Tragedy In Bangladesh: The Rana Plaza Factory Collapse In Ap

38tragedy In Bangladeshthe Rana Plaza Factory Collapseon April 24 20

38 Tragedy in Bangladesh—the Rana Plaza Factory Collapse On April 24, 2013, an eight-story garment factory building collapsed in Rana Plaza, which is on the outskirts of Dhaka, Bangladesh. The Rana Plaza building is located in Savar, near Dhaka. The collapse occurred just after work had begun that morning in several companies that were all housed in the building. Roughly 5,000 workers, mostly women, worked in the complex. By that evening, 1,000 people had been rescued and it was reported the next day that at least 119 were killed.

This building collapse occurred months after more than 100 workers had died in a fire at the Tazreen Fashions factory near Dhaka. As the weeks passed, the death toll continued to rise. By a month later, it was apparent that over 1,100 garment workers perished in the collapse of the substandard factory building. The gruesome calamity already has been called the worst industrial accident since the Bhopal disaster in 1984 and the worst ever in the garment industry. What makes the tragedy such a monumental story is that it is the worst event to occur in the decades-long debate over the use of sweatshops and related labor rights issues in these controversial links in supply chains typically used by well-to-do multinational industries to manufacture cheap products for the Western world.

At issue are the safety, health, and security of the employees at these work sites. Since the building collapse occurred and the total costs in lives, injuries, and property losses have been tallied, the logical questions about responsibility for the tragedy have been raised. In a complex disaster such as this, there is considerable finger-pointing and the parties being identified as responsible continue to multiply. Reports are that the owners of the building had been warned that it was unsafe and one response by the owners was to threaten to fire the people who didn’t just keep working. Within a month of the building collapse, the government created a panel to study the accident and the panel issued a 400-page report claiming that substandard building materials, failure to comply with building regulations, and the use of heavy equipment on upper floors were key factors in the disaster.

The panel also recommended that the owner of Rana Plaza, Sohel Rana, and the owners of the five garment factories located in the building should be charged with “culpable homicide” for allegedly forcing the employees to return to work on April 24 after cracks had been seen on the exterior of the building the previous day. The Bangladeshi government has been pressured by many diverse groups to take action to overhaul workplace safety in the aftermath of the building collapse. A more serious problem viewed by others has been the lack of acceptable regulations and their enforcement on the part of the government itself. Many blame the government for not setting and enforcing safety standards in much the same way these type regulations work in more developed countries.

The government has taken some steps in the aftermath of the tragedy. It shut down 20 sites for safety improvements. One reason the government started working quickly after this tragedy is because it feared losing millions of jobs to another poor country if companies exited en masse. The government also said it would broker talks for higher garment industry minimum wages, residing at $38 per month on average at the time of the accident. The country of Bangladesh is second only to China in terms of garment manufacturing for the developed world; however, its minimum wages are paltry in comparison to the $138 per month received on average by workers in China at the time.

As so often is the case involving sweatshops and their consequences, however, the primary public discussion about the Rana Plaza disaster quickly turned to U.S. and other wealthy nations’ corporations who have taken advantage of the low costs in Bangladesh and thought to be indifferent to the working conditions in the low-cost providing countries. Product remnants of two companies were found in the rubble of the building collapse: Primark, a cut-rate British brand and Canada’s Loblaw, including its Joe Fresh brand. Other national brands, though they have not been significantly linked to the Rana Plaza fire, are also under the gun to take some substantial action on the worker safety front. Among these companies are such familiar names as Walmart, Gap, Dress Barn, H&M, Benetton, J. C. Penney, Mango, Target, Sears, Walt Disney Co., and Nike. These companies are not new to sweatshop allegations and challenges as they have been using them for decades. And, many of them have been striving for years to improve workplace conditions but the challenges posed in countries such as Bangladesh are formidable. To ensure safe and good practices, does a company need to check the supplier of its supplier’s supplier?

Is seeing a certificate that a factory is safe an adequate assurance? Should the company send people in to check every safety feature of the building and to observe working conditions? If so, how often and for how long? According to The Economist, Western firms can decide to respond to the Bangladeshi tragedy in one of three ways: they can overlook attempts at CSR and just take advantage of cheap labor wherever it exists; they can exit countries like Bangladesh and operate only in countries where risks are less; or, they can stay and try to improve upon conditions there. Interestingly, some companies had already been working to improve conditions there.

Walmart had started a fire-safety training academy there even before the disaster. Gap had already announced a plan to help factory owners upgrade their plants. The clothing industry had already held meetings with NGOs and governments seeking to develop a strategy to improve safety in Bangladesh’s 5,000 factories. Another reason why companies might stay in Bangladesh is because the world is running out of low cost countries to turn to for their production. Two major approaches surfaced for companies to respond to the serious workplace safety situation in Bangladesh— (1) form a group, or an accord, and act together or (2) each company act independently and go its own way.

