essay

baozi
caseexample.pdf

Case  Analysis  2  Distributive  Justice  and  Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria    

Among some of the world’s largest multinational firms, there are corrupt business

practices, government regulations and high paid executives that taint the world renowned success

of companies. Many companies are primarily consumed with the goal of profit maximization to

the point where they forsake the fundamental means of survival within a community ranging

from the safety of the environment to the detriment or death of civilians. Distributive justice is

the impartial appointment of resources (opportunity, wealth, jobs, etc.) by an official throughout

a community.1 As seen in many cases, especially Shell Oil in Nigeria, the allocation of resources

is not, by any means, equally distributed. The allotment of resources is not objectively given to

the Ogoniland citizens, instead, the government and its officials along with the Shell Corporation

are receiving the most benefits from the economic activity of producing oil.

According to the strict egalitarianism distributive principle, all individuals should receive

an equal share of what is being distributed. As Nigeria produces around ten billion dollars of oil

per year, the wealth should be equally divided and allocated to the community. Instead, the

Nigerian government receives 55%, Shell receives 30% and a French and Italian company

receives 15% of the total profits.2 Because the oil is produced in Nigeria, the community should

receive some type of incentives from the economic activity of oil production. It is noticeably

apparent that all individuals were not given the opportunity to receive equal share of the wealth

that was distributed. While most Nigerian citizens managed to survive on a couple hundreds of

dollars per year, government officials were living the most sumptuous lifestyles while obtaining

luxury cars and foreign bank accounts.3 When the military government eradicated most

                                                                                                                          1  Lamount,  Juilian.  "Distributive  Justice."  Stanford  Encyclopedia  Online.  Stanford:  The  Metaphysics  Research  Lab,   2007.   2  Boatright,  John.    Ethics  and  the  Conduct  of  Business,  “Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria.”  Prentice  Hall,  March  2006.   3  Boatright,  John.    Ethics  and  the  Conduct  of  Business,  “Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria.”  Prentice  Hall,  March  2006.  

Case  Analysis  2  Distributive  Justice  and  Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria    

democratic institutions in which citizens could express their interests and concerns, people were

forced to coincide with the allocation of wealth of the oil production.

Had the Nigerian officials followed the strict egalitarianism principle, they would have

created an equal distribution of revenue throughout the community. Instead of the Nigerian

government receiving the majority of profits, the revenues should have been divided equally

among the community of Ogoniland including its residents, the Nigerian government, Shell

Company, the French and Italian company.

Examining this case from the perspective of a utilitarian egalitarianism principle would

indicate that the allocation of resources should be distributed in such a way that the greatest

numbers of people are benefited.4 In the case of Shell Oil in Nigeria, the government fails to

distribute resources based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. While Shell’s

oil production is located in Ogoniland, the citizens are ultimately affected the most without any

regards. Seeing that 500,000 Ogoniland citizens are living in impoverished and over populated

conditions, the oil spills and burning of natural gas from Shell only exacerbates the current

problems of the community. The health of Ogoniland and surrounding city citizens are put at risk

while the pollution is ultimately affecting the environment. As aforementioned, most revenues

from the Shell operations in Ogoniland are squandered away by the government and Shell Oil

while the city of Ogoniland rarely receives any benefits from its operations. Shell Oil supposedly

invested roughly around 6% (20 mil/312 mil) of its profits back into the community by “building

schools, hospitals and other services”.5 However, some of those contributions were used to

enhance the working conditions of Shell Nigeria rather than focusing on giving back to the

                                                                                                                          4  Lamount,  Juilian.  "Distributive  Justice."  Stanford  Encyclopedia  Online.  Stanford:  The  Metaphysics  Research  Lab,   2007.   5  Boatright,  John.    Ethics  and  the  Conduct  of  Business.,  “Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria.”  Prentice  Hall,  March  2006.  

Case  Analysis  2  Distributive  Justice  and  Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria    

community.6 The allocation of resources were geared towards and primarily concerned with the

well being of Shell Oil and Nigerian government and its officials.

If the Nigerian government and Shell Oil had followed the utilitarian egalitarianism

principle, everyone in the entire community- without a biased focus on one particular party-

should benefit from the production of oil in Ogoniland. Citizens of Ogoniland and surrounding

communities should receive more incentives while lessening the detrimental health affects that

the oil production induces. Shell Oil should receive a reasonable but equal amount of profit while

they develop ways in which the oil production can be less harmful to the environment. The

Nigerian government should also receive a reasonable but equal amount of profit as they focus

on improving the Nigerian economy and means of life for Ogoniland citizens. The French and

Italian company should also receive a reasonable proportion of the profits.

Furthermore, John Rawl’s Difference Principle suggests that positions must be open and

fair to all and that distribution disparities are only allowed when the least advantaged individuals

are given the greatest benefits.7 In the case of Shell Oil in Nigeria, the citizens of Ogoniland are

excluded from the benefits of the production of oil in Nigeria. The greatest benefit of Shell

operations in Nigeria is the massive amount of revenue it generates, however, that wealth is not

being spread evenly throughout the society as mentioned previously. The citizens of Ogoniland

are, unquestionably, the least advantaged party in this case. The city is over populated as is and

the emission of the gases makes the living conditions of the citizens even harder than it was

initially. Alongside, the citizens are forced to abode in these conditions without their consent

because their government limited their democratic freedoms. The production of oil in Ogoniland

                                                                                                                          6  Boatright,  John.    Ethics  and  the  Conduct  of  Business.,  “Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria.”  Prentice  Hall,  March  2006   7  Garrett,  J.  "Rawls  on  Justice."  Rawls  on  Justice.  3  Sept.  2002.  Western  Kentucky  University.  11  Feb.  2009   <http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm>  

Case  Analysis  2  Distributive  Justice  and  Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria    

did not benefit the citizens the least bit in comparison to the benefits that government officials

and Shell Company received. The 20 million dollars that was allegedly donated to the

community did not increase the quality of the Ogoniland citizens’ lives as much increased the

productivity of the Shell Oil Plant in Ogoniland. Furthermore, the surrounding communities of

Ogoniland had been invaded and raided by the task force who killed civilians and destroyed the

personal property of the civilians. As a result, the Nigerian officials and the Shell Company

violates the second principal of John Rawl’s Difference Principle as the least advantaged party

was not given the greatest benefit.

If John Rawl’s Difference Principle was taken into account by the Nigerian government

and Shell Company, the community of Ogoniland should be receiving the most benefits. They

should not be living in impoverished and over populated conditions seeing how lucrative the oil

production is in Ogoni. There should be more public and community enhancing resources (i.e.

schools, libraries, hospitals, parks) available to the citizens of Ogoni. Also, the citizen’s of Ogoni

should not be threatened by such horrible health conditions that Shell is producing. Shell should

implement a plan that reduces the amounts of pollution being emitted or somehow provides a

more “green” environment for the community.

In conclusion, Shell Company and the Nigerian government did not effectively apply the

principles of distributive justice in this case. Both parties were consumed by the profits that they

were receiving while discounting the environment and lives of Ogoniland citizens.

   

   

   

Case  Analysis  2  Distributive  Justice  and  Shell  Oil  In  Nigeria