Thursday, January 30, 2020
Plato, Gorgias Essay Example for Free
Plato, Gorgias Essay Introduction              Plato’s Gorgias is actually the story of virtue. Plato was evidently trying to resolve the ever lasting debate of what virtue was and what elements constituted virtue. In his dialogue with Gorgias, Socrates has not unilaterally concluded what virtue was; he has rather discussed what it could be. I totally agree with Plato who states that â€Å"the good is not the same as the pleasant, my friend, nor the evil as the painful†(Plato), because to be pleasant means to be subjective, and the notion of good is evidently an objective philosophical category. Virtue may be determined through the prism of its separate elements. Even when each of us individually determines what virtue is, there are still certain specific societal norms which may help us distinguish between good and evil. Plato has actually created several grounded suggestions as for what virtue was by discussing its separate elements: power, justice, temperance, and art.            â€Å"Rhetoric is to justice what cookery is to medicine†(Plato). This may initially seem surprising, as virtue and rhetoric are the two completely different philosophical categories. Moreover, there can hardly any connections between these two. However, Plato links them through the importance of rhetoric to justice, and through the importance of justice to the virtue. Objectively, the whole dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias comprises several separate discussions which are connected by one common topic: virtue. Plato was trying to depict virtue as the system of separate attributes and elements, and to discuss them through the prism of those elements: art, temperance, evil, and good. This is why Plato has concluded that good could not be equaled to pleasure due to its objectivity as opposed to the subjectivity of pleasure. Plato started Socrates’ dialogue with the discussion of art of rhetoric, and has led it to the issue of the greatest good. As virtue is determined and is directly connected to the greatest good, it is crucial that people know what this greatest good is. â€Å"That good, Socrates, which is truly the greatest, being that which gives men freedom in their own persons, and to individuals the power of ruling over others in their several states†(Plato). That was the vision of the greatest good as expressed by Gorgias. This is the individual vision of Gorgias, which may not always be accepted by others. As a result, how do we determine the difference between the false and the true arts? How do we determine what false and what truthful knowledge is? These were the questions raised by Plato in his Gorgias, and this is where the philosopher again implied that the greatest good was an objective, and not subjective philosophical category. Good and evil are the two objective categories which can even be taught or learnt. Subjective categories can hardly be learnt, this is why Plato implies that good is objective. Only objective philosophical categories can be learnt by others and can be perceived in a manner expected by other members of the society: â€Å"so he whom you make a rhetorician must either know the nature of the just and unjust already, or he must be taught by you†(Plato).            In his work, Plato speaks much about evil. Evil is opposed to good, and is also considered to be an objective philosophical category. According to Plato, evil is rooted in the wrongful and shameful acts. The seriousness of evil can either be determined by the extent of shame the person experiences, or by the severity of physical pain the person feels. It is interesting that this is the only position which is unilaterally accepted by all participants of the conversation. â€Å"Then I said truly, Polus that neither you, nor I, nor any man, would rather, do than suffer injustice; for to do injustice is the greater evil of the two†(Plato). Plato explicitly determines what the greatest evil is, and Socrates’ opponents have but to agree with him. Pain is subjective, and being involved into evil does not mean experiencing pain. Evil is the integral element of the discussion of virtue. There cannot be any effective discussion of what virtue is, without trying to define what evil can be. The importance of evil as philosophical notion is in its being linked to other crucial notions within the framework of virtue discussion. Politics, power, temperance – a philosopher cannot evaluate these categories away from evil. As Plato concludes that injustice and intemperance are the two greatest evils, he not only confirms the philosophical objectivity of evil, but he once again returns to the issue of pleasant and good: pleasant cannot always be good, and evil cannot always be pain. There is clear distinction between subjective and objective philosophical categories, and this is the key to understanding the implications of moral standards in Plato’s society.            As Plato speaks about good, evil, justice, temperance, power, and other important philosophical categories, he pursues the ultimate aim of his discussion and his lifelong philosophy: to define what virtue is. Those who participate in Socrates’ discussion, actually participate not in the dialogue, but in the brilliant argument upon the relevance and objectivity of these categories. Nonetheless, the objectivity of power, temperance, and justice is not debated: these also constitute the objective notion of virtue. As evil is not always pain, and good is not always pleasant, Plato also tries to show that â€Å"a man should be temperate and master of himself, and ruler of his own pleasures and passions†(Plato). Thus, a person should realize what common good is, what pleasures he is to suppress and to temper his passions. This knowledge of good and evil is the objective realization of societal standards and norms. This is the realization of how good or evil impacts our existence. Plato uses this key comparison between pleasant and good to show that he was correct in his assumption: virtue is the objective notion, and it can be determined in universal philosophical terms, which are objective, too. The separate objective elements (power, justice, temperance, art) ultimately constitute the philosophical structure of virtue.            I absolutely agree with Plato: pleasant is never equal to good, and pain is never equal to evil. Let’s discuss this point in detail. A simple example will help understand my position. We are constantly involved into the process of taking decisions. We must decide how to behave, how to apologize, how to avoid troubles, etc. There are the two distinctive criteria, on which we can base our judgments. First, we can rely on the universally accepted norms of human behavior in our society. Our standards make us aware and teach us how we should behave in certain situations, and what good and evil is. Second, we may also rely on our pleasure, and pleasure may become the main criterion in our decision making. This means that we will not rely on norms and standards of human behavior: we will use extremely subjective measurements which may hardly be accepted by others. Here pleasure is very close to personal tastes, which are never identical. If I enjoy historical documentaries, this does not mean that my brother will like them too; he would hardly accept the situation in which I will constantly watch this type of TV programs, and will not let him watch what he wants. This is where pleasure and good come into action. This is where objectivity and subjectivity of virtue become almost tangible. If I base my decision on pleasure, I will neglect the interests of other family members, and will keep doing what I want. Does this mean that I am good, if I experience pleasure in this situation? Certainly, it does not. Good is not similar to pleasant, and pleasure is a subjective category. What pleases me does not necessarily pleases others, but what is good is usually good for everyone. Being generous, attentive to others, and sharing is good; it is also good for those who need this attention and generosity.            This prism of discussion also possesses a different facet. When a person is good to others, does it mean that this person is pleased with such situation? Coming back to the issue with television and documentaries, a person may certainly accept the need to follow the general standards of virtue, good, and temperance. This person will do everything possible to suppress the wishes and pleasures, and to let other family members watch TV. Simultaneously, this need â€Å"to be good†will probably urge the person to step over his inner principles, and to pretend that to be good is pleasant. This person may avoid displaying the displease with such situation, or may not conceal the irritation, but it is evident that to be good for this person is not to feel pleasure of this goodness.            What I see as the key element of Plato’s argument, is the need to distinguish between the true and the false elements of virtue, between the objective and subjective standards of our conduct, and between pleasure and good. Plato was also discussing the elements of evil and pain in his work, but these issues seem less relevant to our lives. Evil is always evil, no matter whether it causes pain, but good is not good if it is based on one’s pleasures only.            Conclusion            In his philosophical work, Plato was actually trying to determine what virtue was. The philosopher used a bright parallel between good and pleasant to suggest that good was objective, and pleasant was subjective. The criteria of pleasure are mostly misleading when a person has to decide what good is. The problem is that good is an objective notion, and the standards of good are usually universally accepted within the specific society. Simultaneously, pleasure is a narrow subjective philosophical category. There is no such notion as universal pleasure. If a person pursues pleasure, this person risks being rejected by the society in the way he rejects the principles of objective good and virtue. If a person wants to follow the standards of good, pleasure should be pushed to the background. In this context, good is not always pleasant. The obligation to conform to the norms of the society is not always linked to any pleasant emotions or perceptions. In order to be accepted by the society, a person might need to overstep his personal principles, and to recognize the importance of good, temperance, power, and justice as the integral components of virtue. Ultimately, the person is to praise the objective moral categories, and to put them ahead of subjective perceptions. This is how human virtue works for the benefit of the whole society. Works Cited Plato. â€Å"Gorgias†. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 1995. ILT Digital Classics. February 14, 2008. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publicATIONS/Projects/digitexts/plato/gorgias/gorgias.html
