A Case Study of Shell

Volume 9 2011 Otago Management Graduate Review
This assignment was for MANT435 Advanced International Management 1

Supervised by Assoc. Prof. Andr Everett 93-113
Sustainability Issues in the Petroleum Refining
Industry: A Case Study of Shell

Asma Naimi

Introduction
The petroleum refining industry faces many sustainability issues due to the
nature of its operations. The main issues for this industry will be identified in
this paper and some examples will be given. Sustainability issues have an
effect on the reputation of these multinational and their approach towards
these issues is often criticized. There is increased public awareness of the
effects that operations of oil companies can have on the environment and
communities. Socially responsible behaviour is expected of these firms by
society. It demands a clear approach and communication towards these
issues. The different theories and approaches possible in handling
sustainability issues from a company perspective will be discussed in this
paper. Furthermore, a case study of Royal Dutch Shell is discussed focusing
on their current approach towards sustainability issues. This company has
had several controversial events that created international outrage in the
past. At that time no clear strategy towards sustainability issues was in place
at Shell. One of these main events has been the Brent Spar case. In 1995
Shell planned to sink one of its oil platforms in the North Sea. A large media
attack by Greenpeace followed and eventually led to the disruption of these
plans. Folding under public pressure Shell stored the platform for possible
disposal on land in Norway. Even though, Shell had the support of the British
government and the scientific evidence that sinking the platform in the sea
would be least damaging for the environment. Their lack of strategic action
towards this media attack and communication on its approach focusing on
public opinion was almost non-existing (Bakir, 2005). This event shows the
need for companies in the petroleum refining industry to have a clear
approach and communication towards stakeholders and the public in general.
The Brent Spar case and other controversial events have led to changes in
Shells approach towards sustainability issues and are discussed in this paper.
The focus of the case study will be on the current approach adopted by Shell.
Also, Shells performance on these issues will be assessed. Finally, an
analysis of Shells current approach will be given and linked with the theory.
This paper will end with some concluding remarks on the possible approaches
towards sustainability issues, the approach adopted by Shell and the effect
on its performance and reputation.

Sustainability Issues
In the following section the sustainability issues facing the petroleum refining
industry in general are identified. The concept of sustainability is defined by
the United Nations (2011) as: development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. This is a broad definition of the concept and can be interpreted in
different ways by different actors in society. To narrow down the concept of
Otago Management Graduate Review Volume 9 2011

94 Sustainability - Shell
sustainability and make it applicable for the private sector the definition given
by Dow Jones is more suitable: A business approach that creates long-term
shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving
from economic, environmental, and social developments (DJSI, 2011). This
also represents the main division of sustainability issues as economic,
environmental, and social. The guidelines adopted by multinational firms in
recent years to set up sustainability reports also make a distinction between
economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. Examples
of such guidelines are the ISO 14000 series, which focuses on environmental
management; the Social Accountability 8000 Standard, focusing mainly on
human rights; and the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) Sustainability
Guidelines (Lozano, 2009). The vision of the GRI guidelines is formulated as:
A sustainable global economy where organisations manage their economic,
environmental, social and governance performance and impact responsibly
and report transparently (GRI, 2011). This standard is adopted by most
companies in the petroleum refining industry and clearly defines the type of
issues at hand.
Oil companies face sustainability issues in each of the main areas
mentioned. These issues can also be divided as environmental, development,
and governance issues (Frynas, 2009). This distinction is similar to the
general division in economic, environmental, and social issues mentioned
before. Yet, it also entails political issues. Firstly, environmental issues arise
due to the nature of operations in the oil industry. It can cause environmental
damage in various ways, such as water and soil pollution, disturbance of
communitys flora and fauna, greenhouse effects, and waste problems. This
is mainly caused by upstream activities, such as drilling in areas with high
biodiversity, or by downstream activities, such as emissions into air, water,
or ground (Frynas, 2009). Secondly, the development challenge mentioned
by Frynas (2009) focuses mainly on international development and the ability
of the private sector to reduce poverty and improve education by following
socially responsible practices. Development issues are part of social issues in
general faced by oil companies. Other social issues can be the negative
effects of operations on local communities in developing countries, human
rights and health and safety issues (Jenkins, 2005). The governance issues
can be divided into economic and political issues. An important economic
issue is called the Dutch disease: large foreign exchange inflows generated
by extractive industries exports lead to the appreciation of a countries
currency exchange rates, which make it more difficult to export agricultural
and manufacturing goods (Frynas, 2009, p. 134). This is also called resource
dependency or the resource curse (Sachs, 1999). Corruption levels are
high in resource rich countries and political stability is negatively related with
resource dependency (Frynas, 2009; Leite et al., 1999). The exports of
natural resources could undermine good governance and political
accountability in developing countries. The main issues affecting the
petroleum refining industry are often seen as separate and contradictory. Yet,
both Crew (2010) and Lozano (2009) stress the interdependence of these
issues. Economic, environmental, social, and political issues are
interconnected and complex. It should also be noted that economic
sustainability entails long term profitability and existence of the firm. The
generals aspects of the organisation need to be respected next to the
sustainability issues mentioned (Baumgartner, 2010).

