Thomas Balmès' film, Made in China, follows two 'ethical consultants' as they visit a Chinese factory making Nokia phone chargers. Thomas, as well as the two consultants, Hanna Kaskinen and Louise Jamison, will answer any questions you have about the film; just submit them using the form on the right, and we'll publish a selection below.

People here are talking about "horrors" and "slavery" and that they found the programme "upsetting" and "disturbing". This is a complete over-reaction as a result of the geographical, economical and cultural gulf between our countries. The only complaints the workers seemed to have was that the canteen food was no good and one of the supervisors had a huge row with one of the workers. So what's new? I'm sure Western workers would have similar gripes and would have greater worries about job security and their financial commitments.
Jane Martin, Glasgow

Nokia's definition of 'ethical' is selected to pander to the fickle attitudes of investors and the media. I agree that the Chinese employees work extremely hard for very little pay by our standards. However, they chose to work in these factories and are free to move to other manufacturers as they wish. The dormitories are provided because the workers are typically young people who have moved from their homes in the countryside and are grateful for a roof over their head. They are not prisons, as some viewers have misinterpreted. The people of China are seeing huge improvements in employment levels, standards and earnings. Their future is bright. The real victim in this whole story is a 45-year-old worker in Scotland's electronics industry who has lost their job because the work has shifted to China. They may never work again. Does Nokia care about them? No, because that does not fit in with their idea of ethical/social responsibility.
Robin Smith, Bromley

I found this documentary compelling, but felt the position of Nokia in the filming quite unclear. Even though they felt the responsibility of investigating the local laws, there was no evidence of Nokia actually abiding by these since the recording. Could this be seen as a clever ploy by the company to promote them as ethical management pioneers when not much has changed since the documentary was filmed?
Craig Leitch, Liverpool

I found this programme extremely revealing in the sense that the factory manager did not seem too bothered about the workers, and nor did he seem to realise how badly people will look upon his factory. As a student who studied working conditions throughout the world last year, I feel it reinforced most of the horrors we were taught. The programme brought the issues of workers' rights to a more human level. A great piece of television - please show it again.
Russell Hudgell, Sheffield

Thank you BBC Four and the Storyville team! The documentary Made in China is brilliant and reveals the truth behind the glossy Chinese economic 'miracle'. I used to be a journalist in China and now I am teaching in a British university. Could you please repeat the programme? I really would like to use it in my teaching of the undergraduate globalisation module.
Tao Zhang, Nottingham

While this was an interesting programme, did the director get too close to Nokia to present an objective view on their behaviour? The interview on the Storyville website said he was commissioned to look at Nokia, but this film was about modern life in a Chinese factory. It could have been made with any number of international companies. The last scenes of a follow-up on the consultant awoman from Nokia gave the programme an exceptionally weak finish. Why was there no follow-up on the issues raised in the film? It gave no insight as to why Nokia initially choose this factory or how suppliers have to compete to deal with Nokia given its dominant market position in mobile phone handsets. It appears the director 'got lucky' with his access to the factory rather than exploring the hard decisions made in Finland about out-sourcing. Also unless the owners of the factory gave permission to allow the documentary, Nokia will be committing another breach of their ethical/CSR policies.
Howard, Edinburgh

Congratulations on this eye-opening and thought-provoking film. Tact and ingenuity from several people were obviously needed, to find the opportunities for making it. The film suggests that Nokia was breaching its own code of conduct in sourcing from a supplier that evades local labour laws. The consultants did not seem to put this strongly to the factory managers in their debriefing. Has Nokia taken any stronger action? What are the prospects that it will?
Michael Medley, Leeds

Great film. The migration of manufacturing jobs from UK to China has had a massive impact in my region.
Chris, East Lancashire

I have never written to the BBC before but I found last night's programme the most upsetting and disturbing insight I have seen in many years. I would like a copy of the programme to show staff in my own company and do not know how to get hold of it. We employ around 1,000 with some of the best employment practices in the UK. We all need to be aware that another world exists. Corporate social responsibility is nothing to do with protecting your reputation; it's about how you choose to lead your life and what you believe in.
Des Benjamin, Andover

Hanna Kaskinen replies: I was glad reading your response to the documentary - glad to see that there are also people like you making business. I totally agree when you say that "CSR is nothing to do with protecting your reputation" - we as individuals should act that way so we can lead our lives in peace with ourselves. People working with ethical issues at companies are often idealists, but they also need to be realists. I hate seeing myself in the film motivating the requirements with language like "business reasons", "protecting company reputation" and "insurance fee". But you have to use the language the receiver understands, and this is business language. "Being good for being good" is just not enough to make changes in companies where the management works under profit pressure and have never even thought about these issues before. The Jesuit principle that "the end justifies the means" is often chosen by the ethical specialists when they know that by doing that they may achieve more. Right or wrong, I don't know.

A fascinating film, but why, at the end, stick the knife into two people acting for change (for a wage, sure, but that's not evil). The director, Thomas Balmès, appears to have a good deal of sympathy for both in the interview on the Storyville website, but the opportunity to make devastating television seems to have overcome the push of the programme towards fairness and decency. Louise, you have my sympathy and respect.
Tom Parker, London

This was a wonderful documentary, and a very important one because it showed the Western consumer the reality behind the label 'Made in China'. Shopping will never be the same again, nor as innocent. We've heard reports about poor working conditions in China, but this programme put faces and stories to that abstraction. The gender politics were especially fascinating - and depressing.

I've been involved in social research in China, and know how hard it can be to get material of this kind. It seems you gained access under the aegis of a Nokia ethical audit. As the manager said at the closing meeting, he had "issues" relating to a "low profile shareholder" if the film were circulated beyond the customer-supplier chain. I would like to ask how that matter was resolved, and whether there have been any repercussions from the broadcast.
Joanna McMillan, London

Thomas Balmès replies: The agreement we found with Nokia and which was negotiated directly by them with the supplier, was that we could release the film but not mention neither the name of the supplier or the "low profile shareholder".