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Battered Womens Syndrome :: essays research papers
Battered Women's Syndrome: A Survey of Contemporary Theories Domestic Violence      In 1991, Governor William Weld modified parole regulations and permitted women to seek commutation if they could present evidence indicating they suffered from battered women's syndrome. A short while later, the Governor, citing spousal abuse as his impetus, released seven women convicted of killing their husbands, and the Great and General Court of Massachusetts enacted Mass. Gen. L. ch. 233, 23E (1993), which permits the introduction of evidence of abuse in criminal trials. These decisive acts brought the issue of domestic abuse to the public's attention and left many Massachusetts residents, lawyers and judges struggling to define battered women's syndrome. In order to help these individuals define battered women's syndrome, the origins and development of the three primary theories of the syndrome and recommended treatments are outlined below. I. The Classical Theory of Battered Women's Syndrome and its Origins      The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), known in the mental health field as the clinician's bible, does not recognize battered women's syndrome as a distinct mental disorder. In fact, Dr. Lenore Walker, the architect of the classical battered women's syndrome theory, notes the syndrome is not an illness, but a theory that draws upon the principles of learned helplessness to explain why some women are unable to leave their abusers. Therefore, the classical battered women's syndrome theory is best regarded as an offshoot of the theory of learned helplessness and not a mental illness that afflicts abused women.      The theory of learned helplessness sought to account for the passive behavior subjects exhibited when placed in an uncontrollable environment. In the late 60's and early 70's, Martin Seligman, a famous researcher in the field of psychology, conducted a series of experiments in which dogs were placed in one of two types of cages. In the former cage, henceforth referred to as the shock cage, a bell would sound and the experimenters would electrify the entire floor seconds later, shocking the dog regardless of location. The latter cage, however, although similar in every other respect to the shock cage, contained a small area where the experimenters could administer no shock. Seligman observed that while the dogs in the latter cage learned to run to the nonelectrified area after a series of shocks, the dogs in the shock cage gave up trying to escape, even when placed in the latter cage and shown that escape was possible.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
The contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to Shell Nigeria’s Corporate Strategy
Introduction Apart from profitability, the primary objective of business also includes sustenance of operations into the long term, receiving repeat business and thereby achieve the satisfaction of the needs of its shareholders. This necessitates the examination of operations with a view to advance objectives such as sustainability which entails being ethical and observing social responsibility. To many businesses operating in the modern competitive global economy, however, being ethical or socially responsible in the conduct of business presents an ongoing challenge (Wheeler et al., 2010). With a focus on Shell Nigeria, this report critically evaluates the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assessing its contribution to the company’s corporate strategy. It begins by assessing the industry background of the oil sector in which Shell operates bringing forth the issues that impact the company and its stakeholders in their engagement. The report then looks at the concept of CSR, assessing its theoretical basis and the actual pursuits undertaken by the company. This culminates in the evaluation of the contribution of these initiatives to the company’s corporate strategy. Shell Nigeria Shell Nigeria is an arm of the multinational oil corporation Shell Corporation operating under the entities Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) Nigeria Limited, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCO), and Shell Nigeria Gas (SNG). It has had a presence in Nigeria since its foundation by Royal Dutch/Shell Group in 1936 and has been involved in onshore and offshore exploration and production of oil and natural gas (Shell, 2011). The company’s operations spread out within the Niger Delta (Nigeria) and constituting the Group’s international supply chain comprise 6000km of flow pipeline networks and stations, oil fields and producing wells, gas plants, and two major export terminals (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a; OPEC, 2011). The parent company, Shell Corporation, is one among major entities participating in the exploration, production, distribution and sale of oil and gas across the globe. The company manages multinational subsidiary petrochemical and energy companies operating in over 80 countries (OPEC, 2011). Exploration and extraction operations of crude oil and gas in Nigeria form an essential