The Cosmetics Industry and its Exploitation of Child Labor

As I walk down the streets in my neighborhood, I see women peering at any reflective object they can find to reapply their makeup. Most of the restrooms I enter in malls or restaurants are filled with women crowding around mirrors. Many people nowadays own beauty products of some kind, whether they be foundation, lipstick, or eye shadow. These diverse beauty items all have one ingredient in common: mica. Mica is a mineral dust that adds shine and shimmer to makeup products, and numerous brands use this component in their merchandise. While the mineral itself poses no known danger to users, the problem begins with the procurement of the mineral. Corporations earn hefty profits for products containing mica by exploiting the low wages and unfair labor laws in countries where mica is mined. Major brands, such as Estée Lauder Companies and L’Oréal, are just a few of the companies that profit from regulatory loopholes, employing child labor to acquire their quota of mica.

Mica mining

India has a global monopoly on mica production, accounting for about 60% of the extraction. Jharkhand and Bihar are the two main regions responsible for more than half of the revenue earned from exporting mica to beauty brands. According to a report by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), children comprise the majority of the mica industry workforce in the two states, with an estimate of 22,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17. The bulk of the population in the regions live hand-to-mouth, and a report from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) indicates that more than a third of Indians in each state live below the global poverty line. Children work with their parents in the mines, collecting minerals for more than 12 hours per day to earn their place in their families. As a result, most children in these regions are robbed of any chance at having an education.

Lamentably, children working in mica mines are cheated out of their hard-earned dues and work in subpar, perilous conditions. These children earn as little as $0.29 per day despite the fact that 1 kilogram of mica can be sold for $1,000. They chisel mica with unsafe tools in mines that often cave in, leading to head injuries. In addition, many children die each month in mica mines due to snake bites, skin infections, and respiratory illnesses.

When people dab their faces with foundation or apply lipstick, they cannot visualize the suffering these children have endured to manufacture these beauty products. Because brands advertise their merchandise without mentioning the origins of their ingredients, unsuspecting customers become complicit in the exploitation of children. Customers can sometimes spot products labeled “cruelty-free” as they browse through cosmetic items. This means that neither animal testing nor animal products were used during the manufacturing process. However, the label does not account for the use of child labor. There should be a call for measures that denounce major manufacturers’ surreptitious endeavors to conceal the whereabouts of their ingredients and for them to clearly label products that are a result of exploiting underage, helpless children as cheap labor.

Where do we go from here?

Successful labor and consumer movements often began with popular protests. For example, after more than 20 years of campaigning by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), the European Union (EU) banned the sale of all animal-tested cosmetics and ingredients in 2013. This successful implementation of the ban was largely due to the will of the protestors in the 27 EU countries. Likewise, people today, not just those who actively use these products, should call for a ban on mica mined by underage children and hold corporations, like Estée Lauder Companies and L’Oréal, accountable for their production methods. They should exert pressure on these companies by boycotting their products and using the principle of supply and demand to advance their stipulations. If people collectively decide to stop purchasing products from companies exploiting children, this will decrease the demand for their products and lead to a surplus in supply. Such action will incentivize targeted companies to give in to the public’s demands or lower their prices. Corporations would likely prefer the former option rather than the latter to avoid a drop in profits. While it is true that the cost of labor will increase, as child labor will no longer be an option, and profits will somewhat sink, this scenario is still the safer option as a total boycott of products will be more detrimental in the long run.

Customers can have considerable power over corporations. Multiple instances prove this to be true; environmental activists have compelled various companies into implementing environmentally sound policies or using alternative methods of production. For example, Greenpeace campaigned against Kimberly Clark Corp. (K-C), a company that manufactures paper-based products for five years, accusing the company of destroying forests. In 2009, Greenpeace and K-C finally made peace when K-C acquiesced to using recycled and certified fiber in their products.

As such, beauty customers should promote the use of synthetic mica over its natural version and push for the latter’s complete ban if mined by children. Artificially created, synthetic mica is completely identical to natural mica in all but one way: it does not involve child labor. Switching to the synthetic version will ensure that cosmetic products are genuinely cruelty-free and are not a by-product of a child’s forced and illegal labor.

Spreading awareness and holding manufacturers accountable is one method of protecting innocent children in a vicious, profit-driven world. Consumers should remember that they possess considerable power in a world controlled by the principle of supply and demand. They can sway companies to alter their ways—and, more importantly, save a small child from a lifetime of servitude.