As an automation expert for the past 20 years, this programme enlightened me. I have seen more and more UK manufacturing jobs lost to China and other developing countries. What the programme depicted was what I already knew - oppressed/suppressed work force - lack of management not looking after workers' interests - flaunting health and safety rules (as stringent as they are in the UK). The factory manager, Richard, seemed to have a smirking disregard for either his workers or the interviewers and made my blood boil.

What made me think above all this is whether the investment by all these national companies is really justified. Should they not keep their production at home using local employment against the 'cost effectiveness' of shipping it all out to Third World countries? My belief is that all of manufacturing will be lured to the Third World, thus oppressing the indigenous workers and eventually making my expertise redundant. Well done Nokia for allowing the film to be made. I hope there'll be many more ethically conscious companies that realise that Third World equals third rate! When have you had a perfectly understandable conversation from an overseas call centre?
Matt Reardon, Trebanos, Glamorgan

A rare chance to gain insight into real working lives in China and how global competition encourages companies to cut corners when it comes to pay and conditions.
S Birchall, Manchester

This was a fascinating programme that provided a real insight into the Chinese manufacturing revolution, which is having tremendous impacts throughout the world. As a journalist, I have visited factories in China myself and this film was an accurate portrayal of what life is like for the workers. However, in my view, Nokia's attempts to present an ethical face to customers and investors are very hollow. They and other corporations are in a furious battle to drive down manufacturing costs, leading to the closure of factories all over Western Europe. Ethics do not come into it, except when they want to put a few nice words in the front of their annual reports.
Andy Beevers, Chislehurst

Hanna Kaskinen replies: I cannot deny what you say about the depth of the attempts; anyway, we have to remember that the film shows the first ethical assessment Nokia ever made. But questioning the depth and honesty of the companies is not a bad thing at all. I hope that the development of this "supply chain ethics" field will equal that of the quality and environmental issues. They both started with "hollow attempts" and a few lines in the annual reports. Soon the companies realised that they need to show actions behind the words. Now the companies are setting stringent and tangible quality and environmental reguirements, and also having follow-up measures for them.

There are, and will always be individuals in the companies who really don't care what is happening with their own or their suppliers' employees. That's a sad fact. Therefore we also need to have the business reason motivation for this activity. In fact, ethically good behaviour should not be called "an activity" but should be a normal procedure. Personally I agree that most companies should do much more to promote ethically acceptable behaviour at their suppliers. Having worked in the companies I understand why things are moving slowly - but this does by no means mean that I would approve or accept it.

We have recently adopted a little girl from Ghanzhou. She is one of the lucky few - it is the girls that are left behind in places like these that I think about when I look into my young daughter's eyes.
Gareth, Manchester

Fantastic documentary. What were all those sinister security guards needed for? Slavery is alive and kicking in a High Street near you. Well done Thomas Balmès.
S Hayward, Nottingham

An excellent documentary - it has made me home-sick. I am from Chang Chun City, Jilin Province. I love China and I am proud that my home country has provided the world with so much and asked for so little. I would love to get a job in China and help the people there.
Bailin Weatherhead, Deal, Kent

Ahh, I think I'll hand my notice in tomorrow and go live a self-sustainable life with the pixies in some isolated forest. Just horrible the way companies have so much power over us, and those people in China had to live on site at work as well, I'm going to heave up my pancakes.
Eoin, Sale, Manchester

Your documentary is a manipulated work. I am so disappointed to see such a low quality lie on this Chinese New Year eve. If you had to choose between starving or being paid a lower wage, but enough for living a decent life, which would you choose? Please note, the definition of a decent life is different among different countries. I can live happier and better life in China with £50 than a Briton being paid £800 per month.
Boquan, London

Louise Jamison replies: You are quite right - these workers are the lucky ones, since they have jobs, income and opportunities that many people in China, and other parts of the world, can only dream of. You are also right when you say that the definition of a decent life varies depending on where you live. That is why we use local law and the local minimum wage as our benchmark. We are not trying to impose British or Finnish standards, but to ensure that workers get a fair deal as determined by their own government.

Nokia appeared to be conducting the audits in order to pre-empt a consumer backlash, but it is they themselves who have caused the sweatshops and conditions by putting contracts out to tender and demanding the very lowest production costs. To then make the factories the scapegoats and look on disapprovingly is disingenuous. For the filmmaker, it was indeed dishonest to gain access as part of a customer audit, but to not advise in advance that the material was for public broadcast - that was an abuse of the privileged access, but the factory needing the work has no ability to really object. There were lots of victims in this film, but Nokia and the filmmaker have something to answer to as well.
Dave Richard, Derby

Louise Jamison replies: Most companies hold their suppliers accountable for poor working conditions and fail to see themselves as part of the problem. A few companies are beginning to recognise that their own purchasing practices are a major contributing factor - particularly the relentless pressure on costs. But they are still finding it hard to truly integrate ethical concerns into purchasing decisions - buyers are rewarded for being ruthlessly commercial and this leaves little room to make decisions on ethical grounds.

Thomas Balmès replies: The supplier had been told before about the filming, and it had been repeated during the filming itself. I don’t see what "dishonesty" can be found here. Now, regarding the ethics or not of obeying someone’s concern of being shown not respecting the law, and worried about his main shareholder's reputation, I think it would have been unethical to obey such orders.

What a tremendous film. Why was I not surprised? What is so unacceptable, as was pointed out at the end, is that to raise the wages to the (low) legal minimum would add less than 1% to the costs of the (German owned) business.
Ian Thomas, Southampton