News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Environmental activists filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of citizens against Shell,reports the Houston Chronicle. Environment Texas Citizen Lobby and the Sierra Club claim Shell and many of its subsidiaries have released millions of pounds of excess toxic air pollutants along the Houston Ship Channel over the past five years
Click to continue reading “Shell Sued Over Texas Refinery Emissions”
Dozens of e-mails secured through the Freedom of Information Act show how Shell officials in London attempted to downplay and edit environmental criticism of the $22 billion Sakhalin II energy scheme.
Click to continue reading “Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report”
Last August, Shell was reprimanded by UK’s Advertising Standards Authority for violating advertising rules when it claimed that the two oil projects in Canada and the U.S. involved sustainable forms of energy. That wasn’t the first time Shell faced criticism over its “green” advertising.
Click to continue reading “Shell Accused of Greenwashing, Again”
FEBRUARY 2, 2009
LONDON – Royal Dutch Shell, censured twice by Britain’s ad police for exaggerating its commitment to green issues, is hoping to avoid controversy in its latest ad campaign. It isn’t clear if it has succeeded.
The Anglo-Dutch oil giant drew fire from activist groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth for past attempts to extol its environmental responsibility. It tended to boast of its investments in alternative energy with ads that spoke of the “power to create a cleaner, safer world.”
Now, in a campaign designed by ad agency JWT, part of London-based WPP, Shell is stressing technology and innovation and its potential contributions to fighting global warming. Shell, its ads say, is working on ways to squeeze out “difficult” oil trapped in sand, rock and in the deepest seas. And it is trying to capture carbon-dioxide, a global-warming gas, and store it safely underground.
But alternative energy is still part of the mix. One of Shell’s new print ads features a diagram of a human brain full of “unexpected” fuel sources like algae and woodchips .
(With its new ad campaign, Royal Dutch Shell is focusing more on technology and innovation and its potential contribution to fighting global warming.)
The ad has revived old allegations that Shell is “greenwashing” its business. Shell is trying “to hide the fact that the company is actually going backward when it comes to renewable energy,” says Greenpeace climate campaigner Jim Footner. Last year, Shell spent “billions of dollars extracting dirty oil from Canada’s tar sands” while pulling funding from wind- and solar-energy projects in Europe, he says.
In response to such criticism, Shell says its campaign “highlights our belief that the world will need many types of energy…to meet the energy challenge, including, for the foreseeable future, oil and gas. Accordingly, we are investing in a diverse portfolio of energy sources.”
The skepticism toward Shell, however, shows the risks big oil companies take in touting their environmental awareness. Last year, BP used slogans like “The best way out of the energy fix is an energy mix.” But environmental activists objected, arguing that alternative energy accounted for just 7% of the British company’s spending.
BP said its ads reflected that its investments in wind, solar, biofuels and carbon capture were “real and very significant,” and were “generating real growth.”
In 2007, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority, a self-regulatory body set up by the ad industry, censured Shell for an ad showing how it was using waste carbon dioxide to grow flowers. The ASA said the ad was misleading, because it implied all the CO2 Shell produced was being used in this way.
Bjorn Edlund, Shell’s executive vice president for communications, describes the incident as embarrassing. “We were kicking ourselves,” he said in an interview.
The ASA cited Shell again last year for an ad in the Financial Times that claimed its oil-sands project in Canada was “sustainable.” The body said it concluded the ad was misleading because it hadn’t seen any evidence Shell was managing the project to limit CO2 emissions.
Shell says its project is “sustainable,” in the sense it could meet “the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.”
JWT says the problem lies in the ASA’s lack of experience with energy issues. The ASA, says Stef Tiratelli, JWT’s global manager for the Shell account, didn’t have a particularly deep understanding of complex issues like CO2 management.
Still, its criticism sparked changes at Shell. “Until about 2006, everybody in the industry talked about what people wanted to hear, rather than what we were actually doing,” says Shell’s Mr. Edlund. Lately, Shell’s ads have more broadly addressed climate change. “The idea is to try and get people onto the Shell Web site…and get into a dialogue,” says Mr. Edlund. Many have joined Web chats on the site about climate change and carbon capture, he says.
Shell made other changes too. The company started giving the ASA a sneak preview of its ads, to make sure it wouldn’t raise objections. “We regularly talk to them,” says Mr. Tiratelli. “You’re forever in some kind of discussion with the ASA about whether the claims you’re making are allowable.”
Write to Guy Chazan at guy.chazan@wsj.com
Fortune, along with the CSR consulting firms AccountAbility, Csrnetwork and Asset4, came to the conclusion that BP and Royal Dutch Shell were among the top ten most “accountable” large companies on the planet. Of all the do-gooder companies of recent years, why exactly are these hydro-carbon greenwashing giants worthy of such admiration?
