Posts Tagged ‘Alfred Donovan’

As you know, the Data Protection Act treats you and John as separate individuals, with each of you having separate rights under the Act. However, as you will appreciate, given your and John’s working relationship and our understanding that you both jointly operate the RoyalDutchShell plc website, it is often difficult to separate out data that relates purely to one or other of you.

News articles generated by royaldutchshellplc.com and its Shell insider sources in 2009

Article by Glen Frost, Editor, The PR Report

Yes, 15 billion. This is the claim of John Donovan, a UK blogger who campaigns against  the global oil producing giant Shell (full name Royal Dutch Shell) using his blog www.royaldutchshellplc.com .

Arguably the most powerful blog in the world dedicated to covering one company; and intrigued as to how the site developed such influence, Glen Frost met with the blog’s founders, John and Alfred Donovan, to get the full story.

EXTRACTS

The blog is now so popular, and trusted, the site appears on the front page of major newspapers (see pictures), and has ex‐employees from Shell contributing regular articles

The Russian connection: the scoop that made the  Donovan’s blog famous

The Donovans had been collecting and publishing information online about Shell’s activities since 2001; this information dates back to the mid 1980’s and their former business relationship with Shell. Over the years, more and more people in the oil industry discovered the website, and the Donovan’ s have been swamped with information about Shell from both suppliers, contractors, insiders and former employees.

Some of this information concerned Shell’s activities in Russia from 1996. A Shell‐led consortium (called Sakhalin Energy) and the Russian Government entered into a production sharing agreement. It was information on alleged environmental abuses by the consortium from the Donovan’ s that killed the deal. John Donovan said he suspected his information was the trigger but didn’t know for sure until Oleg Mitvol, a senior figure in the Russian Government, stated so in a media interview.

Asked by a journalist from PetroleumArgus, a trade magazine, who his sources were for the environmental abuse charges that Mitvol laid against the Sakhalin Energy consortium, Mitvol, then deputy head of Russia’s environmental watchdog Rosprirodnadzor, said he had “email correspondence between executives in Sakhalin Energy management from 2002.”

The compromising material had come from Donovan, owner and blogger of the anti‐Shell website www.royaldutchshellplc.com, Mitvol said.

Donovan estimates the value lost to Shell is US$15 billion.

The Donovan’s website is a full frontal attack on Shell’s management and ethics. Shell has tried to shut the site down on the grounds that it uses the company name. However, the site www.royaldutchshellplc.com  makes no money, and, crucially, is registered in the USA, where laws on websites are weighted in favour of the domain owner.

“Our site receives up to 2.2 million hits a month; we want it to become a magnet for people who have a problem with the
company,” says Donovan.  “Many of the people using the site are Shell employees.

Blog publishes market sensitive information

Donovan publishes market sensitive information on the site, and he, and the website, are now quoted by esteemed news organisations like Reuters and The Financial Times. For example, Donovan  published information questioning the level of Shell’s reserves, in which the company was found to have inflated its oil and gas reserves by some 20% in 2003‐04, which led to negative media headlines.

The picture (right; The Daily mail, UK 8th Sept 2009) shows how Donovan’s blog published details of staff cuts before Shell had announced them to the markets and the media.

Because of the blog, and the Donovan’s insistence on publishing all information he can verify about Shell, good and bad, John Donovan’s influence with the media is now global, instant and at a senior level – John lists the names of all the UK, US and global media outlets, their Editors or senior correspondents covering corporate news or the oil sector as his contacts.

Shell’s external PR advisors

A post on the Donovan’s website links to an article in a recently published book on corporate reputation and the rise of blog sites that attack, or expose, poor corporate ethics and illegal or dubious corporate activity, and what CEOs should do about such sites; http://www.shellnews.net/images/CorporateReputationAED.pdf ‐ the book is written by Dr Leslie Gaines‐Ross, who, incidentally, was previously CMO of Burson‐Marsteller USA, who manage Shell’s public relations.

FULL ARTICLE (FREE SUBSCRIPTION)
Previous PR Report issues here: http://thepublicinterest.ning.com
PR Report Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/ykg6p7j
PR Report YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/theprreport

EXTRACT FROM BOOK REFERRED TO ABOVE: “REPUTATION LOSS – 12 Steps to safeguarding and Recovering Reputation”

One such empowered activist is arch Shell critic Alfred Donovan. No one was more surprised than Royal Dutch Shell PLC to learn that this 88-year-old British army veteran had purchased the Internet domain name www.royaldutchshellplc.com. The gadfly Donovan was a well-known, though underestimated, critic of the company. By acquiring the domain name, Donovan obtained the perfect platform to voice his criticisms of the oil giant. Who would have thought a decade ago that such an unlikely individual could stand up to a corporate powerhouse, waging a war of words against one of the world’s largest companies?

Below is an article supplied to Shell in advance of publication. The relevant email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, the Shell official who is the subject of the article is printed immediately below it. It contains his comments and our response.

By Alfred and John Donovan

This is the first in a series of articles in which we provide overwhelming evidence why Richard Wiseman (above) is an unfit person to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

From Shell’s standpoint, we are sure Wiseman did a good job as General Counsel and later as Legal Director of Shell UK. We understand from our sources that he is generally liked and respected by colleagues. He is loyal to the company and Shell executive directors. We acknowledge that Mr Wiseman has many admirable qualities.

However, he also has a dark side with a track record of involvement in rule bending, cover-up, entrapment, deception, undercover activity, intimidation and trickery on behalf of the oil giant. We therefore contend that he is entirely the wrong person to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the worlds second largest multinational.

