Name of column: The filth columnist

Anyone who saw the Panorama "expose" of Primark's supply chain, probably realised that they were watching a programme about the potential pitfalls of CSR.

TFC won't bore you with the stats - in essence Panorama say that Primark can sell cheap clothes because they allow breaches (quite possibly unknowingly) of their ethical trading policy. Specifically, work is subcontracted out to other labour, some of it children in refugee camps for Sri Lankans who have escaped the troubles there. These kids work far longer than acceptable weeks, for half the Indian minimum wage and of course are failing to go to school in the meantime.

Ironically most of the garments of dubious origin that were tracked down seemed to be on sale in their Dublin store, which isn't called Primark, but Pennys and the programme didn't really get a handle on the scale of the problem - it seemed the makers were out to prove a theory. But the damage is done.

What are your ethics?

TFC wants to pose a few questions about the programme, rather than pass judgement on the second highest seller of clothing in the UK behind TFC's other fave retailer M&S.

• Firstly, how many viewers thought: "I knew that they couldn't sell clothes that cheap without some sort of exploitation taking place?"
  
• If you did, then are you or have you ever been a shopper there?
  
• And if so, do you feel guilty?
  
• Will the fact that your £10 sequined dress probably have had the sequins sown on by a child in a slum change your buying habits?
  
• Will this piece of knowledge make you question any other "bargain" you discover in other shops on the High Street?

Capitalism

Who is really to blame for this situation? The Indian factories, the people willing to take the subcontract work, Primark, or us the Western consumer? Capitalism is about trying to get something for as little as possible and sell it at a profit after all. At least the families of the children featured are getting something for their efforts, even though by Western standards they are working extremely hard for little reward. Perhaps we have it too easy with our 48 weeks and minimum wages......."Maybe get a blister on your finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb".

PR ***-up

And finally. What a PR ***-up on the part of Primark. Their response - not to be interviewed but to issue a statement, which made clear that the factories that had been subcontracting out work would be punished by having orders withdrawn. D'oh!! Surely the answer is to stop putting so much pressure on factories to turn around 100s of thousands of items in record time and to go out and properly assess what each factory can realistically produce given the people available. Easy sum - if one person takes one day to make two garments and the order has to be done in five days, how many people does the factory need to make 2000 items?

Answer: one person = 10 garments in five days. Therefore 2000/10 = 200 people. If there are only 20 sat there at sewing machines it doesn't take a genius to work out the job either needs longer, or the factory needs more staff.

TFC suggestion

And here's another suggestion from TFC to Primark, why not go down your supply chains and EMPLOY the very same people that are already doing the work (or their parents) on a fair wage and have a team of what we would call in the West " home workers"? As for those kids being rescued at age 12 and 13 - put them into a technical school and develop your workforce for the future.

Boycotting Primark is not the answer, but I'd be happy to pay another couple of pounds for my already ultra-cheap shirts if I thought that they were helping to make their supply chain FairTrade.

M&S seem like saints by comparison.