The explosion of the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant in Bhopal, India on December 2, 1984 will remain one of the worst industrial calamities the world has seen. The official death count at the time of the incident was nearly 3000 deaths, but unofficial estimates hovered between 8000 – 10000 deaths (Bogart, 1989). This multifaceted case presents a unique challenge to critique the ethical dilemma in regards to Union Carbide’s legal strategy in response to the situation. The purpose of this paper is to further examine the three main prongs of Union Carbide’s strategy and their relation to ethical decision-making. These prongs are as follows.
1. Union Carbide Corporation argued that it only held a 50.9% stake in UCIL.
2. Union …show more content…
Union Carbide defended their position in saying they only held a 50.9% stake of the company. Thusly, they did not hold power over their affiliate UCIL who were owned by the Indian government and local investors. Presented in a 1986 countersuit and later echoed by Union Carbide spokesperson Tomm F. Sprick in the New York Times, both parties state that “Union Carbide had no role in operating the plant at the time because India’s government required the factory to be owned, managed and operated by employees of Union Carbide India Limited” (Dealbook, 2009). Furthermore, UCC’s file for forum non conveniens allowed Indian courts to seek justice on their own territory rather than fighting the case within the United States. Additionally, as we’ve established the large role of Indian investors and government within UCIL, and the lack of American personnel at the Bhopal plant, the case made logical sense to try within the Indian court system. Finally, the settlement between the government of India and Union Carbide prompted by a class-action lawsuit allowed victims and families to be compensated for the disaster. Union Carbide was under no obligation to understand or interfere with how the Indian government would distribute those …show more content…
Consequently, it took five years after the Bhopal disaster to reach a settlement that concluded a long and expensive battle through the courts. Arguments abound that the victims never had a fair fight against such a large American corporation. However, this was mitigated by the Bhopal Gas Leak Act with the Indian government acting as proxy to all claimants. Considering the situation from Union Carbide’s point of view, the settlement of $470 million was far less than what may have occurred if the trial concluded; or if it had been tried within the United States. In this regard, Union Carbide made an incredibly feasible decision that ultimately paid off and protected its interests and stakeholders
1. Union Carbide Corporation argued that it only held a 50.9% stake in UCIL.
2. Union …show more content…
Union Carbide defended their position in saying they only held a 50.9% stake of the company. Thusly, they did not hold power over their affiliate UCIL who were owned by the Indian government and local investors. Presented in a 1986 countersuit and later echoed by Union Carbide spokesperson Tomm F. Sprick in the New York Times, both parties state that “Union Carbide had no role in operating the plant at the time because India’s government required the factory to be owned, managed and operated by employees of Union Carbide India Limited” (Dealbook, 2009). Furthermore, UCC’s file for forum non conveniens allowed Indian courts to seek justice on their own territory rather than fighting the case within the United States. Additionally, as we’ve established the large role of Indian investors and government within UCIL, and the lack of American personnel at the Bhopal plant, the case made logical sense to try within the Indian court system. Finally, the settlement between the government of India and Union Carbide prompted by a class-action lawsuit allowed victims and families to be compensated for the disaster. Union Carbide was under no obligation to understand or interfere with how the Indian government would distribute those …show more content…
Consequently, it took five years after the Bhopal disaster to reach a settlement that concluded a long and expensive battle through the courts. Arguments abound that the victims never had a fair fight against such a large American corporation. However, this was mitigated by the Bhopal Gas Leak Act with the Indian government acting as proxy to all claimants. Considering the situation from Union Carbide’s point of view, the settlement of $470 million was far less than what may have occurred if the trial concluded; or if it had been tried within the United States. In this regard, Union Carbide made an incredibly feasible decision that ultimately paid off and protected its interests and stakeholders