In today’s business world, it is not at all uncommon to have some international connections. This could be anything from importing products, production, or even a call center. Inevitably this has to change the realms by which business is done. There should be some ties between what is ethical and what is moral, therefore according to Donaldson, the laws should be created to protect both. However, in international business, ethical is not always protected by what is classified as legal. Businesses have to find a way to determine what is ethical. Clearly there has been excessive amount of negative publicity regarding international child labor. One thing that has not been clearly addressed is what is classified as a legal working age. Donaldson’s perspectives dictates a business needs to determine a legal ethical working age in business outside of the home nation based on cultural differences.

Child labor is not only legal in many developing countries, but it is how many families eat and maintain shelter. Child labor clearly is not a question, but the type 2 conflict is what is considered the legal working age for which child labor is acceptable. The United States has strict laws that require children to get an education so it limits their working availability and age to fifteen. However, in other countries education is often as scarce as food. So a child may finish their education by the age of thirteen. This means the host country regards child labor different than the home country by justifying that they are “independent of [the host country’s] relative level of economic development.” (Malachowski, 2003) Children in the host country will work regardless of the environment or pay, therefore lowering the child labor age would benefit the child more than the home country.

In the host country, children working makes sense. They cannot provide further education and family has to eat, so the practical thing would be to allow the child to help the family financially by working. However in conflict with Donaldson’s theory, acting in this lower standard does involve a direct violation of human rights. Children do not have the physical or mental capacity to work without being vulnerable to exploitation. The host country does not address child labor nor do they have a legal working age because of their fundamental differences in value, norms of business, and cultural consideration. Therefore child labor from a different perspective in the home country than the host.

According to Donaldson’s procedure appeals to the notion of rights. As Donaldson notes, “the principal advantage of a rights based approach is to establish a firm limit to appeals made in the name of a host country’s laws and morals – at least when the issue is a clear threat to workers’ safety.” This creates enough of a question as to what is safe and what is acceptable within that countries standards. Child labor in some questions is not based on ethics, but on what is legal. Allowing a seven year old to work a forty-hour week it not an ethical consideration. Clearly this would discredit Donaldson’s algorithm. However, the ethical question would be whether a fourteen year old child could ethically work full-time based on the Type 2 theory.

Donaldson’s perspectives dictates a business needs to determine a legal ethical working age in business outside of the home nation based on cultural differences. There is a clear divide between what is ethical and what is legal in regards to child labor. The question is not if a child should be allowed to work, but more so what is the legal age that it is no longer an ethical issue. There is clear divide between what is acceptable in the home country and the host county. There is room for debate as to where the ethical and legal intersect. This situation would be one that could challenge Donaldson’s model and create a debate for what is acceptable and what is not.