NAME: GARTH VINCENT

REFERENCE NUMBER: 29417

STUDENT NUMBER: 089012989

COURSE: MSc in Risk Crisis and Disaster Management

COURSE INTAKE: September 2008

MODULE NUMBER: ONE

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 12TH DEC.2008

ESSAY TITLE: Disasters do not cause effects. The effects are what we call a

disaster. W. Dombrowsky .Discuss with reference to two specific disasters.

1
Vulnerability to the impact of disasters is the most underemphasized factor in the

infrastructural development of communities. ʺBy 2050 the world population is expected

to grow by three billion peopleʺ (Kreimer & Arnold et.al 2002). With most of the

expected growth occurring in developing countries, it must also be noted that death

related to disasters are higher in developing countries than First world countries. In this

discourse the focus would be on examining how the mismanagement of preventative

measures contributes to the causative effects associated with emergencies which develop

into crisis and if continued mismanagement occurs a disaster emerges.

Our discourse will draw reference to two specific disasters the Bhopal City Union

Carbide India Limited Disaster which has been dubbed the world’s worst Industrial

Accident. The Bhopal Disaster occurs on December 3rd, 1984 with 8000 deaths due to a

breach which released a toxic cloud of Methyl Isocyanides Gas and thousands more with

genetic defects which affect their anatomy even to this present day. The other disaster

Hurricane Katrina, this natural disaster is listed as one of the deadliest disasters in the

history of the United States. This tragic disaster occurred on August 29th 2005, affecting

most of the southern states but specifically Louisiana mainly New Orleans. ʺ Katrina left

1,836 dead, and 705 missing and $89.6 Billion U.S. in damages.ʺ (Tropical Cyclone

Report 2006). As we set the stage with these two dichotomy disasters showing Industrial

disaster causative agents and the other natural disaster causative agents and how they

amalgamate to form Socio-Technical Disasters. We would then critique the different

definitions of the term Disasters and the theoretical perspectives. Critical analysis

would be paid to Crisis Theories, Risk Management, Management Systems, Health and

2
Safety approach, Organizational and Safety Culture of the governmental and corporate

environment mirrored against the disaster examples. Our conclusion would juxtapose

the preceding elements and appraise a new solution which can be implemented by the

world’s nations with the key intent focused on disaster prevention and reduction efforts.

Quarentelli E.L. (1998) defines disasters as ʺthe consequence of inappropriately managed

risk. These risks are the product of hazards and vulnerability.ʺ Building on this definition

Quarentelli E.L. is stating that disasters are products of improper risk management and

identification of risk, since causative agents can compose of political, governmental,

social, infrastructural consequences. The repercussions of Hurricane Katrina on New

Orleans can be applied to this theory. All of the 53 built levees were breeched and ailed

to contain the massive flood waters that accompanied the hurricane. In the Bhopal Union

Carbide Disaster the risk were identified and known to both Union Carbide India Limited

(UCIL) and the parent company in the USA. However managerial pressures to reduce

operational expenditure and maintenance cost left identified risk unfurled to burgeon into

a crisis state and thereafter a disaster.

Turner B. (1978) & Horlick .J (1990) statesʺ disasters are systems failures that are

represented by human or technical failure within organizational systems.ʺ In Turner’s

book “Man Made Disasters “, he states that ,ʺaccidents are ultimately latent failures of

socio –technical systems and these occur after a period of incubation has taken place.ʺ

Socio – Technical effects in relation to the Bhopal disaster, socially Bhopal was a

thriving city but the urban areas were heavy population by lower class citizen, compacted

in the boroughs of the city. Technical failure occurred due to perennial machinery failure

at the plant which triggered the impending leak that caused so many deaths. New

3
Orleans sustained the greatest impact of Katrina was known to have areas that were

socially depressed, but the lack of technical emphasis on disaster preventive

infrastructure and systems lead to great losses of life , property and environmental

damage. The theorist in our essay title Dombrowsky (1995), also contributed in disaster

theories by stating that, ʺdisasters can be seen as social vulnerability or lack of

capacity.ʺIn the Bhopal Disaster UCIL, failure to apply a systematic approach to risk and

health and safety issues , catapoled the incident that occurred at the plant, lack of capacity

can be seen as a drastic decrease in operating costing thereby reducing the ability to make

correctives to the various defects in processing operations. The Katrina disaster lacked

capacity due to improper management systems, inadequate planning, communication

system failures from local to state to a nation level (FEMA), to deal with preventative

solutions, which left New Orleans vulnerable to causative effects.

What role did management systems play in the organizational and safety culture of our

specified disasters and how did systems influence the causative effects?

The theories that were adopted by two organizations reflected a functionalist approach.

In this approach management rules, laws and policies as cornerstones for organizational

and cultural change, implementing the corporate strategic approach. This can be seen as

organization manipulating and imposing ideas and reductionist agendas without any

regard for understanding organizational culture. ʺThe functionalist approach of

organizational culture is characterized by the following assumptionsʺ (Waring 1992,

1993, 1996 a). The function of organizational culture is to support formal, nationally

designed management systems and strategies. With all these factors presented the

functionalist approach can be drawn in parallel to our Bhopal UCIL disaster 1984. The

4
senior management team had adopted irresponsible operating procedures; a lack of

prompt response in dealing with safety complaints, even the complaints about the

erection of the plant in a heavily populated area was ignored. Management threatened and

fired workers who did not comply with their unorthodox safety and maintenance

practices. ʺTrade union officials were laid off and all political and trade union meetings

inside the factory were bannedʺ (Eckerman pg. 49; 2006). Clearly management

functionalist approach manipulated the organizational culture through threats,

intimidation and wrongful dismissals. In the Katrina disaster, the functionalist approach

was taken by the U.S Government pre-disaster efforts, policies were developed to

separate the government from accepting overall responsibility or correctly noted liability.

The policies formulated were not designed to create accountability and agencies

responsible for emergency responses and disaster efforts were insufficient and poorly

managed. Critical elements of the National Response Plan was executed late and in some

cases never initiated, resulting in communication failure, unfamiliarity of roles and

responsibility by individuals and agencies that embedded in the plan. The Interpretive

approach that can be applied to organizational and safety culture of the respective

countries and is recognized as a corrective to the functionalist approach. The Interpretive

approach craves social stability and pays close attention to the components of the world,

which are the society, politics, business and how they interrelate with the organization.

This approach does not believe in quick fixes to solve organization, but have the

understanding that time and organizational learning must be applied to yield positive

results. Definitely this approach should be the foundation for all future stakeholders

responsible for minimizing causative effects. Safety culture is aligned with the

interpretive theory, organizational learning is a key factor and touted a realistic approach

5
to changing safety culture, rather than relying on decrees from directors or simple

prescriptions based on training (although leadership, commitment and practical activities

including training will be necessary). Some of the recommendations for the development

of safety culture that employers can adopt in their organization are as follows. (Institute

lifelong learning 6-18)

1. Take steps to establish what their managers and employees actually believe about

health and safety particularly in ownership of health and safety responsibilities

and benefits, attitude towards risk-taking and risk acceptance, motivations to act

appropriately.

2. Codify what is expected of all their personnel, in terms of values, beliefs, attitudes

and practices concerning health and safety

In order for safety and organizational culture to be effective in the workplace, it must be

supported by an effective Health and Safety Legislation. Before legislation can be

developed into effective Health and Safety laws, an assessment of risk in the environment

must be conducted. Isomorphic Learning’s can be applied, since these learning’s

examine disasters, crisis and emergencies of the past and critique accident causality to

create preventative measures which can be adopted in their organization. The U.K.

