Union Carbide S Response to the Bhopal Disaster

Decision-Making Process at Bhopal

On December 3, 1984, about 5,200 people were killed and at least 11,000 more were injured when a plant in Bhopal, India operated by Union Carbide Indian Limited leaked highly toxic methylisocyanate (MIC) gas (Bhopal tragedy, 2016). In response to this high-profile incident, numerous investigations including one by Jackson B. Browning ("The Browning Report") highlighted the flawed decision-making process that resulted in this tragedy. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the literature concerning the 1984 Bhopal disaster, followed by an assessment concerning the overall quality of the decision making process used by Union Carbide.

The context of the decision making processes.

The major stakeholders involved in the decision that resulted in the Bhopal gas leak included Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) and its 23,000 Indian shareholders, Union Carbide (which owned more than 50% of the UCIL operation as well as the 750,000 residents of the surrounding community of Bhopal, India (Browning, 1993). The manufacture of MIC is a highly complex and dangerous enterprise that was originally intended to provide India will the ability to become self-sufficient in food production and the entire plant was operated by local Indian nationals as part of this self-sufficiency initiative (Browning, 1993). In fact, the last American worker at the Bhopal plant had departed more than 2 years prior to the 1984 disaster (Browning, 1993).

2. The main phases or activities of the decision making process.

The investigations that followed the 1984 disaster showed that it was not the decision-making process of UCIL or Union Carbide that resulted in this incident, but rather a dissatisfied Indian employee of UCIL. According to the Browning Report, "Although it was not known at the time, the gas was formed when a disgruntled plant employee, apparently bent on spoiling a batch of methyl isocyanate, added water to a storage tank" (1993, p. 1). Consequently, the more salient aspects of the decision-making process that were involved in this incident occurred after the fact.

3. Analysis of the case

To its credit, Union Carbide and UCIL had planned for the unexpected by creating contingency plans and crisis response teams (Browning, 1993). Nevertheless, Sheoin and Pearce (2015) point to the "disastrous response to the leak due to failures by the Indian state and the responsible corporation" (p. 2) as contributing to the magnitude of the incident.

4. Assess the overall quality of the decision making process. Identify its strengths and limitations. Suggest ways of improving the process.