U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–346 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–147

LABOR ISSUES IN BANGLADESH

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 6, 2013

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL E. O’BRIEN, Staff Director

LESTER E. MUNSON III, Republican Staff Director

(II)

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Biel, Eric, Acting Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs, 

Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Jeanne 

Shaheen ......................................................................................................... 62

Blake, Hon. Robert, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ......................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Robert P. 

Casey, Jr. ....................................................................................................... 58

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Jeanne 

Shaheen ......................................................................................................... 60

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, opening statement ................. 3

Drake, Celeste, Trade Policy Specialist, American Federation of Labor and 

Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC ................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Karesh, Lewis, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Labor, Office of the 

U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC .................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Robert P. 

Casey, Jr. ....................................................................................................... 57

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Jeanne 

Shaheen ......................................................................................................... 59

Lubbe, Johan, International Labor and Employment Partner, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY ..................................................................................... 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, opening statement .... 1

ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Akter, Kalpona, executive director, Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity 

(BCWS) .................................................................................................................. 67

Kaufman, Peter J. .................................................................................................... 64

Qader, Akramul, Ambassador of Bangladesh to the United States .................... 73

(III)

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

(1)

LABOR ISSUES IN BANGLADESH 

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Casey, Murphy, Kaine, Corker, and 

McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will come to order. 

I know that the ranking member, who was just with me on the 

floor voting, will be here any minute. My apologies to our witnesses 

for the delay, but there were several votes on the Senate floor, and 

that is one thing we do not control the timing of. 

It is not often that the Foreign Relations Committee holds a 

hearing like this. In fact, the last labor hearing this committee 

chaired was the debate giving PNTR status to China in 2000, so 

it has been a while. But as I said in an op-ed that was published 

today, the tragedy at Rana Plaza—the deadliest accident of the 

global apparel industry—should be a wake-up call for all of us. 

We have a range of witnesses in our two panels this morning, 

from the State Department, the Department of Labor, the Office of 

the U.S. Trade Representative, the AFL–CIO, and a representative 

from the American retail and apparel manufacturers. 

We have also received written testimony from outside groups, 

and I ask unanimous consent that their testimony be included for 

the record. And without objection, it will be. 

The CHAIRMAN. I also want to recognize the Bangladeshi Ambassador to the United States who is with us in the audience today. 

Welcome, Ambassador Qader, and thank you for being here. 

Let me say how much the United States values its relationship 

with Bangladesh, a moderate, Muslim-majority democracy and a 

trade partner with annual flows topping $6 billion and supporting 

10,000 American jobs. 

As the world’s seventh most populous country, Bangladesh has 

made dramatic strides on everything from global food security to 

gender equality to maternal and child health, and we applaud 

those elements. But, not unlike other apparel exporters, Bangladesh is a poor, developing country with lots of economic challenges. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

2

What sets it apart from other countries is the sheer size of the 

industry and the rate of growth. In my view, what happens in 

Bangladesh will have a dramatic ripple effect on the global apparel 

industry. A change in working conditions there has the potential to 

change conditions for workers everywhere. 

That is one reason why we want global retailers to stay in Bangladesh, to work together and adopt industrywide standards to do 

everything possible to improve working conditions and make sure 

another Rana Plaza never happens again, anywhere in the world. 

The fact is, most of us in this room own clothing that was made 

in Bangladesh, the second-largest supplier of clothes. Major American retailers—Target, Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, and 

Walmart—all buy apparel from Bangladesh. 

The reasons are clear: labor is cheaper in Bangladesh; the regulatory process is more flexible in Bangladesh; hours, working conditions, and building safety concerns clearly are less cumbersome in 

Bangladesh; and that means products are cheaper and profit margins are higher. 

The Bangladeshi apparel industry now employs about 4 million, 

at least 80 percent of whom are women. It finances the government 

and influences its politics. It is no coincidence that numerous members of Parliament have ties to the garment industry. The question 

is, Are we seeing a global race to the bottom? 

Bangladesh offers some of the cheapest labor in the world with 

limited workers’ rights and protections. As a result, global retailers 

enjoy high profits, and global consumers delight in low costs. So 

how can we improve conditions without prices going up and manufacturers moving on to the next Bangladesh? 

Today, with the Rana Plaza collapse that killed at least 1,127, 

and the Tazreen factory fire in November which killed at least 112 

workers in conditions similar to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory 

fire, and 44 more factory fires since, the brand ‘‘Made in Bangladesh’’ is in jeopardy. 

Just as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire galvanized the labor movement in the United States over 100 years ago, Rana Plaza and 

Tazreen should be a turning point toward real systematic change 

in Bangladesh, and we can only hope. 

As the son of a seamstress who worked in the factories of northern New Jersey, and worked very hard under some very difficult 

conditions but far better than in Bangladesh, I know firsthand how 

difficult this work can be, but it should never be fatal. 

Since Rana Plaza, the Bangladeshi Government has committed 

to a number of steps to improve conditions, including amending

its labor laws, raising the minimum wage for garment workers, 

registering more trade unions, and increasing the number of building inspectors. But unfortunately, past promises have gone largely 

unfulfilled. 

Bangladesh has a long way to go in shifting from a culture favoring corruption to one that is friendlier to workers, enforcing prolabor legislation, allowing for the freedom of association without 

repercussion, and enforcing building and fire inspection codes. 

But factory owners must do their part, as well, to bring the 

workplace up to code. A recent survey by Bangladeshi engineers 

found that 60 percent of the factories it inspected are vulnerable 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

3

to collapse. With somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 factories, the 

sheer scale of the problem is mind-boggling. 

Global retailers have a real role to play. Major European retailers have signed a binding building and fire safety agreement, but 

American retailers and manufacturers now need to cooperate on a 

similar industrywide plan that includes workplace safety standards, cost-sharing for improvements, and compensation for injured 

workers. It is time for collective action if there is going to be any 

systemic change. Absent significant collective changes that improve 

labor conditions and worker safety, the administration should seriously consider suspending, with conditions, the Generalized System 

of Preferences benefits to Bangladesh. 

While only a small fraction of Bangladesh’s exports would be 

affected, given ongoing violations of the GSP workers’ rights criteria, GSP suspension would send a strong signal that the United 

States is serious about protecting workers and improving workplace safety. 

With that, let me turn to the ranking member, Senator Corker, 

for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

having the hearing; and the two panels of witnesses we have, we 

thank you for coming today. 

I think all of us have seen the images of what happened in Bangladesh, and our heart goes out to people who are trying to make 

a living and working in conditions obviously that were not safe. So 

I appreciate you having this hearing. 

I think the most important objective that we can accomplish 

today is to determine how all the stakeholders can figure out how 

to move ahead in a way that is far more safe and keeps this kind 

of thing from happening again. Obviously, there are a lot of stakeholders. I mean, it is not just the people that have been mentioned 

but the Government of Bangladesh, the unions, the workers, the 

United States, the European Union, and many other governments, 

and also the garment industry factory owners and others. 

It is my understanding that here in the United States, retailers 

are working together toward something that I hope is going to be 

sustainable. I think the goal is to have that done by the end of the 

month, and I think this hearing will help us toward that end. 

So I appreciate the witnesses being here. I know that all of us 

want to see a sustainable, long-term solution. There are a lot of 

stakeholders involved here, and I think the goal of this hearing 

should be to come up with a solution that we know is in the longterm interests of all involved. 

So I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate the chairman 

calling this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Corker. 

Let me introduce our first panel. 

Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, 

Robert Blake. 

Eric Biel, who must have one of the longest business cards in 

Washington, is the Acting Associate Deputy Under Secretary for 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

4

International Affairs, Bureau of International Affairs in the 

Department of Labor. 

That is quite a title, Eric. I hope you get compensated commensurate with that title. 

And Mr. Lewis Karesh, who does not have quite as long a title 

but plays a very important role as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for the Labor Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, we will start off with you. Your full statements 

will be included in the record, without objection. We ask you to 

synthesize it to around 5 minutes so that we can then have a good 

conversation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT BLAKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF STATE FOR SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, thank you, Chairman Menendez and Ranking 

Member Corker, and all the other members of this committee, for 

this opportunity to speak to you today about labor issues in Bangladesh. I am very honored to join my colleagues Eric Biel and 

Lewis Karesh before this committee today. 

Mr. Chairman, as you said, engagement on labor issues is part 

of our broad and expanding partnership with Bangladesh’s Government and its people. Bangladesh works closely with us on all of the 

President’s signature development initiatives in climate, health, 

and food security, and in encouraging greater regional integration 

and connectivity. 

In the past two decades, as you remarked in your very constructive op-ed, Bangladesh has made remarkable development progress, in part because of the growth of its ready-made garment sector. Despite the benefits the industry has brought, however, the 

tragedies at Rana Plaza and Tazreen Fashions have made clear 

that significant challenges remain. 

Our goal is to help Bangladesh continue to build on its economic 

achievements but to do so in a way that ensures the growth of its 

export sector, does not come at the expense of safe and healthy 

working conditions. 

We believe three key reforms are particularly important to 

improving labor rights and conditions in Bangladesh, guaranteeing 

workers’ rights to organize, guaranteeing fire safety, and ensuring 

structural soundness of factories and other facilities. 

Last month, Secretary Kerry underscored to Bangladeshi Foreign 

Minister Moni that the recent tragedies and weak progress on 

labor rights and safety had undermined the Bangladesh brand and 

placed the country’s future development at risk. He urged Bangladesh to make transformative and sustainable improvements in 

worker rights and working conditions. He pressed for further labor 

union registrations and the enactment of amendments to the labor 

law that will address freedom of association and worker safety. 

These changes would enable the International Labor Organization and the International Finance Corporation to launch a better 

work program for the garment industry in Bangladesh that would 

lead to still more improvements. We hope that these changes will 

be enacted by Parliament before the end of this month. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

5

We are seeing some results of our advocacy, 27 trade unions registered since September 2012, the signing of a comprehensive fire 

safety plan, and a Bangladeshi commitment to dramatically 

increase the number of government labor inspectors. 

We have also engaged United States companies sourcing from 

Bangladesh. On May 8, Special Representative for International 

Labor Affairs, Barbara Shailor, and I, along with colleagues from 

USTR and the Department of Labor, organized a conference call 

with United States buyers, and we urged them to coordinate efforts 

with each other and with European counterparts to communicate 

their concerns about labor conditions to key officials in Bangladesh, 

and to provide assistance to independent safety and fire inspectors. 

We shared our best practices for companies operating in Bangladesh, which I have submitted along with my written statement. 

Mr. Chairman, Bangladesh is now at a critical moment in its history. Last week, Ambassador Mozena met with leaders in a recently formed union in the garment industry, one of the 27 unions 

that I mentioned. These workers highlighted their successful efforts 

since forming the union to improve factory floor conditions such as 

obtaining potable water, a clean lunch room, the removal of electrical hazards, and the unblocking of exit stairwells. Their efforts 

show the potential for a broader sea change in Bangladesh’s 

approach to labor issues, but much more work needs to be done. 

Our hope is that Bangladesh will seize the current moment to 

strengthen labor rights and improve working conditions. This 

administration wants to see Bangladesh succeed, and we will remain engaged with all the relevant actors, both here and overseas, 

to support those efforts. 

So again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your interest in this 

important endeavor, and I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBERT BLAKE

Good morning. Thank you Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and all 

the members of the committee for this opportunity to speak with you today regarding labor issues in Bangladesh. Your interest and engagement will play a vital role 

as the Government of Bangladesh moves to address important labor rights issues. 

The tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza building in April and the deadly fire at the 

Tazreen clothing factory last November have resulted in unprecedented public concern about labor conditions in Bangladesh. Since long before these tragedies, we 

have been working hard on the fundamental labor rights concerns that these events 

have highlighted. We are continuing and expanding our efforts. 

Before delving into our efforts on the labor front, I would like to note that our 

engagement with the government and people of Bangladesh is broad—and it is 

growing still broader, reflecting the important strides that Bangladesh has made 

over the past decades. The policy choices Bangladesh has made have led it to a path 

of economic growth, impressive gains for women and children, successful work 

combating terrorist networks, and an increasingly prominent role in multilateral 

organizations. 

Indeed, over the past two decades, Bangladesh has made remarkable development 

progress. Life expectancy has increased by 10 years, infant mortality has declined 

by nearly two-thirds, female literacy has doubled, and economic growth has averaged over 5 percent annually. A vibrant democracy has taken root in the world’s 

third-largest Muslim-majority nation and seventh most populous country. Bangladesh offers a moderate, tolerant, secular, democratic alternative to violent extremism. As the largest contributor of forces to U.N. peacekeeping missions in some 

of the world’s most dangerous conflicts, Bangladesh is committed to sharing its experiences with the world. Bangladesh also is a focus country for all of the PresiFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

6

dent’s signature development initiatives, including Global Health, Global Climate 

Change, and Feed the Future. 

Over Memorial Day weekend, Under Secretary of State Sherman travelled to 

Dhaka to lead the U.S. delegation at the second annual U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue. The dialogue highlighted the robust ties between the United States 

and Bangladesh and reaffirmed our commitment to further broaden, deepen, and 

strengthen the partnership. The discussions focused heavily on labor rights and 

working conditions, but they also covered the full range of our relations, including 

our close cooperation on security issues, Bangladesh’s leading role supporting 

regional integration, and our growing trade relationship. The United States and 

Bangladesh cooperate closely on security issues ranging from counterterrorism to 

counterpiracy and the mitigation of natural disasters. The Government of Bangladesh has also consistently prioritized improved relations with India and greater 

regional economic integration—a key U.S. interest in a region that remains among 

the least integrated in the world. 

As Under Secretary Sherman said in Dhaka, ‘‘The success of the Bangladesh story 

has implications not just for Bangladeshis, but for the entire global community. Millions around the globe see Bangladesh as a powerful model for democratic and economic development and seek to replicate its success.’’ 

Bangladesh’s development gains have come in part because of the growth of its 

ready-made garment sector, now the second-largest in the world behind China, a 

sector that employs between 2 and 3 million Bangladeshi women, helping to lift 

them out of poverty and empowering them socially and economically. Despite the 

benefits the industry has brought, however, the tragedies at Rana Plaza and the 

Tazreen Fashions have made clear that significant challenges remain to ensure that 

workers fully benefit from this growth. 

In interactions with the Government of Bangladesh, with U.S. companies sourcing 

from Bangladesh, with factory owners in the country, with labor rights groups, and 

with our partners in Europe, our goal is to help Bangladesh continue to build on 

its economic achievements, but to do so in a way that ensures that the growth of 

its export sector does not come at the expense of safe and healthy working conditions and respect for worker rights. Success will depend on the will and commitment 

of Bangladeshis in government, in industry, and in the labor community to come 

together to change the culture of workplace safety and worker rights in Bangladesh. 

We believe three key reforms are particularly important to improve workers’ lives 

in the near term: guaranteeing workers’ rights to organize, guaranteeing fire safety, 

and ensuring structural soundness of factories and other facilities. I would like to 

briefly highlight some of the actions the State Department, working closely with colleagues from the Department of Labor and the United States Trade Representative 

(USTR) have been taking to achieve these and other important goals in Bangladesh:

• Last month, during a meeting at the State Department, Secretary Kerry underscored to Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dipu Moni that the recent tragedies 

and weak progress on labor rights and working conditions are contrary to Bangladesh’s own expressed goal of improving workers’ lives, have undermined the 

Bangladesh brand, and have placed the country’s future development at risk. 

Secretary Kerry encouraged the Bangladeshi Government to respond to these 

tragedies by making transformative and sustainable improvements in workers’ 

rights and working conditions. • Secretary Kerry pressed for continued labor union registrations as well as enactment of amendments to the country’s labor law that will allow for the creation of a ‘‘Better Work’’ program, backed by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Finance Corporation. Proposed in 2010 and 

funded in part by the U.S. Department of Labor, this program would strive to 

achieve sustainable improvements in working conditions in the garment sector. 

The labor law amendments we seek, which have been negotiated by stakeholders with help from a related ILO project, would strengthen the rights of 

workers to organize and negotiate with their employers and would improve 

some aspects of workplace safety. Specifically, they would (1) abolish a requirement that the Ministry of Labor inform factory owners of the names of workers 

applying for union registrations; and (2) allow unions access to outside expertise 

during collective bargaining negotiations. These amendments have been approved by the Bangladeshi Cabinet, and we have been working to make sure 

they are adopted by Parliament by the end of the month. 

• Under Secretary Sherman carried the same messages in her discussions in 

Dhaka as part of the Partnership Dialogue and in her meetings with Prime 

Minister Hasina and Foreign Minister Moni over the Memorial Day weekend. 

• U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh Dan Mozena has met repeatedly with industry 

leaders, including the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters AssoFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

7

ciation, and with the Bangladeshi Government to emphasize the need for concrete action following the Rana Plaza tragedy. Our Embassy worked with the 

ILO and industry, labor, and government representatives to secure a pledge to 

recruit 200 additional building safety inspectors within 6 months, with the 

eventual goal of adding another 800 inspectors. Separately Bangladesh manufacturers are also working with the German development organization GIZ and 

BRAC, a leading Bangladeshi NGO, to create a 300-person inspectorate focused 

on fire safety.

These engagements come after many months of efforts, predating the Rana Plaza 

collapse, in which we have sought to effect change on a range of labor rights and 

workplace safety concerns. We are seeing some results: our advocacy has been an 

important factor leading to the registration of 27 trade unions since September 2012 

(compared to 3 in the previous 5 years); signing of a comprehensive fire safety plan; 

and a significant Bangladeshi commitment to dramatically increase the number of 

government labor inspectors. However, there are areas where we still need to see 

progress and we will continue to press the Government of Bangladesh to address 

our concerns in these areas. Some of these concerns could be resolved relatively 

quickly—such as registration of labor-related nongovernment organizations and 

court cases against labor activists, while others will require sustained, long-term investment—such as building the capacity of government inspectorates. 

We have also engaged with U.S. manufacturers and retailers sourcing from Bangladesh. On a regular basis, our officers are briefed by major U.S. buyers so we have 

a good sense of their unfolding concerns. Over the past year, as our concerns about 

workplace safety and labor conditions continued, I and my colleagues in State and 

across the U.S. Government began to convene larger conference calls open to all 

U.S. companies to share with them the steps we were taking, and hear from them 

about theirs. Most recently, on May 8, Special Representative for International 

Labor Affairs Barbara Shailor and I, along with colleagues from USTR and the 

Department of Labor, led a conference call with U.S. buyers that source from Bangladesh’s garment industry. We urged them to coordinate efforts with each other, 

with the Government of Bangladesh and BGMEA, and with civil society and labor 

groups on factory safety and fire initiatives, including helping pay for independent 

safety and fire inspectors. We encouraged the buyers to communicate their concerns 

about labor conditions to the BGMEA and the Bangladeshi Government, and to urge 

prompt passage of the labor law amendments I referenced earlier. 

In calls with buyers in March and again in May we reviewed our expectations of 

U.S. companies’ engagement and shared a ‘‘Best Practices for Companies Operating 

in Bangladesh’’ document (attached). 

As many of you know, more than 40 brands, mostly from Europe but including 

U.S. companies PVH, Abercrombie & Fitch, and now Sean John, have coalesced 

around an accord developed in coordination with the global union IndustriALL that 

is intended to improve working conditions and respect for worker rights in Bangladesh, while also making clear the brands’ commitment to continue to source from 

Bangladesh. The Accord involves worker organizations, brings multiple retailers 

together behind one initiative, fosters information sharing, and commits retailers to 

invest in improving workplace safety and other labor standards. We recognize that 

U.S. companies must make their own judgment about whether or not to sign the 

Accord, but we have encouraged them to carefully examine what they can do to support improved working conditions in Bangladesh. 

I should also note that at the same time we are engaging with the Government 

of Bangladesh, industry, and labor groups, USTR is leading the administration’s 

review of Bangladesh’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) trade benefits. My 

colleague from USTR, Lewis Karesh, will discuss more about the GSP review in a 

moment. 

Bangladesh is now at a critical moment in its history. Over a century ago, our 

country confronted a similar challenge. After the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory 

fire in New York killed 129 workers, political momentum was created from that 

tragedy to transform our approach to workplace safety and building codes. Within 

Bangladesh, the Tazreen and Rana Plaza tragedies may create a similar impetus 

for significant and lasting improvements in worker rights and working conditions. 

Last week Ambassador Mozena met with leaders in a recently formed union in 

the garment industry, one of the 27 new unions which have been registered since 

last fall that I mentioned earlier. These workers highlighted to the Ambassador 

their successful efforts, since forming the union, to improve factory floor conditions, 

such as obtaining potable water, a clean lunchroom, the removal of electrical hazards, and the unblocking of exit stairwells. This one case shows the potential of a 

broader sea change in Bangladesh’s approach to labor issues. Still, more work needs 

to be done, and more unions need to be registered. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

8

Our hope is that Bangladesh will seize the current moment to strengthen its protection of labor rights and improve working conditions. We want to see Bangladesh 

succeed, and we will remain engaged with all the relevant actors to support those 

efforts.

Attachment: 

U.S. GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON BEST PRACTICES FOR

COMPANIES WITH OPERATIONS IN BANGLADESH

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor Michael Posner and Assistant Secretary of State for South and 

Central Asia Robert Blake hosted a conference call with over 70 U.S. brands and 

civil society groups to discuss fire safety issues in manufacturing facilities in Bangladesh. On the call, Assistant Secretary Posner and Assistant Secretary Blake 

summarized important labor rights issues, including the status of the Aminul Islam 

case, union registrations, and legal reforms. They also outlined what the U.S. Government views as best practices for companies with operations in Bangladesh. Eric 

Biel, Acting Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs at the 

Department of Labor, discussed his recent trip to Bangladesh, including numerous 

meetings on fire safety and labor law reform, and possible areas for bilateral technical assistance. 

Unsafe working conditions in Bangladesh were brought into the international 

spotlight by the Tazreen factory fire of November 2012, the worst of many deadly 

manufacturing fires in the country in recent years. The ILO has been engaged with 

the Government of Bangladesh on a Tripartite National Action Plan on Fire Safety 

to address this issue, and as of today the Plan is being finalized by the Ministry 

of Labor and Employment. They also have worked with the Government to identify 

necessary steps, including reforms to labor law and an improved and more transparent union registration process, to create an ‘‘enabling environment’’ for the establishment of a Better Work program. 

The National Action Plan and Better Work program both offer opportunities to 

sustainably improve labor standards in Bangladesh and could both benefit from the 

support and cooperation of international buyers, including in coordination with buyers’ own initiatives. The practices outlined below are recommendations from the 

U.S. Government to U.S. brands as they promote respect for human rights and 

international labor standards, as well as encourage engagement with the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders on these issues. 

1. Act Collectively: Companies should work together to figure out how they can 

make a difference collectively. And it’s important that responses meet three criteria: 

they’re credible; they’re relevant; and they’re effective. There are several ongoing 

collaborative initiatives in various stages of development. We encourage companies 

to link efforts on labor and human rights with collaborative work being done 

through multi-stakeholder initiatives, third-party auditors, industry associations, 

and cooperative agreements. The Tripartite National Action Plan on fire safety may 

offer entry points for buyers and civil society to support and enhance a Bangladeshowned process to improve fire safety. 

2. Develop Broad Principles and Policies and Procedures for Implementation: Companies should have clearly defined labor and human rights principles, policies and 

procedures that guide their behavior and that of their suppliers and subcontractors. 

Such policies should be based on internationally recognized human rights and international labor standards and there should be effective and transparent means of 

monitoring compliance. Senior leadership of the companies should visibly support 

such efforts and encourage implementation throughout the entire supply chain. 

3. Develop Credible Internal Benchmarks: In order to assess progress and effectiveness, companies should have internal metrics to manage and measure performance on labor and human rights. 

4. Conduct Independent Third-Party Verification: Third-party verifiers should assess performance of company policies and procedures. Inspections by verifiers should 

be thorough, timely, unannounced, independent, and include confidential interviews 

and consultations with workers about workplace conditions. Inspections should look 

at serious and common hazards, implementation of the local law and respect for 

internationally recognized human rights and international labor standards, and 

mechanisms for tracking non-compliance with company policies and procedures. 

5. Corrective Actions and Penalties: Corrective action may be necessary to address 

non-compliance with company policies and procedures at any point in the supply 

chain. When suppliers are found to be in non-compliance, there should be timely 

identification and financial or technical assistance to help address hazards in facFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

9

tories. There should be contractual penalties for non-compliance that are clear and 

meaningful. Also, when non-compliance is discovered, corrective actions should be 

shared with stakeholders to the extent possible and appropriate to disseminate lessons learned and best practices for avoiding or mitigating future incidents. 

6. Cultivate Worker Voice and Education: In manufacturing facilities within a 

company’s supply chain, buyers should seek to engage with workers to (a) promote 

education; (b) prevent retaliation against those reporting hazards; and (c) compensate workers, including those put out of work during corrective actions. Companies should communicate with workers through legitimate representatives selected 

by the workers themselves, and should avoid factories where no such representative 

mechanism exists. 

7. Share Information: Companies should share information with each other, stakeholders, and relevant host government officials about factories that fail to comply 

with policies and procedures or corrective measures, so as to bring the greatest 

leverage to bear with the greatest effect, and to avoid undercutting each other’s 

efforts. Information-sharing will ensure maximum coordination and knowledge. 

8. Work with Stakeholders: Draw on the expertise and experiences of other companies, NGOs, unions, the ILO, the Government of Bangladesh, and others to develop 

sophisticated responses to the current human rights challenges.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Biel. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC BIEL, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU 

OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BIEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the kind introduction. I 

know the job title is a mouthful, and I appreciate your getting all 

the words in there. I am delighted to be here with my friends and 

colleagues, Assistant Secretary Blake and Assistant USTR Karesh. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Corker, and Senators Casey, Kaine, 

and Murphy as well. We are pleased on behalf of the Department 

of Labor to be able to participate in this important and timely committee hearing on Bangladesh. 

We have been deeply engaged at the Department, working with 

our colleagues at State, USTR, and elsewhere in the Government, 

with the Government of Bangladesh, with workers and other civil 

society organizations, with United States buyers and retailers, and 

with other stakeholders on a range of crucial labor-related issues, 

both legal and policy. 

Now, this is not something new, by any means. The engagement 

has gone on for some time. But certainly it has increased and 

intensified in recent months in the wake of the Tazreen fire at the 

end of November that you, Mr. Chairman, mentioned, and then the 

terrible Rana Plaza building collapse in late April. 

We have pressed the Government of Bangladesh to address 

issues in areas ranging from the ready-made garment sector, which 

we have already focused on, to the shrimp processing sector, to the 

governance of Bangladesh’s export processing zones. We have also 

pressed on a number of other labor rights concerns, including but 

not limited to the investigation of the murder some 14 months ago 

of labor organizer, Aminul Islam. 

In this regard, we are also working closely with the International 

Labor Organization, the ILO, on a number of fronts in Bangladesh, 

having funded—when I speak of having funded, the Department of 

Labor having funded—different ILO projects to promote labor 

rights and workplace safety in Bangladesh. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

10

Our coordination with the ILO includes, as Assistant Secretary 

of State Blake already mentioned, close engagement with the ILOInternational Finance Corporation-run Better Work Program. Last 

fall, Better Work’s management team set out several labor issues 

that it expected the Government of Bangladesh to address prior to 

any launch of a new Better Work Program in the ready-made garment sector in Bangladesh. 

Now, if the Better Work leadership team determines that the 

time has come to launch a program there, it will be a major program given the size of the sector, and we will be closely engaged 

in the implementation process of that program moving forward. 

We are also working with parties in Bangladesh and with the 

ILO with respect to commitments specifically on fire and building 

safety made under the umbrella of the ILO-Facilitated National 

Tripartite Plan of Action that was announced by the Government 

of Bangladesh and other stakeholders in mid-March. 

Finally, the Department of Labor is prepared and ready to play 

a direct role in helping to address these fire and building safety 

concerns and other workers’ rights concerns that were illustrated 

so dramatically and tragically by the Tazreen fire and the Rana 

Plaza building collapse. We have crafted a detailed plan to provide 

funding to one or more grantees to help strengthen the capacity of 

both the Government of Bangladesh and workers’ organizations 

within the country to improve fire and building safety in the readymade garment sector as part of our overall technical assistance 

programs, and we have posted notice of that, what we call a Notice 

of Intent, and will be issuing the full project proposal very shortly. 

Finally, in my remaining time, a few words about the role

that the private sector can and must play to help advance positive 

change, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, for workers in Bangladesh. 

Within Bangladesh, it is essential that the powerful garment industry do more to ensure workplace safety and greater respect for 

worker rights. In addition, buyers and retailers need to play a more 

active role in addressing labor concerns in their supply chains from 

Bangladesh, as you also talked about in both your op-ed and opening statement. 

Assistant Secretary Blake’s testimony referenced what has come 

to be known in the last few weeks as the IndustriALL Accord; the 

agreement between several workers’ organizations and more than 

40 brands, including three from the United States, primarily 

Europe, but also three from the United States and one from Canada. As important as any particular element of that agreement, 

and I know you will be hearing more details of that agreement in 

the second panel from different perspectives, but as important as 

any particular element of that agreement is its likely impact on 

workers. It creates a clear and enforceable plan for sustained buyer 

engagement, as well as financial obligations and commitments to 

continued sourcing from Bangladesh, something that is of critical 

importance to those who depend on the garment sector, as you 

mentioned, largely young women, 80 percent of the workforce, as 

a stepping stone to a better life. 

So in sum, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, our goal 

in all of this is not to stifle Bangladesh’s remarkable story of 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

11

growth and development, but rather to work with the government, 

industry, workers and other civil society groups, and others to 

ensure that job creation and economic development go hand in 

hand with increased respect for worker rights and improved workplace health and safety. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and following Mr. 

Karesh’s testimony, we look forward to your questions and 

dialogue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC R. BIEL

Good morning. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of 

the committee, thank you for inviting the Department of Labor to participate in this 

important and timely hearing concerning labor issues in Bangladesh. I am honored 

to join my colleague, Assistant Secretary of State Blake, in appearing before you 

this morning. We look forward to working closely with you and other Members of 

Congress in the days and weeks ahead to improve the protection of workers’ rights 

and strengthen workplace safety in Bangladesh. 

The Departments of State and Labor, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 

and others in the U.S. Government are deeply engaged with the Government of 

Bangladesh, workers’ and other civil society organizations, U.S. buyers and retailers, and other stakeholders both in the United States and Bangladesh on a range 

of critical labor-related legal and policy issues. 

This is not something new by any means; indeed, last summer, Assistant Secretary Blake and I appeared together before a House panel to discuss a number of 

longstanding labor and trade policy challenges in Bangladesh—nearly all of which 

remain front and center for us today. 

At the same time, the focus on Bangladesh has increased considerably over the 

past several months in the wake of the tragic Tazreen Fashions factory fire last 

November, subsequent garment factory fires that fortunately caused less loss of life, 

and then the horrific Rana Plaza building collapse about 6 weeks ago. 

We are continuing to move forward with the interagency process, chaired by our 

colleagues at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, to determine the appropriate actions under our Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) trade preference 

program. Different options remain under consideration, and a decision will be 

announced before the end of this month. 

Through regular engagement with the Government of Bangladesh—including during a weeklong trip I made to Dhaka in late February that included meetings with 

senior officials across different ministries and leaders from industry and workers’ 

and civil society organizations—we have pressed the government to address issues 

in areas ranging from workers’ rights and working conditions in the ready-made 

garment and shrimp processing sectors to the governance of Bangladesh’s Export 

Processing Zones. 

We have also pressed on a number of other labor rights concerns, including with 

respect to the investigation of the murder 14 months ago of labor organizer, Aminul 

Islam, and the treatment of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity 

(BCWS)—the workers’ advocacy organization with which he was affiliated—and its 

leadership, as well as the organization Simple Action for the Environment (SAFE). 

While modest measures have been taken, much more remains to be done on both 

fronts. We will continue to press the Government for greater transparency, accountability, and justice with respect to both the murder investigation and the treatment 

of BCWS and its leaders. 

We also are working closely with the International Labor Organization (ILO) on 

a number of fronts in Bangladesh, having funded different ILO projects to promote 

labor rights by strengthening the capacity of workers’ organizations to advance 

workplace health and safety and by ensuring that workers’ voices are heard. 

Our coordination with the ILO includes close engagement with the ILO-International Finance Corporation Better Work Program, including through our participation on the Better Work advisory and donor committees. Several months ago, 

Better Work’s management team set out several labor issues that it expected the 

Government of Bangladesh to address prior to any launch of a Better Work program 

in the ready-made garment sector. We have seen progress on one of those fronts, 

the registration of unions, which has increased significantly—with, as Assistant Secretary Blake noted in his testimony, 27 registrations since September compared 

with 3 in the previous 5 years. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

12

That is certainly welcome and encouraging, although important challenges remain 

to workers’ ability to exercise their right to freedom of association and collective bargaining in practice, once a union is registered. At the same time, Better Work is 

still waiting on several changes to Bangladesh’s Labor Code, which are part of the 

larger labor law package awaiting action by the Parliament. 

If those amendments are enacted and the Better Work leadership team then determines that the time has come to launch the program there, we at the Department of Labor will be closely engaged in that process moving forward. To be sure, 

Better Work will not be a panacea; even after 5 years, it will only cover a relatively 

small part of the huge garment sector. But it will be another important measure 

in advancing worker rights and workplace safety in that sector. 

We are also working with parties in Bangladesh and the ILO with respect to the 

commitments on fire and building safety made by the Government of Bangladesh 

and its industry and workers’ organizations under the umbrella of the ILO-facilitated National Tripartite Plan of Action launched in March. We welcome the lead 

role being played by the ILO in that regard, as underscored by Deputy Director 

General for Field Operations and Partnerships Houngbo in early May following the 

Rana Plaza collapse, and in the ‘‘road map’’ he outlined at the end of that high-level 

mission. 

That ‘‘roadmap’’ recognizes the need for an action plan to implement several specific short- and medium-term measures. These include labor law reform, expedited 

action on fire and building safety under the National Action Plan, and, as Assistant 

Secretary Blake noted in his testimony, the recruitment of 200 new labor inspectors 

in 6 months—with plans for a minimum of 800 new inspectors. 

We at the Department of Labor are prepared to play a direct role in helping 

advance the effort to make tangible progress in addressing the fire and building 

safety and other workers’ rights-related concerns highlighted by the Tazreen and 

Rana Plaza tragedies. 

As promised by our Department leadership soon after Tazreen, we have crafted 

a detailed plan to provide funding to one or more grantees to help strengthen the 

capacity of both the Government of Bangladesh and workers’ organizations within 

the country to improve fire and building safety in the ready-made garment sector. 

We have published the Notice of Intent with respect to this technical assistance 

project and shortly will be issuing the detailed solicitation document. 

We recognize that this funding will only be a small piece of the puzzle, but hope 

that, along with the support of other donors within the U.S. Government and from 

around the world, it will play an important role in helping to remedy the shortcomings that have impeded effective enforcement of laws and regulations and the 

protection of workers’ rights in the garment sector—often with terrible consequences. 

Finally, a few words about the role that the private sector can and must play to 

leverage its market power to help advance positive change for workers in Bangladesh. 

Within Bangladesh, it is essential that the powerful garment industry, including 

the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), step 

up and do more to ensure workplace safety and greater respect for the rights of the 

largely young, female garment sector workforce. In addition, buyers and retailers 

based in the United States and elsewhere need to play a more active role in 

addressing labor concerns in their supply chains from Bangladesh. 

Assistant Secretary Blake’s testimony referenced what has come to be known as 

the Accord, the agreement reached between several workers’ organizations and more 

than 30 brands—mainly from Europe but including PVH (the first to sign on), Abercrombie & Fitch, and as of last week Sean John from the United States. There is 

much to commend in that agreement, including commitments to ensure that fire 

and building safety improvements are made and greater respect for worker rights 

is achieved in the garment sector. 

As important as any particular element of that agreement, however, is its likely 

impact on the workers of Bangladesh: it creates a clear and enforceable roadmap 

for sustained buyer engagement, financial obligations, and commitments to sourcing 

from Bangladesh—something of critical importance, especially to those young workers who have come to depend on garment sector jobs as a steppingstone to a better 

life. 

Our goal in all of this is not to stifle Bangladesh’s remarkable growth and development, but rather to work with the Government, industry, workers’ and other civil 

society groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that job creation and economic 

growth occur hand in hand with increased respect for worker rights and improved 

workplace health and safety. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

13

Tazreen and Rana Plaza have helped highlight the shortcomings in labor law, policy, and enforcement that we have discussed with our counterparts during meetings 

in Dhaka and Washington, and they have demonstrated, in the most tragic way 

imaginable, how essential it is that we all urgently address labor rights and workplace safety issues in Bangladesh with an unprecedented degree of commitment and 

vigor. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to take 

your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Karesh. 

STATEMENT OF LEWIS KARESH, ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE FOR LABOR, OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KARESH. Good morning. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker and other members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify at this hearing. I am very pleased to be here 

with my colleagues from the Departments of Labor and State. 

As the recent tragedies involving building and fire safety demonstrate, this is a critical time to work with Bangladesh to ensure 

that workers’ rights and safety are protected. Today I will talk 

about our trade relationship with Bangladesh and in particular our 

ongoing review of worker rights under the Generalized System of 

Preferences, or GSP, Trade Preference Program. 

Bangladesh is an important trade partner of the United States, 

and we have a strong and growing trade relationship. We, the 

United States, are the largest single-country market for Bangladesh’s chief export of apparel products. One of the ways we are 

seeking to strengthen that trade relationship is through a regular 

mechanism for dialogue and cooperation. In this regard, we have 

proposed to establish a U.S.-Bangladesh Trade and Investment Cooperation Framework Agreement and are awaiting Bangladesh’s 

response to that request. 

Bangladesh currently receives special duty-free access to the 

United States market through GSP. The GSP program has several 

eligibility criteria, including worker rights. To maintain its GSP 

benefits, a country must be taking steps to afford internationally 

recognized worker rights. In 2007, the AFL–CIO submitted a petition to USTR under GSP alleging serious shortcomings in Bangladesh’s recognition of worker rights. The AFL–CIO petition 

described a wide array of worker rights issues, including serious 

obstacles to freedom of association and collective bargaining, particularly in export processing zones, the ready-made garment industry, and the shrimp processing sector. 

The petition also alleged a pattern of harassment and violence 

against trade unionists and nongovernmental organizations that 

work on labor rights issues, and a neglect of worker protections in 

the areas of fire safety and health. 

We at USTR and other government agencies have taken and continue to take these allegations very seriously. From the moment we 

accepted the AFL–CIO petition, and indeed prior to the petition 

because many of the issues have been longstanding, USTR has 

worked with all stakeholders to address the many concerns. While 

we have seen progress in some areas over time, we are concerned 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

14

that the situation in other areas has deteriorated, particularly in 

the past year. 

United States officials have been explicit with the Government of 

Bangladesh concerning specific actions it should take to provide 

greater freedom of association and to ensure that workers have 

safe factories in which to work. Despite our many efforts with Bangladesh, beginning in late 2012 we grew increasingly concerned 

that the worker rights situation was, in fact, deteriorating. We concluded that the situation warranted consideration of possible withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of Bangladesh’s trade benefits 

under GSP. 

We issued a Federal Register notice in January of this year to 

make stakeholders aware of the seriousness of our concerns, and 

then held a hearing on the issue in March. The Tazreen fire in 

November 2012 and the Rana Plaza building collapse that others 

have spoken about this past April demonstrated the deadly implications of the failure to address the underlying issues of worker 

rights and safety, especially in the garment sector. 

Over the past several months, the administration has intensified 

its engagement with the Government of Bangladesh and relevant 

stakeholders. We have stressed the importance of seizing this 

moment to make concrete and lasting change. The GSP review has 

given us a much better understanding of the range of labor issues 

workers face in Bangladesh and provides a specific mechanism to 

engage the government. The administration will announce a decision on next steps in the GSP review of Bangladesh by the end of 

June. All options remain under consideration, including possible 

suspension, limitation, or withdrawal of GSP benefits. 

The challenges Bangladesh faces require both short-term and 

long-term actions. Overcoming these challenges will take the efforts of all parties—the Government of Bangladesh, factory owners, 

workers, nongovernmental organizations, international buyers, 

and, of course, the United States and other governments—that 

have an interest in the growth and development of Bangladesh. We 

recognize that now is the time, and we need to see meaningful and 

sustained change on these matters in Bangladesh. 

Thank you again, Chairman and this committee, for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karesh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEWIS KARESH

Good morning. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing concerning 

labor issues in Bangladesh. As the recent tragedies involving building and fire 

safety demonstrate, this is a critical time for our Government, U.S. companies, and 

American consumers to understand the challenges presented, and work with Bangladesh to ensure that workers’ rights and safety are protected. Today, I would like 

to touch on our overall trade relationship with Bangladesh, but discuss in much 

greater detail our ongoing review of worker rights in Bangladesh, under one of our 

trade preference programs, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). 

The United States and Bangladesh have a strong and growing trade relationship. 

The United States is a key market for Bangladesh, importing nearly $5 billion in 

goods from Bangladesh in 2012. We are also the largest single-country market for 

Bangladesh’s chief export, apparel products. The United States engages with Bangladesh on trade and investment-related matters in bilateral and multilateral settings, including at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In an effort to bolster our 

engagement in these areas, the U.S. Government has proposed a Trade and InvestFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

15

ment Cooperation Framework Agreement (TICFA), which would provide a regular 

mechanism for dialogue and cooperation. We would like to complete the agreement 

with Bangladesh soon and are awaiting a response to our proposal. 

As a least-developed beneficiary developing country under the U.S. GSP trade 

preference program, Bangladesh is eligible to export duty-free nearly 5,000 otherwise-dutiable products to the United States. In 2012, the United States imported 

nearly $35 million in products from Bangladesh under GSP, across almost 150 different Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) categories. Leading GSP-covered imports 

from Bangladesh include tobacco, ceramics, plastic products, sporting equipment, 

and nonapparel textiles such as national flags and rugs. However, because most 

apparel products are excluded from the GSP program by statute, GSP imports represented less than 1 percent of total U.S. imports from Bangladesh last year. 

The statute governing the GSP program lists several eligibility criteria, including 

some related to worker rights,1 which beneficiaries must meet in order to maintain 

their benefits. USTR, based on the advice of the GSP Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee, accepted for review a GSP country practice 

petition filed by the AFL–CIO in 2007 alleging serious shortcomings in the Government of Bangladesh’s recognition of worker rights. The AFL–CIO petition described 

a wide array of worker rights issues in Bangladesh, including serious obstacles to 

freedom of association and collective bargaining, especially in Export Processing 

Zones (EPZs), the ready-made garment and the shrimp processing sectors. The petition and subsequent updates also allege a pattern of harassment and violence 

against trade unionists and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working on 

labor rights issues, and a neglect of worker protections in the areas of fire safety 

and health. 

We have taken, and continue to take, these allegations seriously. From the 

moment we accepted the AFL–CIO petition—and indeed prior to accepting the petition because many of the issues have been longstanding—USTR has worked to address these issues. We worked with the petitioners, other U.S. Government agencies, the Government of Bangladesh, and stakeholders in Bangladesh to achieve 

progress and resolve the concerns that the petition raised. While we have seen 

progress in some areas over time, the situation in other areas has deteriorated, particularly in the past year. U.S. officials have been explicit with the GOB concerning 

the specific actions they should take to allow greater freedom of association, including to enable workers to form and operate unions of their choosing and for labor 

NGO’s to assist them, and to ensure workers have safe factories in which to work. 

Parallel to these efforts, as is also our practice, the GSP Subcommittee continued 

to invite public comments on the petition on several occasions and has held four 

public hearings on the case, most recently on March 28, 2013. 

Despite our many efforts with Bangladesh, beginning in late 2012 the USTR-led 

GSP Subcommittee grew increasingly concerned that the worker rights situation in 

Bangladesh was in fact deteriorating and concluded that the situation warranted 

consideration of possible withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of Bangladesh’s trade 

benefits under GSP. Consequently, on January 8, 2013, USTR published a notice 

in the Federal Register seeking comments on the possible withdrawal, suspension 

or limitation of Bangladesh’s GSP benefits. The primary purpose of the notice was 

to make stakeholders aware of the seriousness of our concerns and the need for 

action by the government of Bangladesh.2 At the same time, we communicated our 

concerns to senior officials of the Government of Bangladesh that we would be making a decision on next steps in the GSP review by mid-2013, that the country’s GSP 

trade benefits were at stake, and that we would be looking for evidence of substantive progress by the government in improving the worker rights situation. 

As noted, on March 28, 2013, the GSP Subcommittee held a public hearing on the 

Bangladesh review at which Bangladeshi officials, representatives of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), the Bangladesh 

Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA), and the AFL–CIO testified. The Bangladesh officials and the BGMEA cited a number of measures they had taken or 

committed to undertake to address the worker rights and worker safety concerns 

that the U.S. Government had raised. 

The AFL–CIO testified that while the Government of Bangladesh and the Bangladesh garment industry had begun to address fire safety issues, little had been 

done to address the core worker rights issues cited in the original petition and subsequent updates. 

The Rana Plaza building collapse in April demonstrated the deadly implications 

of the failure to address the underlying issues of worker safety and worker rights, 

especially in the garment sector. 

In response to widespread criticism following the Rana Plaza collapse, the Government of Bangladesh has announced several initiatives, mostly related to building 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

16

and fire safety. At the same time, many U.S. and European apparel brands have 

committed to additional initiatives designed to improve compliance with fire and 

safety standards among their Bangladeshi suppliers. In addition, the European 

Union (EU) announced that it is considering a review of Bangladesh’s benefits under 

its own trade preference program. 

The administration has also intensified its engagement with the Government of 

Bangladesh and other stakeholders. In particular, the three agencies represented at 

this hearing—USTR, State, and Labor—have each been using the particular venues 

and contacts we have with the government to stress the importance of seizing this 

moment to make concrete and lasting change. The GSP review has given us a much 

better understanding of the range of labor issues workers face in Bangladesh as well 

as a specific mechanism to engage their government. The administration will 

announce a decision on the petition by the end of June; and all options remain 

under consideration, including possible suspension, limitation, or withdrawal of 

Bangladesh’s GSP benefits. 

Based on our experience from the GSP review, let me provide you with a few 

observations on the challenges related to ensuring worker rights and safety in Bangladesh. 

First, the issues are broad, but interrelated. One of the most tragic aspects of the 

Rana Plaza disaster was that workers were allegedly coerced into returning to work 

in a building with known structural risks. Had these workers been able to effectively organize themselves, it is possible that they would have felt less intimidated. 

An important tool to ensure worker safety is the voice of the workers themselves, 

which comes from their ability to freely associate. 

Second, the challenges facing Bangladesh require both short- and long-term action. The government can take several steps now to strengthen freedom of association, including ensuring that labor activists are able to operate freely and to support 

the development of independent unions that effectively represent their workers. At 

the same time, the government needs to devote resources to developing its own 

capacity to regulate and enforce labor laws and building and fire safety codes. This 

is a longer term endeavor that will require sustained focus. 

Third, all stakeholders involved in Bangladesh have a responsibility to work 

together to address labor issues effectively and sustainably. The government has a 

primary responsibility to ensure enforcement of its laws and to create an environment in which workers can exercise their rights and work in safe and healthy factories. But factory owners, workers, international buyers, and consumers each have 

a responsibility and role to play as well. There are a large number of initiatives 

underway to address these challenges; we welcome these as a strong sign both of 

stakeholders’ recognition that change is necessary, as well as their willingness to 

be a positive part of that change. It will be critical that these initiatives work in 

tandem and not at cross purposes. 

Finally, the United States, through our trade relationship and trade programs, 

and through our diplomatic and development policies, has an important interest in 

seeing Bangladesh succeed in addressing the labor challenges it faces and continuing to grow and prosper economically. The administration is committed to working with the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders to achieve these 

goals. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to take 

your questions.

—————————

End Notes

1Section 502(b)(2)(G) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (‘‘the Trade Act’’) provides that 

the President ‘‘shall not designate any country a beneficiary developing country’’ under GSP if 

‘‘such country has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker 

rights in the country (including any designated zone in that country).’’ Section 507(4) of the 

Trade Act provides a definition of ‘‘internationally recognized worker rights,’’ which includes 

‘‘the right of association,’’ ‘‘the right to organize and bargain collectively,’’ and ‘‘acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and 

health.’’ 2The Government of Bangladesh (opposing any change to its GSP benefits) and the AFL–CIO 

(supporting suspension) were among the 30 individuals and organizations that submitted comments.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you all for your testimony. Let me, 

however, characterize what I heard, which is that we have been 

sabre rattling, but that has not produced the results that we collectively want to see. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

17

Mr. Karesh, you said that we have been very explicit about what 

we think needs to be done. Obviously, on freedom of association, it 

is pretty clear that if the workers at Rana Plaza had had the right 

to associate, they very well might not have been forced to work in 

an unsafe building, and they would not have died. 

So in my mind, the question is, When do we go from saber rattling to some action? Because while we have seen some movement 

in laws that have been proposed and/or passed, we have seen very 

little, if any, enforcement at the end of the day. 

So the question is, How many more people have to die before we 

decide that, in fact, that is not something that we can morally 

sustain? 

Do not all jump to answer the question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BLAKE. Let me start, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me agree 

with what you just said, and that is the message that we have been 

sending all along to our friends in Bangladesh and to all the other 

stakeholders, is that this is a defining moment now for action. 

I think there has been some action, as I said in my testimony, 

in terms of 27 new unions registered, in terms of the new fire 

safety plan, in terms of quite substantial progress on these labor 

law amendments which we have been assured by the Government 

of Bangladesh will be passed by the end of this month. So that will 

be a very important step, I think. 

But we are also working, as I said, with all buyers and with 

BGMEA—the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters 

Association—because they too have a very important role to play 

in terms of hiring new inspectors both on the fire safety side and 

on the structural soundness side. And then we need to bring all of 

these efforts together in a coherent fashion so that there is a plan 

that everybody agrees on, that all the stakeholders can agree upon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. But, Mr. Secretary, as we 

know here in our own country, passing laws and putting them on 

the books versus enforcing them is a huge gulf. 

Mr. BLAKE. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. And to be honest with you, every law that we 

pass that gets signed into law but that does not get enforced is 

meaningless. It is a toothless tiger. So my concern is not that we 

continue to see a plethora of laws passed, which I applaud, of 

course. But what is it that we are seeking in enforcement activities 

to make sure that the laws are pursued and the message is sent 

to the industry? 

So, Mr. Karesh, why not, considering I recognize we have a very 

significant bilateral agenda with Bangladesh. As I said, I have 

applauded many of their successes. But that does not mean that we 

should sit by and watch workers die, and to permit American companies to, in essence, exploit conditions under which labor is cheap 

but safety is none. So, why not, when basically you have a very 

limited opportunity in terms of maybe the impact on Bangladesh 

but an opportunity to send a very clear message, why not suspend 

the GSP benefits here as a global message? Because it is not about 

having manufacturers leave Bangladesh to the next lowest priced 

place. That does not accomplish the goal. 

The question is, How do we send a message and work to create 

a universal standard that at the end of the day can allow BanFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

18

gladesh to continue to thrive, but to make sure that it is not done 

on the death of individuals who work for these industries? 

Mr. KARESH. Thank you, Chairman. I think you have hit on 

really the key question that we are facing ourselves right now. GSP 

offers one mechanism to engage countries, and we are currently reviewing that, as I expressed, because we have concerns about 

whether there has been continuing progress. As I said and as 

Assistant Secretary Blake mentioned, there have been some actions 

that have occurred in Bangladesh, and we have worked with the 

government over a sustained period of time to try to make sure 

that those are meaningful steps and that they are sustained. We 

have recently become more concerned that there has not been sustained improvement in addressing these issues. 

What we search for is what is the best way to achieve the result 

that I think we all want to achieve, which is safer workplaces 

where workers can exercise their rights and where they can go to 

work and come home from work safe and healthy. We are searching for the best ways to engage with the Bangladeshi Government 

and other stakeholders to do that. 

We are taking a serious look at GSP because it is one way——

The CHAIRMAN. What they send under GSP is less than 1 percent 

of GDP for them, right? 

Mr. KARESH. Less than 1 percent of their exports to the United 

States come in under GSP. That is correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, while not an insignificant action, the damage 

is relatively small. The message, however, universally is very 

strong. I am going to ask Senator Kaine in a little while to chair 

the hearing as I step out to go to the Finance Committee, where 

the new U.S. Trade Ambassador’s nomination is, and I am going 

to ask him the same questions, and I am hoping that he gives me 

the right answers. 

Mr. Biel, let me ask you, why is it that only a handful of American retailers are signed on, but the Europeans have largely signed 

on to the IndustriALL Accord? I wonder—you know, some businesses are debating whether to leave Bangladesh. That is not our 

purpose here, to relocate elsewhere. Otherwise, we are just chasing 

this process. But only Disney so far has stated that it will no 

longer source from Bangladesh. Forty-one companies have signed 

on to the IndustriALL Accord on fire safety and building improvements, which is hailed by labor and consumer groups as a major 

breakthrough, since global brands have often sought to deflect any 

direct responsibility of the problems. But there are only three 

American retailers who have signed the Accord so far. 

So what confidence can you give me, or any of you who may be 

dealing with the industry, that there are serious efforts underway 

by American retailers to help improve labor conditions? 

Mr. BIEL. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, and my 

colleagues may want to jump in as well. Obviously, the industry 

which is represented on the second panel will have to explain for 

themselves their decision collectively to pursue a different route 

than the Accord. As you mentioned, only three U.S.-based companies—PVH, which was the very first to sign on some time ago, and 

more recently two additional ones, as you mentioned, have signed 

on, but that is a small number compared to the number from 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

19

Europe. They have outlined, including in the written testimony, 

their legal and policy reasons; and, of course, the AFL–CIO has 

outlined a very different account of it. We have talked to all parties 

concerned. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are the Europeans less astute about legal liability? 

Mr. BIEL. Not that we are aware of, nor are the three American 

companies that did sign on. At one time, we thought just a few 

weeks ago there was a very narrow divide, and the hope was that 

the momentum would bring additional U.S. parties on board. That 

obviously has not happened. 

What we are hoping to do, as my written testimony reflects, is 

indicate that we see a process forward, and I speak for the Department of Labor in this regard, as needing to be a bit of a game 

changer: not just for the Government of Bangladesh in terms of 

your previous question about the need for greater enforcement 

mechanisms, greater capacity, the small number of labor inspectors, the fact that there is so little oversight and capacity to do the 

kind of work not just on fire and building safety but on broader 

workers’ rights concerns, but in addition there needs to be a real 

partnership with the private sector that, frankly, has been less 

than robust to date. 

So our goal—we are not as a government endorsing one particular plan—but our goal is to set some benchmarks for what 

needs to be done, especially given that there is a growing recognition, interestingly enough, as both sets of testimony on the second 

panel recognize, of a corporate responsibility, but there seems to be 

a difference in what the details of that involve. 

So we have continued to press the case for the fact that government responsibility is paramount. That is why there needs to be 

more oversight, more funding, more training, and other initiatives 

that we can talk more about, but there also needs to be a steppedup private sector role. 

