Who Pays the Price in Penneys
The Manchester sweatshops exposed by the BBC as making clothes for Primark (alias Penneys) may not be as dark or satanic as those of the nineteenth century, but it raises again questions of ethical consumerism - and highlights the importance of labels.This is not the first time Penneys has been collared for using sweatshop labour. Last year it was in Asia, this time it's in Britain. The company has made commitments and has a charter of ethical business practices.
Accordingly, it has apologised and acknowledged its duties in this regard. So: bad old corporate caught again? Perhaps. Good old-fashioned journalism afflicting the comfortable? Maybe. But the question that needs to be asked is about the one third of the output of the sweatshop that does not go to Penneys. What label or traceability is there on those garments? Where did they go?
Someone somewhere, or more accurately, very many people are obviously walking around in clothes that were produced in these conditions and worse. So while Primark is the villain of this piece, and its brands have been called to account before on this issue, the company has been forced to raise standards, to fire contractors with unacceptable labour practices, and to adopt new policies. Clearly there is still some laxity in the company, as they say they audit their sub-contractors, but it's fair to guess that Primark will be more careful in future.
But not so for very many other outlets who will sell such goods without being called to account because the goods don't carry an identifiable brand or logo. While Primark might pay a price as consumers refuse to shop there, the small "independent" shop might be selling the same goods without the accountability.
"Ethical" consumers can be just as lazy as any other shopper. Big-shops-bad-small-shops-good can be just as reckless as buying without any thought at all. In truth consumers have very imperfect knowledge of what they're buying, but if it looks too good to be true, the truth is most likely far from good.
Accordingly, it has apologised and acknowledged its duties in this regard. So: bad old corporate caught again? Perhaps. Good old-fashioned journalism afflicting the comfortable? Maybe. But the question that needs to be asked is about the one third of the output of the sweatshop that does not go to Penneys. What label or traceability is there on those garments? Where did they go?
Someone somewhere, or more accurately, very many people are obviously walking around in clothes that were produced in these conditions and worse. So while Primark is the villain of this piece, and its brands have been called to account before on this issue, the company has been forced to raise standards, to fire contractors with unacceptable labour practices, and to adopt new policies. Clearly there is still some laxity in the company, as they say they audit their sub-contractors, but it's fair to guess that Primark will be more careful in future.
But not so for very many other outlets who will sell such goods without being called to account because the goods don't carry an identifiable brand or logo. While Primark might pay a price as consumers refuse to shop there, the small "independent" shop might be selling the same goods without the accountability.
"Ethical" consumers can be just as lazy as any other shopper. Big-shops-bad-small-shops-good can be just as reckless as buying without any thought at all. In truth consumers have very imperfect knowledge of what they're buying, but if it looks too good to be true, the truth is most likely far from good.
posted by Aidan Culhane @ Tuesday, January 13, 2009
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home