Question 1: What could HUL do differently to manage the social and environmental
consequences?
Answer:
The impact of HUL and its thermometer manufacturing plant at Kambar Shola in Kodaikanal
was generational and devastating. We can understand from the given case study that the
entire tragedy could have been avoided if only there was a sustainable safety process in
every aspect of the supply chain of the plant. Let us now try and understand where things
went wrong and then we can understand suitable remediation that could have been
implemented.
A thermometer plant using mercury in all of the stages of its supply chain is extremely prone
to contamination of the environment. Starting from the procurement and storage of raw
materials mainly dealing with liquid mercury led to a lot of exposure to the workers.
Mercury fumes also have a devastating effect on the central nervous systems and cause
health issues & physiological disorders. So proper storage and handling with safety gear
especially carbon-based masks and suits should have been provided. Within the
manufacturing plant itself, there was a lot of waste that is generated in the form of effluents
as well as solid waste. Disposal of these wastes should have been done properly and not in
landfills that increased the level of mercury in Kodai soil up to 25 mg/kg in the soil. The
dumping of thermometer glass shards mixed with liquid mercury was extremely
irresponsible by the plant. There was a large scale social impact that was at a loss when we
find that mercury contamination and exposure passed through generations and the
newborn and children of old workers were facing health issues on a grave physiological
level.
The most important step that HUL should have taken but did not was to avoid conspiracy
with investigating agencies, understand the issue at hand, and accept the mistakes that had
been caused and take responsibility. HUL did none of the above. If HUL had taken steps to
solve the issue and properly compensate the victims, they not only could have saved face by
taking accountability but also could have avoided a large scale ecological disaster. The
following steps could also help the plant avoid future disasters.
They should properly define their sustainability goals and educate their suppliers and
stakeholders. The designation of an organization member to be accountable for the safety
measures is needed. Proper monitoring and communication from all levels is a must. In the
end, feedback from the stakeholders can prevent any future disasters as such.
Question 2: Who were the key stakeholders for the business operations of the mercury
plant and why?
Answer:
The prime stakeholders in the business operations of the mercury plant were the workers
and employees of that plant. This is mainly because they directly were responsible for all the
“benefits” that the company provided. They were also responsible for the performance of
the plant and were ingrained into the supply chain processes of the plant.
The stakeholders when they realized the health implications that the plant had in and
around Kambar Shola in the Kodaikanal region, and the closure of the plant, they marched
directly to the site along with locals and environmentalists for their utter irresponsibility.
This protest and closure of the site forced HUL to carry medical examinations of 255
employees, former employees, and some contract workers. This showed mass scale
physiological disorders in the given set of people. But this was denied by the firm as the
effects of mercury poisoning which was again a very shameful act when WHO guidelines on
mercury poisoning and its effects were reported and they matched with the results that
they got after the medical examinations of those 255 stakeholders.
The protests continued because the firm was not ready to take accountability for the
mishap. So finally due to pressure from these mass-scale protests, in 2002 they onboarded
an independent international environmental consultant URS Dames & Moore, to conduct a
contamination and risk assessment study. But here again, the findings were grossly ignored
since allegedly HUL had a hand to play in misreporting of the study. Hence in the end for the
stakeholders, this was again a futile exercise. The report had only shown the high level of
contamination of mercury in the soil and this pushed the firm to large scale export of
mercury to the USA for proper dumping of the waste. But the fight for adequate
compensation for the workers and their families, the cleanup of the already contaminated
land, and also to get HUL to accept the liabilities were still on. Now in 2006, the old workers
formed Ex-Mercury Employees Welfare Association and took matters to court. They
showcased in their litigation that the firm did not provide protective equipment and carried
out unsafe dumping of waste. But this resulted in a sudden lowering of standards and
unannounced cleanup, which was not at all of the proper environmental standards. HUL
always avoided admitting and taking account of the issue. After prolonged 15 years of both
offline and online activism, HUL made an out of court settlement on humanitarian grounds
with the old workers and this was the first successful workers led litigation against a
behemoth of the industry. Though the workers received their due compensation, many
believe this is a battle half won, since still HUL hasn’t cleaned up and taken steps for the
contaminated Kodai land which still shows 25 mg/kg levels of mercury in the soil.
