Bhopal Disaster: Ethics, Technology, and Corporate Responsibility

Introduction: A Case That Provokes Moral Outrage

Learning about the human disaster that the Bhopal chemical disaster caused, and then reading the supervisor's comments, provoked immediate anger. "We got along just fine before the regulators ran wild," Adam Baines said. "A few gallons over the limit isn't worth the time it's going to take to fill out those forms," he added. These remarks reflect a total lack of business ethics. Baines' attitude is wholly unprofessional, and it sends chills through anyone who genuinely cares about environmental protection — especially when human beings are going to suffer because of dangerous chemicals being released into the environment due to slipshod preventative measures or management's failure to be accountable to the law.

The utilitarian ethical theory comes directly into play here, and it relates pointedly to the Mission Statement of Union Carbide — now owned by Dow Chemical, makers of Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam and caused thousands of American soldiers to suffer serious illness for years. Union Carbide's stated mission reads: "Union Carbide Corporation utilizes leading-edge technologies to help our customers around the world introduce superior products and reach new markets. By thoroughly understanding their needs, and working in partnership to improve performance while meeting demanding safety and environment standards, we can create chemistry for their applications" (Union Carbide Corporation, "Mission Statement").

Union Carbide's Mission Statement and Utilitarian Failures

The company pledges to meet "demanding safety and environmental standards" and, by extension, to maximize the well-being of society as a whole. Yet in responding to the Bhopal spill, management did not perform a genuine risk-benefit analysis. Instead, they appeared to be operating on a cost-benefit logic — concluding that it would cost them too much in negative publicity to fully disclose and document the spill. This is a fundamental betrayal of utilitarian principles, which require that the overall welfare of all affected parties be weighed honestly and acted upon.

An estimated 3,700 deaths resulted from the release of the pesticide ingredient methyl isocyanate at the Bhopal plant. Reading the callous indifference exhibited in the supervisor's response — "This is ridiculous… I don't want to see any more garbage like this…" — represents an outrageous breach of moral standards. Any action that violates the moral rights of citizens is ethically unacceptable. Baines displayed so little regard for human life that he prioritized his job and his reputation over the health and safety of citizens in India. It is also worth noting that Union Carbide was an American company operating in a foreign country, and it is well established that when operating abroad, an American corporation — even one partly owned by a local partner — carries a moral duty to protect the workers inside its plant and the communities living around it.

Ethical Dilemmas Created by the Cover-Up

The first ethical dilemma arose when the supervisor reprimanded the staff member for writing the incident report. In doing so, he violated the duty not to injure others and the duty to treat others fairly. A supervisor who knows the applicable rules, legislation, and company policies — and who knows that the company has publicly committed to upholding safety standards — should review such a report carefully and ensure it reaches the appropriate authority. The second, and far graver, ethical dilemma was created when a dangerous toxic spill capable of causing death and serious injury was not properly reported.