6. Marianne Barner, the business manager of IKEA job was to investigate product from other countries. Marianne Barner being the manager had to make a choice, to purchase supplies from an Indian rug supplier. She made the decision not to use the Indian rug supplier, because it could have an impact, an IKEA publicly. The best interest was of the company, so that sale was to increase versus with decreasing the profit of the company. Since the suppliers of Indian rug, makers affected IKEA, IKEA’s percentage of sales decreases the company profits. The awareness of child labor was through the German TV station and with the involvement of other companies; IKEA was one of the companies mentioned. The competing interest of global laws versus national laws on child labor was the issue with the German TV station. The U.N. Convention Rights of the Child were in need of a “black-and-white” clause, because the laws were different in different states. “Marianne Barner, put it simple stating, that if the suppliers employed children under legal working age, the contract would be cancelled according to Bartlett, Dessain and Sjoman, 2006 pg. 4. In …show more content…
Convention Rights of the Child. The national and global laws were (Pledging of Labour) Act of the British rule in 1933, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act in 1976, which prohibited the use of child labor. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) was because of the age limit requirements. Not all compliance rules were the same because some state was communist and some were not communist states. Companies such as IKEA should consult International Labor Organization (ILO), on how to deal with child labor, because it causes problems for companies. The Convention 138 in 1973, ratified by 120 countries, committed ratifying countries, to working for the abolition. The convention was on issues of labor by children under 15, or the age of compulsory schooling, in India, according to Bartlett, Dessain and Sjoman, 2006 pg. 6. Sweden in the case of the ILO reports may be different then, what IKEA’s were, because of the global and national rules of the state. The reports on national laws, expanded globally, exercising global laws. Laws were to protect the values, of the company. IKEA, viewed what was illegal, in the case, of the Indian rug company. Since laws were different in India, advice was that IKEA did not participate in products from India. Requirement in India, did not apply, to child labor laws Bartlett, Dessain and Sjoman, 2006 pg.