:: E-Journals :: Corona College Of Education E-Resources

Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Oil Companies in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: Myth or Reality

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

African Research Review: An International

Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia

AFRREV Vol. 14 (1), Serial No 57, January, 2020: 119-132

ISSN 1994-9057 (Print) ISSN 2070-0083 (Online)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v14i1.11

Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Oil Companies

in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: Myth or Reality

Mbalisi, Onyeka Festus

Department of Adult and Non-Formal Education

Faculty of Education

University of Port Harcourt

E-mail: onyeka.mbalisi@uniport.edu.ng; onyipath@yahoo.com

Tel.: +234806 4184 036

Okorie, Christiana Uzoaru

Department of Adult and Non-Formal Education

Faculty of Education

University of Port Harcourt

Abstract

Niger Delta region of Nigeria is a home to many multinational oil companies with different

packages of corporate social responsibility (CSR) because of its huge natural resource reserve

especially of oil and gas. The CSR packages are designed to address social, economic and

environmental concerns of the indigenes of the Niger Delta region, arising from the oil and

gas operations of the multinational oil companies. The operational activities of the oil

companies over the years have led to the degradation of the Niger Delta environment with

consequent loss of livelihood sources, thereby triggering protests and other violent activities

in the region. The paper identified and analysed the indices of the components of the CSR

(social, economic and environmental components) packages using results-based management

framework to determine the impacts of the CSR projects and programmes on the people. The

analysis revealed that multinational oil companies release funds from a philanthropic

perspective for the execution of some social development projects/programmes, but these

projects/programmes do not address the welfare and livelihood needs of the people. This

means that the multinational oil companies operating in the region create an illusion of

compliance with social development and responsibility rules. The paper linked these

unfortunate situations (environmental degradation, insecurity, poverty, unemployment, etc)

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

119

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

found in the region today to failure of CSR implementation due to corruption, insincerity and

philanthropic approach of the oil companies and regard it as injustice to the people of Niger

Delta. It therefore concluded that CSR implementation in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria is

a myth and as a result recommended that Multinational oil companies should therefore

incorporate the people of the Niger Delta into the oil economy by enlisting household heads

into the payroll system of the multinational oil companies as well as engage sincerely in

projects that will lead to the development of the region, if protests and other violent activities

in the region must stop.

Key Words: Implementation, Corporate social responsibility, Environmental Resources,

Niger Delta, Multinational Oil Companies

Introduction

Niger Delta is situated in the south of Nigeria and centres on the natural delta of the River

Niger. It is a low-lying region within the continental shelf of the Atlantic Ocean in the

Southern part of Nigeria. Its ecology is characterised by a large area of floodplain which is

built up as a result of deposition and accumulation of sediments washed down for over 100

million years from the Benue and Niger Rivers (Francis, Lapin & Rossiasco, 2011).

According to Oghifo (2011), Niger Delta is Nigeria’s largest wetland region and is the third

largest wetland in the world covering over 70,000 square kilometers south of the Niger.

Oghifo (2011) revealed that the region is characterized by extensive interconnectivity of

creeks, deltaic tributaries, flood plains, mangrove swamps and other coastal features. He went

further to reveal that the region has been declared a key zone for the conservation of the

Western Coast of Africa on the basis of its highly rich oil and gas resources and extraordinary

biodiversity. It harbours a large reserve of oil and gas, family and species of wildlife and

fascinating variety of fishes and birds. To Tamuno (2011), Niger Delta officially stretches

from the Benin River in the West to the Old Calabar River in the East.

Socially, Niger Delta is made up of over 40 ethnic groups and a population of about 32

million people. The ethnic groups in the region include Ijaw, Urhobo, Itsekiri, Igbo, Yoruba,

Isoko, Ibibio, Efik, Annang, Oron, Efik, Okrika, Kalabari, Ikwerre, Bini, Ukwuanietc with

Ijaw as the largest. Because of its economic viability, people from other ethnic groups and

States of the country migrate into it in search of greener pastures. It is politically made up of

all the six States of the South-South geopolitical region of Nigeria which are Akwa Ibom,

Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo and Rivers; two States from the South-East geopolitical

region of Nigeria which are Abia and Imo States and one State from South-West geopolitical

region of Nigeria which is Ondo State. But, Bayelsa, Delta and Rivers States are referred to as

“Core” Niger Delta States by some political leaders on the argument that issues of neglect and

ecological pollution are most pronounced in these States than others. Niger Delta connotes

South-South region of Nigeria to many involved in this debate of definition.