[/caption]
Tom Young, BusinessGreen, 01 Sep 2008
Royal Dutch Shell is facing allegations that it was heavy handed in influencing a supposedly independent environmental report on one of the world’s largest oil and gas extraction projects.
A report in The Observer yesterday cited email evidence that allegedly shows Shell looked to downplay some of the environmental criticism included in the review of the $22bn Sakhalin II Project in Russia – which has now received the bulk of the funding it required for work on the project to begin.
The review was conducted by environmental consultancy AEA Technology.
The emails, which were released to the paper following a Freedom of Information request, show that Shell tried to disperse damning evidence throughout the report, as well as downplay the effects of the project on local wildlife, particularly whales.
The exchange reveals concern from an unnamed party, thought to be a government agency, that Shell was “stage managing” the report in order to minimise the impact of environmental concerns.
A spokesman for AEA Technology insisted the report was produced independently, while Shell also defended its involvement, claiming it had not placed any undue pressure on the consultancy to water down its findings. “The opportunity for Sakhalin Energy and its shareholders to provide comments on a draft report of this kind is routine and designed to ensure accuracy,” said a spokesman for Shell. “The findings contained in AEA Technology’s report are entirely theirs.”
However, green groups – already angered by Shell’s recent decision to exit the London Array offshore wind project and increase investment in Canadian tar sands extraction – expressed concern at the news.
Speaking to The Observer, Doug Norlen, policy director of US-based Pacific Environment, said that not only did the AEA report list Sakhalin Energy as its client, when it is meant to be fully independent, but that Shell was also guilty of stage-managing the whole process. “They set the agenda, scheduled meetings and even participated in the editing of sections,” he said. “I believe this to be a stark and vivid example of manipulation. In addition to skewing the review it destroys the pretence that banks have used ethical considerations before deciding whether to fund the project.”
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225104/shell-accused-manipulating
Friday, 15 August 2008
GREENWASH: ”SHELL DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE LEARNT ITS LESSON”
By Guest Author Dr Arlo Brady
For the second time in the last couple of years the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell has found itself at the heart of the debate about greenwash in advertising.
In 2007 Shell ads suggested rather bizarrely that it had been using its waste CO2 emissions to grow flowers: the ad was condemned by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). One year later another Shell ad has been banned. This time for suggesting that the company’s Canadian oil sand extraction operation was sustainable. Shell does not appear to have learnt its lesson.
But what is that lesson? Is it that oil majors should steer clear of environmental messaging in their communications? Is it that they should simply be more honest and transparent in their use of language? Or is it that they simply need to find a new way to communicate?
In the case of the Canadian oil sand operation, Shell should have almost certainly avoided any environmental messaging. To imply that their Canadian oil sand operation is sustainable is very misleading. By definition there is nothing sustainable about using any form of fossil fuels, let alone oil sands. It is universally acknowledged that extracting oil from sand is relatively inefficient, and it is only viable while the oil price is high. The process involves a significant energy input, and results in the emission of high levels of nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and other organic compounds.
In this instance it is not possible to justify Shell’s Canadian operations on environmental grounds. It may well be that other oil sand operations are more polluting, but that reality just makes Shell the best of a bad bunch – certainly no excuse for bragging.
Despite the immense environmental challenges that oil sand operations present, it is worth acknowledging that there are a number of stand-alone political and economic justifications for Shell undertaking oil sand operations in Canada. In the week that Russia flexed its muscles in one of its former Soviet republics, the issue of energy security is very much at the top of the political agenda. This is a fact that has not gone unnoticed by Shell’s rival BP. Their latest billboard campaign tells us that “There’s energy security in energy diversity”. A statement that no one can really take issue with. Having said that, BP could not resist a controversial ending. The ad goes on to tell us that “BP provides oil, natural gas, solar, wind, biofuels and options”. This strap-line is debatable as it suggests that BP has an equitable interest in a variety of forms of energy including renewables, when in fact it is still overwhelmingly an oil business. Indeed now, under the leadership of Tony Hayward, it is arguably more oil-focussed than at any point in the last 10 years.
My point here is that Shell could have chosen a number of other messages about its operations in Canada that would have raised fewer eyebrows. Instead, it chose to attempt to put a positive spin on a message that could not actually be justified: an error of judgement, or perhaps a deliberate attempt to shift public perception in the wrong direction?
It is very easy from an external point of view to imagine that businesses like Shell have malicious intent when developing their ads. Being on the “inside” as often as I am on the “outside”, I know that this is unlikely to be the case. Shell is in a difficult position when it comes to the environment. The extraction and use of fossil fuels is not “sustainable”. As Lord Browne, the former CEO of BP, recognised, a wholesale shift of focus away from oil is required. But this won’t happen overnight, the old proverb “A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step” still applies.
Oil is still at the heart of our society, and we are all in some way responsible for its continued use. Businesses like Shell have a responsibility to work to minimise the environmental impact of oil extraction, and they need to find a way to tell us what they are doing.
