High on the list of reputational risks companies face: the use of child labor, either in their own factories, or in the factories of suppliers.

Many large U.S. companies have been forced to confront this issue. In a series of articles over the last year, the New York Times documented numerous cases in which migrant kids, arriving in the U.S. in record numbers, have been working in jobs that risk their health and safety, in violation of labor laws.

When it comes to monitoring their suppliers, the Times reported that many companies have outsourced this work to third-party inspectors who conduct private audits.

The Times reported in December: “In the past two decades, private audits have become the solution to a host of public relations headaches for corporations. When scandal erupts over labor practices, or shareholders worry about legal risks, or advocacy groups demand a boycott, companies point to these inspections as evidence that they have eliminated abuses in their supply chains.”

Yet the Times story found that many of these auditors have failed to catch illegal child labor during their inspections. Some inspectors told the newspaper they aren’t given enough time to thoroughly investigate or were pressured by their employers or companies to tone down their findings.

We view third-party audits as a potentially useful tool – as long as the auditors are truly empowered to catch child labor and are contractually required to put in the time to detect it. Companies should view detecting child labor, and rejecting suppliers who rely on it, as an imperative – something that is essential to preserving their reputations and business.

Companies must design approaches that are effective. That could mean sending their own employees to inspect suppliers’ plants if third-party auditors aren’t up to the task. Pointing to the existence of an audit is no longer enough to spare companies’ reputations when their products are shown to be made using child labor.