Background and Methodology

A. Congressional Mandate for Study

In 1993, the Committees on Appropriations of the 103d Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on child labor practices in manufacturing or mining industries which export to the United States.¹ The report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations (September 15, 1993), establishing the International Child Labor Study and defining the study's mandate states:

The Committee notes that in many developing countries children represent a substantial portion of the work force and can be found in such industries as glass, metal works, textiles, mining, and fireworks manufacturing. According to UNICEF and the International Labor Organization hundreds of millions of children worldwide under the age of 15 are employed.

The Committee understands that child labor laws in many countries around the globe are often not enforced or are circumvented by foreign manufacturers. The Committee also understands that many products made by child labor are being imported into the United States. The Committee believes that (1) since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, Congress' intent has been to keep streams of commerce undefiled by the products of child labor; (2) American consumers do not want to provide a market for goods produced by the sweat and toil of children; and that (3) adult workers in the United States should not have their jobs imperiled by imports produced by child labor in developing countries. The Committee also believes, however, that more information is needed about the extent of the problem and what foreign industries are exporting products made whole or in part by child labor to the United States.

The Committee, therefore . . . directs the Secretary of Labor to undertake a review to identify any foreign industry and their host country that utilize child labor in the export of manufactured products from industry or mining to the United States. In making this review, the Secretary is directed to utilize all available information, including information made available by the International Labor Organization and human rights organizations . . . .

B. International Child Labor Working Group and Staff

As a first step in meeting the Committees' request, the Secretary of Labor established in November 1993 an intra-agency working group led by officials of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs ("ILAB"). Other agencies participating included: Women's Bureau, Solicitor's Office, Fair Labor Standards, Employment Standards Administration, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Office of Public Affairs. The International Child Labor Working Group ("Working Group") was tasked by ILAB to assist in defining the scope of the report, to serve as general advisors within areas of their expertise, and to meet regularly to guide the ongoing work of the study. ILAB then assigned a team to collect information and prepare the report.

C. Scope of The International Child Labor Study

To provide focus and consistency to the overall effort, the International Child Labor Study drafted "General Guidelines for Fact-Finding." The guidelines, intended "to provide direction for individuals collecting data" for the study, addressed the scope of the report and important definitions regarding child labor.

Child Labor. "For purposes of this study, child labor is defined by ILO Convention 138 concerning minimum age for admission to employment. Under Convention 138, child labor is generally defined as any worker under the age of 15 in developed countries or under the age of 14 in developing countries.²

There need not be a formal working agreement, employment relationship, or even compensation to the minor in order for the child labor to exist. As long as the minor's labor contributed in part to the production of goods being exported to the United States, then child labor is being utilized. Work performed outside of a "factory" setting, in private homes, assisting parents to produce goods which will later be remanufactured or further assembled in a more traditional factory environment is still child labor.

Manufacturing. Manufacturing is generally defined as the fabrication of raw materials into finished or partially finished goods. These goods can then be sold at a profit above the cost of the original raw materials and labor/energy needed to change them into the finished goods. Some examples are milling lumber, producing iron from ore, producing glass from its raw materials and weaving of cotton or wool into cloth.

Manufacturing is also the assembly of component parts into completed products. This is in essence a higher level of fabrication. Examples are the assembly of transistors into radios, automobile manufacturing and toy assembly.

Processing. Processing is generally defined as in some way enhancing an already finished or saleable good. Many agricultural goods are typically processed in order to make them more easily consumed. Examples are refining of sugar cane and canning of fruit and vegetables. The distinction from manufacturing is that a new product is not created, but rather an existing product is altered in some way. Processing need not be limited to agricultural products. Indeed, many gems may be processed before being sold.

Mining. Mining is generally defined as the removal of minerals from the earth. This can be accomplished either by excavating from deep shafts dug into the earth or the scraping of minerals off the surface of the earth in what is known as open pit mining. Typically minerals such as coal, silver, gold and diamonds are mined in shafts. Iron ore, bauxite, and coal can be mined using the open pit method.

The Guidelines also include suggestions for identifying sources of information, standards of proof, as well as a list of basic information to be collected. Finally, the Guidelines contain confidentiality criteria to protect sources of information. If a person either specifically requests anonymity or has reason to believe that his or her safety would be jeopardized or their situation compromised, the name is not revealed in the final report.

