This story on the garment factory fire in Bangladesh is just
terrible and tragic. I’m usually ambivalent when it comes to labor activism and
unions. But this story screams out the need for greater accountability and
better protection for workers. The young man who desperately called his mother
from a 5th floor bathroom to tell her he was about to die as the building
burned was particularly heart-wrenching. In many ways, it echoes the travesty in
Chinese factories producing Apple ipads reported earlier this year. As in the Apple case though, improving labor standards is not so easy when existing economic structures and business pressures pose obstacles for reform. Consumers want lower prices. Suppliers must offer competitive bids. Factories must yield high output. Laborers are desperate for work. Companies must meet consumer demand.
Boycotting Sears and Wal-mart is probably not the way to go
(see this link for reasons why). But like the case between Apple and Foxcon,
exposing labor human rights violations in factories and linking them
back to retailers may put pressure on firms, suppliers, and factories to
address labor rights. Garment workers have also taken matters into their own hands and mobilized protests in Bangladesh
The real challenge is altering the behavior incentives of
consumers and producers. Many consumers in the developed world might be willing
to pay a few dollars if they knew it translated into saved lives in Bangladesh,
China, Pakistan, or Honduras. But the garment (electronics, toy...take your
pick) industry would have to collude with one another and self-reinforce labor standards
to prevent any one firm from producing goods at a significantly lower cost. I’m not sure how many Americans are more
likely to buy things labeled as “fair-trade” or “sweatshop-free” if they can
find similar products at lower cost.
It’s easy to see why Karl Marx inspired generations of revolutionaries
and activists. But it’s just as easy to see why he was wrong about overthrowing
the structure we curse and embrace and call capitalism.
Update #1: Following the collapse of factory killing hundreds of workers, an activist from Bangladesh calls on Americans to press companies to improve standards, but does NOT endorse a boycott.
Update #2 (5/12/13): Looks like retailers like H&M (my wife's latest go to store) have decided to sign an accord which adheres to safety measures. As this article states," The move comes just days shy of a deadline imposed by workers’ rights groups that said they would hold street protests and otherwise increase pressure on clothing brands that did not sign the agreement by Wednesday." So were retailers pressured into signing? Is this a logic of consequence or appropriateness, or does that even matter?
Wal-Mart, however, has opted out of the safety plan and instead announced it would conduct their own set of inspections in factories. Perhaps Wal-Mart found the plan too restrictive??
Here's an op-ed from the Post's Harold Meyerson with more on this issue.
Update #3 (7/13/13): The spate of tragedies has led North American retailers to launch there own worker safety initiative in Bangladesh. Are such measures of corporate social responsibility really a sign of changing norms and practices, or is it a way to deflect outside criticism that American retailers are part of the problem and not the solution. As the Post points out, one weakness is the self-regulatory nature of this initiative. The Economist has a more skeptical take.
Update #4 (12/28/15): Two years after the Rana Plaza incident, slow progress on labor reforms and politics between European and N. American corporate alliances in establishing mechanisms for inspections and monitoring of factory conditions as reported by the Post.
Update #1: Following the collapse of factory killing hundreds of workers, an activist from Bangladesh calls on Americans to press companies to improve standards, but does NOT endorse a boycott.
Update #2 (5/12/13): Looks like retailers like H&M (my wife's latest go to store) have decided to sign an accord which adheres to safety measures. As this article states," The move comes just days shy of a deadline imposed by workers’ rights groups that said they would hold street protests and otherwise increase pressure on clothing brands that did not sign the agreement by Wednesday." So were retailers pressured into signing? Is this a logic of consequence or appropriateness, or does that even matter?
Wal-Mart, however, has opted out of the safety plan and instead announced it would conduct their own set of inspections in factories. Perhaps Wal-Mart found the plan too restrictive??
Here's an op-ed from the Post's Harold Meyerson with more on this issue.
Update #3 (7/13/13): The spate of tragedies has led North American retailers to launch there own worker safety initiative in Bangladesh. Are such measures of corporate social responsibility really a sign of changing norms and practices, or is it a way to deflect outside criticism that American retailers are part of the problem and not the solution. As the Post points out, one weakness is the self-regulatory nature of this initiative. The Economist has a more skeptical take.
Update #4 (12/28/15): Two years after the Rana Plaza incident, slow progress on labor reforms and politics between European and N. American corporate alliances in establishing mechanisms for inspections and monitoring of factory conditions as reported by the Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment