant Philip Morris - which owns Marlboro - has a long history of exploiting children.

In 2010, the company admitted that children as young as 10 had been forced into labour on its contracted tobacco farms in Kazakhstan, with allegations by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) suggesting that passports had been confiscated in order to prevent them escaping; the HRW also claims that Philip Morris was then 'slow' to implement their suggestions for tackling the issue. Clearly, there are still ongoing issues with their providers elsewhere in the globe, too, with a Guardian investigation published in June 2018 alleging that child labour on the company's contracted farms - particularly in Malawi - is 'rampant'.

4. Microsoft

Despite Microsoft's global reputation as both a top employer and a philanthropic pioneer, allegations surfaced in October 2018 that child labour was being used to extract cobalt for the company in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); investigators for Amnesty International claim that children as young as 7 are mining the product in toxic and hostile conditions for 12 hours a day.

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft has moved quickly to address the allegations, producing a report in late 2018 that details the actions they have taken to eradicate this practice; Amnesty remains sceptical, though, stating that while there is 'real evidence of change' on the ground in the DRC, there is still a 'long way to go' to meet both their own concerns and international standards in general.

5. Sports Direct

Another global company that has struggled with its public image and perception, Sports Direct - and, in particular, its controversial owner, Mike Ashley - have repeatedly come under fire for dubious employment practices; the UK-based clothing and sports equipment giant can now add child labour to its charge sheet.

The company's Lonsdale clothing line - a key part of Sports Direct's public brand - is produced in factories in Myanmar, with testimonies from workers detailing how the practice is rife. The company doesn't seem too bothered, though, describing the workers' statements as 'anecdotal and uncorroborated', before later claiming to condemn child labour practices.

Grab your FREE career planner

6. British American Tobacco (BAT)

Glassdoor

Despite being the biggest listed tobacco company in the world (Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Rothmans are among its brands), BAT has faced numerous accusations of enabling child labour practices; in 2016, reports surfaced of children working in hostile conditions on BAT tobacco farms in Bangladesh, something that the company stringently refutes.

In spite of their protestations, concern is still present over the welfare of children and their labour use on BAT's tobacco farms all over the world; Marty Otanez, an academic at the University of Colorado, claims that child labour is present 'in every segment [of] the tobacco production process', and that BAT see any proposed changes as a threat to their annual profit sheets. The company itself, meanwhile, is happy to continue turning a blind eye, despite the accusations put to them; speaking at its AGM in April 2018, chairman Richard Burrows claimed that BAT has 'not got any questions to answer in respect of these issues'.

7. Apple

Apple has cultivated a reputation as an innovative brand, always at the forefront of technology and a dream job for many graduates and interns. But, perhaps unsurprisingly for a company that produces so many units, questions have been raised about what exactly goes on in its supply chain; following the discovery that a Chinese contractor was employing 74 minors in 2013, the company also admitted that its bestselling iPhone X product was being made by schoolchildren.

There were fresh claims in October 2018, too, of school students under the age of 18 being made to manufacture Apple Watches under the guise of a company 'internship'. The contractor in question, based in southwest China, also manufactures products for other tech giants such as Dell, Amazon and Siemens. The company says that it wants to end all child labour practices, although its contractors are still permitted to hire 'interns' to work in such a way.

8. New Look

Penny Cross / Plymouth Herald

The UK-based fashion retailer is also involved in the Myanmar factory scandals that have bought H&M and Sports Direct into disrepute; unlike its competitors, though, New Look is at least willing to accept that there is an issue and have pledged to 'work with suppliers and partners in Myanmar to address the findings'. This includes a remediation programme in which underage workers are removed from factories, returned to school and reimbursed with a similar wage.

The company also claims to have let their suppliers know that they are 'against' the use of Uzbek raw cotton due to child labour exploitation there, although by their own admission, they still place responsibility for the investigation of cotton sourcing in the hands of their contractors - not themselves.