The last thing I will say is the Accord itself is still being implemented. There is a 45-day period that began in late May for putting additional details in place. And so our hope is that as some 

of those details become clear, maybe some of the concerns will be 

alleviated and there will be more momentum for additional brands 

to sign on. But again, that will have to be their own determination. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, for the purposes of this governmental 

panel, let me just tell you I can assure you that this is not going 

to go away gently into that good night with one hearing. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, all of you 

for being here. 

Let us talk a little bit about the Government of Bangladesh. I 

think all of us have heard the story of the person who showed up, 

the inspector, the day before at the particular facility we are talking about, and determined that it was unsafe. He was turned away, 

and the building later collapsed, and 1,100 people died. I know we 

are talking here about regulations and rules. I am just curious 

about what kind of regulations and rules already exist. It sounds 

to me like maybe it is more a question of whether those are being 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

20

enforced in Bangladesh. I am just wondering if one of you might 

respond to that. 

Mr. BIEL. I think it is a combination of the laws on the books 

and the lack of enforcement. There are some shortcomings in the 

laws themselves. As was referenced in more detail in the written 

testimony, Bangladesh is currently, we understand that the Cabinet, the senior leadership, is now moving a comprehensive labor 

law reform package to the Parliament, and as Assistant Secretary 

Blake mentioned, the hope is that it will be passed by the end of 

this month. That is about 145 pages translated, so it is a detailed 

plan. Those of us who have had a chance to examine it recognize 

it is just the first step. There are some things in it that still do not 

go as far as making it compliant with internationally recognized 

standards of the ILO and so forth. 

But there are some significant improvements, including the four 

specific provisions that tie into what the Better Work management 

team asked for last fall. So on the legal side there are some signs 

of progress, although I would also note—and again, this is referenced in the testimony—that the export processing zones are 

subject to an entirely separate set of provisions, not part of that 

same labor code, and that is why that has been a particular area 

of concern, because there is vast discretion in that area, and you 

do not have the same kind of union structure in that area. 

So there are some legal gaps, some that are on the way to being 

remedied, others that remain a ways away. But in addition, there 

is the issue of enforcement. Currently, given the size of the sector, 

the fact that you have got only a double-digit number of labor 

inspectors is something that is an obvious shortcoming. In connection with the ILO roadmap announced at the beginning of May, 

that number will grow to 200, and there should be budget to get 

it up to 800 before too long. That is still not a vast number, but 

it is almost a tenfold increase. 

So you begin to see, with the help that we can provide, technical 

assistance training, hopefully a more robust government enforcement capability, although again that needs to be complemented by 

more work by the private sector at the factory level. 

Mr. BLAKE. May I just jump in for a minute, Senator, and just 

say I think the Rana Plaza tragedy really underlined the number 

of failings that now exist. One, there was a management failure on 

the part of the management of that factory which, of course, 

ordered those workers back in when they knew full well that there 

were cracks in the building. 

Second, it underlined the need for independent unions. Had there 

been an independent union representative at that facility at that 

time, they would have ordered the evacuation of those workers. 

Third, I think it underlined the immense governance challenges 

that still exist in Bangladesh. This building was built on unstable 

land. There were floors that were added illegally. So there is a 

great deal of corruption and governance challenges that still need 

to be met. 

And fourth, as my colleague said, it underlines the need for much 

greater and more capable inspections, not just by government 

inspectors but by independent inspectors who can hopefully reinforce whatever the work that is being done by the government. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

21

Senator CORKER. Well, I appreciate that. It seems to me that 

there ought to be some mechanism, maybe, for these owners of the 

companies that are manufacturing to somehow certify that they are 

meeting the standards also, the standards that have been put in 

place. But it does sound like there is a huge inside-the-country 

issue and that is going to take Bangladesh really stepping up to 

make sure that the employees there are well taken care of. 

On the Accord, I guess I have never been and—I did not come 

to the Senate to be someone who does what everybody else does. 

I guess it really does not trouble me that our companies did not 

sign an agreement that the Europeans did. I do not think that is 

necessarily a standard that matters that much. 

I think what does matter is that our companies enter into an 

agreement that is sensible and really moves things. I am glad to 

hear the chairman say that he is going to have additional hearings. 

I think one of the things we might want to do is have a hearing 

after the U.S. retailers decide what this agreement is going to be, 

and then maybe we go through that and understand the kind of 

statements that they have made and plan to enforce. 

But I just wonder, Mr. Biel, if you could tell us a little bit about 

what those characteristics of that agreement may be, to your 

knowledge, as far as what the U.S. companies are planning to do. 

Again, it is my understanding that they have committed to some 

June 30 deadline. I think all of us would look with anticipation to 

what they might do. Maybe you could give us a little preview. 

Mr. BIEL. My review will be fairly sketchy, I am afraid, in that 

it has only been about a week since we first heard of the unification of a number of U.S. brands and trade associations around 

what is now being coordinated by the Bipartisan Policy Center and 

former Senators Mitchell and Snowe. So that just goes back a

few days. We have not seen an action plan or any specifics about 

that. Hopefully on your second panel, the panelists—certainly Mr. 

Lubbe, on behalf of the retail industry—can share more details on 

where that stands. But it is fairly new and very much a work in 

progress that we just have not seen the specifics of. 

The Accord has been in place for a couple of years. There were 

only two companies that were participants in it until recently, 

when the momentum in recent weeks, including post-Rana Plaza, 

led some three dozen additional ones to come on board. And it, too, 

is still being developed in the sense of going from a six-page document to a much more detailed plan in this 45-day period. 

So I think your point is well taken. In the next few weeks there 

will be an opportunity perhaps to compare and contrast two different models as you learn more about how the Accord is being 

implemented and perhaps learn what this initiative that is brand 

new involves. 

In my written testimony—I do not want to dominate the time—

I lay out a few points that are kind of bottom lines from our point 

of view, speaking for the Department of Labor, for what a strong 

multistakeholder agreement includes, and we are encouraged with 

the Accord that you have got different parties at the table, industry 

as well as workers’ organizations representatives, and some clear 

provisions that meet those criteria. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

22

Senator CORKER. I think there have been a number of points that 

have been brought up. But at the end of the day, what we do not 

want to see happen is for us to do the typical cut-your-nose-off-tospite-your-face effort where, in essence, an industry moves from a 

country, like Bangladesh, that needs jobs. We do not want to see 

that happen. What we would like to see is the people who were 

working there to be able to work in safe conditions and have jobs 

that are moving them up mobility-wise into a better standard of 

living. I think that is what we would all like to accomplish. 

So it sounds to me like there are tremendous enforcement issues 

on the ground that the government is not carrying out. Either they 

have been influenced to not act or they are simply not acting, but 

certainly there is a responsibility there amongst the Government of 

Bangladesh to make sure they take care of their own citizens. 

And then it seems like to me, since the chairman has mentioned 

this is not going to go away, one of the great things we might do 

as a committee is to have some of the industry leaders come up 

after this United States and Canadians retailers agreement has 

been reached and just share with us. I think most of them certainly 

like to have good corporate images and want people who buy goods 

from their stores to feel good about what they are doing. Maybe we 

can have them come up and share with us what they are planning 

to do to implement standards within their own companies that create a better culture in this regard as to how they are purchasing. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this and appreciate all of you 

being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Corker. We have exactly 

that in mind, so we look forward to it. 

Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

I will not take all of the 7 minutes because I have to run, and I 

know everyone is pressed for time. 

Thanks for your testimony, and we are grateful for your work. 

Assistant Secretary Blake, I wanted to ask just one question, and 

I will submit a number of other questions for the record. It is one 

of capacity. If you can assess—and I know you have spoken to this 

in one way or another in your testimony and otherwise—the capacity of the Government of Bangladesh to provide enforcement of 

existing rules, but then also the capacity in terms of reform and 

making the improvements we think are vitally necessary. Just in 

terms of capacity, if you could just address that. 

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, Senator. I think when you talk about

capacity, you are talking about both are there sufficient numbers 

of inspectors, but then also even more critically is there the will to 

actually enforce these things. 

Senator CASEY. Both efforts. 

Mr. BLAKE. Right. And I think we are making significant efforts, 

and the government is making significant efforts to hire the necessary number of inspectors, and we are also encouraging again a 

parallel industrial effort on the part of the buyers and BGMEA so 

that they will have their own cadre of independent inspectors as 

well, because we think that is very, very important. 

But then there is the question of governance, and that is something that Bangladesh really needs to take ownership on. Again, I 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

23

think that is where there is the most, in many ways the most significant challenges, is to ensure that the sort of culture of corruption that has persisted for so long is finally brought to an end and 

that there are serious efforts at remediation and serious efforts to 

ensure that all of these inspections not only take place but that 

then, whatever decisions are made, are actually enforced. 

BGMEA does have the ability to enforce this in the sense that 

they control the import and export licenses for all of these suppliers. So they have the teeth to be able to enforce this, and I think 

they have the will for this reason, because they know very well 

that brand Bangladesh is under threat now. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for this hearing and for your great work and interest on 

this issue. 

I wanted to come back to the industry Accord and our path forward. I am glad to hear that there may be a revisiting of some 

American companies of their willingness to step up and make some 

commitments, but thus far their response has been inadequate. 

They have, with the defense of potential legal liability, essentially 

said that they are better off today coming up with individual policies that may make things better rather than coming together, and 

some of the individual policies seem to make some sense. Gap, for 

instance, has a fairly comprehensive response here that, if you read 

it, certainly suggests they are taking things seriously. But, of 

course, this has been how we have been doing things for years. 

Each company has worked individually on trying to make things 

better and, of course, with the recent events, there is little evidence 

to suggest that it has worked. 

And so, Mr. Blake, you were sort of careful in your testimony. It 

did not sound like you suggested that we were actively encouraging 

companies to come together on a joint standard. So I wanted to ask 

all three panelists, and let me start with you, as to what role we 

are going to be playing to try to facilitate American companies, 

whether it be in an agreement with European countries or on their 

own, to have some common commitment rather than just doing 

what we have been doing for a long time, which is asking each one 

of them to come up with their own standards. 

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, Senator. Let me start, and I will ask my 

colleagues to jump in. 

As I said in my testimony, we have had several rounds of conference calls with all of the buyers already hosted by the State 

Department with our other interagency colleagues, and we have 

encouraged them to come up with an agreement that they can all 

coalesce around, and hopefully one that also is consistent with the 

IndustriALL Accord. As my colleagues said, there are some concerns on the part of the American companies about liability questions, and obviously that is a judgment they are going to have to 

make. 

But many other parts of the IndustriALL Accord they seem to be 

willing to embrace. So to the extent possible, we would like to see 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

24

something that is reasonably coherent so there is not a jumble of 

different standards and requirements that will make it more complicated to really achieve the outcome that we all desire. 

Mr. BIEL. Assistant Secretary Blake has covered it well. I guess 

what I would add, building on my previous response, is that there 

are moments in time, and the chairman highlighted the one in our 

own country from 1911 with Triangle Shirtwaist, which led to a 

whole set of changes in terms of enforceable laws, a lot of the 

things that the Department of Labor administers today coming out 

of that, a moment in time in the mid-1990s after Kathy Lee Gifford 

and other things where some of the voluntary mechanisms, the 

principles, the multistakeholder agreements came into being, and 

this is another moment in time. And it is true, it cannot just apply 

to Bangladesh, but Bangladesh may be a stepping stone. 

We deal at the Department and through the Better Work Program with conditions in other countries around the world, from 

Haiti to Honduras to Lesotho and so forth, but Bangladesh is the 

second-largest export market to us. It is a massive industry, and 

so we really need to get it right, not just with respect to government enforcement but how brands and retailers see their own 

responsibilities. 

The last thing is that the state of international law and policy 

has evolved. There is a new recognition based on the U.N. Guiding 

Principles on Business and Human Rights that while government 

has paramount responsibility, corporations have a delineated set of 

responsibilities. So we have stressed against the backdrop of that, 

as well as the specific circumstances in Bangladesh, the need to 

meet some minimum criteria. 

So far, as we said, the momentum that looked like it was building in May has kind of taken a bit of a detour. But our hope is, 

through the processes we have mentioned, that there will be a coalescing around strong common principles in the coming weeks, and 

again some oversight in the future can certainly play a key role in 

holding people’s feet to that. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Karesh. 

Mr. KARESH. Thank you, Senator Murphy. I support the comments made by both State and Labor on this. We have always 

worked together to support corporate social responsibility and 

efforts on the part of the buyers and the manufacturers to address 

these issues. But it is our view that that is not going to be enough 

in and of itself, that there has to be a culture change within Bangladesh, within the government. 

And because of Rana Plaza and Tazreen, we have talked a lot 

about fire and building safety issues, but there are also other 

issues principally focused on freedom of association and collective 

bargaining and the right of workers to assert themselves and the 

protections that are in place for that. That is partly legal, and they 

are working on labor reforms in Bangladesh. But it is also partly 

attitude. It is intimidation and harassment of groups that try to 

support the labor unions, support the workers. 

So we have to work on that issue, and the government has to be 

involved and has to address those issues, and it has to have the 

political will to address them as well as working with the buyers 

and manufacturers and others. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

25

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Blake, I would just direct my last question 

you, and possibly others can comment. This is on the issue of liability. It seems to me to be a bit of a red herring. We have the Koibel 

case and others which have greatly limited the ability of people in 

other countries to submit claims in the United States. Are we 

advising these companies on their potential U.S. liability, or are we 

leaving it up to their individual judgment? 

Mr. BLAKE. No, sir. We have not taken a position on that very 

narrow issue. We just, again, have taken a wider view that they 

should come together and coalesce around whatever plan they can 

agree on, and that ideally that could be something that is consistent with the IndustriALL Accord. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To the witnesses, Bangladesh is a sovereign nation, and they 

have their own sets of rules. There could be a culture of corruption. 

There could be labor challenges. There could be safety standards 

that we would not accept. We do not have the command and control of them that we would in this country, but we do have levers, 

and I want to just spend time talking about the levers. 

It strikes me that you could look at levers as our own governmental levers, the GSP, and there may be other mechanisms. You 

have private sector levers, and then some multinational organization levers, the ILO and the World Bank, for example. 

So on the levers that the United States would have, share with 

me a little bit about the General System of Preferences. It is my 

understanding that the AFL–CIO had filed a complaint seeking to 

diminish or reduce the GSP status of Bangladesh in 2007. Has that 

been under consideration for 6 years? 

Mr. KARESH. Yes, Senator Kaine. They filed that in 2007, and we 

did accept it for review, and we have been reviewing it and engaging with the Government of Bangladesh ever since. As I indicated 

earlier, as well, even prior to the petition, because there had been 

longstanding issues related to freedom of association, there had 

been previous submissions, and we had seen progress at times. In 

fact, previously we closed some GSP petitions prior to this petition 

being opened because we saw progress. 

We continued to work with the government ever since this petition was received to address issues. We did see some action taken. 

But recently our feeling has been that we are not seeing sustained 

and meaningful progress on issues and we have concerns that, in 

fact, in some areas there seems to be a deterioration. The current 

situation that happened in Rana Plaza and Tazreen I think are evidence of the difficulties in the deterioration, and the question about 

whether there is the political will and the proper means are in 

place to ensure that Bangladesh can meet its challenges. 

Senator KAINE. Let me just ask about the structure of the GSP 

program. I gather that it was something established as part of the 

Trade Act in 1974. The Congress set the parameters of a program. 

The granting of GSP treatment is something that is handled 

administratively through the USTR. Do I understand it correctly? 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

26

Mr. KARESH. That is correct. The U.S. Trade Representative

Office is the primary office responsible for the trade programs. A 

decision with regard to GSP itself, eligibility for countries and 

whether there can be a suspension or limitation, is actually a Presidential determination based on a recommendation from USTR, 

and we have currently indicated that we will make a decision with 

regard to steps on GSP for Bangladesh by the end of June, and we 

are in interagency discussions on forwarding our recommendation 

to the President. 

Senator KAINE. So the recommendation will be done by the end 

of June to the White House. 

Mr. KARESH. That is correct, sir. 

Senator KAINE. I noticed there was one reference to an earlier

instance where GSP status was suspended to Burma over workers’ 

rights issues. How about just generally in terms of the program? 

Is suspension of GSP status something that has commonly been 

done in the last 40 years, or is it extremely rare? 

Mr. KARESH. It is not common. It has happened in a few instances. Burma is one of those instances. 

Senator KAINE. And Burma was over workers’ rights issues? 

Mr. KARESH. That is correct. 

Senator KAINE. And when was that suspension, just generally? 

Mr. KARESH. 1989. We currently are reviewing whether to——

Senator KAINE. To restore? 

Mr. KARESH [continuing]. To restore, yes. 

Senator KAINE. And are there other instances of GSP suspension, 

other than the Burmese example? 

Mr. KARESH. Yes, there has been. There have been several cases. 

I know of situations with Nicaragua, Paraguay, Romania, Chile, 

Burma, the Central African Republic, Liberia, Sudan, Syria, Mauritania, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Belarus. 

Senator KAINE. OK. So a number? 

Mr. KARESH. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. The chairman brought up in his questions the 

fact that the GSP only covers a portion of our trade with Bangladesh because there are a number of exclusions. In your judgment—

and this is now a question to all three of you—what would the consequences of a GSP suspension be, recognizing you have not made 

that recommendation? But is it a minor thing because it only covers a certain amount of trade? Or is it a major thing because it 

sends a signal about the working conditions in Bangladesh that 

would affect them, either sort of diplomatically or affect the willingness of private-sector partners to invest? 

Mr. KARESH. I know Assistant Secretary Blake would like to 

respond to that as well, but let me just say briefly that there are 

a limited number of products that can come in under GSP that 

would be affected. But we believe that if that decision were made, 

it is a serious decision. It is a Presidential-level decision for the 

United States, and we believe Bangladesh understands that it 

would send a significant message with regard to doing business in 

Bangladesh. 

Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. I think it would send a very significant signal because it is symbolically important, and it would also potentially have an impact on the EU’s decision, because the EU has its 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

27

own GSP program which covers a much wider range of products 

than our own. Their whole process is a much longer term one than 

ours, but nonetheless this could have an influence on that as well. 

So I think it does have quite an important impact. 

Senator KAINE. And based on the format of the program as you 

described it, I gather it is sort of an iterative process. It is not just 

you are in or you are out. But the USTR, the United States, in dialogue with the Bangladeshi Government, could lay down some conditions and say if you do not do X by a certain date, our intent 

would be to recommend to the White House—or the President 

could even say our intent would be to withdraw GSP status. Do I 

understand the program correctly? 

Mr. KARESH. Yes, sir. That is correct. You have a choice of withdrawing, suspending, or limiting. There has been one situation 

where we did not fully take all of the benefits away but partially 

took them away, and then our intention, if that were to happen, 

would be exactly that, to have an action plan so that if Bangladesh 

took those steps, it could regain eligibility. 

Senator KAINE. In the instances where we have withdrawn GSP 

benefits, and you gave a number, have there been instances where 

when that has happened, the countries have wanted to come back 

and work to regain them? So I know you are analyzing with respect 

to Burma right now, but has it proven to get their attention so that 

they want to come back and regain GSP status? 

Mr. KARESH. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator KAINE. OK. I will save my private-sector questions for 

the next panel, but just one on the international organizations. The 

World Bank has a Work Better Program that is trying to focus on 

these issues as well. Could you describe the status of that? 

Mr. BIEL. Sure, sure. It is actually jointly administered by the 

International Labor Organization and the International Finance 

Corporation, part of the World Bank Group. The Better Work Program has been around for more than a decade. The first such program was what is called Better Factories Cambodia. So it is not a 

terribly old program, about 12 or 13 years old. It has expanded to 

a few other countries around the world. I mentioned some, but also 

including Haiti and Vietnam and Lesotho, Jordan and so forth. 

In terms of going back to your question about leverage, we sit on 

both the donors committee and the advisory committee of the Better Work Program and have the ability to have some influence. We 

are not the final decisionmakers. That is the management group 

led by senior officials at the ILO and IFC. So, for example, in this 

case, Bangladesh has long indicated they want to be part of Better 

Work. We see that as potentially, if it is well administered, a step 

forward in terms of regularizing some of the issues and having a 

more systemic program of dealing with freedom of association and 

other issues in the workplace. 

So it was last fall that that management group laid down some 

markers—they have variously been called conditions, risk factors—

for what would be necessary for Better Work to take hold in Bangladesh. Thus far, they have not been met. There has been 

progress in one bucket, on union registration, that Assistant Secretary Blake mentioned and that I also mentioned in the written 

testimony. The other is these labor law reform amendments, not 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

28

the entire package but four specific ones, and we think that things 

are moving in the right direction, although it is a bit complicated 

by the fact that there have been some different versions, at least 

an English translation, of one or two of those. 

So we are eager to see, and more importantly the Better Work 

leadership is eager to see in the coming days, exactly what gets 

introduced and taken up by Parliament so we know whether those 

are met, and then Better Work can decide whether the situation 

is sufficient to move forward. If it does, then there are a lot of big 

questions for us as well as other donors, such as the Australians 

and the British and some of the Scandinavian countries and the 

Dutch and others, who have supported Better Work and have indicated some interest in doing so in Bangladesh. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. This is, according to what I 

understand, one of the most horrific accidents, industrial accidents 

in history, and it certainly deserves everyone’s attention. Unfortunately, some of these conditions, I am told, exist not only in Bangladesh but in other places in the world. 

Secretary Blake, you probably already addressed this, but what 

are your short- and long-term priorities in this area which you enumerated, including improving the Government of Bangladesh’s 

capacity to improve the infrastructure within Bangladesh to address building and worker safety? 

Mr. BLAKE. Senator, we earlier talked about how this is going to 

have to be a comprehensive program on the part of all of the stakeholders. But since you talk about the Bangladeshi side of it, it will 

be very important that there first be freedom of association, and we 

have been talking about it earlier. Twenty-seven unions have been 

registered. Had there been a union representative on the ground at 

Rana Plaza, that tragedy would not have happened. 

But there also needs to be a comprehensive effort on the inspection and safety side, and the enforcement of that as well. Again, 

we had a detailed discussion of that. We think that the buyers and 

the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association 

have a key role to play, both of them, in helping to build up an 

independent cadre of inspectors, both on the fire safety side and on 

the structural soundness side as well, to back up whatever inspections are done by the government. 

So there is a very comprehensive series of steps that have to be 

taken but that are only really just beginning now. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you confident that they will be taken? 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I do not want to—we are pushing hard on 

those. I think—I am fairly confident——

Senator MCCAIN. In other words, I guess, what kind of cooperation are you getting? 

Mr. BLAKE. I think we are getting a lot of cooperation. We have 

certainly gotten the government’s attention, and we have certainly 

gotten the BGMEA’s attention, and as we discussed earlier, our 

own buyers are now working with former Senators Snowe and 

Mitchell to see if they can come up with their own plan that we 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

29

hope will be consistent with the IndustriALL Accord that the European buyers have coalesced around. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you satisfied with the progress so far? 

Mr. BLAKE. Certainly not. There needs to be much greater 

progress. 

Senator MCCAIN. No, but I mean what you have done so far, is 

this on a timetable? 

Mr. BLAKE. Yes. I mean, I think we are making progress, but 

there is much more that needs to be done on the part of all the 

stakeholders. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Karesh, you observed in your prepared testimony the USTR’s 

review of Bangladesh’s Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, 

trade benefits. What impact would the suspension of GSP benefits 

have on our efforts to improve the safety conditions of Bangladeshi 

workers? 

Mr. KARESH. Thank you, Senator McCain. As others have mentioned, our view is that we need a comprehensive effort to address 

these issues, of which GSP is one mechanism that provides leverage. It is a significant step. If we were to make a determination 

to suspend or limit, it is significant. We believe that there are people within the Bangladeshi Government who understand that and 

would be concerned about taking measures to ensure that did not 

happen. 

Senator MCCAIN. I guess I am curious whether in your assessment it would help or hurt if we suspended the GSP? Obviously, 

it would have significant unemployment impact in this impoverished country. 

Mr. KARESH. I mean, clearly, in making this type of a decision, 

which ultimately is a Presidential decision—the USTR can only 

make a recommendation to the President—there are consequences 

in any action. Our goal is to address the concerns about freedom 

of association and safety and health, and that is why we are taking 

a very close look at this issue and trying to answer that question 

right now ourselves as to what we can do under GSP and with 

other means to improve the lives and working conditions for workers in Bangladesh. 

Senator MCCAIN. So, actually it seems to me that suspension of 

GSP might be the last bullet to shoot rather than the first. Would 

that be correct? In other words, as Secretary Blake was saying, lay 

out what we expect of them and see if they make progress or not 

on it. And then if not, then obviously other alternatives have to be 

considered. Is that an appropriate way, or is it the way you are 

approaching this situation? 

Mr. KARESH. Yes, sir. I mean, we would never take that step 

lightly. We have been engaged on these issues with the Bangladeshis for quite a long period of time, and we have not seen the 

meaningful progress that we would like to have seen, and that is 

why we are currently in a review of whether we would take that 

action or not. But it is not something that we would take lightly 

if we were to do that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Tell me a little bit, you and Mr. Biel, about 

what they have not done that you want them to do or that they 

have been slow in doing. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

30

Mr. KARESH. Do you want to start? 

Mr. BIEL. Sure. It covers a number of different areas, and it has 

been mapped out, as Mr. Karesh mentioned, and as Senator Kaine 

mentioned. The petition goes back 6 years. In fact, there had been 

a previous cycle. So the issues are not new, but you have got a few 

different buckets of activity. The ready-made garment sector which 

is, obviously, the focus of this hearing and is the largest and most 

dynamic sector in Bangladesh. The shrimp processing sector is another area where there has been a history of labor rights abuses. 

There have been some signs of progress made, although interestingly enough, less on——

Senator MCCAIN. I guess I am asking what you want them to do. 

Mr. BIEL. Yes. So in these areas, in the sectors, ready-made garments, shrimp processing, the export processing zones which is a 

separate legal authority, and with regard to fire safety, although 

that is kind of on the margins of GSP, a specific set of steps have 

been delineated to deal with freedom of association and protection 

of workplace safety. There have also been some specific actions laid 

out, and this has been directly communicated in writing from our 

former U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, from our Ambassador in 

Bangladesh, Dan Mozena, to the Bangladeshis, also with regard to 

some investigations of killing of a labor activist and the deregistration of civil society groups. 

So it is not an exhaustive list in terms of being something that 

cannot be achieved within a time bound period. So there is no misunderstanding of what is on the table and what would be at the 

focal point of a decision on whether to suspend in full, suspend in 

part, not suspend, all the different options. 

But it has all been made quite clear in the last several months: 

here are the steps that need to be taken, and there was a GSP 

hearing that USTR chaired on March 28 and a long discussion 

bilaterally the next day with the two governments across the table. 

So those have been laid out in those areas I mentioned and a couple of others. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I would appreciate it for the record if you 

would provide us with—and I know, I hope it is not too hard—what 

we expect of them, and also what we expect of companies and corporations that do business there. We have not addressed that, I 

think, perhaps in as much depth as I would like. What do we 

expect of the companies and corporations that do business there? 

Obviously, it is a two-way street. And also, frankly, it would really 

ratchet up the unemployment in Bangladesh, and I think that is 

something that at least we ought to have as a consideration, not 

the primary consideration but as a consideration, before we take 

the kind of ultimate action. 

Do you agree, Secretary Blake? 

Mr. BLAKE. Again, I do not want to compromise what the President will decide, but I do think that this will have quite a farreaching——

Senator MCCAIN. But you give the President advice and counsel. 

