Robaloe
Revenue flow and human rights: a paradox for Shell Nigeria
Case analysis
Professor Alvarez
4/11/2013
Introduction:
The case describes Shell’s evolution within the context of sensitive human rights issues related to oil exploration and exploitation in Nigeria. Given that much of the revenue from Nigerian oil resources was being diverted by corrupt state governors, the case focuses on issues relevant to government transparency and corruption. It describes Shell’s involvement in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and its collaboration with the Nigerian Government to instigate a more transparent reporting on oil revenues. However, since two senior Shell executives involved in EITI and negotiations with the government are about to retire from the company, the prospect of briefing their successors on the complexity of the Nigerian situation brings a number of issues that need to be addressed.
How will Alan Detheridge, the British vice president of Shell’s external affairs and Joshua Udofia, the senior Nigerian corporate advisor contribute to the Dutch company's next steps? How will they portray a more transparent and governance agenda? What other partnerships should they consider? What will they do different to start impeccable like they did 50 years ago?
Body:
Undemocratic military regimes, corruption, government inefficiency’s are some of the reasons why Nigeria an “African Paradise for oil pumping” is listed by the NGO transparency International as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Through an agreement in 1937, Shell was authorized to prospect for oil in Nigeria. Since that date, corruption has been a major concern for Shells operations. It was not until November
1995, where former charismatic leader Saro-Wiwa, leader of (MOSOP) movement for the survival of the Ogoni people, was hanged with eight other Ogonis, that Shell accepted that it had a mayor duty to achieve, and accepted how heavily implicated was the
Case analysis
Professor Alvarez
4/11/2013
Introduction:
The case describes Shell’s evolution within the context of sensitive human rights issues related to oil exploration and exploitation in Nigeria. Given that much of the revenue from Nigerian oil resources was being diverted by corrupt state governors, the case focuses on issues relevant to government transparency and corruption. It describes Shell’s involvement in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and its collaboration with the Nigerian Government to instigate a more transparent reporting on oil revenues. However, since two senior Shell executives involved in EITI and negotiations with the government are about to retire from the company, the prospect of briefing their successors on the complexity of the Nigerian situation brings a number of issues that need to be addressed.
How will Alan Detheridge, the British vice president of Shell’s external affairs and Joshua Udofia, the senior Nigerian corporate advisor contribute to the Dutch company's next steps? How will they portray a more transparent and governance agenda? What other partnerships should they consider? What will they do different to start impeccable like they did 50 years ago?
Body:
Undemocratic military regimes, corruption, government inefficiency’s are some of the reasons why Nigeria an “African Paradise for oil pumping” is listed by the NGO transparency International as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Through an agreement in 1937, Shell was authorized to prospect for oil in Nigeria. Since that date, corruption has been a major concern for Shells operations. It was not until November
1995, where former charismatic leader Saro-Wiwa, leader of (MOSOP) movement for the survival of the Ogoni people, was hanged with eight other Ogonis, that Shell accepted that it had a mayor duty to achieve, and accepted how heavily implicated was the