Do these companies use child labour?
Executive summary
Evidence in the reporting shows that some of the corporations named in recent investigations and enforcement actions have had child labor appear in their supply chains or at contractor-operated facilities, most concretely in the U.S. case against Hyundai and in dozens of Department of Labor findings across food and manufacturing supply chains [1] [2]. Other major firms — including big tech companies and global brands — face credible allegations, audits or investor inquiries over possible links to child labor in distant suppliers (notably in cobalt mining or global commodity chains), but legal outcomes and corporate responsibility measures vary and do not uniformly establish direct corporate use of child labor [3] [4] [5].
1. The clearest enforcement case: Hyundai and U.S. auto-supply child labor findings
A definitive example is the Labor Department’s 2024 lawsuit accusing Hyundai of being responsible for underage work at a supplier in Alabama, including a 13‑year‑old purportedly working up to 60 hours a week assembling parts shipped into Hyundai’s production system — an enforcement action that treats the company as liable under U.S. law for “hot goods” produced with illegal child labor [1].
2. Widespread U.S. findings: hundreds of firms and thousands of children
Federal enforcement data and reporting show the problem is not isolated: the Department of Labor identified hundreds of U.S. companies employing roughly 3,800 children in violation of labor laws, with child labor violations rising sharply since 2018 and recurring across meatpacking, manufacturing and food-processing sectors [2] [6]. Those findings have produced fines, investigations and increased corporate auditing activity [6] [5].
3. Supply‑chain allegations vs. direct corporate liability: the tech cobalt litigation
Multiple major tech firms have been accused in complaints alleging that cobalt used in batteries was linked to child mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but a U.S. appeals court dismissed claims against five tech companies for failing to show they were more than buyers in a complex supply chain — demonstrating that allegations of connection often do not translate into legal liability under current precedents [3] [7].
4. Corporate responses, audits and cooperative initiatives
In reaction to reporting and regulatory scrutiny, corporations such as Amazon convened industry groups and major brands (Target, Disney, PepsiCo and others) to address domestic child‑labor risks, and some firms have strengthened supplier codes and auditing regimes; yet journalists and auditors have documented audit failures — for example, inspectors leaving before night shifts when underage workers were allegedly on duty — undercutting confidence that voluntary audits alone eliminate the problem [5] [8].
5. Allegation lists, media stories and the limits of different sources
Numerous web lists and articles name companies they say “still use child labor,” and advocacy groups like Amnesty and industry watchdogs have raised serious concerns about electronics, tobacco and apparel supply chains, but these lists vary in sourcing and rigor [9] [10] [4]. Where reporting cites documented enforcement, injuries, fines or court filings, the evidence is stronger; where it relies on aggregated allegations without public legal or regulatory findings, the claims signal risk rather than incontrovertible corporate use of child labor [9] [4].
6. Bottom line — a nuanced answer to the question “Do these companies use child labour?”
Yes: for some named companies there is documented evidence or government enforcement tying child labor to their suppliers or contractors (for example Hyundai’s Alabama supplier and numerous U.S. firms identified by the Department of Labor) [1] [2]. No universal blanket can be imposed on every corporation mentioned in lists and news items; many firms face credible allegations, investor letters and audits that reveal supply‑chain exposure, while in other instances courts have declined to hold buyers legally liable even amid troubling supply‑chain conditions [11] [3] [5]. Available reporting supports targeted conclusions—certain companies have demonstrable links to child labor through supplier facilities or subcontractors, while others remain subject to investigation, remediation efforts or contested legal outcomes [1] [2] [3].