Summertime, and the living is easy - for some. Typically, a change of season brings new clothing needs unless you live in the tropics. Wooly winter wear is tucked away and lighter options hang in the closet. Most clothing stores are finely tuned to the latest fashions and seasonal offerings, hoping to lure in customers. It’s pretty common for shoppers to freshen up their wardrobes with at least some new purchases. With lightweight weather, summer clothing is often intended for short-term use and has prices to match.

Seasonal clothing trends are common in the UK, some other European countries, Canada and the US. Numerous clothing stores are dedicated to inexpensive fashion, including giants like H & M. Along with trying to stay well-dressed, there is increasing awareness of the ethical aspects. Seamstress working conditions are more scrutinized as the terms ‘sweat shop’ and ‘child labour’ fall out of fashion.

Despite this awareness and assurances by many major suppliers, the UK was recently rocked by evidence that Primark was selling items made by children in appalling conditions. The exposé was surprising in some ways but not in others. Primark proudly promotes an ethical trading policy, even on its webpage. The code of conduct includes freely chosen employment, safe working conditions, fair wages, and no child labour. But how do you manufacture a quality garment that is sold at dirt-cheap prices? After all, basic t-shirts can sell for $2-4.

The company claims the prices are possible with low overhead, low markup, and high volume. Advertising costs are minimal. This may be true, but it relies on similar paring of costs at every level of production. The problem is that it is difficult - perhaps impossible - to ensure compliance at all times. In the most recent situation, a few Indian suppliers were subcontracting more delicate embroidery work - and it was being completed by children at home. Spot checks of factories did not reveal the problem. More irksome to the company was the fact that the suppliers were duplicitous rather than mistaken. They have been cut from the roster, but there is some suggestion that the same suppliers may provide garments for other retailers.

Most of us are guilty of the same error. After all, why pay $25 (or more) for a t-shirt when you can get one for $5 (or less)? It is inherently thrifty and bargain-hunting to shop for the lowest prices. Especially if you only expect that garment to be wearable for a few months. Think about trendy colours - are we really back to hot pink and lime green? and for how long? - and items like children’s clothes that are rapidly outgrown. Only a few people choose the high road with its high prices. Perhaps it is time to examine our expectations and how they mesh with realistic conditions for workers. Maybe there is a happy medium between the $5 and $50 t-shirt. And that’s not even factoring in the organic cotton issue.