Health and Safety Executive (1999 a: 2) states that,ʺ an assessment of risk is nothing

more than a careful examination of what in your work could cause harm to people. Once

this is conducted, preventative measures are formulated and implemented.ʺ The Health

and Safety causative agents that affected workers at the UCIL are many summarizing;

Eckerman (2001) it is noted that a series of accidental leaks which claimed the lives of

workers occurred within 1981-1984, prior to the December 1984 disaster. Previously to

6
the Katrina Disaster, Health and Safety risk were not comprehensibly assessed and

therefore Health and Safety laws to promote proper assessment were not implemented,

contributing to the failure of state, local and F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management

Agency) response bodies to minimize the damages that occurred. To ensure that

management and the worker contribute wholeheartedly to create a safer work

environment and by extension safer communities, organizations must be held accountable

for the causative effects.

Toft and Reynolds (1994), ʺall disasters should have causal agents and further that these

agents may be identifiable and therefore prevented. ʺ The notion of causal agent also

suggests that blame can be identified and this issue has become a particularly important

one. For public enquires an exhaustive amount of time and expense may be focused on

establishing causality and responsibility. Listed below are organizational structures and

the responsible party/parties identified for ensuring Health and Safety policies and

procedures are enforced and in contrast would be held responsible for health and safety

compliance failures.

Managerial-Bureaucratic: the mode of operation is controlled by middle management and

is applicable to Military, Police and Fire Services and many national and local

government departments where demonstration of compliance with national policy and

objectives is of more immediate importance than expansion or customer satisfaction.

Post Industrial: Massive complexity of multinational organizations operating in an

international environment demands that policy decisions must often be made at a local

level.

7
Drawing parallel to our disaster examples the Managerial-Bureaucratic system, the

Hurricane Katrina disaster can be applied to such a structure. In the Katrina disaster local

government and the state were responsible for ensuring that health and safety, risk, crisis

and disaster management are the responsibility of the local and state officials to ensure

that causative effects of disasters are minimized and well managed. The Managerial

Bureaucratic also discharges responsibility to the supervisors in senior management (in

this case represented by government and F.E.M.A.) However laws which enforce the

indictment of responsible parties are not clearly written and therefore compensation is

difficult to obtain. The Bhopal disasters can be drawn in parallel to the Post-Industrial

Structure. With the internationalization of companies this increases the likelihood that

the ultimate responsibility for any disaster situations will boarder with the management of

the affiliated company. Union Carbide the parent company of UCIL (United Carbide

India Limited), the national health and safety laws of India which were more or less non-

existent , led to a plethora of safety and health violations and no government agencies to

enforce correctives. The double standard Health and Safety approach by multinational

companies which enforce stringent laws in their country of origin but lower the health

and safety standards in developing and third world countries in which they establish

businesses. In the Bhopal disaster the parent company funded several response initiatives

immediately after the disaster; however, these efforts were minimal and could not equate

with the extent of damage experienced. Acceptable compensation arose when a court

ruling in 1992, (8) eight years after the incident was reached.

In Accident Causation Theory we will examined the Domino Sequence Theory in order

to grasp how the disasters causative effects materialize. The Domino Sequence Theory,

places emphasis on the influence of management in the cause and effect of all accidents

8
that result in a wastage of the organization assets. Lack of control by management,

permitting basic cause (personal factor and job factors), that lead to immediate causes

(substandard practices, human errors) which are proximate causes of accident resulting in

loss (minor, serious and catastrophic). (Institute of Lifelong Learning 4:58.)

The Domino Sequence Theory (Bird F.E. & Loftus R.G.) uses the principle, if one factor

is affected the eradication of accident causation is rendered impotent. Failure to maintain

compliance with adequate programme standards, in the Bhopal disaster, reports of plant

standards prior to the incident, showed that management had a non-functional safety

system, which even the parent company Union Carbide USA admitted to, in their

investigation report. In November 1984 , many valves and lines were in poor condition .

