http:
www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15915&printsafe=1
Chocolate Slavery Case Against Nestlé Allowed to Proceed
y Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch Blog
December 24th, 2013
Eight years after they sued Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM), Cargill and Nestlé for allegedly forcing them
to work as child labor on a Côte d'Ivoire cocoa
plantation, three young men from Mali have won a
small victory – the ability to be heard in a California
court.
The lawsuit was first filed as a class action to
epresent thousands of former plantation workers in
July 2005 by the Washington-based International
Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) and Global Exchange, which
is based in San Francisco. The non-profit
organizations recorded videotape testimony from the
three specific individuals who stated that they had
een lured across the border between 1994 and 2000
with the promise of easy work and good wages.
“Plaintiffs, aged 12 to 14 when first forced to work as child slaves, had to work 12 to 14 hour days with
no pay. They often worked with guns pointed at them, and were given only the bare minimum of food
scraps,” write their lawyers in the complaint. “Plaintiffs were locked in small rooms at night with other
child slaves so they could not escape the plantations. They were whipped and beaten by the guards and
overseers when the guards felt they were not working quickly or adequately.”
“I tried to run away but I was caught … as punishment they cut my feet and I had to work for weeks
while my wounds healed,” one of the three boys is heard saying on video tape. All three are now adults
living in the city of Sikasso, Mali, after escaping slave-like conditions on plantations in Abobogou and
Region de Man in Cote d'Ivoire.
The lawsuit has its origins in a 1997 report by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) that estimated that
some 200,000 children are smuggled across borders in West African countries like Benin, Burkina Faso,
Mali and Togo. A later U.S. State department report estimated that some 15,000 children between the
ages of 9 and 12 were forced to work as on cocoa, coffee, and cotton farms in northern Cote d'Ivoire.
After media reports documented such cases in 2001, Nestlé and other major chocolate producers signed
a six point agreement with the International Labor Organization in 2001 that they would ensure that
their products to be made without slave labor by July 1, 2005.
In 2005 Global Exchange and ILRF’s investigations found that the companies had failed to fulfill their
promises.
“Nestlé crossed a very
ight line and proceeded in bad faith,” Te
ence Collingsworth, executive director
of ILRF told Fo
es magazine. “It’s clear the only way they are going to change is if they get smacked.”
An amended complaint was filed on July 22, 2009, accusing the three companies of being complicit in
the slave trade: Cargill from Minneapolis which buys cocoa beans and operates a cocoa processing plant
in Côte d'Ivoire; ADM of Decatur, Illinois, which imports cocoa and manufactures chocolate-based
products in factories in California; and Nestlé from Switzerland, which markets chocolate products in the
U.S.
The plaintiffs argued that the case could not be heard in Côte d'Ivoire because courts there are
"notoriously co
upt” or Mali because it lacked basic laws.
The lawsuit hit a roadblock in 2010 when U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson dismissed the case saying
that U.S. laws did not allow corporations to be sued in for abuses a
oad.
However, in April last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a case against Royal Dutch
Still from Dark Side of Chocolate documentary by Miki
Mistrati and U. Roberto Romano.
Page 1 of 2CorpWatch : Chocolate Slavery Case Against Nestlé Allowed to Proceed
8/02/2014http:
www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15915&printsafe=1
Petroleum for human rights abuses in Nigeria, the court ruled that lawsuits against corporations for
abuses overseas could be
ought in U.S. courts in specific circumstances.
Based on that ruling, Dorothy Nelson and Kim Wardlaw, two appeals court judges, ruled on December 19
that the plaintiffs should be allowed to show that the defendants fulfilled the “actus reus” standard for
aiding and abetting a crime.
(The Business & Human Rights Resource Center has a full set of documents on the case here)
Page 2 of 2CorpWatch : Chocolate Slavery Case Against Nestlé Allowed to Proceed
8/02/2014http:
www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15915&printsafe=1
XX
Seminar room activity:
q: NESTLE CASE
NESTLE CASE
The question:
Using this case to develop your arguments, is Nestle morally responsible for what happens within organisations in its supply chain, even if Nestle has no ownership stake in the supplier and may be only one of the suppliers many customers? Justify your answer.
Your answer should present:
A concise analysis applying the ethical concepts covered so far in the course.
A concluding statement answering the question that is supported by your analysis.
NESTLE CASE
The case concerns child slave labour in Nestlé's supply chain (occu
ed on a Côte d'Ivoire cocoa plantation).
