Editing Bhopal disaster (section)

====Underinvestment====

Underinvestment is cited as contributing to a dangerous environment. In attempts to reduce expenses, $1.25 million worth of cuts were placed upon the plant, which affected the factory's employees and their conditions.<ref name="really well informed" /> Kurzman argues that "cuts&nbsp;... meant less stringent quality control and thus looser safety rules. A pipe leaked? Don't replace it, employees said they were told&nbsp;... MIC workers needed more training? They could do with less. Promotions were halted, seriously affecting employee morale and driving some of the most skilled&nbsp;... elsewhere".{{sfnp|Kurzman|1987}} Workers were forced to use English manuals, even though only a few had a grasp of the language.{{sfnp|Chouhan|Jaising|2004|p={{page needed|date=October 2020}}}}{{sfnp|Cassels|1993}}

Subsequent research highlights a gradual deterioration of safety practices in regard to the MIC, which had become less relevant to plant operations. By 1984, only six of the original 12 operators were still working with MIC and the number of supervisory personnel had also been halved. No maintenance supervisor was placed on the night shift and instrument readings were taken every two hours, rather than the previous and required one-hour readings.{{sfnp|Chouhan|Jaising|2004|p={{page needed|date=October 2020}}}}{{sfnp|Kurzman|1987}} Workers made complaints about the cuts through their union but were ignored. One employee was fired after going on a 15-day hunger strike. Seventy percent of the plant's employees were fined before the disaster for refusing to deviate from the proper safety regulations under pressure from the management.{{sfnp|Chouhan|Jaising|2004|p={{page needed|date=October 2020}}}}{{sfnp|Kurzman|1987}}

In addition, some observers, such as those writing in the Trade Environmental Database (TED) Case Studies as part of the Mandala Project from [[American University]], have pointed to "serious communication problems and management gaps between Union Carbide and its Indian operation", characterised by "the parent {{sic|companies}} hands-off approach to its overseas operation" and "cross-cultural barriers".<ref name="TED">Mandala Project (1996), Trade Environmental Database (TED) Case Study 233. Volume 5, Number 1, January 1996 {{cite web |title=American University, Washington, D.C. |url=http://www1.american.edu/TED/bhopal.htm |access-date=6 October 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151101080203/http://www1.american.edu/TED/bhopal.htm |archive-date=1 November 2015  }}</ref>