Shell In Nigeria Research Articles

Socio-Ecological Responsibilities of Shell in Nigeria in the Era of the UNGPs: Potentials of a Textual Study

Socio-Ecological Responsibilities of Shell in Nigeria in the Era of the UNGPs: Potentials of a Textual Study

Combating environmental irresponsibility of transnational corporations in Africa: an empirical analysis

ABSTRACTEnvironmental irresponsibility is one of the most prominent issues confronting host communities of transnational corporations (TNCs) engaged in the production of economic goods and, sometimes, services. Drawing mainly on stakeholder theory, combined with legitimacy theory, this article addresses how host communities in Africa combat the challenge of environmental irresponsibility of TNCs. To illustrate the dimensions and dynamics of the challenge, this paper examines the experience of despoliation of Ogoniland by the oil giant Shell in Nigeria. The analysis draws attention to the significance of the role of individuals and civil society groups in securing accountability of one of the most formidable fronts of economic globalisation. The analysis is particularly relevant to the experience of environmental irresponsibility in the context of weak governance structures.

Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria: Where Do Responsibilities End?

This case study discusses the scope of responsibilities and the basis of legitimacy of multinational corporations (MNC) in a complex operating environment. In January 2013 a precedent was set when Shell was held liable in The Hague for oil pollution in the Niger Delta. The landmark ruling climaxed the ongoing dispute over the scope of Shell’s responsibilities for both the company’s positive and negative impact. Shell’s was considered a forerunner in corporate social responsibility and had even assumed public responsibilities in a context of a public responsibility void. However, the company remained a regular target of civil society activism and legal proceedings concerned with malpractice. The court case attracted international attention for its novelty and increasing media and civil society pressure required immediate action. How can Shell respond to this negative publicity to keep its license to operate? What is the scope of the company’s responsibilities in such a controversial human rights context? Students are expected to discuss these questions going beyond a simple moralistic or liability thinking. They are encouraged to take into account the complex structural processes that connect persons and institutions in very different social and geographical positions. The experiences of Shell are an excellent case in point since attention is drawn to the background conditions of globally operating companies, in which the isolation of perpetrators based on causality is not realistic. The case also reveals the particular challenges, which MNCs face in the context of increasing demands to take on public responsibilities while respecting their economic mandate.

Interview with 2013 SPE President Egbert Imomoh

President's interview Egbert Imomoh, the nonexecutive chairman and a cofounder of Afren, a Pan African independent oil and gas company with assets in Africa and Kurdistan, is the 2013 SPE president. He will take office during the 2012 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in October in San Antonio. Imomoh joined the oil and gas industry in 1968, working with Shell in Nigeria as a petroleum engineer after basic training in the Netherlands. He worked in Nigeria, the UK, and the Netherlands and rose to the position of deputy managing director of Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, a position he held until his retirement in February 2002. After that, he worked with Shell International in London as a senior corporate adviser on Nigeria during 2002–04. Imomoh helped found Afren in 2004 and served as its managing director and executive chairman before assuming his current position. He led the growth of Afren’s Nigerian asset base, established a number of successful indigenous partnerships, and led the company to achieve its first oil milestone at the Okoro Setu project. He has been a member of SPE since 1973 and was a founding member of the SPE Nigerian Section. He was chairman of SPE Nigeria Council in 1986 and was named a Distinguished Member of SPE in 1999. Imomoh served as the first regional director for Africa on the SPE Board of Directors between 2000 and 2003, and was the chairman of the Board Committee on Educational and Professional Activities during 2002–03. He has been chairman of the Board of Trustees, SPE Nigeria Council, since 2007. Imomoh was named an SPE Honorary Member, the highest honor that SPE presents to an individual, this past year. Imomoh graduated with a BS degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Birmingham, UK, and received an honorary Doctor of Science degree from the University of Port Harcourt this year. You served on the SPE Board of Directors during 2000–03. Coming back to the board as president now, have you observed any changes in SPE during the intervening years? Over the years, SPE has become even more international, increased its membership, and has continued to seek ways to serve its members better by organizing many more conferences and workshops, starting up new publications, and by creating regional offices to move its services closer to our members. SPE’s membership—now more than 100,000—has continued to grow even as other associations lose members. To what do you attribute this success? Our success can be attributed to a number of reasons. The board and staff have always focused on member needs; they foresaw the need to attract young members and created a student membership program that took off like a rocket. Our technical information offerings have continued to grow and, where necessary, we have formed partnerships with other associations that have strengthened our ability to deliver first-class technical programs at very competitive pricing.

