Dear Jill,

Thank you for your thoughtful response, I really appreciate your willingness to engage in debate and dialogue. A couple of thoughts…

First, I don’t mean to (and don’t think I have) suggested that health and safety standards haven’t improved as a result of the Accord. I have deep respect for the people who have worked tireless to make it happen. This is part of the reason I waited to publish the piece until the Accord was already renewed. Having said that: just because it’s had some success, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be subject to debate. My intention was to share some thoughts that I wasn’t seeing represented in public discussion, and to spark conversation.

To your point about brands being held legally to account: I agree wholeheartedly that legal accountability is extremely important. However, there’s a difference between being legally accountable for someone else’s behavior and being legally accountable for thinking through how one’s own behavior impacts others. For brands and suppliers alike, the litmus test should be: can we look ourselves in the mirror and confidently assert that none of our own business practices have encouraged, motivated, or contributed to unethical decisions elsewhere in the supply chain? In other words: I agree that brands have a role to play in protecting workers rights, but I would frame that responsibility in terms of looking inward at how their behavior impacts others.

This brings me to your point about tripartite agreements not benefitting workers: I’m wondering… would tri-partite negotiations stand a better chance if they really transformed the incentives? The reason I bring in purchasing practices is not to simply point the finger the other way or absolve suppliers of responsibility, it’s because, in my personal experience, it’s an inequitable distribution of financial risk and reward that creates the incentive for unethical behavior. When I was a factory manager, it was the fact that I fronted all the material and labor costs that most affected my bottom line, and made it really hard not subcontract or rely on cheaply flexible labor – despite my commitment to the cause, so to speak.

In an industry where financial risk is not shared equitably, unsustainable behavior like choosing to subcontract to a sweatshop or canceling purchasing orders, make a lot of sense for the individual actors involved. And, as you point out, it’s not because they’re nefarious. It’s because the absence of shared risk makes it exceedingly difficult to do otherwise. Controls (like audits and inspections) are certainly necessary for enforcing the rules. But if the incentives fundamentally haven’t changed then it feels a bit like putting a lifelong smoker in a smoker’s lounge and asking them not to light-up. It’s my view that shared financial risk fundamentally changes the incentives because it creates co-dependence. This is probably uncomfortable for brands and suppliers alike (at least in the short term), but it’s the only way I see to ensure that all actors push in the same direction.

Warm regards,

Kim