Baldia Factory Fire Tragedy: A Black Spot for Workplace Safety Standards in Pakistan

Background

The year 2022 marked the tenth anniversary year of the most unfortunate factory fire incident in the history of Pakistan. On September 11, 2012, at the end of the evening shift, a deadly fire broke out inside a garment factory. This tragedy happened mainly due to poor compliance with safety laws, ineffective safety inspections, illegal construction, unregistered infrastructure, absence of means of escape in case of fire, and nonavailability of safety equipment. The factory was in Baldia Town, an industrial hub in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan. It was factory payday and at 6:30 pm, thousands of workers were waiting to receive their compensation. As a result of the inferno, 259 workers died, 40 were seriously injured, and 150 suffered minor injuries. Out of the total casualties, 122 were between the ages of 16 and 22. Seventeen fully burned bodies could not be recognized and were buried in temporary graves.

Soon after the fire was extinguished, an eyewitness who had been inside the factory, said:

There was nothing but rolls of burnt denim and pieces of twisted metal alongside human remains. The stench of flesh was hanging thick in the air.

A person who lost his son said:

I walked into the factory and saw 259 bodies strewn on top of one another. I shrouded scores of them with my own hands. I examined the piles for hours, but there was no end. It was only later when we transported the bodies to a hospital that I found out that my son was among them too. His remains were so charred that I could not recognize him.

Introduction

Workplace fire safety is a significant issue for all commercial activities, especially factories. Yet in low- and middle-income countries competing priorities and corruption can interfere with fire safety program effectiveness (Qian et al., 2023). Safe working conditions include measures to prevent and eliminate the causes of death, injuries, and health damage of the people at work. In Pakistan, the fire safety requirements cover all factories; however, sometimes, the safety initiatives that prevent fires from the factory premises are not given due importance (Monamy & Das, 2022).

Workplace fire safety laws and regulations in Pakistan encourage institutions to find solutions to the current fire risks (Shahid et al., 2014). These regulations help with fire risk assessments, fire safety processes, and understanding of the design and structural risks that cause fire outbreaks (Qian et al., 2023). Factories utilize these regulations (a) to understand the fire development process, (b) to identify the associated hazards, and (c) to develop structural frameworks for the prevention and reduction of fire outbreaks (Omidvari et al., 2015). Therefore, the primary importance of workplace fire safety laws is to require a fire prevention plan that assesses the risk factors for fire also requires mitigation of those risk factors.

Rules, responsibilities, and resources are essential for fire safety planning (Agus Salim et al., 2023; Thompson, 2003). Cognitive processes are used to analyze hazards according to scene complexity and hazard types (Liao et al., 2021). Risk assessments are conducted from many perspectives to reduce bias in understanding the risks of fire hazards. Sometimes, fire risks are assessed according to the level of danger. Other factors such as ventilation, location of the fire, and compartment geometry are also considered in this regard (Addai et al., 2016). In summary, a robust fire safety strategy involves evaluating all the mitigation processes and control measures (Karsten et al., 2020).

Sometimes, employers neglect or overlook the human resource regulations pertaining to fire safety (Wu et al., 2022). For example, disregarding employee training and fire safety drills can lead to increased risks and potential harm to employees, highlighting the importance of addressing this issue and promoting a safer working environment (Purvis, 2022). Furthermore, employers must acknowledge the relevance of protecting vulnerable groups through fire safety protocols (Steen-Hansen et al., 2021). Another critical component of fire safety is evacuation protocols and procedures (Butler et al., 2017). Barlas and Izci (2018) acknowledge that about 30% of workplace fire accidents occur due to negligence.

Global Legislation for Fire Safety

Effective workplace safety fire laws help to prevent fire outbreaks in institutions for the protection of workers and infrastructure. Developed countries have legal processes and regulations to direct organizations on fire safety (Hasan et al., 2017). By providing comprehensive guidelines and requirements, these regulations aim to mitigate fire risks and elevate overall fire safety measures in diverse structures and facilities (Tannous, 2021).