Economically, the region is the most sensitive nerve-centre of Nigeria’s economy due to its

boundary with the Atlantic Ocean from the south (Tamuno, 2011). It is economically viable

because it houses many natural resources that are explored, exploited and exported out of the

country. Such resources include palm produce (palm oil and kernel) and currently the crude

oil and associated and non-associated gas. It is these characteristics of the region that made

Alamieyeseigha in Tamuno (2011) referred to it as the ‘Canaan’ of Nigeria- ‘a land flowing

with milk and honey’ and the ‘California’ of Nigeria- ‘the keeper of the well-being of our

dear country’. Nwaokugha (2015) also described it as the ‘key’ to Nigeria’s economic

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

120

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

prosperity. Presently, the revenue generated from the region through crude oil and natural gas

exploration and production constitutes 95% of the country’s foreign exchange earnings. These

characteristics made it a centre of attraction, thereby attracting many industries and human

beings, hence making it a beehive of activities ranging from industrial, manufacturing,

construction, trading, agricultural activities, etc.

These attractive characteristics, one would have assumed should have also made it a centre of

attraction in terms of sustainable development strides, including human and infrastructural

development and services. The amount of revenue generated in the region is not reflected in

the region in terms of its development. This is confirmed by Human Rights Watch (1999) as

they argued that changes in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria are not as profound as those

among the previously uncontacted peoples of the Amazon rainforest living in areas where oil

has been discovered. Oil and gas resources in the Niger Delta are explored and produced by

oil companies which are mainly multinational in origin.

Socio-Economic Conditions in Niger Delta

Natives of Niger Delta are predominantly farmers and fisherfolks. A few of them engage in

petty trading. This makes them to derive their livelihood from the water bodies (rivers, lakes,

ponds, streams, creeks, etc) and forest vegetation. The water bodies provide water for

drinking and seafoods such as fishes, shrimps, oysters, snails, crabs, periwinkles, etc which

the natives harvest, process, eat and sell to earn a living. The forest vegetation provides the

natives with wild fruits, games, snails, palm and raffia wine from which they also earn their

living. They also cultivate some upland part of the vegetation to produce crops such as yams,

cocoyam, cassava, corn, groundnut, plantain, sugarcane to earn a living. Human Rights Watch

(1999 p88) highlights the relevance of forest to the native of Niger Delta thus:

The forests of the Niger Delta of all types provide important sources of food and

income to local communities. Mangrove has over seventy major uses: non-

timber forest products collected from the mangrove forests include medicines,

dyes, thatching, and food species as diverse as monkeys or periwinkles. In the

freshwater swamp forests, raffia palm, mango, ogbono (bush mango; a common

food ingredient in the local diet and sold across Nigeria), land snails, and other

products are all significant. Destruction of “undeveloped” forest is thus as

important to local communities as destruction of cultivated land.

The natives enjoyed the natural environment and all the resources and services it provided

until the discovery of oil and gas and operational activities engaged by the multinational oil

companies. Operational activities of the multinational oil companies are prospecting,

exploration, drilling, production, storage, refining and transportation. These operational

activities at one stage and the other involve vegetation clearing, dynamiting, gas flaring, and

discharge of untreated effluents into the rivers or creeks. Sometimes, oil spills on swampy

vegetation, land, creeks and rivers.

These activities have had devastating effects on both the environment and natives of the Niger

Delta. Such effects include among others: degradation and depletion of water and coastal

resources, land degradation or pollution, air, noise and light pollution, biodiversity depletion,

lack of clean and drinking water, cracks on buildings, acid rain with its associated corrosion

of roof sheets, poor agricultural output, poor fish catch and loss of other sea foods, loss of

economic trees, deposit of black soot, health issues such as eye and respiratory problems etc.

