On 25 January 2008, Carl Mortished, World Business Editor of The Times newspaper wrote an article headlined: “Shell chief fears oil shortage in seven years” in which he described the site as “an independent website that monitors the company.”

In July 2007, the One World Trust, an independent research organisation associated with the UK Houses of Parliament and the United Nations, said in an “Accountability in Action” newsletter: “As The Royal Dutch Shell plc website shows, a gripe site can have a profound impact on global organisations”. The newsletter went on to say: “The site has not only cost Shell billions of dollars in Russia… “even Shell insiders unhappy with the company use it”.

“…as a commentator on brand and reputation management I find Shell’s mismatch between rhetoric and reality a continuing and monstrous disgrace.”

It’s not the most elegant phrase to use but it seems appropriate – come on Shell “Cut the crap”.

Allegation: massive Sakhalin II pipeline hydrotest failure has caused major damage 

The following comment was posted on our Live Chat facility on Thursday 1 May 2008

guest_9125 : Massive pipeline hydrotest failure on Sakhalin northern pipelines has caused enormous environmental damage and has set back project schedule by at least two months. Gazprom know nothing about the seriousness of this latest distaster and project delay will only lenghten well into 2009. Meantime, Craig and Rolly Polly Finlayson are doing everything they can to blame and destroy Guyt and Huijskes and to cover up truth. help all Sakhaline people please. 

Dimitry

Article by former Royal Dutch Shell exec Paddy Briggs: Shell pulls out of Wind Farm project

‘THURSDAY, MAY 01, 2008

Sometimes Shell’s actions are so extraordinary that you wonder if the announcements that they make are a wind up – thrown into the ether just to see what might happen. The withdrawal from the “London Array” wind farm project is just such a decision. I know nothing about the business plan for this project except that I doubt that there were any “unknowns” which have suddenly become “knowns”. Indeed Shell’s statement that the decision is a consequence of an “ongoing review of projects and investment choices” suggests that they just went off the idea – as they have with so many other non traditional business ventures over the years. Shell’s definition of their “core business” becomes narrower and narrower over the years – step-outs into Renewables being walked away from with the same disregard for their reputation for veracity as many of the previous wimp outs.

As an ex-employee, pensioner and small shareholder I have actually argued that unless Shell is really prepared to diversify into alternative energy wholeheartedly then they really shouldn’t bother at all. The track record of management success at anything but the oil and gas business is deplorable – so why bother? But as a commentator on brand and reputation management I find Shell’s mismatch between rhetoric and reality a continuing and monstrous disgrace. Remember the “Say No to no” ad shown here? I thought when it was launched a few months ago that it was deceitful, self congratulatory and facile. The wind farm decision is sadly not the only example which proves my point – what is Shell doing but saying “Yes to no” with this walk away from wind energy? But it gets worse.

The latest so-called “Shell brand campaign” featuring the disingenuous “Clearing the Air” campaign about which I have written before on this Blog is apparently a new initiative designed to communicate “What Shell stands for” - the campaign material states what this is:

SO WHAT DOES SHELL STAND FOR?

We are positive about energy
We are anti-complacent
We are creative, persistent problem solvers

So let’s take a look at the withdrawal from the wind farm project about which Shell UK Chairman James Smith boasted less than eighteen months ago: “The London Array offshore wind farm will make a crucial contribution to the UK’s renewable energy targets. ” Is this withdrawal being “Positive about energy”? Isn’t the abandonment of the project so precipitously extremely “complacent”? Can’t Shell be seen not as “creative, persistent problem solvers” but as mendacious knee-jerkers who when they encounter the unknown or the uncertain they run like hell for cover?

As I have said before I don’t really mind what Shell does as long as it is legal and in the interests of their stakeholders. What I vehemently object to is when they fail to walk the talk. When they promulgate bullshit in their brand campaigns about innovation and creativity when the reality of their business decision-making is anything but creative, original or innovative. It’s not the most elegant phrase to use but it seems appropriate – come on Shell “Cut the crap”.

