The Brent Spar Syndrome
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUBJECT: COUNTERSTRATEGIES AGAINST ONLINE ACTIVISM: THE BRENT SPAR SYNDROME FROM: EVELINE LUBBERS <[email protected]> DATE: TUE, 29 SEP 1998 08:43:16 +0200 (MET DST) Shell is not going to forget lightly its misadventures beaten in the new-media war. The Brent Spar with the Brent Spar. The Oil Major was taken by affair was one, but the Nigeria situation has also complete surprise when the Greenpeace campaign prompted a “massive on-line bombardment” of against sinking that former drill platform achieved criticism. To quote May: “There has been a shift in its goals. What happened to Shell can in fact hap- the balance of power, activists are no longer entire- pen to any corporation. Loosing control of the sit- ly dependent of the existing media. Shell learned it uation as result of the activities of a pressure group the hard way with the Brent Spar, when a lot of has become a nightmare scenario for the modern information was disseminated outside the regular multinational enterprise. channels.” The Brent Spar affair has brought quite some SHELL DID TOO LITTLE TOO LATE change of attitude to Shell. Ten years ago the The Oil Major’s first reactive measures have Multinational could afford to blatantly ignore cam- meanwhile become the perfect example of how paigns against the South African Apartheid not to do it. But Shell has learned a lot as well. A regime. Although concerns were brewing in-house, comprehensive review of what has become known to the outside world Shell maintained that the as the PR disaster of the century indicates that campaigns against Apartheid were not significant- Shell had it all wrong about its own influence on ly damaging the company. And for the rest Shell the media. There was a new factor in the game, kept haughtily mum. Then came the Brent Spar which had been completely missed out: the role of incident and car owners were taking en masse to the internet. That would not be allowed to happen boycotting Shell’s petrol pumps, and such an atti- a second time. From July 1996, Shell International tude no longer paid off. Shell came to feel the sports an internet manager. His name is Simon might of the mass market, and bowed down. An May, he is 29, and responsible for Shell Interna- alternative would be worked out for the platform’s tional’s various presences on the internet, and for fate. monitoring and reacting to what is being written But developments did not stop there. A few month and said about Shell in cyberspace. He also helps later opposition leaders were executed in Nigeria formulating the Shell group’s strategy for how the as result of their attacks on the environmental dis- internet should be used. aster Shell was causing in Ogoni-land, and this May’s career began in journalism, and more caused a renewed storm of protest against Shell. recently he did a four-year stint in the Sultanate of The intimate links between Shell and the military Oman in charge of the English-language commu- regime came under severe criticism. The Oil nications for the state-owned oil-company. With Major then went for a new tactic and opened a PR him Shell’s got a premium catch: May is young offensive. CEO Cor Herstroter took the initiative and eager, smart and fast, open-minded and nice, in a debate on politically correct entrepreneurship. everything the image of the Company ought to be. At the shareholders meeting in 1996 the new chart And he understands like no other the internet’s of business principles at Shell was unveiled, a potential—also what it could mean for a company comprehensive code of conduct with due like Shell. Simon May openly admits that Shell was allowance for human rights. NETTIME / LOCAL / PAGE 281 Does this all point out to a major shift in policies? next? The Brent Spar affair has left its mark here. Or are we witnessing a smart public relation exer- By way of illustration the story of Felix Rudolph, cise intent on taking some steam from the pressure an Austrian national who worked himself up from groups’ momentum? farm hand on his father’s estate to manager of a In the beginning of June 1998, Brussels saw a con- factory producing genetically modified grain. ference devoted to pressure groups’ growing influ- Pioneer Saaten (“Pioneer Grain,” the company’s ence, organized by the PR agency, Entente Inter- name) was not aware of doing anything wrong. national Communication. Entente did research The company produces for a small market niche in about the way corporations were interacting with Central Europe and strives for optimal quality, so pressure groups and vice versa. The findings, pre- as to enable farmers to obtain better yields. All sented in a report titled “Putting the Pressure on” products have been tested extensively, and