HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | LINKS | DONATE

The Price of Oil
London's Ecological Footprint

Following the executions of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues in 1995, Shell, the oil industry and many transnational corporations announced new policies and procedures. These were aimed at repairing the public image of big business, so badly tainted by Ken Saro-Wiwa's struggle and the damage in Nigeria and elsewhere. Shell's slogan became ‘Profits and Principles’ and, along with many other companies, developed environmental and social policies.

What has “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) meant in practice? Have Shell and other companies’ operations actually improved? The story of the Niger Delta today suggests that, despite many fine words, little has changed for people on the ground. Gas is still flared twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, oil spills pollute, contaminating people's land and damaging their health. Justice seems a long way away for many of the impoverished and conflict-torn villages and towns of the Niger Delta.

And the story does not end in Nigeria. Unfortunately there are many examples of transnational companies that in principle embrace CSR but in practice carry on with business as usual. Shell, for example, is coming under criticism from Texas to the Philippines to South Africa for the way it treats the local communities neighbouring its plants and operations. UK companies continue to import illegally sourced timber, pulp and paper. The UK diamond industry is failing to live up to a voluntary code of conduct designed to ensure that it is not selling diamonds from regions of conflict.

Does this mean CSR has failed? Is it all "greenwash"? Undoubtedly, some companies have improved their environmental and social performance. But ultimately, companies owned by shareholders are obliged by law to put profit first, and this is where self-regulation of social and environmental impact is limited. Without laws that hold corporations accountable for their impact, companies will always ride roughshod over people and the environment where doing otherwise is perceived as too costly.

Should safeguarding the environment and protecting human rights be something companies have a choice about? Should there not be clear limits on business activity, whether the company is operating in the UK, Nigeria or Burma? Should companies not be accountable to all the people who are impacted by their activities?

Many people are now saying that companies should be legally accountable for the impacts they have on people and the environment, and that they should have a legal duty to operate in a sustainable and ethical way wherever they operate. Why should companies have a choice? People and our planet should not take second place behind the pursuit of profits.

There are campaigns for corporate accountability, based on the fact that 10 years of voluntary corporate social responsibility is not making a significant difference. Perhaps when corporations are forced to clean up their act, people in the Niger Delta and elsewhere will finally begin to see changes in their lives and environments.

Links
The Corporate Responsibility Coalition (CORE)

The Corporation

Amnesty's Business Network

Friends of the Earth's Corporate Campaign

Human Rights Watch: Business & Human Rights

The Carbon Web

TOP