Unit 10, exercise 17a Corporate social responsibility Disaster at Rana Plaza A gruesome accident should make all bosses think harder about what behaving responsibly means THE collapse of an eight-storey garment factory in Rana Plaza on the outskirts of Dhaka on April 24th 2013 killed at least 400 people and injured many more. It was the worst ever industrial accident in the garment industry. Much of the blame lies with Bangladeshi governments, which have failed to enforce the national building code. With luck, the laws will now be applied, but nobody expects much. The spotlight is therefore on the multinational companies whose orders from local factory owners have led to the rapid growth of the garment industry in Bangladesh, the world’s secondlargest exporter of clothing after China. Familiar brands now stand accused of exploiting poorly paid workers with a callous indifference to their safety. One company whose products were found in the rubble at Rana Plaza – Primark, a cheap British label – has rapidly promised compensation to victims and their families. Prompted by earlier scandals over working conditions in far-flung factories, firms like Nike and Gap have emphasized ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR). Now the disaster in Dhaka shows how hard it is to claim that your products are ‘ethically sourced.’ That is not just because supply lines are stretched: should multis check the supplier of their supplier’s supplier? It is also because they are operating in a place where so little is to be trusted. Is it, for instance, enough for a Western multinational to see the building certificate for a Bangladeshi factory? Or should it have sent people to check every pillar? Though CSR tends to be seen as a moral matter, it comes down to the hard practicalities of companies’ reputations and risk management. Western firms can choose to respond in one of three ways. The first is to forget CSR, and simply exploit labour wherever it is cheapest – counting on consumers back home to ignore the blood, sweat and tears that went into making that cheap T-shirt or pair of trousers. Second, they could quit Bangladesh and buy from factories in countries where the risk of deadly industrial accidents is far smaller. But if large Western firms left, it would damage not just Bangladesh but also their reputations. The third approach is to stay, and try to change things. Even before the latest disaster, Walmart had launched a fire-safety training academy there, and Gap had announced a plan to help factory owners upgrade their plants. The clothing industry has held a series of meetings with NGOs and governments, to develop a strategy to improve safety in Bangladesh’s 5,000 factories. Whatever the safeguards, there will be a gap between the cavalier promises of ethical supply chains and the reality of corrupt politics. CSR has always had a utopian element. That was exposed in Bangladesh. Student B 1 Who is to blame for the fire in the Bangladeshi garment factory? 2 Why is it problematic for Western producers to prove that their goods are ethically sourced? 3 What options are available for Western companies in the face of repeated industrial accidents in developing countries? 4 What role do you think that the consumer plays in this matter? 5 How would a human rights initiative have to be set up to help in this matter? 220 A Activities Nur zu Prüfzwecken – Eigentum des Verl gs öbv
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODE3MDE=