The situation in which child labor may be considered a relatively beneficial alternative raises a difficult ethical dilemma. Theoretically, it is easy to imagine the situation where allowing a young orphan to work in a factory presents her with better opportunities for well-being than insisting on the prohibition (Powell, 2014). However, the options of the executive in the described situation are fairly limited.
The main issue is the existence of an unambiguous prohibition of child labor within the company. Therefore, it would be impossible for an executive to neglect the situation without the risk of putting the corporate image of the organization at risk. Besides, regardless of the truthfulness of the plant manager’s claims, the possibility remains that the girl’s working conditions are inadequate to the degree that negates the hypothetical benefits of her employment. However, the regulations adopted by the International Labor Organization (ILO) contain several exceptions that allow children younger than 16 to be legally employed in developing countries. First, the basic minimum age, defined by the age required for compulsory schooling, can be as low as 14 in several instances (ILO, n.d.). More importantly, if the work done by children can be considered of no threat to their health, safety, and educational or training opportunities, the minimal age goes two years down, bringing the possible minimum age down to 12 years. If I as an executive have an opportunity to definitively verify whether the girl performs light work and is not put at any meaningful risk, I would then be able to approve the employment of the girl as subject to the ILO exception. Such approval could not be considered illegal, would be consistent with the social and ethical norms, and ensure the best possible outcome for the girl.
References
ILO. (n.d.). ILO conventions and recommendations on child labour. Web.
Powell, B. (2014). A case against child labor prohibitions. Web.