Zara Corporate Social Responsibility
Analysis of Issues
The company Zara uses resources that are to fully utilize the labor regardless of the process-making which contains harmful substances in the production of goods. The stakeholder however has the power to stop the unethical incidents including making an event for the prevention of harm towards the customers. The company concerns about cost saving and efficiency to be made in Taiwan however could cause harm that endanger the wearer and unethical issues. Customers are warned to be attentive to the country of origin and material tags during shopping. The items are less costly to fit to the market demand however did not estimate unexpected incidents from happening such as the risk of having skin problems, rashes and so on.
Zara was detected with 63 per cent of the 141 samples contains (NPE) and plasticisers, the cancer-causing materials in clothing however there is no regulations against industrial NPE usage in Taiwan. Even though there is an appeal not to use the chemical, the company that takes too long to promises to eliminate hazardous materials until 2020. The company has less corporate social responsibility and ineffective quality control compared to other brands such as Adidas that has zero discharge of hazardous materials. The costs include to switch to high quality materials and environment friendly disposal process with benefits includes staying ahead in healthcare reform and educating members on the impact of legislation due to environment policy.
Unlike other clothing brands that provide toxicant-free product, Zara was the only retailer with items that had both NPEs and toxic amines, also the only brand with nine out of the 10 samples found to contain NPE in the assessment of Greenpeace. The hazardous materials contribute to human health and water pollutions where the garments are manufactured. This detection will create doubt and wariness for customers to ban this brand or find alternatives. The market shareholders that engage
The company Zara uses resources that are to fully utilize the labor regardless of the process-making which contains harmful substances in the production of goods. The stakeholder however has the power to stop the unethical incidents including making an event for the prevention of harm towards the customers. The company concerns about cost saving and efficiency to be made in Taiwan however could cause harm that endanger the wearer and unethical issues. Customers are warned to be attentive to the country of origin and material tags during shopping. The items are less costly to fit to the market demand however did not estimate unexpected incidents from happening such as the risk of having skin problems, rashes and so on.
Zara was detected with 63 per cent of the 141 samples contains (NPE) and plasticisers, the cancer-causing materials in clothing however there is no regulations against industrial NPE usage in Taiwan. Even though there is an appeal not to use the chemical, the company that takes too long to promises to eliminate hazardous materials until 2020. The company has less corporate social responsibility and ineffective quality control compared to other brands such as Adidas that has zero discharge of hazardous materials. The costs include to switch to high quality materials and environment friendly disposal process with benefits includes staying ahead in healthcare reform and educating members on the impact of legislation due to environment policy.
Unlike other clothing brands that provide toxicant-free product, Zara was the only retailer with items that had both NPEs and toxic amines, also the only brand with nine out of the 10 samples found to contain NPE in the assessment of Greenpeace. The hazardous materials contribute to human health and water pollutions where the garments are manufactured. This detection will create doubt and wariness for customers to ban this brand or find alternatives. The market shareholders that engage