The Ethical Challenge of Multinational Corporations in Inadequate Institutions: The Case of Shell in Nigeria

How can we know if a multinational oil companies is just and fair, and does not violate basic human rights, does not create unhappiness and pain, is response-able to injustices, inhumane, and unhappiness, and its operations promote flourishing lives to everyone in the jurisdiction where institutions are inadequate? In this paper we have presented theories from justice, human rights, utilitarianism, responsibilities, and ethics and flourishing frameworks to analyse the inadequacies of institutions at macro, mezzo and micro levels. These frameworks have been used to analyse the case of a multinational oil corporation Shell Nigeria in Nigeria. Shell Nigeria is a subsidiary of Royal Dutch shell group of companies which operates in a region called Niger Delta in Nigeria. The case of Shell Nigeria in Niger Delta is one of many examples of multinational oil corporations which are accused of irresponsibility due to their operations which have led to injustices, violation of basic human rights, creation of unhappiness and pain, and hindrance to flourishing lives to the people in the jurisdiction where institutions are inadequate. This is evidenced for example by environmental pollution due to oil exploration in jurisdictions where institutions are deemed to be inadequate. The case focuses on Shell Nigeria operations in Niger Delta in Nigeria where institutions are inadequate in promoting justice, happiness, and flourishing lives to everyone, and protection of human rights. We have highlighted the ethical dilemma and ethical implications of these inadequate institutions and we concluded by analysing the responses of Shell Nigeria towards ethical dilemma in Niger Delta.

Commonwealth News Update

Pakistan fell further into the grip of religious extremists when Salmaan Taseer was shot by his bodyguard in the most high-profile political assassination since the murder of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. The Punjab governor was killed for condemning a blasphemy law used to persecute minorities and settle scores. Revelations in 250,000 classified US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks spawned diplomatic crises and shocking revelations across the world, including allegations of dirty tricks by the US drug firm Pfizer and espionage by Shell in Nigeria; Rahul Gandhi in India saying Hindu fundamentalists were a bigger threat than militant Islamists, and fears about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The International Criminal Court indicted some of Kenya's most powerful men over the post-election violence that saw 1,500 people killed. An area the size of France and Germany in Queensland was inundated in Australia's worst floods in half a century.

Corporate responsibility or core competence?

Although the concept that corporations are responsible not only to their shareholders but also for the social and environmental impacts of their activities has now entered the mainstream, pressure is still required to ensure that companies honour their public commitments. This article describes the work of the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility in harnessing the power of individual shareholders and ethical investors in order to hold companies to account, with particular reference to the activities of Shell in Nigeria and the Republic of Ireland. It is argued that companies do not exist to carry out community development, and so should be judged not on these grounds but rather on the impact of how they conduct their core business.

Poverty reduction in resource-rich developing countries: what have multinational corporations got to do with it?

