UNDERSTANDING WHAT COMPANIES SAY

The profiles are based on information supplied by the companies themselves. The draft profiles were sent to each companies prior to publication and they were invited to send any corrections of comments. Where appropriate changes have been made to reflect this; although not always. Copies of the submissions and, where relevant, responses are available on our website or from the LBL office.

As in previous years, we have given companies a grade to help you follow how far along the route towards implementing a living wage they are. These grades are intended to make it easier to compare responses and see how responses they match up to our criteria. They are not intended as a ranking.

In 2009, we have used the same list of companies that were surveyed last year, although a few (Stylo and Mk One for example) have disappeared from the high street.

Most companies still haven't moved much beyond pilot projects, so the grades this year have continued to fall largely between two and three. For this reason we've continued to award half grades. The only change we made to grading was to state that we would consider explicit projects on freedom of association to count as 'living wage' projects.

Grade 0: Does not accept the principle of a living wage.

Companies whose codes of conduct and/or submissions do not refer to living wages, or which explicitly do not accept that they are responsible for ensuring that living wages are paid.

Grade 1: Accepts the principle of a living wage, but applies legal minimum/industry benchmark.

Companies that refer to the living wage, but which use this interchangeably with legal minimum/ industry benchmark wages, or which argue that minimum and/or prevailing wages constitute a living wage.

Grade 2: Acknowledges that minimum and industry benchmark wages are not sufficient standards, but no real efforts to apply living wage.

Companies that accept that progress is needed on wages, but are unable to offer any concrete examples of steps they have taken on this matter.

Grade 2.5: Can offer concrete examples of steps to increase wages in the supplier base, but pilot projects are limited in scope and have significant omissions.

Grade 3.0: Can offer concrete examples of steps to increase wages in the supplier base, but there are either significant omissions or there is no clear plan to move beyond pilot projects.

Grade 3.5: Can offer concrete examples of steps to develop and implement a living wage methodology in the supplier base, with clear plans to move beyond pilot projects.

Grades 2.5 - 3.5 refer to companies citing pilot projects that are designed specifically to address wages. Wages need not be the only issue addressed by the pilot project, but must be a concrete, demonstrable focus. We didn't consider pilot projects mentioned in any previous submissions unless there was clear evidence of progress made on wages in that project over the past year, or steps to implement the learning on wages from that project elsewhere.

Half grades were awarded to distinguish between the large number of retailers that have or are planning pilot projects. We have outstanding concerns with some – frequently because they commit only to raising wages, not to implementing living wages, they fail to include workers in the design planning and implementation of the project, or projects are interesting but the retailer does not appear committed to rolling the learning out across its supply base.

Grade 4: Sophisticated and serious engagement with a living wage, beginning to move beyond pilot programmes, but still not systematic across supplier base.

Companies that have made efforts to implement living wages beyond pilot projects, with a clear plan for how this will be accomplished for all workers and demonstrable progress towards that end. This year we added the need to be working systematically on freedom of association to this grade.

Grade 5: Sustained implementation of an effective living wage policy across entire supply base.

Companies that have a clear rationale and evidence that all workers in their supply chain earn a living wage.

HEALTH WARNING!

We believe that how a company performs on living wages is a good indicator of its current commitment to workers' rights more generally. That's why we've homed in on just this one issue. But it does mean you should bear in mind several things when reading the profiles.

Firstly this information is based on a survey carried out in summer 2009. So these profiles are accurate as of October 2009, but things can and do change over time.

Secondly, we saw last year that not enough companies were putting not putting enough effort into addressing problems around freedom of association. We believe this to be a fatal flaw in any effort to improve wages so this year we included this in our criteria. We recognise that we could be accused here of changing the goalposts – we have but hope that dong so will focus companies minds on this important area of work.

Finally, there are other things that make up the picture of how 'ethical' a company is, such as Fairtrade cotton, environmental sustainability, and animal rights. These are not included in this survey.

Our methodology is not perfect.

Our profiles are as much a measure of how much effort individuals within the companies put into their responses to us as they are of company policy and practice. This is not a bad thing: transparency and engagement with stakeholders are important aspects of the steps companies should be taking. Each profile is based on a limited (but, we think, sufficient) amount of opportunities for dialogue with the company over the last three years, rather than an exhaustive discussion. Further correspondence might have opened up new issues and answered some questions, but a cut-off point had to be drawn somewhere.