c


  
 
    
       
    
  





  
 



  

One of the ways we have a peek into the ethics and values of a corporation is through
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting. CSR reporting is akin to reporting
financials, but rather than focusing on the numbers (i.e. profits), there is an emphasis on the
people and planet impacts.

At the moment, such reporting is voluntary. If CSR reporting becomes mandatory, it will be
compliance driven reporting. Corporations would be reporting just to meet the requirements
of the report, not truly making any genuine effort towards sustainability or social
responsibility.

I tend to agree with making CSR voluntary. In the end, the goal is to have corporations
become more socially responsible, hence the CSR reporting. However, having the
government mandate reporting absolves corporations from the responsibility, such reporting
is intended to instil.

Federally mandating reporting now makes social responsibility the governments¶ onus, not
the corporations. Responsibility now transfers from the corporations to the government. Gone
is the motivation for a corporation to be responsible, it now just wants to be compliant. Gone
is the incentive for a corporation to do it because it wants to, not because it has to. In essence
CSR would need to be changed to GSR, Government Social Responsibility.

Furthermore, CSR reporting is just that, reporting. It is far more important for a company to
actually be socially responsible rather than talking or writing about being socially
responsible. The ones that are will let you know, whether it be through a CSR report, or how
it runs its culture. The ones that do not, or are not even interested in CSR, will let you know
because those corporations will not bother to fill a CSR report out.

It may seem ideal to mandate all corporations do CSR reporting, but a company¶s CSR will
show through, more so in their actions, than in their words. Mandating reporting will only
promote hiding questionable actions behind words.
ð






 



 
 


    

 

    

    !
 
" ##$


$ #!
#% &
" ##$


$ 

#%$'  
 


 
    

  

    

  
   
 


   


 
 


 

(






)* 
 
 

Shell¶s conduct in the early to mid 1990s incited an international movement against the
company. Specifically, two incidents -the controversy surrounding µBrent Spar¶ and the
repression of civil society in the Niger Delta (culminating in the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa)-
represented public relations disasters. Shell became associated with what British Prime
Minister John Major termed ³judicial murder´ as international news broadcasters told how
the Nigerian government had executed ³human-rights activists´ for fear that ³their opposition
to mining´ might drive the company out of the country. Events in the Niger Delta unfolded
only a year after Shell¶s major £350 million branding makeover.

Not only had Shell ignited an international movement which hit its brand and profits, it also
failed to achieve security in the Niger Delta through the repression of civil society. Clearly, if
the company was to continue its operations, a different tack would be necessary.

In recognition of previous policy failings²and as a consequence of strong international

censure²Shell outlined a new approach of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
community engagement. The company¶s 1998 report, µProfits and Principles ± Does there
have to be a choice?¶, acknowledged that the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the
controversy surrounding Brent Spar were major turning points as part of what Shell called its
µTransformation¶.

Three broad phases can be identified in the evolution of Shell¶s µsocially responsible¶
policies in the Delta. In its initial efforts to placate the restless populations, an emphasis was
placed on quickly achieving settlements with local activists by providing community
assistance. Memoranda of Understanding were created in which Shell promised to be a more
sensitive tenant and host communities agreed not to attack oil facilities. In 1997, as Shell¶s
CSR policies grew more sophisticated, the company shifted to what it termed µcommunity
development¶. This approach was less about doing things 2
communities, and more about
fostering dialogue and partnership  them. In 2003 the company again reorganised its
community development programme, placing even ³greater emphasis on partnerships
between Shell and various stakeholders and interested parties. The approach was termed
µSustainable Community Development¶; it marked the latest stage of a transition which has
seen Shell shift from a security policy based on state violence and repression, to one
increasingly focused on partnership with local populations. Aware of national and
international perceptions that it massively exploits the region, Shell has begun the ³quest for,
and journey towards, sustainable development.´

On the face of it then, a straightforward moral and rational progression can be identified in
Shell¶s pursuit of security and sustainable development in the Niger Delta. Whilst, in the
early 1990s, the company relied on violence and repression to maintain its operations, it has
since moved increasingly towards socially responsible policies of partnership and dialogue
with civil society. What is actually striking about this transition from community assistance
to community development to sustainable community development is the incontestable fact
that the communities themselves were growing ever more restive and militant.

