Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: II. Corporate social responsibility and ‘stakeholder management’ versus a rights‐based approach to sustainable development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the first paper in this trilogy (Boeleet al., 2001) we described the history of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group from its inception in 1890 through to the year 2000, discussed briefly the importance of corporate reputation to the group and described the significant impacts on Shell of the events of 1995 in Nigeria. We traced the relationship of the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation in Nigeria to impacts on the natural and social environments of the Niger Delta and more specifically on the Ogoni. Finally we discussed the emergence of political resistance and significant conflict between Shell and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) and concluded that, despite significant apparent changes in attitude at the group level, distrust and antipathy towards Shell remained entrenched in Ogoni. In this second paper, we explore in more detail issues raised by economic globalization for the practice of corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management, and contrast these concepts with an alternative ‘rights‐based’ approach to sustainable development. We relate our observations to Shell's current approach and conclude that the Shell group and specifically the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation in Nigeria may require an alternative approach to sustainable development if they wish to merit the full confidence of communities in areas of the world as complex and distressed as Ogoni. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".