By Constance Harris
Sunday Jun 29 2008

Earlier this week Primark, or Penneys as we know it, was a key element in a BBC undercover documentary expose on child labour in India. Much hype surrounded the documentary and it was much misinterpreted by the media, which led to much misunderstanding among the public.

However, I believe this documentary marks a new turning point in the ethical fashion versus standard trading debate because, for the first time ever (that I know of), the producer of a controversial expose went on radio and described Primark as being as much a victim as the exploited children featured on the documentary.

Dan McDougall was clear in stating that Primark knew nothing about what was being done in its name and as soon as he informed the company of the situation, Primark acted swiftly to do the right thing; cancelling all its business with the cited manufacturers in India. He also explained how difficult and dangerous it was to expose such situations.

Yet still, Primark came under criticism for not doing more. What more could the company have done, Primark wondered?

Well, that really is the pertinent issue, the one that most people, not just Primark, really don't get. And it is of course, the most important.

It is one thing to be conscious of how you trade, to adhere to guidelines. But, as those great industrialists and philanthropists, the Victorians came to learn, where there is profit and exploitation, there has to be responsibility.

This means taking responsibility for the situation you create and helping to change it. It would seem that cancelling the order would be the right thing to do. But the morally correct, tougher thing to do, and the better thing for those children in India, would be to stay in there, use your power to change things and stay around long enough to implement that change.

In the long run, it could also be better for the company to make that attitude part of its business strategy and image.

Marks & Spencer (M&S) does, and consumers like me respond to it by shopping in the store,knowing our ethics are upheld by that brand.

The 25 per cent growth in the past year that M&S cites in areas of business where it has stated its Plan A, ethically-inspired position is staggering. So good ethics do pay. Especially when times are hard and we think even more about where we spend our money.

First of all, let me tell you, I think Primark is no more guilty of wrongdoing in developing countries than any other retailer, designer or store. I think most of the fashion industry (and other industries) are at it. This doesn't excuse Primark, but I want to put the company into context. In the past, Primark may have made mistakes, but less so recently. Actually, it is trying to be better than it was.

Last March, I met Triona McGinley, Primark's senior buyer, and during the course of our meeting I asked about the company's suppliers and manufacturers. Was the management sure no child labour was being used? Do managers look into their suppliers -- and behind them?

Triona was adamant that they did. She pointed out to me that Primark would be a foolish company indeed if it didn't. She stated that it is not worth the risk to reputation for any company to trade like that. She told me that Primark was not using Uzbekistan cotton; the cheapest cotton in the world and the most socially and environmentally damagingly-produced cotton in the world, too.

Primark had made changes and was committed to those changes. Just as the company was committed to producing cheap, quality clothing for us here.

What Primark is not very good at is public relations. It is traditionally a small, Irish firm. It is a very private company and quite old-fashioned in some of its notions. One of them is spending money on its image. Primark was always proud of the fact that it didn't "waste money" on advertising, and that helped it to keep costs down. It does. But it also means the company fails to counteract negative publicity.

Marketing and promotion are often the biggest featured costs for firms rather than the actual production of their product. Probably half of the purchase price you pay for branded goods goes to cover promotional expenses. Sick and out of balance, isn't it?

I have spent a lot of time and energy these past two years becoming more familiar with issues of ecological and ethical behaviour of the retail/fashion industry. Just like the fashion industry, I was slow to grow up, accept the realities and try to change my practices. But I am trying.

Companies such as H & M, Tesco, Primark and M&S are trying, too. There is a lot of political correctness involved in the high-street bashing that goes on these days. It is now safe and trendy to attack such stores. And the attacking has worked to a degree, in that many companies now have heads of social responsibility where, four years ago, there were none.

But, it is time we turned our attention to the whole industry, from the designer labels in Brown Thomas to Guiney's pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap.

I believe they should all be working to provide more assurance to the consumer that their clothes are produced cleanly, responsibly, ethically.

However, indifference, yours, mine, theirs, to the issues is very real.

Earlier this year, I was involved in Fashion Evolution. Organised by Re-Dress, this two-day event is aimed at assisting the industry in a safe, non-judgmental environment and informing it of the big issues around sustainability and ethical trading.

International designer of 30 years' repute, Katharine Hamnett, and Mike Barry, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility at M&S, gave several days of their busy lives to help educate, enlighten and assist the Irish fashion industry about the issues. I wrote about the event in advance to promote it and encouraged the fashion industry to participate. Simon Ferrignio, from the Organic Exchange US/UK, a man of immense knowledge and experience, flew in from London to contribute. Sophie Rieu of Unicorn Designs and Peter Gaynor of Fair Trade Ireland, all took part. I personally contacted people encouraging them to go.

Designers Rachel Mackay and Joanne Hynes were the only two designers to attend part of the event. Penneys and Dunnes Stores each sent a junior member of staff. Annelie McCaffrey, Brown Thomas's in-house PR woman, Lisa Moran, the House of Fraser's in-house PR, and internet boutique, BelleEtik, were there too.

And that was it.

Out of an industry with literally thousands of boutiques, buyers, department stores, designers, manufacturers, public relations and marketing specialists, about five people I knew turned up.

Clearly, they thought it of no relevance to them. Just like the oil crisis, it doesn't apply to any of us.

A society that supports John O'Shea in Africa, attends Angels Quest balls and admires Adi Roche, couldn't be arsed to actually attend something that was free, utterly accessible and of monumental importance. Talk about lack of foresight and stupidity.

As Mike Barry of M&S stated in his talk and proved with his statistics, ethics can mean successful business and profit. But you have to have vision and commitment to do it. According to a recent KPMG report, ethical business is the business to get into and companies that fail to take this on board will be left behind. Judging by the level of interest that the Irish retail/ fashion business took in Fashion Evolution, the sector's players are going to be left behind and ultimately fail.

