The Bangladesh factory-collapse saga continues. It worth noting that the settlement discussed below includes “$2m to fix issues at more than 150 garment factories [i.e., money to fix things that the factories should have fixed in the first place] in Bangladesh. A further $300,000 will be paid to the two unions that brought the case.” None of the money goes to victims or their families. Perhaps its ethical significance is symbolic?
And what should we think of the secrecy? On one hand, lack of transparency isn’t generally in the public interest. On the other hand, if the promise of privacy encourages companies to settle, this might be a good thing.
>>>
LINK: Unions reach $2.3m settlement on Bangladesh textile factory safety (by Dominic Rushe for The Guardian)
Unions representing Bangladeshi textile workers have reached a landmark $2.3m settlement with a multinational apparel brand after it was accused of delays in remedying life-threatening hazards at its factories.
The settlement was agreed after a two-year arbitration process under the legally binding Bangladesh Accord for Fire and Building Safety. The accord was set up in the wake of the fatal collapse of the Rana Plaza textile factory complex in 2013, which killed 1,135 people in what is considered the world’s worst textile industrial disaster.
Many of the world’s largest brands, including Adidas, H&M, Marks & Spencer, Tesco, Top Shop and Uniqlo are signatories to the accord. There is no evidence that any of these brands is the company involved in the settlement.
The brand, which cannot be named under the terms of the settlement….
What do you think?
Brought to you by:
Business Ethics Highlights 
Recent Comments