In the aftermath of the Tazreen fire in Bangladesh, which killed 112 garment factory workers, reports have surfaced regarding Walmart’s refusal to cover the cost of improving electrical and fire safety in Bangladesh’s garment factories. According to Bloomberg, “a Walmart director of ethical sourcing” (of all titles) claimed that it was “not financially feasible” to invest in the proposed improvements. A Walmart spokesperson told the New York Times that the quote has been taken out of context, but the global retailer does not appear to have offered further clarification. The only statement regarding the fire on Walmart’s corporate website is dated from November 26 and claims that its supplier was not authorized to contract with the Tazreen factory and that Walmart’s relationship with the supplier has been terminated.
At the bottom of the news release is a link to information about Walmart’s fire safety initiatives in Bangladesh, as described on page 41 of its 2012 Global Responsibility Report (GRR). These initiatives apparently included fire safety training. In an article on the fire for the New York Times, Jim Yardley quotes a Tazreen factory worker describing the fire safety training she received, which involved being shown how to use a fire extinguisher, and what to do in the event of a fire occurring on the floors above. “They did not tell us what we would do if the fire started on the ground floor”, she said. A few days before the fire, managers were preparing for a buyer inspection of the factory by staging a fire drill, and “displaying photographs of the fire training session on bulletin boards.”
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, such as Walmart’s GRR, have become ubiquitous in recent years. Incidents such as the Tazreen fire raise serious questions regarding the reality behind the reporting. “Fire safety training” might help to make Walmart sound like a caring, responsible corporation, but it’s also a lot cheaper than actually making factory structures safer. The business case for CSR is built on the premise that greater corporate responsibility increases, rather than diminishes, profitability by enhancing brand image and protecting against reputational risks. Walmart’s own slogan, “Save Money. Live Better”, could be read as reflecting this premise. But perhaps the premise is false. It may be that genuine corporate responsibility costs real money, that it may cut into profits – at least in the short-term – and raise prices for consumers. Surely most of us would agree, however, that when it comes to measures necessary to protect the lives of workers, corporations ought to Spend Money to Save Lives, no matter the effect on profits?
