What to make of the “peaceful corporate revolution” being urged on Royal Dutch Shell, where nameless, ostensible employees are taking it to task over activities in Nigeria?

Big companies, particularly those dredging the heavily geopolitical waters of oil, inevitably come under attack. When you produce something that generates big money, often in countries where poverty is rife and human rights abuses abound, there is plenty of scope for criticism. There is also plenty of scope for confusion as to what an oil giant can and cannot do: insisting that a government’s oil revenues are funnelled into hospitals and schools is laudable, but presidents of countries are free to think otherwise.

In many ways, Shell has got off lightly. These are not a whistleblower’s revelations – regardless of what the writers say, the grievances have all been rehearsed before. The self-styled dissidents, assuming they are genuine employees, are supposedly 100-odd strong, hardly enough to launch even a gentle rearguard action, and intent on protecting their anonymity.Amateurism hangs over the campaign. The list of employees which has been leaked is, Shell says, six months out of date. Guesstimates made in the 36,000-word manifesto are as pointless as they are painful: “Almost all (99.5%) of common & low-level Shell employees” are unaware of Shell’s behaviour in Nigeria as are “possibly all (100%) of Shell’s institutional investors”. It is sometimes repetitive and ungrammatical and occasionally more earnest than coherent – not dissimilar to an undergraduate thesis.

That said, big business can no more ignore the hippies, whether within its ranks or not, than it can shrug off Hollywood (for whom corporate malfeasance has provided a rich seam – from Erin Brockovich to The Constant Gardner ). Slow-burning protests do sometimes assume a life of their own: in China, PetroChina’s flotation was dogged by its activities in Sudan. That is why Shell cannot ignore the claims, however flaky they may appear.

louise.lucas@ft.com

andrew.hill@ft.com

To comment, visit www.ft.com/lombard

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. FT ARTICLE (Subscription)

EMAIL RECEIVED FROM RICHARD WISEMAN, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: FRIDAY 12 FEB 2010

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 12 February 2010 08:30:20 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, Peter.P.Voser@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Donovan

Regards
Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 February 2010 09:53:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Wiseman

Regards
John Donovan

Royal Dutch Shell has suffered a serious breach of security after contact details for more than 170,000 employees and contractors were e-mailed to environmental and human rights campaign groups.

The database, from Shell’s internal directory, gives names and telephone numbers for all the company’s workforce worldwide, including some home numbers used for business. The e-mail was ostensibly sent by disaffected staff calling for a “peaceful corporate revolution” at the company.

The database was e-mailed with a 170-page covering note, explaining that it was being circulated by “116 concerned employees of Shell Oil dispersed throughout the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands”, to highlight the harm allegedly done by the company’s operations in Nigeria.

Shell confirmed the database was genuine, but said it did not pose a security risk because it did not include home addresses. It said it was investigating the security breach but did not believe the claim it had been leaked by disaffected staff.

The leak of data nevertheless raises the prospect that the company may be subject to further action by campaigners.

The e-mail sets out a four-stage strategy for raising awareness of allegations about Shell’s practices in Nigeria, including campaigns to target the media and institutional investors.

It also advocates “having people from NGOs [non-governmental organisations] becoming full-time (undercover) employees of corporations (in western countries)” to campaign for change in corporate practices.

With no identifiable Shell staff admitting responsibility, it is impossible to know if the claim of 116 internal supporters is true.

The e-mail says that the staff have to remain anonymous because they “have families to feed, clothe, and shelter, so we badly need to keep our jobs”.

The leaked information is about six months old, suggesting it could have been taken by a former employee. Shell cut 5,000 jobs last year and recently announced a further 1,000 job losses for this year.

The e-mail was sent to a handful of campaign groups, including Greenpeace, and to www.royaldutchshellplc.com, a website used to air grievances about Shell.

One campaigner who was sent the e-mail said it did not count as corporate whistle-blowing, because no important information had been disclosed, but nor did it look like a hoax.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010

FT ARTICLE (SUBSCRIPTION)

SELF-EXPLANATORY EMAIL SENT TO MR RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 February 2010 00:58:57 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Wiseman

I agreed to your request not to make the Shell Global Address Book accessible online because you stated in an email that the personal safety of some Shell employees could be compromised by its publication. This was not an off-the-cuff comment, but one made after you had the opportunity to consider and consult with colleagues more familiar with the nature and contents of the leaked directory.

This is the entire message…

Dear Mr Donovan

I have now had a chance to consider this and consult with colleagues more familiar with the nature and contents of the “leaked” directory than I am.  I am afraid I must ask you not to publish the data.  The reasons for this request are as follows:

1  Although the data are predominantly business related, some of the information is personal – some telephone numbers for example.
2  Some of the information is sensitive from the security point of view and in some cases personal safety could be compromised by its publication.
3  Although this is a “Shell” directory, it contains information about considerable numbers of people who are not employed by Shell but who are employed by third parties.

In the circumstances therefore, I’d be grateful for your assurance that you will not be publishing the directory.

Regards

All perfectly clear, but totally incompatible with the information subsequently given to the news media when Shell thought it had the situation contained.

Your press office has stated in response to questions from a daily newspaper:

“the leak is no more dangerous than handing out business cards”.

So who has been speaking with a forked tongue – you or Shell’s press office?

Have I been conned by the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Shell? You were well aware that your statement about the risk to the personal safety of employees was a major factor in my decisions.

I have already confirmed destruction of the database that was in my possession. I advised you that other parties have copies of the database. I will, if necessary, bring this matter to their attention. I will not be responsible for any action they may take.

The source of the copy we received also still has a copy. Unless you confirm that your statement about the safety of Shell employees was true and the version given by Shell’s press office to the media was false, I will advise the source to make the database accessible online.  The source would have no problem whatsoever regarding UK law with the database being physically located in another Country. Ultimately the decision and responsibility would be down to the party still holding a copy of the database, but I can tell you that they have an even lower regard for Shell than we do, if that is possible.

I have warned for over a decade that Shell is a thoroughly dishonest company. I was proven right by the reserves fraud. Now we have another classic example of a company completely without scruples or integrity.

If your media office was telling the truth about there being no security risk, then the prospect of the information being available on the Internet will be of no concern. In fact, according to the line being conveyed by your media office, it will promote business.

If however, you were telling the truth (as I am sure is the case), then your media office is guilty of outrageous deceit. In which event I will be content with the action I have already taken to safeguard the security of the 177,000 employees of Shell and other companies listed within the database. Something Shell has not done.

Regards
John Donovan

The database featured a letter that set out criticism of Shell’s activities in Nigeria

The Times
February 12, 2010
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

CleanTechnica.com

Written by Zachary Shahan

Prominent Shell to Sea campaigner Maura Harrington, who was convicted by Judge Groarke yesterday of obstructing a gate with her car at the Shell compound in Glengad on August 13th, 2008, will be sentenced tomorrow.

AMSTERDAM -(Dow Jones)- A lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) over oil leaks in Nigeria has been adjourned by a Dutch court, one of the plaintiffs said Wednesday, adding that the hearing should start this summer.

February 10, 2010, 12:25 PM EST

By Fred Pals

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser converted the maximum proportion of last year’s bonus into stock, reflecting his confidence in the long-term prospects of the company’s shares.

Voser got 50 percent of his 2009 bonus, or the equivalent of 931,838 euros ($1.28 million), converted into 47,121 class-A shares, according to a company filing today to the Securities and Exchanges Commission, or SEC. That’s based on a closing share price of 19.775 euros on Feb. 5.

Shell, which competes with BP Plc as Europe’s biggest oil company, has underperformed its closest rival because of falling output and a greater exposure to refining where earnings have been depressed. Voser plans an additional 1,000 job cuts this year as well as cost savings of $1 billion. Shell’s class-A shares are up 3.9 percent in the past 12 months, lagging behind a 13 percent gain for BP.

The CEO has the option of being paid between 25 percent and 50 percent of his bonus in shares, Rainer Winzenried, a spokesman for The Hague-based Shell, said by telephone. The shares have a lock-up period of three years, Winzenried said.

The company said it would cut 2009 staff bonus payments from previously agreed levels because they don’t reflect the “overall competitive position,” according to an internal Shell memo to staff shown to Bloomberg Feb. 4. Payments will be 12 percent lower, after the company’s bonus scorecard was cut to 1.1 from 1.25, according to the memo.

Both Roles

Voser’s bonus for last year covers the six months he served as chief financial officer and the rest of the year as CEO after succeeding Jeroen van der Veer in July. His total bonus for last year came to 1.86 million euros, up from 1.42 million euros in 2008. Voser’s bonus increased, even after companywide bonus payments were cut, because it reflects the fact he’s paid more as CEO.

Shell’s chief also received 227,560 Class-A shares under the company’s long-term incentive plan. The final award can range from zero to two times the conditional award, depending on the company’s performance over a period of at least three years, according to the filing.

Voser received a total compensation of $6.06 million in 2008, including $3.59 million in salary and bonus, according to Shell’s annual report. Overall numbers for 2009 will be released in March.

–Editors: Stephen Cunningham, Will Kennedy.

To contact the reporter on this story: Fred Pals in Amsterdam at +31-20-589-8563 or fpals@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at +44-20-7073-3603 or wkennedy3@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

The Police have advised me that the database is not of any interest since they are not currently investigating any criminal offenses.

In the light of this information, we have notified Richard Wiseman Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer that we are willing to delete/destroy the copy of the Shell Global Address Book sent to us.

It is not a leaked email or document, but a huge proprietary database storing commercial and personal information. And it belongs to Shell.

It is being destroyed/deleted on a voluntary basis.

As already indicated, copies of the Shell Global Address Book were supplied (not by us) to third parties, so the  potential security risk to Shell personnel from the open circulation of the database remains. Shell is responsible for failing to safeguard the information entrusted to the company. It is Shell’s negligence which has jeopardized the personal safety of over 100,000 employees and put them at risk of becoming victims of cyber-crime.

11 February Update: I have confirmed to Richard Wiseman that the database supplied to us has been deleted. Is this the end of the matter. No, more is to come. Stay tuned.