The summary effect is loss of livelihood sources with loss of local economy, unemployment

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

121

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

and poverty as multiplier effects. These overwhelming effects of the devastation caused

through these activities by the multinational oil companies made Ken Saro Wiwa to accuse

multinational oil companies especially Shell of waging an ecological warfare against the

region and its inhabitants while others see it as a rape of the Niger Delta environment and

environmental holocaust (Awhefeada, 2017).

This declaration was made out of the conviction that oil generates a lot of wealth which does

not trickle down to the natives who bear the burden of operational activities leading to its

production. To buttress this view, Francis, Lapin and Sossiasco (2011) stated that “few

regions in the world have been as unfortunate as Nigeria’s oil rich Niger Delta. The Delta’s

abundant natural wealth stands in stark contrast to its palpable underdevelopment.” This

conviction stimulated a sense of injustice which led to the emergence of some groups, such as

Movement for the survival of Ogoni People led then by Ken Saro Wiwa which demanded for

the development of the region especially the Ogoni with wealth generated from the region.

Agitations for environmental justice championed by this group precipitated into violence

which to the death of many people especially the well-publicised Ogoni nine (9) who were

hanged by the then Late General Abacha’s Junta. The return of democracy in 1999 re-

awakened the demand for environmental justice from a resource control perspective. Demand

from this perspective was championed by the then governors of Akwa Ibom, Rivers, and

Delta States. Resource control according to Udoidem (2006) “is a process by which host

communities of resources and those with technological expertise in exploration and

exploitation mutually contribute to the resource management process”. At the height of the

controversy associated with resource control, Udoidem (2006, p.59) clarified thus:

Resource control is not about being given all the money that has accrued from

the oil and gas industry. It simply means being part of the process and being

fully aware of, and informed about what happens to the resources from the

immediate environment: the production and marketing procedures and how the

money is accounted.

In the midst of the resource control controversy, more violent and militant groups emerged.

They in addition to resource control, demanded for right to self-determination in the region.

The militant groups adopted violence as a strategy towards the expression of their grievances

due to decades of development neglect and injustice of not benefiting from their own

resources while they bear the brunt of negative consequences of the operational activities of

multinational oil companies. As a result, they indulge in oil bunkering and refining which

they sell to the local people. In some cases, they sell to international buyers and helped to

escorts the oil tankers out of Nigeria’s waterways having acquired sophisticated weapons with

which they do so. When confronted, a leader of one of the militant groups (Niger Delta

Peoples’ Volunteer Force), Alhaji Mujihad Asari Dokubo defended his activities and frowned

at being regarded as an illegal oil bunkerer. According to Tamuno in Mbalisi and Okorie

(2016, p.35), Asari Dokubo declared thus:

I am not an illegal oil bunkerer. I am taking what belongs to my people and

giving it back to them. How can petrol sell at N45 per litre in Abuja and Lagos

and today in Buguma and Nembe, it is sold at N200 per litre? This same oil I

am refining and selling it at N15 per litre in the riverine areas.

The amount of wealth amassed by these militant groups especially their leaders led to the

proliferation of more militant groups and recently cult groups who have succeeded in

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

122

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

establishing different bunkering territories, routes and points in the creeks and along the

pipelines from where they sell to their buyers (Naanen & Tolani, 2014). The militants and cult

groups also indulge in other crimes such as pipeline vandalism, sea piracy, kidnapping for

ransom, killings, etc.

One would sincerely say that the activities of the militant and cult groups have not provided

any solution to the neglect and injustice they accused multinational oil companies of. Their

activities instead worsened off the situation in the Niger Delta because more devastations

have taken place, more people have been made poor, lack of safe drinking water and the

people have suffered more injustice because they do not also enjoy the proceeds of the wealth

got through illegal oil bunkering by the militant and cult groups while their environment is

further degraded and are plunged further into misery and penury. The scenario as it plays out

in the Niger Delta region is an example of Hardin’s 1968 “tragedy of the commons” which

Adeyemo (2008) agreed with while citing overwhelming environmental degradation by way

of air, water and land pollution; ecological destruction and massive loss of biodiversity

resulting from uncontrolled and unregulated use of common resources. This scenario has

plunged the region into Theis and Tomkin’s (2012) new “Dark Age” of resource scarcity and

chronic conflict. These scenarios are attributed to failure of governance and corporate social

responsibility by government and multinational oil companies.