In short, the scope of the report -- determined by the Congressional mandate -- is any industry utilizing child labor in the manufacturing or mining of products exported to the United States. The minimum age was based upon international standards. It should be noted that the Working Group decided to pursue, where possible, all allegations of child labor in export industries, without first determining the level of involvement of children in any given industry. This determination was made so that no relevant information would be excluded from examination.

D. Methodology

The Working Group developed, and the staff subsequently refined and implemented, a study strategy incorporating:

• Reports from U.S. embassies overseas;
• Reports and comments from non-governmental organizations throughout the world;
• A search of relevant literature and electronic data bases;
• Input from international organizations, including the International Labor Organization, UNICEF, and the United Nations;
• Reports and comments from international trade union confederations and their regional organizations, national labor unions, and U.S. labor unions and affiliates;
• Commissioned case studies on selected countries;
• Department of Labor field visits to selected countries; and
• Public hearings.

1. Embassy Reports

To obtain an initial overview of the scope of child labor in mining and manufacturing exports to the United States, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs sent an unclassified telegram to overseas embassies on October 30, 1993.³ The telegram described the study and requested posts to provide information on whether or not child labor is known or widely believed to be used in industries which export to the United States. In countries where evidence of child labor is uncovered, the embassies were asked to provide any information identifying specific industries, names of child labor experts, and recent studies documenting child labor in manufacturing and mining industries.

In response to the telegram 135 posts [out of approximately 165 posts] provided information on child labor in their country of assignment. On the basis of the replies, 34 countries were identified as having one or more industries which merited further study. This included 20 industries in 11 countries in which the use of child labor in the production of exports to the United States was "clearly established" and another 18 industries in 14 countries in which it was "probable" or "highly possible." In select cases, posts were asked to clarify their responses, or add to available data based upon new information received by the International Child Labor Study staff.

2. Ngo Reports and Comments

To solicit input from a wide range of sources, the International Child Labor Study staff contacted more than 700 individuals and non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") throughout the world. In each case, a letter was sent describing the mission and requesting assistance, advice and referrals to additional groups or individuals to contact. To identify pertinent NGOs working in field of children's rights and child labor, the staff used a listing provided by Defence for Children International in Geneva, Switzerland, and a second, annotated listing of NGOs developed by the International Labor Organization's (ILO) International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC).

In-depth investigation of the conditions of working children worldwide is a new area of research and concern. Even among those NGOs whose purpose is to promote and protect children's rights, only a minority examine child labor; an even smaller number target children working in export industries.

There has been a recent increase in attention paid to children's rights because of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the establishment of the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, the creation of the ILO's IPEC program which specifically targets the elimination of child labor, and new multilateral and unilateral initiatives aimed at combatting child labor.

A notice was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1993, describing the International Child Labor Study and requesting relevant information and/or comments. Staff members conducted follow-up meetings and telephone conversations with many interested U.S.-based labor and human rights organizations and advocates as well as international NGOs in Geneva, London, Bonn and Brussels. Finally, Department of Labor officials travelled to 13 countries to discuss the situation of child labor with foreign governments and indigenous NGOs.

Many of the NGOs supplied publications and names of experts and additional contacts. Particularly helpful in the initial stage of the study were Amnesty International, Anti-Slavery International, the Child Labor Coalition, Defense for Children International, Human Rights Watch/Asia, and the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund.

Additionally, the staff contacted several independent experts, academics, representatives of the business community, and journalists covering labor or social issues.

3. Literature and Data Base Search

Staff members of the International Child Labor Study conducted a thorough literature search through the Lexis/Nexis network, Dialog, the Defense for Children International Database and the ILO Library database. This search provided numerous summaries of recent articles and wire service reports, many of which included useful references to groups and individuals interested in child labor issues and recent publications of note.

4. International Organizations

Congress specifically directed the International Child Labor Study "to utilize all available information, including information made available by the International Labor Organization . . .," in conducting its study. The Study Director met with most of the departments which contribute to the ILO's work researching and combatting child labor.