The major international safety laws include the International Fire Code (IFC), which is a set of regulations that guide companies on the appropriate measures to prevent workplace fires (Bukowski & Tanaka, 1991). For instance, the IFC instructs companies to avoid using wood as the primary construction structure. Furthermore, companies should have a fire alarm system, fire exit processes, and other fire protection practices (IFC, 2015). National Fire Code (NPFA1) is an extensive collection of fire safety regulations and standards formulated by the U.S. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). It encompasses a wide spectrum of fire safety aspects, such as building construction, fire suppression systems, storage of hazardous materials, occupancy limits, and emergency evacuation protocols. Compliance with NFPA 1 ensures the adoption of a standardized and consistent approach to fire safety, thereby safeguarding lives and protecting property. Similarly, the International Building Code (IBC) is a globally recognized and widely adopted set of regulations for building construction and design. Developed by the International Code Council (ICC), it provides comprehensive guidelines for various aspects of building safety, including structural integrity, fire resistance, accessibility, means of egress, and energy efficiency. The IBC sets specific requirements and standards for different building types, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures. By promoting uniformity and consistency in building regulations, the IBC facilitates better communication and understanding among professionals, leading to safer and more resilient buildings worldwide.

IFC, NFPA 1, and IBC have a primary objective of enhancing public safety. These are regularly updated to incorporate the latest industry practices and technological advancements. While these regulations are mainly applicable in the United States, these regulations help companies from all countries to improve fire safety standards (Shahid et al., 2014). Other countries use IFC guidelines to formulate their safety regulations for fire outbreaks. For example, PRIA (2014) acknowledges the regulations of workplace safety in India. These operational health and safety regulations guide factories to establish practical measures to prevent fire outbreaks and spread. Factories should have the necessary facilities and machinery to extinguish the fire. Such equipment includes fire hydrants, extinguisher gases, and other safety gear. Another example is Pakistan which uses the Rescue 1122 Fire Code and the Building Standards for Fire Prevention and Life Safety (Shahid et al., 2014).

In the United Kingdom, the “Hackitt model of fire safety” was proposed by Dame Judith Hackitt in response to the tragic Grenfell Tower fire incident in 2017. The model offers a comprehensive approach to managing fire safety. Departing from a compliance-focused system, this model advocates for a more holistic and proactive approach. It promotes a cultural shift within the construction and building industry, considering the entire life cycle of a building, from design and construction to maintenance and operation. The model ensures that crucial fire safety data is properly documented, verified, and maintained throughout a building’s lifespan. Ultimately, the model seeks to drive systemic change, elevate building safety standards, and prevent future fire tragedies by prioritizing the safety and well-being of occupants. Spinardi and Law (2019) acknowledge the Hackitt model of fire safety regulations for building occupation, design approval, and structural guidelines to prevent fire outbreaks.

Workplace Fire Accidents in South Asia

Fire safety regulations are essential for developed and developing countries alike. However, due to noncompliance with these laws in developing countries including South Asia, workplace fire accidents are common (Hasan et al., 2017). In South Asia, the developing country that has the most fire incidents in factories includes Bangladesh. For example, 158 workers died due to more than 6,500 fire incidents in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Between 2001 and 2007, the Dhaka City fire incidences destroyed the property of worth millions of dollars (Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defense Authority [BFSCDA], 2007). A similar study by Azad et al. (2018) disclosed that 1,400 workers died in various fire incidents in Bangladesh. The study acknowledges that some of these incidents involved collapsed buildings.

The most affected companies in South Asia are the garment factories (Hasan et al., 2017). At least 112 employees died in the Tazreen Fashions factory in Bangladesh after a fire outbreak. The fire resulted from a short circuit. The major challenge the company faced included blocked or narrow fire escapes. Inadequate fire exits were the factory’s mistake. Tazreen did not build the appropriate systems that prevent the fire from spreading to its nine floors (Sumon et al., 2017).

The Pakistan Context

Pakistan is the fifth-most populous nation in the world. The country is not an exception and industrial fire accidents are becoming increasingly common. This is due to various reasons including poorly maintained unregistered buildings of industrial units in the country. There are multiple workplace safety laws enacted in Pakistan. The main federal law to govern safety-related issues is the Factories Act of 1934. Other relevant and ancillary federal and provincial laws are the Boilers and Pressure Vessels (Amendment) Act 2009, Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2001, Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (Treatment of Food by Ionizing Radiation) Regulations 1996, Employment of Children Act 1991, Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997, Pakistan Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Ordinance 1984, Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, Hazardous Occupation Rules 1963, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act 2016, Boilers and Pressure Vessels Ordinance 2002, The Baluchistan Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act 2015, and Sind Workplace Safety and Health Act 2017. Relevant clauses of these laws deal with issues like precautions in case of fire, means of access and escape, enough space for stairs and floors, pressure plant, the safety of a building, machinery, and manufacturing process. However, in Pakistan, these laws are not being followed in letter and spirit.

The Baldia Factory (BF) Fire Tragedy

The BF fire incidence was among the most tragic workplace fires in the world, that killed 259 people (Rehman et al., 2012). BF was established in 2011 by Ali Enterprises, a textile exporter based in Karachi, Pakistan. KiK, a German enterprise, was the major importer (about 80%) of BF merchandize. About 1,500 people were employed in the factory. There was a 12-hour workday for an employee with an average of PKR6000 (US$67) ¹ wages per employee per month.

On September 11, 2012, the fire broke out within the building at around 6:30 pm. The factory building lacked exit doors, had grilled windows, and an inaccessible basement. The locked exit door prevented employees from escaping before the end of shifts. Most victims got trapped inside while some tried to jump from the building’s top. Others died from suffocation due to their inability to escape. It took the fire brigade more than 30 hours to completely extinguish the blaze.

Safety Inspection

The quality-of-safety inspection is critical for industries. Because they are sources of danger and harm in production processes, protection at work is a means of eliminating the danger. Most factories with fire accidents fail to undertake the proper infrastructural inspection. Only general inspections are conducted to determine the presence of fire equipment such as fire extinguishers. However, most institutions neglect the use of fire alarms since they do not experience fire outbreaks. Sometimes, the institutions do not assess the quality of available equipment for fire prevention (Tannous, 2021). Most fire accidents occurred due to companies’ incompetency in helping employees escape these buildings (Hasan et al., 2017). Some buildings have no fire exits or have small spaces for escaping fire incidents. Many workplace explosions and fire accidents occur due to closed and confined spaces as employers use limited spaces for workers to avoid using many resources and cost-cutting strategies (Barlas & Izci, 2018; Naghavi et al., 2019).

In Pakistan, each provincial government has the authority to appoint impartial and qualified individuals as safety inspectors in the province. The safety inspectors are responsible to enforce the safety laws and have the authority to enter any factory and examine the building, premises, plant, and machinery (The Factories Act, 1934a). Inspection should be conducted routinely. If the safety inspectors are not satisfied with the fire precautionary measures, fire escape means or are of the view that any building/part of the building/any machinery is dangerous to human health (The Factories Act, 1934c) and safety, they may serve a written order to the factory to comply the measures within a stipulated timeframe.

SA8000, is one of the most trusted certifications being managed by Social Accountability International (SAI), a U.S.-based organization. The purpose of this certification is to make sure that the working conditions of an export house are in accordance with the international corporate social responsibility (CSR) and accountability norms.

SAI does not conduct the inspections themselves. For this certification to BF, SAI appointed Registro Italiano Navale (RINA), an international firm based in Italy, to inspect the factory before the decision. RINA subcontracted the inspection to the Renaissance Inspection and Certification Agency (RI&CA) of Pakistan (Khan, 2018). As reported by the New York Times, two inspectors of RI&CA visited the BF in June/July 2012 and issued a certificate of inspection in August 2012, just about only 3 weeks earlier than the disaster. After a detailed examination of workplace safety standards (among others), the inspectors recommended the certification. As a result, SA8000 certification was issued for so called compliance with international standards.

A case had been filed with the Organization for Economic Justice against RINA for issuing a fake certificate to the BF (Hasan, 2018). RINA later suspended its inspection activities in Pakistan. Later on, RINA also refused to provide the list of 100 factories in Pakistan to whom the inspection certifications had been issued.

All this exposed the weaknesses of factory monitoring systems of international auditing groups. These weak systems are used to receive the desired approval of safety standards in low-cost suppliers in the developing world (Walsh & Greenhouse, 2012).

Escape Measures

In Pakistan, each provincial government has the authority to make legislation regarding the means of escape in a factory in case of fire. For this purpose, effective and noticeable means are required in every factory about giving warning to every person employed therein, in case of fire (The Factories Act, 1934e). Moreover, all fire exit points should be distinctively marked in red letters/signs of adequate size in a language understood by most of the workers (The Factories Act, 1934d).

In case of fire, means of escape should be provided (The Factories Act, 1934b). It is mandatory to maintain a free passageway giving access to each means of escape in case of fire (The Factories Act, 1934e). Workers should be trained in routine. Where more than 10 workers are employed in any place above the ground floor, all the workers must be familiar with the means of escape in case of fire (The Factories Act, 1934f).

All doors should be kept free from any obstruction. The exit rooms of every factory should not be locked/fastened. While any person is within the room, the door could be easily and immediately opened from inside. The doors should be opened outwards or in the direction of the nearest exit point (The Factories Act, 1934d).

As reported by the New York Times, after full-scale inferno at BF, everyone rushed toward the only open exit out of the four possible exits. But many workers were trapped in BF. The windows were barred and there was just one open exit. The factory building had several emergency exits but all of them were locked permanently (Walsh & Greenhouse, 2012). It is also reported that the employers barred the windows and locked most of the emergency exits (except one) due to fear that the inventory may be stolen by the workers. The owners of the factory are alleged to be known for forcing workers to salvage goods before getting themselves to safety. Moreover, cartons were stacked on stairs and walking passages (Khan, 2018).

Fire Fighting System

In Pakistan, the nature/quantity of firefighting equipment and sprinkler systems should be maintained in every workplace including factories, as declared by the respective provincial government (The Factories Act, 1934g).

In the BF fire tragedy, eyewitnesses said that factories in Pakistan often face the occurrence of fire. So, no one was particularly panicked at first. However, soon it turned into a full-scale inferno, due to poor electrical wiring, the absence of any safety equipment, and lack of fire extinguishers. The Karachi fire department is responsible for fire protection in the largest city of Pakistan. With few fire tenders in working condition, the fire department was woefully unprepared and underresourced to handle the BF blaze of high intensity. In the case of BF fire incidence, the fire department reached the scene after about two hours. An eyewitness said,

We saw a young boy trying to jump out of an upper-story window that was unbarred. He got caught in the window. Because the fire brigade had not arrived by then, we saw him slowly burn to death.

Building Regulation, Employees Registration, and Compensation

BF was located in Sindh Industrial Trading Estate (SITE), Karachi, which is the largest designated industrial area of Pakistan. SITE contains more than 2,400 factories over an area of 19 square kilometers. More than two floors are not allowed in any factory located; however, BF had four floors. In addition, an illegal wooden mezzanine floor was also constructed in BF. The wooden floor supported the fire to move from the basement, where it started, to the upper floors. It shows a clear violation of building regulations. Building/factory inspectors did not perform their duties diligently. As a result, many industrial buildings are designed as deathtraps from the outset—like the BF building certainly was. However, Sindh Building Control Authority, the provincial building authority denied having jurisdiction over SITE (Khan, 2018).

In 1976, the Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) was established in Pakistan. The main purpose was to provide compulsory social insurance, old-age pension, survivors’ pension, invalidity pension, and old age grant (Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution [EOBI], 2022). As reported by an official of the National Trade Unions Federation (NTUF), 92% of the factories in Karachi are unregistered. In BF, about 1,500 people were employed, out of which only 200 employees were registered with the EOBI (Khan, 2018). Workers in BF were employed on a contractual basis without any appointment letter with no group health insurance facilities and even without weekly holidays (Fatima, 2016). The provincial labor department in Karachi, responsible for overseeing working conditions in industrial areas claimed that it did not have jurisdiction over the BF production unit since it was not registered with the department.

It is mandatory for the employer under the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 to compensate the workers for any injury or death caused while performing his or her duties. The BF owners paid more than PKR61.8 million (approx. US$680,000) to the workers’ families under the Workmen Compensation Act. As a death grant, the family of each victim was entitled to receive PKR500,000 (approx. US$5,000) from the Worker Welfare Fund, a federal pension fund. The federal and provincial governments announced an additional PKR400,000 (approx. US$4,400) and PKR300,000 (approx. US$3,300), respectively, for the family of each dead worker. The federal and provincial governments provided PKR100,000 (approx. US$1,100) and PKR50,000 (approx. US$550), respectively, to each injured worker. KiK, a German enterprise that was the major importer (about 80%) of BF merchandize, paid around US$6 million in compensation to legal heirs of the victims for rehabilitation cost to the injured survivors and medical/allied care (Hasan, 2018).

This compensation was well below the international standards set by International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 121. In 2015, ILO was responsible for calculating adequate compensation under Convention 121. Finally, in 2016, KiK paid US$5.9 million whereas Sindh Employees’ Social Security Institution (SESSI) of Pakistan contributed US$0.7 million. In 2018, after 6 years of the campaign, advocacy, and negotiations, it was agreed between the stakeholders to provide lifelong pensions to affected families as per ILO international standards.

The Aftermaths of Fire Incidents

Catastrophic explosions in factories attract attention to the human tragedy and often begin an assessment of what went wrong (Tannous, 2021).

The first impact of fire incidents includes deaths and harm to civilians and employees. Fire incidents have grave consequences, leading to the loss of lives and injuries among civilians and employees alike. The profound tragedy of losing workers underscores the utmost importance of prioritizing workplace safety. These fire accidents frequently uncover complex safety health, and behavioral issues within factories, putting the well-being of employees at risk (Sanderfoot et al., 2022). The task of replacing those who have lost their lives or suffered injuries becomes intricate, requiring extensive restructuring efforts. As a result, companies may encounter challenges in recruiting a qualified and skilled workforce to fill these gaps (Wu et al., 2022).

The second challenge is rebuilding factories. Factories struggle to recover from such losses. Losses of billions of dollars occur in different countries due to workplace fire explosions. Under most circumstances, factory fires result in damages that may never recover. Destruction of products and machinery forced them to start afresh. Many companies declare bankruptcy after fire outbreaks. They may need to buy new machinery, raw materials, and other systems. They would also need to repair their infrastructural assets (Brown, 2022). Apart from such situations, factories have to create a framework that prevents further outbreaks. For instance, they must buy fire extinguishers and construct adequate fire escape routes (Hasan et al., 2017; Tannous, 2021). These aspects are critical for recovery.

The third issue, apart from financial losses, is that most factories experience civil and criminal liabilities. Factories with poor infrastructures or with no fire safety regulations are liable to criminal investigations (Naghavi et al., 2019). Many factories pay hefty fines to compensate both employees and civilians for fire accidents. These companies face lawsuits to ensure they pay for every life lost and injured worker. Most families depend on the deceased workers. The major challenge is that they remain poor after the fire accidents. Survivors also experience various challenges (Chase & Hansen, 2021). They must receive urgent medical treatment and also increased care from their families due to the burns. Another concern is that they may fail to work again due to the loss of body parts. These situations force companies to pay higher amounts to them (Gonzalez et al., 2022).

Conclusion

The BF fire in Karachi left many unanswered questions. Not only were there questions about compliance with the law but also whether the laws themselves are strong enough to protect human life.

The owners of BF consistently claimed in their judicial testimonies that the fire was not caused by poor maintenance of the factory building and was, instead, ignited by extortionists. However, all official investigations stated otherwise. The judicial outcome of the incident took more than 8 years. The jury concluded that the factory building had improper fire emergency and security protocols.

There is a dire need to amend the relevant legislation to ensure fire safety for the factory owners. Local governments do not set critical regulatory checks and failed to undertake their duties. The BF incident resembles the 1911 fire that erupted in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, New York. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory is a declared national landmark (Khan, 2018). However, BF in Karachi is a haunted place now.

Karachi is woefully underprepared in emergency planning, as factories have few buildings with adequate emergency exits (Mansoor, 2012). Ignoring fire safety codes in buildings puts the lives of citizens and rescuers at risk. These must have clear fire exits, emergency stairs, escape means, and sprinkler systems, especially in factories and high rise buildings. Factories should have breakable exit doors and windows for emergency escapes (Shahid et al., 2014). Industries should test strategies for eliminating unnecessary automatic fire alarms (Tannous, 2021). The absence of all these and the presence of encroachments around the buildings make the firefighting operations difficult and dangerous. The only way forward is the strict enforcement of all these building codes and fire safety rules and regulations. This is all required to avoid turning these workplaces into fire traps.

Factories and other workplaces should use technological practices to identify the risks of fire outbreaks and maintenance. A significant aspect is the use of fire prevention technologies and technical protection systems such as monitoring frameworks, emergency reservoirs, sprinkler systems, and leakage sensors (Kempna et al., 2018). Process monitoring systems include surveillance frameworks such as CCTV and smoke alarms. The relevance of cost management through installing smoke alarms is also an important aspect of preventing fire spread (Parmer et al., 2006; Tannous et al., 2016). In the BF case, many bodies were burnt beyond recognition for which a DNA test laboratory is a must in all industrial cities.

Factories and workplace inspections are mandatory for strict application of the law. It is imperative for all factories in the country to undergo regular inspections by the civic authorities and a thorough cleanup irrespective of corruption and political interference. District and divisional task forces should be formed at the grass-root level to check the adherence to safety codes in factory buildings and other workplaces (“Karachi Fire Safety,” 2020). Moreover, the commercial certification and monitoring bodies should perform a thorough inspection before issuing licenses. In 2017, there were only 547 labor inspectors for 351,689 registered industrial and commercial establishments and factories in Pakistan (Shah, 2017).

Currently, the fire departments of Pakistan are facing the issue of few fire tenders, a shortage of staff, dysfunctional fire stations, and outdated equipment. The country must have a well-equipped, well-trained fire department where personnel can handle blazes of various intensities. In this regard, a trained modern fire service should be established on a pilot basis. Later, it may be replicated in all cities. The timely response and professional firefighting can save lives and losses.

The compensation structures, long-term rehabilitation programs and penalties should be revised. The country is still following the 90-year-old Factory Act 1934 which was promulgated in the British era. Some changes have been made to this statute but are not enough. For example, if the factory owner is guilty of negligence in the protection of workers, he must pay a meager penalty of PKR 500 (approx. US$3.00). If he commits negligence a second time, the penalty will be PKR750 (approx. US$$4.50) and the penalty will be increased to Rs.1,000 (approx. US$4.50) in the third time.

Worker identification of fire hazards through training reduces the chances of fire outbreaks (Bae et al., 2021). However, in many cases, industries fail to assess the effectiveness of their training methods and neither seek nor value the workers’ identification of fire hazards. To keep pace with the global standards and prevent tragic fires, fire safety training is critical for the awareness of fire safety within the workplace. In this regard, Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) may be signed with internationally acclaimed Fire and Rescue services.

The debate over the concept of safety at work and fire protection according to the criteria of the law cannot end without considering the actual implementation. It is clear that the legislation went in one direction, and actual safety practices in another direction. It is significant to address the significant fires that resulted from these weaknesses. These are all mandatory steps, otherwise, these factories and workplaces will continue to be death traps for humans. Building a culture of professional and ethical responsibility by all stakeholders is the need of the hour.