MUCH has already been written in response to M Fry’s latest article (Scotland should be proud of its Rich List millionaires and billionaires, The National, May 26), but I would like to add one thing from another perspective; our place, our companies and our role within the global market. I refer to his including Edinburgh Woollen Mill Group/EWM in his commentary. The rights and wrongs of globalisation, who makes the profits, keeps them, who is or isn’t exploited, have been well explored elsewhere. But currently, and I am prepared to stand corrected, EWM is one of various companies with equally well-known High Street names who are in negotiations or dispute, depending on your perspective, with The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA).

This is in relation to Covid-19 restrictions, put in place subsequent to the UK population lockdown and the shutting down of our retail outlets, including EWM. Frequently and in “good times” companies only pay producers on completion, delivery and receipt of orders. In other words, nothing up-front in advance. With a stream of orders coming in, goods going out, the money flows as well, and presumably workers are paid, the chain is maintained. But what happens when the chain is broken? The current talks are in relation to “future stock”. EWM has said it had paid for “the majority of future stock when the crisis hit”, but it is now talking about the remaining balance, both money and stock. Their rationale being that if they took delivery of that remaining stock for the spring season, now well passed, it would be stored for next year, with the result that future orders would be depressed. Jam today and stale bread tomorrow?

BGMEA also claims that EWM has cancelled orders in the region of £6.8 million from five Bangladeshi factories. It acknowledges that EWM has now reached agreements on more than half of the total, with £2m to £3m still under consideration and negotiations. Equally, BGMEA acknowledges that EWM is not alone in trying to secure discounts for the future but maintains that these are demands for “unreasonable discounts” with knock-on implications to banks, third parties, putting their legal obligations in jeopardy.

Within all of this, there is also the question of the workers. No furlough for them in Bangladesh and let’s not forget that EWM made 100 people redundant from their approximate 2500 employees ahead of the UK lockdown, commencing end of March.

My point being, I doubt there is ever a perfect company, local or global. Perhaps in the future, the notion of ethical contracts within the chain will feature in the overall tendering process. In the meantime, yes, it’s vital we keep, sustain and develop the likes of Keep Scotland the Brand; that we protect jobs, their current and emerging potential for the workers, the economy and Scotland’s future prospects. But at what cost and to whom? After the debacle of BHS and the pensions lost to workers, did we as consumers continue to buy from the remaining outlets of the Arcadia group? If we see Dunoon Pottery, do we turn it over and regard exactly where it is made since the actual “pottery” no longer exists? Where is the authenticating label on that Harris Tweed garment and how fair was the fair wage? A mixed economy, global or local, may need suppliers, but they supply to us, consumers. Perhaps then we need to be more canny as consumers, buying locally, thinking of the global.

That we are interconnected along the chain with wide consequences cannot be ignored – not since witnessing the fiasco of PPE.

Selma Rahman

Edinburgh