The ILO has formal responsibility in the international community for developing and monitoring all international labor standards, including child labor and forced labor standards. It is currently conducting a major initiative in the child labor field known as the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC). Under IPEC, the ILO has established cooperative programs with Brazil, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Thailand and Turkey, and is planning future joint programs with Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Pakistan, the Philippines and Tanzania. Representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor also met with regional ILO and IPEC officials during trips to Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand.

A number of other international organizations were contacted for information regarding the situation of child labor in export industries, including UNICEF. UNICEF, together with the ILO, is in the forefront of conducting research and developing plans to abolish child labor and supporting the education and welfare of displaced child workers. Discussions also were held with staff members of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights whose competence covers the U.N. Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, as well as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Sale of the Child, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography. In addition, meetings were held with staff members of the European Union in Brussels.

5. Unions and International Trade Union Confederations

Specific requests for information were directed to labor unions throughout the world. The international, or parent labor organizations, often gather information or initiate programs of action regarding child labor. In particular, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), and its Youth Programme, has mobilized efforts internationally. In June 1994, the ICFTU launched a campaign against child labor and published a report on child labor in specific industries in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Mexico, and the Philippines.

International and national trade union federations whose jurisdiction includes industries which are highly labor intensive, such as the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation, also are active in the field and provided information to the International Child Labor Study. The International Child Labor Study also sought input from the AFL-CIO (the U.S. affiliate of the ICFTU), the national unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO which have an interest in child labor, as well as the AFL-CIO International Institutes: the African-American Labor Center, the American Institute for Free Labor Development, the Asian-American Free Labor Institute, and the Free Trade Union Institute.

6. Commissioned Studies

On the basis of preliminary information from the sources mentioned above, the International Child Labor Study staff prepared preliminary country summaries. In certain cases, a pattern of child labor in export industries was noted, and in other cases, specific unsubstantiated or uncorroborated allegations were raised that warranted further investigation. In both cases, it was determined that more information was required.

The staff also commissioned a series of studies to obtain more current or corroborative information. Individual experts and labor and human rights organizations conducted in-depth studies on child labor in export industries in Indonesia, Morocco, India, Bangladesh, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Mexico, Guatemala and other Central American countries, Colombia, and Brazil. While contractors were given flexibility in devising research methodology, they were asked to analyze the legal and factual situation regarding child labor in their assigned country, as well as strongly encouraged to consult, as appropriate, with a wide range of parties concerned with child labor issues. Contractors were provided with materials collected by the International Child Labor Study staff and requested to review and critique that information in their final report. The reports, which differed in their degree of thoroughness, were weighed carefully in light of the fact that they might contain the most recent information. Such reports represent only one avenue in the information gathering process and were analyzed together with other information received. The reports are on file with the International Child Labor Study.

7. On-Site Visits by Labor Department Officials

In addition to the case studies, representatives of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs visited a number of countries on behalf of the Child Labor Study. The purpose of the visits was to 1) assess the veracity of information gathered; 2) investigate the context and extent of child labor; 3) discuss child labor with foreign government officials; and 4) collect additional information. Every effort was made to contact all segments of society concerned with child labor. In nearly each visit, discussions were held between ILAB officials and representatives of the host government, non-governmental organizations, trade unions, industry and business, ILO, UNICEF, academia, local activists, children, and the American embassy. ILAB officials visited factories or other worksites/workshops in both prearranged and unannounced "inspections." There were times where it was apparent that a worksite had been cleared of any working children prior to the arrival of the ILAB visitor; other times no effort was made to avoid the obvious fact that children were actively participating in an industry. In the case of one unannounced visit, it was the children themselves who invited the U.S. Government officials up to see their work environment. ILAB officials visited Bangladesh, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Lesotho, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, Thailand, and Zimbabwe.

8. Public Hearings

To insure that all interested individuals and/or organizations had ample opportunity to present relevant factual information (in person and/or in writing) to the International Child Labor Study, an open hearing chaired by Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs Joaquin F. Otero, was held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 in Washington, DC at the U.S. Department of Labor. The hearing was publicized in advance through a notice in the Federal Register, a telegram to U.S. embassies, and letters to hundreds of interested individuals, organizations, business leaders, and foreign governments.

