The Enforcement of Social Accountability – Turner and Newall and the Asbestos Crisis

It is widely acknowledged that the impetus for the setting up of the CadburyCommittee on corporate governance was the series of scandals that became public in the late 1980's. And whilst hard cases do not always help in making good laws, they can sometimes prompt us into reflective action to consider what arrangements might prevent these problems from occurring in the future. This paper seeks to describe and examine a hard case that poses corporate governance questions regarding distributive justice and the appropriate form of procedure that might satisfy its demands. The hard case in question is that of Turner and Newall (T&N) and its handling of its asbestos liabilities. This case raises many ethical issues (secrecy, duties of care, distributive justice, informed consent, corporate responsibility) which can only be touched upon in this brief examination which is mainly focused upon the issue of corporate responsibility arising from this firm’s predicament. The case will be discussed as follows: first, the facts as they are known will be described concerning the asbestos risks and damage liabilities of T&; secondly, the policy and practice of T&N in dealing with this issue will be outlined; thirdly, the moral inadequacies of their response will be highlighted; then a contrast will be drawn with the strategy adopted in the USA by the Johns‐Manville Corporation; and finally, one possible alternative solution will be proposed and its wider lessons for corporate governance considered.