Naimi 95
Bekefi (2008) suggests that political, social and environmental risks
should be integrate in the corporate strategy and investment decisions of oil
multinationals as they could have an impact on its social performance. A
definition of corporate social performance (CSP) is given by Wood (1991, p.
693), a business organizations configuration of principles of social
responsibility, process of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and
observable outcomes as they relate to the firms societal relationships. Social
performance is often measured by company rankings (e.g. KLD ratings) and
can have a negative effect on its reputation. Therefore, reputational issues
are identified as key issues for companies facing large public interests. It
should also be considered in strategy decisions of oil multinationals.
A final issue that transcends from all the other issues mentioned and
the reputation of the company is the issue of trust. Social trust can avoid
communication crises as shown by the Brent Spar case (Bakir, 2006). Also,
legitimacy issues that arise when there is a low level of trust can counteract
operations. The principle of legitimacy is stated by Davis (1973, p. 314) as:
society granting legitimacy and power to business. In the long run, those
who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will
tend to lose it. The approach towards sustainability issues adopted by oil
companies impacts its reputation. Subsequently, reputation will mainly
determine the level of trust in that company and the legitimacy granted by
society.
The large companies that are members of the World Business Council
on Sustainable Development agree that corporate responsibility should be
defined in the main three dimensions: economic, environmental and social
(Watts & Holme, 1999). In this paper political, reputational and related
legitimacy issues are added to these main dimensions of sustainability. The
economic, environmental, social, and political sustainability issues can be
regarded as input factors in the approach of oil multinationals. While
reputational and related legitimacy issues are seen as an output factor of the
approach of these firms towards the sustainability issues faced. The different
theories on these issues and approaches possible are discussed in the
following section.

Theory Review
After defining the sustainability issues an oil company can face, the different
theories setting out the approaches of firms to these issues are discussed.
These possible approaches to sustainability issues are mainly based on the
perceived role of the organisation. Theories on the social responsibility of the
firm imply different responses to these sustainability issues. The concept of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) is important in this field. Different
viewpoints of CSR exist and it is often used as an umbrella term for different
theories and practises. This research paper adopts the general definition of
CSR given by Frynas (2009) that recognises the following: (a) that
companies have a responsibility for their impact on society and the natural
environment, sometimes beyond that of legal compliance and the liability of
individuals; (b) that companies have a responsibility for the behaviour of
other with whom they do business; and (c) that business needs to manage
its relationships with wider society, whether for reasons of commercial
viability or to add value to society. In the petroleum refining industry there

has been an increase in CSR approaches and communications towards
society. Yet, the extent and form of CSR differs between organisations in the
same industry. The different theories, models, and strategies towards
sustainability issues will be discussed in this section.
First, the agency theory perspective states that social responsible
behaviour should not be part of firms practices and sees this as the
responsibility of the government. According to Friedman (1970), it is a
misuse of corporate resources and implies an agency problem within the firm.
Financial resources should increase shareholder value or be reinvested in the
firm. The agency theory perspective implies that a companys response
towards sustainability issues faced by the petroleum industry should be
minimal and not extend regulations. Secondly, institutional theory states that
institutions shape consensus within the firm on sustainable behaviour (Jones,
1995). This theory finds institutions to be key in a firms strategy
development (Tsai et al., 2005). Firms need a certain level of legitimacy to
survive and therefore adapt to social norms of its business environment.
According to this perspective, firms approaches to sustainability issues will
become similar in a given industry. This because similar firms face similar
social expectations. The emphasis of this theory is on conformity to
institutional context and no choice behaviour (Frynas, 2009). The stakeholder
theory of Freeman (1984) is a third perspective on CSR. It states that a
firms response should not only be to the shareholders, but also to other
stakeholders (e.g. workers, customers, suppliers, and local community). A
stakeholder is defined as any group or individual who can effect or is affected
by the achievement of organisations objectives (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). The
stakeholder theory is also mentioned by Frynas (2009) as it can explain
different responses of firms to social pressures in the same industry. CSR
activities are predicted by external pressures from stakeholders and their
importance. The importance of a stakeholder is defined by the firms resource
or power dependence. From this perspective a firm is seen as dependent on
its stakeholders and as having limited choice in behaviour. Therefore, the
approach towards sustainability issues in this view is to adapt firm strategies
to stakeholders that they are most dependent on for resources (e.g.,
consumers, suppliers) or stakeholders with the most power (e.g.,
governments, institutions).
While stakeholder theory and institutional theory suggest limited or no
choice behaviour of firms, there are also several theories suggesting a more
active approach towards sustainability issues. The theory of the firm applies
the classical economic theory to CSR as a function of supply and demand for
social and environmental activities in the market place. From the perspective
of game theory CSR is seen as a trade-off between present costs and future
benefits. The right level of CSR for a firm can be determined by cost-benefit
analysis (Frynas, 2009). It is also used to attract socially responsible
consumers and can be part of a firms differentiation strategy (McWilliams,
2005). Another important theory suggesting a more active approach towards
sustainability issues is the resource based view of the firm. It suggests that
firms can create sustainable competitive advantage by engaging in CSR
(Hart, 1995). Also, specialised skills or capabilities arise from investment in
CSR. Several implications of this approach are mentioned by McWilliams
(2005). Firstly, CSR can be an integral element of a firms differentiation
strategies and can be used for reputation building. Secondly, it is possible to
predict patterns of investment across firms and industries when applying