9. JTI

Glassdoor

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) are also involved in the child labour cases involving tobacco farmers in Malawi; unlike their competitors, though, JTI buys the tobacco leaf directly, meaning it has a key say in the prices that are set and the conditions that workers operate in. In the Guardian's June 2018 report, researchers found that children work at their family's behest on the tobacco farms, a practice that is condoned by JTI (and other leaf buyers) with the justification that 'handling dried tobacco is not considered as hazardous [as working with wet leaves]'.

Indeed, according to the report, JTI (and BAT) consider it not just acceptable, but even beneficial, for children between 13 and 15 to work on the farms, provided it is 'light work, permitted by local law'. It also points out that its internal ARISE scheme has removed more than 39,000 children from labour exploitation across the world.

10. Hershey's

Like Nestlé, the US-based confectionary giant, Hershey's, has run into serious labour explotation problems on their west African cocoa farms; like Nestlé, they are also now facing legal action for their practices from Dannell Tomasella, who has also targeted Mars. Tomasella's lawsuit - filed, as with the Nestlé case, by law firm Hagens Berman - claims that Hershey's have repeatedly abandoned any serious attempt to implement the Harkin-Engel Protocol of which they are signatories, resulting in widespread child labour practices on their supply farms.

The company, which sells popular confectionary including Kit Kats, Peppermint Patties and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, argues that it 'does not tolerate, and is committed to preventing, child labour across the entire supply chain', but according to Tomasella and his legal advisors, Hershey's is simply not doing enough.

Child labour remains one of the biggest issues of our time and while international humanitarian companies might be doing their best to turn things around, many companies continue to fund cheap labour and sweatshops in the production of their goods. While amnesty groups draw attention to the very worst cases, there is still an alarming rate going on and if we really want to make a change, we should pay attention to the products we buy, and the factories we fund as a result.

Join the conversation! Are there any companies that you think should be added to the list? Let us know in the comments section below.

Any views or opinions expressed within this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of CareerAddict and/or DeltaQuest Media Ltd. This article is an updated version of an earlier article originally published on 10 October 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Companies that Still Use Child Labour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You'll be shocked to learn that some of your favourite companies are using child labour. #ChildLabour

# data[].attributes.body
Volkswagon revealed that they had in stalled software into millions of cars in order to thinking that the car is more environmentally friendly than they were.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Biggest Corporate Scandals of 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Volkswagen, to Martin Shkreli, to Sepp Blatter, here are the most compelling corporate scandals of 2015.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toyota failing to keep there cars safe for money ethical or not ethical?

# data[].attributes.subject
Toyota failing to keep there cars safe for money ethical or not ethical?

# data[].attributes.body
Toyota has had a recall in for there cars due to no fully taking in the safety of there customers. However they delayed the recall and they pushed aside tougher locks and side airbags to save money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most important aspects of any car company is safety - the concern for safety, how both employees and consumers are kept safe, and how issues are handled should a safety concern arise. Toyota made a huge and unethical failure in 2010 when they basically betrayed their promise as a company by ignoring safety concerns and delaying recall investigations just so they could save a little money.

After confronted with safety concerns regarding faulty breaks and sticking pedals in 2009, Toyota said that phasing in side airbags saved $124 million and 50,000, the cost of what it would have taken to recall and fix vehicles. They also stated that delaying a rule for tougher door locks saved them $11 million.

Despite being ordered to appear before Congress and provide an explanation for their unethical handling of the situation, Toyota didn't seem to think it was such a big deal.

"We can win back the customer's confidence; we are doing a better job," said senior Toyota executive and global managing director on the Toyota board in somewhat of an apology for their delayed recalls. But it seems that they were only sorry after they got caught - it was almost an entire two years before Toyota got called out on this unethical practice after a few deaths and even more complaints about their unsafe vehicles. Their failure to be honest got so bad that they were even accused of hiding evidence in hundreds of rollover and death cases.
You may also like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most important aspects of any car company is safety - the concern for safety, how both employees and consumers are kept safe, and how issues are handled should a safety concern arise.