I expect the President will know a lot of things, but not too much 

about this particular issue, although I am sure he is aware. 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I think this is quite an important tool. The 

issue is how do we best leverage that tool to get the progress on 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

31

the ground that we are seeking, and that is the issue that we are 

now discussing internally. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I thank you for the nonanswer. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The State Department is very good at that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator Corker wants to make a comment, and then I have one 

final question, and then we will go to the next panel. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I have another hearing that got 

moved back because of votes today, and I know this is an important time to go ahead and have this hearing. I appreciate you doing 

that. I need to step out for something that has been set for some 

time, but I know the next panel is coming up. One of the questions 

I have after hearing the first panel is, it would seem to me that 

in a supply chain, especially for larger enterprises, there are certifications that you can get all throughout the supply chain. Even if 

the Government of Bangladesh is not enforcing certain standards, 

by contract, you can ensure that those things are occurring. I hope 

the next panel will address that. 

I do look forward to the industry here coming together on a uniform agreement that they are working on, and I look forward to 

them coming up and talking with us after June 30 about the 

results of that. 

Thank you for being here, and thank you for the second panel 

that I will not see. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have one final question, and I think the Secretary might be the right person to answer it, but I welcome anyone of you who may be involved in this. 

What is the status of the investigation into the April 2012 murder of Bangladeshi labor organizer, Aminul Islam? It is my understanding that case remains unsolved, and key leads have apparently been dropped. 

Mr. BLAKE. Sir, the case does remain unsolved. A suspect was 

identified in November 2012, but since then there has been no 

progress that I am aware of on that case. So this remains a very 

important part of our dialogue with the Government of Bangladesh, 

to see this solved, because it sends a signal, quite frankly, about 

what kind of respect is going to be accorded to labor activists. 

So it is very, very important that this be fully investigated and 

that the people who are responsible be brought to justice. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, April 2012, so that is over a year. You say 

it is part of our dialogue. I am not quite sure what that means. 

How intense are we actually asking about this case? What followup 

are we seeking from this case? I mean, how is it that there are suspicions about why this case has ended up in dead ends? 

Mr. BLAKE. We do ask about it. It was when former Secretary 

Clinton was in Bangladesh the last time, she raised this in all of 

her meetings. She talked about it publicly. I raise it in my meetings with the Bangladeshis here, and of course our Ambassador on 

the ground is very active on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. And what do they say? 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

32

Mr. BLAKE. Well, just exactly what I just said, that the case 

remains under investigation but they do not have anything further 

to report. 

The CHAIRMAN. And the person who was arrested, is he still in 

incarceration? 

Mr. BLAKE. He is not incarcerated, to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I look forward to getting a further report 

from State on this. 

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. With the thanks of the committee to all of you, 

we will continue to be engaging with you on this issue. We thank 

you, and the panel is excused. 

As we do that, let me introduce our second panel this morning. 

Ms. Celeste Drake, who is a Trade Policy Specialist with the 

AFL–CIO; and Mr. Johan Lubbe, an international labor and employment partner at Littler Mendelson, who is advising American 

retail and apparel industry associations, including the American 

Apparel and Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, 

the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the U.S. Association of 

Importers for Textiles and Apparel. 

And I would ask Senator Kaine to assume the chair. I look forward to coming back because I do have questions for this panel. 

Once you are situated, we will start off with Ms. Drake and then 

move to Mr. Lubbe. 

Senator KAINE [presiding]. Thank you to the witnesses. 

Mr. Lubbe, please proceed with your testimony, and then we will 

move to questioning after Ms. Drake’s testimony. 

I am sorry. It was Ms. Drake first, and then Mr. Lubbe. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF CELESTE DRAKE, TRADE POLICY SPECIALIST, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF 

INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. DRAKE. Thank you, Senator. I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on important labor issues in Bangladesh. I have 

submitted written testimony for the record and will summarize my 

testimony here. 

Many of Bangladesh’s 4 million garment workers, the vast majority of them young women, risk their lives every day, working in 

thousands of unregulated and poorly constructed factories. Their 

contribution to Bangladesh’s $19 billion garment industry has been 

rewarded by abysmally low wages, denial of rights, and unacceptable workplace conditions. 

No silver bullet will provide an overnight solution to this longstanding problem, but the clear path forward requires unprecedented efforts by the Government of Bangladesh, local factory owners, international brands, and workers themselves. 

Bangladesh’s labor practices and working conditions have been 

at issue for more than 20 years, and yet recent catastrophes at 

Rana Plaza and Tazreen Fashions leave no doubt that the current 

approach is an abject failure. 

While it is, of course, the responsibility of the Government of 

Bangladesh to enact and enforce laws regarding workplace safety 

and worker rights, workers and employers are critical partners. 

That is why the first step in the path forward is for all clothing 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

33

brands sourcing in Bangladesh to sign the binding Accord on fire 

and building safety. This Accord will ensure that factories become 

safer, brands provide their fair share, and workers can advocate on 

their own behalves, free from retribution. 

Already 45 brands, including the largest producer in Bangladesh, 

the second-largest general retailer in the world, and three American brands have signed. The other large American brands, including Walmart, Target, the Gap, JCPenney, and more, have refused 

to sign. Some of these American brands are pursuing an alternate 

agenda, an agenda that, if based on existing corporate social 

responsibility programs, simply will not work. These unilateral 

schemes have already proven themselves ineffective, and their failures can be measured in corpses. 

Given that about 60 percent of Bangladesh’s factories are at risk 

of collapse and that two of the four worst factory disasters in the 

history of the garment industry happened in Bangladesh in the last 

7 months, it is time for those profiting most from the system to 

help reform it. 

Instead of abdicating responsibility to social compliance organizations, international brands, by signing and complying with the 

Accord, can help reverse some of the damage of their relentless 

race to the bottom. PVH, Sean John, and Abercrombie & Fitch 

have already decided that is good business. 

The importance of the Accord actually serves to underscore the 

role of the government. The agreement may have little practical 

impact if workers cannot organize and act collectively. Organized 

workers are the most effective monitors of their own safety and 

rights. But without laws securing those rights and a credible threat 

of sanctions to deter violations, some employers will just simply 

continue to cut corners. 

Which brings me to point two: The administration must act to 

withdraw or limit Bangladesh’s GSP benefits until the government 

has taken meaningful, concrete, and measurable steps to ensure its 

workers can exercise their internationally recognized labor rights, 

including the rights of freedom of association, collective bargaining, 

and acceptable conditions of work. 

The time for granting the benefit of the doubt has passed, and 

workers have paid for U.S. patience with their lives. During nearly 

6 years under the current GSP petition, steps forward on worker 

rights have come hand in hand with steps backward. For example, 

when a union has been allowed to register, the government has 

also often looked the other way when its founding officers were 

fired. When fires or other workplace catastrophes have occurred, 

the government has formed high-level commissions or announced 

new safety plans, none of which make workers appreciably safer. 

Superficial changes or promises to make change are insufficient 

to meet the GSP standard. Promises do not provide workers the 

confidence they need to exercise their rights and will not reverse 

the race to the bottom. 

If it fails to act to limit or withdraw GSP benefits, the administration will send the wrong signal to all GSP beneficiaries, that the 

United States is not serious about labor rights and working conditions. Bangladeshi workers should not be given the false choice 

between low-wage, no-rights jobs, or no jobs at all. Instead, their 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

34

government must defend their rights, reverse the status quo, and 

make Bangladesh a more attractive investment in the process. 

The Government of Bangladesh can implement concrete, measurable changes quickly; and if it does so, it can earn back its tariff 

preferences, attract new customers and investors, and build the 

value of brand Bangladesh. None of this is easy nor instantaneous, 

but with enforceable standards and a commitment to tripartite 

problemsolving, a win-win solution really is possible. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Drake follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CELESTE DRAKE

I. INTRODUCTION

The AFL–CIO, on behalf of its 57 affiliated unions, appreciates this opportunity 

to testify on Labor Issues in Bangladesh. We represent workers in every industry 

and economic sector, from manufacturing to mining to services. Collaborating with 

working people around the world, we work to improve labor laws, increase compliance with labor provisions of trade and preference agreements, and empower workers to improve their own lives and conditions of work. 

Bangladesh, with nearly 150 million inhabitants, is a low-income country that 

aspires to become a middle-income country by 2021. The State Department has documented numerous and persistent human rights abuses in Bangladesh, the most 

significant being ‘‘enforced disappearances, discrimination against marginalized 

groups, and poor working conditions and labor rights.’’ 1 It is against this backdrop 

that Bangladesh’s garment sector—its export growth engine—sits, employing about 

4 million workers, over 80 percent of them women, many of them young and not 

fully literate. Workers in this sector earn about $38 a month, the global low for the 

industry, yet they sew for some of the world’s best-known brands. 

Bangladesh was most likely not on most American consumer’s radar a year or two 

ago, but that is no longer the case. The catastrophic collapse of the Rana Plaza 

Building which killed 1,129 Bangladeshis, mostly young women, on April 24, has 

raised this least-developed country’s profile—and created an opportunity that’s 

being called a ‘‘turning point.’’ 

This is indeed a critical moment for Bangladesh. If the Government, factory owners, and international brands cooperate to make profound reforms to ‘‘business as 

usual’’ in Bangladesh, committing to enforceable standards for workplace safety and 

worker rights, it can be the point at which brand Bangladesh begins to grow in stature. If instead, this moment is not seized, and a flurry of unenforceable promises 

are made in order to obscure the fact that little will change for Bangladesh’s workers, this moment will not be remembered, but will simply become another in a long 

line of preventable tragedies for which the world’s most vulnerable bear the costs. 

Achieving real change for Bangladesh’s workers will require determination and 

followthrough by both the public and private sectors. The U.S. Government must 

take action on the petition to limit or suspend Bangladesh’s benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences to signal to the Bangladesh Government that its lack 

of progress will no longer be tolerated and that substantial changes to its labor 

regime are necessary. And the U.S. brands who source in Bangladesh, but who have 

so far refused to sign on to the Accord on Factory and Building Safety in Bangladesh, must also join in the binding agreement to protect the very workers whose 

daily efforts create the brand’s products—voluntary compliance plans, which do not 

work, are not an acceptable substitute. 

II. OVERVIEW

Many of Bangladesh’s 4 million garment workers, the vast majority of whom are 

young women, risk their lives every day, working in thousands of unregulated and 

often poorly constructed factories. Their contribution to the $19 billion garment industry has been rewarded by abysmally low wages, consistent denial of internationally recognized rights, and workplace conditions reminiscent of the U.S. sweatshops 

of 100 years ago. Their jobs can literally kill them. 

The U.S. and Bangladesh Governments have for years talked about improving the 

situation for workers. Likewise, Bangladesh’s employers and international brands 

have explained their commitments to protecting workers and upholding standards. 

Despite the creation of a plethora committees, working groups, and voluntary compliance programs, the unacceptable labor conditions and practices remain. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

35

In the last 15 months alone:

• Labor organizer Aminul Islam was tortured and murdered in April 2012—the 

case remains unsolved and key leads have apparently been dropped. 

• A deadly fire at Tazreen Fashions in November 2012 killed at least 112 workers 

in conditions strikingly similar to the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. 

• Forty-four factory fire incidents have occurred since the Tazreen fire, many of 

which caused injuries as workers sought to escape blocked exits, and three of 

which were deadly—the most recent factory fire, which injured 20 workers, 

occurred on May 22. 

• Many of the workers who have successfully registered with new unions during 

2013 (22 new unions in the ready-made garment sector, for example) have faced 

termination and other antiunion discrimination; none have been able to secure 

formal collective bargaining agreements (though there have been spot agreements on specific issues). 

• Thousands of workers have engaged in protests over poor and unsafe working 

conditions and nonpayment of wages—many of the protests could have been 

avoided if workers had effective mechanisms to solve workplace disputes in an 

orderly fashion. 

• The Rana Plaza building, which contained several garment factories, collapsed, 

killing 1,129 workers and injuring at least 1,500 more—the deaths and injuries 

could have been avoided if the workers who saw the cracks and at first refused 

to enter the building had not been forced to work by employer threats to fire 

them or withhold their pay. 

• The Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, which is performing 

a survey of garment factories in Bangladesh, reported that 60 percent of the 

buildings housing factories are vulnerable to collapse.2

It is worth noting that three of the four worst disasters in the history of the global 

apparel industry have happened in the last 8 months, two of them (Rana Plaza and 

Tazreen Fashions) in Bangladesh.3 Bangladesh’s labor practices and working conditions have been at issue for more than 20 years 4—and yet these recent catastrophes 

leave no doubt that the current approach (weak to nonexistent governmental efforts 

combined with voluntary corporate compliance programs) is an abject failure. 

The problems that workers face in asserting their rights in Bangladesh are complex—but not insoluble. To make real changes for workers—who should not be 

forced to choose between working in a deathtrap and having no job at all—will take 

a truly tripartite effort, in which workers, business interests, and the relevant governments agree to work together to implement a high-road approach to economic 

development in Bangladesh. 

While it is of course the responsibility of the Government of Bangladesh to adopt, 

maintain, and enforce laws that secure fundamental labor rights for its workers—

workers and employers are critical partners in that effort. When workers are free 

to form unions and exercise labor union rights without fear of recrimination, workers become full partners in creating safer workplaces and higher productivity. Likewise, employers are critical partners—particularly when applicable labor laws and 

practices are strong and effective enough to deter those who would otherwise cut 

corners on safety and deny rights to their workers. Employers who cooperate in 

labor law compliance reap benefits as well, in the form of more productive workers 

with increased longevity (instead of workers who jump from factory to factory looking for better wages and working conditions). 

In Bangladesh, the role of the employers is severely constrained by the pressure 

they face to minimize costs in order to win contracts from global brands that form 

part of the $1.5 trillion international fashion industry. The global fashion industry 

pays rates that, in effect, cause the very problems that plague Bangladesh’s factories and their workers. Some factories may wish to do the right thing, but feel 

they cannot afford to do so. Individual factories that invested in needed repairs and 

upgrades would be unable to charge competitive prices and would soon find themselves out of business. To resolve this ‘‘prisoner’s dilemma,’’ the international brands 

must take responsibility for their role in Bangladesh’s low-road, no-rights development model.5

This is why the AFL–CIO, along with partners including IndustriALL, UNI 

Global Union, the Worker Rights Consortium, the Clean Clothes Campaign, United 

Students Against Sweatshops, the International Labor Rights Forum, and others, 

has strongly endorsed the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, 

already signed by more than 40 major brands including American brands PVH (parent company of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger), Sean John, and Abercrombie & 

Fitch. This historic Accord is a binding agreement regarding workplace fire and 

building safety in Bangladesh, which means it has a chance to make a real difFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

36

ference instead of papering over problems with certificates and audits that bear 

little relation to the real conditions prevailing in Bangladesh’s factories. 

The agreement guarantees worker participation through representative organizations, recognizes the role of government and takes measures to combat corruption 

by requiring rigorous inspections, transparent reporting of audits, and public oversight of results. This agreement offers an integrated and sustainable solution. 

Brands that have signed it have recognized that cutting and running from the problems the fashion industry helped to create in Bangladesh is simply not an option. 

The existence of this new binding Accord also serves to underscore the role of the 

Government. The agreement is likely to have little practical impact if workers are 

not allowed to organize and act collectively. Organized workers are empowered to 

stand up for their own safety and rights. However, they can only do so if the 

Government of Bangladesh turns its words of support for labor rights into active, 

effective efforts to defend those rights—which includes changes in labor law and in 

enforcement regimes. Mere lip service will only result in the status quo, in which 

impoverished young women take their lives into their hands every single day just 

by going to work. 

III. INTERNATIONAL BRANDS CANNOT AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ROLE IN

DENYING BANGLADESH’S WORKERS SAFE WORKPLACES AND FREE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS

While all participants in the supply chain—suppliers, brands, and especially 

workers—have a role to play in ensuring that workplace safety and respect for international labor standards improve, the role of international brands is especially 

critical. Brands have the financial leverage to incentivize meaningful change. The 

question is whether or not they will. While state-of-the-art factories do not happen 

overnight, the binding and legally enforceable Accord on Fire and Building Safety 

in Bangladesh ensures that owners will repair factories or lose access to contracts. 

It also ensures that multimillion dollar international brands pay their fair share of 

the costs. Importantly, the agreement will strengthen workers’ right to organize and 

defend their own rights—including the right to refuse to enter or remain in an unsafe workplace. 

Clothing brands that have sourced from Bangladesh over the past two decades 

have made plentiful profits based on the world’s lowest wages and most dangerous 

conditions. Instead of now leaving this developing country and its workers with the 

mess created by the ‘‘race to the bottom’’ of the global fashion industry, international brands must stay in Bangladesh and help usher in a ‘‘high road’’ strategy. 

While more than 40 global brands have signed the Accord, including three leading 

American brands (PVH, Sean John, and Abercrombie & Fitch), many other leading 

American brands, including the Gap, Walmart, Target, and JCPenney have not. 

Reportedly, Walmart and the Gap are joining other unnamed brands to develop 

an alternative proposal.6 The AFL–CIO strongly believes there is no need for an 

additional proposal. The new effort reportedly includes no worker input, merely 

‘‘representatives from retailers and brands, as well as participants from industry 

associations.’’ 7 An agreement that does not include workers in its development is 

likely to lack buy-in and exclude provisions to ensure worker engagement and empowerment. Given that workers are the best monitors of their own safety, this omission is critical. 

It is unclear what an alternative proposal would achieve. If it were to create binding but different standards, that would only complicate compliance and enforcement 

for Bangladeshi factories and their employees—how would workers (many of them 

illiterate) know which safety regime applied to their workplace at any given time? 

The AFL–CIO’s bigger concern, however, is that any new proposal would create 

voluntary, rather than binding standards. Unfortunately, as the AFL–CIO demonstrated in its recent publication ‘‘Responsibility Outsourced: Social Audits, Workplace Certification and Twenty Years of Failure to Protect Worker Rights,’’ 8 voluntary standards don’t work. 

Voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards have problems with governance, transparency, proper inspection methodology, independent conciliation and 

mediation involving unions, and long-term commitments by global brands. Their 

unilateral nature fails to provide meaningful roles for governments and workers—

and certainly does not ‘‘empower’’ workers to become leaders in creating safe and 

productive workplaces. 

For example, while the programs may require ‘‘audits,’’ these ‘‘audits spot some 

very particular and relatively easy to identify problems, but even then there usually 

are no consequences for noncompliance or rewards for improvements. Harder-to-spot 

problems related to gender discrimination or freedom of association remain invisFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

37

ible. As few auditors come from backgrounds sensitive to these issues and often do 

not understand what freedom of association means.’’ 9

For example, Ali Enterprises in Pakistan, site of a September 2012 fire that was 

one of the four deadliest disasters in the history of the garment industry, had been 

newly awarded an ‘‘SA8000’’ certificate by Social Accountability International (SAI), 

a multi-stakeholder initiative operating in the social audit industry.10 But the certificate clearly did not provide safety for the nearly 300 workers killed in the fire.11

Likewise, various programs had audited Tazreen Fashions and Rana Plaza—none 

of which helped save the workers employed there. 

Twenty years of evidence from Bangladesh and other developing countries demonstrates that corporate social responsibility programs, which are based ‘‘mainly on 

short and cursory visits to factories and no proper discussion with workers . . . will 

never achieve decent, secure jobs for the millions of workers at the sharp end of the 

global economy.’’ 12

In addition, the voluntary nature of these programs means that brands can 

change, weaken, or drop the programs at any time, leaving workers in the lurch. 

To the extent that local factories and the Government of Bangladesh begin to 

engage in efforts to improve labor conditions and secure rights for workers, voluntary programs that can be withdrawn at any time could harm these efforts. 

While the diversity of CSR programs means that each may have stronger and 

weaker elements, the AFL–CIO report makes clear that where workers are represented in the process, especially through unionism, the chances of success are 

real, while corporate-driver initiatives have largely failed to deliver for working people and their communities.13

The global industry that played a role in creating the conditions in Bangladesh’s 

garment industry must play a role in fixing it, not outsource that role to compliance 

firms or abandon Bangladesh’s workers altogether. A voluntary system that brands 

can walk away from as soon as the buzz about Rana Plaza dies down is not the 

answer. The AFL–CIO urges North American brands to join the existing and enforceable Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh rather than create a 

new proposal that has the potential to confuse and undermine progress the Accord 

has the potential to achieve. 

IV. THE AFL–CIO ENCOURAGES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW BENEFITS FROM

BANGLADESH PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 U.S.C. § 2462(D) OF THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM

OF PREFERENCES (GSP)

The AFL–CIO’s work to secure labor rights for Bangladeshi workers through the 

GSP process has a long history. Since 1990, the AFL–CIO has filed five separate 

GSP petitions related to systemic and widespread violations of internationally recognized worker rights, in law and in practice, in Bangladesh (with filings raising new 

issues beginning in 1990, 1999, 2004, 2005, and 2007). Each time, the AFL–CIO believes that the Government of Bangladesh failed to make meaningful progress on 

the adoption and enforcement of internationally recognized worker rights. Instead, 

following each new petition, the Government would make promises and adopt measures to give the appearance of sincerity about worker rights. But implementation 

was delayed and enforcement was weak to nonexistent. 

The most recent petition was filed in 2007, and included evidence that workers 

had been threatened, arbitrarily arrested, and even tortured for trade union activity. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) accepted the petition for review 

on September 6, 2007, and subsequently placed Bangladesh under ‘‘continuing 

review’’ to monitor the progress of the Government of Bangladesh toward a set of 

worker rights benchmarks elaborated in a 2008 demarche. The decision to place 

Bangladesh under review, combined with the subsequent engagement of the U.S. 

Government, succeeded in pushing the Government of Bangladesh and employers to 

take some initial efforts on behalf of workers. Unfortunately, the Government of 

Bangladesh’s efforts have been neither sustained nor effective. It has been, in effect, 

a case of one step forward, two steps back. 

For example, in the shrimp sector, the Government of Bangladesh, around 2010, 

allowed some independent unions to register. However, employers reportedly then 

subjected the new unions to a union-busting campaign, including a press conference 

organized by employers at which they reportedly denounced the labor organizations 

that had helped the workers to form the unions, as well as local labor authorities. 

The Government failed to defend worker rights, and all progress on organizing independent unions in the sector ceased. To our knowledge, only one independent union 

in the sector is still in operation. 

Similarly, a prior GSP case, the Government agreed to a new law allowing some 

freedom of association in the country’s Export Processing Zones (EPZs). A new law 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

38

established the right of workers to form worker associations in the EPZs. The associations were supposed to be a step on the road toward granting full freedom of 

association, organization, and collective bargaining rights for all EPZ workers. 

Unfortunately, that commitment, like so many others, stalled. 

These associations continue to be denied the right to effectively collectively bargain (there are no existing collective bargaining agreements in the EPZs, nor any 

reports of bargaining), to form federations, or link with unions or other organizations outside the zones from whom they can draw technical expertise and other support. Workers in some zone factories, including in the largest EPZ employer, report 

that they continue to be denied the right to hold an election to create an association. 

The Government has failed to fulfill its commitment to provide access to labor conciliators in the EPZs as promised. Workers have even reported the use of a zone 

‘‘blacklist,’’ which violates the right of freedom of association by discriminating 

against workers for union preference or activity. When workers have reported 

instances of antiunion discrimination in the EPZs, the BEPZA—which has full authority over labor relations in EPZs, rather than the Ministry of Labor—has usually 

failed to act on their behalf. 

Either the BEPZA or the Government of Bangladesh can address most of these 

failures by simply changing current practice or by issuing a new rule or regulation, 

but neither entity has done so.14 This choice to leave Bangladeshi workers without 

the ability to exercise their internationally recognized worker rights indicates that 

the current Government lacks sufficient political will to act. 

Given the issues documented in its 2007 GSP petition and numerous subsequent 

filings, it is the view of the AFL–CIO that the Government of Bangladesh is not 

‘‘taking steps to afford to workers in [Bangladesh] (including any designated zone 

in that country) internationally recognized worker rights’’ (as required by 19 U.S.C. 

§ 2462(c)(7)), and that GSP benefits should be withdrawn. It is our sincere belief 

that the Government of Bangladesh has exhausted any ‘‘benefit of the doubt’’ and 

that at this point, the only recourse left is to spur the Government of Bangladesh 

to protect Bangladesh’s workers by limiting, suspending, or withdrawing GSP benefits pursuant to U.S. law. 

The GSP facility provides a critical mechanism to pressure recalcitrant governments to take clear and concrete actions to afford workers their internationally recognized worker rights. The labor eligibility criteria for the GSP program exist for 

very important reasons, including the desire to promote fundamental labor rights, 

which are positively linked with a country’s development15 and the desire to prevent 

a beneficiary country from unfairly undercutting workers in every other country in 

the world (including the U.S.) by abusing, or permitting the abuse of, its workers. 

If such behavior were allowed to proliferate, it would only exacerbate the ‘‘race to 

the bottom,’’ in which countries compete for investment by weakening their labor 

rights regimes. Such a race may indeed lower costs—but it also suppresses consumer demand, interferes with the formation and growth of the middle class, and 

undermines the fundamental human rights as laid out by the International Labor 

Organization and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Some opponents of Presidential action on the GSP have argued that it will only 

further harm workers by throwing them out of work. Such arguments are speculative.16 More importantly, they present a false choice, as if the only options for Bangladesh’s millions of workers are to work in deathtraps, with meager wages and no 

rights, or to have rights, but no jobs. Clearly, other alternatives are possible, including a Bangladesh in which workers are secure enough in their rights to advocate 

for their own welfare, health, and safety on the job. 

Other opponents to GSP limitation, suspension, or withdrawal argue that any 

change to Bangladesh’s current benefits will result in lost leverage in the effort to 

improve labor rights for Bangladesh’s workers. Nothing could be further from the 

truth. 

Leverage under current conditions is almost certainly already gone. The Bangladesh brand is already tarnished. A recent Harris Interactive Poll revealed that 

almost 70 percent of Americans had heard of the Rana Plaza collapse and almost 

40 percent said they will be less likely to buy clothes made in Bangladesh.17 A number of well-known brands, quite aware of the ongoing labor abuses, have not sourced 

from Bangladesh for some time, and some, Disney being the most public, have made 

recent announcements to ensure their customers know they do not source there. 

Decisions not to produce in Bangladesh do not help improve conditions for Bangladesh’s impoverished workers. Demonstrated steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights—as the Government of Bangladesh would have to show to gain 

back full GSP benefits—would demonstrate to the world’s brands and consumers 

that things have changed for the better. Regaining GSP status (with a U.S. seal of 

approval) could help Bangladesh’s factories lure back brands and attract new 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

39

customers—while continuation of the status quo is likely to see additional publicity 

sensitive brands abandon the country entirely (an outcome the AFL–CIO strongly 

opposes). 

Moreover, it is the failure of the U.S. Government to act on the GSP petition that 

seems most likely to result in lost leverage. 

When the U.S. fails to enforce its own laws, particularly when sufficient time—

in this case about 6 years—has been granted, it only creates an atmosphere of impunity, not only for Bangladesh, but also for every other country receiving GSP benefits. The USTR is currently reviewing the labor rights practices of a number of 

countries, including Iraq, Georgia, Fiji, Uzbekistan, and the Philippines. What message will continued failure to act send to these Governments? If they believe that 

mere promises to change (rather than concrete, measurable improvements) are all 

that is necessary to continue to receive GSP benefits while pursuing a low-road 

strategy that hurts workers worldwide, it seems almost certain they will reduce 

their efforts to comply with the law. An atmosphere of impunity regarding labor 

rights may pad the profit margins of a few of the world’s largest brands, but it certainly does nothing to increase shared prosperity. 

