Why is War on Want withholding evidence?
As ABF, owner of the mighty Primark, holds its AGM, anti-poverty campaigners have targeted value fashion retailers over wages and conditions at Third World suppliers.

After conducting undercover factory visits and interviews with Bangladeshi workers, campaign group War on Want poses the question: how cheap is too cheap? Eighty-hour working weeks at 5p an hour is the answer.

Store groups - including all those criticised today - have been at the forefront of efforts to ensure ethical trading standards are met. It's perfectly in order for failures to be highlighted by campaigners, but you have to ask whether the tactics employed will do more harm than good.

War on Want has conspicuously refused to name the factories where it alleges conditions are so atrocious. That makes it rather difficult for the retailers concerned - and the sector generally - to address any problems.

When retailers are flung into the eye of the storm like this, their first reaction might be to terminate contracts with controversial suppliers immediately. That would be the worst possible course of action, because it would remove the pressure on supplier companies concerned to adhere to best standards. No doubt that is one of the reasons why War on Want has shied clear of naming and shaming the factories.

So why has it named and shamed the retailers? What action does it expect stores to take if information is withheld? Retailers are increasingly aware of the thorny problems of Third World wages and conditions and realise themselves that withdrawal is not necessarily the most ethical option - no matter how fierce the gust of criticism that engulfs them.

Stores already conduct myriad supplier visits and enforce stringent criteria on working conditions. Compared to a few years ago, the situation is much improved, although still far from perfect. Retailers would much prefer to work in partnership than in confrontation with campaigners where possible, and to bring offending suppliers into line rather than simply jettisoning them - with the likely result that the workers at the sharp end would be out of work and in an even worse position than before.

There may, of course, be no option other than to stop trading with persistent offenders. But if War on Want is really determined to improve apparel production conditions, surely it ought to provide retailers with the evidence that will allow action.

We report this week on yet another Scandinavian furniture group's intention to come to the UK. This time it's Jysk, which aims to join Ikea and Ilva in the battle to furnish Britain's homes.

What is it about the Nordic companies - and the furniture sector - that leads them to see Britain as such an opportunity? The furniture sector here has had a hard time over the past few years. But perhaps that's exactly the point. Weak players and a relatively fragmented market mean there is an opportunity to grab market share and profits.