Collapse In Bangladesh Case Study

1094 Words3 Pages

Key Facts A factory building collapsed in April 2013, killing over 1000 workers. The collapse happened due to the poor construction approved by the mayor and the building owner Sohel Rana. If convicted Sohel, along with the five other garment factory owners could receive life sentences. The collapse was one of the worst incidents the world has seen since the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India. Following the collapse Bangladesh’s garment industry designed an accord to help prevent reoccurring incidents such as this.
Ethical Issues There was an alarming number of ethical issues found in this case. To begin, there was the lack of honesty. When most people walk into a building, there first thought is not to consider the possibility of the building …show more content…

The Employees: Employees are now expected to return to work in these under constructed factories and not be concerned about their safety? The trust issues the collapse has caused will undoubtedly cause trouble for these companies.
II. The companies renting out space: The collapse shed light on a lot of shady activities by some of the top brands renting out the spaces in that factory. Of course they do not want to be associated with poor employment care and management. In this age of technology “image” is everything. No one (consumers) will want to support (purchase products) a company with an image of employee abuse. There’s also the issue of the loss these companies have suffered. Losing an entire factory has to be a major setback and a costly one at that. Hopefully going forward, they will learn from this.
III. Other companies who own factories in Bangladesh: After the collapse there was the question of “what to do to prevent this from ever happening again”. Bangladesh’s garment industry released an accord for all companies occupying space in Bangladesh to agree to. Unfortunately there was some faults in the accord. It appeared to only benefit those who represented the employees of Bangladesh rather than the employees themselves. Companies such as Walmart have disagreed to sign the accord. They believe their system will work …show more content…

Rana. “The ends justify the means”, is basically the mantra he was living by. It didn’t matter if he cut a few corners in the development of the factory, or that he was putting his employees at risk. All that mattered was the outcome, the money. He was maximizing profit. Unfortunately companies have found ways to cut corners since the beginning of time. There would be no way to uphold the rules, especially if you have people like Mr. Rana, paying off officials to “look the other way”.
Deontological view: It would be the “duty” of each company to come up with the BEST standards of safety for their factories in order to fulfill this approach. Morally driven, there would be no greed, or cutting corners. It would be the obligation of the companies to hold the safety of their employees to the highest standard.
Virtue Ethics view: Someone with who practices virtue ethics, would achieve this approach with ease. Each company has the freedom to decide on their own safety regulations all while keeping their personal integrity intact. It would be a good judge of character for those deciding upon the safety regulations to see the lengths that the companies will go to, to keep their employees safe and

Open Document