Throughout the case study article and several other sources across the web, it would appear that Shell markets their image as a company who influences and supports human rights and the development of communities. It is this idea that looks as though Shell wants to provide for the common good while also maintaining consistent profit, which is basically what any other big corporation would do for itself. It can be thought that providing for the common good in the business world is sort of the new profit wagon these days in which larger corporations are beginning to take a ride on because it allows them to play a part in society while receiving reputable benefits such as brand marketing and free advertising. However in this particular case, Shell did not show responsibility for the common good of Nigeria because its executives did not intervene in the tribunal trials of Ken Saro-Wiwa and six others whom were being charged for murdering several Ogoni chiefs which were suspected of collaborating with the Nigerian military. This is not to say that the men should not have been punished, but that Shell could have played a role in the investigation.
Shell also did not provide for the common good because it brought unsustainable conditions to the Ogoniland environment. The village of Ogoniland was polluted and overcrowded. Oil spills, flaring and atmospheric discharge from Shell did not help the situation. Shell believed that their actions and their presence in Nigeria were in the common good of the Nigerian people even though they were not. Shell should have ensured that the living conditions of the people in that region were much more sustainable than they were. On the other side, Shell at the time did do its part by contributing millions of dollars to Nigeria for schools, hospitals, and other services, but the federal government limited the return to the communities of Ogoniland to no more than 3 percent, with the remaining to be used by government and military disposal. This was a huge mistake made by the Nigerian government because they did not provide enough to stimulate economic growth within Ogoniland. Again if Shell was acting in the common good of the Nigerian people, they would have ensured that Ogoniland would have seen a larger portion of their profits by better overseeing how and where their sizable donations to Nigeria were being disbursed.
Shell commonly argued that they felt the Nigerian people would suffer if they were to leave the area. But in reality the Nigerian military and the Nigerian government are the only two entities that would incur damages if Shell were to leave. Therefore it was vitally important that both entities sought protection for Shell’s oil production, which is where all the corruption had stemmed from.
There were many options on the table in order for Shell to resolve the issue for the Nigerian people. One of them was that they had the opportunity to take action against the Nigerian government and it’s military by questioning their economic support over the Ogoniland region. Agreements could have been established between Shell and the Nigerian government that could have ordered the protection of innocent civilians within the region. Although the environmental conditions were already greatly affected by oil drilling, an agreement still could have been met with certain preconditions that the government must abide by. For example, a condition could have been made for economical development in the Ogoniland area that shows consistent and well above standard development within its schools, hospitals, and community services. Of course this option would appear as an ultimatum to the Nigerian government, but if Shell’s moral goal was to provide for the common good, then this could have been a reasonable choice.
On the other hand if an agreement or some type of ultimatum was proposed to Nigeria’s government, this could have created a risk that could have easily barred them from ever drilling in Nigeria. Considering the Nigerian government had a 55% stake in the revenue generated from oil drilling and that it was also their land, they indeed had the upper hand compared to Shell. So the agreement option may have not been the financially wisest decision to consider since it could have severely threatened their take in profit.
Another choice Shell could have considered was to employ dedicated members from its own staff that’s primary purpose could have been to serve and protect the communities of Ogoniland. These members could have brought direct support in creating better schools and hospitals, as well as jobs and businesses, thus providing for the common good. However, this could have been a costly decision that would have taken away from the company’s profits so it is highly unlikely that such a decision like this would have ever been considered, therefore, making Shell a company whose only values are what is in the self-interest of the company, money. That is why my analysis was that they took an egoistic approach to the tribunal trials that would protect them from any conflict that could damage their relation with the Nigerian government.
Works Cited
Boatright, John. "Shell Oil in Nigeria." 291-293.
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/society/using_influence_responsibly/political ly_sensitive_regions/nigeria_case_study/