Bhopal
In 1984, a cloud of the extremely toxic methyl isocyanate escaped from a pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. The company was fiercely criticized for its safety, media, and legal policies in the aftermath. To address this the company launched a huge PR campaign. The company owns Bhopal.com and uses the site to disseminate information. One report is entitled Union Carbide: Disaster at Bhopal, written by the retired VP of Health, Safety, and Environmental Programs at Union Carbide.
The essay is a classic piece of spin (some might say propaganda.) The report will say one thing, then say a second thing a page later that casts it in a different light. The two statements are sufficiently separated that the report avoids sounding overtly contentious in spots, but a reader with a memory longer that one paragraph sees Browning talking out of both sides of his mouth, apparently taking a mea culpa one moment and denying responsibility the next.
For instance, the “tragedy continues to be a source of anguish for Union Carbide employees”, but the incident was caused by a “disgruntled plant employee.” Union Carbide Corporation “took the heat”, but it owned “just over 50 percent” of the subsidiary Union Carbide India Limited. The Bhopal plant caused the deaths of thousands of people but “ironically” the plant was intended for a “humane goal” (namely, the production of highly toxic chemicals.) Yes, UC is an American company, but at the time of the accident “the last American … had left two years before” and “the entire work force … was Indian.” The toxic cloud enveloped a shanty town, but the town’s very existence was the fault of zoning decisions by “local officials.”
Union Carbide employees showed their “personal concern and compassion” by setting up a relief fund. A little arithmetic division shows us that the fund’s coffers swelled to an average of a $1 donation per UC employee, and that the relief payout was under $7 per dead or injured person. As a corporation, Union Carbide had originally offered $2 million as reparation (a bit over $100 per victim), then increased the offer to $7 million (under $500 per victim.) The Indian government filed a claim for $3 billion ($200,000 per victim.) After the Indian Supreme Court accepted a settlement of $470 million ($30,000 per victim), the new administration rejected the offer, returning to the original request of $4 billion. Understandably this “outraged” many at Union Carbide. Why? Not because this would put a dent in profits, surely. It was because UC, “from the first day … had been moved by compassion and sympathy”, and could not tolerate the government’s “apparent indifference to the plight” of the victims.
Email subscription
