A Thousand Lives: The Hidden Cost of Clothes

Three weeks ago the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh collapsed, killing 1,127 people. A majority of these were workers producing garments for sale in the United States and Europe. The factory manufactured apparel for brands including Benetton and Walmart among others. An investigation revealed that the building was deemed unsafe just days before the collapse, but factory supervisors ordered their employees to continue working in these hazardous conditions.

jp-bangladesh1-articleLargeThe obvious question is why a tragedy like this would occur, even after there had been a forewarning. The answer is because factories like Rana Plaza and others in Bangladesh are under immense pressure to produce a high volume of low-cost garments for their biggest buyers, Walmart, H&M, Inditex (which owns Zara), and Gap to name a few. These companies pride themselves on their ability to get apparel into stores only weeks after designing them. However, this incredible efficiency requires a tremendous amount of manual labor, and no where are labor costs cheaper than in Bangladesh. The massive global supply chains of a majority of apparel manufacturers flow through the South Asian country which trails only China in terms of garments exported. Unfortunately, most of the large Western companies are unaware of the conditions that exist in the factories where their products are being produced.

The latest tragedy has finally caught the attention of European and American companies. This past week H&M, the largest buyer of garments from Bangladeshi factories, agreed to a plan to improve fire and building safety in Bangladesh’s apparel factories. The five-year plan calls for independent safety inspections and for companies to make the findings public. Joining H&M were Inditex, the world’s biggest clothing retailer, and several other European apparel companies. However, PVH, the owner of brands such as Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, is the only American company that has signed the pact. Companies including Gap, Walmart and JC Penney have considered the plan, but have not yet signed on, mostly due to the cost and how legal issues would be resolved.

130430150217-made-in-bangladesh-620xaI believe this safety pact is a step in the right direction on the road to abolishing subpar working conditions around the world. Therefore, from a management perspective, I think that companies that are not signing the pact, like Walmart and JC Penney, are making a mistake. Not signing sends a negative message to consumers and investors, if the companies are unwilling to spend money to protect human lives customers will question the ethics of the company’s management. Ethics is an important facet of operations management. The managers at American apparel companies need to recognize these issues, like their European counterparts have, and address the dangerous working conditions that exist in their supply chain. I think in the long run the benefits of ensuring safe conditions for all in the supply chain will outweigh the cost.

What is your opinion on the decision of many American companies to not sign the safety pact?

Do you think it is the duty of American companies to ensure the safety of workers in foreign countries?

 

Sources

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-13/h-and-m-pledges-to-make-bangladeshi-factories-safer 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79cedd4e-c000-11e2-b19c-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TmPslBBP

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/news/companies/hm-bangladesh-safety/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/world/asia/bangladesh-building-collapse.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/h-m-inditex-joining-bangladesh-pact-pressures-wal-mart-retail.html

My Old Kentucky Home: Lexus Production Moves to US

This past week Toyota announced that it will begin producing its Lexus luxury car in the United States for the first time. The company will invest over $500 million to move production of the Lexus ES 350 luxury sedan to its existing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. Until now the plant in Kentucky, Toyota’s oldest and largest in the United States, produced the flagship Toyota Camry, as well as the Avalon and Venza. The Lexus ES 350 shares underpinnings with the Camry and Avalon, making the transition somewhat easier. This aspect is just one of several strategic implications of the move of Lexus production to the United States.

While it’s parent is fully Japanese, Lexus is an American child, for many years the luxury car was available only in the United States. This focus on the American market led Lexus to the top of luxury car sales every year from 2000 to 2010. In recent years, however, Toyota has watched BMW and Mercedes Benz pass it in luxury car sales and showing little evidence of slowing down. In my opinion this factor played a role in Toyota finally deciding to move the production of Lexus to the United States. As the president of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, said, the company plans to “give regions greater autonomy to make the products their customers want.” By moving the production of the ES 350 to the United States, I believe Toyota will be able to more closely monitor how Lexus is doing compared to BMW and Mercedes Benz. The company can also make production changes more effectively and efficiently at its plant in Kentucky. This high involvement with its target consumers should aid Lexus as it tries to regain its spot as the top luxury car in the United States. The move of production also helps protect Toyota from the Japanese economy and possible disastrous production issues.

From an operations management viewpoint, I think that Toyota is much better off by moving the production of the Lexus to the United States. The ES 300 is essentially an American car, it is not nearly as popular in Japan as it is in the US, therefore it made little sense to have it produced half a world away from where it was being sold. There are no economic benefits since there is an exchange rate penalty for Japanese automakers. Additionally, the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan had devastating effects on production. This disaster revealed just how vulnerable Toyota and other Japanese automakers are, and in my opinion, played a key role in Toyota moving the production of Lexus to the United States. By having all of it’s operations and production in one place, Toyota can become more efficient and continue being a leading automaker.

Do you think it was a good decision by Toyota to move the production of Lexus to the United States?

Will this lead other foreign carmakers to move to America and what affect will that have on the production of American cars?

 

Sources

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/toyota-investing-over-500m-launch-us-lexus-production-1B9519106

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/business/toyota-will-make-lexus-es-350-in-kentucky.html?_r=0

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-19/toyota-to-make-lexus-in-kentucky-amid-localization-push.html