NESTLE CASE
Supply chain problems are not new: some examples:
Nike and adult slave labour at Hytex apparel (Malaysia) (2008): For more [CLICK HERE]
“The factory, called Hytex, employed migrant workers, using agents in Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh and Vietnam to recruit people to move to Kuala Lumpur with the promise of higher wages. People had to pay huge sums – up to a year’s wages – to secure one of these prized jobs.
Once in Malaysia, workers were housed in extremely poor conditions, without space or adequate sanitation. Hytex confiscated their passports so they had no means of returning home. This makes migrant workers extremely vulnerable. To flee abusive situations without travel documents is to risk a
est, detention and deportation. Confiscating passports violates the right to freedom of movement and the right to leave a country – it amounts to forced labour.”
Garment manufacturers in Bangladesh (2013 report): For more [CLICK HERE]
“In response to the latest garment factory fire in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Oxfam GB Ethical Trading Manager, Rachel Wilshaw said:
"This latest tragedy at Aswad Composite Mills underlines the urgent need to change the way these factories are built and ensure that safety is the primary day-to-day concern of those operating them. It is deplorable that the shocking loss of more than 1300 lives when Rana Plaza collapsed in April was not enough to prevent further tragedies. The Government in Bangladesh, which has the second largest garment industry in the world, has acknowledged that at least 50 percent of factories are dangerous."
Oxfam understands that several well-known
ands were sourcing from the factory, despite their commitment to ethical good practice as set out in the Ethical Trading Initiative base code. They include some of the 90-plus companies which have signed up to the legally binding Accord on Building and Fire Safety in Bangladesh and those (primarily US) companies which have declined to join the Accord and set up an industry led Alliance.”
Apple, iPhones, and labour abuse (2016 article): For more [CLICK HERE]
“If you own an iPhone it was assembled by workers at one of three firms in China: Foxconn, Wistron and Pegatron. The biggest and most famous, Foxconn, came to international prominence in 2010 when an estimated 18 of its employees tried to kill themselves. At least 14 workers died. The company’s response was to put up suicide nets, to catch people trying to jump to their death. That year, staff at Foxconn’s Longhua factory made 137,000 iPhones a day, or around 90 a minute.
One of those attempted suicides, a 17-year-old called Tian Yu, flung herself from the fourth floor of a factory dormitory and ended up paralysed from the waist down. Speaking later to academic researchers, she described her working conditions in remarkable testimony that I then covered for the Guardian. She was essentially a human battery hen, working over 12 hours a day, six days a week, swapped between day and night shifts and kept in an eight-person dorm room.”
NESTLE CASE
What is the purpose of this activity?
Today’s business world – one of far reaching and complex supply chains.
What moral responsibilities do firms have for what occurs in their supply chains, regardless of any legal obligations?
Supply chain responsibility:
Human (slave labour, general working conditions, impacts on communities, etc) and
Environmental (pollution, exploitation of environmental resources, ecosystem harm, species loss, etc)
Broader questions of exploitation (eg, rich world exploiting ‘poorer’ world), co
uption, and justice
are major and long standing areas of concern.
NESTLE CASE
This activity is designed to get you thinking about supply chain moral responsibilities
From a Levels of Strategy perspective, supply chain management is one of the elements of Business Strategy (how the organisation competes in its chosen markets)
Key objectives:
Explore some of the issues su
ounding supply chain responsibility
Consider these issues as part of an ethical analysis using the material covered in the course so fa
Draw a conclusion that is supported from your analysis
Present your argument and conclusion in a clear and logical way
How do you go about answering this question?
This question requires ethical decision making analysis.
Use the Ethical Decision Making Worksheet to develop your answer.
Consider only the ethical principles on the worksheet covered so far in the course:
Virtue ethics
Deontological ethics
Consequentialist ethics
You need to come to a conclusion and state your position. Your position needs to be supported by your analysis work.
NESTLE CASE
NESTLE CASE
When working through the question, here are a few things to think about:
1. Orientating yourself:
Orientate yourself to the case.
Read the case provided.
Also do an internet search
NESTLE CASE
a few things to think about:
2. Understanding complicity in human rights abuse:
Look at:
The UN Global Compact [CLICK HERE]
The Ten Principles [CLICK HERE]
Note the Principles specifically focused on the human side:
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Labou
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Click on the Principle 2 link on the UNGC site for a discussion on what complicity means.
NESTLE CASE
a few things to think about:
3. The country setting Nestle has engage with:
Côte d'Ivoire and:
Co
uption [CLICK HERE]
Human rights [CLICK HERE]
Do your own searches.
NESTLE CASE
a few things to think about:
4. Some of the questions this case raises:
(a) Is child slave labour wrong or right? Does it matter if it is a child or an adult?
(b) Is Nestle legally responsible for what happens within