Naimi 97
resource based view to CSR. Yet, CSR-based strategies do not always lead to
advantages or increased returns when it is imitated by competitors or when
competitive strategies are observable (McWilliams, 2001). Firms can also use
CSR strategies politically. For example, to use government regulations to
impose CSR on competitors who do not yet use the appropriate technology
and therefore raising their costs compared to the initiating firm (McWilliams,
2005). Austrian economics is presented as an alternative perspective towards
CSR by Frynas (2009). It regards individual action, not external factors, as
fundamental to decision-making. Social and environmental issues are seen as
opportunities for the firm to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour to shape
and change institutional structures. This perspective focuses on future
opportunities instead of current demands. By engaging in active
entrepreneurship future investments are identified (Mises, 1963). It
recognises that information is interpreted differently by different actors and
can therefore explain strategic choice and outcome (Lewin et al., 1999). In
its approach towards sustainability issues entrepreneurial behaviour is
suggested to change the business environment strategically. Finally, the
stewardship theory on CSR poses a proactive approach towards sustainability
issues (Donaldson, 1991; McWilliams, 2005). It sees the responsibility of the
firm as to do the right thing regardless of the affect on firms financial
performance. This implies to go beyond regulations and implement
sustainable measures that benefit all stakeholders. This approach can be at
the expense of shareholders and firms profitability.
Besides the main theoretical perspectives explained so far, there are
other leading concepts that give more insight in the possible approaches for
firms towards sustainability issues. The three-tier model developed by Sethi
(1975) has been an important contribution to the theory. The first tier is
social obligation (a response to legal and market constraints) and is
comparable with the concept of licence to operate. The second tier is social
responsibility (congruent with societal norms) and recognizes and internalizes
societal expectations. The third tier is social responsiveness (adaptive,
anticipatory and preventive) and can be described as stakeholder
engagement. The companies operating at a third tier level create economic
and social value at the same time and engage effectively with external
stakeholders (Wheeler et al., 2001). Multinational firms dealing with
sustainability issues can adopt each of the three tiers described and act
accordingly. Another three dimensional model prevailing in the assessment of
sustainability issues is the triple bottom line. It consists of an economic,
social, and environmental (biophysical) dimension. The ideal of sustainable
development is to create win-win solutions for all three pillars. Yet according
to Sadler (2000), trade-offs are unavoidable in practise and lies at the core of
decision-making. Several approaches are possible in dealing with the
uncertainty that arises from these dilemmas faced. Sensitivity analysis
establishes best and worst case prediction. Adaptive management seeks
more flexible options to deal with uncertainty. Scenario analysis considers the
different possibilities and broadens a firms perspective. The precautionary
approach requires is more strategic (Hacking, 2008). As mentioned in the
previous section the trade-off perspective neglects the interdependence of
the three pillars. The three dimensions can also be seen as complementary
and a synergetic approach can be adopted. This process is called stakeholder
symbiosis, where value is created in exploring how a firm can achieve
benefits for all (Crews, 2010). Continues dialogue with each stakeholder is

needed to address cross-pillar concerns. Examples, such as representation on
the board of directors from each community and among senior management,
are given by Crews (2010) to create this dialogue in practise. Also, creating
an organisational culture where sustainability is a core value, by setting
codes of ethics and making the commitments of the firm explicit to all
stakeholders, contributes to an integrative approach towards sustainable
development (Crews, 2010).
Colbert and Kuruez (2007) found that companies generally have two
approaches towards stakeholders. Sustainability issues are considered as
risks or as opportunities. The risk management approach considers the three
pillars mentioned above as separate and mutually exclusive. There is a need
to balance trade-offs and mitigate risks. It is often considered in the context
of reputation management and brand value (Boele, 2001). On the other hand
sustainability issues can be seen as an opportunity to adopt an inclusive
stakeholder view and create broad value for society (Crew, 2010). Building
brand identity and trust and maintaining committed relationships with
stakeholders can have a positive effect on a firms sales and overall
performance (Reicheld, 1996). Different strategies are formed according to
the perspective adopted by the firm. Baumgartner (2010) distinguishes four
strategies that can be adopted by a firm according to the level of maturity
towards sustainability. The introverted strategy takes a risk mitigation
perspective and focuses on conformity and compliance to rules and guidelines
related to sustainability. The extroverted strategy emphasizes legitimization
and can be divided into conventional and transformative. A conventional
extroverted strategy focuses on external presentation of sustainability. It
communicates its efforts to differentiate itself from competitors and increase
credibility. A transformative extroverted strategy has a higher maturity level
towards sustainability than the conventional approach. It aims to be a driver
for corporate sustainability and therefore gain higher credibility. The
conservative strategy focuses on cost efficiency and well defined processes.
Measures are derived in order to analyse corporate sustainability. A visionary
strategy is divided into conventional and systemic strategies. Both strategies
have a high level of commitment towards sustainability. Conventional
strategies focus mainly on its impact on the market, while systemic strategy
combines outside-in and inside-out perspectives based on internalization and
continues improvement inside the company (Baumgartner, 2010). These four
strategies adopt a risk or opportunity perspective and give a practical
approach towards sustainability issues. Finally, a quantitative approach to
risk management is suggested by Bekefi (2008). Social and political risks
have been hard to measure and have mainly been discussed in the footnotes
of company reports. Failure to integrate these risks can have a negative
effect on earnings, shareholder value, and brand value. The first step in this
approach is to identify the most relevant issues by learning from the past,
learning from others, and scenario planning. Next, a nine step process is
presented to measure social and political risks for inclusion in the return on
investment (ROI). The last step is managing social, political, and reputational
risk by insuring against these risks when possible, avoiding risks, mitigating
risks, or a combination. It is noted that risks can also be seen as an
opportunity to innovate and can be managed to increases growth (Bekefi,
2008).
The main theories and strategies towards sustainability issues have
been discussed so far to give insight to the possible approaches for

Naimi 99
companies facing these issues. In practise different approaches are suitable
for different issues and a distinction between global and local issues can be
made. A distinction can also be made between global and local CSR. The key
difference is the community that demands it. This is stated by Husted (2006,
p. 840) as: local CSR deals with the firms obligations based on the
standards of the local community, whereas global CSR deals with the firms
obligations based on those standards to which all societies can be held. The
theories and approaches presented in this section can be adopted at both
levels and needs to be assessed on a case to case basis. The aim of this
paper is not to discuss the accuracy of the different theories, but to give an
overview of the possible approaches that have emerged from the literature.
The theories and approaches discussed are summarized in Table 1. This can
be used to assess company specific behaviour in managing sustainability
issues and will be applied to Shell in the following section.

