Just who is responsible for the fire in a garment factory in Bangladesh that killed more than 100 workers in November?
The factory owner? The government of Bangladesh? US and European brands and retailers who bought the clothes made there? Shoppers who demand the latest styles at low prices?
And who deserves credit for the improvements in working conditions at Foxconn, China’s largest employer and Apple’s biggest supplier?
Apple? The Chinese labor market? Journalists at The New York Times?
Similar questions could be asked about paint factories that discharge pollution into rivers, toy factories that use dangerous chemicals or factories everywhere that run inefficient equipment or burn dirty fuels.
For nearly two decades, a core belief of the social-responsibility movement has been that western brands and retailers must take responsibility for the social and environmental performance of the factories in their supply chain. This has created an immense infrastructure–an industry, really, of consultants who write codes of conduct for those factories, inspect the factories, report on them and deploy a combination of carrots and sticks that, at least in theory, bring about improved performance.
In essence, US and European brands have become quasi-governmental, undemocratic standards setters and enforcers of social and environmental norms.
So how’s it working? The year just past put a spotlight on a glaring failure of that system–the fire in Bangladesh, where factory conditions in the garment industry are widely deemed to remain unsafe–and on what has been cited as one of its successes–the new transparency of Apple’s supply chain, and the improved conditions at Foxconn, which supplies HP, Sony, Dell and other electronics companies, as well as Apple. [click to continue…]