We deal in this first article with the rule bending.

Here, in his own words, in the last paragraph of his own letter, on Shell headed stationary, is admittance by Wiseman of deliberately ignoring professional rules. 

A number of Shell executives at the time, including Royal Dutch Shell Group Managing Directors, John Jennings and Mark Moody-Stuart, and Dr Chris Fay, Chairman & Chief Executive of Shell UK, were all involved in the discussions, negotiations and related funding agreement with us which culminated in the proposed mediation which was the subject of the letter. 

Such is his loyalty to Shell senior executives that Wiseman had already implemented the funding agreement he was dead set against from the outset. He ended up bending rules to suit his masters wishes to bring to a conclusion embarrassing matters involving intellectual property theft which had impacted on Shell’s reputation. No doubt it was this degree of ambition and willingness to set aside ethical considerations, which contributed towards his elevation to current high office at the company. 

Incredibly, it is now the job of Richard Wiseman to enforce and uphold Shell’s ethical code, the Shell General Business Principles.

Was his appointment made on the basis of poacher turned gamekeeper? How can it be right for an individual with his track record to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Shell?

RELATED EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Sent: Fri May 22 09:16:40 2009
Subject: Draft Article
Dear Mr Wiseman

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article. We are happy to publish unedited with the article any comments you wish to make as to its accuracy. If we receive no reply by 5pm Monday we will assume that you do not challenge the facts as set out.

Regards
John Donovan 

(ARTICLE SUPPLIED AS ABOVE)

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:49:08 +0200
To: <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Re: Draft Article

This is entirely consistent with the provocative hateful material I have endured from you for years.

If you have complaints about my professional conduct, I suggest you report them to my regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I have no doubt why you have not done so; your assertions would stand up to no serious scrutiny.

Please print this response with your article.
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

Internet: http://www.shell.com 

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN 

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 14:05:48 +0100
To: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Conversation: Draft Article
Subject: Re: Draft Article

Dear Mr Wiseman

Thank you for the speedy response.

I can only surmise that your over-reaction stems from shock at reading the relevant email which substantiates the charge of you being a rule bender, which you cannot and notably do not deny. Given the lack of response and action by the Office for Supervising of Solicitors to our last complaint (about Colin Joseph) relating to sleazy undercover activity undertaken at the behest of Shell, we have no intention of wasting time approaching another solicitors regulation authority.  

We do not hate you or anyone else associated with Shell. We would not have included the second paragraph if we disliked you. We mentioned that you have many admirable qualities. Past articles authored by us have recorded our praise of these qualities.

What we are saying is that in our opinion, based on many dealings with you over many years, you are entirely unsuitable for the post you now hold.

We will in coming weeks publish articles (and related evidence) dealing with other matters mentioned in the third paragraph. We will also  include a reference to censorship in the current draft. You may recall your email in respect of the now defunct Tell Shell discussion forum. How can secret censorship be compatible with the Shell commitment to transparency pledged in the Shell General Business Principles?

Shell does take legal action when it feels able to challenge allegations. As you know, eight Royal Dutch Shell Group companies are currently collectively suing Dr John Huong for alleged defamation in respect of publications on our website. That action has been in progress since June 2004. In a gross violation of human rights, Dr Huong has been buried in Shell injunctions, including an application seeking his imprisonment.

If the quoted facts and assertions in our draft article are untrue, Shell should fund an action to protect your personal reputation and integrity, or sue us directly to protect the reputation and integrity of the company – the little, if any, which remains after the securities fraud and the “TFA” Brent Bravo scandal. Because the facts are well-founded and supported by documentary evidence, I predict Shell will continue with the current policy.

You have chosen to characterise as hate what is actually fact based legitimate criticism. I am entitled as a Shell shareholder to point out facts from your past history with Shell even though they are extremely embarrassing and unpalatable to you and Shell senior management.

Any further response will be added on an unedited (uncensored) basis to the existing correspondence and article which will be published later today.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan

ENDS

Version of this article on Blogger News Network

Shell Ethics Chief claims he is subject of ‘provocative hateful’ campaign

Self-cast in the role of David to Shell’s Goliath, Donovan has successfully pursued earlier legal actions against Shell for infringement of his intellectual property; he also won an interim hearing against the oil giant for alleged libel.

A spokesman for Shell says the company has no plans to retract the press statement.

Despite Shell making the agency an out-of-court settlement of £60,000 over the use-without-consent issue, Alfred Donovan has recently set up a ‘Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group’ to bring attention to what he believes is Shell’s misconduct in relation to several promotions the company has run.

At the commencement of the mediation, Shell Legal Director, Richard Wiseman, grandly announced that he had been asked to apologise to us on behalf of Shell UK’s board of directors for the way we had been treated.

Promotions & Incentive Magazine: Donovan issues Shell libel writ

May 1995

Picture Caption: Shell: stands by statement 

Don Marketing founder, Alfred Donovan has issued a High Court writ for libel against Shell UK after it failed to retract a press statement of March 17 of this year (P&I April ‘95).

A spokesperson for Shell said, “Shell intends to see matters through in court.”

Don Marketing’s separate legal action over Shell’s Now Showing and Nintendo promotions can now proceed after a Royal Courts of Justice judge ruled that £10,000 would provide adequate security against costs for the discovery stage of the case.

Link to Original Article

http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/PromotionsIncentiveMay1995.pdf

Shell has been warned by its solicitors not to speak to the press following Donovan’s defamation action.