Sherrin in the midst of a Child Stich Up

Is it a question of a company losing control of their supply chains? Or is it perhaps a matter of contractor choosing to cut corners in their own self-interest and failing to inform their client. Whichever the case, based on a 12 month investigation carried out by the Herald, it has been discovered that Canterbury and Russel Corporation, two iconic football brands in Australia, have been producing sports balls in India using banned child labour. 

The children stitching footballs in Jalandhar are mostly girls and receive around 12¢ for a football, 19¢ for a rugby ball, and about 49¢ for both soccer balls and netballs.  

Fairfax Media Ltd’s investigation was publicly announced on the 22^nd of September and highlighted the use of underage workers in the production of ‘Sherrin’ branded synthetic footballs in the district of Jalandar, India. 

Leading the investigation was Ben Doherty who alerted Sherrin’s Managing Director Chris Lambert on the 19^th of September, 3 days before the findings would be released to the public. The consequent actions implemented in the 24 hours after being informed of the findings are truly insightful into how todays company’s look at being associated with child labour practices.


http://media.theage.com.au/news/world-news/footballs-secret-shame-3655658.html

Lambert set into a motion a series of actions that would reflect that of a company with a zero tolerance on using children to produce a product. Firstly, Sherrin ceased all dealings with subcontractors in India, issued a media release and held a national press conference and then waived North Melbourne’s fee of $20,000 for synthetic balls to be given out at a club breakfast. 

Would Chris Lambert have slept well in the 3 days before the findings would go public? Maybe not.

And lets get this clear, I am most definitely not having a go at Chris Lambert, who really acted as proactively and responsibly as he could have. But one comment I want to highlight was made by Lambert regarding Fairfax’s decision to investigate for 12 months and only inform Sherrin of their findings 2 weeks before the grand final. Lambert made the point in an open letter to The Age that it was ‘disappointing’ that the ‘previously unknown’ breaches in ‘manufacturing standards’ were not highlighted earlier so Sherrin could take immediate actions to try and rectify the ‘issues.’

Interesting point really. Should Ben Doherty have immediately informed Sherrin of the use of children in producing footballs as soon as he discovered it? Or has it been a better impact to conduct a thorough investigation and present the findings publicly? Is Lambert’s point simply an attempt to share some of the blame? And what about the intentions of both these men. Doherty ultimately must be seeking for a great story underpinned by a strong appeal to ethically minded people, whereas Lambert is being paid to try and keep the Sherrin name as clean as possible. 

When all these questions are raised and mulled over, finally you remember that this whole issue is founded by a situation where young children, mostly girls, are pushed into a way of living that just isn’t fair. When it is whittled down and these blame games and PR scrambling’s are aside, there are young girls in India who spend more of their childhood in a darkened room stitching balls instead of learning in a classroom.

 Makes all the media hype seem a bit different doesn’t it?

Tim @ Edz