Exportation of Risk: The Case of Bhopal
Author(s):
Deena Murphy-Medley
2001 Deena Murphy-Medley. Used by
permission.
The twenty-first century brings new and complex technologies
into the industrialized world. The risks that these bring have
been exported to developing countries, which often lack the
infrastructure to support and maintain these new technologies
safely. Economically, developing countries offer multinational
corporations a competitive advantage. Companies based in
countries such as India offer cheap labor and low operating
costs, but little incentive to promote environmental ethics,
safety procedures and community investment. Firms typically
find it more economically advantageous to avoid compliance and
pay the penalties than to meet statutory safety or
environmental requirements, if they exist.1
This case examines the December 1984 catastrophe at the
Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal, the capital city of Madhya
Pradesh, in India. This case is evaluated from the standpoint
of exporting risk from industrialized to developing countries.
The case, which includes comparisons with Bhopal's sister plant
in Institute, West Virginia, considers the moral responsibility
for preventing such tragedies on the part of multinational
corporations, the governments of the industrialized nations
where they are head quartered, and the governments of
developing countries where they operate. The moral
responsibilities of engineers and scientists working for these
organizations are also considered.
On December 3rd, 1984, just after midnight, the
Bhopal agricultural pesticide plant released approximately 40
metric tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC)2 into the atmosphere, resulting in
the death of as many as 3000 and injuries to thousands more.
The plant was operated by Union Carbide of India, Limited
(UCIL), a company controlled (via 50.9 percent stock ownership)
by the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), an American chemical
company.3 UCC
provided the basic design of the plant, supervised its
engineering and defined operating procedures to run
it.4 Prior to
the catastrophe, the Bhopal plant had been losing money for
several years due to the weak demand in India for pesticides.
This resulted in major personnel reductions, particularly in
regard to production and maintenance. At the time of the
accident, the plant had been shut down for over a month for a
complete maintenance overhaul.5 Important safety devices were out of
commission and staff with no MIC training were in supervisory
roles. Consequently, when a large amount of water entered the
MIC tank, the ensuing reaction caused a leak. This was quickly
identified, but defects in the MIC unit and staff inadequacies
prevented any containment.
Ethical issues arise from the lack of safety standards and
maintenance procedures in Bhopal in comparison to the sister
plant in Institute, West Virginia. Increased risk posed by the
establishment of a MIC production unit at the plant in 1980 and
the concurrent establishment of slum colonies around the plant
were never recognized by either UCIL or the Indian government.
Other concerns include the lack of community information and
emergency response procedures to deal with potential
large-scale disasters. The positions of the governments of
India and the U.S. and the reaction of Union Carbide are also
evaluated on moral grounds. The following fictitious scenarios
are based on real events.
Contents
Part I: Safety Standards by Design
You are a design engineer at UCC headquarters and have
worked on the design of safety systems of the Bhopal and West
Virginia plants. You are very conscious of the fact that for
Bhopal Union Carbide dropped the safety standards well below
those it maintained at the sister plant in West Virginia. New
computerized data loggers, which are standard safety systems in
the U.S, were available after the plant opened, but they were
not incorporated at the Bhopal Plant. Furthermore, there has
been no attempt to follow up and implement the safety
recommendations of the Operational Safety survey conducted by
the UCC safety team in 1982.6 Instrumentation at the Bhopal plant is so
unreliable that it is common for gas leaks of various types to
be detected by workers reporting tearing and burning sensations
in their eyes.7
When you informally approach management with this
information, you are sternly rebuffed and told that the
regulations of India do not dictate the same measures as those
in the U.S. and economically, these safety upgrades are
inconceivable at present. You feel uncomfortable at the lack of
safety standards at Bhopal, but are keenly aware of the
management's reaction to your feelings.
- How should you address this concern?
- Is it morally acceptable for management to adopt
different safety standards for the Indian plant than for the
American plant based on legal grounds?
Part II: Maintenance Procedures
You are also concerned that the existing safety standards
are not being upheld. Union Carbide is able to continue
operating the Bhopal Plant -- despite its deterioration -- due
to the state of Madhya Pradesh and the Indian government not
enforcing safety and environmental laws and regulations. One of
the supervising technicians recently made you aware of the
following problems:
- Temperature and pressure gauges are unreliable
- MIC storage tank 610 is exceeding the recommended
capacity
- The reserve storage tank for excess MIC already contains
MIC
- The warning system for the community has been shut
down
- The refrigeration unit that keeps MIC at low temperatures
has been shut down
- The gas scrubber -- which neutralizes any escaping MIC --
has been shut down
- The flare tower -- which burns off any MIC escaping from
the scrubber -- has both a design defect and a corroded pipe
and has been shut down
- The water curtain -- which should neutralize any
remaining gas -- is too short to reach the top of the flare
tower, where any gas would exit the tank8
Due to cutbacks, most technicians at the plant are poorly
trained and inexperienced and have little understanding of the
system. This has resulted in several accidents to date; yet
management have largely ignored complaints by union officials.
You know that this is a disaster waiting to happen, but are
being stonewalled by management.
- What options are available to you at this point?
- Are there any outside groups you should contact?
As a safety inspector for UCIL, you are concerned that the
densely populated shanty towns which surround the plant may be
in danger. Local newspaper articles recently tried to warn the
people living close to the plant of the potential hazards
involved with being in such close proximity to the plant, but
many residents are either illiterate or could not conceive of
the dangers. The company itself has made no effort to
communicate the risk to the public and you are sure that
potential hazards are not understood. You are also aware that
there are no emergency response plans to cope with community
reaction.
