Taskin Iqbal
In April 2013, the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka exposed the human cost of global supply chains. More than one thousand garment workers lost their lives, and many more were injured, while producing clothing for brands based largely in high-income countries. The disaster prompted global outrage and renewed scrutiny of working conditions in the ready-made garment industry, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries. It also brought into sharp focus a deeper and more persistent problem: how global supply chains are governed, and why corporate accountability for human rights abuses remains so elusive.
More than a decade later, global supply chain governance has evolved considerably. Industry led initiatives, corporate social responsibility programmes, and an expanding body of human rights due diligence legislation have emerged in response to the failures laid bare by Rana Plaza. Yet questions remain not only about whether these mechanisms have delivered meaningful and lasting change to date, but also about whether they are capable of doing so in the future. In my article, The Governance of Global Supply Chains: Empirical Insights from the Ready-made Garment Industry in Bangladesh a Decade after Rana Plaza, I examine these questions through an empirical study of the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh, drawing on qualitative interviews conducted almost ten years after the disaster.
The article explores the effectiveness of voluntary and mandatory governance mechanisms in global supply chains and asks whether private governance can ever serve as a genuine alternative to binding regulatory frameworks. It does so by shifting the analytical lens away from multinational corporations and toward the perspectives of suppliers, activists, and other actors operating within a key industry in a crucial sourcing country.
Why global supply chain governance remains a challenge
Global supply chains are complex networks that span multiple jurisdictions, legal systems, and economic contexts. While lead companies, typically multinational corporations based in high income countries, exercise significant control over design, sourcing, and pricing, production is often fragmented across layers of suppliers and subcontractors in low-and-middle-income countries. This fragmentation obscures responsibility and weakens accountability, particularly where labour standards and human rights protections are concerned.
In the aftermath of Rana Plaza, a range of multi stakeholder initiatives emerged to address safety failures in the Bangladeshi garment industry. Most notably, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety and the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety emerged in response to safety failures in the industry. These initiatives were widely viewed as a turning point for factory safety. At the same time, multinational corporations expanded their own sustainability policies and audit practices, positioning themselves as responsible governors of their supply chains.
Alongside these private mechanisms, there has been a marked shift toward mandatory regulation. In recent years, human rights due diligence laws have been adopted or proposed across a growing number of jurisdictions. These laws require companies to identify, prevent, and address adverse human rights impacts throughout their operations and value chains. The European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is the most recent and ambitious example of this trend. Despite these developments, uncertainty persists about how voluntary and mandatory approaches interact in practice, and whether they can overcome the structural barriers that have long characterised global supply chains.
An empirical perspective from Bangladesh
The article addresses these questions through an in-depth qualitative study of the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh. Based on semi structured interviews with suppliers, company directors, NGOs, trade union leaders, and human rights activists, the study provides detailed insights into how governance mechanisms operate in practice. By focusing on Bangladesh nearly a decade after Rana Plaza, the study assesses both the legacy of post disaster initiatives and the current trajectory of supply chain regulation. It examines how suppliers respond to voluntary standards imposed by multinational buyers, how they experience emerging mandatory regulatory requirements, and how broader dynamics such as subcontracting and power imbalances shape governance outcomes. The findings confirm that both voluntary and mandatory mechanisms can produce benefits but also reveal persistent limitations that undermine their effectiveness.
Engagement with building and fire safety initiatives has improved conditions in larger factories, and interviewees widely acknowledged the positive impact of multistakeholder initiatives such as the Accord. However, these improvements have been uneven. Smaller factories, particularly those operating through subcontracting arrangements, often lack the resources to comply. Moreover, suppliers reported that safety upgrades were treated as unfunded mandates, with brands demanding compliance while continuing to exert downward pressure on prices.
Voluntary governance also struggles in times of crisis. The pandemic exposed the fragility of gains achieved through private initiatives, as multinational corporations cancelled orders, delayed payments, and shifted financial risks down the supply chain. These actions revealed a reliance on corporate goodwill that does not always align with socially responsible outcomes.
Mandatory human rights due diligence laws were generally viewed by participants as a step in the right direction. Yet interviewees expressed concern that these frameworks risk becoming procedural exercises focused on reporting and audits rather than substantive change. There was particular scepticism about whether such laws address the underlying power imbalances between buyers and suppliers or merely add new compliance burdens for actors in low-and-middle-income countries.
A recurring theme across the findings was the exclusion of affected stakeholders from regulatory design and implementation. Suppliers, workers, and communities in sourcing countries possess critical contextual knowledge, yet their perspectives are rarely incorporated into legislative processes in high income countries. This gap undermines both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of emerging due diligence regimes.
Why this matters now
The study is particularly timely given the rapid expansion of human rights due diligence legislation. While these laws represent a significant normative shift, the empirical findings suggest that legal reform alone is insufficient unless it is accompanied by deeper structural change.
Without addressing shareholder primacy, one-sided contractual arrangements, and entrenched buyer dominance, due diligence risks becoming a box ticking exercise. Embedding human rights and sustainability into corporate governance, for example through expanded directors’ duties and stronger stakeholder representation, could enhance the impact of due diligence obligations. This, in turn, could support more meaningful change in supply chain practices.
Looking ahead
The governance of global supply chains remains one of the most pressing areas in contemporary business and human rights scholarship and policy. By grounding analysis in the lived experiences of actors within a key sourcing country, this study adds empirical depth to longstanding critiques of both soft law and emerging mandatory frameworks.
As policymakers continue to develop human rights due diligence regimes, the lesson from Bangladesh is clear. Transparency and formal compliance are not enough. Meaningful change requires participatory governance, shared responsibility across supply chains, and reforms that confront the structural foundations of corporate power. Without these, the promise of post Rana Plaza reform risks remaining unfulfilled.