Notes on Power, Supply Chains, and Structural Violence
This section is not merely a catalogue of tragedies. It is a structural explanation of how modern fashion supply chains distribute profit, risk, and responsibility.
The Rana Plaza collapse functions as a stress test for the global fashion system. What failed was not only a building, but an entire model of governance.
1. Corporate Response as Risk Management
In the immediate aftermath of the Rana Plaza disaster, brands did not rush to identify responsibility. Instead, they focused on containment.
H&M’s initial statement followed a familiar logic:
- denial of direct involvement (“we did not produce there”),
- reframing of causality (“this is an infrastructure problem, not an industry problem”),
- and a moral disclaimer (“this does not mean we will not engage constructively”).
This pattern reveals a key feature of Fashionopolis:
reputational risk is treated as more urgent than human loss, and responsibility is defined narrowly by contractual distance rather than by economic power.
Many brands remained silent altogether. Silence itself became a strategy.
2. Supply Chains Designed for Plausible Deniability
After Rana Plaza, NGOs and researchers had to identify producing brands by:
- searching rubble for labels,
- cross-checking import databases,
- triangulating factory websites and export records.
This is crucial:
traceability had to be reconstructed after the fact, proving that opacity is not an accident, but a structural feature of fast fashion supply chains.
Subcontracting fragments accountability. Even when brands claim ignorance, the system is designed so that ignorance is always plausible.
3. Two Models of “Responsibility”: Binding vs Voluntary
The response to factory safety split the industry into two camps:
- The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh
– legally binding, enforceable, supported largely by European brands. - The Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety
– voluntary, non-binding, preferred by many American brands citing liability concerns.
The difference is not about safety standards.
It is about whether safety creates legal obligation.
The industry consistently favors voluntary compliance over enforceable responsibility, even after repeated disasters.
4. The Pyramid Structure of Fashion
This section makes visible the true hierarchy of Fashionopolis:
Top: Brands & Shareholders
- Control pricing, lead times, and order volumes.
- Driven by quarterly earnings expectations.
- Bear reputational risk, not physical risk.
Middle: Compliance Systems
- Audits, codes of conduct, safety accords.
- Capable of improving infrastructure.
- Easily bypassed by shifting orders to informal or shadow factories.
Bottom: Workers
- Bear bodily risk, long-term health damage, trauma, unemployment.
- Often excluded from compensation.
- Trapped by poverty wages that leave no room for refusal.
Profit flows upward.
Risk flows downward.
5. Improvement Without Transformation
Post–Rana Plaza reforms did achieve measurable improvements:
- thousands of safety violations corrected,
- hundreds of factories closed,
- better fire systems and inspections.
But the deeper structure remained intact.
Shadow factories continue to operate alongside compliant ones.
Wages remain below living standards.
Unionization is suppressed.
Subcontracting persists.
The system allows safety upgrades without power redistribution.
6. Compensation Without Accountability
What brands contributed after Rana Plaza was carefully framed.
Not “compensation,” but the Rana Plaza Arrangement.
Language matters.
Compensation implies responsibility.
An arrangement implies discretion.
Access to these funds remains uneven, bureaucratic, and often insufficient. Survivors like Shila Begum and Mahmudul Hridoy illustrate the gap between public gestures and lived reality.
7. The Role of Trade and Financial Pressure
Underlying everything is a deeper driver:
short-term profit maximization under shareholder pressure.
As Mark Anner notes, quarterly earnings expectations leave little room for long-term investment in labor conditions. When margins tighten, pressure cascades down the supply chain — until it reaches those with the least power to resist.
Workers are treated not as stakeholders, but as adjustable cost variables.
8. Central Insight of This Section
The human cost of fashion is not the result of ignorance or isolated misconduct.
It is the predictable outcome of:
- fragmented global supply chains,
- voluntary rather than binding governance,
- weak labor protections in export economies,
- and a financial system obsessed with short-term returns.
Workers are not peripheral to the system.
They are its shock absorbers.
Closing Reflection
Rana Plaza did not expose a hidden problem.
It exposed a known one, long tolerated.
The industry has learned how to improve appearances, manage outrage, and upgrade infrastructure. What it has not yet accepted is the need to redistribute power.
Until that changes, Fashionopolis will continue to function — efficiently, profitably, and at a profound human cost.
Leave a comment