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Corporate social responsibility is a world view which holds that companies in a locality

should become part of locality where they operate and contribute towards the development of

that locality. The status of their contribution has remained controversial, whether it will be

obligatory owing to the fact that they make profit and generate burden that negatively impact

on the inhabitants of that locality or it will be voluntary. Following this line of argument

Idama (2017) posited that social responsibility rests upon the idea that business should be

conducted with concern for the effects of business operations upon the attainment of valued

social goals and companies have an obligation to consider society’s long-run needs and

wants, and that they should engage in activities which promote benefits for society and

minimize the negative effects of their actions.

Corporate social responsibility is also seen as a process to integrate social, environmental,

ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into business operations in close corporation

with the stakeholders (European Commission, 2011). Melanie (2009) identified features of

corporate social responsibility to include:

1. CSR is voluntary. That is companies are not mandated by any law to undertake any

responsibility. It therefore goes beyond legal compliance.

2. CSR focuses on the triple bottom line, which means that economic, social and

environmental impacts are integrated.

3. CSR is applied to core business activities, not only as an add-on to business activities.

Fiel, Haidvogl and Melanie in Melanie (2009) saw CSR as corporate governance

contributions, which is defined as sustained corporate policies and activities that work

towards the development or implementation of collectively binding norms and rules or the

provision of collective goods. This view suggests that companies can take up governance

responsibilities in their host communities where government actors have failed as

communities would demand compensation, health services, educational opportunities,

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

123

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

infrastructure, and socio-economic development directly from companies as surrogates for an

absent or neglectful government (Melanie, 2009). This practice serves as a means through

which companies acquire a local social license to operate, hence an investment in their future

operation (Francis, Lapin & Sossiasco, 2011). Following this position, they described

corporate social responsibility as an obligation and one of the costs of doing business and not

a philanthropy. Newell and Raynard in Idama (2017) advised multinational oil companies to

act responsibly by way of giving back to the society especially in their areas of operation if

they must succeed as corporate organisations.

Corporate Social Responsibilities of Multinational Oil Companies in the Niger Delta

Region

Nigeria’s oil company, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), does not have

capacity and indigenous expertise to develop Nigeria’s oil reserve. The federal government

contracts oil production with international oil companies, and takes a percentage of the

revenue accrued from oil production. This is done through joint ventures with the Nigerian

National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The distribution of shares in a joint venture

determines the division of investment in all capital projects carried out by the operating

company, including exploration, drilling, construction, or environmental improvements; the

participating shareholders also jointly own the reserves still in the ground. The multinational

companies operate these joint ventures, and take all day-to-day decisions in their management

(Human Rights Watch, 1999). Human Rights Watch (1999) identifies six major multinational

oil companies, which operate the joint ventures in accordance to their joint venture shares to

include:

1. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC): The joint

venture is composed of NNPC (55 percent), Shell (30 percent), Elf (10 percent) and

Agip (5 percent) and operates largely onshore on dry land or in the mangrove swamp;

2. Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL): A joint venture between NNPC (60 percent) and

Chevron (40 percent) has in the past been the second largest);

3. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (MPNU): A joint venture between NNPC (60

percent) and Mobil (40 percent).

4. Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (NAOC): A joint venture operated by Agip and

owned by NNPC (60 percent), Agip (20 percent) and Phillips Petroleum (20 percent);

5. Elf Petroleum Nigeria Limited (EPNL): A joint venture between NNPC (60 percent)

and Elf (40 percent); and

6. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company of Nigeria Unlimited (TOPCON): A joint

venture operated by Texaco and owned by NNPC (60 percent), Texaco (20 percent)

and Chevron (20 percent).

Other foreign oil companies involved in oil exploration and production in Nigeria include

B.P, Statoil, Total, Pan Ocean, British Gas, Tenneco, Deminex, and Sun Oil.

Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) is used here as a representative of other

multinational oil companies operating in the Niger Delta region in the discussion of corporate

social responsibilities of the multinationals. The choice of Shell was informed by the

following attributes according to Human Rights Watch (1999); Anshaj (2018) and Melanie

(2009):

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

124

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

1. Shell is the biggest oil producer in Nigeria with the longest history, dominating the

industry for as long as oil has been produced and in the early days enjoying a

monopoly and a privileged relationship with government;

2. Shell’s facilities are largely in or near inhabited areas and thus exposed to community

protests;

3. All the oil companies undertake similar projects as their corporate social

responsibilities. Their areas of coverage include health care, education, infrastructure,

agricultural development; youth development, economic empowerment and business

development; and

4. Shell comes to the mind of everybody first when issues concerning multinational oil

companies arises due to its current and historical dominant position in Nigeria.

Shell was given an exclusive right for oil exploration and production in Nigeria in 1937. In

1956, Shell discovered crude oil at Oloibiri in Bayelsa State and began commercial

production of oil in 1958 (Human Rights Watch, 1999; Burger, 2011; Anochie & Mgbemena,

2015). Shell has 90 oil fields, 1000 producing wells, 72 flow stations, 10 gas plants and two

major oil export terminals in Nigeria. Its networks of flowlines and pipelines extend more

than 6,000 kilometers (Burger, 2011). The discovery of oil changed the prosperity narratives

of Nigeria as it becomes the major source of Nigeria’s wealth, foreign exchange earnings and

determines the annual budget of the nation. These advantages are not without a cost. The cost

is expressed by Burger (2011 p4) in the following words:

Exploring and producing oil and gas is a risky business. The benefits of

plentiful fuel and power, and the jobs and incomes it provides are substantial.

They also come with costs, ones that are not necessarily seen or felt

immediately or even during one person’s lifetime. They are ultimately

economic in nature, but are more completely viewed and appreciated in terms of

costs to human and environmental health and safety, and their sustainability.

The prosperity narratives according to Idama (2017) turned into nightmare as socio-economic

development expected to be achieved through the oil wealth was exchanged for

environmental degradation and consequently, loss of livelihood sources of the oil-bearing

communities. This triggered crisis between the oil-bearing communities and multinational oil

companies, especially Shell in the Niger Delta region. Attempts towards addressing the

problems led to the development of corporate social responsibility initiatives by the

multinational oil companies.

Shell developed General Business Principles in 1976 with the current edition revised in 2014,

which determines standards for its operations and relationships with its host countries and

communities. As part of the Business Principles, Shell claims that it balances short- and long-

term interests, integrating economic, environmental and social considerations into business

decision-making. To this effect, Shell says that it is her responsibility to give proper regard to

health, safety, security and quality environment to society where it operates. Shell went

further to declare that “we continually look for ways to reduce the environmental impact of

our operations, products and services” and “we manage the social impacts of our business

activities carefully and work with others to enhance the benefits to local communities, and to

mitigate any negative impacts from our activities.”In fulfilling these obligations as enshrined

in its General Business Principles, Shell pays all taxes and royalties to Nigeria’s Federation

Account, contributes 3% of its annual budget to Niger Delta Development Commission

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

125

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

(NDDC), an interventionist agency saddled with the responsibility of ensuring sustainable

development of the region.

In addition to this, Shell developed a Social Investment Scheme through which it intervenes

in the provision of infrastructure and services to uplift and better the lives of people in the

region. The scheme focuses on enterprise development (Shell LiveWIRE which is Shell’s

flagship youth enterprise development programme that provides training and finance to young

people between the ages of 18-35 to start or expand their own businesses); education (cradle-

to-career scholarships, university scholarships, school infrastructural development, centres of

excellence, professorial share programme, and sabbatical and internship programme); health

(health-in-motion community care programme, community health insurance scheme, health

care infrastructural development); access to energy (community lighting, power generation,

and small-scale grid infrastructure projects); and provision of social infrastructure (water and

power supply improvement, construction of market stalls, roads, sanitation and community

centres) (Shell, 2018; 2019). Shell in its various reports states that it spent $60.2 million on

social investment projects in 2017 and $239 on social investment funds since its inception in

2006.Shell’s 2017 Sustainability Report reveals that Shell contributed $109.9 million to Niger

Delta Development Commission (NDDC) in 2017.

