Shell Oil Co: Diversity is Key - But Bullying Niggers is the Way Ahead

[Br.IanVonTurpie]

https://www.shell.com.au/careers/shell-commitment-to-diversity-inclusion/diversity-makes-us-stronger/measuring-d-and-i-performance.html

We actively seek to bring diversity into our organisation and provide an environment where diversity and inclusion can flourish. We underpin our efforts by targeted metrics that monitor progress and assure action takes place because, we have an organisational culture 'where what gets measured gets done'.

Our aim is to create an environment where people feel involved, respected and connected, where the richness of ideas, backgrounds and perspectives are harnessed to create business value. A culture of inclusion means that differences are valued and encouraged to foster creativity and innovation.

We underpin our efforts by targeted metrics that monitor progress and assure action takes place because we have an organisational culture 'where what gets measured gets done'.

Militants of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger

One set of measures that we monitor is:
The representation of women in senior leadership,
The diversity in the ethnicity, nationality and gender of senior leadership
Our Diversity and Inclusion Indicator, which monitors the inclusion across our work environment that comes from five questions within our annual People Survey that cover areas on respect, feeling free to speak without fear of negative consequences, valued differences, discrimination and harassment free and fair leadership.
Shell has moved beyond legislative compliance to actively seek to bring diversity into our organisation and provide an environment where diversity and inclusion can flourish to the benefit of all our stakeholders - employees, the company and society.


https://www.shell.com.au/careers/shell-commitment-to-diversity-inclusion/diversity-makes-us-stronger/values-supporting-diversity.html

Our values of honesty, integrity and respect for people are part of everything we do. Our company values, together with our codes of behaviour, help create a shared language throughout Shell. Performance, growth, authenticity and collaboration are our foundations of leadership.

Education and engagement

A large part of Shell's Diversity & Inclusion plan is educating and engaging employees on the need to improve gender representation and to ensure that leaders are equipped to deal with issues affecting employees in the workplace. 

Shell has a dedicated D&I consulting practice with focal points located in various Shell businesses and functions. We host D&I workshops and lunch and learn sessions to enable employees to increase their awareness on a range of D&I topics. There are numerous tools available to help embed inclusion in teams, and resources for line managers to support employees in feeling free to speak their minds



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/03/shell-accused-of-fuelling-nigeria-conflict

In 1796, pirates who committed heinous crimes against individuals could be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute, which permits civil suits by foreigners in federal courts for violations of "the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The law was passed by the first Congress in 1789. In 2002, 12 Nigerian nationals sued Royal Dutch Shell under the ATS, alleging that the oil company had colluded with the Nigerian military from 1992 to 1995 to suppress a grass-roots protest movement against oil exploration in the Niger delta. Specifically, members of the Ogoni people contend that Royal Dutch Shell aided and abetted the Nigerian government in torturing, executing, and arbitrarily detaining Ogoni activists. Esther Kiobel, the named plaintiff, is the widow of a victim

The question for the court is whether Shell is immune from this suit because it is a corporation, not a person. Or—as Justice Stephen Breyer puts it this morning at oral argument—what would happen if the Pirates were a corporation.  A corporation called, say, "Pirates Inc.

The ATS was almost never invoked between the 18th century and the 1980s, at which time human rights organizations dusted it off and deployed it to bring justice to victims of human rights atrocities abroad. In the only Supreme Court pronouncement on the scope of the right to sue under the ATS, the court in 2004 found that ATS could be used to redress violations of a small number of well-established customary international norms. The court was not clear about whether the well-established customary norms would determine who was liable, or merely the actions for which they could be sued. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals determined in 2010 that there is no customary international norm of corporate liability and decided in favor of Shell. Three other courts of appeals have found that there is corporate liability under the ATS, not just for pirates but for corporations as well.

In brief, the looming question for the court today is whether, after Citizens United, corporations enjoy not only free speech rights but also the right to say "I'm immune from suit."

Paul Hoffman represents the 12 Nigerian plaintiffs and opens by pointing out that in Shell's view of the case, "even if these corporations had jointly operated torture centers with the military dictatorship in Nigeria to detain, torture, and kill all opponents of Shell's operations in Ogoni, the victims would have no claim."

Justice Anthony Kennedy stops him, pointing out that the briefs say that "international law does not recognize corporate responsibility for the alleged offenses here." Hoffman replies that the international law norms at issue in this case are "torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, extrajudicial executions," which are "defined by actions" and not by whether the "perpetrator is a human being or a corporation
Justice Samuel Alito notes that "there's no particular connection between the events here and the United States." He wonders "whether there's any other country in the world where these plaintiffs could have brought these claims against the Respondents." Chief Justice John Roberts doubles down: "If there is no other country where this suit could have been brought ... isn't it a legitimate concern that allowing the suit itself contravenes international law?"

Alito adds that the first sentence in the petitioners' brief reads, "This case was filed by 12 Nigerian Plaintiffs who alleged that Respondents aided and abetted the human rights violations committed against them by the Abacha dictatorship in Nigeria between 1992 and 1995." Alito looks up, puzzled. "What business does a case like that have in the courts of the United States?" He goes on, "The Alien Tort Statute was enacted to prevent international tension, and this kind of a lawsuit only creates international tension

Hoffman replies that that ATS was also passed "as an expression of the nation's commitment to international law." He notes that there are other legal doctrines that can be used to determine whether federal courts are the wrong forum to decide a case.

Edwin Kneedler represents the U.S. Justice Department, which sides with the Nigerian plaintiffs in this case. He spends most of his time close reading an ambiguous footnote in that 2004 case, which starts to look like one of those judicial Rorschach tests onto which everyone in the court maps their own personal preferences. 

The chief justice wants to focus on the actor, not the actions, as he explains: "Under international law, it is critically pertinent who's undertaking the conduct that is alleged to violate international norms. If an individual private group seizes a ship, it's piracy. If the Navy does it, it's not."

Kennedy warns Kneedler of the foreign policy implications of corporate tort liability:  "Under your view, the U.S. corporation could be sued in any country in the world, and that would have no international consequences. We don't look to the international consequences at all

Diversity is good for Shell when it suits them to get :- Cheap foreign labour. But behind the scenes they bully Africans out of their land !