Recent reports published in most dailies on the progress of remediation of readymade garment (RMG) factories have given rise to a mixed feeling. While some quarters are visibly upset with the slow pace of progress achieved so far, others consider the accomplishment not too small in a span of three years given the vastly enormous nature of the task. The Accord, the platform of mostly European retailers in charge of remediation of more than half of the RMG factories, informed the media personnel at a briefing session in the capital that about 57 per cent of the recommended remediation works was completed by the member garment factories since it had taken up the work three years ago. Now, those who are not at all happy with this statement are of the view that three years is a long enough time to achieve far higher level of progress in remediation. They point finger at the factory owners for not being forthcoming, let alone realise the consequences of being noncompliant. There are, however, reasons for their discontent. Since November 2013, the Accord assessed fire, electrical and structural integrity in its listed 1,550 garment factories and identified 84,000 safety hazards. It has been stated at the press briefing that around 57 per cent (56.6) of the safety hazards identified through the initial inspections have been completed by the garment factories listed with the Accord. Explaining the details, Rob Wayss, executive director of the Accord said about 74.4 per cent electrical, 50.5 per cent fire and 36.8 per cent structural remedial work had been done. That is to say, structural fault is one area where progress of correction is least noticeable. So far, the Accord has published a progress report of 1,452 factories. Only, seven factories are reported to have completed their corrective action plans (CAP), while 57 more are close to completion, and 1,388 factories are way behind. Some 453 factories were given additional time for remediation. Although 56.6 per cent safety concerns have been addressed, it is slow as 1,388 units are still far behind the schedule, said Accord executive director. As a result of lack of compliance and non-cooperation of the factory owners in carrying out the required remedial works, a number of prominent European buyers have snapped their business relationship with 26 factories. As for what has been alleged as non-cooperation on the part of a section of the factory owners, the critical issue rests with the debate whether the standards set by the two representatives of European and US buyers-Accord and Alliance respectably-are actually being followed by the apparel factories around the world, especially by Bangladesh’s competing countries, including China. The reality here is – had there been no Tazreen or Rana Plaza incidents in the country that too in quick succession, local manufacturers and exporters could perhaps merrily go on with their operations without having to comply with work place safety provisions — now apparently a burden for many. More importantly, overseas retailers, happy with cheap procurement, would not have bothered to press their cheap source into costly investments implying a hike in prices. So, the need for remediation was more a necessity, an obligation to be morally bound by commitments towards ensuring workplace safety. And given where things stand now, there is no choice but to comply with, for the sake of the safety of the workers as well as for pursuing business with overseas buyers. It is here that the slow progress in remediation, especially in structural remediation, suggests less than required seriousness from the factory owners. The Accord has been inspecting the factories with the members’ fees and a total of $30 million has been reportedly spent for inspection purposes over the last three years. The other platform in charge of factory remediation representing major North American retailers Alliance has voiced optimism in the works done so far. Former US Ambassador to Bangladesh James F Moriarty who has been recently appointed as country director of the Alliance said the other day, “We have made considerable progress in the past two and a half years, and I am looking forward to having even more active engagement with key stakeholders to help us achieve our shared vision of a safer RMG industry for Bangladeshi workers.” Both the inspection groups are now well set to share their findings and recommendations in a conclusive manner with the government’s review panel instituted for the purpose of appraisal and suggestions for onward actions. One good thing that seems to be less than unnerving is that despite the faults – of myriad varieties — both the teams are accommodating in the sense that they consider correction a better remedy than outright dismissal. Initially, as newspapers reported, there were a number of areas where the parameters of the two teams varied – to the extent that factory owners were at times confused as to the appropriate standard they should seek to follow. The differences halted the inspection process for a while. However, much of the differences were reconciled in course of time. Observers, including insiders, are of the opinion that with the initial confusions gone, and correction methods clearly identified by both inspection teams, implementation of full CAP may not be too difficult to achieve within the timeframe of 2018. It must be admitted that despite the stupendous task ahead, the inspections — first ever in the country – have laid out in details the fundamentals about managing factories — from setting up to running, as functional productive units. At the same time, the inspections have brought home the perils of not doing what was required long back at the time of setting up of the units at whatever locations the owners thought suitable, with little or no clues as to the dos and don’ts. The onus, for the most part, lies with the government. At a time when garment export remains the life-blood of the country’s economy, facilitating its operation does indeed call for required remediation and compliance. The earlier, the better. There are a few more issues that also need to be attended. Who will stand liable on behalf of the subcontracting factories? The inspection teams are concerned only with the factories from which they source their imports, and are ignorant about those from where a good deal of the works is done on sub-contract. There are hundreds of factories that survive mostly on subcontracting. Is there any scope to bring these factories under remediation scheme?