These amounts may be huge as quoted, but the question remains if the investments were able

to cater for the welfare and livelihood needs of the people of Niger Delta. It is against this

background that this study was designed to focus on the extent to which Shell is committed

towards the implementation of its social investment scheme as an effort geared towards the

achievement of the CSR components of its General Business Principles. This will go a long

way in examining and establishing the sincerity of Shell towards the development of the

Niger Delta communities and resolving oil-instigated crisis in the region.

Critique of Shell’s corporate Social Responsibility Implementation in the Niger Delta

Region

This critique is based on data got from rich literature available on the Niger Delta region.

Data was got from Shell General Business Principles and other official reports. The authors

also depended on their personal engagements, observations and experiences as residents in the

region. The authors looked at Shell’s expenditure on its social investment scheme through the

lens of result-based management (RBM) framework in order to establish the extent to which

the social investment scheme is able to cater for the welfare and livelihood needs of the

people of Niger Delta.

Results-Based Management (RBM) is used to describe a philosophy that focuses on achieving

results. That is, tangible changes. Results-Based Management (RBM) is a management

strategy that focuses on performance and the achievement of results (outputs, outcomes and

impacts).The aim of RBM is to manage an intervention while trying to ensure its relevance,

efficiency, effectiveness, impact and other quality criteria.RBM provides a structured, logical

model for identifying expected results and the inputs and activities needed to accomplish

them (International Council of Red Cross (ICRC), 2008). Basic terminologies in RBM

according to UNDP (2000) and International Council of Red Cross (2008) include the

following:

1. Inputs are resources required to achieve expected results, e.g experts, equipment, funds,

etc;

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

126

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

2. Outputs are the specific products and services which emerge from processing inputs

through programme or non-programme activities. Outputs, therefore, relate to the

completion (rather than the conduct) of activities (UNDP, 2000) e.g people trained,

studies completed, etc;

3. Outcomes are the likely or achieved medium-term effects of an intervention’s outputs.

Outcomes are the second level of results. You have less control over outcomes than

over outputs, but they are essential because they represent the tangible changes you are

trying to bring about in your work; and

4. Impacts are the primary and secondary long-term effects of an intervention, be they

positive or negative, direct or indirect, intended or unintended. Impacts are the third

level of results. They make up the “big picture” of the changes that you are working

towards but that your activities alone may not achieve. Impacts represent the

underlying goal of your work and justify the intervention.

5. Results are the effects of an intervention. Such effects can be intended or unintended,

positive or negative.

In application of this framework to evaluate the impact of Shell’s social investment Scheme,

we will have the following representations:

1. Inputs represent funds released in various years by Shell for social investment

schemes, partnering NGOs and international organisations, experts and consultants

hired by Shell for trainings in various components of the social investment scheme;

2. Expected Outputs should include:

i. development of water treatment facilities, sinking of boreholes, for regular

supply of portable water etc;

ii. construction of gas and hydro power plants for electricity generation;

iii. construction of clinics and other health facilities as well as supply of health care

materials and equipment;

iv. construction and renovation of classroom blocks, hostels, libraries and supply of

other educational materials such books, pens, desks, tables, as well as award of

scholarships etc;

v. training of indigenes especially youths in various life skills;

vi. provision of transport facilities and services

3. Expected Outcomes should include:

i. regular supply of portable water;

ii. regular supply of electricity;

iii. access to healthcare services;

iv. access to educational opportunities;

v. employment generation;

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

127

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

4. Expected Impacts should include:

i. increased productivity and earnings;

ii. increase family income and nutrition;

iii. improved standard of living;

iv. improved health conditions;

v. improved education and increased literacy rate;

vi. reduction in child mortality;

vii. increase in life expectancy rate;

viii. end of extreme hunger and poverty;

ix. end of oil-related protests and occupation of oil facilities and installations;

x. end of militancy and cultism and their associated criminal activities such as

pipeline vandalism, killings, kidnappings, illegal oil bunkering and refining, etc;

xi. improved peace, cohesion and security.

