UKC

If theres any justice Warren Anderson will be burning in the hottest part of hell.

How this criminal got away with his crimes shames us all.

In reply to Indy:

And Warren Anderson is?

In reply to Doghouse:

head of union carbide at the time of the Bophal disaster.

In reply to Indy:

probably better to have attacked him when he was alive - more sporting

In reply to Doghouse:
Chairman and CEO of Union Carbide back in 1984 when the Bhopal disaster happened. Very much a hate figure in India, but there is quite a persuasive argument that this is more than a little unfair.

In reply to The New NickB:


In the interest of balance, what is that argument?

In reply to The New NickB:

The radio 4 obituary I listened to on the way home last night wasnt so kind to him. He did give out misinformation repeatedly following the event and was part of the original team who drove costs down by cutting corners on safety. They sort of implied that everyone else, in all the governments involved, messed things up so much that he got away with it.

In reply to Offwidth:

The Telegraph obit is somewhat more sympathetic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11205397/Warren-Anderson-obituar...

In reply to ByEek:

I believe the argument was that Union Carbide India were a largely independent subsidiary of Union Carbide who were responsible for the day to day running of the plant. While the senior management bear ultimate legal responsibility for the safety of the organisation that Warren Anderson was not in a position to have prevented the disaster.

In reply to The New NickB:

I find this hard to believe...

“to turn Union Carbide into a firm in which respect for moral values would carry as much weight as the rise of its shares on the stock market”

In reply to Reach>Talent:


True. However, forgive my ignorance - didn't all associated with the incident do absolutely everything in their power to squirm out of taking responsibility for the incident after it had happened? I believe many of those affected were not compensated, nor was their any form of apology or acknowledgement of the suffering people went through. I makes tragic reading.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

It does read like a puff piece, but I assume the Telegraph try to maintain some integrity to their obits. The reality is, we don't know.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


Do you think he was aware that it was cheaper to have factories in India, than to have factories in countries with better health and safety regulations?

In reply to The New NickB:

We don't, but they do seem to report things as fact, and we only have his word for it.

For example...

"Anderson was haunted by the disaster"

Might be true, but I wouldn't say it's a fact, or report it as one.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


It's an interesting question. Whilst the senior management obviously don't look at, (or probably even understand), every bit of decision making in their company; their leadership defines how the company operates.

If he's responsible for a culture of promoting cost cutting above all else, then he'd be spectacularly naive not to know the end result would be a major accident at some point.

In reply to Ridge:


Agreed. But for me, the true horror of this story is what the company did (or didn't do) after the incident.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:





Many things in life fall in to this category. We don't know. I'm not particularly defending Anderson, I really don't know just how culpable he was, but others have taken a more sympathetic position.

In reply to ByEek:

It is an unfortunate fact of life that an organisation never admits wrongdoing unless forced to by a court, because it opens you up to virtually unlimited damages. When he heard about the accident Warren Anderson is reputed to have immediately travelled to India to (help/look concerned) only to be arrested by the Indian police.

Nothing I have read so far suggests that Warren Anderson had any involvement with the Bhopal facility after he opened it (until that point) although that could be my failing to use Google adequately or because I was doing several other things at the same time What I have read suggests that Bhopal was a facility managed by an Indian subsidiary producing products for the Indian market and while it would be nice to assume that any western company opening facilities in the developing world suddenly rolled out all of the safety infrastructure we take for granted in the UK it simply isn't feasible.

In my limited experience of dealing with contract manufacturers in India there is an attitude that productivity is more important than safety, this isn't just something imposed by management this is something present in the workforce. If corners were cut in the name of productivity I would be unsurprised if it had nothing whatsoever to do with the management. This sort of behaviour also occurs in the UK but is much less prevalent after 40 years of naughty employe(rs/es) being told that the HSE will come and get them, the situation in India doesn't seem so good ( http://www.amrc.org.hk/alu_article/occupational_health_and_safety/india_hea... ).

In reply to Reach>Talent:
In the specification of materials corners were cut, there wasn't stainless steel used like in the US, but conventional steel instead, for example, which ment the factory itself was built to a lower spec. I'm finding myself wondering who was responsible for this. It could be worth a google I guess.

In reply to Timmd:

An old adage but one I am fond of "never blame malice till you've ruled out incompetence " I have found non-stainless steel in equipment destined for pharmaceutical production lines in the Uk and our systems of inspection are pretty rigorous. Material certificates get miss-filed/lost/forged/misread/ or someone screwed up reading a drawing, lots of explanations which while not acceptable are more palatable than malice

In reply to Reach>Talent:
That's a good view point, I seem to have become more cynical of late. It's not so good for the spirit.