We have a long long way to go with disaster preventions in this part of the world. (Bangladesh is just next door to my state, Dhaka a short train ride away.) It's a difficult battle in challenging circumstances.
I do understand and appreciate the pressure that buying ethical can create, and strive to do that too. But I think judging by where things are made is an incomplete choice, and can smack of prejudice. For instance, I also fear the fallout of demanding better ethics and sustainability too quickly --- it can mean factory closures and unemployment as smaller businesses fold up due to lack of viability, because the new standards can't be met as fast as required unless extra funds are provided by those making the demands. The levels of poverty and socioeconomic insecurity in Bangladesh (as well as in my own country, India) can be inconceivable to many. Change is slow to come not just due to apathy, but lack of resources and education.
I fear that creating pressure to 'squeeze out' the sweatshops from the supply chain isn't enough. It isn't ALWAYS a result of one man's greed being satisfied at another's expense; sometimes there are genuine issues of logistics and dearth of funds at the other end. It is important (in the bigger picture) that larger businesses actually support their suppliers actively and financially as well, not just demand compliance of them --- with, for example, corporate social responsibility programmes and worker welfare funding for their suppliers.
Some buyers from this part of the world --- notably the much-maligned Ikea --- actually do this, providing free education and practical perks to the workers within their supply chain (solar lamps for children to study by in areas with inadequate electricity; adult primary education and training; free healthcare). Of course, you *could* argue that moving back the manufacturing to developed countries where a decent minimum wage and safety standard is guaranteed makes sure that *your* shirt is not supporting an unsafe workspace somewhere --- but that choice can also mean that somewhere, there are workers out of not just work, but food for their children and medicine for their ailing parent.
It may seem to some that I'm advocating that businesses should be run as charities (I've had that argument elsewhere); but actually I'm not. I'm saying that social responsibility and charity may start at home, but cannot stop there! In an era of global economies and glocal political movements, I think that bigger picture needs to be borne in mind too.
Right. This socialist steed just ran its mouth off (I guess my politics are clear); back to the stables we go. Hope I haven't trampled on anyone's beliefs or sensibilities while I ran amok.
ETA: In the time it took me to frame and edit this response, Fruitful has already put it much more succinctly. So all I have to add to her post is this one question: And consider, where does the funding and space to make that safety possible come from? That's pretty much the gist of my harangue above!