All the funds released by Shell for social investment scheme and other community

development programmes should translate into the above expected results. It is disheartening

to know that despite the huge amounts released by Shell, these impacts are not felt in the

region rather the region is characterised with people in penury, degraded environment,

insecurity, illegal oil bunkering and refining, unemployment, high illiteracy rate, poor

healthcare services, poor sanitary conditions, lack of drinkable water, etc. This made the

region to be seen as a clear definition of the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. This

paradox generates allegations of various degrees against Shell and other multinational oil

companies over the implementation of their various socially responsible development

initiatives. Shell and other multinational oil companies have been alleged for the following:

i. injustice;

ii. corruption;and

iii. philanthropy.

Allegation of Injustice

Shell and other multinational oil companies are alleged of exploring the oil resources and

generating so much wealth from it and as a result destroying the environment thereby

destroying the sources of livelihood of the people of the delta without giving them any

opportunity of benefiting from the oil wealth. Oil Change International (2017) cited a

protester during the first eleven days of Belema Oil Field occupation as saying “we are not

benefiting from the region’s oil wealth and we want an end to the oil pollution that has ruined

much of our land.” Another protester was cited as saying “I am a graduate for about eight

years without a job. Shell won’t employ me despite us having so much wealth in our

backyard.”Awhefeada (2017) discredited the content of Shell corporate social responsibilities

as published in one of the national newspapers. According to him,

What Shell published as its corporate social responsibility deserves to be pooh-

poohed for it is a mere sham to hoodwink the public. Shell has raked in

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

128

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

uncountable trillions in dollars since it struck oil in the Niger Delta six decades

ago. Shell should lead the remediation of the Niger Delta environment, build

schools and hospitals and roads and provide electricity and give the people all the

things that make life worth living as oil producing people as Shell has done in the

western World.

In corroboration of Awhefeada’s claims, Ebegbulem and Ekpe in Albert, Amaratunga and

Haigh (2018) reveal that oil spillages in the unique Niger Delta states cause extensive social

underdevelopment which engrosses lack of social amenities, physical infrastructure, piped

water, schools, hospitals, and employment opportunities, despite the huge benefit of crude oil

product with or without oil spills on the Nigerian national economy. Albert, Amaratunga and

Haigh (2018) exclaim that “instead of an increase in social and economic conditions through

contributions from the by-products of crude oil, the reverse is the case, as loss of sources of

livelihood from the disaster has caused great unemployment.”

Allegation of Corruption

Shell has been accused of some practices which was buttressed in the revelation in the Sunday

London Times in 1995 of a European Shell Executive who was quoted anonymously by

Human Rights watch (1999) as saying “we spent more money on bribes and corruption than

on community development projects. Local contractors, often traditional leaders, in turn take

their own percentages before passing a share of the benefit of the oil money to their own

supporters and so down the chain. A small elite in each oil producing community thus

becomes rich and is prepared to tolerate the inconveniences of oil company presence such as

environmental pollution for the sake of continued financial gain” (Human Right Watch,

1999). This is the reason Shell is accused of “divide and rule,” paying perceived “trouble-

makers,” and creating elite groups in their host communities in order to have their way and

not effectively execute their corporate social responsibilities. This leads to either executing

projects which do not conform to the approved specification or abandonment of projects.

Christian Aid in Melanie (2009 p19) supports this claim as they reveal that “corporate

development work has had some good results but failed, incomplete and unsustainable

projects have become Delta landmarks. White elephants-empty clinics and schools lacking

staff are visible throughout the region.”Naanem and Tolani (2014) revealed in their study that

development projects in the oil-producing communities in the Niger Delta region have either

been diverted or abandoned, often as a result of corruption. They maintain that this practice is

the source of grouse in the region against Shell and often used to substantiate claims of

neglect and justifying hacking of pipelines for self-help. They went further to reveal that581

CSR projects undertaken by Shell between 1992 and 2006 which represent more than 22

percent of the projects they surveyed either failed or were not completed.