© Paddy Briggs
May 2008

About Paddy

Paddy Briggs worked for Shell for 37 years during the last fifteen of which he was responsible for Brand management in a number of appointments. He was the winner of the Shell/Economist writing prize (internal) in 2001. Paddy retired from Shell in 2002 to form the brand consultancy BrandAware and to write and speak on brand and reputation matters. He is also active as a director of training courses on brand and reputation management. Paddy is also a sports journalist and a member of the “Sports Journalists Association” and the “Cricket Writers’ Club”. He has had weekly columns in the “Bahrain Tribune”, the “Khaleej Times”, the “Emirates Evening Post” and Ameinfo. Paddy’s book of light verse “Jumeira Jane” was published in Dubai in 2001 and the first edition print run of 5000 copies was sold out.

Paddy Briggs website: www.Brandaware.co.uk 

My only comment on the statement that quote “Brinded has a track record of turning a blind eye to corrupt management and has the blood on his hands of Shell offshore workers that lost their lives in a preventable accident on the Brent Bravo production platform” was that he was in fact the corrupt Manager (Director) and the 1999 major audit atypically pointed the finger at him as the main catalyst for the demise witnessed in that organisation.

Contenders for the tarnished Royal Dutch Shell crown

By John Donovan

The Financial Times published an article on Saturday revealing Shell’s intention to make “one-off retention payments to three Shell executive directors”, Malcolm Brinded, Peter Voser and Linda Cook; the three candidates vying to succeed Jeroen van der Veer when he retires in June next year.

Financial Times Article

Not an inspiring trio

Brinded has a track record of turning a blind eye to corrupt management and has the blood on his hands of Shell offshore workers that lost their lives in a preventable accident on the Brent Bravo production platform for which Shell admitted responsibility and paid a record breaking fine. Brinded failed to take adequate action after a “Touch Fuck All” safety culture was exposed in a safety audit led by Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell.

Peter Voser, the Chief Financial Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, is up to his neck in the UBS Bank scandal. He is a member of the blundering board of directors’s accused of serious wrongdoing, including misrepresentation and alleged fraud.

Linda Cook along with disgraced former Shell executive directors Sir Phil Watts and Walter van de Vijver, was part of a Shell management team which misled investors over the volume of Shell’s reserves. The securities fraud and the resultant scandal cost Shell shareholders $850 million in fines, class action settlements and legal costs. We have documents confirming her personal involvement in important presentations which contained materially false information.

A former Shell executive, Paddy Briggs, has already made the following comment about the proposed retention payments:

We shouldn’t be surprised by the “retention payments” story but my God how offensive it is that these already hugely overpaid people get more gold whilst the Shell Pensioner community has to be satisfied with the minimum that the company can legally get away with. The poorer Pensioners have been hit by the abolition of the 10% tax rate and by real inflation that far exceeds the RPI. Not that our mega-Rich (and soon to be even richer) leaders could give a damn.

Mr Briggs recently resigned from the Shell Pensioners Association on a point of principle because Shell management refused to make a once off payment to Shell pensioners hard hit by rising living costs, due in part to the increasing cost of oil. This is ironic bearing in mind that Shell is embroiled in the sinister events in Nigeria generating record high oil prices at the gas pump. As we have previously pointed out, Shell has a commercial relationship with the gangs attacking Shell infrastructure including pipelines. These attacks occur at a sufficient frequency to repeatedly crimp oil supply, thereby driving up global oil prices. There are articles published every day citing the attacks as being a contributory factor to high oil prices.

Is Shell capable of such skulduggery? The answer is yes, it has a track record of sinister activities and unethical trading, including being a “repeat offender” in setting up illegal cartels. It has been fined on that basis.

Wikipedia Article

Within the last few days, Shell has been accused of being a participant in more unlawful price-fixing, this time in respect of the sale of cigarettes.

And it already has a history of engaging in skulduggery in Nigeria.

http://www.e-ir.info/?p=399 

Wikipedia Article

We are also talking about a company making massive profits but which has failed to ensure that lifeboats on a Shell North Sea platform were properly maintained. Once again profits were put before the safety of Shell employees.

upstreamonline.com article

On the one hand Shell is intent on heaping huge retention payments funded from multibillion dollar profits on three fat cat executive directors of questionable integrity, all indemnified to the hilt against claims for any misdeeds, apparently including fraud, while refusing to make a once off payment to Shell pensioners and failing to spend enough money to maintain the safety of lifeboat’s serving Shell offshore employees.

What would be the most appropriate word to describe this situation: Wicked? Evil? Obscene? Take your pick.

I feel confident these matters will be raised at the forthcoming Shell AGM.

Background information about our website.

As the operators of a well known website www.royaldutchshellplc.com described by the Financial Times as being “anti-Shell”, we have an unusual perspective on issues relating to the Royal Dutch Shell Group.

Because the domain name is the precise dotcom domain name for Royal Dutch Shell Plc we receive all manner of correspondence intended for Shell, including job applications and terrorist threats. Shell unsuccessfully tried to seize the domain name in 2005 but lost the case on a unanimous verdict. 

http://shell2004.com/week22/shell_wages_legal_fight_over_web2june05.htm

As another Wall Street Journal recently stated, the site is regularly used by Shell whistleblowers.

http://shellnews.net/images/wsj17march08002.jpg

Insider information and confidential Shell documents and internal communications are leaked to us on a regular basis. Information we have put into the public domain. The One World Trust, an independent research organisation affiliated to the United Nations and the UK Houses of Parliament, has indicated that our activities have had a profound impact on Shell costing the multinational billions of dollars.

http://www.oneworldtrust.org/?display=accnewsjul07

Email correspondence with former Shell International HSE Group Auditor Bill Campbell involving Royal Dutch Shell Plc Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes

Please note that the correspondence below is published without seeking prior approval from Mr Campbell. We accept responsibility for publication of his extremely blunt assessment of Shell EP Production Director, Mr Greg Hill.  

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO BILL CAMPBELL, COPIED TO MICHIEL BRANDJES

From: John Donovan
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:05:44 +0100
To: “Cambell@
Cc: “michielbrandjes@
Conversation: Shell
Subject: Shell

Hello Bill

Welcome back to the UK. I trust your batteries are fully recharged. This is in response to your recent mails.

I will publish extracts from your evidence to the Department of Works and Pensions Committee later today together with links to the Session 2007/8 Third Report which has placed your evidence to the Committee into the public domain.

With regard to your question about my editorial work on Wikipedia, yes I did read the UpstreamOnline.com article and as a result, subsequently *brought completely up to date the Wikipedia article on Shell safety, including mention of the Brent lifeboats debacle. That seems to be taking cost cutting to a dangerous level. I will however add reference to the above report, including extracts from your important evidence.

Coincidentally, I am about to add a large volume of information to the Shell controversies article. It all comes from independent reputable sources and as per normal, I will supply verification links. I have been in correspondence in regard to expansion plans and other matters with a former Shell CEO who supervises my editing work on Wikipedia in relation to Shell to ensure it complies with Wikipedia guidelines e.g. balance and neutrality. I have probably contributed more positive sections about Shell than any other Wikipedia editor.  I have also played a major role in two offshoot articles from the original article covering Royal Dutch Shell. I have notified the former Shell CEO of my plan to originate a third subsidiary article. As I have explained to him, the information setting out Shell’s track record is likely to be of interest to investors. Informed assessment can then be made on whether Shell deeds match promises of ethical trading, as pledged in Shell’s General Business Principles.

With regards to the appropriate job title to use when mentioning your role at Shell, unless Mr Brandjes takes issue with the description, I intend to follow the example of UpstreamOnline.com by describing you as a former “Shell International HSE Group Auditor.” If this is deemed to be inaccurate, I trust Mr Brandjes will kindly indicate the specific job title which should be used. If we hear nothing further from him, I will assume that this description is correct.

Best Regards
John

Relevant Wikipedia information.

*Shell safety critical issues raised in March 2008

On 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline published an article under the headline: “Pressure rises on Shell”. The article by Christopher Hopson said that Shell is still “feeing the heat” from its Brent Bravo safety record and reported “Shell is under mounting pressure to explain its poor North Sea safety record after fresh revelations showed it has been by far the worst performer in the play, receiving six out of a total of 18 legal notices issued by the UK’s Health&Safety Executive (HSE) over a two-and-a-half year period.” The article revealed that Shell had received more notices than any other operator working in the UK North Sea. The disclosures emerged after a Channel 4 TV News report about serious safety failings on Brent Bravo following an inspection of the platform carried out by the HSE in 2005. Shell was quoted as saying: “On our platforms we employ systems under which our people inspect and maintain safety critical equipment. Our goal is 100% compliance on planned corrective safety critical maintenance on all our platforms.”

In a separate article headlined “Lifeboats trouble at Brent field” also published on 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline revealed “SHELL’s safety record on its Brent Bravo platform in the UK Northern North Sea is once again under scrutiny after the discovery of technical problems with two lifeboats on the installation that resulted in both of them being removed from service.” Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee was quoted in the article by Christopher Hopson as claiming “If they had loaded up this particular lifeboat, the chances are it could have been launched into the sea in an uncontrolled fashion which would have caused death or injury as it was held in place by corrosion and not by the designed system”. The article said that problems had been found with a second lifeboat on the Brent Bravo platform. It also reported that a lifeboat had launched itself into the sea from Shell’s Tern platform because the brakes and clutches were “dysfunctional” and had damaged the launch mechanism off the platform. Shell confirmed problems had been discovered with two lifeboats on Brent Bravo during “routine maintenance”. Shell was quoted as stating that it viewed the matter seriously and had “mobilised an investigation team on the platform”.

http://www.shellnews.net/images/upstreamonline_brent_lifeboat_14march2008.html

EMAIL REPLY FROM BILL CAMPBELL COPIED TO MICHIEL BRANDJES

From: Cambell@
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:03:16 EDT
To:  john@shellnews.net>
Cc:  michielbrandjes@
Subject: Re: Shell

The title you mention is perfectly accurate in that as EPT-OM I was under contract to the HSE department EPS-HE in The Hague since 1996/7 as a Lead Auditor to carry out HSE audits on behalf of SIEP and after retirement from 2003 till mid 2006 had a contract as a external Consultant with the same title a Lead Auditor.  
 
I only wish Michiel who I have no reason to believe is other than an honourable and good person was so concerned about correcting other statements for example the ongoing embarrasment and concern his Company has caused the HSE and the Scottish Crown prosecution service with the lies issued by its obedient servant Greg Hill on 16th June 2006, this will in due course come home to roost.  
 
Bill Campbell

Email correspondence ends.

The following are links to written evidence submitted to the Department of Works and Pensions in relation to Heath & Safety Executive matters. The House of Commons published the evidence a few days ago.  Rather than providing extracts from Mr Campbell’s evidence, interested parties can read everything he had to say about Shell. His evidence is now on the record in the public domain.

Memorandum submitted by Bill Campbell

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmworpen/246/246we19.htm

Memorandum submitted by the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee (OILC)

Extracts

7.4  The OSD Inspectors often appear reluctant to take such conduct into account in their dealings with dutyholders. They do not seem to understand that leopards rarely change their spots—even when subject to an Improvement Notice. The principle must surely be that Inspectors do not accept assurances from those dutyholders who have failed to honour previous undertakings. The impression given to the workforce and observers is that compliance is regarded as an unpopular and unnecessary option by both industry and Regulator.

7.5  This pattern is exactly what happened on Brent Bravo. The Brent Field operator, Shell, had been the subject of workforce complaints since 1998 that equipment was not being properly maintained. A Shell internal audit in 1999 showed that key procedures and arrangements set out in the Safety Cases for many platforms were being ignored. Complaints continued through 2000-03 and in September 2003 two men were killed in an accident on Brent B. As part of the investigation OSD became aware of the 1999 audit and that many of the deficiencies found then had not been remedied. Many Shell operated platforms were not complying with the law or with their submitted Safety Cases. OSD did nothing. They subsequently accepted a number of Safety Cases submitted by Shell despite knowing that safety arrangements set out in previous Safety Cases had been ignored and that undertakings from Shell management were meaningless. Further evidence of non-compliance with Shell’s safety arrangements was found in 2004 but little was done. By mid 2005 an internal OSD e-mail confirmed that on many Shell operated platforms little or no progress had been made to remedy serious safety defects found in 2003.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmworpen/246/246we38.htm

Memorandum submitted by Unite the Union

Extract

4.16  Directors’ duties: As previously mentioned, we believe that there should be legal duty on directors to ensure that their organisation does not put the health and safety of their workforce at risk. Individual employees, managers and suppliers have duties; it seems illogical and immoral then that an important group such as directors does not, particularly in view of directors’ stringent legal requirements with regard to upholding financial law. Unite has been campaigning on this issue for many years and we enclose (Appendix 2) our report A hard day’s work never killed anyone (2003) and the draft bills; and subsequent briefings on Directors’ Duties.

(perhaps they had Malcolm Brinded in mind?)

4.17  We also urge that the range of penalties is expanded including corporate probation, and “naming and shaming” orders available, as well as much more use of disqualification for directors for health and safety offences.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmworpen/246/246we41.htm

Shell fat cat management unwilling to allow needy Shell pensioners to benefit from multi-billion windfall profits

Introduction by John Donovan

Paddy Briggs resigns from Shell Pensioners Association National Committee because Shell unwilling to consider sympathetically proposals for a special pension review for thousands of Shell pensioners, many very elderly, struggling on low pensions which have failed to maintain their real value in recent times. (Condensed from Paddy’s resignation letter below)

FROM SPA News (Shell Pensioners Association) Issue 142: Spring 2008

Supplied by a Shell source

Front Page

Company says no to a discretionary adjustment above RPI

Annual pension increase pegged a four per cent

Shell UK company chairman James Smith has confirmed a four per cent pensions increase for this year following an exchange of correspondence with SPA chairman Bob Craig.

Bob had called for an increase above the retail price index (RPI) figure for 2007 of four per cent. He wrote: “As we have pointed out in recent years, the real cost of living increase for pensioners is considerably higher than that reflected by the published retail price index. Pensioners are facing this situation year after year and you will appreciate that over a number of years, the cumulative effect means that, in real terms, their incomes are reduced substantially compared to their expectation, as Shell pensioners, of a high level of protection from inflation”.

Reply

In his reply, James wrote:

‘I understand the arguments put forward by the SPA for a discretionary increase above RPI and I recognise that such increases have been given in the past. I have to judge, however, whether such an increase would be justified or prudent.”

He explains that the Company feels it should maintain a consistent approach by adhering to the commitment made in the Trust Deed and Regulations and setting the pension increase in line with RPI. He also claimed that Shell’s approach to pension increases compares very well with peer arrangements.

All change at AGM

New faces will be the order of the day when the SPA meets for its AGM in Shell Centre on 22 April, with changes to the line-up of the national committee and a new president.

Derick Massey has completed five years as a committee member and, under the rules of the association, has to stand down. Paddy Briggs, Dave Gardner and Sylvia Sellers have resigned from the committee for personal reasons (see From the editor on page two).

Four members have been nominated to fill the four posts so there will be no election at the AGM.

Chris Fay has decided to stand down following the AGM and Jyoti Munsiff has agreed to succeed him as president. We will cover these appointments fully in the next issue of SPA news.

Page 2

Changing faces

As editor, I work closely with the national committee, which will be without some familiar faces after the AGM.

Paddy Briggs’ reasons for leaving are set out in his own words on the letters page, where he has the same right to express his personal views as any other member. I will miss his robust and often colourful contributions to the meetings and his strong support of SPA news.

I would like, however, to pay tribute to three other members of the national committee who are leaving without fuss or fanfare. Dave Gardner and Sylvia Sellers are both standing down - Sylvia to concentrate on her work for Selkent branch and Dave because of health problems. I will miss their advice and guidance and wish them both well.

Derick Massey - one of the hardest working committee members - has come to the end of his term of office. It is thanks to Derick’s efforts that we have been able to run regular articles offering benefits to members in the area of insurance and I hope he will continue to contribute to SPA news.

Strong candidates have come forward to take their places and I look forward to working with them.

Page 10: Letters to the Editor

From Paddy Briggs

My resignation

My decision to resign as a member of the national committee of the SPA is reported elsewhere in this issue - thank you for making space available to me to explain to members of the association why I have decided to leave.

When I stood for election to the national committee in 2004, I did so on a platform which said that I would ‘… seek to enhance the role of the SPA’ and ‘… to defend pensioners’ rights and to extend benefits and over the past three years I have done my best to honour this commitment and the confidence placed in me by the electorate. However recent events have caused me to review my position:

It is now clear to me that Shell is unwilling to recognise the unsuitability of the RPI as a measure of pensioner cost inflation. 

The SPA has argued strongly, and with plenty of back-up evidence, that there is a strong case for ‘catch up’ increases to the Shell pension (which are permitted within the SCPF Trust and which have occurred in the past). These arguments continue to be rejected by the Company which has also indicated that they are unlikely to apply any such increases in the foreseeable future.

The Company has agreed to offer additional support to the Shell Pensioners Benevolent Association charity and the SPA is right to welcome the relief this will give in some hardship cases. But Shell was unwilling to consider sympathetically proposals, which I strongly supported, that there should be a special pension review for the thousands of pensioners, many very elderly, who are struggling on low pensions which have failed to maintain their real value in recent times.

In the circumstances I must conclude that my presence on the SPA national committee cannot possibly honour the commitments on which I was elected. I will remain a member of the SPA and wish you well in your important work. I value the friendships I have made since I became involved with the SPA and if any SPA members would like to stay in touch with me I would be delighted to hear from them by e-mail: paddy-briggs@yahoo.co.uk tel. 020 89771712 or mail: 40 Broom Park, Teddington, TWll 9RS).

Editors note: The SPA committee wishes to make clear that, while it respects the wishes of Paddy Briggs to express his own views, the SPA does not share or endorse the opinions expressed in his letter of resignation.

 

April 18th, 2008 03:22

Former Shell Exec Paddy Briggs comments on The Shell Foundation

The following comments by Mr Paddy Briggs arise from a letter sent to The Guardian newspaper by Kurt Hoffman.

Letter from Kurt Hoffman director of the Shell Foundation

Paddy says…

The “Shell Foundation” is a classic example of how modern corporations seek to create a halo effect around their global brands implying a high degree of altruism exists, whilst in reality making the absolute minimum amounts of funding available. Shell’s rhetoric, exemplified by Mr Hoffman’s self-congratulatory letter and the very name of the initiative (suggesting something analogous with genuinely big charitable enterprises like the Ford Foundation or the Gates Foundation) is misleading in the extreme.

The Shell Foundation was launched with deliberately headline catching numbers implying a $250 commitment. In reality this was a capital set-aside which made little or no impact on Shell’s Balance sheet or P&L account. In fact the annual expenditure of the Foundation is a paltry $16million. To put this in perspective it is roughly equivalent to what Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer pays himself every eighteen months!

It would be churlish not to welcome the existence of the “Shell Foundation” and there is no doubt that what it does in the way of grants and facilitating services is valuable but it is very small indeed. Let’s place this tiny initiative in context. Hoffman says that governments and charities have failed for decades to deliver, particularly in the developing world, where the delivery of aid has an atrocious record. He then implies that business initiatives like his Foundation are better placed to help than these traditional players - a curious claim. UNICEF which has a noble history of helping the world’s children, spends around $1.6 billion dollars every year - one hundred times the Shell Foundation’s total expenditure. The British Government has an overseas aid budget of nearly $5 billion every year. Whilst nobody would claim that every dollar spent by charities or governments is well spent the very scale of their contribution shows how insignificant the Shell Foundation’s activities are.

The Gates Foundation spends around $1.6 billion every year and the Ford Foundation about $260 million. These enterprises are far more significant examples of what successful businesses can do than Shell’s similarly named but in all other respects quite dissimilar so-called “Foundation”. Shell’s profits in the last year were $27 billion - so the Shell Foundation’s $16 million expenditure was .06% of this figure!

Shell is not alone amongst multinational corporations in seeking to create reputational advantage without really spending any seriously big money. But the sheer size of Shell’s business, and their huge financial resources and trading performance, surely requires that if they really do seek to be seen as offering some fresh, inherently efficient and potentially very effective thinking to find new solutions to old problems (as Mr Hoffman claims) then they need to make a far, far greater financial commitment than at present.

Paddy Briggs

Paddy worked for Shell for 37 years during the last fifteen of which he was responsible for Brand management in a number of appointments. He was the winner of the “Shell/Economist” writing prize (internal) in 2001. Paddy retired from Shell in 2002 to form the brand consultancy BrandAware and to write and speak on brand and reputation matters.

http://www.brandaware.co.uk/