1. Why has Shell become the subject of criticism and controversy?

Shells operation in Nigeria are attracting criticism over
Misleading allegations:
By Environmental groups: like Greenpeace claimed that Niger Delta was an ecological disaster and this was attributed to shell’s operations like emission from flaring of natural gas at pumping sites, frequent oil spills and drainage of contaminated water into the waterways.
Similar incidents had also taken place as observed in case of Bren Spar.
By MOSOP: They claimed that Shell was stealing oil which was there property, without taking notice of the fact that the land of Nigeria had been all government owned and Shell had contractual agreements with the govt.
Victim of political instability:
Saro-Wiwa attacked shell because he believed that Shell’s international presence and multinational stakeholders would help garner international support for the Ogoni cause.
MOSOP believed that Shell had control over govt and could help them in passing of Ogony Bill of Rights.

Lack of Government efforts seen as Shell’s fault
Due to declining profits, Govt was unwilling to contribute to improve infrastructure necessary to safeguard environment. But this was seen as shell’s unwillingness to focus on environment and to just exploit the communities and eco-system for commercial gain
Long waiting period for implementation of environmental protection solutions:
Projects like $3.8 billion liquefied natural gas plant took long time to get implemented. Although shell always followed standards set by the American Petroleum Institute, upgrading infrastructure and making environmental improvements usually take long time and thus are not visible to the crowd.

2. During its time in Nigeria, what, if anything, should Shell have done differently?

* High operating standards * Oil production represents a high risk for communities in the Delta region & absentee government puts further responsibility on SPDC * Increased standards of good practice to avoid oil spills * Adequate clean up procedures for contaminated land and water * Increased assessment of environmental and social consequences from operations * Involve third party involvement to ensure reliability * Proactive engagement with the communities in the Niger Delta region * Rather than rely on military oppression to assure security * Legitimize themselves through development projects and community investment * Since local government is not reliable to implement policies & compensation to ensure basic rights for their population * Plan & act independently (with help of NGOs) to ensure better implementation of environmental & social policies to the people directly affected by their operations * Active engagement concerning the unfair trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa & other 8 activists * Threat to disinvest would have lowered risk of accusation of collusion between Abucha and Shell

3. What is your assessment of Shell's stated business principle of non-involvement in political matters?

Benefits:
The company’s principle allows it to express views on fiscal policy and enable it to take advantage of its position in the country for its commercial benefits.
Decision of non-involvement is good because otherwise social groups could hold the company a hostage every time they needed something from the government.
If the company pressurises govt to undertake certain actions, it might attract criticism in the west for interfering with other country’s development and using it for its own political benefits. This is a downward spiral which might cause deep impact on company’s goodwill and ultimately share prices.

Limitations:
Even if the corporation decides not to take part in political matters, it cannot isolate itself from the same as seen in the case as Saro-Wiwa attacks Shell to accomplish his motives.
The company has a corporate social responsibility towards the society in which it operates. In 1994 SPDC earned $235 millions in the regions in operated while the Ogony tribe lived in abject poverty. By exerting pressure on political parties, Shell can help the community to some extent, even if not implementing the entire Ogony Bill of Rights. Overall we agree with the principle of non-involvement as it safeguards the company from attacks by social groups to a great extent while enabling the company to impact fiscal and energy policies for its commercial advantage.