And it will be their own faults.

The bulk of the attendees at Fashion Evolution were concerned young people, and educators from second and third-level institutions. So things may change in the future.

But few of the actual people who can make a difference on the front lines right now, were there. The buyers who stock the shelves of our shops, who spend their lives meeting manufacturers and companies from Europe, America and Asia could help just by enquiring: "Where are your clothes made?" "Have you seen them being made?"

They could all help contribute to the "sea change" (as Katharine Hamnett referred to it) in the psyche of such a big and profitable industry.

To say I was disheartened was an understatement. But I, at least, learnt a lot. I am less starry-eyed about the Irish fashion industry for one. I learnt that there are people out there, especially young people, who want to buy clothes free of suffering, blood and environmental damage.

I also came to appreciate the very real problem of lack of supply. To try to get clothes that are at least organic, or fair trade, is very difficult. Hence, it is difficult for the ethical consumer, such as me, to get to buy what I want. I do shop in Primark for its organic cotton t-shirts, in M&S for its Fair Trade vests, Wrangler for its organic cotton jeans, Edun for a bit of pretty, Unicorn Designs for something dressier. But that is the extent of what is on offer.

There is a lot of cherry picking of issues in the retail industry: Gap's Red campaign, and limited-edition organic ranges, such as by Vero Moda and Tesco. I can never understand the thinking behind issuing a limited range of organic and/or fair trade, garments with pictures of trees on them and asinine comments, such as "I'm an eco babe". I want to wear ethically produced garments all the time and reduce my carbon and social footprint on the planet, not look like a plonker. I need a destination shop or range, not intermittently-launched, slogan-bedecked nonsense.

Secondly, if we wish to improve knowledge, change and, ultimately, business and profits, it is clear that labelling, a system to inform consumers about their clothes, would be invaluable. Companies and designers need to start looking at developing a "corporate responsibility" label. A tag that identifies their work as ethically, consciously produced. M&S developed its Plan A identity, while supporting and incorporating stringent ones, such as Fair Trade, The Soil Association and Organic.

Even if designers can't fulfil the standards of say the Soil Association or Fair Trade, they could put a swing tag on their garment saying "Produced in India, but with my personal assurance that the people involved were treated kindly and fairly" or something equally as idealistic. Or "No children were used in the beading and embroidering of this garment".

In allowing our manufacturing base to close down and move abroad, we lost the ability to ensure our clothes were produced ethically and environmentally. I believe the Guaranteed Irish label needs to be resurrected and redefined, incorporating the changes in Irish production and ethical standards. It could then be worn proudly again.

For me, and the KPMG report supports this, the future is in business that become known for their corporate responsibility.

M&S has long held a policy of making commitments to communities and suppliers: "You work with us, we will help you". I am sure M&S is not perfect. Who is? But the company is making that type of commitment.

M&S makes available valuable experience and information, which is worth money and power, to their suppliers in the developing world, to support them in their progression and evolution, be it social or environmental. As a consumer, M&S is my eyes and ears out there. I have to trust the company. And, as a company, M&S is aware of that role, the importance of that consumer trust. Its business is built on that and it has no intention of blowing it. It's a win-win situation.

But commitment is the one thing the penny-pinching fashion industry does not want to make. As Ali Hewson explained when she launched the Edun clothing line a few years ago, global companies will leave a factory if there can be a one cent saving because, when the orders are for millions of garments, that one cent translates into hundreds of thousands of euros. Thus, developing countries never get a chance, because they can never depend on future business, or even on getting paid.

Ironically, Primark is one of the few companies that commits to paying its suppliers within 30 days. Many companies (in Ireland too) play money games with the developing world, not paying for clothes that have been made, delivered and even sold, perhaps for six months, a year, two years, later. By which time, the factory could have folded, families become broken up and, just as likely, members of them could be dead.

Working in the developing world is not a cut-and-dried issue. Secondary level education is not standard. Not even primary is standard. No social welfare means the elderly, the sick or infirm are utterly vulnerable and without power.

Children working is not just a case of exploitation. It can also be a social issue, part of the foundations upon which their society depends. We did it ourselves in Ireland until very recently. To prevent potentially damaging, though well-intentioned, politically correct reactions, corporations need to put more emphasis on continuing ground-level investigation and judgment of their production and supply chain, as well as offering more commitment to their workers' well-being and advancement. I am grateful to Panorama and the BBC for its programme; its passion and commitment. We need to start reflecting on our part in the problem.

Judging by vox pops done around the place, we, the public say we will continue to shop in a store that has been found in the past to use child labour or sweat shops.

Nothing makes a difference nor thwarts our greedy desire for what we want. Look at Gap, look at Topshop, look at Nike, look at Banana Republic. All have been embroiled in controvesy. All surviving because we still shop there. We are as bad as the stores we give out about. No wonder things are not changing fast enough. We don't care enough.

It took a three-year strike and public condemnation for most of that time, for the Dunnes Stores workers to be listened to and proven right when it came to the issue of apartheid. It took 24 more years for Ben Dunne to apologise to Mary Manning on Live Line and hear him state: "You cannot defend the indefensible".

We cannot keep forgiving ourselves for buying goods that we know in our hearts are produced in dubious circumstances. It is time for us to stop defending the indefensible. It is time for generation X (those in your 40s-50s, in particular) to grow up and be as responsible as your children want (and need) you to be.

Trinity Science Gallery's Technothreads exhibition (ends July 25), in association with Re-Dress, hosts special speaker Becky Earley for an evening talk on July 3 and day workshop on July 4 on the subject of rethinking recycled textiles and up-cycling fabrics. Email: Elizabeth.allen@ sciencegallery.com

- Constance Harris

Download our Free iPhone App Now