The degeneration of parts of Nigerian civil society into an arena for ethnic, religious and
sectarian mobilisation²and the proliferation of violent actors in the Niger Delta²has
occurred despite Shell¶s so-called µTransformation¶ into a socially responsible company.

The underlying logic which has motivated Shell to adopt CSR is commercial; the company
aims to smooth relations with Delta communities in order to enable oil production and build
its international brand value. Whilst relatively standard projects (for example, the donation of
mosquito nets) enable glossy publicity brochures, such measures are unlikely to placate many
of the restive militias attacking Shell¶s facilities. The company¶s CSR strategy is thus based
on a paradox: whilst seeking to generate a license to operate by delivering µdevelopment¶ and
promoting cultures of respect and civil discussion, Shell is @

 concerned with those
actors which pose a tangible threat to its interests, and for whom µdevelopment¶ may not be
the ultimate goal. This is not to say that all of Shell¶s CSR work in the region is ill-conceived
or ineffective, but rather that the company must²by the logic of its own motivations²
engage not only (or even predominantly) with µcivil¶ elements of society.

Shell¶s concern with powerful and potentially disruptive actors has meant that some
communities²or parts of communities²have been able to demand µpartnership¶ and
µengagement¶ from the company, whilst others have been left with nothing. By (wittingly or
unwittingly) paying local militias, Shell¶s security strategy has encouraged the cementation of
identity along ethnic lines, feeding into a horrifying series of conflicts. Simultaneously,
through their partnership with the company, youth militias have been empowered to assert
themselves violently as alternative local elites ± women and elders have been all but elbowed
out of the public arena. Shell¶s interventions into the complex societal politics of the Niger
Delta appear to have further eroded the security environment for its business operations as
well as the stability of civil society. Extracting itself from this spiralling regime of conflict
will not be an easy task.























Ò



+  +
 , 

$ð



 
 



 

 
$ 

 



 

 


 
 
   




 

-


     
&,.

 





Placing the emphasis on voluntary initiatives or mandatory measures is the hot debate.

Firstly, in the context of "raising awareness and improving knowledge on CSR", a number of
recommendations are present on how to raise awareness of key principles in reference texts,
how to collect, exchange and disseminate information about CSR and how to step up research
on CSR. The set of recommendations which focus on "developing the capacities and
competences to help mainstream CSR" highlight action to be taken to enhance the capacity of
business to integrate CSR, to build the capacity of 'capacity builders', ie organisations or
individuals that specialise in CSR, and to include CSR in business school curricula.

The take-up and development of CSR depends on internal and external 'determining factors'
which vary in relevance according to the characteristics of a company (such as its size, age,
activity and its geographical, political or cultural context).

The values and commitment of key decision makers as well as the 'business case' defined as
"minimising risk, maximising opportunity" are important internal drivers for the pursuit of
CSR. Different parts of society, including investors, consumers, public authorities, NGOs,
trade unions and other companies, put pressure on companies from the outside to adopt a
CSR approach.

A number of obstacles may arise along the way, such as cost elements, lack of information,
unclear boundaries and even the 'CSR jargon' which has developed over the years. In order
for CSR to succeed, key people in companies need to show commitment, the CSR approach
should be integrated into corporate strategy and the company should engage with both
internal and external stakeholders.
According to me, NGO¶s should also be kept under the CSR scanner though what they do is
beneficial to the society. NGO¶s are privately run institutions working on charities. We are
unaware of the sources of these ³charities´ and NGO could be used as a cover for various
misdemeanours. A close scanner on NGO¶s and making reporting mandatory would show us
the sources of donation and charity and a vigilant eye could be kept on NGO¶s that have
suspicious CSR reporting. NGOs reported on this increased scrutiny and how it was
especially important for them to act as good corporate citizens, which, in corporate
citizenship theory, means being economically responsible, abiding by the law, engaging in
ethical and moral management, and ensuring the philanthropy of the social venture.