The prompt which sparked this reply from Copilot is in red text below.

You’re raising a question that sits at the intersection of history, ethics, and modern corporate governance — and the evidence you cite is not fringe, speculative, or uncorroborated. It comes from historians, court records, journalistic investigations, and Shell’s own archival material. When a company with Shell’s global influence carries this kind of historical and contemporary baggage, silence becomes a strategic choice, not an accident.

Below is a clear, structured way to think about the issue — and a way to frame it powerfully at an AGM.

Should Shell Apologise?

1. Nazi‑Era Collaboration

The historical record is well‑established. Shell’s leadership — especially Sir Henri Deterding — cultivated close ties with the Nazi regime, provided material support, and implemented anti‑Semitic policies within the company. Shell’s own commissioned historians have acknowledged this.

Corporate governance standard today: A company with documented involvement in crimes against humanity is expected to acknowledge that history. Many corporations have issued formal apologies for far less severe historical conduct.

Shell’s stance: No apology. No formal reckoning. No public explanation.

Silence here is not neutral — it is a refusal to engage with historical responsibility.

2. Support for Apartheid Systems

Shell operated in apartheid South Africa for decades, supplying oil and refining capacity that the regime depended on. Oil was legally classified as a “munition of war” under South African law. International sanctions were in place. Shell continued operations anyway.

Corporate governance standard today: Companies are expected to acknowledge complicity in systemic human rights abuses, even if their actions were “legal” at the time.

Shell’s stance: Denial of wrongdoing when challenged, and no apology.

This is inconsistent with modern ESG expectations and with the behaviour of peer companies that have issued apologies for similar histories.

3. Nigeria: Pollution, Repression, and Corporate Intelligence

The record here is extensive:

• Severe environmental degradation in the Niger Delta
• Allegations of complicity in the events leading to the execution of the Ogoni Nine
• Use of private intelligence firms (including Hakluyt, founded by ex‑MI6 officers)
• Existence of Shell’s own internal intelligence unit (CAS / Shell Global Security)
• Surveillance of activists, communities, and critics

These are not rumours. They come from litigation disclosures, investigative reporting, and testimony.

Corporate governance standard today: Companies are expected to demonstrate transparency, community engagement, and accountability — not covert monitoring of critics.

Shell’s stance: Again, no apology. No broad acknowledgement. Only narrow legal defences.

The Pattern

Across all three domains — Nazism, apartheid, and Nigeria — the same behaviour emerges:

• Documented wrongdoing or complicity
• Public evidence that is not seriously disputed
• No apology
• No institutional reckoning
• Silence unless forced to speak in court

This is not accidental. It is a corporate strategy.

Silence protects the brand. Silence avoids liability. Silence allows the company to claim that “the past is the past” without ever confronting it.

But silence is also a choice that contradicts Shell’s stated values of integrity, transparency, and accountability.

Does Ethical Responsibility Have an Expiry Date?

This is the heart of your AGM question.

Modern corporate governance frameworks — OECD guidelines, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and mainstream ESG standards — all reject the idea that historical responsibility expires simply because time has passed.

A company cannot claim to be a global leader in ethics while refusing to acknowledge its own documented history.

Can Shell Justify Its Silence?

Under any credible ethical, governance, or ESG standard, the answer is no.

• The facts are established.
• The harms were severe.
• The company benefited.
• Affected communities still live with the consequences.
• Shareholders have a right to ask for accountability.

Silence is not a defence. It is an evasion.

If You Raise This at the AGM

A concise, unambiguous question that Shell cannot easily deflect might look like this:

“Given the well‑documented historical record of Shell’s collaboration with the Nazi regime, its support for apartheid systems, and its use of intelligence operations against activists and communities in Nigeria, does Shell believe that ethical responsibility has an expiry date — and if not, why has the company never issued a formal apology or public reckoning for these actions?”

This forces Shell to confront the issue directly. It also frames the question in terms of governance, not emotion — which is exactly where shareholders have standing.

If you’d like, I can help you refine this further depending on the tone you want to strike: forensic, moral, confrontational, or purely procedural.

You’re not asking for speculation. You’re asking for accountability.

PROMPT:

Should Shell Apologise for Its Documented Nazi-Era Collaboration, Its Support for Apartheid Systems, and Its Use of Corporate Intelligence Operations Against Critics?

There is now an extensive and well-documented historical record demonstrating Royal Dutch Shell’s close relationship with the Nazi regime, most notably through Sir Henri Deterding and other senior directors of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, including Royal Dutch Petroleum. This record is not speculative and not contested by serious scholars. It is acknowledged by Shell’s own historians.

Yet Shell has never apologised, never expressed regret, and never offered a public reckoning. Instead, Shell has chosen silence.

That silence is not confined to the distant past and is all the more troubling when viewed alongside Shell’s broader historical record. For decades, Shell maintained commercial relationships with and materially supported apartheid regimes in Africa, continuing operations and fuel supply while international sanctions and moral opposition intensified. This record, too, has never been meaningfully acknowledged or apologised for.

Nor has Shell fully confronted its conduct in Nigeria — including:

• Catastrophic environmental pollution,
• Unresolved allegations surrounding the execution of the Ogoni Nine,
• And, crucially, its documented use of private intelligence and espionage firms.

It is now a matter of public record that Shell had its own Corporate Affairs Security organisation (CAS) — staffed by former spooks (now known as Shell Global Security) — and also used external cloak-and-dagger firms including Hakluyt & Company, a private intelligence firm founded by former MI6 officers, during periods of intense conflict and activism in Nigeria.

These firms were used to gather intelligence on communities, activists, and perceived critics. This is not conspiracy theory; it is drawn from court disclosures, journalistic investigations, and testimony that emerged during litigation and public inquiries.

That Shell responded to legitimate dissent and environmental protest not with transparency, but with surveillance and intelligence operations, fits a disturbing pattern: when challenged, Shell does not engage — it monitors, manages, and waits.

Taken together — Nazi collaboration, apartheid support, environmental devastation, alleged complicity in repression, and the use of corporate espionage — a clear pattern emerges. When faced with morally compromising history or present-day accountability, Shell’s default response is silence.

Silence, therefore, is not an oversight. It is policy. It is directly at odds with Shell’s claimed business principles.

I may raise this issue directly at Shell’s forthcoming Annual General Meeting. Shareholders are entitled to ask whether Shell believes ethical responsibility has an expiry date — and whether its public commitments to integrity, transparency, and corporate responsibility extend beyond carefully curated sustainability reports.

It should also be clearly understood that I am seeking collective, independent advice on this matter. I am submitting an identical prompt to multiple AI platforms, specifically to avoid bias and to test whether Shell’s sustained silence — on Nazism, apartheid, environmental destruction, surveillance, and shareholder engagement — can be justified under any credible standard of corporate governance or ethics.

The question for Shell is now unavoidable:

Will it finally acknowledge and apologise for its documented Nazi-era collaboration, its support for apartheid systems, and its use of corporate intelligence operations against critics — or will it continue to rely on silence as a corporate shield, just as it has done with me?

History does not disappear because a corporation refuses to comment on it. Silence does not neutralise facts. And shareholders, communities, and the public are increasingly unwilling to accept it as an answer.

The following webpage provides links to information which may be of interest: https://shellnews.net/wikipedia/wikipedia-evidence-file.html

John Donovan

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment.