Case Study Shell Oil
CASE STUDY
Shell Oil Company and the Brent Spar
Shell Oil Company and the Brent Spar
1. The company failed to consider public reaction to their proposal of sinking the Brent Spar in June 1995 in Northern Scotland. They failed to look at how others would react and feel and neglected to take into consideration others’ point of views. They did research impacts and found this would be the best option and assumed everyone would agree and didn’t stop to think about how environmental activists and critics would react.
2. Again, the basic nature of the disagreement between Shell Oil Company and its environmental critics is that Greenpeace organization and other communities were angered by the proposal of sinking the Brent Spar in the deep-sea. Even though Shell researched it and found it to be the best environmental option, others were still angered by it possibly because of the damage it could do to the sea animals and the environment.
3. The lack of communication between the European divisions of Shell contributed to the problem because there was no communication regarding the sinking until really close to the proposed date of the sinking. In fact, the Chairman of Shell Germany didn’t receive news about the sinking until he saw it in the media. They were upset because of the lack of communication and therefore were caught off-guard.
4. I think Shell handled its relationship with the UK Government over the issue of the Brent Spar disposal pretty responsibly in the end. They gave a pretty sincere apology to the Prime Minister for damaging the reputation and cancelling the deep-sea disposal.
5. I think it is very important and crucial for companies to understand and anticipate the reaction and impact of interest groups. I think Shell handled itself well with the situation with Greenpeace. There’s not much you can do but to listen to their side and attempt to problem solve to the best of one’s power. The key word here is: listen.
Shell Oil Company and the Brent Spar
Shell Oil Company and the Brent Spar
1. The company failed to consider public reaction to their proposal of sinking the Brent Spar in June 1995 in Northern Scotland. They failed to look at how others would react and feel and neglected to take into consideration others’ point of views. They did research impacts and found this would be the best option and assumed everyone would agree and didn’t stop to think about how environmental activists and critics would react.
2. Again, the basic nature of the disagreement between Shell Oil Company and its environmental critics is that Greenpeace organization and other communities were angered by the proposal of sinking the Brent Spar in the deep-sea. Even though Shell researched it and found it to be the best environmental option, others were still angered by it possibly because of the damage it could do to the sea animals and the environment.
3. The lack of communication between the European divisions of Shell contributed to the problem because there was no communication regarding the sinking until really close to the proposed date of the sinking. In fact, the Chairman of Shell Germany didn’t receive news about the sinking until he saw it in the media. They were upset because of the lack of communication and therefore were caught off-guard.
4. I think Shell handled its relationship with the UK Government over the issue of the Brent Spar disposal pretty responsibly in the end. They gave a pretty sincere apology to the Prime Minister for damaging the reputation and cancelling the deep-sea disposal.
5. I think it is very important and crucial for companies to understand and anticipate the reaction and impact of interest groups. I think Shell handled itself well with the situation with Greenpeace. There’s not much you can do but to listen to their side and attempt to problem solve to the best of one’s power. The key word here is: listen.