In an Adjournment debate organised by Gardiner at the Palace of Westminster titled the "Sustainability of the London Olympics", the 54-year-old MP grilled Penrose on why Dow was allowed to sponsor the £7 million ($11 million/€8 million) London 2012 Stadium wrap.

Dow, one of 11 worldwide Olympic partners, has come under increasing pressure over their sponsorship of London 2012 due to the fact that the company bought United States chemical firm Union Carbide, whose Bhopal plant in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh leaked toxic gases in 1984, killing thousands of people in an industrial accident.

Following the Bhopal disaster, Union Carbide settled its liabilities with the Indian Government in 1989 by paying $470 million (£310 million/€351 million) for Bhopal victims and, even though Dow bought Union Carbide a decade after the compensation deal, the company have been criticised for the Olympic sponsorship, with their funding of the wrap now in the firing line from Gardner.


"I don't know how Dow Chemical can have been considered suitable partners of the London Games, in terms of either sustainability or ethics," said Gardiner (pictured above), the for Brent North since 1997.

"Not only was the procurement process of the deal for the Stadium wrap pre-determined in Dow's favour by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games), but Dow Chemical's recent business malpractice has blacklisted them in India for bribing officials in order to sell banned, dangerous pesticides.

"This case was running concurrently with LOCOG's procurement of Dow.

"LOCOG continue to defend Dow's stance that they are not connected with Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster when all of the available evidence suggests they are.

"Dow Chemical is also shielding their own subsidiary company, Union Carbide, from Indian justice where it is wanted on criminal charges of culpable homicide in relation to the Bhopal disaster."

Penrose, the MP for Weston super Mare, responded that Gardiner must asked the questions of London 2012 and not the Government.

"I am sure the Honourable gentleman is aware, LOCOG is an independent company," said Penrose, representing Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport Jeremy Hunt at the debate.

"The Government has one Board member out of 19 or 20 and most of the decisions he is criticising were taken by LOCOG.

"Therefore, asking the Government to respond on behalf of a private organisation of which we have one board seat on, is I'm afraid, shooting at entirely the wrong target.

"I understand his concerns and, indeed, I doubt anybody here would disagree and would share his concerns that there is justice for the victims of the Bhopal disaster.

"But there is a difference between legal liability and moral obligation on this issue.

"Those two things are linked but distinct and I think we need to be careful about how we talk about responsibility, which I think he was using rather loosely.

"But fundamentally, the answer to the vast majority of the questions is: ask LOCOG."

Gardiner said that he had contacted London 2012 on the issue but had not heard back and has encouraged Penrose to put more pressure on the Organising Committee to be more transparent.


The group titled "Athletes Against Dow Chemical's Olympic Sponsorship" also released a statement to coincide with the debate in Westminster, which harshly criticised the IOC.

"Athletes Against Dow Chemical's Olympic Sponsorship was formed as a reaction to the IOC's conviction that no one, besides a few associations [representing Bhopal and Agent Orange victims] has any issues regarding Dow Chemical's Olympic sponsorship," said the statement.

"We ask the IOC to make the Code of Ethics and Olympic Charter apply to all Olympic sponsors, as they currently apply to all Olympic participants.

"If the IOC is going to demand certain ethics from athletes in order to preserve the image and ideal of the Olympic movement, then it is unfair that those ethos are not demanded of its sponsors.

"Through the IOC's decision of accepting, defending and even celebrating Dow Chemical's inclusion into the Olympic movement, athletes are now directly linked to a company that clearly does not display, nor respects the aims of Olympism.

"Either the IOC declares the Code of Ethics and Olympic Charter void for everyone, or it decides to apply it to everyone.

"Having double standards is not what the Olympics is about, or so we would hope.

"We will not protest during the Olympics out of respect to competing athletes, but we will continue sharing information with all international athletes and encourage athletes to speak out."

IOC President Jacques Rogge (pictured below with Andrew Leveris, the chief executive of Dow), however, has again reiterated his support for Dow.


"We were aware of the Bhopal tragedy when discussing the partnership with Dow," said Rogge in a letter to the Indian Olympic Association.

"Dow had no connection with the Bhopal tragedy.

"Dow did not have any ownership stake in Union Carbide until 16 years after the accident and 12 years after the $470 million (£297,461,000/€354,520,000) compensation agreement was approved by the Indian Supreme Court.

"The court has upheld this agreement twice since then, in 1991 and 2007.

"We understand that this is being reviewed yet a third time by the India Supreme Court and we are aware of Dow's position in this matter, and of the sensitivities of all parties.

"Dow is a global leader in its field of business and is committed to good corporate citizenship.

"The company has supported the Olympic Movement for over 30 years, providing support and bringing industry-leading expertise and innovation to the Games.

"We do hope that the Indian Olympic Association is recognising this, while we appreciate the difficult situation you are facing in your country."

Contact the writer of this story at [email protected]


Related stories
February 2012: Dow sponsorship row is not an issue for us claim IPC as Indian Paralympians call for London 2012 boycott
January 2012: Dow Chemical sponsorship of London 2012 faces fresh scrutiny after sustainability commissioner resigns
December 2011: Dow bow to pressure and remove branding from Olympic Stadium wrap
December 2011: Rogge backs Dow Chemical over Olympic sponsorship
December 2011: Indian Government ask IOA to raise Dow sponsorship with London 2012 but rule out boycott