The Bhopal Gas Tragedy
 <<Previous
THE TRAGEDY Cont...Unofficial estimates put the
death toll at over 16,000. A study carried out by a Non Governmental
Organization in March, 1985 showed that between 50% - 70% of the non-hospitalised
population in exposed areas of Bhopal had one or more symptoms of MIC
poisoning. According to an epidemiological study sponsored by Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi, in October 1989, 70% to 80% of the people in the
severely affected communities and 40% to 50% in the mildly affected communities
continued to suffer from MIC exposure related illnesses five years after the
disaster. A house to house symptom survey in one community, conducted as part
of a doctoral dissertation in Delhi University in early 1993, showed 65.7%
people suffering from respiratory symptoms, 68.4% with neurological problems
and 49% with ophthalmic symptoms. Among the women in the reproductive age,
43.2% suffered from reproductive disorders.
UNION CARBIDE TAKES THE OFFENSIVE
|
Following the accident, the GoI filed a compensation lawsuit against the UCC for an estimated US$3 billion. However, UCC felt that the GoI was to blame for the disaster. In December 1986, UCC filed a countersuit against the GoI and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The company charged the governments with "contributory" responsibility for the leak of poisonous gases, saying both governments knew of the toxicity of MIC but failed to take adequate precautions to prevent a disaster.
Under the two sections "First Steps At Control" and "Contingency Planning and Experience Help," UCC listed all the things that it did immediately following the first call it got about the tragedy. The document said that vital decisions were made-the UCC facility making MIC in the US was shut down; a task force led by Warren Anderson was set up; and medical and technical teams were dispatched to the site of the tragedy "within 24 hours." |
|
The document also said that "Union Carbide had a contingency plan for emergencies." However analysts felt that contrary to what was said in UCC's document, UCC did not have any kind of emergency plans in place at its Indian subsidiary. So much so, that when the accident occurred and people started pouring into the hospitals in Bhopal complaining about the various ailments, the hospital staff had no idea of what had happened or what to do.
UCC tried to defend its position by saying that it had only a 50.9% stake in
UCIL. The company also said that all the employees in the company were Indians
and that "...the last American employee at the site had left two years before."
UCC maintained that it did not have any hold over its Indian affiliate. UCC
further argued that the day-to-day working of UCIL was independent of the parent
company and therefore it could not to be held responsible for the gas leak.
However investigations revealed that this was not really true. In spite of
denials, it appeared that UCC had substantial authority over its affiliate. Many
of the day to day details, such as staffing and maintenance, were left to Indian
officials, but every major decision, such as the annual budget, had to be
cleared with the parent company.
THE SETTLEMENT
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
EXHIBIT I THE SITE FOR THE PESTICIDE FACTORY
ADDITIONAL READINGS AND REFERENCES:
2010, ICMR (IBS Center for Management Research).All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted
in any form or by any means - electronic or mechanical, without permission.
To order copies, call +91- 8417- 236667 or write to ICMR,
Survey No. 156/157, Dontanapalli Village, Shankerpalli Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad-501504.
Andhra Pradesh, INDIA.
Ph: +91- 8417- 236667,
Fax: +91- 8417- 236668
E-mail: info@icmrindia.org
Website: www.icmrindia.org
|
More Classifications...