Conclusion

In compiling this update, we noticed that many companies were fixated by the grades we had awarded them last year.  Indeed, it was clear that many of the representatives we met with had only read the company profiles from last year’s report, and not the background sections that preceded them.  This is a real shame, as it suggests that, although they claim to be interested in what we have to say, many companies are actually only interested in managing any criticism we might make of them.

The only measure that really matters is wages and working conditions on the ground, and on that count all companies are failing.  But in this update we have looked at each company’s direction of travel.  Retailers that are relatively new to ethical trading, like Primark or Arcadia Group, have the opportunity to learn from others’ past mistakes, but they can’t be expected to have as sophisticated a programme in place within a year as a company that has been doing ethical trade for ten years.  That’s why we have reserved our strongest words of criticism not only for companies with no apparent engagement, but also for companies that have supposedly been committed to a living wage since they signed up to the ETI code of conduct in 1999, yet still have nothing to show for it.²⁵

The worst offenders

These brands make no meaningful information available to suggest that they have engaged with the living wage or other labour rights issues, and continue not to respond to our inquiries about their policies and practices.  They deserve the most severe criticism and consumer scepticism.  They are: Bhs, Diesel, House of Fraser, Matalan, MK One, Moss Bross, Mothercare, Peacocks/Bon Marche, River Island, Rohan Designs, Ted Baker.

Nothing to show

Unlike the previous group, these brands did respond to our enquiries, but their responses did not come close to dealing with the issues we raised.  They are not members of any multi-stakeholder initiative, such as the ETI, and this shows from their lack of understanding of more advanced subjects such as the living wage.  Their ethical trading programmes seem to be largely a paper exercise.  They are:  French Connection, Laura Ashley, Mosaic Fashions (Oasis etc).

The new starters

These brands are relatively new to the ethical trading game (in itself a cause for criticism), and as such are playing catch-up.  They accepted that they were not able to give us what we want this year, but there was very much a sense of ‘come back to us next year and we will have something to show’.  The important question is how ambitious they are: will they simply emulate the failed procedures of the bulk of the industry, or will they pull off something special?  They are: Arcadia, Jigsaw, Primark.

Disappointingly slow

These brands were the most frustrating. With a long experience of working on ethical trading, we would have expected them to be much further ahead, yet they didn’t seem particularly concerned about the slow pace of progress, or else they seemed to think that things were going pretty OK in their supply chains.  In some cases, they took exception to our criticism last year, but this only confirms our feeling that these brands were in denial.  They need a reality check, and they need to move much faster.  They are: Debenhams, George at Asda, H&M, John Lewis, Levi’s, M&S, Monsoon, Pentland, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, TK Maxx, Zara.

Going up a gear?

These brands are not new to ethical trading, and like the ‘business as usual’ crowd they should really have more to show by now than they do.  But like the ‘new starters’, they admit that they need to do more: open about the problems in their supply chains, they acknowledge that they have not done as well as they could have done in the past.  The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating, and with more resources going into their ethical trading efforts, we will wait to see whether this means more of the same, or something fresh and exciting next year.  They are: Gap, New Look, Next.