Case Study Shell
Royal Dutch Shell plc. is an oil and gas company that was created in 1907 by
a merger between a Dutch a British petroleum company. It is headquartered
in The Hague (Netherlands) and has a registered office in London (United
Kingdom) (Shell, 2011). Shell is the second largest company in the world,
after Walmart, according to its revenue over 2010 of 285 129 million dollars.
Its profits in 2010 were 12 518 million dollars and in this regard it is the third
largest company in the petroleum refining industry, after Exxon and BP
(Fortune, 2011). So far Shell is operating in 90 different countries. Due to the
nature of its operations Shell faces different sustainability challenges (Shell,
2011). The current approach adopted by Shell and its performance in dealing
with these issues is discussed in this case study. Firstly, the general approach
as communicated by Shell towards sustainability issues is described. Next, its
actual approach is assessed by evaluating Shells behaviour over time.
Finally, the companys performance on these issues is evaluated by both
internal and external measures.

General Approach
Shell stresses economic, environmental, and social responsibility in their
business practises and has several approaches in communicating its core
values of honesty, integrity, and respect for people. The Business Principles
adopted in 1997 integrates short and long term interests in the decision
making process. Shell recognizes that by contributing to sustainability it
enhances its business values, appeals to customers, business partners, and
employees, and reduces operational and financial risks (Shell, 2011). All Shell
companies are expected to comply with the eight General Business Principles
and Shell aims at influencing their business partners to do the same. The
principles focus on long-term profitability, fair competition, business integrity,
responsible political activities, standards for health, safety, security, and the
environment, manage social impacts, dialogue with stakeholders, and
compliance with regulations (Shell, 2011). Another approach towards
communicating its values is the code of conducts set. It clarifies the
standards set for the behaviour expected from its employees. It covers areas
such as corruption, trade, health, safety and the environment, and
safeguarding information and communication. Also, a code of ethics is set for
executive directors and financial officers of Shell to govern how it conducts its

affairs. A global help line is set up for all stakeholders to report non-
compliance with its code of conduct. Next to Shells own initiatives it also
voluntarily supports other initiatives on human rights, transparency, and
bribery. Shell has all of the following CSR policies and multi-stakeholder
initiatives in place; reductions in CO2 emissions, community development
projects, government revenue transparency, United Nations Global Compact
(UNGC), voluntary principles on security and human rights, Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD). This makes Shell one of the leading
companies in its industry on its approach towards sustainability issues
(Frynas, 2009).

Table 1 Approaches Towards Sustainability
Theories Agency theory

Institutional theory

Stakeholder theory

Theory of the firm

Resource based view

Austrian economic

Stewardship theory
Not the responsibility of the firm
(shareholder value)
Conform to social norms (no
choice behaviour)
Adapt to most important
stakeholders (limited choice)
Depends on cost-benefit analysis
(classic economic theory)
Create sustainable competitive
advantage (differentiation)
Entrepreneurial behaviour
(change business environment)
Do the right thing (beyond
regulations)
Models Three-tier model

Triple bottom line
Social obligation (first tier)
Social responsibility (second tier)
Social responsiveness (third tier)
Issues are seen as...
Trade-offs
Complementary
Strategies Risks versus opportunities

Introvert versus extrovert

Conservative versus visionary

Quantitative approach
Global and local CSR

Mitigating risks or
Creating broader value
Conformity to rules or
Create legitimacy
Cost efficiency or
High level of commitment
Inclusion of risks in ROI
Standards of local communities or
Global standards
The general approach of Shell in implementing practices that promote
economic, environmental and social sustainability starts with adopting
standards and principles. As mentioned by Watts (2002), these principles of
sustainable development grew in part of its practices of scenario planning.
This is described as: looking at possible economic, business, environmental,
and political changes to assess their possible impact on the company and its
best potential reaction (Fletcher, 2002, p. 2). The standards and principles
set help the company anticipate future problems and protect its reputation by
balancing economic, environmental and social issues (Watts, 2002).
Stakeholder engagement is key in Shells approach towards sustainability

Naimi 101
issues. This is achieved by creating a dialogue with moderate NGOs, such as
Earthwatch, to assess the changing demands in society (Shell, 2011). Finally,
performance on sustainability issues is monitored. Shell defines social
performances as an ongoing process that incorporates all the different ways
Shell operations contribute positively and negatively, directly and indirectly to
the communities and societies where Shell operates (Moser, 2005: 1). Shells
strategy is dominated by rational thinking and this can be seen in its reliance
on control systems. These systems contain well separated management
accountabilities and performance metrics (Boele et al., 2001). Its progress is
communicated to stakeholders in sustainability reports each year since 1997.
To select the content of its reports it applies the selection matrix to the
different issues depicted in figure 1. External and internal information is used
during the selection procedure.

Figure 1 Selection Matrix (Shell, 2011)

Shells sustainability reports are in accordance with the external guidelines of
the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI). An external review committee
evaluates the report on its relevance and responsiveness to stakeholders.
This committee consists of six independent experts (Shell, 2011). Shell
recognizes the strong business case for enhancing its social performance and
includes the notion of risk management. It gives the company a license to
operate, reduces costs, gives access to project finance, and enhances its
reputation (Boele et al., 2001).

Practise
Shells approach towards sustainability issues changed from 1995 onwards.
Former chairman Phillip Watts (2000) declared the changing point for the
company being the case of Brent Spar and the death of Ogoni leader Ken
Saro-Wiwa. The company went through some important alterations from then
on. In 1996 Shell started to engage in a stakeholder dialogue with different
organisations like Amnesty International. It also changed its Business
Principles in 1997 to its present form. In 1998 its first statement on social
and environmental performance was released. In this period Shells strategy
shifted from internal to external. It has gone towards a more emergent and
incremental approach of strategy formulation. The proactive approach
towards sustainability issues adopted was unique in that time (Boele et al.
2001). In encouraging a more accountable and dynamic set of relationships
with key stakeholders Shell has placed itself in a leadership position among