On the other hand, action to suspend, limit, or withdraw GSP benefits for Bangladesh would send a different message—one that says that workers deserve more 

than lip-service; that progress is critical; and that the U.S. will indeed enforce its 

own laws. The GSP statute does not create a right to duty-free exports to the United 

States. It establishes a privilege, one that must be earned through fair labor and 

trade practices. A reduction or loss of GSP benefits would provide an incentive to 

the Government of Bangladesh to make substantial changes to recover those benefits and restore a favorable image for brands and investment. 

Accomplishing such change in Bangladesh is possible. The AFL–CIO’s sister organization the Solidarity Center has an office in Bangladesh, which has already been 

supporting worker-led unions in the garment sector and is poised to accomplish 

more if the Government of Bangladesh would become a partner in improving worker 

rights and acceptable conditions of work. We are also hopeful that the U.S. Government will increase its commitment to development programs in Bangladesh, including those that will help strengthen the labor rights regime and educate Bangladesh’s workers and employers about democratic labor unions, worker rights, and 

acceptable conditions of work. 

Moreover, there are several steps that the Government of Bangladesh can take 

right away to demonstrate that it is ‘‘taking steps to afford to workers in [Bangladesh] (including any designated zone in that country) internationally recognized 

worker rights’’ (as required by 19 U.S.C. § 2462(c)(7)). For instance, it can:

• Drop all remaining charges against worker rights advocates Kalpona Akter and 

Babul Akhter (unless the cases move forward immediately); 

• Remove threats against the registration of the advocacy organizations BCWS & 

SAFE; 

• End police surveillance of union activists and labor NGOs; 

• Provide to the U.S. Government—and make public—quarterly reports on the 

progress of the investigation into Aminul Islam’s murder; 

• Consistent with fundamental labor rights, eliminate any existing or proposed 

government approval for unions (including worker associations inside the EPZs) 

to affiliate with each other and allow all unions to link with outside organizations such as NGOs; 

• Via rule or regulation, allow its Department of Labor to monitor union registrations and unfair labor practice complaints within the EPZs; 

• Accept ILO and International Trade Union Confederation criticism and recommendations on the draft labor law amendments, including the recommendation to increase worker participation in the process18; 

• Transfer, as quickly as possible, resources from the industrial police who act 

largely as agents of employers to inspection functions to investigate building 

and fire safety and investigate unfair labor practices.

While not a complete list of the actions needed to secure internationally recognized worker rights in Bangladesh, this list illustrates that there are indeed many 

measurable changes the Government of Bangladesh could make right away to demonstrate that it is taking the required steps under the GSP statute. 

The AFL–CIO wants a vibrant, productive garment industry in Bangladesh, in 

which workers have good jobs and owners make good returns on their investments. 

Both the Government of Bangladesh and international brands have obligations to 

ensure that they create an environment in which that can take place. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

40

V. SELECTED RANA PLAZA SURVIVOR STORIES

Anna Khatun, 16 

Anna Khatun, 16, joined one of the factories in the Rana Plaza building 4 months 

ago as a helper. She does not even know the factory name—just that she was working on the fifth floor. 

‘‘Because of poverty, I have sent my younger daughter to work and now she lost 

her right hand,’’ said her mother. A wall collapsed on Anna—and rescuers had to 

amputate her hand to free her from the rubble. Anna could not even respond when 

asked about what the future might hold. 

‘‘What will be her future? We don’t know. We only know she is disabled now,’’ 

said her mother. 

Arati Bala Das, 18, New Wave Style, Ltd. 

Arati Bala Das, 18, was pulled from the Rana Plaza wreckage after being pinned 

under a concrete block for 3 days. She and her mother, Titon Bala, worked at New 

Wave Style Ltd. Arati’s mother died in the disaster. Arati’s right leg had to be amputated to save her life. 

Arati remembers a power outage hit immediately before the building collapsed. 

‘‘When the building collapsed, I felt that I was going down. When it stopped, I found 

myself in the dark. It was difficult to breathe. I could not see anything. I could not 

move a bit. I realized that two dead bodies fell on my legs and a pillar had fallen 

on those dead bodies. I was very much afraid and I thought I would not be able 

to return alive. After few moments, I heard screaming workers, crying for help and 

I assumed that seven or eight more workers were there.’’ Rescuers, who found her 

after 3 hours, provided saline water to her through a tube until they could rescue 

her 3 days later. 

Arati’s youngest sister, Akhi, 2, missed her mother. She would not stop crying and 

would not eat. The family brought her to the hospital so Arati could feed her. Arati 

has two more sisters—Lucky, 7, and Lovely, 12. Their father, Adhir Chandra Das, 

a poor day-laborer, lives with his family in a rented hut in Savar. Adhir is now left 

without the income of his wife and eldest daughter, which the family needs to survive. 

Arati is afraid and sad. ‘‘I will never return to work at garment factory. I want 

the government to do something for us. I will not be able to work in future, at least 

the government can arrange artificial leg for me.’’ 

Md. Pintu, 18, and Shilpi, 21, New Wave Bottom Ltd. 

Md. Pintu, age 18, and his sister-in-law, Shilpi, 21, worked for 3 years as sewing 

machine operators in New Wave Bottom Ltd., on the second floor of the Rana Plaza 

building. They live in a small tin shed in Mazidpur Choto Goli, home to the majority 

of Rana Plaza workers. 

Pintu and other workers noticed a big crack in the beam of the floor on April 23, 

2013. Management discontinued production at 10 a.m. and instructed the workers 

to leave the building immediately. The next morning, Pintu and Shilpi discussed the 

crack with their family. They thought the factory would be closed for a few days 

for repairs, and they would have a safe place to restart their machines. Unexpectedly, they heard a loudspeaker announcement: ‘‘All the workers of Rana Plaza, go 

to work. The factory has already been repaired.’’ 

After hearing the announcement by a representative of the building’s owner, 

Pintu, Shilpi, and other workers unwillingly went to work, deeply concerned and 

afraid. Before leaving the house, Shilpi looked at her 2-year-old son and sighed. 

A few minutes after the workers arrived on the job, the electricity went out, the 

backup generators turned on and the building collapsed. Shilpi was rescued after 

a few hours and was sent to the nearest hospital, Prime Hospital. Then she was 

sent to Dhaka Medical Hospital for further treatment. She continued to lose blood 

and remained in serious condition. After 8 days, she was transferred to the Apollo 

Hospital Ltd. for special care, but she died just after arriving at the hospital emergency room. 

Pintu is still missing. His sister has waited outside the building with his picture, 

crying.

————————

End Notes

1Department of State, ‘‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012: Bangladesh,’’ 

available at: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper. 2 Jason Burke, ‘‘Majority of Bangladesh Garment Factories ‘Vulnerable to Collapse,’ ’’ in The 

Guardian, June 3, 2013, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/03/bangladeshgarment-factories-vulnerable-collapse. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

41

3See, e.g., Esther Bintliff, ‘‘On Bangladesh, and Some of the Worst Factory Disasters in History,’’ The Financial Times, Apr. 25, 2013, available at: http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2013/04/onbangladesh-and-some-of-the-worst-factory-disasters-in-history/. 4See Section IV of this document for a history of labor law and practice complaints against 

the Government of Bangladesh. 5 As explained in detail in Section III, existing corporate social responsibility programs, which 

include corporate codes of conduct, workplace monitoring, audits, factory certifications, and related initiatives simply do not work. These types of programs have had a chance to work in 

Bangladesh for years—with no appreciable impact. 6See, e.g., Matthew Mosk, ‘‘Walmart, Gap Propose Alternate Bangladesh Safety Program,’’ 

ABC News, May 31, 2013, available at: http://news.yahoo.com/wal-mart-gap-propose-alternatebangladesh-safety-program-195604087--abc-newstopstories.html;lylt=AwrNUbDmEKlRYEEAs3zlwgt. 7 ‘‘Leading North American Retailers and Brands to Address Systemic Safety Issues for Workers in Bangladesh Garment Factories,’’ Press Release, Bipartisan Policy Center, May 30, 2013, 

available at: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2013/05/leading-north-american-retailers-and-brands-address-systemic-safety-issu. 8 Available here: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/77061/1902391/CSReport.pdf. 

9 Id., at 28. 

10 Id., at 37. 11 As detailed in the AFL–CIO report, SAI does not ‘‘directly audit many factories or directly 

certify brands.’’ Instead, it mainly designs and markets a system meant to provide consumers 

and retailers with the confidence that a product has been produced in a social responsible manner. See id., p. 31. 12 Id., at 1 (Sharan Burrow, Foreward). 13 Id., at 6. 14 EPZ Workers Welfare Association/Society and Industrial Relations Act (EWWAIRA) in 2010 

Section 90. (‘‘Powers to make rules and regulations.—(1) The Government may, by notification 

in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) The Authority 

may, with previous approval of the Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, make 

regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act.’’). 15See, e.g., Thomas I. Palley, ‘‘The Economic Case for International Labour Standards,’’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2004. 16For example, the ready-made garment sector, by far Bangladesh’s leading export sector, 

does not receive GSP benefits and seems unlikely to experience job loss as a result of changes 

in Bangladesh’s GSP benefits. 17 ‘‘Among Americans Who Know of Bangladesh Clothing Worker Deaths, Two in Five Less 

Likely To Purchase Clothes From There,’’ Sacramento Bee, June 3, 2013, available at: http://

www.sacbee.com/2013/06/03/5465917/among-americans-who-know-of-bangladesh.html#storylink=cpy. 18For more information on the shortcomings of the proposed labor law reform, see, e.g., 

Munima Sultana, ‘‘Labour Law Amendment Goes against Int’l Labour Standards,’’ The Financial Express, May 30, 2013, available at: http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/index.php?ref=

MjBfMDVfMzBfMTNfMV85MF8xNzEwNDc=. 19 As told to Solidarity Center staff in Bangladesh as of May 15, 2013.

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ms. Drake. 

Mr. Lubbe. 

STATEMENT OF JOHAN LUBBE, INTERNATIONAL LABOR AND 

EMPLOYMENT PARTNER, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., NEW 

YORK, NY 

Mr. LUBBE. Thank you, Senator Kaine and Senator McCain. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here before you today. I 

am here in my capacity as a practicing international employment 

and labor lawyer who has been advising the industry. My testimony today will focus on some of the key issues facing companies 

who conduct business in Bangladesh, as well as solutions that have 

been offered to address the issue of worker safety. 

The North American retail and apparel community has been 

stunned and saddened at the heart-breaking loss of life from the 

recent tragedies at ready-made garment factories in Bangladesh. 

The problems within Bangladesh are extremely complex and systemic. There is no simple one-size-fits-all solution that will resolve 

the current systemic issues. All stakeholders must work together to 

develop a path forward that will not only provide a long-term and 

sustainable solution to ensure worker safety, but will also maintain 

the viability of the country as a key manufacturer and supplier to 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

42

markets around the world. The North American retail and apparel 

industry is prepared to play a meaningful role and make a substantial contribution. 

Bangladesh is a difficult place to conduct international business. 

First, a deficiency in infrastructure, including the structural integrity of buildings, as well as issues with electricity grid and water 

availability. 

Second is the challenge of the enforcement of building codes. The 

country has a set of codes and certificate requirements which have 

not been enforced as they should be. The Rana Plaza building collapse only reinforces the need for the enforcement of current codes 

and an examination of whether the codes need to be updated. 

Third is the Bangladeshi Government itself. There are many 

reports about rampant corruption within the government which 

need to be addressed. Protection of workers’ rights has been lacking. The government has signaled a move forward in this regard, 

and that is supported by the industry. 

There is a strong need for shared responsibility to address the 

current issues and challenges in Bangladesh. This includes all 

stakeholders, from the government, private sector, civil society, 

unions, workers, factory owners. Each stakeholder has a specific 

area of responsibility and should not be required to usurp the role 

of the other stakeholders. You have heard earlier this morning in 

testimony mapping out the various roles that each stakeholder has 

to play. I am not going to repeat that. 

The tragedies in Bangladesh have prompted a number of different responses to address worker and factory safety. These efforts 

have become even more urgent within the industry as companies 

collaborate for continual improvement. 

There were also separate initiatives by the German International 

Development Agency, GIZ, called the Fire Safety Alliance in Bangladesh, and IndustriALL global union called the Fire and Building 

Safety Memo of Understanding. A good-faith effort was made in 

late April of this year to merge the GIZ action plan with the 

IndustriALL principles. That failed. In that effort, American industry participated. 

IndustriALL then unilaterally announced the Accord and provided companies 2 days to sign onto the Accord before they 

released it on May the 15th. While the U.S. retail and apparel 

industry share IndustriALL’s goal to improve worker safety to 

make more tangible progress on the ground, U.S. companies raised 

several concerns regarding the Accord, including its vague and ambiguous terms which potentially holds unlimited legal liability for 

them. 

The IndustriALL Accord should not be viewed as the sole 

response and solution to the situation in Bangladesh. The United 

States and Canadian companies have come together in an alliance 

to develop a single, unified action plan as they believe it will 

achieve immediate, sustainable, effective and long-lasting change 

for the garment industry and its workers in Bangladesh. 

The action plan will build upon the extensive work many of these 

United States and Canadian companies have done in the past and 

continue to do on the ground to address and improve health and 

safety. We have outlined in our written submission the legal 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

43

challenges that we faced, and these range from vague terms, the 

utilization of arbitration, to really rewrite and bring clarity to a 

contract which is not a good drafting principle. 

Improving worker safety in Bangladesh is a high priority and 

will require a collaborative effort by all the stakeholders. A systemwide solution must address eradicating corruption, improving the 

quality of building construction, revisiting the location of factories, 

the issuing of building permits, and the enforcement of codes. 

The U.S. retail and apparel industry is prepared and working 

swiftly toward making a substantial contribution to achieving 

results on the short term and the long term to prevent future workplace injuries and deaths of Bangladeshi garment workers. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lubbe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHAN LUBBE

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify at today’s hearing to discuss ‘‘Labor Issues in 

Bangladesh.’’ My name is Johan Lubbe and I am a shareholder with the law firm 

of Littler Mendelson, P.C. Littler is the world’s largest labor and employment law 

firm exclusively devoted to representing management. I am here today in my capacity as a lawyer who practices international labor and employment law and my experience advising the U.S. retail and apparel industry specifically the associations 

representing the industry. These associations include the American Apparel and 

Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders 

Association, the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. My testimony 

today will focus on some of the key issues facing companies, who are doing business 

in Bangladesh, as well as solutions that have been offered to address the issue of 

worker safety. 

The North American retail and apparel community has been stunned and saddened at the heartbreaking loss of life from the recent tragedies at ready-made garment factories in Bangladesh. These tragic incidents only underscore the need for 

the international community to come together to build upon the ongoing work in 

Bangladesh by individual companies and other stakeholders to find practical, immediate and long-term solutions to ensure the safety of the workers in the garment 

production facilities in Bangladesh. 

It must be noted that the problems within Bangladesh are extremely complex. As 

such, there is no simple ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ solution that will resolve the current systemic issues. Any solution requires that all stakeholders work together to develop 

a systemwide solution that will not only provide a long-term and sustainable solution to ensure worker safety in the Bangladesh garment industry, but will also 

maintain the viability of the country as a key manufacturer and supplier to markets 

around the world. As solutions are developed, it is important to allow for flexibility 

that will enable brands, retailers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders to respond 

swiftly and effectively to an ever-changing environment within Bangladesh. This 

flexibility will allow companies who operate different supply chains with different 

factories to make sure they are responding in an appropriate manner to the issues 

before them. 

Many efforts have been announced by multiple parties including governments, 

industry, and others to address the key issues within Bangladesh. It is important 

that everyone recognize the shared responsibility that is required for addressing the 

worker and factory safety issues. This responsibility lies with all stakeholders 

including the Bangladesh Government, the United States and other foreign governments, factory owners, employer’s organizations, workers, the buyers in North 

America and Europe, members of civil society, and organized labor. The efforts 

should all build off of each other to achieve the ultimate goal of protecting those 

who work in the Bangladesh garment factories. 

BANGLADESH ROLE IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE

As committee members are aware, Bangladesh has very quickly become a major 

player in the ready-made garment industry. As has been proven through the years, 

apparel and garment production are critical first steps for lesser developed countries 

to raise their standard of living. The garment industry accounts for 80 percent of 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

44

Bangladesh’s exports. In 2011, exports from Bangladesh totaled $23 billion. Garment exports comprised nearly $20 billion of this total. The industry directly 

employs 4.5 million workers, by far the largest employment sector in Bangladesh. 

It is significant to note that women make up close to 90 percent of the ready-made 

garment workforce, allowing for many to become the primary breadwinners for their 

families. 

The bulk of Bangladeshi manufactured garments are sold in the European and 

North American markets. The European market accounts for 60 percent of 

Bangladeshi exports, about 30 percent of the exports come to the United States, and 

the remaining 10 percent is split between Canada and a few other countries. Part 

of the reason why the European market share is so large is that apparel products 

qualify for duty-free status under Europe’s General Scheme of Preferences (GSP) 

program. Unlike the European GSP program, the United States does not provide for 

duty preferences under its own Generalized System of Preferences program. Both 

Europe and the United States are now considering removing benefits for Bangladesh under their respective programs. The potential impact of revisiting the GSP 

programs is not yet clear. It could lead to companies deciding to stop sourcing in 

Bangladesh. 

In Bangladesh the majority of the ready-garment industry is located in Dhaka 

and the surrounding areas. The second-largest concentration centers around 

Chittagong, which is the country’s major port while the rest of the industry are part 

of export processing zones. Bangladesh itself is a very unique country for the building of factories. Since the country is mostly swamp land, there is not a lot of available stable land which can be used for industrial development purposes. While there 

is some more usable land further outside of Dhaka and Chittagong, the access to 

key infrastructure such as electricity and water is very sporadic and unreliable. 

Companies who decide to build outside Dhaka and Chittagong face significantly 

higher operating costs, as they need to typically build their own power and water 

facilities. This is a key reason as to why most manufacturing facilities are built in 

Dhaka and Chittagong. 

Unfortunately the lack of usable land results in many buildings being constructed 

as multipurpose facilities. In addition, a number of these buildings are built upon 

fill. If the fill is not done correctly or up to code, it makes the building inherently 

unstable. One of the biggest issues facing the industry is the enforcement of current 

building codes in Bangladesh. The country has a set of codes and certificate requirements which have not been enforced as they should be. The Rana Plaza building 

collapse only reinforces the need for the enforcement of current codes and an examination of whether the codes need to be updated. As has been reported, Rana Plaza 

was only authorized to be a five-story building, yet an additional three floors were 

added to the building. In addition, the building was only zoned as a residential/commercial building. It was not meant to be used as an industrial complex and certainly 

not one to house large machines. These noncompliance issues all contributed to the 

horrific collapse of a building that was improperly constructed and used for the 

wrong purposes. 

The industry has grown exponentially over the years. While this is positive for 

the overall Bangladesh economy, it also highlighted the unfortunate fact that the 

country was not equipped for this quick expansion, especially with the inability of 

the government to build industrial parks and export processing zones to keep up 

with the growing demand. 

CONCERNS IN BANGLADESH

The recent tragic events in Bangladesh have highlighted the continuing concerns 

about worker safety at ready-made garment factories in the region. In addition to 

these issues, there are other concerns for companies who continue to do business 

in the country. First and foremost is the Bangladeshi Government itself. There are 

many reports about rampant corruption within the government which need to be addressed. There are some who are concerned about the number of Bangladeshi politicians who are actually factory owners and whether that will slow down or prevent 

the necessary reforms to address worker and factory safety. The government has 

signaled a move to make the necessary changes with the recent announcements to 

convene a panel to consider an increase to the country’s minimum wage and allowing unions to form in factories without the approval of factory owners. In addition, 

the government has promised to submit to the Bangladeshi Parliament a legislative 

reform package in June 2013 that will include amendments to Bangladesh’s 2006 

labor law allowing union representation and the right for collective bargaining for 

all workers in the country as well as other changes. Any solution would require the 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

45

Bangladeshi Government to act quickly and swiftly to allow these important 

changes to occur. 

Second, the deficient infrastructure in Bangladesh is another concern. Not only 

with the structural integrity of current buildings, but issues with the electricity grid 

and water availability. Key to this is the need to quickly ensure through factory 

inspections and assessments that not only are buildings structurally sound and 

meet the appropriate codes, but that the electrical wiring and systems are also up 

to the appropriate codes and standards. 

In addition to these issues, there are also issues of reliability of the overall industry as we see incidences of labor unrest increase and other issues with factory owners shutting down factories for periods of time. This uncertainty can have a significant negative impact on a company’s supply chain. All of these factors are elements 

that retailers, brands, and manufacturers are taking into consideration as they 

evaluate their current business relationships in Bangladesh. 

NEED FOR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

As noted earlier, there is a strong need for shared responsibility to address the 

current issues and challenges in Bangladesh. This includes the Bangladeshi Government; other governments including those of the U.S. and EU; the retailers, brands, 

and manufacturers who contract in Bangladesh; the factory owners including the 

Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BGMEA) and the 

Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BKMEA); the factory 

workers; civil society; labor unions; and other international institutions. 

The responsibility is shared and not that of the retailers only. Further, each 

stakeholder should have an area of responsibility and should not be required to 

usurp the role of other stakeholders. This demarcation of responsibilities in socially 

responsible supply chain management is recognized and highlighted in a March 

2011 United Nations (U.N.) report titled ‘‘Guiding Principles on Business and 

Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ 

Framework.’’ The U.N. Human Rights Council endorsed this report by U.N. Special 

Representative John Ruggie in June 2011. In the report, Professor Ruggie states: 

‘‘The Framework rests on three pillars. The first is the State duty to protect against 

human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication. The second is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means that business enterprises should act 

with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse 

impacts with which they are involved. The third is the need for greater access by 

victims to effective remedy, both judicial and nonjudicial. Each pillar is an essential 

component in an interrelated and dynamic system of preventative and remedial 

measures: the State duty to protect because it lies at the very core of the international human rights regime; the corporate responsibility to respect because it is 

the basic expectation society has of business in relation to human rights; and access 

to remedy because even the most concerted efforts cannot prevent all abuse.’’1

Professor Ruggie further elaborates in the report on one of the Foundational Principles ‘‘States must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/

or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises. This requires taking 

appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through 

effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication.’’2 It, therefore, is the 

primary function of the Bangladeshi Government to promulgate building and fire 

safety regulations that comply with international standards and also enforce such 

regulations through regular and effective government inspections and assessments. 

In addition, the United States and other governments have the ability to provide 

assistance, through training, grants, and other avenues to improve the infrastructure as well as worker and building safety. The Department of Labor is currently 

working on a grant to provide funds in Bangladesh for training and fire safety. 

Other international institutions could also provide funding to help with the training 

and infrastructure development and corrections to help improve the situation in 

Bangladesh. This could include grants or funds from USAID, the World Bank, and 

others. 

International organizations, such as the International Labor Organization (ILO), 

are also a critical stakeholder that needs to be engaged in the process. Specifically 

programs such as Better Work, which is a joint initiative through the ILO and the 

World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, are essential to help improve 

worker safety in Bangladesh. The ILO has provided Bangladesh with a set of 

requirements which must be met before Better Work can begin in the country. It 

is imperative these conditions be met as soon as possible so that Better Work can 

begin. According to a representative with Better Work, several amendments 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

46

included in the labor reform package which soon will be submitted to Parliament 

include amendments which specifically address some of the Better Work requirements. In addition, Better Work has reported that Bangladesh allowed for the registration of 23 garment factory unions to date in 2013. In both 2012 and 2011, only 

one union was allowed to register each year. 

Retailers, brands, and manufacturers all realize they have a role to play in worker 

and building safety within Bangladesh as well as other countries where they source 

from. This starts with the assessments and inspections to ensure that factories can 

not only manufacture the orders that they are given to the specifics in the contract, 

but that they also meet all of the local health, labor, and safety regulations. These 

companies have instituted corporate social responsibility programs which include 

strict codes of conduct that vendors must adhere to. Failure to adhere to the code 

of conduct or specific contract requirements could lead to the termination of a contract with the vendor losing business. 

Civil society also plays an important role in helping to develop a long-term sustainable solution. These organizations are typically on the ground in the country 

and can provide valuable expertise when working in a coordinate effort. 

CURRENT INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS WORKER AND FACTORY SAFETY

A number of different initiatives have been announced to address worker and factory safety in Bangladesh. Efforts in the U.S. retail industry began well before the 

Tazreen Design Ltd. factory fire in November 2012 to address fire safety issues. 

Those efforts have become even more intense as retailers, brands, and manufacturers continue to work in conjunction with their industry associations to finalize 

a plan to address fire and worker safety at factories in Bangladesh. In addition, two 

other competing initiatives were launched. One by the German international development agency Deutsche Gesellschaft fu ̈ r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 

called the ‘‘Fire Safety Alliance on Bangladesh,’’ and the other by IndustriALL 

Global Union (which represents apparel union affiliates worldwide), Bangladeshi 

unions and some NGOs called the ‘‘Fire and Building Safety MOU’’ (the MOU had 

actually been developed in 2010). 

With the objective of combining efforts, the U.S. industry began to work with GIZ 

on their effort. There were also several retailers and brands who continued to work 

with IndustriALL on their MOU. At the end of April 2013, after the Rana Plaza 

building collapse, GIZ hosted a meeting with retailers and brands—U.S. and European, IndustriALL and other campaigning NGOs to finalize an Action Plan for fire 

and building safety in Bangladesh. At this meeting, IndustriALL and the campaigning NGOs proposed their own set of Principles. A good faith effort was made 

to attempt to merge the GIZ Action Plan with the IndustriALL Principles by a deadline of May 15, but this did not succeed. IndustriALL unilaterally announced May 

12 that it would rename its MOU the ‘‘Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh’’ and provided companies 2 days to sign onto the ‘‘Accord’’ before they 

released it. The Accord requires a 5-year commitment from participating retailers 

to conduct independent safety inspections of factories, and pay up to $500,000 per 

year toward operational costs. As noted, many European retailers and brands signed 

onto the Accord before it was released, while only three U.S. retailers have signed 

on. 

As an industry, U.S. retailers work with their vendors throughout their supply 

chains seeking to establish safe working conditions. While U.S. retailers share 

IndustriALL’s goal to improve worker safety in Bangladesh and to make tangible 

progress on the ground, U.S. retailers cannot in good conscience sign the Accord 

because the current language presents potentially unlimited legal liability given its 

vague and ambiguous terms. There are also concerns that the Accord removes the 

responsibility of the Bangladeshi Government for inherent government functions, 

such as building inspections. 

Many companies believe that the IndustriALL Accord should not be viewed as the 

sole response and solution to the situation in Bangladesh. In the meantime, these 

retailers, brands, and manufacturers have come together in an alliance to develop 

a single, unified action plan that will achieve immediate, sustainable, effective and 

long-lasting change for the garment industry and its workers in Bangladesh. The 

alliance also includes representatives from the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Apparel Federation and their members. The action plan builds upon the extensive work already being conducted by many of these retailers on the ground today. 

These actions include a focus on (1) worker training and empowerment; (2) standards for fire and building safety assessments; (3) sharing of factory inspection and 

training information; (4) governance; and (5) funding. This work is now occurring 

with the help of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), under the guidance of former 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

47

U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former U.S. Senator Olympia 

Snowe.3 They have announced a plan will be finalized and released by July 2013. 

