The (LIMITED) case for boycott THREATS, BOYCOTTS, AND SELECTIVE PURCHASING

Abstract

International consumer boycotts will never end child labor. No crystal ball is needed to make that clear. A boycott by rich country consumers of all the products and services made or produced by children would only affect a tiny percentage of the total numbers of child laborers. Of the 246 million child laborers around the world1, only a small percent works in the export sector.2 An even more comprehensive boycott, linked to child-helping plans, and carried out by consumers and employers in all countries, rich and poor, is simply impossible to imagine. Considering the likely unexpected consequences, such a broad-based boycott would be undesirable.

And yet, a credible argument exits for limited boycotts: A boycott against goods made by children, or services rendered by children, might support or strengthen other efforts to
eliminate exploitative child labor.

Boycotts take negative or positive forms. Negative boycotts are instructions not to buy (e.g. not to buy a class of products, or specific products made by specific producers). Positive boycotts seek to persuade consumers to buy (e.g. class of products or specific products not made by children). The latter include “social labeling” campaigns, which exhort consumers to purchase products designated with a label indicating that they have not been made by laboring children.

Success for either kind of boycott should be measured in two ways. One is a change in a manufacturer’s or service provider’s behavior that benefits – or at least does not harm child workers generally. The other measure of success should be the well-being of children who are working before the boycott is launched. A truly successful boycott would benefit or at least not harm – those children.