corporations that are moving beyond notions of license to operate (Carroll,
1999).
A well-known example of Shells approach towards sustainability is
given by the case of Nigeria. Shells operations in Nigeria account for 14% of
their world-wide oil production and only 7% of total profits. It considers their
operations in Nigeria to be arguably Shells largest and most complex
exploration and production venture outside North America (Shell
International, 1995). Shells commitment towards its principles and codes of
conduct can be seen in the companys behaviour. According to Boele et al.
(2001), Shell has gone beyond compliance in numerous ways in the
Nigeria case, but has not always been effective. Despite large investments in
community relations in this area the perception of the Ogoni community has
not changed (Boele et al., 2001). As mentioned before, the Business
Principles state to create more value for shareholders, society, and the
natural environment. Yet, Shell has been more successful in driving out
inefficiencies (like gas flaring) in accordance to the business case for
sustainability. In the end, creating more sustainable shareholder value.
Therefore, Shell has been accused of not balancing their practises with their
principles (MOSOP International Secretariat). Boele et al. (2001) tested the
level of integration of Shells business strategy with sustainability. It found
that on corporate level it embraces notions of market sensitivity and internal
and external accountability at an exceptional level. Yet, the challenge
remains in translating this approach to sustainability and stakeholder
responsiveness at business unit level in Nigeria (Boele et al., 2001). Wheeler
et al. (2000) also states that there is a disconnect between Shells CSR policy
and economic and operational reality. NGOs place a lot of emphasize on the
Nigeria case and the inconsistencies with Shells practices and their
communicated values. This can damage the reputation of the company. As
Sharp et al. (1999) stated it: Brent Spar was a big wake-up call. Nigeria
keeps us awake all the time
Friends of the Earth is one of the largest NGOs following Shells
behaviour over the years. After the release of Shells sustainability reports in
2002 and 2004 Friends of the Earth released a complementary report on
Shells performance. The 2004 report states that despite Shells public
commitment to CSR and promises to communities little has changed in its
practices. Examples are given of Shells effect on the environment and
societies around the world and the unaccountability for their actions (FOE,
2011). This report is a useful complement to Shells own sustainability
reports, because a different perspective is given on Shells approach. Yet, it is
still a subjective measure of Shells performance. Therefore in the following
part more objective internal and external measures are discussed to assess
Shells performance.

Performance Shell
To analyse the performance of Shells approach towards sustainability issues
data on its social and environmental progress will be evaluated. Data on the
social and environmental performance of Shell is retrieved from its
Sustainability Report 2010 and reflects the years 2001 till 2010. All non-
financial data are on a 100% basis for companies and joint ventures where
Shell is the operator. There are limitations to the accuracy of internal
environmental and social data. Yet, the data is subject to controls and the
sustainability reports are reviewed by an external committee every year.

Naimi 103
Also, external measures will be discussed in this section that assesses the
companys overall performance on sustainability issues and reputation.
The elements that are measured to asses Shells environmental
performance are greenhouse gas emissions, flaring, energy intensity, acid
gases and VOCs, ozone-depleting emissions, spills and discharges, waste
disposal, and freshwater use. Data on all of these elements are presented in
Appendix I. The developments in direct greenhouse gas emissions,
operational spills, and waste disposal are further elaborated on. Figure 1
shows that the amount of direct greenhouse gas emissions is 25% lower
compared to the 1990 level. In 1998 a voluntary target was set 5% lower
than the 1990 baseline and has been met as well. A 9% increase is seen in
2009. The reason for this was business growth across the company.

Figure 2 GHGs Emission (Shell Sustainability Report, 2010)

Operational spills have decreased considerably from 275 in 2009 to
193 in 2010. Yet, the volumes of the spills have increased as can be seen in
Figure 2. The operational spills in Nigeria have a major impact in the total
volume of operational spills. This figure excludes the sabotage and theft in
Nigeria, which remains a significant cause for spills. Overall the volume of
operational spills in the world (excluding Nigeria) has dropped from 2001 to
2010.
The total waste disposal can be divided into hazardous and non-
hazardous and are presented in Figure 3. The peak in 2006 has significantly
declined in 2007. Overall there has been an increase in total waste disposal
over the recent year. Yet, this can be due to the growth of business.
The elements measured to assess the social performance of Shell are
fatalities, injuries, illness, security, gender diversity, regional diversity, staff
forums and grievance procedures, child labour, contracting and procurement,
integrity, and social investment. Data on all of these elements are presented
in Appendix II. Child labour prevention procedures, integrity, and social
investments will be further elaborated. Data to measure the percentage of
total countries implementing procedures to prevent child labour are obtained
by an internal survey completed by the senior Shell representatives in each
country. Figure 4 shows that child labour preventions procedures for its own

operations, contractors, and suppliers have almost reached a level of a 100%
in recent years.

Figure 3 Operational Spills (Shell Sustainability Report, 2010)

Figure 4 Waste Disposals (Shell Sustainability Report, 2010)

Figure 5 Child Labour (Shell Sustainability Report, 2010)


Naimi 105
Integrity is measured in three different ways and is shown in figure 5.
First, through code of conduct violations. This decreased till 2009 and then
increased from 165 to 205 in 2010. Shell states that it has ended its
relationship with 77 employees and contractors as a result of this. Secondly,
integrity is measured by the number of contracts cancelled due to
incompatibility with Business Principles. This has decreased in recent years.
Thirdly, integrity is measured by joint-ventures divested due to
incompatibility with Business Principles. This not happened from 2001 till
2010.

Figure 6 Integrity (Shell Sustainability Report, 2010)

Figure 6 shows the amount of social investment by Shell in millions of
dollars. Lower-income countries are countries that according the UNDP
Human Development Index 2010 have a gross domestic product (GDP) of
less than $15 000. The social investment in these countries has increased to
61$ million in 2010 compared to 54$ million in 2009. The estimated
voluntary social investment has decreased from 132$ million in 2009 to 121$
million in 2010. This can be explained by investments in countries such as
Nigeria and Brazil that has gone up and investments in countries such as
Canada and the US that has gone down.
A comparison of Shells social and environmental performance to its
competitors can give a better understanding of the data presented. Yet, it
can be concluded so far that Shell is increasingly committed to sustainability
and puts effort into managing the different elements compared to previous
years. The petroleum refining industry does not have an excellent reputation
in dealing with sustainability issues compared to other industries. This is also
due to the nature and complexity of its core business. To gain more insight
into Shells overall performance in dealing with sustainability issues compared
to its major competitors several important sustainability indices and company
rankings will be discussed.



