Union Carbide owned and operated a pesticide factory in Bhopal, which at one point was a gift to the city’s people and economy. However, an explosion released the toxic chemical methyl isocyanate or MIC into the air, killing thousands of innocent people in cities in close proximity to the plant and exposing many more to its effects. Union Carbide as a company prided itself on its safety standards. However, several oversights would give rise to this disastrous event. Carbide neglected to explain the dangers of MIC, to design the factory properly, and to operate the factory in a safe manner successfully. In this paper, I will argue that Union Carbide’s negligence caused the release of the toxins and the poor immediate response. MIC itself is a highly volatile and deadly substance that is used in the production of the pesticide, Sevin. Carbide neglected to explain the dangers of this substance on several fronts. First, Carbide studied the substance thoroughly in order to construct a manual designed to instruct workers on how to handle MIC properly. However, they neglected to include knowledge of an antidote to MIC in the manual. "Injection with sodium thiosulfate could, in certain cases, neutralize the deadly effects of the gas." (Bhopal, 92) If Carbide had included this information in the manual, then all of the employees, including the medical staff, would have a purported treatment in the event of an accident. This treatment could have saved the lives of many people in a disaster. Secondly, not only did the medical staff lack knowledge of an antidote, but also they “did not have any specific training in the effects of gas-related accidents, especially those caused by methyl isocyanate." (Bhopal, 167) The company ... ... middle of paper ... ...egligence on all fronts allowed for the opportunity of the worst-case scenario to take place. The people of Bhopal had a right to a clean environment and air. Union Carbide knew the critical information about the gas and had a professional responsibility to uphold its obligation by not releasing toxic gas into the atmosphere and by making sure their employees followed all procedures. The company knew that a disaster of this magnitude was possible beforehand. Therefore, they knew the consequences that would occur from a failure on their part to correctly operate their factory. Carbide showed a lack of care in operating the factory where a moral obligation to the safety of the people was clearly present. Therefore, Union Carbide’s negligence is responsible for the release of toxic MIC into the air and the poor immediate response to the disaster.
dangers in the nuclear plant because the bosses just ignored it. The bosses and workers are not
Meshkati, Najmedin. "Human Factors in Large-Scale Technological Systems' Accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl." Industrial Crisis Quarterly 5 (1991): 131-54. Personal World Wide Web Pages. Web. 19 Mar. 2011. .
Media outlets demanded answers from BP concerning what caused the disaster that started April 10, 2010. It became one of the worst environmental spills in U.S. history. Instead of owning up to the problem and taking responsibility, the company went on an offensive-blame-fueled binge that left those affected by the events horrified and angry. (Houpe, 2010)
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
BP was founded in 1908 under the name Anglo-Persian Oil Company. They changed their name to British Petroleum in 1954 and merged with Amoco in 1998. (BP Public Website, 2010) “The Texas City Refinery is BP’s largest and most complex oil refinery... It was owned and operated by Amoco prior to the merger of BP and Amoco.” (Michael P. Broadribb, 2006) Throughout their history, there have been a number of accidents that have been caused by negligence and disregard of safety precautions. Unfortunately many lives have been cut short or seriously injured as a result. My research will focus on the 2005 Texas City Oil Refinery Explosion. I will attempt to look into the ethical implications that surrounded this disaster before and after the event and suggest what BP could have done to prevent the incident then and in the future.
...being held accountable, the city officials themselves were also held accountable because of improper safety regulations. Showing that the city itself should be at fault for not enforcing safety regulations for such things as fire escapes, that were not in working order. These unprecedented circumstances just lay down the blueprint for what is now the correct way to set regulations for industrial factory conditions.
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
It was clear that the governments in America would not issue a permit to Union Carbide plant under such circumstances, which lacked severe environmental standards and permitted slum dwellers to live near the plant and so on. Such actions were the ones that led to more deaths. Before the major gas leakage from the MCI unit on December 3, 1984, some people were killed because of phosgene gas leakage. However, no one took it seriously, despite the media report. One of the reasons that people ignore this was because people didnt know the potential danger of the chemical plant.
Cashman, J. (2000). Emergency Response to Chemical and Biological Agents. Boca Raton, FL. Lewis Publishers.
Hazardous materials can be important in everyday life when properly handled. However, when improperly handled, they can result in injury, death, and destruction as well as have lingering effects that may last for years to come. To address the risk of an uncontrolled hazardous materials release, there must be a coordinated effort to identify, locate, and quantify the hazardous materials in a particular location (Drexel University Safety & Health, 2001). Typically, industry and government agree that a hazardous materials incident is one where
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk-benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change (Legget, C., 1999). This was a ground breaking decision because it failed to use the common standard of whether a harm was a result of an action on trespass or harm as a result of an action on the case (Ferguson, A., 2005).
For example, in 2012 a Bangladesh factory producing garments for American and European companies caught fire killing 117 factory workers (Cooper, 2014). Additionally, in 2013 another factory in Bangladesh collapsed killing 1,100 workers, which was caused by foundational issues from the upper floors being built without a permit (Cooper, 2014). These incidents ignited outrage over both unsafe and unfair working conditions as well as the exploitation from MNCs, who had extremely profitable contracts with these factories. Consequently, due to public outcry the formation of enhanced government regulations, oversight, business initiatives, and public efforts have surfaced (Cooper, 2014). Although these issues have not been completely resolved, the question over the extent of which MNCs are responsible for adequate workplace safety remains a controversial topic. However, strategic efforts from these companies indicate the importance and necessity of remaining proactive in a globalized economy. These efforts consist of the formation of minimum workforce standards, compliance regulations, financial support, and long-term contractual
Nearly three decades ago, the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal India had a devastated tragedy. The toxic chemical and methyl isocyanate gas leak from the plant killed thousands of civilians who were sleeping and injured hundreds of thousands of people in the nearby neighborhood. For those who survived from this catastrophic incident had injuries ranging from blindness to suffering burns of the skins. The cause of this accident was due to the lack of safety standards and the decision making of Management of Union Carbide in the U.S and management in India in which it played a huge role on how this incident unfold and the many lives that were affected by this horrific accident. The Union Carbide manager in India’s overlooked at safety issues that could have clued them to the problem that needed to be resolved. And if management had a high priority for the safety of their employee’s well-being instead of profit, this situation could have been avoided. After the incident, it was a matter of who was responsible and who will compensate for the injured victims.
Chemical and fire hazards in the workplace cause serious injuries that in most cases are fatal.
NET failed to recognize or react to either situation. It is imperative to understand that NET was liable for its employees but the employees, as individuals were also liable for their actions. NET lacked the system controls necessary to keep the company liability to a minimum on this issue. Usually with failures such as these, the system internal controls are this company is lacking the most. Ethical behavior among management is key to ethical behavior among employees.