component of Shell Corporations upstream supply chain. Its downstream supply chain is engaged in refinery and distribution of oil and gas, as well as trade and shipping of crude worldwide. The company is also involved in the manufacture and marketing of a range of products including petrochemicals for its industrial customers. Its daily volume of production entails 3.2 million barrels of oil and gas (at 48% this output) delivering refined fuel oil to consumers through its 43,000 Shell service stations across the globe (OPEC, 2011). Nigeria is important for Shell accounting for about a quarter of its worldwide production with an estimated contributed share in profit averaging $1.8 billion annually. This represents 10.4% of upstream operational profits and 7.3% of total profit (Shell, 2011). Given its importance to the Group’s upstream operations, any challenge on this front adversely affects global operations of the multinational corporation (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a; Emesh, 2009). Several challenges beset multinational oil corporations operating particularly in developing countries as explored below. The dilemma of oil companies operating in developing countries Significant oil and gas reserves are found in developing countries of Africa (OPEC, 2011). These countries often lack the resource capability both in terms of financial capacity and infrastructure to conduct exploration and extraction operations of oil and gas. This explains the presence of multinational oil corporations such as Shell in these countries and in regions such as the Niger Delta of Nigeria which holds significant oil reserves deemed to be among the largest in Africa (Wheeler et al., 2010). Operations of oil multinationals in these developing countries are however fraught with huge challenges brought about by the political and social situations which characterise them. Due to their structural and institutional weaknesses, these countries are often prone to recurring conflict and political instability which portends violence and risks to investments (Wheeler et al., 2010; Idemudia, 2009). However, with much to gain from the exploration and exploitation of oil and in spite of the risks and attendant challenges, the multinational oil corporations value the acquisition of market share (Emesh, 2009). It is also noteworthy that profits accrued from the exploitation of the oil resource have historically been misappropriated, benefitting a few influential people in the local and national governments while the host communities and citizenry at large suffer poverty. With an abundance of oil revenue, a corrupt leadership forego accountability to constituents and undermine political and economic institutions while focus on oil wealth stifles diversification of the economy into other essential sectors (Emesh, 2009; Olowu, 2011). This scenario has often exacerbated the political and social situation, increasing the occurrences of conflicts and violence and threatening sustainability of business and integrity of the supply chain (Wheeler et al., 2010). The discontent of host communities and stakeholders at the local level has led to acts of vandalism, sabotage and disruption, as well as outright insurgency which not only threaten operations but also impact the prices of crude oil internationally fomenting unnecessary fluctuations (Olowu, 2011). This alongside the adverse environmental impact of the extractive industry in general and impacts on human rights has often injured the reputations particularly of oil multinationals such as Shell Nigeria. They have promoted the perception that such companies are merely profit-oriented and care less about the impacts of their operations (Idemudia, 2009). Such global concern over these issues has hitherto led to threats of and actual boycotts of Shell products, costly lawsuits and liabilities, and in addition to attendant inefficiencies and security of assets and resources, these challenges have not only impacted Shell’s local operations in Nigeria but have hindered the potential of the entire multinational corporation internationally (Olowu, 2011). Companies such as Shell, therefore, continually need to evaluate political and social risks assessing probable effects on their business and the investment climate, as well as the impact on their profit forecasts and sustenance of operations (Olowu, 2011; Fombrun, 2001). This scenario has illustrated that adverse effects can have dire consequences for the entire business beyond its local operational environment. In order to sustain their business and even achieve growth and expansion, it is imperative for companies to enhance their relations with society ensuring that they are strong and mutually beneficial. Beyond the profit objective, multinational corporations are increasingly demanded of to engage with host countries and communities and CSR has become one of the strategies towards this endeavour (Haigh and Jones, 2006). In response to this demand and in the attempt to shore up its reputation and to build goodwill with local communities, Shell has developed policies and programs aimed at taking on social responsibilities. These programs focus on poverty alleviation, dealing with challenging human rights issues, and the pursuit of sustainable development, seeking to lower the negative environmental impact of their activities (Shell, 2011; Olowu, 2011). These