Figure 7 Social Investments (Shell Sustainability Report, 2010)

First, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index which performs company
assessments on sustainable practices. It is a credible manner to analyse a
firms performance on these aspects. An assessment on the three
sustainability dimensions, economic, environment, and social, according to a
set of criteria is made. Then companies are ranked within their industry and
the sustainable leaders are selected for the Dow Jones Sustainability Index
(DJSI, 2011). Shell has been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index
since 1999 as remaining in the top 10% of the oil and gas industry. In 2010
Shell was not included. Another index regarding companys sustainable
practises is FTSE4Good Index Series. This index measures the performance
of companies in meeting globally recognised corporate sustainability
standards (ftse, 2011). To be included companies must meet the indexs
criteria on environment, relationship with interested parties, supply chain
labour, bribery, and human rights. Shell has been included in this index every
year since its start in 2001. Third, the GS SUSTAIN ESG developed by
Goldman Sachs is defined as: a unique global equity strategy that brings
together ESG (environmental, social, and governance) criteria, broad industry
analysis and return on capital to identify long-term investment opportunities
(goldmansachs, 2011). Companies are rated on 25 indicators within
categories such as corporate governance, leadership, labour, communities
and investment, and environment. Shell was ranked second within the
energy industry in 2010 on best managed company around the globe that will
succeed on a sustainable basis (goldmansachs, 2011).
The World Most Admired (WMA) companies, by Fortune Magazine
ranks companies on key reputation attributes rated on scales from 0 to 10.
The attributes included in this program are; leadership, ethics and
governance, customer focus, quality, social responsibility, performance,
management quality, and employee skills. This ranking is commonly used by
academics and practitioners to get an overall understanding of the
perceptions of stakeholders and assesses a firms reputation (van Riel et al.,
2007). However, there are several limitations; a financial bias; a stakeholder
bias; and a lack of theory behind attribute selection. Also, the attributes are
treated as if they are independent from one another. Fortune recognizes this
and no longer provides the single attribute ratings (van Riel et al., 2007). In
2006 and 2007 Shell ranked 4
th
most admired company within the petroleum

Naimi 107
refining industry. In 2008 and 2009 Shell ranked 3th most admired company.
In 2010 Shell ranked 2
nd
most admired company in the petroleum refining
industry. Thus, according to Fortunes ranking Shells reputation has
improved in recent years. To put this into perspective and example of BP as
one of the main competitors of Shell is given. BP ranked 4
th
most admired
company before the oil spill in 2010 and after it ranked 16
th
out of a total of
16 (Fortune, 2011). This shows the impact of a companys behaviour and
approach towards sustainability issues and the effect on its reputation.
Reputation can also be measured by KLD ratings consisting of AAA
(highest) to C (lowest). KLD objectively rates firms on nine dimensions, five
of which we will discuss in this section. Each dimension provides a score for
strengths and concerns, which is averaged to compute the firms final
score. The objectivity of these ratings is high in contrast to some of the other
indices and rankings mentioned. It is therefore a reliable measure of a firms
reputation (Turban et al., 1996). The overall rating for Shell in 2011 is CC
and is depicted in table 2 below. A summary of the company report can be
found in appendix III.

Table 2 KLD Global Socrates Summary 2011

Shell Industry
Overall CC
Environment CC CCC
Community & Society CCC CCC
Customer CCC BB
Employee & Supply Chain CC BB
Governance & Ethics A A

The lower score on the environmental dimension is due to the
companys interest in energy intensive projects and serious pollution
incidents and controversies at Shells worldwide operations locations. The
anti-competitive practices of Shell contributed to the lower score on the
customer dimension. Yet, Shell outperformed the industry on product quality
and safety. Shell also outperformed the industry on the supply chain and
workforce diversity attributes. Shell underperformed on employee safety
mainly due to employee kidnapping in Nigeria and health and safety
problems in its North Sea operations. On the governance and ethics
dimension the company outperformed the industry on sustainability reporting
& engagement, governance structures, and political accountability. The rating
summary given by KLD states that: Shell faces serious environmental
problems and ongoing community protests at many of its global operating
sites. While the company has demonstrated an understanding of the serious
issues it faces by implementing programs and addressing issues at a
systemic level, its history of past controversies and failure to adequately
resolve legacy issues has undermined its current ESG record (KLD, 2011).
The environmental and social performance of Shell shows progress on
the different elements discussed. Shell is also included in several indices
regarding sustainability except the Dow Jones Sustainability Index 2010. The
Fortunes WMA ranking also show progress in Shells overall reputation in
recent years. Yet, it can be concluded that despite the efforts made so far by
the company its performance is not adequate. The KLD report shows that

there is a long way ahead and Shells communicated principles and ethics
need to be implemented more thoroughly in worldwide operations. An
analysis of Shells current approach and performance with the different
theoretical perspectives will be given in the next part.

