Spending blood for oil in Nigeria: a frame analysis of Shell’s neutralisation of acts that led to corporate-initiated state crime

Abstract

AbstractThe environmental impact of Shell Oil Company in Nigeria has resulted in largescale protests. Despite their peaceful nature, these protests have been met with lethal violence by the Nigerian security forces. Accusations have been levelled against Shell for liability for human rights violations, but the company has denied responsibility. Previously confidential correspondence between Shell and Nigerian officials has shown that the company repeatedly persuaded security personnel to act against protesters. The current article examines how Shell framed its desire for the Nigerian state to suppress protests against the company. It does this by analysing published documents within Stanley Cohen’s (1993) theoretical framework regarding the neutralisation of criminal acts – most notably the neutralisation technique of appealing to higher loyalties. This is a technique adopted by companies when they use the greater good as a rationale for minimising their responsibility for harmful acts. The correspondence between Shell and Nigerian officials shows that Shell continuously urged Nigerian officials to take action by referring to the company’s contribution to economic and social development in the region, even after their calls for action has been shown to result in human rights abuses. In describing these rationales, the article highlights a case of corporate-initiated state crime, a form of crime that involves corporations inducing state actors to commit harmful acts.