Quelle: Darwin, USA
It's not often that a company publishes accusations of murder on itswebsite, especially when the accusations are directed against thecompany. But when the Hague, Netherlands-based Royal Dutch/Shell Groupof Companies committed to an open discussion with the world'scitizenry, they meant it. The result is a site that blazes a trail forcompanies that want to take their customers seriously as worldcitizens and not just as potential revenue sources.
The accusations are found in postings to open forums the companymaintains on its website (www.shell.com). In fact, the forums are nowhighlighted in the left-hand navigation bar of the page, a vastimprovement over the previous version of the site, in which it wasjust about impossible to differentiate Shell's "values" from those ofevery other company. For example, the lead item on the homepage usedto be The Shell Report, a showpiece corporate brochure full of theoverblown language that unwittingly invites the reader to skip overit.
The Shell Report begins with this quotation from the snowy-browedchairman: "We face great challenges. Energy systems must evolve--tomeet new needs, offer new choices, provide new solutions. It will takecommitment, creativity, compassion and courage. We should look forwardwith humility--but also with confidence in the ability of our peopleto respond. It's a privilege to be part of this endeavor."
The Shell Report is still there, but it's been reduced to a mere linkamong other links. Instead, the redesigned homepage featuresmagazine-style reports on Shell's good works and business successes.These stories are sometimes personal but still smell of the oil fromthe PR machinery. To their left, however, is a link to the forumswhere you'll find evidence that the values proclaimed and tracked inThe Shell Report are actually taken quite seriously by at least somepeople in the company.
For example, one visitor writes: "Just so you know, you are still anAmnesty International urgent action....Did you not supply weapons toNigerian security forces that brutally crack down on the Ogoni people?Did you intervene in the execution of Ken Siro-Wiwa? Ken was anenvironmentalist protesting your pollution of the Niger delta and theOgoni people's homeland. His execution and your silence isunacceptable apathy equatable to manslaughter or evenmurder."
To this, Noble Pepple of Shell responds, albeit rather stiffly: "Thankyou for your e-mail to the Tell-Shell Forum. In it, you make a numberof points which I would like to respond to below. First, let meaddress your statement that Shell is the subject of an 'AmnestyInternational urgent action.' This is not the case. AmnestyInternational has informed us that their 'urgent actions' are issuedonly by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International basedin London and that such actions are directed at individuals, notcompanies. No such action exists in relation to Shell." Pepplecontinues in this courteous, formal way, maintaining that Shell didspeak out before and after Siro-Wiwa's trial, arguing against hisexecution.
Elsewhere, however, the professional demeanor gives way to real voice.For example, here's a post in its (sanitized) entirety: "Rather thanspend vast sums on a fake forum why not have some real f***ingaction?"
According to Mark Wade, one of the founders of Shell's SustainableDevelopment Group, which is responsible for The Shell Report and theforums, any Shell employee who wants to reply can. In this case,Shell's Clare Harris wrote: "In reply to the last message I have tosay that I think it's a great pity that you can't find adjectivesother than the ones you used to describe what are obviously verystrong feelings. I work in the large team involved with bringing ourmessage about engagement and open communication to a wide audience,and whilst I debated whether it would be worth my effort I wanted toreply to you...."
Harris, in short, criticizes the post and reluctantly responds withsome obviously hurt feelings. Her message comes across as authenticprecisely because it doesn't sound as if it were crafted by a masterof PR.
How far does Shell go in allowing open discussion? Consider thismessage:
"I am Fortune Adogbeji Fashe, currently a permanent resident in theU.S. Last year I got a message from home about the death of my father,Chief James Fashe. He was on retirement in Evwreni in Delta State,where you have one of your flow stations. He was killed and his houserazed, I learnt as a result of Shell's activities in the community. Ihave read Shell's cheap denial and lame excuses for the atrocitiesthe[y] carry out in Nigeria. But I did not expect it would come tothis. I just want to know, what is Shell's side of the story on this,and what is Shell doing about it?"
Oddly, I trust Shell more after reading this posting than I didbefore, even though no one had responded to the message at press time.By allowing it to remain on its website, Shell tacitly makes good onthe claims in The Shell Report that the company is truly interested inlistening to all those who criticize it.
The openness of the forums is matched by the openness of the groupresponsible for maintaining them. The forums grew out of a desire tomake The Shell Report interactive--the rip-out reply cards bound intothe original paper version just weren't engendering the sort ofcustomer interaction Shell wanted. Now anyone in Wade's group canreply to any message. Because people expect a quick response on theWeb, says Wade, "the formalities of approval are kept to a minimum."Respondents don't have to consult a central registry of officialpositions because, according to Wade, Shell has done such a good jobof letting its people know what its policies are. "It's part of theprocess of running the company," he says.
Indeed, Wade thinks the forums themselves are consistent with Shell'sattitude toward its global responsibilities. "If you look at how werun our major projects, like the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, you cansee the lengths to which we go to have local engagement with thecommunities to plan what we should do and how we should do it." IsAthabasca really a model of openness and engagement? I don't know, butI know that Wade believes it is. The forums exude a sense ofconfidence in Shell's vision and execution that the typical oil slickof marketing on most corporate websites simply cannotinstill.
So here's how it works. A company opens a forum. People post messagesof every sort, from the supportive to the stupid to the righteouslyindignant. Employees respond in their own voices. Readers of the forumsee in the answers not just words but a real sense that the employeescare and that the company is confident enough in what it stands for toallow employees to say what they want. As a result, the company'ssocial commitment avoids sounding like every other company's trendymouthings. Shell's lack of control over the forum is preciselyequivalent to the depth of its real commitment. It's that simple.