Analysis
The current approach adopted by Shell towards sustainability issues can be
identified by several theories and perspectives. Both agency and stewardship
theory are not applicable to Shells approach. Shell is going beyond
regulations set by the government. Yet, it does not do the right thing in all
cases. The Austrian economic perspective is also not applicable to Shells
approach since it does not see sustainability issues as opportunities to shape
and change institutional structures. Rather, it sees these issues as risks and
tries to mitigate for them. Institutional theory has a limited purpose in
assessing Shells approach towards sustainability issues. Shell has indeed
adapted to changing social norms. Yet, it has been proactive in its
communication towards and collaboration with stakeholders and has
deliberately chosen its strategies. This is not congruent with the institutional
theory perspective which implies no choice behaviour. Also, the resource
based view can only explain Shells approach to a certain extend. Shell aims
at differentiating itself from competitors by using CSR as a source for
competitive advantage. Yet, its lack of implementation in practices eliminates
this possibility.
The case study of Shell shows a disconnection between its
communicated approach and actual approach towards sustainability issues
faced by the company. Its communicated approach is most in line with the
stakeholder theory perspective. Shell recognizes its responsibility to all
stakeholders and not just shareholders. The changes made in its approach
since 1995 are mainly due to pressures from external stakeholders that are
important to the company. It has moved from the lowest tier of social
obligation to the highest tier of social responsiveness mentioned by Sethi
(1975). It suggests to be adaptive, anticipatory, and preventive in dealing
with sustainability issues. An important mechanism for Shell in achieve this is
scenario planning. It also engages in a continuous dialogue with its
stakeholders to assess the approach needed towards sustainability issues.
Shells communications show commitment to an integrative approach and
creation of an organizational culture where sustainability is a core value
(Crews, 2010). This is affirmed by the set of code of ethics in place and its
explicit commitment to its stakeholders. Shell states that by being proactive
it aims to create value for society as a whole. As mentioned by Carroll (1999,
p. 9), the more accountable and dynamic sets of relationships with key
stakeholders places Shell in a leadership position among corporations that
are moving beyond notions of licence to operate. This will be an advantage
to Shell in building stakeholder loyalty and trust internationally.
The actual behaviour of Shell towards sustainability issues shows a
different approach. It is most in line with the theory of the firm (e.g.,
classical economic theory). The level of CSR activities is determined by a
cost-benefit analysis (Frynas, 2009). Present costs are incurred by engaging
in CSR. Yet, by differentiating itself from competitors this can lead to future
benefits. This is an instrumental approach and does not show full

Naimi 109
commitment towards sustainable behaviour as is communicated by Shell. Its
approach towards sustainability issues is mostly technical and rational and
can be seen by the control systems in place. Shell identifies the most
relevant issues by engaging in stakeholder dialogue and using scenario
planning. The control systems in place are then used to quantify the risks for
the company. Shell insures against these risks by avoiding them, mitigate
them or a combination. Therefore, the quantitative approach of Bekefi (2008)
is also applicable to Shells actual approach. This clearly shows a risk
perspective towards sustainability issues and an approach that considers
these issues as trade-offs. Even though, Shell takes a proactive approach it
believes it is the responsibility of the government to create a level playing
field and measures should be effective and economically feasible. The
difference in Shells actual and communicated approach shows its focus on
external presentation of sustainability to create legitimacy. It communicates
its efforts to differentiate itself from competitors and increase credibility. This
can be identified as the conventional extroverted strategy mentioned by
Baumgartner (2010). The disconnect mentioned also shows the recognition
between global and local issues by Shell. Therefore, its global communication
on these issues and operational reality differs.
The internal measures of sustainability assessed in the previous part
show progress on several aspects of environmental and social performance.
It shows Shells increased commitment towards implementing sustainability
in its operations. Yet, this is mainly based on the business case for
sustainable development that poses a win-win situation for all stakeholders
involved. More efficient and sustainable operations can create shareholder
value and to a certain extent stakeholder value. It also achieves a licence to
operate for the company. Shell has also internalized almost all existing CSR
and multi-stakeholder initiatives and therefore shows proactive behaviour
(Frynas, 2009). Yet, a pro-active approach as communicated by Shell is not
yet seen in the practise of sustainability issues that are more complex. Also,
the reputation of Shell has increased in recent years as can be seen by the
external measures assessed. It can be concluded that Shells communicated
approach has been the main cause for these improvements. The
inconsistency with Shells actual approach in more complex environments
shows that the changes made in its communications has been mainly due to
bad reputational effects and external pressures. While the overall reputation
of Shell has improved in recent years it is still not very good and performs
poorly on several aspects.
The overall approach of Shell shows an understanding of the
sustainability issues facing the company and the measures needed to
increase sustainable behaviour. Shell recognizes its responsibility within these
issues and has internal and external accountability mechanisms in place. Yet,
its past approach and still existing controversies undermine its
communication efforts. Despite Shells efforts to improve social and
environmental performance, its failure to resolve main controversies around
its Nigerian operations affects its reputation and decreases trust from society.
It needs to take advantage of the mechanisms in place to create
opportunities on operational level (Boele et al., 2001). It can be concluded
that Shell has well-articulated strategies, systems and process in place to
describe its commitment to sustainability and CSR. Yet, overall it does not
have a very good reputation. There is lack of consistency between corporate
leadership and local leadership and operational behaviour. The challenge for

Shell is to resolve the inconsistencies between its communicated approach on
international level and its local operational behaviour. The communicated and
actual approach of Shell towards sustainability issues should be more aligned
to enhance its reputation and gain legitimacy and trust from society.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper has been to create an overview of the possible
approaches towards sustainability issues as emerging from the literature. The
interconnected nature of sustainability issues shows the need for an
integrated approach towards them. The case study of Shell shows that to
create trust in society a communication strategy alone is not enough. It
should be accompanied with stronger commitment and implementation in
practice. More research is required to assess the impact of the different
approaches on a companys overall performance and reputation in the
petroleum refining industry. A comparison of Shell with other competitors in
the same industry will contribute to a better understanding of the effects of a
firms behaviour in dealing with sustainability issues. The focus of this paper
has been on the approach and mechanisms adopted internally by a company.
Including external mechanisms that influence a companys approach towards
sustainability issues can also be significant. Society increasingly demands
firms to take responsibility for all stakeholders involved and it is therefore
important to have a better understanding of the different approaches possible
and their effectiveness.

