BUS 355: Socially Responsible Business Case Analysis ✓ Solved

BUS 355: SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS PROCESS

INTRODUCTION This Case Analysis Process will help guide teams through a process in which a facilitator will present the case scenario and team members will act as consultants to: generate new ways to look at a challenge or questions; develop new approaches for responding to the challenge or questions; and answer the case discussion questions pertaining to the case in a way that is collaborative and all members are engaged in the process.

PURPOSE To access the wisdom and experience of the team members and to respond to an important leadership challenge in an innovative and collective way through a case analysis process.

PRINCIPLES The case should be approached as a leadership challenge that is current and concrete. The facilitator needs to take the lead in presenting the case to the team. Using a systems thinking approach implies that business firms are embedded in a broader social structure with which they constantly interact with stakeholders.

USES AND OUTCOMES Concrete and innovative ideas for how to respond to a pressing leadership challenge; high level of exchange and positive energy among the team members; cooperation through empathy, mindfulness and deep listening practices.

CASE ANALYSIS STEPS

I. Discuss and answer the following questions:

  1. Current situation: What key challenge or question is the focal organization up against?
  2. Stakeholders: Who are the relevant stakeholders? How might they view this situation? What are their needs?
  3. Relationships: Draft a stakeholder map. What sources of power and influence do the relevant stakeholders have?
  4. Intention: What optimal future scenario is trying to be created by the different stakeholders?
  5. Learning threshold: What are the competing forces - is there space for compromise?
  6. Help: Where do stakeholders need input or help?
  7. What possible solutions might emerge from dialogue between the focal organization and its stakeholders? Are there natural stakeholder networks that can emerge?
  8. From a future point of view (20+ years), look back on this case, what is your collective highest future possibility?

II. Team members are to listen deeply and ask clarifying questions.

III. Take 1-2 minutes of stillness to reflect on what the team members have communicated: listen to your heart, note images or metaphors that capture the essence, and prepare to answer the case discussion questions and give strategic recommendations.

IV. Case facilitators will summarize and share the team’s answers and recommendations.

V. Feedback Loop: Recognize what works well with your team dynamics in using this Case Analysis Process and share acknowledgements, accolades and gratitude among the team members.

CASE 8: AFTER RANA PLAZA

Case Discussion Questions: Answer the analysis steps above applied to the Rana Plaza collapse. Provide a stakeholder responsibility table listing possible responsible stakeholders, why responsible, and possible actions to reduce chances of future occurrence. Provide a typology of strategic responses by apparel retailers/brands. PART 1: CASE ANALYSIS PROCESS: address current situation, stakeholders with chart, relationships with stakeholder map, intention with recommendations, learning threshold, help with recommendations, possible solutions and networks, future 20+ year perspective. PART 2: CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive Summary

The Rana Plaza collapse (2013) is a pivotal case in global apparel supply-chain ethics. This analysis applies the BUS 355 Case Analysis Process to identify the focal challenge, map stakeholders and power, assess intentions and learning thresholds, propose actionable interventions, and imagine a 20+ year future in which structural reforms reduce recurrence risk. Recommendations prioritize binding governance, retailer accountability, worker voice, and systems thinking to align incentives (Meadows, 2008; Kassel & Rimanoczy, 2018).

Current Situation

The focal challenge is ensuring building and labor safety across complex, fragmented global apparel supply chains following Rana Plaza’s collapse that killed and injured thousands. The question: how can brands, suppliers, governments, workers and civil society collaborate to prevent recurrence while maintaining viable industry economics (ILO, 2013)? The problem blends technical compliance (safety retrofits), economic pressures (low prices), and governance gaps (weak enforcement).

Stakeholders and Perspectives

  • Garment workers: primary victims; need safe workplaces, living wages, and collective voice (Human Rights Watch, 2014).
  • Factory owners (e.g., building owners): responsible for structural integrity and compliance; face cost pressures (ILO, 2013).
  • Global apparel brands/retailers: exercise purchasing power and sourcing decisions that influence safety investments (Anner, 2018).
  • Government/regulators (Bangladesh): responsible for inspection and enforcement; constrained by capacity and political economy.
  • NGOs, unions, and buyer-driven initiatives (Accord, Alliance, Clean Clothes Campaign): monitor, advocate, and implement remediation/safety programs.
  • Consumers and investors: pressure brands for ethical practices; need credible information.