Senator Tom Harkin, Representative George E. Brown, Jr. and Representative Bernard Sanders testified. Other witnesses included representatives from the International Labor Organization, the AFL-CIO, the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund, the Oriental Rug Importers Association of America, ChildRight Worldwide - Nobel Prizewinners Initiative to Stop the Exploitation of Children, National Knitwear and Sportswear Association, Human Rights Watch/Asia, Defense for Children International-USA, the Child Labor Coalition, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the Asian-American Free Labor Institute, Women and Children International, a free-lance journalist, and the Embassy of Croatia.

Seventeen other organizations or governments submitted written statements for the record. Submissions were received from the governments of Bangladesh, Colombia, Jamaica, India, Pakistan, and Thailand. Additional statements placed on the record include those from: Kepondang Foundation - Indonesia, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude, International Ladies Garment Workers Union - AFL-CIO, FOPHUR - Nepal, Bangladesh Commission on Justice and Peace, Professor Myron Weiner (M.I.T.), Indonesian Documentation Centre (The Netherlands), Ms. Almas Alam, Professor Omar Noman (Oxford University), and Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (The Netherlands).

9. Final Report

The Committees specifically sought information on child labor in manufacturing and mining industries and their host countries which export to the United States. Throughout the research process, the International Child Labor Study staff asked U.S. embassy officials to report on trade data related to manufacturing and mining industries. Data on U.S. imports also were obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce report, "U.S. Merchandise Trade: Exports and General Imports by Country," and the Piers Imports Database, Journal of Commerce 1994. Where an industry in a particular country was identified as manufacturing products using child labor, the Child Labor Study staff attempted to determine whether such products were being exported to the United States. On the whole, no industry utilizing child labor was dropped from analysis solely because the amount of export to the United States was below a certain level. On the other hand, it was outside the scope of this study determine whether 1) a specific product made by children was exported to the United States; 2) which companies manufactured, exported or imported the product; or 3) where in the United States such a product is sold. Thus, names of individuals, specific product names or brands, or specific names of companies are not cited in the report.

The guiding principle used in analyzing the information was to produce a balanced, candid, and factual report. Many pieces of information collected during the course of this study contradicted one another, both in matters of fact and conclusion. In other instances, patterns clearly emerged. In many cases allegations could not be substantiated with the resources available. In many cases parallel allegations by separate organizations provide widely different estimates on the number of children actually employed in a particular industry, with the difference between the estimates often greater than some of the estimates themselves. Thus, where it was determined that credible assertions of child labor existed, it was reported. Where contradictory evidence was found, it was noted. Where little information is known, but enough anecdotal evidence suggests the existence of child labor, the report states that more research is needed. Where there is clear evidence of child labor, either through the preponderance of reports or eyewitness testimony, the report identifies that an industry employs children.

Finally, the report presents country case studies on the use of child labor in export industries. The choice of which countries to include as a case study highlight more often reflects open access to credible information, combined with an active export sector, than a judgment that any particular country values its children more or less than another. There are certain countries where facts about child labor have been documented for many years, and thus more information is available to report. There are other areas where it is believed that child labor in the export sector may exist, but access to credible information is not available due to 1) the limited time available to collect data before publication of this report; 2) the systematic intimidation of persons investigating situations of child labor; or 3) a lack of attention given the topic by indigenous groups.

¹ See Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1994, S. Rep. No. 103-143, 103d Cong., 1st Session 30 (1993); Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994. Department of Labor Appropriations Act, Public Law 103-112, 10 U.S.C., 107 Stat. 1082 (October 21, 1993).

² The International Labor Organization describes Convention 138 as follows:

The International Labour Organization adopted the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) as a general instrument with a view to achieving the effective abolition of child labor. The basic provision of Convention 138 is contained in Article 2 which states that "The minimum age . . . should not be less than the age of compulsory schooling and, in any case, shall not be less than 15 years." Convention 138 allows countries whose economy and educational facilities are insufficiently developed to initially specify a minimum age of 14 years and reduce from 13 years to 12 years the minimum age for light work.

For the full text of Convention 138, see Appendix C.

³ U.S. Department of Labor unclassified telegram no. 331836, October 30, 1993.