(Eckerman 2001 & 2004) Lack of training coupled with plant staffing policies which

states only (8) weeks training was sufficient, with workers and operators being given

responsibility beyond their training and competence. Personal factors and job factors in

relation to the Bhopal operations shows that management mandate to halt promotions

seriously affected employee morale and caused an exodus of skilled workers. Chouhan

et.al (1994, 2005), 70% of the plant‘s employees were fined before the disaster for

refusing to deviate from the proper safety regulations under pressure from management

summarizing the Basic Causes component of Domino Sequence Theory. The Domino

sequence mentions, Immediate Causes, substandard conditions of many of the plant’s

equipment which were either non-functional or operating below capacity. The incident

our next Domino theory was as a result of all factors leading to the Incident and thereafter

resulting in loss (people, property and loss). This can be translated to the Bhopal event

where many lives were lost, severe environmental damage and millions of dollars in

compensation claims.

9
With the Katrina disaster the United State Government would assume the role of

management. In the Domino Sequence Theory, first factor, lack of control, mentions

inadequate standards contributed to a lack of proper testing of the effectiveness of state

response plans and the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS), prior to the

hurricane. Basic Causes, Personal factors could be interpreted from the social aspect,

showed that the state had a high level of unemployment and those citizens and by

extension communities could have been trained to assist in the evacuation process or

other aspects of F.E.M.A, state and local response efforts. Third factor looks at

Immediate Causes, poor communication systems between FEMA, local and State

agencies, poor engineering infrastructure to contain flood waters and lack of effective

training in disaster response. Incident factors resulting from a lack of correctives applied

to immediate causes resulting in an emergency/incident. The Loss factor tallies lives lost,

property damage and social degradation the extent of which progresses to a disaster

status. The Katrina disasters claimed more than 1,800 lives with social and environmental

damage is still present to this day.

The essay would now examine strategic management, and the decision making process.

Our attention would focus on how inferior strategic management initiatives and poor

decision making correlated to our disaster samples. Strategic management is the art,

science and craft of formulating, implementing and evaluating cross functional decisions

that will enable an organization to achieve its objectives. It is the process of specifying

the organization’s mission, vision and objectives, developing policies and plans often in

terms of projects and programs which are designed to achieve these objectives and then

allocating resources to implement the policies, plans, projects and programs(Wikipedia).

With the above definition clearly outlined, what are some of the benefits of strategic

10
management? (Greenley 1986) indicates some benefits to organization that implement the

strategic management process are:

• It allows for the identification, prioritization and exploitation of opportunities.

• It provides an objective view of management problems.

• It minimizes the effects of adverse conditions and changes.

The four basic elements which are applied in an organization to achieve the preceded

mentioned benefits are (Institute of Lifelong Learning 7-17):

 Environmental Scanning

 Strategy Formulation

 Strategy Implementation

 Evaluation and Control

Environmental scanning requires organizations to take a critical view of their operation,

starting with an external assessment. In business related organizations it requires an

evaluation of the world market how the product or service doing, what future growth are

forecasted. In the governmental organizations world trends are always to be examined in

order for proper preparation and decision making. Internal assessment of structure must

also be conducted to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and

what alternative strategies can be applied. Strategy formulation, emphasis is on the

development of a plan of action, the organization’s plan in order to achieve growth. If we

apply this to our governmental example this will reflect on preparedness with a review of

learning and what new initiatives would be applied. Strategy implementation is applying

the developed formulation to the organizational structure, placing all of the companies’

11
resources in the implementation process yielding greater growth and a more stable

organization. However, it must be mentioned that the implementation of the formulated

plan may not always create favorable outcomes.