practices are generally referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR). They can serve as a channel through which to nurture relations with society and stakeholders in general so as to address this dilemma that companies face in the modern business environment (Driver, 2006; Haigh and Jones, 2006). In this regard, it can act dually as an avenue for ethical and social responsibility and as well a worthwhile and essential business strategy. However, finding the right approach and the right initiatives to undertake is challenging for many entities as expectations are very high and diverse particularly in developing countries. As well, in most cases, the development initiatives anticipated should ideally be the prerogative and duty of respective governments and authorities. Their pursuit enables these public agencies to disregard their duties and to forgo accountability to their constituents, a free hand to misappropriate what would otherwise be spent on development (Frynas, 2005). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) CSR is a fast-growing concept in which organizations consider the interests of various stakeholders including society, the environment, and the community in which they are established, taking responsibility for the impact of their activities. It refers to activities that a corporate entity engages with and which are aimed at investment into better and stronger relations with stakeholders and society (Bourne, 2009). This commitment is a voluntary endeavour to improve quality of life for local communities and society at large and extends beyond the basic requirement to comply with regulations or legislation (Boyd et al., 2007). Though historically consider to encompass corporate philanthropy, the concept can now be summarized conveniently in the phrase†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"doing well by doing good†which is inherent in a firm’s accountability and which underlies its social contract with society (Driver, 2006). It encompasses concepts such as corporate accountability, corporate citizenship, business ethics, sustainability, as well as social responsibility in investment and community involvement (Fombrun, 2001). CSR is thus not the sole responsibility of the multinational corporation, but it also concerns the host communities and countries that can engage in planning and in the push for implementation of activities. This, however, gives the pursuit an arbitrariness that makes assessment of success and effectiveness quite challenging. Success in business and sustainability of operations significantly depends on an organization’s capacity to maximize benefits accrued from its resources such as financial and human resources, physical assets, as well as intangible resources such as goodwill from stakeholders and society in general (Werbach, 2009). This is quite evident in challenges that have beset Shell’s supply chain stemming from challenges in its operations in the Niger Delta. Even with the right mix of financial and human resources, as well as an adequate asset base, the lack of goodwill leading to discontent locally and globally and acts of reprisals has in the past led to disruption of operations and loss of potential which have had widespread implications, including adverse effects on profitability, the company’s reputation, as well as the prices of crude oil in the international market. In this regard CSR has become a significant component of Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy in its quest for mutually beneficial engagement with stakeholders and achievement of requisite goodwill (Shell, 2011; Olowu, 2011). Through the proactive pursuit of CSR, companies can take responsibility for the impact of their operations and welfare of host societies, as well as stakeholders in general. Though perceived as an outlay that is difficult to recoup, there is evidence of potential reciprocal effect and business sense in CSR investments attributed to its creation of value and enhancement of stakeholder relations (Driver, 2006;). Due to the general lack of infrastructure and development projects provided by respective governments in developing countries, the need for CSR covering broader roles such as poverty alleviation, good governance and development is prominent. Multinational corporations such as Shell come under heightened expectations to fill in the gap providing the requisite development (Wheeler et al., 2010). The initiatives undertaken by Shell towards CSR are explored. Critics bemoan this reality in the expectation for intervention by such business entities on matters outside their primary objective. They posit that this demand influences and affects the conduct of business in the increasingly competitive business environment posing a challenge to strategists in the choice between meeting business objectives and shareholder satisfaction on the one hand, and the needs of the wider stakeholder base on the other (Frynas, 2005). This further complicates the development of corporate strategy given the need to focus on a number of extraneous issues often with private entities arrogating themselves duties that ought to be performed by the state or local councils. Such realities hinder the effectiveness of CSR initiatives and particularly its contribution to the company’s corporate strategy. CSR initiatives of Shell Nigeria are thus evaluated in