Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/india.humanrights

Photo source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/27/consumers-reining-in-spending

After reading Tony’s blog post regarding Primark’s immediate reaction toward the unethical behaviours of its Indian suppliers, I feel fortunate toward the fashion retailer for having made the most correct decision under the circumstance.

Some people may think Primark’s action does not worth the cause as it will lose a large portion its profit by firing its current cheap clothing suppliers. That is true. However, if this scandal ever gets revealed, the retailer’s fate is doomed. Its partnership with unethical suppliers will arose anger and disgust with consumers. Brand loyalty and brand name will be completely destroyed under the title of “unethical business” from that point and on. Its sales will plummet as a result of losing all its customers. Even after the scandal settles overtime, the shadow it has  casted upon consumers’ perception of this fashion brand will not go away easily.

An almost identical to Primark’s case’s live example would be Nike’s dark history of allowing its suppliers to employ child labour. We all know how hard the company has tried afterward to erase the idea from people’s mind by fixing the wrongs. Do they work? Yes, But there are still traces of disbelief with this athletic wear company. Nike would definitely be doing even better than it currently does if this scandal thing didn’t happen in the first place.

Therefore, the best way to prevent all the devastating “after effects” of scandals, businesses should all flollow what Primark does: Eliminate the cause of rumour before the rumour gets spread.