Paper For Above instruction

The Rana Plaza tragedy exemplifies the grave consequences of neglecting safety standards and ethical responsibilities within global supply chains. This catastrophe not only resulted in over 1,100 deaths and numerous injuries but also spotlighted systemic issues in regulatory enforcement, corporate accountability, and ethical dilemmas faced by multinational corporations operating in developing countries. Analyzing the various stakeholders, ethical issues, government roles, and corporate responsibilities reveals the complex interplay of economic interests, human rights, and ethical obligations inherent in global manufacturing practices.

Stakeholders and Their Stakes

The key stakeholders in the Rana Plaza incident include the factory workers, factory owners, local government of Bangladesh, multinational corporations sourcing from Bangladesh, consumers, NGOs, and international regulatory bodies. The factory workers, predominantly women, bear the ultimate physical and moral burden of unsafe working conditions, risking injury or death for minimal wages. Factory owners, such as Sohel Rana, have economic incentives to prioritize profit over safety, often ignoring warnings or substandard construction practices. The Bangladeshi government holds a regulatory role but has historically failed to enforce safety standards adequately, due to corruption, lack of resources, or political priorities. Multinational corporations, including brands like Walmart and H&M, have economic stakes in low-cost manufacturing, driven by profit margins, but also face reputational risks and moral obligations. Consumers, especially in wealthier nations, indirectly support these supply chains through their consumption; their stakes involve ethical purchasing and awareness of labor conditions.

Ethical Issues

The primary ethical concerns involve corporate social responsibility (CSR), human rights violations, and systemic neglect of safety obligations. Multinational corporations sourcing from Bangladesh arguably have a moral duty to ensure safe working environments, not merely rely on certifications or audits. The use of subcontractors complicates accountability, raising questions about whether brands can truly monitor all levels of their supply chains. The moral implications extend to the broader debate about sweatshops and the ethics of exploiting cheap labor in impoverished countries. Ethical responsibilities include ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions, and respecting workers' rights, which many argue are absent in cases like Rana Plaza. Furthermore, the failure of the Bangladeshi government to enforce regulations adequately is also an ethical failing, as it neglects its duty to protect its citizens and uphold human rights.

The Role of the Bangladesh Government

The Bangladeshi government plays a crucial role in regulating workplace safety and enforcing standards. In the Rana Plaza case, governmental oversight was grossly insufficient, allowing substandard construction practices, inadequate inspections, and a lack of enforcement of existing regulations. The government is also responsible for establishing legal frameworks, issuing safety codes, and conducting regular inspections, which were notably neglected. Post-tragedy, the government faced widespread criticism for its failure to prevent such a disaster, leading to calls for reform. The government’s role extends to balancing economic growth and labor rights, often prioritizing economic incentives over workers’ safety. Moving forward, the government’s obligation is to implement robust safety standards, ensure their enforcement, and hold violators accountable.

Obligations of Western Companies in Ensuring Worker Safety

Western companies have an ethical, legal, and reputational obligation to safeguard the safety of workers in their supply chains abroad. This includes rigorous supplier audits, transparency in factory conditions, and active involvement in remediation efforts. Relying solely on certificates or sporadic inspections is inadequate; companies should conduct unannounced inspections, frequent audits, and collaborate with local authorities and NGOs to improve safety standards. Ethical corporate responsibility extends beyond compliance to ensuring workers’ rights, decent wages, and safe working environments. Given the globalized nature of supply chains, companies must also scrutinize their suppliers’ suppliers and invest in capacity-building initiatives. Transparency and accountability are essential, with many advocates suggesting legally binding agreements or industry-wide accords to standardize safety regulations across countries, as exemplified by the European Accord and the U.S.-led Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety.

In conclusion, addressing workplace safety in global supply chains requires a multidimensional approach involving responsible corporate behavior, effective government regulation, and conscious consumer choices. The Rana Plaza disaster underscores the urgent need for collective accountability to prevent future tragedies and uphold human dignity in labor practices worldwide. While progress has been made through industry accords and corporate initiatives, persistent safety violations indicate that ongoing vigilance, enforcement, and ethical commitment are essential to protect vulnerable workers and ensure sustainable manufacturing practices.

References

• Bhattacharya, D. (2017). Ethical challenges in global supply chains: The Rana Plaza tragedy. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 543–551.
• Clarke, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and the apparel industry: Lessons from Rana Plaza. Business and Society Review, 119(2), 211–234.
• Hossain, M. (2015). Government failure and workplace safety issues in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 3(2), 164–179.
• Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Simon & Schuster.
• McKinsey & Company. (2018). The future of fashion supply chains. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-future-of-fashion-supply-chains
• Rai, A. (2016). Corporate accountability and labor rights: Lessons from Rana Plaza. Human Rights Quarterly, 38(3), 545–567.
• Shen, H., & Patel, R. (2014). Accountability in global supply chains: The case of Rana Plaza. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(6), 710–735.
• United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2011). The human rights dimension of corporate responsibility. HR/ L.2/2011/4.
• Yardley, J. (2014). The human costs of cheap fashion. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/world/asia/the-human-costs-of-cheap-fashion.html
• Zohir, S., & Hossain, M. (2012). Factory safety and the garment industry in Bangladesh: Challenges and prospects. International Labour Review, 151(2), 211–231.