all test are harsh: “Modern day pressure groups have results have been duly registered. So nothing to become a major political force in their own right, worry about, that is until the company became the and are here to stay. They manifest themselves in focus of a protest campaign, triggered by an the use of powerful communication techniques, impending referendum in Austria on genetically and they succeed in attracting wide attention and manipulated foodstuffs. “We suddenly had to sympathy, projecting their case with great skill via engage in debate with the public, something we the mass media—they understand the power of never had done before. Who’s interested in grains PR and of the media “soundbite.” And now, anyway?” Felix Rudolph, as he holds his presenta- increasingly, they do so over the global telecom- tion at the Brussels conference, still looks dumb- munication networks. founded about what overcame him. “Your prod- Their power and influence is bound to grow inex- ucts are unhealthy and dangerous asserted the orably over the next years. pressure groups, and we had no clue what we had Pressure groups are small, loosely structured and to say in return. As soon as you try to explain the operate without overhead or other bureaucratic extent of a risk, you admit that such a risk exists. In limitations, they move lightly and creatively. They that referendum, 90 percent of the people turned pursue their aims with single-minded and remorse- out to be against gene technology, the majority of less dedication. To be on the receiving end of a whom did not know what they were talking modern pressure group can be a very uncomfort- about.” It is only later that Herr Rudolph under- able experience indeed, sometimes even a very stood that his company merely served as an exam- damaging one. ple for the pressure groups. “By engaging in a dia- Multinational companies are ill prepared to face logue, we provided them with a platform to put this challenge, their responses are often slow and forward their case. The discussion itself went clumsy. There is a “bunker” mentality, and a reluc- nowhere.” This realization came too late, however. tance to call in experienced help from outside The campaign so much impressed the government which is surprising—and potentially dangerous. that it enacted laws regulating genetically manipu- This failure could cost such companies dearly in lated foodstuffs. An embittered Herr Rudolph: the future. “Now the farmers may foot the bill, and the pres- At the conference in the SAS Radison Hotel in sure groups have vanished into thin air!” Pioneer Brussels, attended by some seventy participants Saaten had to temporarily suspend the production from the corporate world and the PR industry, fear of modified grain. “We will try to explain things for the unknown prevails. The unpredictable better next time we apply for a license.” power of pressure groups, consumers, or even nor- According to Peter Verhille from the Entente PR mal citizens can take the shape of boycott cam- agency, the greatest threat to the corporate world’s paigns, but also of commuters on the (newly priva- reputation comes from the internet, the pressure tized) British Railways to move out from a train groups newest weapon. “A growing number of that has been canceled on short notice. The biggest multinational companies—such as McDonalds question remains unanswered: whose turn will it be and Microsoft—have been viciously attacked on NETTIME / LOCAL / PAGE 282 the Internet by unidentifiable opponents which satisfied with the results of this approach and illus- leave their victims in a desperate search for ade- trates this with some facts and statistics. quate countermeasures.” Http://www.shell.com receives over 1,100 emails The danger emanating from the new telecommu- a month, a full-time staff member answers all these nication media cannot be over-emphasized, says mails personally and within forty-eight hours; Mr. Verhille. “One of the major strengths of pres- there is no such thing as a standard reply. There sure groups—in fact the leveling factor in their are links to the sites of Shell’s competitors and confrontation with powerful companies—is their detractors, and also to progressive social organiza- ability to exploit the instruments of the telecom- tions (nothing there more radical than Friends of munication revolution. Their agile use of global the Earth or Greenpeace, but this aside). Shell also tools such as the Internet reduces the advantage allows opponents to air their views in forums- those that corporate budgets once provided.” His con- are uncensored. Not without pride, Simon May clusions made a hard impact on the participants of states that Shell is still the only multinational to do the conference. In fact most companies appear this.