Case Description: A Matter of Involvement – Unilever and Indian Cottonseed Cultivation

Chapter
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 28)

Abstract

On 3 May 2003 a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) accused the multinational Unilever of being involved in child labour in India’s cottonseed industry. The company responded by emphatically denying any direct or indirect involvement in child labour. In the public uproar that followed, the coalition of NGOs and Unilever disputed the truth of almost any fact the opposing party produced, including facts concerning the severity and the extent of child labour; even if all parties agreed that child labour is common in the cottonseed industry and that neither Unilever nor its first tier suppliers have employed children themselves. The concrete demands being made of the multinationals and the grounds upon which these where based, almost got lost in the discussion. Upon closer inspection these revolve around four issues: the extent of Unilever’s chain responsibility; Unilever’s supposed historical blame for child labour in the cottonseed industry; The reasonableness of Unilever having to assume a positive duty to help fight child labour; And the level of precautions the company must take to prevent indirect involvement in child labour.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Supply Chain Child Labour International Labour Organisation Seed Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anonymous 2003, ‘Vissticks met duurzaamheid.’ NRC-Handelsblad, 27–10–2003.Google Scholar
  2. Association of Seed Industry (ASI) 2004 ASI Position Paper. Child Labor Issue.Google Scholar
  3. Berkhout, B. 2003 ‘Schuldslavernij in Indiase katoenzaadindustrie.’ NRC-Handelsblad, 05–05–2003.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, S. (2001), “Hind Lever clarifies”, Business Line, 25–06–2001.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, F.B. and Waters, J.A. 1989. The Moral Muteness of Managers. California Management Review, XXXII(1): 73–88.Google Scholar
  6. Boatright, J.R. 1993/2007. Ethics and the Conduct of Business. Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bowie, N. 1999. Business Ethics. A Kantian Perspective. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Donaldson, T. 1989. The Ethics of International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Elfstrom, G. 1991. Moral Issues and Multinational Corporations. London: Mac Millan.Google Scholar
  10. International Labor Organization (ILO). 2002. A Future Without Child Labor, 90th Session of International Labor Conference, Geneve.Google Scholar
  11. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2000. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Revision 2000, Paris.Google Scholar
  12. Unilever, Social Report 2004. 2004. Listening, Learning, Making Progress. (Unilever).Google Scholar
  13. Unilever, Unilever Jaaroverzicht 2003. 2004. Voorzien in de dagelijkse behoeften van mensen, overal, Unilever.Google Scholar
  14. United Nations, 2003 Social and Economic Council, Commission on Human Rights Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, August 2003.Google Scholar
  15. Venkateswarlu, D. 2003. Child Labour and Trans-National Seed Companies in Hybrid Cottonseed Production in Andhra Pradesh (India Committee of Netherlands) Utrecht. See: http://www.indianet.nl/cotseed.html
  16. Venkateswarlu, D. 2004. Child Labour in Hybrid Cottonseed Production in Andhra Pradesh: Recent Developments. (India Committee of Netherlands) Utrecht. See: http://www.indianet.nl/cotseed2.html.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of HumanitiesTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations