Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health

The problem presented in the article is a complex issue since workers’ safety in global supply chains can be ensured only in the case of the combined efforts of involved nations. However, the existing regulations do not seem to adequately address this aspect of business activity, and countries start to develop new initiatives (Salminen, 2018). They are intended to eliminate the risks for all affected persons in the process as well as share the liability erroneously attributed solely to manufacturers and their partners.

The essence of the problem under consideration is in the presence of multiple stakeholders, the absence of proper penalties, and the continuous neglect of this aspect by companies oriented on profits in the first place. Therefore, the Triangle fire discussed in the article is not the only event of this nature since there is a row of similarities between this case and such catastrophes as the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh (Salminen, 2018). In this way, the development of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety by this country corresponds to the global intentions in this aspect (Salminen, 2018). It means that the overall tendency regarding the provision of safe conditions for employees in supply chains is positive.

To summarize, the actions in the direction of establishing safety for people working for factories and other manufacturing enterprises correlate with the business world’s needs. In this situation, the United States’ leaders were initiators of the change at the legislative level. As can be seen from the experience of Bangladesh, they supported this trend and contributed to the creation of a safe environment. Thus, the future of the field is promising compared to the countries’ previous failure to protect their citizens from catastrophic events.

Reference

Salminen, J. (2018). The accord on fire and building safety in Bangladesh: A new paradigm for limiting buyers’ liability in global supply chains?. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 66(2), 411-451.