|
|
|
|
Who's the guilty party - Primark or sacked Indian suppliers?
|
|
|
| THAT SUMS UP ALL: One of the placard, activists of People & Planet groups carried against Primark |
| Top Stories |
 |
|
|
|
Dhrubajyoti Baruah | 18 Jun, 2008
This is not the first time that low-cost British fashion retailer, Primark is in the limelight again (for the wrong reasons though!). Primark is known for cheap clothes that has enabled its rapid expansion in terms of number of stores, its market share, and ever-increasing profits.
Notwithstanding the fact that in 2006 it was a new member of the Ethical Trading Initiative, the retailer has now come under fire with a BBC exposé of poor working conditions among its suppliers in the southern town of Tirupur in India. That's not all! Just a couple of years back, the Ethical Consumer magazine named Primark as the 'Least Ethical Clothes Shop.'
Now the questions are, did Primark know about the alleged child labour in the factories of its suppliers in India till the BBC expose? Did Primark in its quest to give £8 jeans and £2 bikinis to its British customers overlook the issue? If so, then Primark is the guilty party too - more than the three suppliers it has fired.
Let's suppose child labour was prevalent in the three suppliers' factories...it's illegal and all the more condemnable. But one must not forget that illegal subcontracting is often a result of the pressure to produce large amounts of clothes quickly and cheaply, a key feature of Primark's business model.
And what about the consumers who are now talking ethics... were they not a part of the stampede at the store on April 6, 2007 just to get their hands on a pair £8 jeans and £2 bikini?
The issue is more complex than just boycotting Primark clothes. One needs to understand that cheap clothes sold in high-street fashion houses are stitched by people in developing countries with very less alternative employment prospects...let's not deviate from this ultimate truth. And if these so called biggies thought that suddenly removing their jobs makes them ethical then they are sadly mistaken!
Perhaps I'm not a lone crusader fighting for the Indian suppliers...I'm not a crusader by any means. But even workers' rights groups have reacted angrily to Primark's "knee-jerk, cut and run" move to sever contracts with three Indian suppliers.
Good practice where workers' rights abuses are uncovered is to stay with factories and work with them to improve conditions, says Labour behind the Label's Campaigns Coordinator, Martin Hearson: "This reaction from Primark smacks of old school reputation management and falls far short of the response we would expect to see from a company that claims to be committed to ethical trading."
"Cutting and running from suppliers following exposure by campaigners or the media only serves to punish those workers brave enough to speak out against their conditions. It certainly won't do anything to improve their lives. Such actions make Primark's ethical claims ring hollow."
Jane Tate of Homeworkers Worldwide says: "Home working is an important livelihood strategy for millions of women worldwide. The issue is not that women work from home but that, hidden at the bottom of unregulated supply chains they suffer appalling conditions and exploitation. When companies like Primark take a 'no homework' stance they are not helping workers but forcing these supply chains even further underground."
By firing the three Indian suppliers, Primark has washed its hands off the issue instead of showing some responsibility and pretending to be ethical. Considering the billions that Primark has raked in by sub-contracting to the so-called 'sweat shops' in India, it would perhaps have not been asking for too much, had it come to investigate the workers' conditions and improve them rather than axe them. Ignoring the problem simply alienates those already struggling to make a living, and thus limits their options and forces them on the streets.
Despite Primark's outright denial of any knowledge of the alleged dismal working conditions of the workers in India, it's probably a lie! What kind of company is it anyway that advertises a 'strict ethical
code' and doesn't know the working conditions of its factories? Unethical and nonchalant to say the least!
The PR exercise will perhaps help Primark to reassure its consumers of its ethical stance, but what about those who were axed? Any consumer with a pea-sized brain would realize that a company like Primark can make clothes at low prices only because they were employing cheap labour.
Under-aged children work in these factories because they and their families desperately need the money to survive. And scrapping the contracts with them just makes their lives even worse. Primark has enough money to make a difference to their lives.
Going by the lack of ethics that Primark has displayed, it is not going to rattle its cash registers to make any difference. So till the next media exposé, Primark has enough time to find new suppliers and carry on with its cheap line of clothes and keep the consumers happy.
So much for its 'Ethical Trading Initiative.'
|
SEE ALSO
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sensationalist writing that fails to see the wider picture
Alex (UK) | Thu Apr 9 15:16:25 2009
To suggest that Primark's response to the investigation was knee jerk and nothing more than face saving is to completely miss the point of why I suspect the approach was adopted. In cutting ties with the 3 suppliers, Primark sent a powerful message to all of their suppliers: "Do not use illegal labour or you will find yourself without our business". The impact of that across the sector should not be underestimated.
