HINDUSTAN LIVER LTD.

GROUP 7 & 8

Damage to Workers and Environment• It was reported that 600- 800 workers were exposed to mercury• Management Negligence played a key role• 20 workers have died to poisoning in the factory• People in the vicinity of the Factory suffered from Skin diseases, Headaches,

Stomach pain etc• Poisonous vapour carrying mercury travelled across the town

HLL Response to complaints

• After many denials & cover-ups the company agreed that it shipped out 5.3 tonnes of mercury waste to scrap yard

• HLL’s response to the complaints was transparent and the persons responsible for breach were indentified & penalized

• A new manager, R. John was appointed to defend the Factory administration• Manufacturing operations were suspended on March 2001 & glass scrap yard was shifted to a

more secure place• An environmental audit was commissioned by HLL• It appointed Well-known URS Dames & Moore of Aus to conduct a detailed environmental audit• The result showed that 300 kg of mercury was disposed to the Pambar Sholas Forest and

another 700 kg of waste through air• Another notable International expert Dr P.N Vishwanath found no evidence to risks caused due

to mercury

Where Does the truth lies?

• High levels of mercury seen to as far as 20 kms• Reports of atmospheric mercury outside HLL factory site• Amounts of mercury found along the hills surrounding Kodaikanal lake• Mercury may be transferred into the wider eco-system• HLL – denied the allegations• Admitted to 5.3 tonnes of mercury containing glass wastes lying at the

Munjikal scrap yard came from HLL factory• HLL promised to track, retrieve and clear such other waste• NGOs demanded justice from HLL for the damage

Unlimited demand to the Government.• Initiate legal action against HLL• Take serious action against the factory inspectors• Initiate long term studies to monitor the impact of mercury

on the eco-system• Order HLL to make enquiry into the impact of mercury on the

health of people and remedies• Compensate the families of dead workers• Permanently destroy the mercury found in HLL’s waste

CONCLUSION

• HLL Plant had adversely effected the entire Kodaikanalenvironment.• There are evidence that can prove that mercury emitted from the plant

had far larger impact than revealed by the expert commissioned by HLL.• HLL yet to have submit the complete clean-up protocols to TNPCB.• Mercury is still prevalent in the atmosphere through the

discarded factory scraps.• The Environment is badly effected.• Hindustan Lever’s behavior violates the environmental principles of the

UN Global Compact.

Question 1 Trace the history of the establishment of kodaikanal thermometer factory and how it came into the adverse view of the NGO’s, the public and the TNPCB

• History of factory as follows:-• Originally a new York based company which was shutdown there due to

environmental problems• It was then relocated from watertown, new York to kodaikanal, tamil nadu in

1983.• The factory was acquired by uniliver, after it bought cheseburg ponds of HLL,

which is uniliver’s owened indian subsidiary.

Reasons to come into the adverse view of the NGOs, thepublic and the TNPCB are:-• Mercury is a toxic metal which can cause tremendous health

problems to people living nearby and even far away.• More than 400 residents of Kodaikanal caught HLL redhanded dumping toxic

mercury-laced waste .

Question 2 - How did Hindustan Lever Ltd. Respond to the initial complaints of various stakeholders that the company had adopted a callous attitude towards the disposal of Hazardous mercury-laden waste? What type of strategy did the company adopt when it realized that the entire fault lay in the carelessness of the factory’s administration?

Answer - Response of HLL regarding Initial Complaints :-• HLL sought to dismiss the Complaints.• Company responded that they were characterized by denials,

cover-ups and lack of transparency.• Records of any mercury waste leaving the factory were kept

meticulously.

Strategies adopted by the company after realizing the fault:-• HLL duly informed TNPCB of the details of the mercury disposals.• The persons involved in the event were identified and penalized, the

penalty depend on the severity of the offence committed.• A new factory manager, R. John George who knew the local language,

Tamil was appointed.

Question 3 - What was the role of NGOs in bringing to light HLL’sdumping of mercury waste in various parts of Kodaikanal locality? To what extent were they able to get justice to the affected workers and the general public?

Answer - NGOs played an important role in avoiding the serious incident that could have taken place if proper action would not have been taken before by the NGOs:-• NGOs played active role in turning all the stones to mobilize the public

opinion and to pressurize TNPCB and Tamil Nadu’s government to force HLL to stop the hazardous activities.• NGOs galvanized worker, concerned citizens, and environmental

activists to force the factory to suspend their operations.

NGOs are also responsible to form the Tamil Nadu AllianceMercury(TAAM).• Help in the investigation regarding the atmospheric examinations.• NGOs also helped former workers approaching the Supreme Court

of India in 2005• The NGOs with their continuous demand and incessant ensured the

livelihoods of workers that are put to risk by HLL.• As a result the damages caused to the workers, the community and

ecology of the Kodaikanal town was compensated adequately.• The NGOs kept the issue alive throughout.

Question 4 - Explain in your own words the HLL Kodaikanal mercury spill controversy. What is the present status of the controversy?

Answer -The HLL situated in Kodaikanal was caught red handed by the residents of that place when it was found a dumpsite with toxic mercury-laced waste from the company’s thermometer factory of HLL.• It was found near a school the 7.4 ton stock pile of crushed mercury

containing glass in torn sacks, spilling onto the ground• Even after 5 years of being caught the HLL has not submitted the

complete clean up protocols to the TNPCB• It is also noted that the mercury is still prevalent in the atmosphere

because the discarded factory scraps and contaminated vegetation re-emit absorbed mercury.

Question 5 - What kind of roles have NGOs such as Greenpeace India, played in bringing to the open the issue of HLL’s spill of toxic mercury waste in and around Kodaikanal hills? Did it have the desired impact in your view?

Answer: the roles played by the NGO’s are:• Mobilized public opinions to pressurize the government for compelling hll to make

amendments for its acts of commission and omission in the unlawful disposal of the toxic waste• It galvanized workers, concerned citizens and environmental activist to force the factory

to suspend its operations in march 2001• It also formed the TN alliance against mercury which tried to find out contaminated soils.• According to us, the NGO had played a very vital role in this issue because of it the HLL

saw the reason and took some corrective measures.• It helped the former workers to approach the Supreme Court of India in 2005,

demanding compensation for the loss of job and health from HLL

Question 6 - How would you reconcile diametrically opposite views held by hll assigned scientists and those appointed by the government and NGOs about the quantity and the toxic nature of the spilled mercury waste and its impact on the failure ecology of Kodaikanal hills? Was there any meeting point at all between these two viewpoints?

The scientist appointed by HLL admitted that the discharge of mercury to the Pambar Shola forest was approximately 300 kg

• HLL appointed consultants who said that about 700 kg of mercurywaste were released through air-bone emissions

• An expert of eco-toxicology of mercury appointed by HLL could not find any evidence to risks caused by mercury either to human or toenvironment

• The scientists appointed by the government and NGOs however found the concentrations of mercury up to 1.32 µg/ m^3 which was about thousand times higher than in the areas that were not contaminated.

• So by the above mentioned findings it become very clear that the viewpoints of both the scientist one appointed by hll and other by the government was totally opposite to each other and did not had any meeting points.

THANK YOU