The Strategy evaluation process is vital in monitoring and assessing the implementation

process. Strategy evaluation is also based on both qualitative and quantitative criteria’s

that will be tailored for each type of organization. Effective strategy evaluation allows

managers to capitalize on internal strengths as they develop to exploit external

opportunities as they emerge to recognize and defend against threats and to mitigate

internal weaknesses before they have a detrimental effect on the organization. (Institute

of lifelong learning 7-21) The decision making models are inclusive of the strategic

management models with the four major steps in decision making reflecting identical

element which are: identifying the problem, generate alternatives , implement and

monitor solutions.(Bartol and Martin 1998:231) we will now analyze how these models

functioned in our disaster examples. In the Bhopal disaster, management was aware of

the conditions of the plant. They (management) were presented with reports of plant’s

environment and even instructed supervisor, if they were dissatisfied employment was

terminated. This highlight’s the complacency decision making barrier, imposed by

management, the problem was identified as what is called a crisis problem, and defined

as a serious difficulty requiring immediate action but was blatantly ignored. The

management of Bhopal concocted what is known in the decision making model as non-

programmed decisions, which are predetermined decisions, and rules that are impractical

because of the status of the situation. Non- programmed decisions can also have

favorable outcomes however, in the Bhopal disaster, management decision to cut back on

operational and maintenance cost proved to be disastrous. Managers in this situation

12
applied what is known as the Garbage Can model of decision making which is

described ,as managers making random non-programmed decisions without evaluating all

the factors. In strategic management we learnt that environmental scanning must be

conducted before decisions are made and then strategic plans can be formulated. The

Bhopal disaster clearly showed management’s ignorance to this process. In the Katrina

disaster, the barrier of decision making factor called complacency is displayed and the

incremental model approach was adopted by the State of Louisiana and by extension

F.E.M.A. In the Incremental model, managers make the smallest response possible that

will reduce the problems to a less tolerable level. However this approach is geared to

achieving short term alleviation of a problem rather than making decisions that will foster

long term goal attainment. In this case no great emphasis was placed on strategic

planning; the levees that collapsed could have been constructed and engineers to

minimize effects of mass flooding, if environmental scanning and the other elements

were enforced. The National Response Plan ineffectiveness, communication barriers,

command and control issues, could have been resolved by testing, evaluation conducted,

prior to the disaster to ensure its effectiveness. These gaps could have been rectified if

proper strategic management principles were adopted by local, state and national bodies.

Katrina and the Bhopal disaster demonstrates how crucial group decision making could

have served to minimize these effects. The Bhopal UCIL management exhibited signs of

the, Group Think theory, which describes this form of grouping, as the tendency in

cohesive groups to seek agreement about an issue at the expense of realistically

appraising the situation. Group members are so concerned about preserving the cohesion

of the group that they are reluctant to bring up issues that may cause disagreement or to

provide information that may prove unsettling to the discussion (Institute of lifelong

13
learning 7-57). No member of United Carbide India management spoke to the parent

company about the escalating hazards existing at the plant. With the Katrina disaster the

technological era may have played a major part in hindering different agencies

responsible for state affairs from converging. Computer Assisted group decision

making ,which has less face to face interaction directly and therefore took longer to

complete objectives, in some cases, this type of group interaction can yield positive

results. However in contrast, this system can also produce indecisions being reached and

administrative “red tape” prior to arrival at concrete decisions. This discourse examined

all the facts and demonstrated clearly how poor managed preparatory factors can

contribute to emergencies and crisis developing into disaster due to mismanagement of

primary causative effects. It is hoped that the information submitted enthralled your

mind, merging together the socio-technical disaster with the natural disaster clearly

showing how the principles and theories come together to expose the deficiencies that

both the private and governmental organizational structures contained. Both

organizations’ management machinery lacked a perfusion of components such as, risk

management systems, health and safety policies, safety and organizational culture,

strategic management concepts, management systems and concrete decision making

processes, which were caveats to ensure that greater level of planning, implementation

and initiatives were executed.

Annually, disasters particularly natural disasters cause thousands of deaths and injuries,

massive damage and notable economic losses. In 2004 and 2005 total cost sustained by

natural disasters tallied nearly $350 billion dollars. Some countries have well developed

programmes that oscillate into actions after a disaster; the need for preventative action to

reduce the impact of both natural and socio-technical disasters is presently under

14
developed. The goal to effective disaster prevention is to make disaster prone

communities less vulnerable to natural or socio-technical disasters impact and create

communities with a level of independence to manage all phases of emergency

management. With this goal in mind the solution is an amalgamation of all the major

entities, business, government, humanitarian organizations and communities to work in

unison to support and create prevention which will in time, result in disaster reduction

communities. The key for such a drive to be effective, is dependent on funding, the bulk

share of which must be supported by business entities, government and the individual.