Relationships and Power

Brands hold economic leverage via orders and pricing; factory owners control local operations and resources; government holds legal authority but limited enforcement capacity; workers have low bargaining power but can exert moral and political pressure when mobilized with NGOs and media. Accord-type legally binding agreements shifted power by creating enforceable standards backed by international buyers and civil society (Accord, 2018).

Intention and Optimal Future Scenario

Each stakeholder’s optimal futures converge on safe, profitable, and transparent supply chains. Workers seek safety and dignity; brands seek reputational security and reliable supply; governments seek economic growth with social stability. The collective highest future possibility: institutionalized, enforceable safety governance, living-wage pathways, and resilient local industry supported by transparent auditing, worker empowerment, and adaptive purchasing practices (Kassel & Rimanoczy, 2018).

Learning Threshold and Competing Forces

Competing forces include cost-minimization pressures vs. safety investments; short-term sourcing flexibility vs. long-term supplier development; voluntary CSR vs. binding regulation. Space for compromise exists through shared cost models (brands co-fund remediation), phased compliance schedules, and market incentives for safer production (Scharmer, 2009).

Help and Inputs Needed

Stakeholders need technical expertise in building safety, credible financing mechanisms, transparent monitoring systems, and mechanisms for worker representation (ILO, 2013). International buyers must commit to price structures that permit compliance. Donor and multilateral finance can underwrite retrofit funds with brand repayment clauses.

Possible Solutions and Stakeholder Networks

Effective solutions include: 1) legally binding multi-stakeholder agreements (Accord model) for inspections and remediation with independent auditors; 2) risk-based purchasing practices where brands allocate price premiums for safer suppliers; 3) a supplier development fund co-funded by buyers to finance safety upgrades; 4) strengthened labor inspection systems supported by international technical assistance; and 5) institutionalized worker grievance and representation mechanisms (Alliance, 2018; Clean Clothes Campaign, 2018). Natural networks include brand coalitions, NGO–union alliances, and public-private remediation funds.

20+ Year Perspective

Looking back from 2045, the ideal outcome: Bangladesh’s apparel sector operates under transparent, enforceable safety codes; global buyers adhere to ethical purchasing frameworks; workers enjoy enforced living wages and representation; and the sector’s competitiveness rests on quality and sustainability, not price externalization (World Bank, 2013).

Typology of Strategic Retailer Responses

  • Do nothing: accept risk and short-term cost savings (high ethical and operational risk).
  • Voluntary compliance: rely on codes of conduct and social audits (limited effectiveness).
  • Collaborative binding agreements: join enforceable accords with NGOs and buyers (high effectiveness; sustainable impact).
  • Supplier development & long-term contracting: invest in capacity and pay premiums (medium–high effectiveness if combined with oversight).

Recommendations

1) Brands should adopt binding, legally enforceable safety agreements or join successor mechanisms to the Accord, with independent inspections and public reporting (Accord, 2018). 2) Co-fund a Supplier Safety Investment Fund to retrofit buildings with repayable grants/loans keyed to production contracts (Anner, 2018). 3) Implement purchasing practices that internalize safety costs (longer lead times, stable orders, and pricing premiums). 4) Strengthen worker voice through supported unions and grievance mechanisms linked to remediation processes (Human Rights Watch, 2014). 5) External stakeholders (donors, ILO) provide technical and institutional support to government inspection capacity (ILO, 2013; World Bank, 2013).

Conclusion

Rana Plaza exposed systemic failures at the intersection of governance, market incentives, and worker vulnerability. A systems-thinking response combines binding governance, redistributed costs, worker empowerment, and transparent monitoring to reduce recurrence probability and create a resilient, ethical apparel industry (Meadows, 2008; Kassel & Rimanoczy, 2018).

References

  • Kassel, K., & Rimanoczy, I. (2018). Developing a Sustainability Mindset. Routledge.
  • Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the Future as it Emerges. Berrett-Koehler.
  • Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  • International Labour Organization (ILO). (2013). Report on the Rana Plaza collapse: Findings and recommendations. ILO.
  • Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. (2018). Final report and lessons learned. Accord.
  • Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety. (2018). Final program report. Alliance.
  • Clean Clothes Campaign. (2018). After Rana Plaza: Five years on — progress and gaps. Clean Clothes Campaign.
  • Human Rights Watch. (2014). Who Pays? The human cost of cheap clothing. Human Rights Watch.
  • Anner, M. (2018). Corporate sourcing practices and worker outcomes in global apparel supply chains. Journal of Industrial Relations.
  • World Bank. (2013). The ready-made garment sector in Bangladesh: Performance, challenges, and policy options. World Bank.

Related Assignments