# data[].attributes.body
Google dropping new motto Don't be evil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alphabet Drops Google's Famous 'Don't Be Evil' Motto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under Google's Alphabet, the new wording is 'Do the right thing.'

# data[].attributes.body
Why its so hard to hate star bucks?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Five years ago, Seattle-based coffee chain Starbucks wasn't in a good place. In its fiscal 2008 annual report, the company showed a 3% contraction in comparable store sales, a bitter piece of punctuation following three consecutive years of sales growth deceleration. Although net revenue was still up 10% for the year at $10.4 billion, operating income fell by about 52% to $504 million, and the company's operating margin fell from 11.2% to 4.9%. Net earnings fell by about 53% to $315 million and return on equity fell from 29% to just 13%. If this is jargon to you, it translates roughly as "bad news bears."

Although part of the decline ($267 million) was due to restructuring, the company's outlook was still bleak. The financial crisis was in full swing that year, and history showed that the recovery would be - and has been - anemic. As Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said at the time, "consumer conﬁdence was approaching all-time lows, and both Wall Street and Main Street were reeling."

This is no exaggeration. By the end of 2008, Starbucks stock was trading below $10, less than half of where it was at the end of 2007 and well below its 2006 peak of just above $35. Investors apparently wanted nothing to do with a company whose business is predicated on premium coffee and free Wi-Fi.

But Schultz was unfazed, at least outwardly. Starbucks launched a series of initiatives captured under the broad umbrella of the "Transformation Agenda," something that sounds like the title of a dystopian science fiction novel but is actually the opposite. Far from being a typical corporate overhaul in which investments are cut, jobs are lost, and goals are shuffled but not reimagined, Schultz and his team "made what many believed to be a controversial decision to invest in our people." Starbucks put people, environment, and community first.

The strategy worked: Starbucks' business machine purred back to life. Fast forward to 2013, and the company was reporting $14.9 billion in revenue, up about 12% from 2012. Comparable-store sales grew 7% that year, and adjusted operating income climbed 23% to $2.5 billion (this adjusted figure excludes a $2.8 billion litigation charge). Adjusted operating margin increased 1.5 percentage points to 16%.

Investors chased the performance. As of June, Starbucks stock is trading at nearly $77 per share with a trailing price-to-earnings ratio of nearly 400 (read: investors are willing to pay a huge premium for this stock).

So how exactly did Starbucks' feel-good policies translate into better business performance during a time when most companies were simply trying to keep their heads above water?
1. Competitive employee compensation
If we take Starbucks' corporate communication at face value (and really, who doesn't take all corporate communication at face value?), the company doesn't so much employ people as it does partner with them. At least, this is how Starbucks describes the more than 200,000 people on its payroll around the world: as "partners," not "employees."

At almost any other company, an institutional insistence on using the word "partners" instead of "employees" would look like a branding exercise that got way out of hand. Starbucks, though, has gone to great lengths to ensure the merit of its claim, and true to form, the company has invested heavily in its team. These investments have come in the form of equity-based compensation for non-executive partners, 401(k) benefits, comprehensive healthcare benefits for both part- and full-time workers, and even a tuition reimbursement scheme for students.

For some scale, Starbucks reported in 2013 that it "continued to reward and invest in our full- and part-time partners by helping them to realize more than $230 million in value from equity awards, and by retaining industry-leading health care benefits regardless of changes to the U.S. health care laws." That's about $1 million per employee, although, as open-handed as Starbucks executives are with compensation, you can be sure that frontline workers aren't receiving six-figure equity grants.

You may have heard that earlier in June, Starbucks unveiled a refurbished "College Achievement Plan." Starbucks is partnering with Arizona State University to allow employees who work more than 20 hours a week to work toward a bachelor's degree with assistance from the company. Employees are able to choose from more than 40 paths of study and degree programs, and those admitted under junior or senior class standing will be able to receive full tuition reimbursement.

