Larry Jacques A44554251 EEP 405 Spring 2012 Case Analysis: Union Carbides Bhopal Plant The Union

Carbide accident in Bhopal, India in 1984 is the largest industrial disaster ever. However, the word accident may give a wrong impression of what happened. The word accident has this connotation that the events before time that led up to the event were unrealized. But the events were realized and ignored. What happened in actuality was a series of acts of negligence. In this case it wasnt the negligence of any one individual but systemically the whole organization, the industry, governments, and society at large. When we think of organizational related incidents it is easy for our mind to seek out the individuals that are most closely related to the accident itself and place blame on them. What really needs to be done is an analysis of what is to blame not who is to blame. In this case the what is the system which had no oversight, no responsibility of the players, high demand for results over safety, and conceptually no social-centric behavior. This system adds up to predictable behavior and predictable results. In some cases, such as this it is the situational environment that fuels these behaviors and creates negative impacts. The situational environment in the Bhopal case was contaminated at several levels. Stepping back to the societal level there seems to be a tendency to place less emphasis on things that we do that does not directly impact us as individuals. Often people can easily disconnect their actions with the results and deem it acceptable. The next level of situational contamination is at the industry level. It had become a preconceived notion in the 70s, and throughout the 80s that the advantages of multinational business included the skirting of costly local manufacturing that was due to local government based regulatory policies. At this point in time we need to note that the foreign government in India is contributing to the poor situational environment by simply being known for its substandard regulations, or more likely known for its easily circumvented regulations. Now we should look at Union Carbides specific contributions to the poor situational environment at the Bhopal Plant (which vary from the environments within the American plants). The list of responsibilities ignored in India include; assurance of safe work practices, assurance of employee safety, assurance of public safety, engaging in emergency preparedness, and most of all creating a culture that allows for increasing quality of the previously mentioned responsibilities. Inside of Union Carbide we can most likely find similar cases of poor culture in the individual departments as they are influenced by the entirety of the corporations values. Lets skip over the individual departments and instead look at the specific individuals close to the accident. If we apply all of the situational factors above to the specific individuals and we reference the, (1961) Milgram experiments on obedience to authority figures we find that there is a 90 percent chance that people in this type of system will ignore their own conscience and just follow orders. This nearly removes the blame from individuals at the plant. So then who is to blame? Is Chairman Warren Anderson of Union Carbide personally responsible for this catastrophe? Is it society? Is it the Government of India? Is it the U.S. Governments acceptance of imported goods that were manufactured under standards that would be considered non-acceptable within our borders? It turns out that the problem at Union Carbides Bhopal plant is a systems problem. There were failures every step of the way. This accident should have been a call to action against system problems of this and of similar nature. Who should respond to this call for action? The response needs to be handled at every level. The awareness of the problem is a first step. Next implementation of action is required. Implementation does however require a multi-angle approach. First, I would suggest changes in policy as a front line defense. The regulations relating to multinational corporate behavior need to focus on the concept that profit should never come at the cost of human lives and human health. Second, I would suggest a change in societal responsibility. A societal change comes a little bit slower but is necessary towards achieving the end results. Finally, we have to celebrate people who step up and stop events of this nature. There were people who warned of problems at the plant and were silenced through inaction. That silencing through inaction should be prevented through whatever means possible.