CAN Member, Tom Benner, at Dow's Annual General Meeting
On Thursday May 12, Amnesty Corporate Action Network Member Tom Benner drove over 350 miles, from his hometown of Carmel, Indiana, to Midland, Michigan, to attend the Dow Chemical annual shareholder meeting. In attending, he represented the concerns of Amnesty members worldwide, and provided a voice to hundreds of thousands of victims in Bhopal who could not attend the meeting themselves.
Tom spoke during the Q&A session, where he was allowed just 2 minutes. From Tom’s vantage point, this session seemed structured to give every advantage to management, though it was not conducted in quite as rigid a manner as he had anticipated. Chairman of the Board William S. Stavropoulos presided. There were microphones on each of the two side aisles. Those who wanted to speak had to go to those stations and complete a card containing their name, whether they were a stockholder or were holding a proxy, and their question topic.
The 2-minute limit was enforced by means of a digital clock on the stage that began at 2:00 and counted down by fifths of a second. When it reached zero nothing happened right away – the microphone wasn't turned off automatically, and some of the speakers just kept going. Eventually a gentle sound of bells rang out, but not at the same time for each speaker. It appeared the bells were controlled by Chairman of the Board, William Stavropoulos, depending upon how much leeway he wanted to give to the speaker.
Stavropoulos prefaced the Q&A session with some remarks about Bhopal. He began by saying that UCC was a separate entity back when the disaster occurred, and explaining that it still has its own board of directors, as does UCC-India. He mentioned the $470 million settlement, said that UCC sold UCC-India at some point, and used some of the proceeds to build a museum for the victims. What he failed to mention is that the settlement was negotiated without the participation of the victims, and that the settlement was capped before the full extent of the damages had been estimated. In fact, in its amended case before the Bhopal District Court in January 1988, the government maintained that the claims connected to the leak would exceed US$ 3 billion.
Stavropoulos indicated that the US government has refused to extradite Dow, and UCC has exercised its right not to appear before the Indian courts. Last year DOW India appeared before the Bhopal court in order to explain the corporation's structure. On remediation, he claimed that Dow has no remaining liability. This is contrary to the opinions of many lawyers and activists working on behalf of Bhopal’s victims. Get the facts in Amnesty’s 2004 report, “Clouds of injustice – Bhopal disaster 20 years on.”
Tom was the third questioner overall, and several shareholders in the crowd took notice. As he described it, “The woman operating the microphone announced my name, that I was holding a proxy for Amnesty International, and had a question about Bhopal. When she said "Amnesty International" a number of heads in front of me turned quickly around to see the questioner.”
Tom’s statement, which was provided to him by Amnesty International USA’s Business & Human Rights Program, was timed to fill up the full 2 minutes and make the most effective use possible of the time. It began by elucidating the severe human rights abuses that have accompanied the Bhopal disaster:
“The chemical disaster in Bhopal is not just a part of Union Carbide's past— it remains a daily reality for thousands of Indian citizens. That explosion twenty years ago brutally ended the lives of more than 7,000 people within days, and a further 15,000 in the following years.
Yet, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, the people of Bhopal frequently have no alternative but to drink contaminated water and live off land poisoned with chemicals that have persisted in the environment because the site was never adequately remediated. Access to medical care is often inadequate to address the devastating impact that these chemicals have had on their health, and the health of their children. The number of people suffering is estimated to be near 100,000 and, in the wake of their suffering, their ability to provide economic security for themselves and their families has been severely undermined.
The failure of the Indian Government and UCC/Dow to comply with their respective obligations and responsibilities has resulted in these human rights abuses – abuses of the right to life, to health and to livelihood. These abuses are so severe that 6 months ago, Amnesty International released this report documenting these abuses and demanding action from UCC/Dow and the government of India.”
He then led into his question, which dealt with liability for remediation of the plant site:
“On the 6th of January this year, the Bhopal District Court issued this summons requesting Dow to respond to the court in Bhopal and explain why Union Carbide has never answered to the charges pending against them since 1991.
Additionally, the Government of India, in affiliation with in affiliation with the State of Madhya Pradesh, has responded positively to a decision by the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which appears to open the door toward a judicial order mandating that Union Carbide remediate the Bhopal plant site.
If the US courts grant this request for remediation, since Union Carbide is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical, doesn’t that mean that Dow Chemical would be responsible for any costs associated with a decision against UCC?”
We hope that we got at least some people in the audience, if not those on stage, to actually think about the human costs involved with Bhopal, if only for a moment or two.
For his part, Stavropoulos simply ignored the question. According to Tom, “It was as if he stopped listening once he heard the words "Amnesty International," and he just gave a response that may very well have been worked out ahead of time.” Though an official transcript of the Chairman’s remarks was not kept (only the official business of the meeting is recorded), the gist of his response was that the company respects Amnesty International and that they read the report as soon as it came out. They disagreed with some of its conclusions (however they have never specified which). They claimed that they requested a meeting with Amnesty, but that we cancelled it. They indicated that they remain ready to meet and have a dialogue with Amnesty.
At best, this “response” seemed designed to draw attention away from our actual question. More troubling is that it appeared that Dow was actively trying to discredit Amnesty by announcing to shareholders and the Board of Directors that we had cancelled a meeting, when this is not reflective of the full truth. AI met a Dow representative on the day of the launch of our report on Bhopal, last December. On that occasion Dow promised to get back to Amnesty with a response to the report. However, they never have.
After a few months, Amnesty contacted Dow again, asking for another meeting.
Dow
proposed a meeting in London but changed the date twice. The last time that
they changed the time and location for the meeting, they asked Amnesty at
the last minute if our representatives could meet them at their hotel at
Gatwick Airport at 9am. Despite the significant inconvenience, Amnesty attempted
to send someone to this meeting, however a senior member of our delegation
was not able to attend. As a result, we asked Dow to postpone the meeting
to ensure senior participation. New dates have already been discussed.
Tom was frustrated and disappointed with Dow’s cop out. As he described it, “Once I had finished speaking the mike was turned off. I suppose that I could have shouted out "You didn't answer the question," but I doubt that would have accomplished anything except perhaps assuring my immediate exit.”
Ward Morehouse, representing Boston Common Asset Management, gained the microphone a few moments after Tom. He spoke of how disingenuous it was for Stavropoulos to claim that UCC is not controlled by Dow. He mentioned a letter that Boston Common Asset sent to Dow in March that has still not been responded to. Stavropoulos' only reply was that "we have a fundamental disagreement" about the corporation's liability, and as to the letter, he asked that it be resent, and they would consider it and respond.
The Yes Men (not affiliated with Amnesty International) also made an appearance
at the shareholder meeting. You can read more about this here.