In addition, some companies have announced their own efforts in Bangladesh 

which will be wrapped into this unified effort. For example, since last October, Gap 

Inc. has been on the ground in Bangladesh with the Gap Inc. Fire and Building 

Safety Plan. The Gap Inc. plan includes the appointment of a Chief Fire Safety 

Inspector and dedicated fire safety team, access up to $20 million in accelerated capital for vendors to make fire safety improvements and $2 million in financial assistance for Bangladeshi workers displaced due to fire safety remediation improvements. Gap Inc. hired Randy Tucker, P.E, a fire safety professional with more than 

four decades of experience in the developing world. Mr. Tucker and his team have 

been on the ground every month since the launch of the program to conduct inspections across the company’s 73 approved third-party garment manufacturing factories 

in Bangladesh. As a result, 20 percent of the factories have been inspected, and 

many of them have already begun to make the recommended improvements. 

It has also been reported that Walmart would begin conducting detailed safety inspections at every one of the 279 factories it uses in Bangladesh. The company said 

it would complete all reviews within 6 months and will publicly release the names 

and inspection information on all of the factories. It also started posting on its Web 

site the list of failed factories in Bangladesh that are no longer allowed to produce 

for Walmart. The company is also increasing the pace and frequency of follow up 

inspections in all Bangladesh factories, with visits taking place every 2 months to 

ensure both compliance and progress. Finally, Walmart announced that it would 

hire Bureau Veritas to provide fire safety training to every worker in all 279 

Bangladeshi factories, and contribute $600,000 to Labor Voices to communicate with 

workers about concerns inside the factories. Labor Voices provides a channel for garment workers to raise their concerns through real-time, anonymized worker feedback. 

Some of these action steps by the retail industry actually go beyond what has 

been proposed in the Accord to date. 

LEGAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Again, while retailers, brands, and manufacturers share the goals of improving 

industrial health and safety of Bangladeshi factory workers, the legal issues raised 

by these companies regarding the Accord are significant and need full consideration. 

Finding a workable and sustainable program to improve the health and safety of 

Bangladeshi garment workers is complex, requires careful consideration and a systemwide solution. An attempt at a ‘‘quick fix’’ may satisfy the immediate desire to 

be seen to be doing something, but might not render the long-term sustainable solutions needed to permanently fix the problems/challenges to ensure worker safety. 

There are numerous concerns about the Accord. Overall, the Accord creates legal 

enforceable obligations, but what is enforceable is vague and uncertain. The obligations are described in broad vague terms and it is left to arbitration to resolve disputes. In principle, arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism is acceptable, but 

not basically to rewrite or define terms of the Accord that have not been agreed 

upon. 

Second, the Accord shifts some of the basic government regulatory functions, such 

as inspections, onto the retailers. While the U.S. retailers are prepared to contribute 

in a variety of ways to improving worker and building safety standards in Bangladesh, the primary regulatory and enforcement function of such standards remains under the auspices of the Bangladeshi Government. The Accord creates a 

free-standing Safety Inspector with broad powers to gain access to factories and 

order remedial action. At the same time, after the high-level mission by the ILO 

of early May 2013, the Bangladeshi Government committed to recruit and train by 

the end of October 2013 an additional 200 inspectors for its Department of the Chief 

Inspectorate of Factories. Creating a parallel free-standing safety inspectorate 

means establishing a duplicate enforcement bureaucracy and the Bangladeshi Government potentially abdicating its primary function of enforcing building regulations 

and workplace health and safety codes. Privatizing an inherently government function, such as building inspections, as the Accord envisages, is therefore not the right 

approach to building the capacity, know-how and trained inspectors required by the 

Bangladeshi Government to fulfill its role in ensuring safe workplaces for 

Bangladeshi workers. While industry and other stakeholders are part of this solution, the focus should be placed on providing the government the ability to carry 

out its core responsibility to protect its citizens, not supplanting that government 

function. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

48

Third, there are also concerns that the Accord unduly shifts the responsibility on 

signatory retailers to essentially establish an independent employment relationship 

with the employees of their suppliers. In the section dealing with ‘‘Remediation,’’ 

signatory retailers will not only be responsible for factory owners maintaining the 

employment relationship and paying wages during a factory closing for structural 

improvements/renovations, but also finding the employees alternative jobs if they 

are terminated. These broad obligations imposed on the signatory retailers have 

potential expanded legal and financial obligations for the signatory retailers. Since 

the demise of the Alien Torts Act to impute liability on U.S. corporations for the 

ills of foreign actors, various attempts have been made to impose liability on U.S 

corporations under a variety of contracts. These potential and unforeseen legal and 

financial obligations that a vaguely drafted Accord might hold for signatory retailers 

are of real concern. 

Last, the Accord effectively allows for a third-party arbitrator to determine the 

price of garments produced in a facility, if the factory claims the price paid by retailers should be higher to fund the health and safety upgrades that factories make to 

comply with corrective actions by the Safety Inspector. The Accord requires signatory retailers to ‘‘negotiate commercial terms’’ with the factories ‘‘which [would] ensure that it is financially feasible for the factories to maintain safe workplaces and 

comply with upgrade and remediation requirements instituted by the Safety Inspector.’’ A dispute about the adequacy of the commercial terms, including the purchase 

price of the garments, would be subject to arbitration under the Accord. 

CONCLUSION

Collaboration is an essential component of efforts to improve worker and factory 

safety in Bangladesh. The joint efforts of all stakeholders are essential to identify 

viable solutions and implement a successful and sustainable plan of corrective 

action that addresses the systemwide challenges in Bangladesh. A solution must 

address eradicating corruption, improving the quality of building construction, the 

location of factories, the issuing of building use permits, the enforcement of building 

and safety codes, the ability of garment workers to raise concerns free of retaliation, 

etc. While many would prefer a single coordinated effort, there should be flexibility 

to allow companies the ability to quickly deal with issues within their own supply 

chains. 

The U.S. retail industry shares the common objective of preventing future workplace injuries and deaths of Bangladeshi garment workers. The industry is prepared 

and working swiftly toward making a substantial contribution to achieving results 

on the short term and the long term. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing today.

————————

End Notes

1 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights 

and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie Guiding Principles 

on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’’ Framework , page 4, March 2011. 2 Report pages 6–9. 

3 ‘‘U.S. Retailers Announce New Factory Safety Plan,’’ The New York Times, May 30, 2013.

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Lubbe. 

Questions. This is an issue that we have to wrestle with in terms 

of leverage, what is our leverage over a situation. We do not have 

command and control of Bangladeshi regulations, culture of corruption, building codes, but we do have leverage. 

Ms. Drake, your organization filed a—one of the bits of leverage 

we have is this GSP status, and your organization filed with the 

USTR a request to either withdraw or limit GSP in 2007. If you 

would just describe the basis for that original complaint that was 

filed 6 years ago. Was it all about restrictions of workers’ rights, 

or did it also make the connection to unsafe working conditions? 

Ms. DRAKE. It definitely made the connection to unsafe working 

conditions. In the GSP statute, it outlines internationally recognized worker rights as including freedom of association, collective 

bargaining, freedom from forced labor and child labor, and acceptFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

49

able conditions of work, which were then defined to include worker 

health and safety, minimum wages, and maximum hours of work. 

So there have always been problems regarding freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Likewise, there have 

always been problems on health and safety. So that petition included all those things, and also complaints about violence against 

workers and other forms of threats and repression where workers 

have been physically assaulted. And, as was discussed earlier in 

the hearing, in the 6 years that that petition has been open, it has 

continued with the murder of labor organizer, Aminul Islam. 

Senator KAINE. You and your colleagues must have had a sick 

feeling when the building collapsed and the news came across the 

wire, given the fact that you have raised this issue as a potential 

concern that many years ago. 

Ms. DRAKE. Absolutely. I mean, this is our challenge here. Earlier it was said that somebody had received assurances from the 

Government of Bangladesh. Well, for the workers of Bangladesh, 

receiving assurances from their own government is not very reassuring. I mean, even before the Tazreen fire, there was another 

incident at Garib & Garib a couple of years before that, and that 

was supposed to be the turning point. And before that there were 

safety incidents, fires, building collapses, a flurry of them in 2005 

and 2006, and those were supposed to be turning points where 

things would change. 

As somebody mentioned before, what is the body count that you 

need to really make changes? In our opinion, one is too many. We 

are well beyond whatever anyone would need to see as evidence 

that the current system of the government’s very feeble efforts and 

the voluntary compliance programs of the corporations simply are 

not working and it really is time to act and make this the final 

turning point. 

Senator KAINE. Let me ask this question, and I will address it 

first to you, Ms. Drake. But then, Mr. Lubbe, I would like to segue 

and have you answer the same question. I have a couple of others. 

Senator McCain asked a question which is a good one and we 

would wrestle with it, whether the withdrawal of GSP status would 

help or would hurt. Now, we talked about that you could lay down 

conditions and say meet these conditions or we will withdraw. We 

heard testimony that nations that have had GSP status withdrawn 

have worked hard to get it back because they wanted that status. 

But I would like you first, Ms. Drake, and then Mr. Lubbe, to 

address this question about whether if there is a recommendation 

to the President to withdraw GSP status, would that do more good 

or more harm? 

Ms. DRAKE. It is a tough question to wrestle with, but the AFL–

CIO falls squarely on the side that acting on the GSP petition to 

limit or withdraw benefits will do far more good than it will harm. 

The concern about mass unemployment is simply unfounded. 

Given that the GSP products comprise about 1 percent of Bangladesh’s exports to the United States—this was discussed in the 

earlier panel—we are talking about a much smaller segment of the 

economy. The ready-made garment sector, which is what we have 

been talking about primarily today, does not get GSP benefits. So 

it would not be affected by tariff changes. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

50

I do have a list of what those products are that get GSP benefits, 

and the top three are tobacco, for instance. So it really is a productby-product issue. You would have to look at, well, what is the 

demand elasticity for tobacco, and are Bangladesh’s tobacco exports 

really going to be prohibited by putting a tariff, that kind of 

question. 

But more importantly, that sort of frames the question, as I said 

earlier, as the wrong question. Is it really a choice of no jobs or 

these really terrible jobs with awful conditions and no rights? 

There is something in between, and it requires government action. 

The government can actually fulfill the promises that it has been 

making, and we think there is every reason to expect that they 

would. Even though the GSP benefits are small in monetary value, 

they have reputational concerns, and they are also tied to future 

investments under the OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation. There are several of those programs right now in Bangladesh. Those would not be threatened at all by a change in the 

GSP status, but future OPIC investments could not occur until the 

GSP status would come back. 

So there are reasons to believe that Bangladesh will act like 

other countries that have had limitations on their GSP and really 

make changes and fight hard to improve their brand and get the 

benefits back. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thanks, Ms. Drake. 

Mr. Lubbe, the same question. What effect, thinking about the 

GSP, would withdrawal of the status do more harm or be more 

helpful? 

Mr. LUBBE. Senator Kaine, that is a good question, and I think 

it is a complex one, as Ms. Drake has pointed out. The industry 

wants to support the Bangladeshi garment industry. But on the 

same hand, it also wants to ensure that there is an incentive to the 

Bangladeshi Government as a very important stakeholder to fulfill 

its promises. Whether the withdrawal of the GSP status will 

achieve that has to be evaluated within the context of all those 

factors. 

You heard earlier this morning, and Ms. Drake also referred to 

how complex the system is, its impact. Withdrawal of the GSP status might send the reputational signal that the U.S. Government 

is serious. But, I think, that needs to be evaluated in the context 

of all those factors. 

The industry will support what the U.S. Government does here. 

The industry is concerned about potential unemployment among 

Bangladeshi garment factory workers. We do not know what the 

true impact will be on unemployment and whether Bangladeshi 

factory owners will use that as an excuse to shed employees. So it 

needs to be very carefully considered. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Lubbe, you talked in your testimony about 

the reason that Canadian and American apparel manufacturers 

and companies have chosen not to sign the Accord but are pursuing 

a combined effort. Beginning with the Accord, what was the subject 

of some of the provisions? You indicated there could be potential 

liability or there was vague language. But what was the subject of 

some of the provisions that the American and Canadian firms 

found problematic? I am assuming there were some that were fine, 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

51

but then some were somewhat controversial. If you could just 

describe those? 

Mr. LUBBE. Sure. Senator, the first point is the utilization of 

arbitration. What the Accord does is it uses arbitration really to fill 

in and write the agreement for the parties, ultimately. It provides 

for a wide array of disputes, as it is worded, not only between the 

parties but, I think from a legal analysis, leaves the room for nonparties to the Accord to utilize the Accord to declare disputes that 

go to arbitration. 

Arbitration under the Accord takes on in many instances an 

interest arbitration nature, meaning you get a third party to really 

write the agreement for the parties on terms that they could not 

agree upon. So that is the first point. 

The second issue is, as a binding contract, it becomes a basis for 

litigation in the United States, and we have examples where, with 

the demise of the Alien Tort Act, a variety of contracts and agreements have been used to sue companies in the United States for 

the bad acts of actors outside the United States, and that is a real 

concern. The Accord does not exclude that. That possibility of similar litigation exists. 

The third issue, just in terms of broad scope, is also again 

through the avenue of interest arbitration. If you review the provisions that deal with remediation, they require the signatories must 

engage in commercial viable agreements, and if the supplier or the 

factory owner says, ‘‘well, the price that we are negotiating is insufficient because I need more money to improve health and safety at 

the factory’’ and, let us say, for example, the U.S. retailer says, ‘‘I 

do not think at the price that you are asking, that is too high,’’ it 

potentially goes to interest arbitration again. 

So you have price determination through interest arbitration. 

Those are some of the critical issues I think that were raised. If 

I may, in the April meeting in Germany, these issues were indeed 

raised, I am told. I was not at that meeting, but that is the feedback that I have. 

So there was a serious attempt at that stage to iron out these 

concerns. As frequently happens in negotiations and collective bargaining, a line was drawn, and the IndustriALL took the position 

that they were not going to make these changes. The Accord was 

then published, and the retail industry, the garment and apparel 

industry still maintained those concerns because they have not 

been addressed. 

Senator KAINE. And just since this is an industry internationally 

that I have no expertise in, even with the concerns that you laid 

out, a sizable number of the European manufacturers signed on to 

the Accord. Describe why that is the case. Why would European 

manufacturers find it to be acceptable but North American manufacturers or companies find it to be less acceptable? 

Mr. LUBBE. Senator, you would appreciate that I cannot speculate exactly how they view their risk. My opinion is that they are 

not in the same litigious environment that we are. We have a history under statutes that have created the fora to sue in the United 

States for foreign bad acts. As far as I know, the Europeans do not 

have that same system. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

52

A second explanation could be the Europeans have a much more 

institutionalized partnership relationship with trade unions, where 

our model here is different. Through the use of works councils, 

European works councils, this type of agreements with unions is 

not uncommon in general that will cover Europeanwide issues. 

So those are two of the explanations that I can offer to you. I 

think the first one in terms of litigation risk and liability is a significant one that is absent from that market. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Lubbe, one question I have is, Are North 

American and specifically American companies—and this picks up 

on your last point—even just based upon other activities in this 

building, the deadlock over things like NLRB appointments, do 

they balk at the notion of signing on to accords that encourage 

organization and association rights of workers in Bangladesh? 

Mr. LUBBE. Senator, as far as I know, that was not a stumbling 

block. 

Senator KAINE. Let me ask you finally, and then Senator Menendez is back and will resume the chair, but you talked about the 

effort underway in Canadian and American companies to find a 

workable framework going forward. Talk to me a little bit about 

the timing of that effort and when we might be expected to know 

something about it. 

Mr. LUBBE. Senator, this is a work in progress that is receiving 

high priority in the industry. As has been reported, the stated goal 

is to come with a comprehensive plan that will have immediate 

action plans that will provide for long-term solutions and have that 

plan ready by, I understand, early July. 

I also understand that, in terms of the actions that have been 

taken, there is already a structure set up through working groups 

to look at various aspects. Everybody is struggling in terms of how 

to prioritize. This is a huge issue, so sometimes how do you 

prioritize what is also an issue. That is all being discussed, and 

there are very regular meetings scheduled throughout this month 

for all the parties to coalesce around this and come up with a plan 

that will work for the industry at large, and also get the individual 

major players involved in this effort. 

Senator KAINE. So just in terms of the testimony, Mr. Chair, to 

summarize some testimony that occurred, I think when you were 

out of the room, there is a coincidence of timing here, the potential 

of a recommendation from USTR to the White House at the end of 

June. Now, that is not the same as when the President would 

make a decision, but also a potential decision by the North American companies about how they would want to proceed to address 

this problem from the private-sector side in early July. So it sounds 

like in both the governmental and private-sector side, it is a little 

bit of a work in progress, and it would be my hope that we would 

be able to come back after those steps are known to consider them 

and hear pros and cons about whether they are sufficient. 

Mr. Chair, with that, I would return the chair to you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Well, thank you very much. Thank 

you, Senator Kaine, for chairing this important part of the hearing. 

Thank you both for your testimony. I have read through it. 

Please help me pronounce your last name. I want to make sure 

to get it right. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

53

Mr. LUBBE. Senator, it is Lubbe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lubbe. 

Mr. LUBBE. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, Mr. Lubbe. I know that you are an attorney 

and you are representing these different industries, so I get your 

role here. But since they sent you as the person, let me ask you 

a couple of questions. 

Number one is, what do the companies that you represent believe 

is their core responsibility in regard to the topic that we are talking about? 

Mr. LUBBE. Senator, I think I can best summarize it as follows. 

The issue of corporate social responsibility has taken a focus on 

health and safety of the workers in Bangladesh, and that has been 

catapulted to the top of the list of priorities. If you look at companies’ corporate social responsibility, it has always been over the 

years, since it has become important for companies to recognize 

and play their role, it has been a work in progress. It is a continuing effort of improving. 

What has happened now with these very tragic events in Bangladesh is that health and safety, including structural soundness 

of buildings in which their suppliers are operating, has come to the 

forefront. And in that respect, the industry understands and wants 

to play an important role to contribute as one of the stakeholders 

to make certain that that issue is addressed. The industry sees 

itself as one of the stakeholders and one of the role players, and 

it is ready and willing to play that role. 

Specifically, the issue of inspections, a number of the industry individual companies have stepped up their health and safety inspections to make certain that within their scope of influence, the providers and suppliers within their global supply chain, that they 

make certain that they accelerate and increase those inspections. 

There has been an increased focus on training of workers so that 

they can help identify the shortcomings in health and safety and 

building structure. 

There is an awareness that there needs to be support to employees, workers in Bangladesh, that have been adversely impacted by 

these recent events, be it by loss of a job or injury. 

There is a recognition of a contribution to assist the factory owners to remedy the health and safety shortcomings in their factories. 

And so the role is one of support, providing funding, providing 

training, making certain that competent folks, inspectors, are available now while the Bangladeshi Government is ramping up its own 

inspectorate to make certain that somebody on the ground immediately does something to review health and safety. 

The CHAIRMAN. I ask you that question because in reading your 

testimony in which you put a great emphasis on the U.N. report 

entitled ‘‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,’’ you 

referred to the responsibilities there that the second is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means that 

business enterprises should act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts with 

which they are involved. 

Now, of course, one can ultimately respect human rights but do 

nothing about it. So, at the end of the day, I get concerned when 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

54

I hear about the industry’s unwillingness to join a more global 

standard so that, regardless of whether it is Bangladesh today or 

some other place tomorrow, we have a global standard, that we do 

not have a race to the bottom. I think Rana Plaza shows the limits 

of individual corporate responsibility campaigns because multiple 

brands very often source from the same factory. 

So you have a serious free rider problem if different retailers are 

approaching standards differently, and that leads some to say, 

well, unless it is everybody else, I am not going to live to a higher 

standard unless they have a corporate ethos that says I want to 

live to a higher standard, even though it may make me somewhat 

less competitive than the others. 

So I read your comments about liability, and I hope that the 

industry understands that, while I understand their need to protect 

themselves legally, there can be no success at the end of the day, 

no one will want to wear a piece of clothing made in Bangladesh 

if it is on the blood of workers. Those brands will go down the tube. 

It is only a question of time; only a question of time. 

So I hope the industry gets their act together, and sooner rather 

than later, because it has been willing—these are not all of a sudden. Rana Plaza is only a dramatization, unfortunately, of a great 

tragedy, but it is not because this has not existed. The fact that 

there have been, pending USTR, and I just finished with the USTR 

nominee upstairs—the fact that that has been languishing for 6 

years gives us an example of how everybody turns a blind eye until 

something happens. 

I can assure you, something is going to happen here. And as I 

have told industries before in good faith, either get your act 

together and establish standards or find yourself with standards 

you may not care for. I hope that is the message that you will take 

back to the industry today. 

Mr. LUBBE. Senator, thank you for those comments. I think that 

you are spot on. It has become an extremely important issue for all 

stakeholders, including the industry, and they will take those comments of yours to heart. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Drake, I do not have any questions for you 

simply because I largely agree with your testimony. But if in the 

last few seconds here you have heard anything that you want to 

have a view for the record espoused, I am happy to give you this 

opportunity. 

Ms. DRAKE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. 

I found it interesting—if we take the industry at its word that 

its corporate social responsibility focus right now on health and 

safety is a priority, these firms, or many of them, Walmart in particular, has been operating in Bangladesh since the 1990s. Mr. 

Lubbe mentioned the many systemic problems that the firms are 

aware of in Bangladesh, whether it is factories being built on 

unstable ground, whether it is an inconsistent electricity supply or 

water supply. And these problems, as I testified to earlier, and the 

history of building collapses, fire collapses, it did not start with 

Tazreen. It goes back many, many years. 

So if they have known about this, and if they care about this, 

there is a true disconnect. Is it one of these situations where doing 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

55

the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result 

is not a prime example of corporate management? 

We have a report from the AFL–CIO. I cited it in my testimony, 

and there is a link, but I can leave copies here today for Mr. Kaine 

and Mr. Menendez, if you would like to have these. It explains that 

these voluntary programs that can be eliminated at any moment, 

as soon as the brands think that the spotlight is off of them or that 

they have already contributed enough money to factory safety or 

whatever it is, they simply do not work. If a social auditor comes 

in to a factory like Rana Plaza and finds that it is, in fact, unstable, the workers in the voluntary programs are never notified. They 

are not part of the system. 

If you want to talk about unilateral, the Accord, we disagree 

strongly with the statement that IndustriALL set it out unilaterally. The Accord was being negotiated for more than a year, and 

various brands had taken a look, American brands. Walmart and 

Gap were there at the beginning and chose not to deal with it in 

2012, and they chose not to deal with it again. But it was, in our 

view, a true negotiation and very different than these plans, and 

that is what we are really afraid of, is that this new alternative 

plan with the Bipartisan Policy Center, it sounds good, but if it 

ends up with more of these corporate-directed socially responsible 

but not giving workers the power to speak up for themselves and 

be monitors of their own health and safety, it is simply not going 

to work. 

And if, in fact, it somehow does create a standard that is binding 

and enforceable, that is terrific. But then you have workers who in 

the morning are working for Walmart and in the afternoon are 

working for HNM, and they have to remember which is the standard and what applies and what they can speak up about and what 

they are not allowed to speak up about. That is not really a helpful 

situation when you are talking about 4 million workers who are 

impoverished, many of whom are illiterate, and they have to keep 

track of what their rights are. 

And I also wanted to point out the irony that firms are concerned 

about arbitration under the Accord, and this might be the only 

time where you get a witness from the business side that does not 

want arbitration and a witness from the labor side that says, no, 

we would like to have arbitration here. 

So we think that the Accord—we have read it. It does not create 

a cause of action in U.S. courts. The Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment 

Act, these create causes of action in American courts. It does not. 

It is not vague. There are things that are going to be worked out 

during this implementation period. But with the recent decision on 

the Alien Tort Claims Act, we just do not view it as really being 

a threat to these brands, and neither, in fact, do Abercrombie & 

Fitch and Sean John and PVH, and HNM, which is the European 

company that operates in the United States, or these other companies that have signed it. 

We would really appreciate your support for it and just continue 

to ask you to help us in our efforts to push these brands to sign 

because, as you have said, they will be the reputational losers if 

they do not. Thank you so much. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

56

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. You have made ample use of 

the opportunity I gave you. 

So with that, let me turn to Senator Kaine. And I am going to 

ask, Senator Kaine, if you would close out the hearing because I 

have a meeting. We will keep the record open until Friday for questions, and my thanks to both of you. I look forward to working with 

both of you as we move forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator KAINE [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Just one last question, Ms. Drake. I asked Mr. Lubbe whether 

the decision by North American companies to not sign on with the 

Accord, what were some of the reasons, and he said he was speculating to some degree, but one of the things he mentioned as a sort 

of speculative comment was the differing comfort levels of European companies in their relationship with labor compared to the 

cultural norm here. And I am just struck by that as an issue, and 

I wanted to ask you your opinion about it. 

We are in the midst of a major debate here where there is an 

effort to block appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, 

or to try to find an accord that would allow four out of five NLRB 

members to be appointed so there could be a permanent stalemate 

against the NLRB doing their job. That effort is supported by 

major spokespeople and organizations for broad American corporations, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

Is it your perception in the reaction of North American companies to the Accord that arbitration is a point of dispute, but that 

there is a reticence to sign on to an accord that encourages labor 

organizations to form and flourish because they are actually, on our 

own turf, very reticent about labor organizations and the right to 

organize and flourish? 

Ms. DRAKE. I would say that is the conclusion that one would 

draw from the evidence, and it really is unfortunate that the President put up a slate of nominees that represent all sides of the issue 

on labor and that it is being blocked. If the United States does not 

have a functioning National Labor Relations Board, that goes all 

the way down to the site, the small-factory level, and will prevent 

probably most organizing efforts from succeeding in the United 

States because the employer side will stop the election, put in a 

complaint, the complaint cannot be decisively resolved, and things 

will not move ahead. 

So it is a very aggressive antiworker stance to not want to have 

a National Labor Relations Board at all. 

Senator KAINE. And with respect to the Accord in particular, 

since I am not familiar with the substance of the Accord, does the 

Accord only address sort of building code safety conditions, or does 

the Accord also address the ability of workers to associate and 

organize in a protected status? 

Ms. DRAKE. It does, and it particularly gives workers the right 

to refuse to enter and work in a workplace that they feel is an 

immediate threat to their health and safety. Having to respect 

worker rights and having to recognize that workers can stand up 

for themselves and say I am not going to go into that death trap 

today I think is, for some in the industry, they do not want workers 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

57

to have that ability to stand up and speak up for themselves to 

improve their own working conditions and their livelihoods. 

Senator KAINE. And so this is a speculative question, but take it 

for what it is worth. If the Accord had just had conditions within 

it about building code and fire safety and things like that, but had 

not had any conditions dealing with the protection of workers’ 

rights, is it your opinion that it would have been more acceptable 

to the North American garment companies? 

Ms. DRAKE. I cannot say whether they would have signed. I 

would say I think it would be much more acceptable. 

Senator KAINE. All right. Well, this has been fascinating testimony on a very, very challenging topic, and I think both of you 

acknowledge that there is a significant complexity. I do think we 

are maybe on the verge, with the USTR recommendation to the 

White House and the industry effort to come together behind some 

set of principles that they could agree with, both of those happening in relatively short order, that we are on the verge of being 

able to come back and say, OK, now that we have some more facts 

on the table about what the response is likely to be from the private sector and the U.S. Government, it would probably be helpful 

for us to analyze that again soon. 

I am the junior member on a 19-member committee, but I will 

certainly recommend to the chair that we come back and follow up 

on both of those matters in short order. 

And with that, the committee hearing is adjourned. Thank you 

for your participation. 

[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSE OF LEWIS KARESH TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. 

Question. As you stated in your written testimony, the United States is a key market for Bangladeshi goods, importing $5 billion in 2012.

• What signal would suspension or termination of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) benefits send to the government and factory owners in Bangladesh as well as U.S. brands and consumers? Is this an effective tool? • Why has it taken the U.S. Government 6 years to review Bangladesh’s GSP eligibility, following acceptance of the AFL–CIO’s petition in 2007?