All of these issues have been formally reported, yet nothing
has been done to inform the surrounding community. When you
approached the general manager, he asserted that there were no
regulations surrounding the communication of risk to the
population and that morals had no place in economics.
- Is the general manager acting ethically?
- Do UCIL (or UCC) have any moral responsibility to
communicate the potential hazards of the plant to the
community?
- What should you do about your concerns?
Part IV: Moral Responsibility of
Multinational Corporations
The situation before the catastrophe:
The U.S. based Union Carbide Corporation is the parent
company to UCIL. The technology for the plant was developed by
UCC, who have maintained an overall supervisory role at the
plant. All major decisions, including the budget, must be
approved by UCC.9 Some workers from UCIL have been sent to Institute,
West Virginia, for training on how to deal with MIC safely, but
due to financial shortages, training programs have been reduced
and many plant personnel are currently unaware of the risks of
MIC. Much of the equipment has consequently been allowed to
seriously deteriorate. However, for economic reasons, Indian
government inspectors continue to approve operational
procedures.
- If the plant is operating legally, should Union Carbide
accept any additional responsibility for the safety
standards, maintenance procedures and equipment training at
the Bhopal Plant?
Post-catastrophe response:
According to some observers, UCIL (and UCC) showed blatant
disregard for the victims of the catastrophe, prolonging their
suffering through failing to deal with their immediate needs.
When the MIC was released, the company insisted there was no
leak, despite evidence to prove otherwise and the public alarm
was not sounded until hours later. UCIL provided misleading
information on treatment for the toxic effects of MIC,
resulting primarily in inadequate treatment by local
physicians. UCC tried to blame local workers for sabotaging the
plant and conducted a media blitz to divert attention from the
corporation.10
UCC never publicly accepted liability for the Bhopal
catastrophe. Their strategy for negotiations focused on a fixed
settlement that would allow them to walk away from Bhopal and
its victims.
- What moral responsibility did UCIL (and UCC) have towards
the Bhopal victims?
- What systems need to be in place to prevent corporations
such as UCC from "walking away" from catastrophes such as
these?
Part V: Moral Responsibility of the
Governments of Industrialized Nations
Currently, international law does not involve itself in
industrial hazards, pollution or regulating multinational
corporations in general. UCC fought hard to ensure the legal
battle took place in India and lawsuits filed in the U.S.
courts were rejected on the basis that the catastrophe occurred
in the plant in India, the victims were Indian and UCIL --
which ran the plant -- was a subsidiary company of Union
Carbide.
- What benefits does this situation offer multinational
corporations? Is this just?
- What measures should be taken by governments of the
industrialized nations to make multinational corporations
more accountable for their actions in developing
countries?
Part VI: Moral Responsibility of the
Governments of Developing Countries
What was known before the Bhopal tragedy:
As a local municipal official, you are aware that economic
and political factors have caused Indian government officials
to ignore or underplay the hazards of the Bhopal Plant.
Government regulatory agencies have not classified the plant as
a serious hazard and the location remains zoned for light
industry and commercial activity. In 1978, you and other local
municipal officials continuously objected that the installation
of a MIC production unit was a safety violation, but the Madhya
Pradesh State government vetoed your objections. Their position
has always been that the state needs the continued investment
of the Bhopal Plant, which provides a wealth of jobs that are
desperately needed in this area. Several factors continue to
concern you:
- The urban growth of Bhopal has led to increasing numbers
of inhabitants in the area immediately surrounding the plant.
In fact, the government recently legalized squatters' rights
by giving them legal title to their individual strips of
land.11
- UCIL have complained that an inadequate supply of water
and electricity may affect the safety equipment currently
installed.12
- The residents seem unaware of any potential hazards and
there are no organizations and apparatus in place to cope
adequately with any large-scale emergencies.13
- The nationalization policies of the central government
have resulted in the premature replacement of UCC engineers
and managers with less knowledgeable Indian
citizens.14
As a native of Bhopal, you are aware of how much benefit the
town receives from the employment the plant offers. You do not
want to lose this major investment, but feel there are some
serious safety concerns that are being violated.
- What recourses of action should you take?
Post-catastrophe actions:
In 1985, the Indian government passed the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster Act, which made the Indian government the sole
representative of all claimants. This also gave them the power
to appoint a welfare commissioner and other staff who would
control the distribution of compensation. Later, using this
act, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Scheme emerged, which further
controlled registration, processing and future
compensation.15
Union Carbide eventually settled out of court for $470
million, thereby denying any legal liability. To reciprocate,
the Indian Supreme Court provided immunity from any future
prosecution. Their official reasoning for accepting this offer
centered on providing relief as quickly as possible for the
victims, who had been waiting for compensation for over seven
years. Critics of the government have commented that the
officials further delayed in making reparations after the
settlement had been resolved.
- Were the interests of the public served by the Indian
government becoming the representative of the people? What
ethical issues arise from this?
- By providing immunity from any future prosecution, did
the Indian Supreme Court act ethically?
Recent developments
Despite the Indian Supreme Court granting immunity from any
future prosecution, a change in government prompted the court
case to be reopened. Criminal proceedings against UCC and
Warren Anderson (Chairman of UCC at the time of the
catastrophe) have been pending since 1992 in India. UCC continues to maintain that
all personal injury and related claims were settled in 1989 and
have refused to respond to any summons from the Indian court.
Under Indian law, the company has been deemed "fugitive" and
India seized the assets of UCIL to benefit the victims of the
catastrophe.16
In the seventeen years since the Bhopal
catastrophe, people have continued to die from exposure
related diseases and their complications. Damage to the
respiratory system has led to the prevalence of pulmonary
[tubercolosis], which has been found to be more than three
times the national average. There is further concern over the
more recent evidence of genetic malformation in newborns.