References
About GRI. Global Reporting Initiative, (2011). Retrieved on 11 April 2011
from: http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/
About Our Data. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
http://sustainabilityreport.shell.com/2010/ourperformance/aboutourda
ta.html?cat=m
Bakir, V. (2006). Policy agenda settings and risk communication:
Greenpeace, Shell, and the issues of trust. The Harvard International
Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 67.
Bakir, V. (2005). Greenpeace vs. Shell: Media exploitation and the Social
Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). Journal of Risk Research, 8,
679-691.
Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies:
Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development,
18, 76-89.
Bekefi, T., & Epstein, M. J. (2008). Measuring and managing social and
political risk. Strategic Finance, 8, 33.
Boele, R., Fabig, H., & Wheeler, D. (2001). Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A
study in unsustainable development II: Corporate social responsibility
and stakeholder management versus a right-based approach to
sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 9, 121-135.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a
Definitional Construct, Business and Society, 38(3),268-295

Naimi 111
Colbert, B.A., & Kuruez, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line:
Business sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resource
Planning, 30, 21-29.
Constituents. FTSE, 2010. Retrieved on 19 May2011 from:
http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/Constituents.js
p
Corporate Sustainability Assessment. SAM, (2010). Retrieved on 19 May
2011 from: http://www.sustainability-
indexes.com/07_htmle/assessment/overview.html
Crews, D. E. (2010). Strategies for implementing sustainability: Five
leadership challenges. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 15-21
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social
responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322.
Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory:
CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of
Management, 16, 49-64.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the
corporations: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 65-91.
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. SAM Indexes, (2010). Retrieved on 11
April 2011 from: http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/
Environmental Data. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/performanc
e/environmental_data/
Environmental. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
http://sustainabilityreport.shell.com/2010/ourperformance/environmen
talperformance.html?cat=m
Fletcher, S. (2002). Shell continues to press support for sustainability
research. Oil and Gas Journal, 100(44), 24.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective.
Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice Hall.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its
profits. New York Times Magazine, September, 13.
Frynas, J. G. (2009). Beyond corporate social responsibility. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Global 500. Fortune, (2010). Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/full_list/
GS SUSTAIN. Goldman Sachs, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/environment-and-
energy/goldman-sachs/gs-sustain/index.html
Hacking, T., & Guthrie, P. (2008). A framework for clarifying the meaning of
triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainable assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 73-89.
Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 986-1014.
How We Report on Sustainable Development. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12
May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/reporting/o
ur_approach/
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the
multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 838-849.

Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and
economic. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
Jenkins, R. (2005). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.
International Affairs, 81, 525-40.
MSCI inc. & KLD (2011). Global Socrates Company Summary Report 2011.
Leite, C., & Weidmann, J. (1999). Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural
Resources, Corruption, and Economic Growth, Washington DC:
International Monetary Fund
Lessons Not Learned: The Other Shell Report (2004). Friends of the Earth,
2004. Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/lessons_not_learned.pdf
Lewin, P., & Phelan, S. E. (1999). Firms, strategies, and resources:
Contributions from Austrian economics. Quarterly Journal of Austrian
Economics, 2, 3-18.
Looking Ahead: Scenarios. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/shell_glo
bal_scenarios/
Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimension in
sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 99-107.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and
financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Corporate social
responsibility: Strategic implications. Rensselaer: Working Papers in
Economics.
Mises, L. (1963). Human action (3
rd
ed.). Chicago: Yale University Press
Moser, T. (2005). Social performance: Key lessons from recent experiences
with Shell. Corporate Governance, 5(3), 105-118.
Most Admired Companies 2010. Fortune, (2010). Retrieved on 19 May 2011
from:http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2010/in
dustries/42.html
form:http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2009/in
dustries/46.html
dustries/51.html
dustries/industry_46.html
dustries/industry_40.html
Our Common Future. UN Document. United Nations, (2011). Retrieved on 11
April 2011 from: http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
Reicheld, F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of corporate
communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation
management. Oxford: Routledge.
Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (1999). The big push, natural resources booms
and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 59, 43-76.

Naimi 113
Sadler, B., Verocai, I., & Vanclay, F. (2000). Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment for large dams, thematic review vol. 2, Input to
the World Commissions on Dams, Cape Town.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An
analytical framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
Shell Code of Conduct. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/who_we_are/our_valu
es/code_of_conduct/
Shell Code of Ethics. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/who_we_are/our_valu
es/code_of_ethics/
Shell International (1995b). Shell in Nigeria, London: Shell International.
Social. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
http://sustainabilityreport.shell.com/2010/ourperformance/socialperfor
mance.html?cat=m
Social Data. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
e/social_data/
Sustainable Development in Shell. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12 May 2011
from:http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/s_dev
elopment/sd_in_shell/
Sustainability rankings. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 19 May 2011 from:
e/indices
Tsai, P. C. F., Rosa Yeh, C., Wu, S., & Huang, I. (2005). An empirical test of
stakeholder influence strategy models: Evidence from business
downsizing in Taiwan. International Journal of Human Resources
Management, 16, 1862-85.
Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1996). Corporate social performance and
organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(3), 658-672.
Watts, P. (2002). Shell continues to press support for sustainability research.
Oil and Gas Journal, 10(44), 24.
Watts, P., & Holme, R. (1999). Meeting changing expectations. Corporate
responsibility, WBCSD: Geneva.
Wheeler, D., Boele, R., & Fabig, H. (2001). Paradoxes and dilemmas for
stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector lessons from
the case of Shell and the Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics.
Wheeler, D., Sutherland, N., & Kelly, N. (2000). Corporate strategy and
sustainability in business: A North American review. Proc ERP
Environment Conference on Eco-Management and Auditing,
Manchester.
Who We Are. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/who_we_are/
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of
Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.
Working With Others. Shell, (2011). Retrieved on 12 May 2011 from:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/s_development/w
orking_with_others/

A Case Study of Shell

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Case Study of Shell

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Volume 9 2011 Otago Management Graduate Review

This assignment was for MANT435 Advanced International Management 1

Você também pode gostar