Answer. On June 27, 2013, President Obama decided to suspend GSP trade benefits for Bangladesh based on a determination that Bangladesh ‘‘has not taken or is 

not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the 

country.’’ The administration hopes that the GSP action will give further impetus 

to the Government of Bangladesh’s efforts to address longstanding issues related to 

worker rights and worker safety. 

The experience of the last 30 years suggests that GSP can be an effective mechanism for advancing worker rights. Over the years, the U.S. Government has used 

GSP reviews of worker rights with many beneficiary countries to bolster our dialogue with these countries on worker rights and effect meaningful change. 

One of the objectives of a GSP worker rights review is to encourage the relevant 

country to undertake measures to address the key concerns that led to the review. 

Over the last several years, the U.S. Government worked with the Government of 

Bangladesh to identify such measures and to urge that these measures be implemented. In late 2012, the administration came to the conclusion that the worker 

rights situation in Bangladesh had deteriorated and that suspension of benefits 

might be warranted absent significant near-term progress in improving worker 

rights and worker safety. While the Government of Bangladesh has taken some actions to address the situation, the progress was insufficient to meet the statutory 

criterion to continue its GSP benefits. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

58

RESPONSES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBERT BLAKE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. 

Question. Do you assess that the Government of Bangladesh has the capacity and 

will to enforce its labor standards and building codes? What is the U.S. Government 

doing to assist the Government of Bangladesh to fight corruption and improve 

enforcement capacity in this sector?

Answer. The recent tragedies in Bangladesh underscore the urgent need for the 

Government of Bangladesh, factory owners, international buyers, and workers to 

come together to strengthen respect for workers’ rights and ensure safe and healthy 

working conditions. We are encouraged by recent initial efforts on the part of the 

Government the Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi exporters’ associations to improve 

labor standards and inspect and enforce the fire and building codes. We are encouraging the Bangladeshi Government to take additional steps to improve worker 

rights, including the right to freely associate and engage in collective bargaining, 

so workers can effectively negotiate improved working conditions and wages. 

We actively engage with the highest levels of the Government of Bangladesh, factory owners, international buyers, and civil society on these issues. We are already 

supporting capacity-building for trade unions in Bangladesh and help fund International Labor Organization (ILO) programs targeting the garment and shrimp sectors. The Department of Labor is currently seeking project proposals to improve fire 

and building safety in the garment industry in Bangladesh. The United States 

strongly supports Bangladesh’s tripartite national action plan on fire safety, and the 

joint statement by tripartite partners issued at the end of the ILO’s high-level 

mission on May 4. The U.S. Government is also discussing a joint effort with the 

European Union, the Government of Bangladesh, and the International Labor Organization to assist Bangladesh in bringing working conditions and respect for workers’ rights in the garment sector in Bangladesh in line with international labor 

standards.

Question. I am concerned that proceedings before the International Crimes Tribunal in Dhaka, Bangladesh, have provoked violent protests and created a volatile 

political situation in the country. While the U.S. Government should fully support 

the prosecution of the most serious crimes of international concern and the ending 

of impunity, we should also ensure that criminal justice is carried out in a manner 

that is consistent with international human rights obligations, including procedure, 

fairness, and transparency.

• Do you assess that the ICT trials meet international standards of procedure, 

fairness, and transparency? 

• What are the U.S. Government and the international community doing to ensure that witnesses are protected from retaliation? 

• What is the status of Shukho Ranjan Bali, a prosecution witness who was allegedly abducted before he could testify? 

• What is your assessment of how the confirmation of death sentences and the 

expected issuance of additional verdicts will affect the political situation in the 

country?

Answer. The United States supports bringing to justice those who committed 

atrocities during Bangladesh’s Liberation War. We believe that any such trials must 

be free, fair, and transparent, and in accordance with international obligations. Bangladesh has agreed to uphold these requirements through its ratification of international agreements, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights. As Bangladesh addresses the legacy of atrocities committed during the Liberation War, and as we await further verdicts by the Bangladesh International 

Crimes Tribunal (ICT), the United States continues to urge the Government of Bangladesh to adhere to its treaty obligations, including through a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, and by fully respecting the 

rule of law. Although we have seen some progress, there remain significant concerns 

regarding the law, rules, and procedures used by the tribunals and we believe that 

further improvements to the ICT process are needed to ensure these proceedings 

meet international standards. The Shukho Ranjan Bali situation directly relates to 

our concerns about adequate protection for witnesses in Tribunal proceedings. 

Although the Government of Bangladesh has denied any role in his alleged abduction, we continue to encourage the government to ensure the safety of all its citizens, including trial witnesses. Human Rights Watch has called for the Government 

of Bangladesh to conduct a credible investigation into the alleged abduction.

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

59

Question. On May 5–6, 2013, protests led by Hefazat-e-Islam resulted in numerous deaths. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called for 

independent investigations into the deaths.

• Will the State Department also call for an investigation?

Answer. The Government of Bangladesh gave permission to Hefazat to demonstrate peacefully. However, upon close review of the evidence, it appears that 

Hefazat violated these terms through clashes with police, violence, and looting. To 

prevent further violence, the Government dispersed the protestors. Independent 

sources estimate the number of dead closer to 12, far fewer than the hundreds 

alleged. Nonetheless, we have consistently counseled the Government to use nonlethal methods of crowd control and have expressed our concern about the recent 

rise in violence in Bangladesh in the wake of a series of general strikes (hartals) 

that have significantly disrupted and endangered the daily lives of Bangladeshis 

throughout the country. These disruptions incur direct costs on Bangladeshis, including by preventing ordinary citizens from doing their jobs, and end up hurting 

the Bangladeshi economy. The Embassy continues to closely engage with all parties 

to urge calm, encourage dialogue, and ensure that protests are peaceful. Freedom 

of expression is one of the hallmarks of a democracy, and we encourage all 

Bangladeshis to peacefully express their views.

Question. Some Bangladeshi Islamist groups, including Hefazat-e-Islam, have 

demanded the imposition of antiblasphemy laws, similar to those in place in Pakistan.

• What is your assessment of how such laws could affect religious freedom in 

Bangladesh? 

• What is the State Department doing to support legal and constitutional reforms 

that increase protections for religious minorities and women in Bangladesh?

Answer. We are encouraged by the Bangladeshi Government’s strong support for 

the country’s tradition of tolerance, secularism, and women’s empowerment in 

response to recent demands for the imposition of antiblasphemy laws by some 

Bangladeshi Islamist groups, including Hefazat-e-Islam. In addition, the Government of Bangladesh has rejected the call for new antiblasphemy laws as unnecessary. We support the right of freedom of expression, set forth in the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is party, and continue 

to press the government to improve protections for women, girls, and members of 

religious minorities. We continue to work with the Government of Bangladesh to 

advance the rights of women and marginalized populations. We also continue to 

support the NGO community and civil societies’ efforts to do the same. 

RESPONSES OF LEWIS KARESH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

Question. Mr. Karesh, it is my understanding that the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative is leading the administration’s review of Bangladesh’s Generalized 

System of Preferences (GSP) trade benefits. In your testimony, you mentioned that 

through the GSP program, Bangladesh has made some progress, but that USTR has 

become increasingly concerned by serious backsliding on worker rights and conditions in the last year alone. 

During the second panel of the Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on labor issues 

in Bangladesh, it was mentioned that suspending GSP trade benefits for Bangladesh would inhibit future U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) 

projects.

• Can you speak to the impact on OPIC projects in Bangladesh if the President 

were to decide to remove GSP trade benefits?

Answer. On June 27, 2013, President Obama suspended GSP trade benefits for 

Bangladesh based on a determination that Bangladesh ‘‘has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the country.’’ The suspension will take effect 60 days after the President’s proclamation taking this action is published in the Federal Register. Since OPIC must also take into 

account worker rights criteria in assessing its country-level program eligibility, the 

President’s action will also affect OPIC programs. It is USTR’s understanding that, 

once the suspension of Bangladesh’s GSP trade benefits takes effect, OPIC will be 

prohibited from supporting future investments in Bangladesh. However, suspension 

of GSP benefits will not affect existing projects to which OPIC has already made 

a legally binding commitment. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

60

OPIC’s existing portfolio in Bangladesh, which will not be affected by the suspen- sion, amounts to $13.3 million and is focused on telecommunications and humanitarian and development services.

Question. In your assessment, what would be the other possible outcomes of 

removing GSP benefits?

Answer. USTR is not aware of other impacts on U.S. programs of the suspension 

of GSP benefits.

Question. We are hearing the right words from the Government of Bangladesh, 

but are we really seeing the necessary actions to address the serious shortcomings 

in worker rights and labor conditions in the country?

Answer. The President’s decision to suspend GSP trade benefits for Bangladesh 

was based on a determination that the Government of Bangladesh is not taking the 

necessary steps with respect to worker rights. 

In a statement released shortly after the President’s action was announced, 

Ambassador Froman said, ‘‘Our GSP statute requires certain basic standards for 

worker rights and worker safety as a condition of eligibility. Over the past few 

years, the U.S. Government has worked closely with the Government of Bangladesh 

to encourage the reforms needed to meet those basic standards. Despite our close 

engagement and our clear, repeated expressions of concern, the U.S. Government 

has not seen sufficient progress toward those reforms. The recent tragedies that 

needlessly took the lives of over 1,200 Bangladeshi garment factory workers have 

served to highlight some of the serious shortcomings in worker rights and workplace 

safety standards in Bangladesh. While taking this action today, the administration 

is also initiating new discussions with the Government of Bangladesh regarding 

steps to improve the worker rights environment in Bangladesh so that GSP benefits 

can be restored and tragedies like the Rana Plaza building collapse and Tazreen 

Fashion factory fire can be prevented. The Obama administration is committed to 

reflecting American values in our trade policy, including with regard to the rights 

of workers worldwide.’’

RESPONSES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBERT BLAKE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

Question. Assistant Secretary Blake, in response to the deadly collapse of Rana 

Plaza, we’ve seen some American companies express a willingness to work to 

improve labor conditions in Bangladesh and others have decided that it is simply 

too risky and too damaging to their brand and reputation to continue to source from 

apparel Bangladesh. 

It is my understanding that roughly 80 percent of the garment workers in Bangladesh are women.

• How real is the possibility of a mass exodus from Bangladesh by some of the 

other big name brands and how would such a move impact these women who 

have gained new independence and improved the lives of their families as a 

result of this work?

Answer. The growth of Bangladesh’s ready-made garment industry has contributed to impressive gains in employment, particularly for women, and development 

successes over the past few decades. Of the over 4 million garment workers in Bangladesh, approximately 80 percent (3.2 million) are women. The State Department 

continues to actively engage with U.S. companies on worker rights and safety in 

Bangladesh, especially in light of the Rana Plaza and Tazreen Fashions’ tragedies. 

We understand that some U.S. companies are taking individual actions to remedy 

the immediate situation, but we also continue to encourage U.S. brands to take collective action that leverages these efforts and involves all the key stakeholders in 

Bangladesh, including the government, factory owners, and civil society. While a few 

brands have made the choice to source products from other countries, there are 

many others committed to working with Bangladesh to resolve challenges to fire 

and building safety and worker rights.

Question. In your assessment, would a decision to suspend the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) trade benefits for Bangladesh change the calculus of some 

retailers and apparel companies who are currently undecided on how best to proceed?

Answer. The United States has been considering for some time options regarding 

GSP benefits for Bangladesh. The current review of the GSP program signals the 

United States’ strong interest in Bangladesh’s ability to meet international labor 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

61

standards, particularly in the area of worker rights. Our decision is imminent. 

Regardless of the decision, we are preparing a roadmap of the types of changes we 

see as needed to improve worker rights and fire and building safety in Bangladesh. 

It should be noted that U.S. imports from Bangladesh under GSP are modest. In 

2012, Bangladesh’s exports under the GSP program totaled only $34.7 million—

or less than 1 percent of Bangladesh’s $4.92 billion in exports to the United States 

for that year. The GSP program does not include apparel or other ready-made 

garments.

Question. From the testimony received by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it would appear that there are differing opinions on how best to address the 

serious issue of worker rights in Bangladesh.

• What is the State Department doing to build consensus with all stakeholders 

and especially the private sector retailers and apparel companies?

Answer. Improving labor rights and working conditions—as well as all human 

rights—is one of our key foreign policy objectives worldwide. The recent tragedies 

at factories in Bangladesh underscore the urgent need for the Government of Bangladesh, factory owners, international buyers, and workers to come together to 

strengthen respect for workers’ rights, including ensuring safe and healthy working 

conditions. The United States actively engages with the highest levels of the Government of Bangladesh, Bangladeshi exporters, and international buyers on these 

issues, as well as with the International Labor Organization. We regularly cite our 

concerns about labor rights in Bangladesh, including factory conditions, in our 

annual Human Rights Report and in our bilateral consultations, including during 

the recent U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue in Dhaka. Additionally, discussions of worker rights and safe working conditions are part of the current review 

of Bangladesh’s trade benefits under the GSP program. We also have an ongoing 

high-level dialogue with U.S. buyers that source from Bangladesh about workplace 

safety and the role that buyers can play in strengthening respect for the rights of 

workers, including ensuring safe and healthy working conditions. In March, and 

again in May, we reviewed our expectations of U.S. companies’ engagement in Bangladesh and shared a ‘‘Best Practices for Companies Operating in Bangladesh’’ document (please see attached). The U.S. Government is currently discussing a joint 

effort with the European Union, the Government of Bangladesh, and the 

International Labor Organization to bring working conditions and respect for workers rights in the garment sector in Bangladesh in line with international labor 

standards.

ATTACHMENT 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON BEST PRACTICES FOR COMPANIES WITH OPERATIONS IN BANGLADESH—U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (MAR. 11, 

2013) 

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor Michael Posner and Assistant Secretary of State for South and 

Central Asia Robert Blake hosted a conference call with over 70 U.S. brands and 

civil society groups to discuss fire safety issues in manufacturing facilities in Bangladesh. On the call, Assistant Secretary Posner and Assistant Secretary Blake 

summarized important labor rights issues, including the status of the Aminul Islam 

case, union registrations, and legal reforms. They also outlined what the U.S. government views as best practices for companies with operations in Bangladesh. Eric 

Biel, Acting Associate Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs at the 

Department of Labor, discussed his recent trip to Bangladesh, including numerous 

meetings on fire safety and labor law reform, and possible areas for bilateral technical assistance. 

Unsafe working conditions in Bangladesh were brought into the international 

spotlight by the Tazreen factory fire of November 2012, the worst of many deadly 

manufacturing fires in the country in recent years. The ILO has been engaged with 

the Government of Bangladesh on a Tripartite National Action Plan on Fire Safety 

to address this issue, and as of today the Plan is being finalized by the Ministry 

of Labor and Employment. They also have worked with the Government to identify 

necessary steps, including reforms to labor law and an improved and more transparent union registration process, to create an ‘‘enabling environment’’ for the establishment of a Better Work program. 

The National Action Plan and Better Work program both offer opportunities to 

sustainably improve labor standards in Bangladesh and could both benefit from the 

support and cooperation of international buyers, including in coordination with buyFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

62

ers’ own initiatives. The practices outlined below are recommendations from the 

U.S. government to U.S. brands as they promote respect for human rights and international labor standards, as well as encourage engagement with the Government of 

Bangladesh and other stakeholders on these issues.

1. Act Collectively: Companies should work together to figure out how they can 

make a difference collectively. And it’s important that responses meet three criteria: 

they’re credible; they’re relevant; and they’re effective. There are several ongoing 

collaborative initiatives in various stages of development. We encourage companies 

to link efforts on labor and human rights with collaborative work being done 

through multi-stakeholder initiatives, third-party auditors, industry associations, 

and cooperative agreements. The Tripartite National Action Plan on fire safety may 

offer entry points for buyers and civil society to support and enhance a Bangladeshowned process to improve fire safety. 

2. Develop Broad Principles and Policies and Procedures for Implementation: Companies should have clearly defined labor and human rights principles, policies and 

procedures that guide their behavior and that of their suppliers and subcontractors. 

Such policies should be based on internationally recognized human rights and international labor standards and there should be effective and transparent means of 

monitoring compliance. Senior leadership of the companies should visibly support 

such efforts and encourage implementation throughout the entire supply chain. 

3. Develop Credible Internal Benchmarks: In order to assess progress and effectiveness, companies should have internal metrics to manage and measure performance on labor and human rights. 

4. Conduct Independent Third-Party Verification: Third-party verifiers should 

assess performance of company policies and procedures. Inspections by verifiers 

should be thorough, timely, unannounced, independent, and include confidential 

interviews and consultations with workers about workplace conditions. Inspections 

should look at serious and common hazards, implementation of the local law and 

respect for internationally recognized human rights and international labor standards, and mechanisms for tracking noncompliance with company policies and procedures. 

5. Corrective Actions and Penalties: Corrective action may be necessary to address 

non-compliance with company policies and procedures at any point in the supply 

chain. When suppliers are found to be in non-compliance, there should be timely 

identification and financial or technical assistance to help address hazards in factories. There should be contractual penalties for non-compliance that are clear and 

meaningful. Also, when non-compliance is discovered, corrective actions should be 

shared with stakeholders to the extent possible and appropriate to disseminate lessons learned and best practices for avoiding or mitigating future incidents. 

6. Cultivate Worker Voice and Education: In manufacturing facilities within a 

company’s supply chain, buyers should seek to engage with workers to (a) promote 

education; (b) prevent retaliation against those reporting hazards; and (c) compensate workers, including those put out of work during corrective actions. Companies should communicate with workers through legitimate representatives selected 

by the workers themselves, and should avoid factories where no such representative 

mechanism exists. 

7. Share Information: Companies should share information with each other, stakeholders, and relevant host government officials about factories that fail to comply 

with policies and procedures or corrective measures, so as to bring the greatest 

leverage to bear with the greatest effect, and to avoid undercutting each other’s 

efforts. Information-sharing will ensure maximum coordination and knowledge. 

8. Work with Stakeholders: Draw on the expertise and experiences of other companies, NGOs, unions, the ILO, the Government of Bangladesh, and others to develop 

sophisticated responses to the current human rights challenges. 

RESPONSES OF ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY ERIC BIEL TO

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

Mr. Biel, while we have heard that positive steps are being taken in Bangladesh 

in response to the tragic Rana Plaza collapse that resulted in the deaths of over 

1,100 garment workers, I am concerned about the enforcement and oversight side 

of this issue, especially given the shocking statistic stating that at least 60 percent 

of the garment factories in Bangladesh are currently at risk of collapse. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that, given the size of the garment industry in 

Bangladesh, the government’s inspection capacity is grossly inadequate, despite 

recent plans to increase the number of inspectors. The Government of Bangladesh 

needs to do more.

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

63

Question. In your view, can we rely on the Bangladeshi Government to ensure the 

adequate enforcement of oversight at this point for its garment industry? Is this 

truly an issue of capacity for the government?

Answer. The Government of Bangladesh has the primary responsibility for the enforcement of national labor law with respect to worker rights and workplace safety 

in the ready-made garment sector. At the same time, and as noted in my testimony 

before the committee on June 6, the U.S. Government recognizes that, at present, 

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Labour and Employment does not have a sufficient number of labor inspectors to satisfy this substantial responsibility, and many of the current labor inspectors also lack adequate training and resources. 

Addressing these significant shortcomings so that the Government can fulfill its 

responsibility is a great challenge for the Government and other stakeholders. We 

are encouraged that, as part of the joint statement issued on May 4 following the 

high-level visit of the International Labor Organization led by Deputy Director 

General Houngbo, the Government of Bangladesh committed to hire an additional 

200 labor inspectors within 6 months, and to provide budgetary authority for a minimum of 800 new inspectors. 

Donor countries, including the United States, can play a role through technical 

assistance and other funding programs. To that end, on June 13 the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs, where I serve, announced a 

$2.5 million competitive grant solicitation to fund improvements in the enforcement 

and monitoring of fire and building safety standards in the ready-made garment 

sector in Bangladesh. This technical assistance, one part of the broader strategy to 

address labor enforcement issues, will fund one or more recipients to: (1) strengthen 

the Bangladesh Government’s ability to improve its enforcement of fire and building 

safety standards, and (2) build the capacity of worker organizations to effectively 

monitor violations of fire and building safety standards and abate related hazards 

in the ready-made garment sector. 

The two-part program design recognizes the lead responsibility of the Government 

of Bangladesh, while at the same time acknowledging the central role that workers 

and their representatives must play in improving conditions in the workplace, especially given existing capacity issues of the Government. 

In addition, as noted in my testimony before the committee, the powerful 

Bangladeshi garment industry, as well as the international buyers and retailers 

that source products from Bangladesh, must do more to address worker rights and 

workplace safety issues in the sector. While the responsibility of the Government 

remains paramount, the private sector also has a clear role to play, such as through 

financing safety improvements or training management in appropriate fire safety 

responses—and by ensuring that workers’ rights to advocate on behalf of their interests in the workplace are respected.

Question. During your testimony, you mentioned that ‘‘legal gaps’’ exist in the 

export processing zones of Bangladesh. Can you elaborate on this important point? 

Can the U.S. Government play a more constructive role in this regard?

Answer. Industrial relations in the export processing zones (EPZs) of Bangladesh 

are governed by a different labor law than the law that generally governs industrial 

relations in Bangladeash. While most labor issues in the private sector are subject 

to the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, administered by the Ministry of Labour and 

Employment, the administration of the EPZs (where approximately 250,000 workers 

are employed) and enforcement of EPZ-specific labor law is the responsibility of the 

Bangladesh EPZ Authority (BEPZA). When the Government of Bangladesh adopted 

the EPZ Workers Association and Industrial Relations Act (EWAIRA) in 2004, it 

was intended as a phased approach and an interim measure. EWAIRA expired in 

2008, but instead of completing the transition to full coverage of the national labor 

law, the separate EPZ law was reauthorized in 2010 as the EPZ Workers’ Welfare 

Society and Industrial Relations Act (EWWSIRA)—with additional restrictions 

rather than expanded rights for workers. The U.S. Government has noted these 

concerns publicly, including specific cases, in the 2012 Human Rights Report on 

Bangladesh. 

As reflected in the detailed comments of the International Labor Organization’s 

Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the 

EPZ law falls short of international standards in a number of fundamental ways. 

For example, since 2004, the EPZ labor law has provided for a blanket prohibition 

against strikes in any EPZ. That provision of the law is scheduled to sunset at the 

end of 2013; if that sunset does take effect, it would provide for a legal right to 

strike beginning in 2014. However, given continuing restrictions on the right to 

strike, such as a 15-day limit, a ‘‘public interest’’ exception, and a 75-percent voting 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

64

threshold requirement, the U.S. Government believes it unlikely that strikes will be 

permitted in practice within EPZs, even with the expiration of the full prohibition. 

Other areas of concern identified with respect to EPZ law and governance include:

• The law constrains the establishment of ‘‘Workers’ Welfare Societies’’ (the term 

used for the strictly limited form of worker organizations within EPZs) through 

burdensome membership and referendum requirements. 

• It prohibits the affiliation of such associations between zones or with any political or nongovernmental entity. 

• It provides for unfettered BEPZA discretion (exercised by the BEPZA Executive 

Chair, a position that has been filled by the Office of the Prime Minister with 

senior military officials) in the cancellation of a Society’s registration. 

• It prohibits Societies from obtaining or receiving any funds from any outside 

source without the BEPZA Executive Chair’s prior approval. 

• It permits elected leaders of the Societies to be terminated by employers with 

the concurrence of the BEPZA Executive Chair. 

• In addition to such gaps in the law, worker organizations have reported that 

BEPZA fails to enforce even the limited protections of the law, and has actively 

created additional obstacles to the registration of societies and to the limited 

associational rights of workers.

The U.S. Government continues to engage with the Government of Bangladesh 

regarding these and other concerns about lack of freedom of association in the EPZs. 

The issue has been and remains an important part of the continuing review of 

Bangladesh’s eligibility for benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences 

(GSP) trade program. We also encourage the Government of Bangladesh to take the 

measures recommended by the ILO’s Committee of Experts to bring its law and 

practice into full conformity with international labor standards. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY PETER J. KAUFMAN

It is a great honor to be asked to make a statement regarding labor in Bangladesh. I would like to acknowledge the critical importance of this committee and 

this hearing. Two catastrophic events in Bangladesh over the last several months 

have focused worldwide attention on egregious labor, safety, and human rights violations that exist in Bangladesh today. First, the terrible fire in November that 

killed almost 200 people and then the recent building collapse that killed upwards 

of 1,200 people and both disasters occurred in garment factories. Since then, there 

has been intense media scrutiny of Bangladeshi labor as well as uproar and protests 

from numerous human rights groups and the public at large. Therefore, the committee’s focus on ‘‘Labor in Bangladesh’’ could not be more urgent and timely. 

As an observer of labor and the industrialization of Bangladesh in the fashion industry for some 30 years, I have witnessed notable progress in terms of growth and 

development. Yet Bangladesh is unique and can be frustrating. Despite progress in 

some sectors, Bangladesh remains an underdeveloped country. Per capita wages 

make it one of the poorest countries on earth. 

BANGLADESH

The fashion industry is usually the first industry to invest in developing countries 

because it is an industry that requires minimal labor skills. I use the term ‘‘fashion 

industry’’ rather than exclusively the ‘‘garment industry’’ because the range of product is more inclusive: garments, home products such as bedding, decorative pillows, 

handbags, jewelry, shoes, hosiery and other accessories. Especially in the case of accessories, hand work is often required. Post-World-War-II Japan was considered a 

developing country. U.S. consumers in the 1950s and 1960s were flooded with imports with a ‘‘Made in Japan’’ label. Hard goods gradually replaced soft goods as 

Japan became a more sophisticated manufacturing country. As countries progress 

in this manner, labor becomes prohibitively expensive and the cost of fashion items 

is no longer competitive. In addition, since hard goods have a higher price tag so 

their manufacturing is encouraged. This helped Japan’s trade deficits and increased 

their GDP. Therefore, the fashion industry moved in to countries such as South 

Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, etc. These countries were ripe for development. Today, ‘‘Made in China’’ is on almost every type of product. This is largely 

due to two factors: our ‘‘free market’’ environment and China’s remarkable success 

story of industrialization. Observing these trends over many years, Bangladesh has 

not accelerated at the same rate as the other countries mentioned here. Indeed, it 

has unusual burdens that keep it back from more rapid growth. Unemployment is 

already rampant. Only by virtue of trade legislation does a very poor country like 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

65

Bangladesh have the ability to compete with China. Without this tariff relief, the 

entire Bangladeshi economy would be in chaos. 

In order for a developing country to attract investment it must have: (a) political 

stability; (b) a reliable infrastructure that includes roads, reliable shipping via sea 

and air; and (c) a motivated and reliable labor force. When I first visited the country 

in the early 1980s, Bangladesh had only (c) a reliable labor force. Doing business 

there was out of the question. The factories that did exist had appalling working 

conditions. Excluded were the most basic amenities such as proper lighting, sanitation, and safe housing. The Port of Chittagong, nearest to the capital city of Dhaka, 

was primitive. In fact, it was famously unreliable due to the fairly regular sinking 

of cargo ships as a result of typhoons and other natural disasters. Not only was the 

quality of the merchandise unreliable, there was also a lack of on-time delivery. 

Additionally, the lead times for manufacturing were excessively long—often more 

than 6 months—because basic materials such as fabrics, findings, and thread, had 

to be imported from South Korea or Taiwan. It is a tribute to the great spirit and 

work ethic of the Bangladeshi people that some progress has been achieved. 

Today, 30 years later, Bangladesh remains basically an agricultural country. Men 

still work primarily in the fields. Women often work in the factories. Thus women 

are most vulnerable to the vicissitudes of working in factories with substandard conditions. Yet significant progress has been made in some areas. 

After 30 years, Bangladesh still lags behind in heavy and medium-level industries 

while other countries in central and east Asia are key players in the automobile industry. Although infrastructure has improved significantly in some areas, other 

areas of the country still lack reliable power, telecommunication, transportation, 

water and gas. Continuing governmental instability coupled with an entrenched 

bureaucracy puts additional burden on the existing manufacturers and inhibits 

investment. Due to its long colonial rule, economic discrimination and government 

nationalization of this industry, growth has been slow. While we can place much of 

the blame on these economic and geopolitical factors, the fact remains that too many 

factories have existed in the same conditions for the last 30 years. Indeed a very 

large percentage the employees working in fashion products still have no expectation of safety, hygiene, fair pay, and human rights. 

On the positive side new, state-of-the-art factories have been built including some 

in heavy industries. These private enterprises area making a remarkable contribution to the national economy. In the garment business, for instance, I visited vertical 

sweater and knitwear facilities. Yet historically Bangladesh had only specialized in 

woven fabrics. These factories met every international standard of safety, fair 

wages, and human rights. Today, the combined tally of the so-called ‘‘ready-made 

garments’’ along with the entire textile sector not only make an enormous contribution to this country’s GDP, it is also, by far, its largest export. 

BEYOND BANGLADESH

In September, just prior to the November fire in Bangladesh, there was another 

catastrophic incident. The New York Times reported that ‘‘Fire ravaged a textile factory complex in the commercial hub of Karachi early Wednesday, killing almost 300 

workers trapped behind locked doors and raising questions about the woeful lack 

of regulation in a vital sector of Pakistan’s faltering economy. It was Pakistan’s 

worst industrial accident, officials said, and it came just hours after another fire, 

at a shoe factory . . . had killed at least 25.’’ The Times goes on to report: ‘‘every 

exit but one had been locked . . . and the windows were mostly barred. In desperation, some flung themselves from the top floors of the four-story building, sustaining 

serious injuries or worse, witnesses said. But many others failed to make it that far, 

trapped by an inferno that advanced mercilessly through a building that officials 

later described as a death trap.’’ Indeed, the Pakistan Institute of Labor Education 

and Research, a labor rights group, said that ‘‘151 workers died in similar accidents 

in 2011.’’ According to the Institute: ‘‘The state was partly responsible for the deaths 

. . . because its civil servants silently and criminally allow violation of laws and 

regulations established to ensure health and safety provisions at work.’’ There are 

striking parallels to Bangladesh. While I applaud the committee’s focus on Bangladesh in these hearings, I respectively point out that sweatshops such as these, 

often equally dangerous, exist all over the world. I have personally been witness to 

horrific examples in Africa, in China, Guam, Central America, and Indonesia to 

name a few. Even in the United States there have existed clandestine factories in 

Queens, Brooklyn, and Long Island, not to mention in border towns from Texas 

through southern California. 

Labor Behind the Label, a human rights organization, reported about the incident 

in Pakistan: ‘‘the fire follows a pattern of negligence occurring not just in Pakistan 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

66

but throughout the garment industry. Brand and retailers must therefore take more 

action to address the root causes of such disasters.’’ 

A CULTURE OF CHEAP LEADS TO GREED

The culture of ‘‘cheap’’ in the United States (and elsewhere) takes a terrible toll on human beings at the other end. As consumers, we are offered the ‘‘$17’’ dress—

at full price—in trendy stores. As retailers, brands, and importers squeeze for 

higher profits, their ‘‘sourcing executives’’ that place the orders on the ground must 

squeeze at the other end. A result of this is subcontracting, which occurs despite 

official contracts and ‘‘Letters of Credit’’ specifically prohibiting it. At the local factory level, owners and management also press for profitability. When the retail price 

becomes impossibly cheap while the cost of labor and materials remain the same, 

someone must pay the price. Those at the lowest end of the food chain are the ones 

who pay. The factory laborers are forced to endure horrendous conditions. Since 

there is already rampant unemployment in many of these countries, workers have 

no choice but to work in horrendous conditions for $50 a month. While it is true 

that some retailers and brands did have direct knowledge of factory conditions, the 

reality is that ‘‘subcontracting’’ or ‘‘outsourcing’’ can and does occur everywhere in 

the world. 

As we examine the supply chain, from consumer to laborer, there is yet another 

human factor beyond mere profitability: greed. Surely this is a motivating factor 

when factory managers and supervisors block fire escapes due to overcrowded conditions. Surely this must be a motivation when fire extinguishers are intentionally 

removed or misplaced. Loading far too many sewing machines into electrical outlets 

incapable of handling them is yet another example. Imposing long working hours 

in order to maintain profits is another example. It is also well documented that factory supervisors will beat their employees into working ‘‘harder’’ and ’better.’’ Surely 

there exists a ‘‘culture’’ in Bangladesh that allows such horrific violations to perpetuate. It is not only appalling and inhumane but illegal. 

SUMMATION

Internationally, garment production on behalf of U.S. companies in factories with 

exploitative policies and hazardous working conditions has fueled anti-Western sentiment. Recent Islamist riots in Bangladesh have added to the country’s striking 

death toll and increased pressure on its endangered fashion industry. Given that a 

large percentage of fashion industry manufacturing wordwide is located in the Muslim world, Islamist radicals use these catastrophic incidents as propaganda tools undermining public opinion of the West, but also potentially undermining the stability 

of already faltering regimes. By demanding ethical, humane garment production we 

can better the U.S. fashion industry’s reputation and prevent some of the violence 

and instability that hinders workers from making a proper livelihood. 

I know that this committee will be considering powerful and well-intentioned 

efforts to improve factory conditions for laborers in Bangladesh. One approach could 

be along the lines of threatening with removing tariff relief if conditions are not 

improved ‘‘soon enough.’’ But this is not the correct approach. If such legislation is 

imposed, Bangladesh will no longer be competitive in the fashion-related products 

that make up the bulk of their GDP and their exportation. If this should pass, I 

do entirely agree that the industrialists, factory owners, management and supervisors will be punished. These terrible factories will finally close. However, along 

with them, the many good factories that already observe human rights and international guide lines will close as well. The ‘‘good’’ factories make up a large percentage of the total volume. Most significantly, the ripple effect of such legislation is 

that it will most profoundly affect the tens of thousands of innocent laborers who 

are already victimized. Surely, it is preferable that workers can have a choice 

whether or not to work under current conditions and in improving conditions rather 

than joining the millions who are already unemployed. I believe that there is an 

alternative strategy: Allowing retailers, brands, and manufacturers to take responsibility for business on the ground. Without orders, there is no business and therefore 

there can be no factories. Collectively, they should take responsibility for improving 

conditions, enforcing international labor standards and as well as working in tandem with local representatives to address safety issues in every country they source 

from. 

I see that significant progress is already in work. There are too many to list. For 

instance, Phillips-Van Heusen recently announced that they had signed an important agreement: ‘‘the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) together with Bangladeshi and 

international human rights organizations worked with PVH (owner of Tommy 

Hilfiger and Calvin Klein) concerning Bangladesh, whose industry has suffered from 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

67

a spate of . . . fires involving brands such as H&M, Zara, and GAP. The agreement 

provides for independent inspections, training, and worker’s committees on health 

and safety issues.’’ Indeed there are all kinds of announcements by a variety of retailers and brands who are investing to improve the infrastructure in Bangladesh. 

Both Walmart Stores and Gap Inc. are meeting with ‘‘industry associations and the 

Bipartisan Policy Center to develop a plan to improve fire and safety regulation in 

Bangladesh factories.’’ 

However, no one yet has ever brought all these important retailers, brands, and 

manufactures to the table to collectively use their enormous buying power to change 

conditions on the ground. Inspired by recent experiences I had at the United 

Nations including such initiatives as Fashion4Development, Every Woman Every 

Child and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), I founded a nonprofit called 

Fair FashionTM. The primary directive of Fair FashionTM is to bring industry to the 

table—for the first time—to collectively use their buying power to improve conditions on the ground. If orders en masse are withheld, conditions will change. We 

suggest a symposium in the very near future to address this very issue. Eventually 

a consortium or coalition would be formed consisting of the most important retailers, 

brands, and manufacturers to address such issues as working conditions on the 

ground in addition to strategizing how to help developing countries create sustainable factories for the future. This process would be ongoing. 

I truly believe that harnessing the collective buying power of the most important 

retailers, brands and manufacturers will not only make the necessary changes but 

will also enable the people of Bangladesh to stay employed during this period of 

transition. An agreement has been signed in the EU spearheaded by H&M that 

includes all their major retailer and brands. Thus far most U.S. companies have 

refused to sign on fearing liability. The symposium will enable their U.S. counterparts to draft something analogous, but in language that is more practical. Using 

the EU agreement as a pro forma, their American counterparts will put their enormous collective buying power behind this agreement. The effect will have not only 

immediate change, but the right kind of change in the future. 

Finally, once again, I would respectfully like to point out to the committee that 

Bangladesh is not alone. The September fire in Pakistan that occurred just preceding the two disasters in Bangladesh is only one of many such incidents that 

occur far too frequently. Perhaps the only difference is that these occur ‘‘under the 

radar.’’ This problem is not just about Bangladesh. Indeed, sweatshops exist in 

many countries throughout the world. This is a global problem and should be 

addressed as such and as soon as possible. 

I would like to thank the committee again for allowing me to submit this statement and my point of view as part of the official record. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY KALPONA AKTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

BANGLADESH CENTER FOR WORKER SOLIDARITY (BCWS) 

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker, thank you for the opportunity 

to submit written testimony on the struggle of garment workers to secure basic 

labor rights in my home country of Bangladesh. Given the thousands of workers 

who have recently lost their lives or been severely injured working in Bangladesh’s 

apparel export sector, this hearing could not be more timely. 

My name is Kalpona Akter. I went to work in a garment factory in Bangladesh 

when I was 12 years old. I went to work because my father had a stroke and the 

family needed money to cover basic living expenses. My mother and I started working in the factory together, but my mother had a 2-month-old infant and so had to 

quit, so my 10-year-old brother and I were the ones who had to sustain the family. 

I was paid $6 a month back then for working up to 450 hours per month in sweatshop conditions. I worked for 8 years at that factory, but I was fired because I began 

organizing my coworkers to form a union so we could have better wages and conditions. I went to work for another union and then in 2000 I cofounded the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity, a labor rights advocacy organization that conducts research, offers worker training, and works closely with trade unions, such as 

the Bangladesh Garment Industry Worker Federation, to help workers know how 

to claim their rights. 

II. BACKGROUND

The garment export industry is a major employer in Bangladesh, with over 4 million workers, more than 80 percent of whom are women, mostly from poor, rural 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

68

backgrounds. They make clothing for export, mostly to the U.S. and European 

brands and retailers who have flocked to the country to take advantage of rockbottom wages. Bangladesh’s garment workers are the lowest-paid in the world, with 

an industry minimum wage of about $38 a month—due to inflation; this cannot buy 

any more than the $6 that I used to earn. 

Dangerous Factories 

Aside from long hours and low wages, apparel sector workers often work in factories with chronic safety problems. Since 2005, over 1,800 workers have died and 

thousands more were severely injured in garment factory fires and building collapses. These deaths and injuries could have been prevented had basic safety measures been in place and had workers’ right to refuse dangerous work been respected. 

While the recent tragedies at Tazreen Fashions and Rana Plaza, in which at least 

1,239 workers died making clothing for export, have understandably attracted international attention and condemnation, the fact is that most of the 5,000 garment factories in Bangladesh are not up to fire and building safety code—they are death 

traps. Any day more workers could be burned alive or crushed when a building collapses. In fact, since Tazreen, and not counting Rana, there have been at least 44 

incidents in the Bangladesh garment industry in which a total of 16 workers were 

killed and at least 691 workers were injured.1

Widespread union and worker repression 

On paper, Bangladeshi workers do have the legal right to form unions and collectively bargain with factory owners. In reality, attempts to unionize the country’s 

garment workers are ruthlessly suppressed, with activist workers harassed, 

blacklisted, or worse, with tacit government approval. 

Last year, my friend and colleague Aminul Islam, a garment worker-turned-labororganizer who worked for the Bangladesh Garment & Industrial Workers Federation and the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity, was killed, his body—bearing 

marks of torture—dumped on a highway. The government has failed to find or prosecute his killers, but we believe his murder was intended to create a climate of fear 

among other labor activists. He had been detained, tortured and jailed on previous 

occasions by security forces in the 2 years prior to his disappearance. 

III. BEYOND THE NUMBERS: STORIES FROM SURVIVORS

While the statistics of death and injury in recent months are astounding and have 

broken records, the numbers alone may not capture the pain and suffering of families who lost their loved ones and of all the severely injured workers who lost arms 

and legs, many amputated on site at Rana Plaza in rescue missions to pull workers 

from the rubble. Let me share just a few stories from workers who survived: 

Tazreen Fashions—Fire on November 24, 2012 2

• Rehana jumped from the 4th floor window of Tazreen Fashions and was 

knocked unconscious. She broke her leg. Doctors told her she will need to be 

on crutches for the rest of her life. 

• Reba was the breadwinner in her home. She jumped from the 3rd floor of 

Tazreen Fashions. She cannot work because of the pain. Her husband is sick. 

She has two sons, one of whom just qualified to get into the military college. 

She doesn’t know how she can afford it. 

• Rowshanara jumped from the 3rd floor and still has severe pain in her back 

and legs. She was visibly in pain after sitting too long with us. She is single 

and gets by on loans. She has two teenage children in school she doesn’t want 

to force to go to work, but she worries how she’ll get by. 

• Deepa worked on the 3rd floor. She saw the fire and tried to escape to the 2nd 

floor. The factory manager padlocked the door and told everyone to keep working. Workers were crying and searching for a way out. A mechanic yelled to 

come to the east side of the building where he had created an exit. She jumped 

from the 3rd floor and fell unconscious, breaking her leg. Deepa was 4 months 

pregnant and lost her baby. 

• Sumi decided to jump from the 3rd floor rather than perish in the factory because she wanted her family to be able to identify her body. She broke her leg 

and arm and could not move. Her family borrowed money to pay for medical 

bills before the Association funds arrived. Two weeks before Rana Plaza, she 

came to the U.S. to urge retailers and brands to join the enforceable and binding Accord on Fire and Building Safety. 

• Nazma said she would have died had she waited 10 minutes more to jump. She 

saw the manager locking the gate to the second set of stairs and grabbed him 

by the collar to stop him, but he ignored her. She cut her arms trying to get 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

69

through a window to reach a bamboo scaffolding. She broke her backbone. Now, 

she can’t carry anything or do household work. She has three children. Her 

stipend was spent on medical care and her children’s education. Her 14-yearold son had to leave school to go to work. 

Rana Plaza—Building Collapse on April 24, 2013 3

• Rabeya was working at New Wave Style Ltd. in Rana Plaza the day it collapsed. She has two sons and two daughters—and works because her husband’s 

income is not sufficient to support the family. ‘‘I did not want to go to work. 

But we were threatened by the owner that we would not get our salary if we 

didn’t show up,’’ she said. 

Describing what happened when the building collapsed, she said: ‘‘Upstairs, 

suddenly I saw some workers running. I also tried to save myself. But I could 

not and fell down. A part of ceiling had fallen on me and my legs were stuck 

between metal rods. Meanwhile a big wall had fallen on my chest, breaking my 

sternum. It took 2 hours to free myself from the trapped condition. After that 

I could move a little bit. I fell down and screamed, ‘‘ ‘Father . . . save me!’ People rescued me when they heard my scream.’’ 

Still in the hospital, Rabeya is facing a long recovery and an insecure future. 

Her face and nose have been crushed, her two legs broken, and her chest bones 

broken. ‘‘Now, this is the outcome of my decision to support my family. I have 

become a burden on my husband and my children,’’ she said. 

• Moriom, 28 years old, lost her right hand in the Rana Plaza building collapse 

and today fumes in anger and concern about her bleak future: ‘‘None of us 

wanted to go to the factory that day. They forced us to go there. It was end 

of the month; we would not get paid for that day if we were absent. We are 

very poor, and we cannot bear that loss,’’ she said. Moriom has a daughter and 

a son living with her mother in a village. Her husband left her long time ago. 

They were going to school. She is now uncertain about their future: ‘‘I am the 

only earning family member. How I will work now?’’ she said very sadly. 

IV. THE BANGLADESH SAFETY ACCORD

The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh is a legally binding, 

enforceable agreement between companies and unions, created to improve safety in 

the Bangladesh garment industry.4 Negotiations for the Accord began in the months 

following a fire on December 14, 2010, which killed 29 workers who were trapped 

inside a factory supplying several U.S. companies: Abercrombie & Fitch, Carters, 

Gap Inc, Kohl’s, PVH, Target, and VF Corporation. Since then, Abercrombie & Fitch 

and PVH have signed onto the Accord. All told, the Accord now has 41 companies 

as signatories including brands and retailers from a dozen countries,5 two global 

unions—UNI and IndustriALL, and Bangladeshi unions. 

The Accord includes independent safety inspections with public reports; mandatory repairs and renovations to address all identified hazards; and a central role for 

workers and unions, including worker-led safety committees in all factories and 

access to factories for unions to educate workers on how they can protect their 

rights and their safety, including their right to refuse unsafe work. The heart of the 

Accord is the commitment by companies to work with their suppliers to secure 

financing, maintain orders, and ensure renovations and repairs are completed to 

make factory buildings in Bangladesh safe. 

How the Accord will save lives 

I am confident that had the Accord been operational in the factories before the 

disasters, workers’ lives would have been spared at Tazreen and Rana Plaza. 

Mandatory renovations, with brands ensuring financing 

First of all, if the Tazreen and Rana factories had been covered by the Accord, 

the inspections would have revealed major safety problems and resulted in the U.S. 

and European brands and retailers being required to ensure financing for mandatory renovations. Tazreen would have undergone renovations to make the staircases 

fireproof, add additional exit doors, and upgrade electrical wiring. Rana Plaza would 

probably have been closed down due to the illegal construction of the building on 

top of unstable swampy ground, which was then worsened by the illegal additions 

of several floors beyond the five permitted floors. The warning signs of a safety hazard had been evident for a long time: workers told me that the building would shake 

on a regular basis as a result of the three heavy industrial generators in the building. While Rana Plaza would have been closed, under the Accord, the brands would 

have been required to ensure that the factories continued to pay workers their regFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

70

ular wage or helped them to find employment at neighboring factories, while the 

factories were either renovated or relocated to safer buildings. 

Right to refuse illegal work 

Garment workers in my country live in such poverty that they cannot afford to 

lose even a day of work. So when workers at Rana Plaza were told they would not 

receive their salary if they didn’t show up—some were even told they would lose 

a month’s salary for not returning the day after the cracks appeared—they returned 

to work. Perhaps some of the workers believed what they heard on the loudspeaker 

on the morning of April 24, ‘‘All the workers of Rana Plaza, go to work. The factory 

has already been repaired.’’ 6 Others, while likely skeptical about the safety of the 

building, perhaps felt at a loss of other options for putting food on the table for their 

children, and so decided to prioritize their family’s survival over concern for their 

own safety that tragic day. The behavior of management in this case is a blatant 

denial of workers’ right to refuse dangerous work. Under the Accord, workers would 

not have to choose between such stark options: starve or risk your life. Instead, 

there is a third way, a path of reason, where workers’ are not discriminated against 

for refusing dangerous work and they receive their regular pay while safety measures are put into place at their worksite, whether that means major building renovations or moving the factory to a new site. 

At Tazreen, when the fire started, for workers on some floors their usual sweatshop job became a circumstance of forced labor. Sumi Abedin, a garment worker 

who worked on the fourth floor, said that when the first person on her floor smelled 

smoke, and she and her coworkers started to move for the stairs, her supervisor said 

it was a false alarm and ordered them back to work, locking the collapsible metal 

gate between the floor and the main staircase. The supervisor said to ignore the fire 

alarm—that it was just a false alarm—and told them to keep working. The factories 

in my country are under such high production quotas and tight turnaround deadlines from U.S. and European brands that supervisors will sometimes ignore a fire 

alarm in order to not lose precious production time. This circumstance would have 

been avoided under the Accord, which requires respect for workers’ right to refuse 

dangerous work and prohibits brands from cutting orders from a supplier that 

makes repairs or upgrades necessary to protect workers’ lives. 

Workers in my country are afraid to organize; their legal right to freedom of association and collective bargaining is not guaranteed. Under the Accord, companies 

are required to allow union access. If workers’ at Rana had bargaining rights, perhaps they could have exercised collective action and refused to return to work the 

day after cracks appeared in the walls. 

Public reporting of audit results 

After the September 11, 2012, fire at Ali Enterprises factory in Karachi, Pakistan, 

killed 259 workers who were trapped inside, Social Accountability International 

(SAI)—a New York-based group—came under intense scrutiny by labor rights advocates and the media.7 The root of the concern was twofold: first, auditors accredited 

under SAI’s system had given the factory a clean bill of health only weeks before 

the fire, and second, SAI refused to disclose any reporting from the audit, citing confidentiality agreements. I ask: how is it that SAI can justify keeping their knowledge of the factory confidential when the case involves the largest factory fire in 

known history in the global garment industry? 

Another auditing firm, the Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI), had certified two factories in Rana Plaza, New Wave Style and Phantom Apparel. The Web 

site of another factory in the building, Ether Tex Ltd, advertised a BSCI audit as 

well, and that it had also passed inspection for the Service Organization for Compliance Audit Management (SOCAM). Clearly, we can’t count on these auditing firms 

to ensure safety for our workers, particularly when BSCI (despite having health and 

safety requirements in its code) disclaims any responsibility for worker deaths in 

the premises it had certified by saying: ‘‘The reasons for the collapse of the factories 

seem to be related to the poor infrastructure of the Rana Plaza building. BSCI 

focuses on monitoring and improving labour issues within factories and relies on 

local authorities to ensure the construction and infrastructure is secure.’’ 8

In my country, where the majority of garment factories are not in compliance with 

fire and building safety code, it is unacceptable for an auditor to ignore construction 

and infrastructure issues. Under the Accord, independent inspections will be conducted by experts in fire and building safety, and compiled audit results will be 

made publicly accessible as well as available to the union signatories, which can in 

turn inform workers on any hazards identified. At the same time, as signatories to 

a legally binding agreement, the companies that are part of the Accord must ensure 

that the factory buildings are brought up to code. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

71

Why industry alternatives won’t help 

Facing mounting international criticism for refusing to join the Bangladesh Safety 

Accord, a group of North American brands, led by Gap and Walmart, have indicated 

they will launch their own scheme purporting to address fire and building safety 

issues in the Bangladesh garment industry. 

While the full details have yet to be released, the companies haven’t given us any 

reason to believe that their program will include the core elements of the Accord 

which are so essential to preventing more tragic deaths: transparency of audit 

results, union involvement, and real respect for workers’ right to refuse dangerous 

work—all in a legally binding and enforceable agreement in which brands ensure 

that factories have the financial wherewithal to carry out needed fire and building 

safety repairs. And it’s telling that Gap and Walmart didn’t even bother to meet 

with workers’ representatives while developing this new public relations stunt. 

There is no credible reason why retailers like Gap and Walmart should not join 

the 41 companies that have already signed the Accord on Fire and Building Safety 

in Bangladesh and make a real commitment to worker safety. Instead, they continue to barrage the public with new programs and initiatives that simply repackage 

the failed programs of the past that led to the deaths and injuries of workers in 

hundreds of incidents in Bangladesh’s garment industry in recent years. 

Under the Gap/Walmart scheme, even if companies agree to remediate and 

finance repairs, we have no guarantee that they will actually do so and we cannot 

hold them accountable because they refuse to make contractual commitments to 

worker safety. 

Walmart routinely violates their voluntary, nonbinding code of conduct and 

breaks their promises to workers for safe and decent working conditions. Why 

should workers trust any new voluntary, nonbinding commitment by Walmart? 

V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

In order to improve safety conditions in factories in my country supplying the U.S. 

market, and to protect workers lives, with this testimony I urge the U.S. Government to:

(1) Urge all U.S. brands and retailers whose clothing was made at Tazreen and 

Rana Plaza to pay the full and fair compensation they owe to the injured workers 

and to the families of the workers who were killed. 

(2) Call on all U.S. brands and retailers that source clothing from Bangladesh to 

sign onto the Bangladesh Safety Accord, joining with 41 other companies, including 

three U.S. companies: Abercrombie & Fitch, PVH, and Sean John Apparel. 

(3) Mandate the U.S. Joint Military Exchanges to join the Bangladesh Safety 

Accord, and to mandate all other apparel brands sold in the Exchanges to do the 

same. (4) Require all U.S. brands and retailers to publicly disclose the locations of their 

supplier factories as well as make available a copy of all current and future audit 

reports. 

(5) Call on U.S. companies to provide fair commercial terms, including adequate 

prices and delivery schedules, to make possible factory investment in safe conditions 

and higher wages, and urge the Bangladesh Government to respect workers’ right 

to freedom of association so it is possible for garment workers to negotiate for higher 

wages. 

(6) Help provide support for mental health services for garment workers dealing 

with long-term trauma as a result of factory fires and building collapses. 

(7) Join with the United Kingdom in taking a new approach to export-led development programs by not only providing significant financing to ensure the 

Bangladeshi apparel industry is made safe and decent for workers, but also publicly 

acknowledging, as Minister Duncan did this week, the responsibility U.S. brands 

and retailers have to workers making the products they sell.9

————————

End Notes 1 As catalogued by the Solidarity Center, during November 24, 2012, to May 31, 2013; on file 

with the International Labor Rights Forum. 2 As incorporated in U.S. House of Representatives floor statement submitted for the record 

of June 5, 2013, by U.S. Representative George Miller, Ranking Member of House Committee 

on Education and the Workforce. 3These worker stories were collected by an outreach committee that the Solidarity Center 

office in Dhaka organized with its partners, including BCWS. 4 A copy of the Accord is available at http://laborrights.org/safetymou. 

5 As of June 4, 2013, the companies in the Accord include Abercrombie & Fitch, Aldi, 

Benetton, Bonmarche, C&A, Carrefour, Charles Vo ̈gele, Comtex, El Corte Ingle ́s, Esprit, Fat 

Cat, G-Star, H&M, Helly Hansen, HEMA, Hess Natur, Inditex (Zara), JBC, John Lewis, KIK, 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

72

LIDL, Loblaw, Mango, Marks & Spencer, Mothercare, N. Brown group (SimplyBe, 

High&Mighty, etc.), New Look, Next, Otto Group, Primark, PVH, Rewe, Sainsbury’s, Sean John 

Apparel, s.Oliver, Stockmann, Switcher, Tchibo, Tesco, V&D, and WE Group. 6 As reported by Pintu, 18, and Shilpi, 21, workers at New Wave Bottom Ltd, one of the factories in the Rana Plaza building, recalling the loudspeaker announcement they heard the morning of November 24, 2013. This testimony was collected by an outreach committee that the Solidarity Center office in Dhaka organized with its partners, including BCWS. 7See for example, this December 7, 2012, New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/

2012/12/08/world/asia/pakistan-factory-fire-shows-flaws-in-monitoring.html. 8 As printed on BSCI Web site; retrieved on June 5, 2013: http://www.bsci-intl.org/newsevents/news. 9 As reported on June 4, 2013, by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22777071. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

73

WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY AKRAMUL QADER, AMBASSADOR OF BANGLADESH

TO THE UNITED STATES

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang1.eps
74

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang2.eps
75

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang3.eps
76

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang4.eps
77

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang5.eps
78

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang6.eps
79

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang7.eps
80

Æ

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER


Bang8.eps