Corporate social responsibility is a two edged-sword. It can be used to address the needs of disadvantaged communities, or to damage the same communities, whether by mistake or design. Based on a critical analysis of the role of both the government and Shell in Nigeria towards poverty alleviation in the Niger Delta, this paper firmly supports the view that even though business and government may share in the responsibility for economic and social development, the primary assignment for business is still wealth creation. The government's main charge is to represent society and to ensure equitable wealth distribution among the various stakeholders. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Political instability and business: Focus on Shell in Nigeria

Business managers name Africa's political instability as a key obstacle to economic development, but many companies continue to invest in Africa. The article explains this apparent contradiction by looking at the case of Shell in Nigeria. Nigeria experiences serious political instability, yet Shell is expanding its investment in the country. This article deals with sources of firm-specific political instability that have affected Shell in Nigeria in the past and attempts to explain why a specific corporation such as Shell may want to make investments in the country despite political instability. The examination of three different angles of Shell's activity, which forms the core of this paper, reveals that political instability does not hinder Shell from operating in Nigeria. Firstly, the international perspective illuminates in what way Nigeria may be more attractive to Shell than other countries. Profits in Nigeria appear to be higher than elsewhere, while Shell occupies a dominant market position unrivalled in most other countries. Secondly, the structural perspective illuminates the interconnectedness of Shell with state structures in Nigeria that may tie the company to Nigeria. Shell established a first mover advantage in the 1950s, since Nigeria was a British colony until 1960 and British oil companies were given preferential treatment. After independence, Shell managed to penetrate state structures which helped to hedge political risk in the country. Thirdly, the strategic perspective explores how Shell's strategic approaches may make political instability less significant to Shell. This article concludes that Shell has adopted to political instability. The conclusion that political instability can be conducive to business is significant since one expects political instability to be inherently harmful to business.

A General Theory of Business Ethics?

Professor Jeurissen’s paper contains some interesting insights, but is disappointing by its very high level of generality. The relationship between micro, meso and macro levels in business ethics is an elusive topic and I have doubts about the usefulness of stories with such a very comprehensive scope. What is challenging in the field of business ethics — at least in my opinion — is not so much general or methodological stories, but the presentation and treatment of particular issues. General stories in this field mostly yield contestable or even doubtful statements expressing the benevolence of the author rather than the state of the world. A good example in the text at hand is the following sentence: “We are shifting towards a more communicative, more accountable, and more socially responsible type of market economy.” In a sense this is true. Look for instance at the efforts of the chemical industry around Antwerp to eliminate any damage to the environment. Partly as a result of green criticism, Bayer is investing huge amounts of money in research aiming at the replacement of chlorine technology by alternatives. However, at the same time, very few of the managers or owners of private firms whom I meet at seminars on business ethics seem to consider tax evasion or tax fraud as reprehensible (and I suppose that managers paying to attend such a seminar are more ethically inspired than most of their colleagues!). Apparently they don't feel committed to the task of upholding a welfare state saving a lot of people from poverty. Maybe Jeurissens' optimistic statement is true for Belgium, Germany or Sweden. Maybe it is true for big firms that have a reputation to defend. But probably it is not true for other countries where public pressure is weaker. Probably it is true for Shell in the Netherlands, but not for Shell in Nigeria. Probably it is true for some stakeholders, but not for others. I can illustrate my criticism of the excessive generality of Jeurissen’s approach in another way. Recently I took part in a debate about the production of weapons with some politicians and with the manager of an important Flemish firm. Partly as a result of deliberate action on the part of the Flemish government, we no longer have an arms industry in Flanders. However we still have some firms producing some items which are used within very sophisticated armament systems. For most of these firms this kind of activities represents only a small part of their turnover but they do not want to abandon it. Now this is not only a microproblem for some firms or for their managers who pretend to be concerned about ethics. It is also a policy problem: should the government prohibit any production for the armament industry? Or should it simply abstain from supporting these activities? If you are not a total pacifist — someone who finds that all weapons should be forbidden — then this is not a simple problem. My problem with Jeurissen’s text is that it gives me very few clues about how to tackle (not to mention “solve”) this kind of problem. Most authors on business ethics — and Jeurissen is no exception — refer to the stakeholder model of the firm. Now this model offers only a formal framework for analyzing particular cases. It reminds us of the fact that the management of a firm has to balance the interests of the stockholders against the interests of employees, consumers, neighbours and the larger community within which the firm is situated. In a sense, this is precisely the task of a philosopher: to remind the decision-makers of the complexity of practical