Perhaps the most high profile Tesco critic of recent weeks is the US Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidential election – Barack Obama. Mr Obama recently wrote to Tesco Chief Executive Sir Terry Leahy encouraging the retailer to engage with Trade Unions, after the management of the company’s US operation – Fresh & Easy – refused to have discussions with UFCW, a grocery workers’ union.

At the same time, Tesco is also under pressure from War on Want and Labour Behind the Label who have undertaken research into the living standards of workers in some of Tesco’s Indian suppliers. The two organisations claim that workers earn an average of £38 a month – £14 below the estimated living wage of £52 per month, while working long hours and even having to do forced overtime shifts. The report also claims that workers are put under pressure to meet onerous targets, and are fired if they fail to do so.

Tesco has responded to the War on Want allegations saying they were ‘unsubstantiated’, they have criticised War on Want for declining to engage with the supermarkets. “Out of the blue they make these allegations without producing any evidence,” Tesco said.

In the UK, meanwhile, TV cook Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is encouraging Tesco to improve the welfare of the intensively reared chickens that it procures. Animal welfare campaign groups have also focussed on the sale of live turtles in Tesco stores in China

Labour standards are now an established issue at the Tesco AGM. Last year War on Want filed a shareholder resolution focused on living wages in Bangladesh. In 2006, Action Aid brought South African farm-worker Gertruida Baartman to address the shareholders. The debate around Primark shows that these issues are only growing in consumers’ awareness and we can expect more calls for retailers to respond.

Our main beef with the programme was its failure to give workers a voice.  The only time any worker spoke was to confirm their age. We are therefore none the wiser about how workers (adults and children) felt about their situation.  Whilst the conditions shown in the film were far from ideal, the people stitching the garments may well be dependent on their earnings from this work.  Getting their view on how Primark could improve their lot would have been useful.  It would certainly have make it harder for the Tirapur Export Association to release a statement alleging that the children captured on film were not actually working.

Hand embellishment of garments in India is almost invariably subcontracted to informal units or homeworkers, carrying the risk of child labour.  We welcome the clear view Panorama gave us down these supply chains.  The overwhelming public and consumer reaction to the film has been to urge companies to stay in and work with their suppliers and workers on these difficult issues.  Criticism of Primark has been focused on the decision to ‘cut and run‘ rather than on the discovery of problems in the first place. Maybe it’s time to move on from denial and distancing towards a more grown-up approach of engagement and improvement.