Case Brief: The case talks about Unilever’s (a British-Dutch MNC) ignorant behaviour towards

workplace safety measures and lackadaisical attitude in handling and ensuring proper disposal of
hazardous material, Mercury. The case highlights the situation in Kodaikanal (situated in Tamil Nadu,
India) where Unilever shifted its Mercury thermometer factory after tightening of US regulations
pertaining to the environment. Here the company polluted the environment by not properly
handling the factory wastages leading to mercury spills in the air which eventually settled in water
bodies, thus, entering the food chain, as a result of which the workers of the factory suffered from
intergenerational diseases. The wrong practices and the heavy damage that Unilever caused to both
its primary and secondary stakeholders were eventually noticed and after a period of prolonged
protests and campaigns, the factory was eventually shut down. However, this struggle between the
ex-workers of the factory and Unilever continued for 15 long years with Unilever constantly denying
the allegations of any kind of contamination being caused by their factory to the environment and
people. The case highlights the struggle of society and how different stakeholder raised its voice and
forced a company to own its responsibility towards its stakeholders which eventually resulted in
India’s first ever successful litigation moved by industrial workers against exposure to toxic
chemicals.
Ans 1
Instead of adopting a reckless and ignorant attitude after acquiring the plant in 1986 with a
sole motive to earn profits HUL could have done several things differently to mitigate the
damage and the backlash from various stakeholders.

 HUL’s website stated, “ Our code of Business Principles commits us to conduct our
operations with honesty, integrity, and openness”, contrary to this what HUL did was
they constantly denied their responsibility and the damage that their actions caused.
Instead they should’ve admitted their mistake and should’ve tried to make the
amends by undertaking various corrective actions offering medical treatment to those
affected, reducing the amount of mercury in soil, introducing proper cleanliness
drives etc.
 HUL, being a MNC, should’ve been more careful in handling and ensuring the proper
disposal of hazardous material like mercury. They should’ve come up with proper
methods to dispose off the wastes without doing damage to the environment and
the organisms living in it.
 The company should’ve adopted proper safety measures and should’ve provided
their employees with protective gears such as carbon cartridge masks. Proper
workload management programme should’ve been adopted so that there is no
pressure on employees which would’ve led to better handling of mercury. Safety
aspects of the employees should not have been compromised.
 Instead of adopting a lackadaisical attitude, HUL should’ve been more understanding
in order to resolve the matter at hand. They should’ve allowed the investigation
agency to do their work without influencing their findings and should’ve acted on
them. HUL should’ve acted on ethical grounds but they failed to do so which
resulted in large scale backlash from various stakeholders.
 HUL didn’t even inform the local community regarding their decision to downgrade
the clean up standards, leave aside meeting those.
 They should have properly defined their sustainability goals and should’ve followed
them. Proper training and education should have been provided to the employees.
Proper monitoring and control measures should have been taken.

The company could’ve created a separate division to measure and control the impact of
mercury on environment and various stakeholders, educating employees, managing
their workload, providing them with protective gears and conducting frequent medical
check-ups of the employees’ family. They should have been more accountable in their
approach and should’ve followed what their website stated. Had they taken proper
sustainability initiatives and focussed on overall growth rather then bottom line growth,
they could’ve avoided the entire fiasco.
Ans 2 A stakeholder is a party that is either affected directly (internal) or indirectly
(external) by the operations of the company. HUL’s thermometer plant in Kondaikanal
affected various internal and external stakeholders which are listed below:
 Employees: The employees were the key stakeholders that were impacted the most due
to lackadaisical attitude of HUL. They were working in a dangerous environment as they
were constantly exposed to Mercury and were not given any proper protective gears to
protect them from this exposure due to which they had to suffer from various diseases
which were passed onto their next generations as well.
 Management: The management adopted an ignorant and reckless behaviour and kept
on polluting the environment further which resulted in backlash and protest from
people which put immense pressure on the management to mend their ways and also
eventually led to the closure of factory.
 Local Community: The HUL factory was careless in handling and ensuring the proper
disposal of Mercury as a result of which it eventually settled in water bodies thus
entering the food chain of the local community.
 Activist Organisations: Various organisations like The Other Media, Chennai Solidarity
Group, Jhatkaa.org, The Hindu, NY Times stood up against the company and the damage
they caused in Kondaikanal.
 Governing bodies: Supreme Court, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Ministry of
labour and Employment are some of the regulators that were involved in order to
inspect the matter and keep a check if Unilever is taking adequate actions to improve
the condition at Kondaikanal by forming various committees.

The matter grabbed attention from various stakeholders who took different actions to help
the locals get justice, thus, impacting local (HUL) management as well as the Unilever
management. These are:-
 Social Media Campaigns- #WontBuyUnilever awareness campaign was launched which
reached over five lakh individuals on Twitter alone. A rap video titled Kondaikanal Won’t
be was launched which gained excessive reach on social media thus putting pressure on
Unilever to make amends for their actions.
 Protests- Plant employees, locals and environmentalists undertook various protests
against the irresponsible behaviour of the company after the company dismissed by
saying that the symptoms in the employees had nothing to do with them. These protests
helped to build the offline pressure on the company management.
 Pressure by Various Organisations- After HUL insisted on leaving up to 25 milligrams/kg
of Mercury in soil, Ministry of labour and employment came out with a report which
stated that not only ex-employees but also their children have been impacted due to the
mercury levels in the soil which further intensified the movement against HUL.
 Litigation- In 2006, the employees formed the Ex-Mercury Employees Welfare
Association and took matters to court. They showcased in their litigation that the
company did not provide protective equipment and carried out unsafe dumping of
wastes.

After prolonged online and offline struggle for 15 years, HUL made an out of court
settlement on humanitarian grounds with the old workers and this was the first successful
workers led litigation. Still the battle continues as HUL hasn’t cleaned up and taken steps for
contaminated land which still has 25 milligrams/kg of mercury in soil.