Our tightly connected, highly efficient global supply systems have brought jobs, and thus vital first steps out of abject poverty for millions of garment workers in developing nations such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka. Giant Western retail chains such as Target and Walmart have been under continuing international pressure to assure that working conditions and wages improve in those factories. Progress has been achieved, but at this writing, the COVID-19 crisis has disrupted clothing sales and caused some retailers to renounce their clothing deals or refuse to pay for clothing already produced for them. In Bangladesh alone, about $3 billion in clothing orders were either canceled or put on hold by Western retail chains responding to the pandemic in early 2020. Other orders were confirmed, and in defiance of lockdown rules, hundreds of Bangladeshi garment factories re-opened, thus subjecting their largely female workers to virus risks. Those workers felt they needed to return to work or lose their jobs. 

Questions 

1. Prior to the legal decisions noted above, Loblaws had announced it would voluntarily pay some compensation to the families of victims. Ethics expert Chris ­MacDonald responded to the tragedy by saying, “I’m still shopping at Joe Fresh . . . and with a clear conscience.” Can we all continue to shop for cheap clothing while maintaining a clear conscience? Explain. 

2. Canadian law professor David J. Doorey objected to Loblaws’ legal argument that it had no duty to protect the Rana Plaza garment workers or to check building safety or to monitor supplier factories. Doorey said: “If the moral test was whether Loblaws’ execs would have taken more steps to ensure the factory was safe if their own family members were working there, then surely Loblaws failed that test.” Do wealthy, powerful western retailers have a moral duty to protect powerless Asian workers in their supply chains who neither work for them nor for companies with which they have direct contractual relationships? Explain.