People are very quick to criticise Primark for their agressive pricing, but often neglect to mention that the suppliers under scrutiny are used by many british and american high street chains. At no point have Primark ever condoned an approach that uses illegal labour and I would challenge Dhrubajyoti Baruah to find any evidence to back the assertion that "Primark's denial of any knowledge of the alleged dismal working conditions of the workers in India, (is) probably a lie!".
'Ethical' campaigners and writers often like to fantasise that corporate board rooms and successful business are populated exclusively by people with no morals or scruples, but fail to see that many of the people who work in places such as Primark are ordinary folk who would no more condone the use of child labour than Dhrubajyoti Baruah. Even if you did find someone within a company willing to do that - how on earth do you think they'd get their entire workforce to turn a blind eye without someone blowing the whistle?
May I suggest a little more impartial investigation and reality?
|
|
Re: Sensationalist writing that fails to see the wider picture
PG | Mon May 11 10:23:36 2009
I agree with you Alex! It's not right to blame Primark entirely for what's happened. I would say that essentially it was the fault of the suppliers (not owned by Primark) that they did not ensure their employees are taken care of. What Primark did was harsh, a better approach would have been to ask the suppliers to clean up their act within stipulated time or have their contracts cancelled. It's important to realise that the bad publicity received by Primark was not of their doing and it can be viewed as somewhat unfair to them. No body seems to have brought up the names of the suppliers and bad mouthed them (afraid of being racist??). It's a typical thing to just blame the big corporation "because they have a lot of money". Just because you don't does not mean you try to take down some one who does.
And before someone jumps to conclusions, I am Indian but believe in standing by what I think is right!
|
|
A lesson to learn Indian Exporters.
Murugan. | Sat Jun 28 15:03:27 2008
I am agree with the following,
By firing the three Indian suppliers, Primark has washed its hands off the issue instead of showing some responsibility and pretending to be ethical. Considering the billions that Primark has raked in by sub-contracting to the so-called 'sweat shops' in India, it would perhaps have not been asking for too much, had it come to investigate the workers' conditions and improve them rather than axe them. Ignoring the problem simply alienates those already struggling to make a living, and thus limits their options and forces them on the streets.
This is the time to wake up all exporters. Even the Europe buyer asking 50 cents and 70 cents, just to change a small sticker or else to change a poly bag for one garment, which the export price is just $2 per garment. Even they are not ready to pay for any up charge for any accessories included. There is no ETHICS in the garment industries.
Congratulations
Kalpana Muralidharan | Wed Jun 25 05:34:05 2008
Dear Sir,
Your piece made very interesting reading. In a world where there are only a handful fighting for the cause of the workers and attempting to make their life and working conditions as better as can be made, the fall of one axe like Primark creates flutter in the lives of hundreds of these poor workers. It is easy to reach the top ladder of social responsibility but very difficult to sustain oneself there. And Primark has proved that. By this one action of theirs to cut at the very root of the survival of many, it has itself raised question mark on its "Ethically Conscious" tag. Problems of these kind dk\o not crop up overnight? One wonders what primark was doing all this while and why it needed to adopt such espionage methods to expose the problem. Social responsibility has to come at a sustained level and not out of the bolt like this. And why penalise those other innocent workers who have not done anything wrong except perhaps to choose to work in an organisation which claimes( d?) high ethical responsibility.
|
|
Re: Congratulations
kamaljit kalsi | Wed Jun 25 10:05:59 2008
by closing down the supplies from the 3 indian companies and perhaps many more to come in the future by other stores in the western world, means creating a worse situation in these developing countries, where homejobs, shared by the families is no new development. This was always there, even during the british raaj and earlier. what are we talking of ethics and social responsibilities. The biggest profit sharing companies have known this all along. why pretend today!! Go ahead and be bold enough to start paying these workers their due share of your profits, so that they can raise their homeworking children better by sending them to schools and grant them a better livelyhood. Has anyone of the foreign companies a heart to pay them more, for what they deserve. Primark and likewise all others in the fashion world, look for the cheapest suppliers in these developing companies, so that they can get maximum profits. What false pretence!! closing down and stopping supplies is definitely not the answer if you have to live and let live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Customs Exchange Rates |
| Currency |
Import |
Export |
US Dollar
|
84.35
|
82.60 |
UK Pound
|
106.35
|
102.90 |
Euro
|
92.50
|
89.35 |
| Japanese
Yen |
55.05 |
53.40 |
| As on 12 Oct, 2024 |
|
|
| Daily Poll |
 |
 |
| Will the new MSME credit assessment model simplify financing? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Commented Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