This communication needs to be more sophisticated than simple one-way advertising. It needs to be three-dimensional, involving the use of feedback mechanisms and independent commentators. Without feedback, Shell will become more isolated, and will have little incentive to make the improvements that are in all of our interests. Without independent commentators, Shell will not enhance its own credibility and reputation.
The most responsible course of action for an oil-major at this stage would be to sit back and enter into a transparent debate with its stakeholders about the future of global energy. This would acknowledge the role that energy suppliers play in society, and help individuals and governments to understand that to make a paradigm shift we must all be willing participants.
Dr Arlo Brady is an adviser on sustainability and reputation at the strategic marketing and communications consultancy Freud Communications
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/08/time-for-multi.html
WWF’s ad campaign will launch on giant digital screens at Waterloo station in London today trumpeting its victory by stating that “Shell can’t hide the environmental impact of their oil sand projects”.
Click to continue reading “WWF advert attacks Shell’s claims”
n an embarrassing rejection of Shell’s “greenwash”, the Advertising Standards Authority said the company should not have used the word “sustainable” for its controversial tar sands project and a second scheme to build North America’s biggest oil refinery.
Click to continue reading “Shell rebuked for ‘greenwash’ over ad for polluting oil project”
The oil giant Shell has been rebuked by the advertising watchdog for “misleading” claims that two of its projects were environmentally sustainable.
Click to continue reading “Shell adverts ‘misled’ consumers over environmental claims”
: With all of this money spent on the CEP expansion, it has been built on an old electrical infrastructure. I guess no one is counting how many times you read about a "short" electrical outage at the plant. Tom Purves and the Motiva leadership know exactly why this is happening and how to fix it. They don't want to pay for it. They have been given the project and have turned it down at least twice. Meanwhile, we just keep having outages. Going ot be interesting when both refineries come down in the future.
: LondonLad: the lack of stories concerning Shell should be welcomed, if it implies that Shell are cleaning up their act, perhaps due in part to the efforts of the Donovans.
: US Observer, surely almost all (NOT all)contributors to this website have an axe to grind against Shell, particularly those who have a perception that they have been screwed by Shell in times gone by. As for Itchy Woman, she clearly has a femanistic / burn-the-bra approach to work in Shell. AND I would like to add that once again an old old article (from someone who has an axe to grind against Shell) has to be republished due to lack of news against Shell (I refer to Briggs 2009 article). COMMENT BY JOHN D. Would it not be fairer to say that everyone posting on this blog, including you, has an axe to grind. It is easy enough to look back over your contributions and reach a conclusion.
: It is easy to figure out who Witchy Woman is (LC). She has an "ax to grind" and is using this forum
: @uscitizen Voser is a competent and amicable chap. You claim Shell has delivered on its deliverables. Let me tell you everyone delivers on their deliverable.... But joking apart, look at the promises over the years and how well Shell has delivered on these promises. Their trackrecord is not very good over the last 15 years or so. They are a good money making machine. And sofar they have delivered on their constant or increasing dividend payments. Sometimes by increasing their debt but they have done it. A nice high oilprice has helped, don't you agree?? So my only observation was that his 'promise' to extend North Sea fields is quite opposite their activities in this area. And they have promised this before and done the opposite. It was a nice promise to build a new and expensive office in Aberdeen, more jobs for the UK and more activity and extending of production. Just check back what they have done. And predicting future productionlevels by Shell in general and Brinded in particular is nothing but a sick joke.
: To - an observer of Shell Shell has been delivering on its deliverables - why would you paint Voser as some one who is not??
: This was not a personal attack now was it Witchy one?? #133 Witchy woman on May 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm Marvin Odum who probably has the worst safety record in Shell goes for a diversity vote and someone who has no safety experience to replace the VP of safety he just fired. Clear message where his priorities lie.
: Witchy Woman - you blase me for personal attacks???? That is so rich! I am defending people that are attacked if you had not noticed - and yes I do slam the folks who are throwing garbage out! Live with it!! Enjoy your retirement! Shell has a good retirement package in the US dont they??
: I feel the value of your posts is also minimal, just a complainer. PS - here is where you bash Denise - remember - or do we need to question your integrity the way folks question Shell leaders?? Witchy woman on Dec 7th, 2011 at 12:35 pm In GOM we thought that hurricane season was done. Why is Hurricane Denise causing so much damage then? Like all Hurricanes though they move on the professionals are left to pick up the pieces.
: According to the Independent article posted today the boss of Shell is telling us all not to get too emotional about fracking. Has he not seen the confirmation that fracking causes earthquakes? You have cited the Reuters article. There are others including coverage of a fracking earthquake in Blackpool England. I have to conclude that Voser is a fracking idiot.
Shell Blog RSS Feed
