Primark is named as least ethical clothes shop

Primark, the discount clothing chain beloved of bargain hunters, has been rated the least ethical place to buy clothes in Britain.

Primark scores just 2.5 out of 20 on an ethical index that ranks the leading clothing chains on criteria such as workers' rights and whether they do business with oppressive regimes. Mk One and Marks & Spencer were ranked second and third worst for ethics by Ethical Consumer magazine.

Jigsaw and Matalan scored the highest ratings but researchers said ethical standards were so low among the 27 high street clothing chains surveyed that none of them could be recommended to shoppers with a conscience.

Primark has become a fashion success story in the past two years and now operates more than 120 stores in Britain and Ireland. During a high street slump, it has built a reputation as a seller of extraordinarily cheap garments and shoppers have besieged its new stores, some of them bought from the collapsed Allders chain. Profits soared by 30 per cent last year to £1bn, despite the retailing downturn.

Ethical Consumer, in its January/February edition published next week, criticised the company for not having a code of conduct, selling leather goods and "environmentally-damaging" PVC products and for operating in an oppressive regime - China.

The firm also scored badly because its owner, Wittington Investments, performed poorly for environmental reporting and owned other companies with negative ratings, such as the London department store Fortnum & and Mason, which sells foie gras. Wittington Investments, owned by the secretive Weston family, also owns Littlewoods.

"If people shop in Primark because the prices are low then they must be aware that they are low for a reason," said Ruth Rosselson, a spokeswoman for Ethical Consumer. "And they must start asking questions: 'Where is this made? How do I know that this was made under good conditions?' Then the companies will realise that people care."

Primark robustly defended its record and said there were a number of inaccuracies in the assessment. Primark did have a code of conduct for suppliers which was independently audited abroad, a spokesman insisted.

He said: "We buy our clothing from pretty much the same range of suppliers and countries as everyone else on the high street. We do buy a lot of clothing from China and that's something we do and everybody else does as well."

The magazine said that, in general, fashion retailers seemed to be locked into a "race to the bottom" by selling increasingly cheap clothes made in low-wage economies with scant regard for workers' conditions. It said the one positive development in the past three years had been Gap's decision to provide details of any labour rights violations in its supply chain.

The magazine said in an overview that there was far too little accountability about from where and how clothes were produced.

Researchers toured the aisles of the shops to check labels and found the origin of garments was missing at French Connection, Moss Bros and Primark.

"The chances are that the goods on sale in high street shops will be coming from less than desirable conditions," said Ms Rosselson.

"Companies often say that they are responsible but we want independent auditors to go into factories and check. It's very unusual for us not to recommend a company in the table but we have been unable to say that any of these high street stores are an ethical place to shop".

The magazine suggests shoppers buy from charity shops, try vintage clothing and seek out organic cotton. Conventionally farmed cotton is treated with 10 per cent of the world's pesticides, which the Pesticide Action Network estimates causes 20,000 deaths in the Third World every year.

The magazine lists an alternative clothing directory that includes firms such as Patagonia, Traidcraft, Natural Clothing and Footprint.