The 2013 Rana Plaza disaster marked a turning point in global awareness of the conditions faced by workers in Bangladesh's garment industry. The collapse of the factory building, which claimed the lives of 1,134 workers and injured 2,500 more people, exposed deep flaws in building safety, oversight, and accountability in the global supply chain. In its aftermath, the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety was established as a legally binding agreement between international brands, local factory owners, and trade unions for 5 years. This ushered in an era of enhanced factory inspections, safety protocols, and worker engagement mechanisms.
In late 2018, the Bangladeshi Government and Bangladesh Garments Manufacturing and Exporting Association (BGMEA) initiated legal proceedings to expel the Accord arguing that national regulatory bodies could take over the responsibility of safety protocols at garment factories. Following a Supreme Court rule in 2019, the Accord was phased out in May 2020 and replaced with a new initiative called the Readymade Sustainability Council (RSC) effective from June 2020. While the RSC continues much of the safety oversight work initiated by the Accord, it differs significantly in terms of governance, enforcement, and engagement with workers.
As part of our THREADS project we have initiated a series of conversations with industry and change managers for the global garment sector.
In Spring 2025, we engaged in an open conversation with Mr Kamrul Islam, Marketing Director at Knit Concept Limited, where we explored these transitions and their implications for the Bangladeshi garment industry. An industry expert, Mr Kamrul shared his experience and offered critical comparison between the two regulations with specific focus on the approach, safety measures, vetting processes, and the implications for worker safety and international trade dynamics as part of this change management in Bangladesh’s garment industry.
Undeniably, the Bangladesh Accord can be considered as unique due to its independent and legally binding structure between global brands, retailers, and trade unions to ensure improved workplace safety in the sector. Accord operated with a strong emphasis on third-party inspections, legally enforceable commitments, and worker participation through union representation. It held that brands are accountable for the safety standards of the factories from which they source; if a factory was found to be non-compliant, brands could be penalised or required to assist in remediation efforts. This approach created pressure for compliance and transparency and saw more than 200 brands, together with over 1,600 factories, inspected, leading to significant safety upgrades across the sector.
In contrast, the RSC is designed as different model, as it is a private, voluntary initiative. Although formed with participation from brands, factory owners, and trade unions, it may have limited legal authority compared to the Accord. While this transition theoretically localizes accountability, it raises concerns over potential conflicts of interest, as factory owners now have significant influence over safety regulation enforcement. Brands are no longer legally obligated to comply with supplier factories. Instead, RSC certification is a prerequisite imposed by buyers such as H&M and Zara. Although influential, this buyer-driven model does not guarantee the same level of accountability or enforceability. Reflecting on this, Mr Kamrul also nodded that complying with RSC regulations is favoured by factory owners, compared to more stringent Accord requirements.
With the focus narrowed to infrastructure and compliance, one major shift is in the scope of oversight. The RSC concentrates on infrastructure and physical safety standards, including fire prevention, structural soundness, and electrical systems – putting the labour rights issue on a sideline. Factories are rated on a green-yellow-red scale, and annual inspections help to monitor compliance. However, the RSC does not actively address broader labour rights issues, such as working hours, verbal abuse, or wage theft. Experts such as Mr Kamrul expresses concerns over whether the long-term commitments to worker safety will remain a priority under the RSC, particularly in an industry with a history of inadequate enforcement of labour rights. The Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI) plays a significant role in the Bangladesh garment sector by promoting better working conditions and social responsibility among suppliers to international buyers.
Bangladesh is a major player in the global garment industry, and BSCI provides a framework for factories to improve their social and environmental performance. However, the BSCI is a voluntary requirement now and only very large factories comply with this framework for credibility. The truth is that most medium and small factories cannot afford to comply with BSCI regulations and may opt out of this framework. Kamrul Islam, who has overseen implementing both Accord and RSC protocols in his factory during his 20-year career, noted that while the RSC plays a crucial role in ensuring safe buildings, it does not directly engage with workers. Language barriers and mistrust in foreign-led systems lead many workers to hesitate in reporting violations. Although the RSC has a formal mechanism for complaints, its effectiveness is limited by a lack of worker confidence and accessibility at the grassroots level. Again, as a codified inclusive approach, RSC incorporates a tripartite structure consisting of representatives from brands, industry, and worker organizations. However, it risks diluting the independence of inspections if industry representatives prioritize business interests over worker safety.
On this backdrop, RSC certification has rather become a business imperative. International buyers often demand RSC approval before placing an order. For larger, well-funded factories, the cost of compliance is justified by continued access to global markets. However, smaller factories continue to struggle. The financial burden of maintaining certification can be too high, leading many to subcontract through certified factories instead of seeking certification. This creates a dual system in which the formal safety net does not cover the entire production chain.
This fragmentation undermines universal safety under the disguise of industry self-regulation. Without a comprehensive system that includes subcontractors and small-scale operations, the industry risks repeating past oversights. Moreover, the absence of mandatory government enforcement in the RSC model raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and inconsistent implementation as factory owners now have significant influence over safety regulation enforcement.
Under the Accord, governance was largely international, with independent inspectors and binding commitments from brands. However, the RSC is governed within Bangladesh and includes more direct participation from local industrial leaders. While this shift aims to localise responsibility, it also reduces external scrutiny. Transparency is a concern; unlike the Accord, the RSC has faced criticism for limited public disclosure of factory inspection reports and compliance data.
Kamrul also emphasised the importance of maintaining international trust. Buyers from Europe and North America remain sensitive to reputational risks and will not hesitate to shift production to other countries if Bangladesh fails to uphold its safety standards. In this context, the RSC must prove that it can uphold rigorous standards independently or risk losing the hard-won gains achieved under the Accord.
The RSC represents a step forward in institutionalising safety norms within Bangladesh. It signals the maturation of local industry governance and attempts to sustain improvements without relying solely on external pressures. However, its voluntary nature, narrow scope, and reduced worker engagement render it vulnerable to slippage as critics argue that this transition could be inspired by lower compliance cost by buyers.
As the garment sector remains vital to Bangladesh's economy – commanding over 80% of annual export earnings for the country - safeguarding workers’ rights and factory safety is not only a moral obligation but also an economic one. The sector’s global reputation depends on credible, enforceable, rigorous and transparent safety systems. The RSC, while necessary, cannot afford to be complacent. It must evolve to include stronger worker protections, wider stakeholder input, and greater openness.
The transition from the Bangladesh Accord to the RSC reflects a broader shift in the monitoring and enforcement of global supply chains and an important aspect of change management in the garment sector. While the Accord arose from a tragedy and was driven by legal obligation, the RSC inherits the operational structure and inspection protocols of the Accord. However, RSC’s relocation under local jurisdiction with shared governance among brands, factory owners, and trade unions has stirred concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and diminished accountability, in particular for the labour rights issues. Whether it succeeds depends on its ability to expand its mandate, maintain buyer confidence, and engage workers in a meaningful manner. Bangladesh has an opportunity to lead the way in ethical, sustainable garment manufacturing if institutions are willing to match ambition with accountability.
