Lets have an evidence-based discussion (I'd say Reebok is the best pick to NOT associate oneself with childlabor)... endorsed by UNICEF, what better endorsement could one ask for:
>> from UNICEF child labor resource guide: http://www.unicef.or...appendix6_C.pdf
During the 1990s, many different businesses based in the UK and elsewhere adopted codes which either referred to labour standards in general or incorporated a specific prohibition on child labour. This
section cites the examples of four companies which adopted codes excluding the use of under age child workers by their suppliers and which also took other action regarding child labour.
-Reebok International Ltd
-Pentland Group plc
Reebok International Ltd
The company adopted the “Reebok Human Rights Production Standards” in 1992.1 The standards cover nine areas, including child labour. The specific requirement on child labour states:
No Child Labor “Reebok will not work with business partners that use child labor. The term “child” refers to a person who is younger than 15, or younger than the age for completing compulsory education in the country of manufacture, whichever is higher.”
Auditing and monitoring
Initially, monitoring was carried out entirely by two Reebok staff members. In the mid-1990s, the company started independent audits of its human rights standards. Meeting human rights standards The procedures for meeting Reebok’s human rights standards are contained in A Guide to the implementation of the Reebok Human Rights Production Standards.
This specifies that all Reebok suppliers must keep personnel files which include evidence of the age of each
worker younger than 18. The Guide also requires employers to comply with any legal restrictions
applying to young workers below 18, and to have systems in place to identify any places or operations which are inappropriate for young workers. Employers are also required to ensure that all workers
engaged in operating, or working close to, hazardous equipment, working at dangerous heights or lifting heavy loads, or are exposed to hazardous substances, are above the legal age for such work.
In order to ensure that younger children are not working, Reebok stipulates that, “children will not have access to production areas”, bans children from visiting their parents in factory production areas, and
excludes children from the workplace “unless they are part of a guided school group tour or other such unusual event.” Reebok’s high profile on human rights issues means that the company has taken special care to avoid being criticised for allowing violations of 113The United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF labour rights to occur in its supply chain. In 1996 and 1997, this led to some criticisms of the company’s efforts to ensure that under age children were not involved in stitching Reebok footballs in Pakistan, notably when the company began printing labels on the footballs declaring: “Guarantee: manufactured without child labor”. The use of such labels was criticised by other sporting goods retailers. In order to deliver a cast-iron guarantee that children were not being exploited, Reebok established central stitching factories to replace the practice of stitching footballs in private homes.
While one result was to guarantee that under age children could be identified and kept out of the workplace, another was that few women worked in the stitching factories and it was reported that their income
and economic independence suffered.