This funding from public and private sectors channeled into the humanitarian

organizations and government agencies responsible for community development and

infrastructure must have proper auditing and accountability systems to ensure the task

identified are conducted. These prevention programs are mainly needed in developing

countries, ʺthe World Bank estimates that approximately 97% of disaster related deaths

are from these countriesʺ (A.Warhurst 2006). As another year draws closer to an end,

there are no signs of a decrease in natural or socio-technical disasters in the near future

and with global economies struggling with recessions, depleting natural resources,

unemployment and environmental degradation now more than ever, the 168 countries

that pledged in the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, in 2005 must aggressively

reaffirm this pledge to establish greater Disaster Reduction Initiatives. There should be

collaboration starting with the individual, to the groups, to communities, the corporate

sole and to the government agencies, and NGOs, to concentrate on the disaster

preventative implementation strategies with a primary objective of minimizing the

causative effects and impacts associated with disasters in developing and first world

countries.

15
Bibliography

1. Bartol, K.M and Martin, D. C.(1998) ʺManagement ,ʺ New York : Mc Graw

–Hill.

2. Bird. F.E. & Loftus R.G.

3. Chouhan .T.R. (2005) ʺBhopal: The Inside Story.ʺ

4. Dombrowsky, W.R. (1995) ʺAgain and Again ʺ Is a disaster what we call

ʺdisaster ʺ? Some conceptual notes on conceptualizing the object of Disaster

Sociology.

5. Eckerman .I. (2006) .The Bhopal Disaster 1994, Working conditions and role

of the Trade Union. (Asian –Pacific Newsletter on Occupational Health and

Safety 2006:13 page 48-49.

6. Eckerman .I. 2001 (excerpt Wikipedia 2008 Hurricane Katrina )

7. Eckerman .I. 2001 & 2004 (excerpt Wikipedia 2008 Hurricane Katrina )

8. Greenley, G. E.(1996) ʺ Does Strategic Planning improve company

performance ? ʺ Long Range Planning, 19 (2) 106.

9. Horlick-Jones, T.(1990) Acts of God ? An investigation into Disasters,

London: Association of London Authorities.

10. Health and Safety Executive Work Regulations 1999 .a.2.

11. Institute of Lifelong Learning 2008: lesson 6 page 18.

12. Institute of Lifelong Learning 2008: lesson 4 – page 58.

13. Institute of Lifelong Learning 2008 Lesson 7 – page 17

16
14. Institute of Lifelong Learning 2008 Lesson 7 – page 21

15. Institute of Lifelong Learning 2008 Lesson 7 – page 57

16. Knabb, Richard, D., Rhome, Jamie R., Brown, Daniel P. Tropical Cyclone

Report Hurricane Katrina: 23-30 August 2005.

17. Quarentelli E.L. (1998) .What is A Disaster? Routledge , London.

18. Turner B.(1978) Man-Made Disasters, London :Wykehem.

19. Toft .B. & Reynolds .S. (1994) Learning from Disasters: A Management

Approach, Oxford: Butterworth -Heinemann.

20. Waring, A.E. (1992) ʺ Organizational Culture, Management and Safety.ʺ

paper presented at the British Academy of Management 6th Annual

Conference Bradford University 14-16 September.

21. Waring A. E. (1993) Management of Change and Information Technology.

Three Case Studies, Ph .D Thesis, November 1993, London Management

Centre, University of Westminster.

22. Waring A.E. (1996a) Safety Management Systems London: Chapman and

Hall /ITP.

23. Wikipedia (2008), search for Strategic Management.

24. Warhurst .A. (2006) ʺDisaster Prevention a role in business?

17
18