Reaction Paper Bhopal Post
A Reaction of the Bhopal Case
This reaction paper is based on the ethics case: Bhopal-Union Carbide. First, I discuss an overview of the case. Second, I relate the case to principles discussed in class. Third, I evaluate the various points raised in class and present my point of view.
Overview of the case In December 1984, the pesticide producing plant, Union Carbide, leaked methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India. A substance that accidently entered the methyl isocyanate storage unit caused the gas to boil and leak into the air. The leak was undetected for over an hour since the plant’s manager and senior operator distrusted the corroded alarm instruments. In addition, all emergency response equipment had either been disabled or was malfunctioning because of budget cuts instituted earlier in the year. Eventually the plant’s pipestack began leaking the toxic gas into Bhopal killing over 2,000 people and causing injuries to 200,000 people (Brooks 2010). The pesticide producing plant was built in 1969 when the Indian Government wanted jobs and needed pesticides for crops to feed a growing population. It incentivized Union Carbide to build the plant in Bhopal with cheap labour, and lax environmental, workplace, and tax laws. The Union Carbide Corporation, based in the U.S., had a 51% controlling interest in the pesticide producing plant operated by Union Carbide India. American managers determined budgets and issued technical operating procedures while Indian managers were in charge of day-to-day activities. One year before the incident, the Indian Government convinced Union Carbide to not to close the unprofitable plant to keep local jobs. As a result, budgets were slashed and equipment requiring repairs were ignored. Several safety systems that could have prevented the disaster were broken or shut down to cut costs (Brooks 2010). Three months after the disaster, the Indian Government passed the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Act, legislating that it would provide the sole
This reaction paper is based on the ethics case: Bhopal-Union Carbide. First, I discuss an overview of the case. Second, I relate the case to principles discussed in class. Third, I evaluate the various points raised in class and present my point of view.
Overview of the case In December 1984, the pesticide producing plant, Union Carbide, leaked methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India. A substance that accidently entered the methyl isocyanate storage unit caused the gas to boil and leak into the air. The leak was undetected for over an hour since the plant’s manager and senior operator distrusted the corroded alarm instruments. In addition, all emergency response equipment had either been disabled or was malfunctioning because of budget cuts instituted earlier in the year. Eventually the plant’s pipestack began leaking the toxic gas into Bhopal killing over 2,000 people and causing injuries to 200,000 people (Brooks 2010). The pesticide producing plant was built in 1969 when the Indian Government wanted jobs and needed pesticides for crops to feed a growing population. It incentivized Union Carbide to build the plant in Bhopal with cheap labour, and lax environmental, workplace, and tax laws. The Union Carbide Corporation, based in the U.S., had a 51% controlling interest in the pesticide producing plant operated by Union Carbide India. American managers determined budgets and issued technical operating procedures while Indian managers were in charge of day-to-day activities. One year before the incident, the Indian Government convinced Union Carbide to not to close the unprofitable plant to keep local jobs. As a result, budgets were slashed and equipment requiring repairs were ignored. Several safety systems that could have prevented the disaster were broken or shut down to cut costs (Brooks 2010). Three months after the disaster, the Indian Government passed the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Act, legislating that it would provide the sole
References: Brooks, L. J. 2010. Ethics Case: Bhopal-Union Carbide. Business and Professional Ethics for Directors, Executive & Accountants, 5th Edition, pp. 38-39. Broughton, E. 2005. The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environ Health 2005, 4: 6. U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1142333/ Friedman, M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Kennedy, B. 2014. CBC News Moneywatch. April 23, 2014. Moldoveanu, M. 2012. Managerial Models and Methods for Moral Reasoning. Foundations for Business Ethics, pp. 1-25. Rajagopalan, S. 2010. An Indian Tragedy Many Times Over. Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2010.