Calls for Action after Garment Factory Collapse Link: http://www.youtube.com/wat
ID: 449994 • Letter: C
Question
Calls for Action after Garment Factory Collapse
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPCK3cAtzto
After reading or watch YouTube video please answer the following discussion question. (Please answer all 5 questions)
Summary
The fire that killed some 400 people in a Bangladesh garment factory has ignited calls for change. While the search continues for the hundreds still missing after the deadly blaze, many are saying that it is time for a change. Already the man that owns the building where the factory was housed has been arrested, but there is a push to take additional steps as well.
With wage rates at just $38 per month, Bangladesh has become a hub in the garment manufacturing industry. In fact, clothing accounts for 77 percent of Bangladesh’s total exports. Many name brand Western clothing companies rely on the country as a cheap source of garments, and customers have come to expect that cheap clothing will be readily available in stores. Still, Oxfam, an organization that works to eradicate poverty, believes that wages in the industry are too low and wants to see them rise to $60 per month.
After the fire, some people protested outside a Primark store in London. Primark was just one Western retailer that sourced its products at the factory were the deadly fire occurred. Primark issued a statement noting that it already works with NGOs to monitor the working conditions within the factories that supply it, and that it would work to extend that monitoring to the factory buildings as well. Bangladesh has also said that it will begin to inspect all buildings in an effort to prevent further disasters like this one, but did not offer any details as to how or when this would occur.
Discussion Questions
1. Who should be held accountable for the factory that killed hundreds of people in Bangladesh? Is it sufficient to arrest the building owner, or should the companies that buy from the factories face consequences as well?
2. Do Primark and other retailers have a moral responsibility to monitor the working conditions in the factories where they source their products? Should the retailers also be held accountable for the safety of the buildings where the factories are housed? Suppose the owner has not actually violated any Bangladeshi laws, but the factory does not meet the standards used in most developed countries. Is Primark avoiding its ethical responsibility by continuing to buy from the factory?
3. Many people are pushing for more change to prevent further disasters in factories in Bangladesh. Has the Bangladeshi government done enough to stop the poor conditions in the buildings and factories where these disasters have occurred? Should building and labor laws in Bangladesh be held to the same standards as those in the United States?
4. Some people have called for a boycott of garments produced in Bangladesh. Do you agree with this recommendation? If retailers boycott the factories to ensure their compliance with basic levels of safety, what happens to the people who work in those factories? Consider your response using a utilitarianism perspective.
5. Oxfam claims that the wages paid to workers in the garment factories are far too low and should be boosted significantly. Is Oxfam right? Is it a human rights violation to source goods from factories where wages are so low? If higher wages are implemented what might happen to the industry?
Subject: Business Ethics
Please make sense with your answer;
Explanation / Answer
For such incidents both the building owner and the companies buying from these factories should be held accountable. These companies are buying garments from countries like Bangladesh, as they get the benefits of lower costs hence increased profits, which is ok for a business to strive for. But for outsourcing from any factory, there are compliances that the factory owners need to pass to win contracts from these companies. These compliances serve the purpose of making sure the basic standards are being met while production of the garments like, basic health and safety standards, sanitation standards, etc. If a company has passed the compliance of such a factory, it means they agree with the working conditions that are prevalent in the factory, hence they are equally accountable for such incidents where the factory that killed hundreds of people in Bangladesh.
Primark and other retailers do have the moral responsibility to monitor the working conditions in the factories where they source their products, and should be held accountable for the safety of the buildings where the factories are housed. Even if the factory owner has not violated any Bangladeshi laws, the basic standards of safety should meet that of the developed countries. It is the ethical responsibility of Primark to make ensure the safety of the workers of the factories it is sourcing from, because in a way Primark is the main job provider for those workers, and company should look after its workforce.
Bangladeshi government hasn’t done enough to stop poor conditions in the buildings and factories where these disasters have occurred. Before these factories are permitted to start production, they should be supervised by government officials as to analyze the basic safety requirements are being fulfilled or not. When the safety requirements of these buildings were not being fulfilled, the factory owners must not have been given the permit by the government to house the factory in those buildings. If the building and labour laws are held to the same standard as those in the US, the competitive advantage of lower labour costs will be lost by Bangladesh, and it will lose its major share of business to other competing nations. But being said that, the building and labour laws should be held to at least a bare minimum, where the working conditions doesn’t pose a life threat to the workers.
4. Some people have called for a boycott of garments produced in Bangladesh. Do you agree with this recommendation? If retailers boycott the factories to ensure their compliance with basic levels of safety, what happens to the people who work in those factories? Consider your response using a utilitarianism perspective.
Boycotting the garments produced in Bangladesh is not the solution to the workers’ problems in the country. It will only take away work from Bangladesh to some other country that offers lower cost to the retailers, as these companies are looking to increase their profit margins, and if Bangladeshi garments are boycotted they will not risk losing their sales and will immediately to the next best option for outsourcing. If retailers boycott the factories to ensure their compliance with basic levels of safety, the factory workers will be out of work, but the factory owners will be forced to ensure basic compliance is being met in order to get work. Hence, in short term it might negatively affect the workers of those factories, but in long term it will benefit their working conditions and safety. Utilitarianism perspective is the option that ensures happiness of the maximum number of people in the society, hence if these factories are forced to meet compliance in order to make sure they have work, the workers are benefitted, and thus a higher number of people are getting happiness out of this effort.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.