In a recent development that has sparked widespread outrage, French-owned construction conglomerate Altrad, which acquired the British asbestos manufacturer Cape, stands accused of employing coercive tactics to suppress dissent from asbestos victims and their advocates. The heart of the controversy lies in Altrad’s offer of £3 million to asbestos victim support groups, an amount significantly lower than the £10 million requested for advancing cancer research. This offer came with stringent conditions aimed at halting legal actions and public criticism against the company. Such maneuvers have ignited debates about corporate accountability, ethical responsibility, and the ongoing struggle of asbestos victims seeking justice and adequate compensation.
Background of Altrad and Cape
Altrad’s Acquisition of Cape and Its Historical Context
Altrad, a multinational construction services provider with revenues reaching £4.5 billion and pre-tax profits of £546 million last year, expanded its portfolio by acquiring Cape, one of Britain’s largest asbestos product manufacturers. This acquisition brought Altrad into the complex and contentious realm of asbestos litigation, given Cape’s extensive history with asbestos-related health issues.
Cape’s Legacy in Asbestos Production and Associated Health Risks
For decades, Cape was a prominent producer of asbestos boards used extensively in various infrastructures, including schools, cinemas, banks, churches, and public buildings. Despite mounting evidence since the 1920s linking asbestos exposure to severe health conditions such as asbestosis and mesothelioma, Cape continued its operations, often downplaying the associated risks. As a result, asbestos remains Britain’s leading occupational killer, responsible for approximately 5,000 deaths annually.
The £3 Million Compensation Offer
Details of the Offer Made to Asbestos Victim Support Groups
In response to mounting pressure from campaigners representing asbestos victims, Altrad proposed a donation of £3 million, to be disbursed over a decade, purportedly to fund cancer research. This proposal was significantly less than the £10 million sought by the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum (AVSGF) to facilitate transformative advancements in mesothelioma research and treatment.
Conditions Attached to the Offer and Their Implications
The offer was laden with conditions that raised serious concerns among campaigners:
- Cessation of Legal Actions and Public Criticism: The AVSGF would be required to halt all ongoing and future legal claims against Altrad and refrain from publicly criticizing the company.
- Influence Over Other Groups: The AVSGF would need to dissuade other organizations from seeking reparations or initiating legal proceedings against Altrad.
- Termination Clause: Any breach of these conditions, including actions by other groups or public bodies seeking reparations, would result in the immediate cessation of payments.
These stipulations were perceived as an attempt to silence victims and their advocates, effectively prioritizing the company’s reputation over genuine accountability and support for those affected.
Allegations of ‘Bullying’ Tactics
Claims by Campaigners About Altrad’s Approach to Silencing Criticism
Campaigners have vocally criticized Altrad’s approach, characterizing the conditional offer as a form of corporate bullying designed to suppress legitimate grievances and obstruct justice. Tony Whitston, founder of the AVSGF, articulated this sentiment, stating that the offer was not an acknowledgment of moral responsibility but rather an attempt to avert further reputational damage.
Legal and Ethical Considerations of Such Tactics
Legal experts and victim advocates argue that imposing such restrictive conditions on a compensation offer is both unethical and potentially unlawful. By attempting to curtail legal recourse and public discourse, Altrad’s actions may contravene principles of justice and transparency, setting a concerning precedent for corporate conduct in addressing historical wrongs.
Response from Asbestos Victim Support Groups
Reasons for Rejecting the £3 Million Offer
The AVSGF and associated campaigners swiftly rejected Altrad’s offer, citing the following reasons:
- Inadequacy of the Amount: The proposed £3 million falls significantly short of the £10 million deemed necessary to make a meaningful impact on mes
