Shell: Controversy and Criticism
Controversy and criticism regarding Shell’s operations in Nigeria became the public’s response to the company’s actions toward addressing or non-addressing the interests of the Ogoni people located near the Niger Delta. Economic and environmental issues associated with the activities of Shell in this region provoked the public’s attention to the company’s actions because the majority of oil wells in the Ogoniland region belonged to Shell in contrast to a small number of wells controlled by Chevron or Mobil. Shell’s policies in these territories became perceived as the exploitation of resources associated with a negative impact on the environment and adverse effects on the community of the Ogoni people (Paine and Moldoveanu 6-7). These social responsibility issues were actively discussed in the media while contributing to the development of criticism against Shell. Being one of the most influential oil companies in the world and operating greatly in the Ogoniland region, Shell attracted the attention of activists and environmentalists oriented to protecting the rights of the Ogoni people in these territories.
Legitimacy of Criticism
The analysis of Shell’s operations in Nigeria indicates that controversies and criticisms supported by activists were rather legitimate because of significant weaknesses in the company’s social responsibility policies. Firstly, the company had a long history of using Nigerian oil resources inappropriately, and some of the company’s operations were discussed as exploitation. Secondly, the company’s relationships with the Nigerian government also provoked questions because of negative economic consequences of this cooperation for the Nigerian people despite their expectations. Thirdly, the company did not address environmental concerns effectively, demonstrating the lack of responsibilities in relation to its stakeholders (Paine and Moldoveanu 7-8). For instance, the company accepted the fact that oil spills could damage the environment of the Niger Delta region, but it explained the problems with reference to locals’ sabotage and other aspects. This fact demonstrated that the company was not ready to compensate negative outcomes of its activities in the region, it was not interested in supporting the community, and it was not able to avoid damaging the environment and following regulations. Thus, more investments in the community’s development were important to improve Shell’s corporate social responsibility.
Shell’s Actions in Relation to Saro-Wiwa
To address the conviction of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Shell could avoid taking any actions to influence the situation as one of the options. Another option is that Shell could focus on influencing the Nigerian government and accentuate its possibility to cease operations in the country. One more option is that Shell could develop the discussion of the issue in the media. Finally, Shell could follow the most diplomatic way to avoid negative consequences for its operations and shareholders. The focus on diplomacy seems to be the most appropriate variant because taking no actions could potentially result in the public’s criticism and more barriers to operations (Paine and Moldoveanu 9-10). On the other hand, the second and third options are also inappropriate because they were associated with worsening the relationships with the Nigerian government, which could potentially lead to ceasing operations in the region. These options were not suitable for the company. As a result, it was important to control the company’s statements and emphasize their diplomatic position regarding the problem to address the interests of the community and demonstrate their involvement.
Work Cited
Paine, Lynn Sharp, and Mihnea Moldoveanu. “Royal Dutch/Shell in Nigeria (A).” Harvard Business School Case, vol. 399, no. 126, 2009, pp. 1-28.