Apparel makers and western retailers’ groups got locked in fresh row over post-inspection remediation issues, including incorporation of new conditions in the corrective action plan (CAP), duplication in follow up inspection and funding, industry insiders said. They alleged that although duplication had been avoided in the initial inspection, it has again surfaced in the follow-up as both the groups are sending their experts to oversee the remediation work in line with the CAP in the units that produce apparel products for both signatories of Accord and Alliance. The BGMEA has already raised the duplication issue to the NTC (national tripartite committee) on Building and Fire Safety in readymade garment sector. Terming those ‘frustrating’, they also claimed that such activities are creating confusion among the buyers, lingering the remediation work and hampering the regular production activities. “Accord is attaching ‘unnecessary’ new conditions one after another with its follow-up inspections and adding those to the CAPs,” a factory owner alleged. This sends a wrong message among the buyers that the companies are not complying with the safety requirements within the set timeframe, Md Shahidullah Azim, former vice president of Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) said. But the situation is different as the Accord is adding additional requirements, he said, adding buyers also became confused over the nature of remediation going on in the units. The management of Dressmen Fashion Wear Ltd recently expressed their reservation to the BGMEA over the new findings on electrical issue by the Accord, saying these have created a difficult situation for the factory. “Accord has raised 18 electrical issues to be fixed in its initial inspection, while it added 36 new ones during follow-up,” Fahim H Abdullah, a director of Dressmen Fashion Wear Ltd, told the FE. Giving example, he said, each time Accord put one after another fresh conditions for transformer, which is ‘frustrating’. “You can place two or three new requirements, how can you deal with 36 issues?” he asked. This would become a never-ending task as they might add new conditions when he met them, he said. “Give a checklist of seven to ten issues at a time. My customers are also puzzled. is happening and are we complying with the CAP,” he noted. When asked whether Alliance has done the same, the BGMEA former leader said that Alliance is also adding additional requirements but phase by phase. He requested the Accord to add new requirements gradually and also not to put them in the CAPs, saying this creates confusion as remediation is a continuous process. “Give time for those and follow them up,” Mr Azim said. When contacted, Accord Executive Director Rob Wayss in an email said his grouping supports the factories to fix the items found in the initial inspections and as its engineers return to inspected factories to verify items have been corrected, it often finds additional safety hazards or backsliding in certain safety areas. “When such safety hazards are found, they are added to the updated CAP. We do not overlook such safety hazards when they are found,” he added. Terming the updated CAP ‘dynamic’ which is made public after verification, he said, “This is an important part of the transparency of the Accord and is beneficial to the factories because it shows those watching that they are remediating their factory.” Regarding time extension, he said Accord’s CSI (chief safety inspector) has accommodated such requests from factory owners, where valid reasons exist for extension of the timelines for completing a remediation item. Regarding duplication, he referred to a joint-letter that reads “Although the Accord and the Alliance have agreed to recognise one another’s inspection reports, we also recognise each organisation has independent and complementary obligations to their member companies to verify compliance.” The letter sent to the BGMEA was signed by both Accord and Alliance CSI. “Whenever possible, such verifications will be conducted jointly by teams consisting of representatives from both initiatives. However, this is not always feasible,” it said. “As such, the initiatives require suppliers to afford inspectors and engineers from each initiative equal and open access for the purpose of conducting remediation verification visits with appropriate prior notice. Failure to admit inspectors or engineers for this purpose may result in action by either initiative to suspend approval or escalate compliance action. When asked about the joint letter, M Rabin, managing director of Alliance, said they took such a step due to failure to implement the joint-verification plan. “Both Accord and Alliance should better their understanding and respect each others’ findings as their goal is same to ensure safe workplace,” said Abdus Salam Murshedy, managing director of Envoy Group. Apparel makers also alleged that they are not getting fund from the western retailers’ platforms, despite their pledges.