the following section. CSR initiatives of Shell Nigeria Numerous activities that Shell engages in its pursuit of social responsibility are herein evaluated to assess their effectiveness and therefore contribution to the company’s corporate strategy. Initiatives undertaken by Shell Nigeria in its CSR pursuit cover external aspects such as environmental protection, community relations and human rights, as well as internal aspects such as principles and codes of practice, product stewardship, stakeholder and employee rights, and transparency (Shell, 2011; Idemudia, 2009). Shell Nigeria and the entire Group takes up an active leadership role in the development of codes of conduct and practice governing workplaces and their engagement with facets of society (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012b; UN, 2011). The company has also supported development through programs in education, health, construction, commerce, agriculture, transport, etc. benefiting local communities (Olowu, 2011). Additionally, the company alongside others in the oil industry command leadership in programs promoting CSR internationally on various fronts. This has been facilitated by Shell’s new and sophisticated approach they refer to as Community Development (CD), offering a paradigm shift to environmental responsibility, social welfare, human rights, and political responsibility, among other issues of CSR (UN, 2011). This approach entails greater stakeholder engagement bringing together many entities including NGOs, state and local governments, and community leaders in identifying and implementing projects, ensuring increased local ownership, transparency and accountability (Idemudia, 2009). Numerous projects have been successfully undertaken through this approach over the years especially benefiting areas in which the company’s infrastructure is located and/or flow lines traverse (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012b; Olowu, 2011). Goodwill generated from such â€Å"investments†in CSR has ensured integrity of assets that were hitherto under threat which is fundamental to successful operations. Various initiatives undertaken such as the community Health Insurance Schemes, enterprise development schemes, water supply and electricity supply, among others offer worthwhile lessons through which the success can be replicated elsewhere (UN, 2011; Idemudia, 2009). This way, the company has benefited from consistency afforded enabling it to meet tight lead times and to better align supply and demand through greater efficiency. Success of development initiatives has enhanced well-being and economic empowerment of communities thereby reducing dependency for regional development which had burdened the company (Shell, 2011; Emesh, 2009). Additionally, initiatives undertaken in partnership with numerous players aimed at enhancement of the conservation of biodiversity through the minimization of the negative impact of activities have enabled reduction of environmental impact due to gas flaring and oil spills. The diversification into the production of natural gas has benefited the company significantly, becoming a worthwhile revenue stream (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a). Through a variety of indices assessing social and environmental performance of entities such as Shell, its CSR initiatives have earned it recognition globally as a leader in responsibility and a CSR champion. These indices include: the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)- 2010; Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DSI)- 2010; Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index – 2011, the FTSE4Good and Goldman Sachs Sustain ESG (environmental, social and governance) – 2010 (UN, 2011; Shell, 2011; OPEC, 2011). Good ratings attained in these indices are evidence of the impact that it has had in its CSR pursuit. The recognition has been beneficial in shoring the company’s reputation across the globe enhancing its corporate value and standing of its brand. However, oil multinationals (including Shell) remain at variance with local communities regarding the success and effectiveness of these CSR initiatives with the latter still not content. This represents the major challenge with CSR pursuits, particularly in cases such as this where expectations are quite high (Frynas, 2005). The actual success of Shell Nigeria’s CSR is evaluated to assess its contribution to its corporate strategy and bottom line. Contribution of CSR to Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy Corporate strategy focuses on the organization’s overall scope with an aim to sustain growth and to achieve strategic positioning. The maximization of profits and minimization of costs is a primary goal of any business venture. This not only necessitates continuous improvement along the supply chain towards the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness, but also entails an important aspect in the modern competitive business environment, value creation (Werbach, 2009; Kazem and Richard, 2008). Competitive advantage entails the capability a business to provide superior products, services, or value differentiating itself from its competitors. Price/cost advantage, delivery, quality and flexibility are identified as among the components of the value advantage which enhance competitive capability. To be able to sustain its