Business Action on Biodiversity and the Environment: The Case of Shell

My previous blog covered the Smith School’s World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment 2011 (#SSWFEE).  Although there was much to commend the event, I expressed scepticism about what it seemed to me was the presumption that the delegates all wanted the same thing when it came to the preservation of biodiversity.  I drew particular attention to the participation of a representative from Shell, writing that:

he works for a business entity that seeks to maximize profits from the sale of fossil fuels and has been implicated in political efforts to block action on climate change, and I work for Greenpeace.

So what does Shell actually say about the importance of the environment and biodiversity to the company's operations?  Well let’s take one of the key current global ecological battlegrounds of the moment, the future of the Arctic.  According to Shell’s website (here):

The Arctic is rich in biodiversity and contains ecologically-sensitive areas. … Shell recognises the importance of conserving biodiversity, not only because it enriches the environment but also for the future of our business. 

Among the various brief entries on how the company claims it will act in accordance with this recognition is the helpful annotation that staff are trained on how to avoid polar bears.  Entirely for the good of the polar bears no doubt.

Any reasonable view of how best to preserve biodiversity in the incredibly fragile Arctic ecosystem would preclude oil exploration altogether, but Shell is reportedly committed to the sheer folly of chasing after fossil fuels in the icy far north.  And so long as there are profits to be made, Shell’s pursuit of oil in the Arctic will continue.  Jeremy Bentham, the Vice President Global Business Environment at Shell (who was also the company rep whom attended the #SSWFEE) has set out the company’s position on future energy scenarios (here):

I think some people can get confused, in the complexity of our world, about the roles of different parts of society. Industry is like the legs and hands of society. We get things done, we move things forward, but our limbs act incoherently unless they are well-directed by the brain. Government is the brain, where collective decisions are being made.

Faced with the stresses and complexity of the energy system, industry needs the right frameworks to channel efforts, investments, and to chart a course for the future. These frameworks should create a level playing field for competition between companies so that people can do things as efficiently as possible. That’s why governments must set the framework that will allow industry to take action. These things go firmly hand-in-hand together.

It is not uncommon for corporations to admit that, for all the fluff and puff about CSR, if you actually want business to ‘do the right thing’, external intervention is invariably required.  For example, in a survey of 1600 leading businesses conducted last year, the ‘top choice’ on ‘what might spur them to take action’ on biodiversity loss was deemed to be regulation. 

But while, as a matter of theory, industry may be prepared to sanction competition neutral intervention in the interests of the broader common good, the reality of political economy is generally very different as the case of Shell illustrates. 

Andrew Simms who is the Policy Director of the New Economics Foundation has recently written a forthright blog about his own experience in declining an invitation to speak at a major conference on the future of energy because Shell were a sponsor.  Simms explains that he could not in good conscience participate because ‘Shell has played a particularly cynical role in the discussion of energy futures’.  He argues that:

Shell's desire to be associated with a progressive debate about energy futures is wholly cynical, and driven by a desire to manage its public image, and minimise criticism for its single-minded pursuit of profiting from fossil fuels.

Shell’s motive for participation in events can thus be explained

because it normalises their public image and creates the appearance of full, well meaning engagement, whilst in the process stalling the pressure, likelihood and momentum for any real change. Shell’s actual behaviour, as opposed to their public communications, seems to undermine any pretension to be engaging in debate in good faith.

Simms’ analysis puts a new spin on Bentham’s metaphor.   If the likes of Shell do indeed provide the hands and limbs of society, then the former may be applied to choke the flow of reforming blood to the brain while the latter are propelling us all toward the environmental precipice, at least so long as it is consistent with business strategy to do so. 

David Ritter was on annual leave last week so no blog.