While there are some shortfalls and frictions with the system, Starbucks' overall approach to worker compensation is outstanding because it demonstrates a legitimate interest in the welfare of its partners.
2. Corporate responsibility
Here's another piece of corporate happy talk: "In 2008 we set a series of ambitious goals where we felt we could use our scale for the greatest good in the areas of ethical sourcing, environmental impact and community improvement," wrote Starbucks Senior Vice President John Kelly in the company's 2013 Global Responsibilities Report. "We had a vision that by 2015, we could fundamentally transform the way our company approaches corporate social responsibility and imprint these values into our business."

Starbucks, in its efforts to be a responsible corporate citizen, is well on its way to completing most of those goals. One of the goals it set was to ethically source 100% of its coffee by 2015. In 2012, 93% of the coffee Starbucks purchased was ethically sourced, and in 2013, that share edged up to 95%. The company believes it is on track to meet its goal.

If this accomplishment sounds like an empty pat on the back for a corporation that is simply trying to fortify its brand value, well, fair enough. It's healthy to be skeptical of claims of feel-good achievements like "ethically sourced" or "fair trade." However, most of the world's coffee comes from places where the standard of living is relatively low, and wage and labor policies are either nonexistent or difficult to enforce. It can be easy to forget that there are real people at every stage of the supply chain and that, yes, the final consumer does bear responsibility for that supply chain.

Just as Starbucks recognizes that the health of its business hinges on the health of those it directly employs, the company also sees that its long-term success depends on the health of its suppliers. The implementation of Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices will help ensure that the farmers at the base of the pyramid are economically sound and can support Starbucks as it continues to grow.
3. Customer experience
"Our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time," wrote Starbucks Chief Community Officer (yes, that's a real thing) Blair Taylor in the company's 2013 responsibility report (also a real thing).

Once again, it would be easy to write this off as corporate happy talk, but outside of hand-crafted mom-and-pop cafes, there's no third place like a Starbucks. Perhaps even more so than the coffee itself, Starbucks relies on an accommodative environment to attract and retain customers, and it has gone to enormous lengths to ensure it remains the go-to destination for those looking for a place to hang out between home and work.

Starbucks was among the first to make free wireless Internet a part of its customer experience, and keeping pace with new technology, the coffee chain is becoming one of the first to implement wireless charging technology. The company recently announced a deal with Duracell to make wireless charging mats a standard part of the experience.

"From WiFi and the in-store Starbucks Digital Network to mobile payment and digital music downloads, we have always tried to anticipate our customers' needs early in the adoption curve and provide a world-class solution. We are thrilled to offer our customers that next level of convenience with Powermat wireless charging. Rather than hunting around for an available power outlet, they can seamlessly charge their device while enjoying their favorite food or beverage offering right in our stores," said Adam Brotman, chief digital officer at Starbucks, in a press release.
USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five years ago, Seattle-based coffee chain Starbucks wasn't in a good place.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why google is highly looked upon  in the ethical ways? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why google is highly looked upon  in the ethical ways? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much money does Google spend a year on free food for its employees?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 5): Free food is a benefit enjoyed by every poodle in America. Serving free catered meals was one of the smartest business decisions Larry and Sergey ever made. Those free meals keep Google employees on campus. In terms of hours saved the program probably pays for itself ten times o...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Ethics: a general introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethics are a system of moral principles and a branch of philosophy which defines what is good for individuals and society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As an ethics consultant, I've found that people often fall into one of four ethical categories. One type isn't necessarily better than another, but knowing a person's "ethical type" can help you predict how he or she will react in situations requiring ethical judgment. And, it helps when people know and understand their own ethical type as they face ethical challenges.

How a person chooses to react to the following ethical dilemma illustrates the four ethical types:
Just after your current employer promoted you and gave you a substantial raise, you receive an attractive job offer from another company. When you got your promotion, you told your boss you were "in it for the long haul," but now you're not so sure. Should you tell your boss about the outside offer?

The first ethical type, the Stickler, looks at ethical situations in term of following the rules. Anyone trying to convince a Stickler of an ethical point will have to find a rule that supports that point. Sticklers tend to be rigid and prosper in bureaucratic organizations with stable rules. In this scenario, the Stickler will likely conclude that he has given his word to his boss. He will report the outside offer even if he has no intention of taking it.