competitive advantage, a company or organization has to exploit such available capabilities which are as important as resources such as physical assets, financial resources, and human resources (Werbach, 2009). However, the oil industry is characterized by minimal capacity for value addition to products and services, exploitation of a price advantage, or physical resource capabilities (Wheeler et al., 2010). It is therefore crucial for players in the industry to focus on value advantage deriving from delivery efficiency, quality, flexibility, as well as intangible aspects such as corporate value and reputation. The pursuit of corporate value and goodwill thr ough CSR is therefore crucial for an entity to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage given the intense competition and capabilities (Fombrun, 2001). According to Sachs et al., (2009) and Driver (2006), the CSR idea†¦ â€Å"ties up with the drive for sustainability which is to develop solutions for business in such a way as to meet the requirements of the current generation without compromising the ability to provide the needs of future generations in bounty and diversity.†This is the basis for Shell’s renewed and revitalised pursuit of CSR which has enabled it to assume leadership on the responsibility front, a model for corporate citizenship (Shell, 2011). Despite the challenge in defining actual benefit and achievement in sustainability initiatives, the pursuit of CSR has granted Shell an important edge in the intensely competitive environment, enhancing the company’s corporate value. Corporations invest in CSR motivated by the view on business ethics which holds that shareholders and stakeholders desire a financially stable and responsible corporation adhering to values of ethical conduct and environmental sustainability. A worthwhile brand image and reputation is thus central to strategy (Sachs et al., 2009; Haigh and Jones, 2006). This is the primary thesis of this report and which is shown to guide Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy, as well as that of the entire Group. Benefiting from reduced civil tension, as well as oil theft and sabotage, Shell has, in recent years, managed to increase production from new ventures such as offshore deep water explorations, as well as enhanced supply chain efficiencies – achieving increases in production averaging 31% year-on-year. Diversification into Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) production has enabled the company to enhance its revenue and to develop a new market (both locally and for export). Its economic potential has generated incentive and economic impetus to enhance the capture of natural gas associated with oil reserves that would otherwise be flared (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a; Shell, 2011; Fombrun, 2001). Reduced flaring and the clean-up of oil spills have had a positive effect on the company’s risk and reputation management warding off potential lawsuits and liabilities (Shell, 2011; Dyer and Chu, 2003). Turbulence in the political and social environment and the resultant uncertainty in supply and demand, as well as concerns over bad repute negatively affect investor decisions and therefore share prices (Fombrun, 2008). A firm that wishes to attain success in the modern business environment must keenly assess these fundamental flags and their associated costs , as well as future value or potential which significantly influence investor decisions. These may influence the company’s access to capital and to new markets and cannot be ignored (Sachs et al., 2009; Dyer and Chu, 2003). These factors can be adequately addressed through the focus on enhancement of goodwill and efficiency through social responsibility pursuits. It is evident therefore that Shell’s CSR initiatives have contributed significantly to the company’s corporate strategy enhancing its capacity to sustain its operations and to thrive despite the challenges in the extractive sector and developing countries hosting it. Conclusion Through the pursuit of CSR, oil multinationals such as Shell can gain valuable goodwill enabling success of their operations and the enhancement of their overall image and perception as a corporate citizen both locally and internationally. Shell Nigeria’s proactive community development initiatives have in the most part significantly reduced conflict resultant from discontent and grievance of local communities and global concern impacting the corporate reputation of the entire Group internationally. Reductions in civil tensions, oil theft and sabotage have enabled increased production and new ventures and as well, the venture into the capture of associated natural gas has seen the company diversify into new revenue streams and markets of LNG. These benefits as well as the bolstering investor confidence due to this revitalization are evidence of the contribution of CSR to Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy. Bibliography Bourne, L., 2009. Stakeholder Relationship Management. CA, USA: Gower.. Boyd, E., Spekman, R., Kamauff, J., and Werhane, P., 2007. â€Å"Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains: A Procedural Justice Perspective.†In: Long Range Planning, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 341-356. Driver, M., 2006. ‘Beyond the Stalemate of Economics versus Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Discourse of the Organizational Self.