You are on page 1of 2

I.

Point of View Juan Ignacio Elias, Global Manager of Shell


II. Time (2010)
III. Short Historical Background
Shell was born in the early days of oil bloom and started out in the shadow of John D. Rockefellers
standard oil monopoly. Shell was the result of a merger in 1907 between Marcus Samuel and Henri Deterding;
they merged the Shell Transport and Trading with the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company to create Shell. Shell is
40% owned by the Shell Transport and Trading and 60% owned by the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company.
Royal Dutch Shell plc (LSE: RDSA, RDSB), commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo
Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United
Kingdom. It is the second largest company in the world, in terms of revenue, and one of the six oil and gas
"super majors". Shell is also one of the world's most valuable companies. Shell topped the 2013 Fortune Global
500 list of the world's largest companies. Royal Dutch Shell revenue was equal to 84% of the Netherlands's
$555.8 billion GDP at the time. Shell is vertically integrated and is active in every area of the oil and gas
industry, including exploration and production, refining,distribution and marketing, petrochemicals, power
generation and trading. It has minor renewable energy activities in the form of bio-fuels and wind. It has
operations in over 90 countries, produces around 3.1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 44,000
service stations worldwide. Shell Oil Company, its subsidiary in the United States, is one of its largest
businesses.
IV. Statement of the Problem
The Save the arctic campaign of Greenpeace movement is slowly taking effect which if not solved,
might lead to weaker brand image and equity of Shell, and may also affects the partnership of Lego and
Shell.
In 2010, in the immediate aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Greenpeace activists painted
"No Arctic Drilling" with spilled BP oil on the side of a ship that Shell planned to use for oil exploration in the
Arctic. At the protest, Phil Radford of Greenpeace called for "President Obama [to] ban all offshore oil drilling
and call for an end to the use of oil in our cars by 2030."

Greenpeace and Avaaz have focused their campaigning at the beginning of 2013 on Royal Dutch
Shell, including with the use of a parody website. In July 2014, Greenpeace launched a global boycott campaign
to persuade Lego to cease producing toys carrying Shells logo in response to the oil company's plans to drill for
oil in the Arctic. Legos partnership with Shell dates back to the 1960s, although a fictional oil company called
Octan featured as the corporation headed by the villain President Business in The Lego Movie. Lego has used
the Octan name since 1992 for its fictitious oil company, branding many filling stations, trucks and race cars.

V. SWOT Analysis
Strengths

-Biggest name in the field of energy
-Strong Brand Equity
-High Financial Growth
-Latest Technology
-Diversified Portfolio of products

Weaknesses

-Less commitment to alternative
energy sources
-Legal Issues
-Overstatement Controversy
-Environmental issues
Opportunities

-Increasing demand for fuel
-Expansion to emerging economies
(e.g. Joint ventures in China)
-Aqcuisitions by buying out
competition
Threats

-High Competition
-Government Regulations
-Environmental Laws
-Environmental Controversies






VI. Alternative Courses
1. Continue the drilling and disregard the growing controversies.
Advantage (s): Will show the firm decision of the company and as well as will also show how
competitive they decide on each opportunity that comes along.
Disadvantage (s): Uncertainty of its effectiveness, it also might cause added issues or might
strengthen the present allegations of such environmentalists.
2. Delay the drilling and wait till the controversies are gone and already forgotten.
Advantage (s): Less costly and low profile move.
Disadvantage (s): Delay of possible income. Long-shot decision, higher rate of failing.
3. Stop the drilling in Arctic, and then find another place.
Advantage (s): Will satisfy the issue-makers, less expense for the arrangements of filed law suits,
good publicity for the surrender.
Disadvantage (s): Bad image for the companys decision making. It will be seen as the accepted
mistake, which is undeniably a bad factor for a business with this big equity.
4. Make big advertisements about the real deal of drilling in the arctic.
Advantage (s): Will satisfy the environmental controversies and also the green movement of other
organizations. Will show the good side of the project that is undermined in this situation. If
successful, will boost the image of decision making made by the backbone of the company. Will also
continue the great relationship between Lego and Shell.
Disadvantage (s): Costly and slight presumptuous.

VII. Recommendations and Conclusion
Alternative course #4 is the best choice for the reason that it will both clean the image of the company
and will still achieve their presumed goals for their project in Arctic. But this will be possible only if they would
outline some limitations to resolve the crossed line of environment care. In this alternative, both sides are
considered to be in a win-win situation. This arctic controversy, if will be given the chance to be explained
and will be understood properly, is not that bad at all.

In support to my decision, this is a statement of Shell on how they are responsibly operating in Arctic:
We are investing heavily in our operational plans in Alaska and we continue to build strong relationships with
local communities and others such as governments, regulators, non-governmental organizations and academics.
In 2006 we also used a system in the Arctic known as a strategic impact assessment that considers
environmental aspects in our decision making. The range of technologies we have developed helps to produce
Arctic resources responsibly and with limited environmental impact. These include technologies to prevent and
respond to oil spills in ice; to reduce noise that can affect marine mammals; and that allow us to operate safely
in ice. Technical solutions are helping us to reduce the risk of oil leaking into the ocean and lessen the impact if
this occurs. We have buried underwater pipelines several meters under the seabed so that floating ice does not
damage them. Systems are designed to detect any drop in pressure in the pipes and activate multiple valve
systems to stop the oil flow. In Alaska we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in spill response
vessels, equipment, staff and training. Our staff carries out regular drills. We are ready to respond to a spill
within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day. We are also developing a well containment system for Alaska. This is
designed to capture oil that could potentially leak from a well. We are also improving our spill response
capability through our involvement in global research and development programmes that bring together
industry, scientists, academia and regulators. We worked, for example, with the independent Norwegian
research institute SINTEF on an oil spill response research program from 2006-2009. It tested a number of
clean-up techniques, including burning oil in broken ice, using chemicals to disperse oil in broken ice, and
detecting oil under solid ice. The tests revealed more about the behavior of oil in ice-covered waters and how
quickly response teams must act for each technique to work. The Arctic is rich in biodiversity and contains
ecologically-sensitive areas. The health of plants and animals depend on the survival of their habitat. We work
with scientists to better understand the Arctics ecosystems. We have policies in place to assess environmental
risks and we closely monitor the impact of our activities.