Ethics and Governance. Shells response to Corporate Social Responsibilities in the Aftermath of the Ogoni 9 execution in 1997

Authors Avatar

                                               

ETHICS AND GOVERNANCE

                                

Shells response to Corporate Social Responsibilities in the Aftermath of the Ogoni 9 execution in 1997

Background

Shell activities in Nigeria began in 1914 under colonial rule, and discovered Oil in the Niger-delta by 1958. They continued oil and gas exploration, in a merger with the Nigerian government’s oil corporation NNPC (55%), Total Nigeria (10%) and NAOC (5%), in the region. The discovery transformed of Oil transformed the country’s political economy, as it accounted for 90% of foreign-exchange earning. The operations yielded high profits for both Shell and the Nigerian government made up of mostly the major ethnic tribe in the country.

Unfortunately, the people of the Niger-delta became impoverished as the proceeds from oil explorations, were not adequately shared as the indigenes in the Niger-Delta are ethnic minorities, did not receive fair share of the revenue generated. The locals were further left in a worst situation than when Shell began operating in the area, as the local were subjected to loss of land and poverty, which the multinational ignored, leaving social responsibilities to the government. To make matters worst, these locals had lost their livelihoods of fishing and farming, to pollution resulted from Shell operation such as flaring, land and sea pollution through spillages, emission. Most Ogoni people peacefully protested against their deplorable situation, under a movement called Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People, MOSOP lead by Ken Saro-Wiwa. While a few frustrated locals turn to militancy for a resolve and began destroying shell properties. In 1997, under the then military government, in the interest of oil companies, the protests which were gaining momentum was targeted, as members were torture, imprisoned and in some cases murdered. Eventually, Ken Saro-Wiwa and 8 of the leaders of MOSOP, was arrested and charge with murder and sentenced along side his co-defendants to death, in what some criticised as a dubious case, then eventually killed despite international plea. Shell suffered a backlash as a result from the international community, as they believed to have ignored the case and let the execution in the millions was the result. According to Kantian Ethics is wrong, as keeping quite about a situation can be deemed as lying. The corporation in response changed their approach to CSR and in addition to philanthropically gestures, released annual sustainability reports on their positive approach to CSR.

Join now!

Situation

Shell’s approach to socially responsibility is portrayed to be in the right direction, however economist such Milton Friedman (1970) may dispute corporation from being able to have responsibility and they only duty is to generates profit for shareholders. Fisher & Lovell (2006) noted the three criticism of which the third is relevant to as;

“The third criticism as a philosophical one. It was that corporations cannot possess responsibilities”

                                                        (Fisher & Lovell, 2006 pg.312)

However, criticism by NGOs and activists are that the company’s approach has is not enough, as the situation soon turned deplorable in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay