, which was implemented after a building collapse killed more than 1100 garment workers in Dhaka in 2013.  The new agreement comes after months of intense negotiation between brands and retailers, factory owners and global trade unions IndustriALL and UNI Global over the issue of enforcement.  With the Bangladesh Accord set to expire on May 31, brands and retailers and factory owners favoured forming an alternate framework that would not be legally binding, but the unions refused to endorse a deal without real repercussions for bad actors. They agreed to extend the original agreement until August 31 while discussions continued.   The agreement they eventually came to, the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, not only preserves the legal binding provision for companies, it also expands the scope to other countries beyond Bangladesh and other provisions, encompassing general health and safety, not than just fire and building safety.   Union leaders have hailed it as a victory for workers’ rights, with UNI Global general secretary Christy Hoffman calling it “an example of what modern due diligence should look like”. Threat of legal action Ethical fashion advocate Jude Kingston believes that legally-binding agreements are the only way to improve working conditions in garment manufacturing. “Given what has taken place and is still taking place in a number of factories with non-compliance, I think it’s absolutely crucial for retailers, if they’re going to stand by their workers, to have something that is enforceable,” she told Inside Retail.  Even if brands and retailers want to work with safe and reputable factories, the geographical distance between them and their factories and rampant use of unsanctioned subcontracting, can obscure unsafe working conditions in the supply chain.  The threat of legal action, Kingston believes, is necessary to motivate some brands and retailers to learn how their clothes are really made.  Those same challenges are why James Bartle, founder and CEO of Outland Denim, is pleased but surprised that brands and retailers have signed onto the deal.  “Obviously brands get nervous when litigation is on the table around conditions that are not 100 per cent within their control. Brands are currently not able to send their own staff to factories to conduct audits. So they are reliant on external auditors,” Bartle, whose Australian denim brand manufactures in a company-owned factory in Cambodia, told Inside Retail.  “In the past, I think it’s safe to say that external auditors have not always been able to perform to a standard that brands should require. So to see these big brand names make this further commitment to the safety of factories and factory staff is in many ways miraculous.” “What are you hiding?” Unlike the Bangladesh Accord, which applied only to manufacturing in Bangladesh, the International Accord aims to expand the health and safety provisions to garment workers in other countries.  Signatories plan to discuss which countries the agreement could be extended to within the next six months and aim to establish it in at least one other country within two years.  Bartle says this is a step in the right direction.  “Otherwise there is always the temptation for brands to seek out factories competing on cost that may exhibit lower standards or fail to comply with new standards,”  he said. “An overarching international standard for factory conditions would be ideal.” Signatories have also made a commitment to seek to include more brands and retailers. Over 200 major brands and retailers signed onto the Bangladesh Accord in 2013, including H&M, Zara, Uniqlo, Adidas, Puma, John Lewis, Next, Cotton On, Kmart Australia and Target Australia. Over 190 signed onto its extension in 2018. Most US brands and retailers have not signed onto the agreement due to objections about legal liability. “I’m actually staggered that more brands aren’t signing on to it,” Kingston said. “My question to them would be, why? What are you hiding?”