Advocacy organizations in Taiwan have formed a coalition to monitor the activities of Taiwanese Multinational Corporations. This involves sharing strategies between campaigns, including workplace accidents at the Formosa Steel plant in Vietnam and toxic exposures at Samsung (see SHARPS and Kim et al 2021).
Disavowal is a way out for corporations who can no longer deny - they just aggressively ignore and separate, making it possible to still shout about their “goodness” and avoid taking responsibility for their risk. The scientist-President is doing her job as a scientist but positioned structurally within the hotbed of corporate manufacturers - how does this constrain her thinking and acting?
Ad campaigns - 360*, from big-name companies like O&M. Getting involved in the scientific community that is meant to be working against them to regulate and mitigate the risk they propose to society.
Not really portrayed in that way here. The scientists are portrayed as genuinely caring about society, but being humble about what their data can and cannot say and why, and it seems they see themselves as part of the society.
In the first phase it seems it was just being modern, perhaps productive. They deny there is any risk to be responsible for. The middle is about the self-managing of risks they can no longer deny exist. The final one has disavowed responsibility but position themselves as essential for life as we know it, so we don’t focus on the ethics.
The self-governance in the stewardship phase immediately after Bhopal was positioning as authority to manage their own risk to society and environment. And the ad for India had a hint of this - the plant having the authority to usher in a particular kind of modernity back in the 50s and 60s. To the extent that the corporate position of the Exposure Science org’s president counts as CSR, they are also working to define exposure and connect it with legislation.
The main arguement of the film is that the development of stable and adequite public health networks is as important to the greater good of the population as the prevention of civil war.
This film is designed to have an emotional appeal. Very little scientific evidance is provided, and most of what we see are images and naratives about the effects of ebola from the public's perspective. Powerful images and stories, such as the death of a pregnant women on the side of the road, the closing of hospitals, and the turning away of patients are predominantly displayed. Much of this movie is told from the perspective of a student of the University of Wisconsin, and there was a large amount of dialouge about how he tried to get his family out of the effected zone. The only notable statistics given in the film was at the end, when the number of effected and the number of deaths were compared.
" The dangers under which health workers try to function appear to be heightening, as frightening locals continue to blame the doctors for prepetuating the violence"
"We don't accept their prescence at all. They ae the transporters of the virus in these communities"