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 337–56. Dyer, J., and Chu, W., 2003. â€Å"The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea.†Organization Science 14 (1), 57–68. Emesh, E., 2009. â€Å"Social Responsibility in Practice in the Oil Producing Niger Delta: Assessing Corporations and Government’s Actions.†Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.113-125. Fombrun, J., 2008. Corporate reputations as economic asset. In: Freeman, E., Harrison, J. S., (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of strategic management. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 289–312. Frynas, J., 2005. â€Å"The False Developmental Promise of Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Multinational Oil Companies.†International Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 581-598. Haigh, M., and Jones, M., 2006. â€Å"The Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Review.†The Business Review, Cambridge, 5(2): 245–51. Idemudia, U., 2009. â€Å"Oil Extraction and Poverty Reduction in the Niger Delta: A Critical Examination of Partnership Initiatives.†Journal of Business Ethics: Supplement 90: 91. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Kazem, C., and Richard, L., 2008. Sustainable competitive advantage: towards a dynamic resource-based strategy. East London Business School, University of East London, UK Olowu, D., 2011. â€Å"From Defiance to Engagement: An Evaluation of Shell’s Approach to Conflict Resolution in the Niger Delta.†African Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 10, Nr.3, pp. 75-100. OPEC, 2011. Nigeria facts and figures Viewed on 8/7/2014 from: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/167.htm Royal Dutch Shell Public Limited Company, 2012a. Shell Petroleum Development and Exploration Company report: â€Å"Environmental Performance: Oil Spills. Shell Nigeria, Shell Petroleum Development Company.†Viewed on 3/7/2014 from www.shellreport.com Royal Dutch Shell Public Limited Company, 2012b. Shell Petroleum Development Company, Shell Nigeria report: â€Å"Improving Lives in the Niger Delta.†Viewed on 3/7/2014 from www.shellnigeria.com Sachs, S., E. Ruhli and I., Kern, 2009. Sustainable Success with Stakeholders. Palgrave Macmillan Shell, 2011. â€Å"Sustainability Report: Royal Dutch Shell Sustainability Report 2010.†In: Royal Dutch Shell Sustainability Report, pp. 1-37. Viewed on 6/7/2013 from: http://sustainabilityreport.shell.com/2010/servicepages/previous.html UN, 2011. Supply chain sustainability. United Nations global compact. Viewed from: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/supply_chain/index.html Werbach, A., 2009. Strategy for sustainability: a business manifesto. Adam Werbach. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press Wheeler, D., H., Fabig, and R., Boele, 2010. â€Å"Paradoxes and Dilemmas for Stakeholder Responsive Firms in the Extractive Sector: Lessons from the Case of Shell and the Ogoni.†In: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, pp. 297-318.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Significance Of Native Americans And The Euro Americans
Throughout history the problem that led to the destruction of Native Americans appear to be misunderstanding the concept of land. The Indians practiced â€Å"the communal and family basis of life†(447). That means they believe in a collective or tribal land ownership. Their view is that the entire community owns the land they lived on. Whereas for Euro-American settlers, land is more of a private or individualistic in nature. This essay will explain the importance of land to the Natives and the Euro-Americans using the five topics: Cahokia, Worcester v. Georgia, The Dawes Act, The Indian Reorganization Act and Sacred land issues. These topics are a representative of American Indian history from early pre-contact civilization of Cahokia to the†¦show more content†¦In the late twentieth century archaeologists found â€Å"a planned city that include pyramid mounds of packed earth arranged around huge open plazas, temples and astronomical observations†(35). While this description shows how Cahokia was the center of Native Americans social, political, economic and religious activity, it was not unique. There were many evidences about Native communities along the Mississippi river valley (32-34). However, by any measure of civilization, Cahokia was the largest of all. It has flourished longer than the U.S. has existed as a nation and the decline took place before Europeans set foot in America (36). When English colonists first arrived in North America, they did not witness the great mounds of Cahokia and its culture, but they saw organized Native communities (69). However, the settlers ignored this culture. According to the document titled â€Å"Dismantling Tribes and Their Homelands†, the Anglo-Saxon protestant settlers were convinced of their superiority that they saw little or no value in Indian Civilization (448). They believed that Indians will be swallowed up by American society and tribes would soon cease to exist. They translated this prejudice into further action systematically. The result was a gradual disappearance of Native Americans through misery, forced migration and catastrophic diseases. The Worcester v. Georgia Supreme Court case also
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)