Negotiators, the second ethical type, make up the rules as they go along. When trying to convince a Negotiator of an ethical point, you have to show them how agreeing with that point is in their interest. Negotiators tend to prosper in sales-driven organizations within lightly regulated industries. In our scenario, the Negotiator will try to turn the outside offer into a bargaining chip, playing her current employer and prospective employer against one another.

The third type, the Navigator, follows the rules, but will compromise to resolve conflicts. Convincing a Navigator of an ethical point requires you to make the point that it will likely be agreeable to many stakeholders. Navigators do well in many kinds of organizations, but may fail in organizations without any inviolable rules. In the described dilemma, the Navigator believes she should tell her boss, but also recognizes the negative consequences of doing so. Some Navigators will tell their boss; others will not.

A Wiggler, the final ethical type, generally follows ethical rules, but is good at finding exceptions to suit his interests. Unlike Negotiators, Wigglers acknowledge ethical rules. But the Wiggler is good at making exceptions for himself. Wigglers do best in organizations in which strict compliance with rules is not required. In our scenario, the Wiggler may not tell his boss about the outside offer on the grounds that he didn't really promise his boss anything.

These ethical types are, of course, approximate, and no single type is "best" from an ethical viewpoint. Note, too, that not everyone falls into these four types. For example, no saints appear among these ethical types. Of course, you don't meet many saints in the typical workplace, either.

Many ethicists would favor the Stickler. However, Sticklers are often too rigid to steer their organizations towards more ethical actions. I tend to side with the Navigators who not only have principles, but will compromise in pursuit of those principles. Navigators not only see the right path, they can influence others to follow it. With a Negotiator, the only way to convince her to do the right thing is to show her that it's in her best interest. You may have more luck convincing the Wiggler to do the right thing, since you can at least appeal to established rules. You just have to persuade him that he isn't an exception to the rules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an ethics consultant, I've found that people often fall into one of four ethical categories. One type isn't necessarily better than another, but knowing a person's "ethical type" can help you predict how he or she will react in situations requiring ethical judgment.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can you tell if something is ethical.

# data[].attributes.subject
How can you tell if something is ethical.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At some point in your professional or personal life, you may face a difficult challenge and wonder whether what you are considering to do or not do is ethical. It can be very difficult to balance multiple points of view and competing demands to come up with an ethical decision. And, in life, we often find ourselves in an ethical gray zone or feel that no one answer is clearly the most ethical.

Below is a set of 12 questions you can work through when you find yourself in difficult situations such as these. Use these questions to help you consider all of the sides of the dilemma and the ethical consequences of what you are considering to do or not do.

1. What are the potential consequences or outcomes of this action or decision?

2. Who will benefit? How and to what extent?

3. Who might suffer? How and to what extent?

4. What is my motivation personally for doing this?

5. What is my motivation for my business or employer for doing this?

6. Is it legal? Or, might there be legal consequences?

7. Would I like to see this on the front page of the newspaper or on the six o'clock television news?

8. Will this increase or decrease my respect for myself?

9. Will this increase or decrease the respect others feel for me?

10. Does his feel right in my body? Does it cause my stomach to tie in knots? Am I losing sleep over it? Do I have clammy hands? Tension headaches? Other physical symptoms that indicate that this doesn't feel right to me.

11. Does this decision support or damage our business's culture and values? Would I want this done or said to me? Would I want to be treated this way by another person or by another business?

12. If I told this to the most ethical person I know, what would he or she advise me to do? Would my mentor or hero approve?

For more information about our personal and professional development products, programs, and coaching services, please visit our website at www.bluepencilinstitute.com. - Dr. Laura Hills, President, Blue Pencil Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Answer These 12 Questions to Decide If Something is Ethical

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At some point in your professional or personal life, you may face a difficult challenge and wonder whether what you are considering to do or not do is ethical. It can be very difficult to balance multiple points of view and competing demands to come up with an ethical decision.