We live in a litigious society. People
sue when their coffee’s too hot and fast food makes them fat. Recently, a class
action was launched against three chocolate bar makers for tricking consumers
into buying their candy. But, far from asking the courts to protect us from our
own choices, this complaint seeks protection for the most vulnerable: children
allegedly forced to work in slave-like conditions on cocoa farms.
Class-action suits launched by three
California residents allege chocolate makers Hershey, Mars and Nestle engage in
false advertising by failing to disclose the use of child slavery on their
packaging. This omission, the plaintiffs argue, coupled with corporate claims
of social responsibility, makes their customers unwitting supporters of child
slave labour.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and
revised packaging that clearly identifies if child slavery has been used at any
stage of production.
It’s a novel approach to raising
consumer awareness about an intractable problem.
Two-thirds of the world’s cocoa beans
are harvested in West Africa, where children are vulnerable to trafficking and
slavery. A 2015 report by Tulane University sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Labor assessed 2.26 million children working in the cocoa industry in Ghana and
Côte d’Ivoire.
Chocolate companies have known about
allegations of child slavery for more than a decade. They are doing something
about it. Each of the defendants has committed to using 100 per cent certified
chocolate by 2020. Each of them has an action plan to promote sustainable
farming practices. Nestle has invested in schools and introduced child labour
monitoring and remediation at its cocoa co-operatives.
Their efforts have earned industry
recognition. In 2013, Hershey was ranked among America’s 100 best corporate
citizens in Corporate Responsibility magazine. The same year, Mars was named
Best Private Company by Ethical Corporation’s Responsible Business Awards. And
KPMG pronounced Nestle among the top 10 companies in the world reporting on
corporate social responsibility.
Notwithstanding their efforts, actual
progress has been slow. In a five-year period, the Tulane report found child
labour had increased.
Some obstacles are outside the
chocolate companies’ control, including conflicts in Côte d’Ivoire. But perhaps
the greatest obstacle is a lack of public awareness. Nothing drives consumer
behaviour quite like outrage.
Congressman Eliot Engel was outraged.
In 2001 he sponsored a legislative amendment to introduce “no child slavery”
labelling for ethically sourced chocolate sold in the U.S.
Faced with a public relations crisis,
the chocolate industry got on board with promises of voluntary self-regulation.
The result was the Harkin-Engel Protocol, a commitment to eliminate the “worst
forms of child labour” in cocoa production in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire by 2005.
The deadline came and went. In 2010 the companies renewed their pledge with a
goal of reducing the worst forms of child labour by 70 per cent by the year
2020. Even on this watered-down commitment, the Tulane report notes, the goal
“has not come within reach.”
Now, litigants hope to accomplish in
labelling what U.S. legislators failed to achieve. While demand is growing,
fair-trade chocolate is largely a niche market. Major brands tend to use the
logo discreetly; drawing too much attention would highlight its absence on
other products. They don’t want us thinking the Hallowe’en candy we shell out
could be made with the forced labour of children who aren’t free to go
trick-or-treating.
If “no child slavery” were stamped on
candy bars, who would buy any other kind? Which, of course, is exactly the
point.
-IFP
No comments:
Post a Comment