Accusation of Philanthropy

Idama (2017) sees Shell’s activities in social investment scheme as a philanthropic gesture

and not corporate social responsibility since Shell in their various reports posits that they are

licensed to operate by the federal government of Nigeria and have complied with all relevant

tax laws and other financial obligations to government and their voluntary actions should be

seen from the philanthropic consideration. This is further explained by Shell’s International

Relations Officer as contained in Shell Dialogue Series cited by Burger (2011). The officer

says “Shell contributes to the Nigerian economy by generating revenues for government as

well as paying taxes and royalties. Shell companies in Nigeria pay a statutory contribution to

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

129

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

a regional developmental agency- the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) to

develop the Niger Delta.” This statement is a defense Shell always put forth for not engaging

in corporate social responsibilities in the Niger Delta region and it appears in almost every

Shell’s official document indicating social development activities of Shell. Melanie (2009)

concludes his study by stating that “by taking local laws as a point of reference, companies do

not voluntarily contribute to governance in the region, though Shell, Staoil and Exxon Mobil

have all environmental policies in place but the implementation remains unclear and

disputed.” This is the reason Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Kogi, Anambra states are among the states

that benefitted from Shell’s social investment programme as contained in Shell’s Social

Investment Report of 2019. This justifies the allegation of philanthropism being levelled

against Shell and other multinational oil companies operating in the Niger Delta region of

Nigeria.

Conclusion

Protests which started since 1990’s and demand for incorporation into the oil economy in lieu

of their destroyed sources of local economy are glaring facts that development programmes

and projects under social investment scheme of Shell are not accepted by communities as a

sufficient compensation for the oil taken from their land and for degradation due to oil

exploration and production. OML 25 (Belema) Oil Field is still being occupied by the

indigenes of Belema community in Kula Kingdom in Asari Toru L.G.A of Rivers State till

today since 2017. The people have demanded that Shell should hand it over to Belema Oil

Producing Nigeria Limited, an indigenous company owned by an indigene of that community

whom they believed would take care of development of the community through the proceed

of oil explored and produced from the community. Niger Delta people believe that

multinational oil companies operating in the region have no intention of engaging in the

development of the region rather they created elite groups which benefit substantially from

the oil wealth while a great mass of the people languish in penury occasioned by the

destruction of their livelihood sources through the activities of multinational oil companies.

Multinational oil companies should therefore incorporate the people of the Niger Delta into

the oil economy by enlisting household heads into the payroll system of the multinational oil

companies as well as engage sincerely in projects that will lead to the development of the

region. This is the core reason for protests which have become endemic in the region. All the

arguments in this paper with their revealing evidences show that Shell and other multinational

oil companies engage in philanthropic gestures where they donate money to good causes at

the end of their financial years in the name of corporate social responsibility. Therefore,

implementation of corporate social responsibility by the multinational oil companies in the

Niger Delta Region is a myth and not a reality.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

130

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

References

Adeyemo, A. M. (2008). Environmental policy failure in Nigeria and the tragedy of

underdevelopment of Niger Delta region. Inaugural Lecture Series 63: University of

Port Harcourt.

Albert, O.N., Amaratunga, D, & Haigh, R.P. (2018). Evaluation of the impacts of oil spill

disaster on communities and its influence on restiveness in Niger Delta, Nigeria.

Procedia Engineering, 212, 1054-1061.

Anochie, U.C. & Mgbemena, O. O. (2015). Evaluation of some oil companies in the Niger

Delta region of Nigeria: An environmental impact approach. International Journal of

Environment and Pollution Research, 3 (2), 13-31.

Anshaj, U. (2018). A SWOT analysis of Shell Nigeria and the role of its business environment

towards CSR. Seminar for Master Development Economics and International Studies,

Institute of Economics, Friedrich-Alexander Universitat, Erlangen-Nurnberg.

Awhefeada, S. (2017). That Shell’s claim of social corporate responsibility. Available at

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/05/shells-claim-social-corporate-responsibility/

Burger, A. (2011). Shell in Nigeria: Oil, gas, development and corporate social responsibility.

Availableathttps://www.triplepundit.com/story/2011/shell-nigeria-oil-gas-development-

corporate-social-responsibility/75266

European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for corporate social

responsibility.

Available

athttp://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServe.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF

Francis, P., Lapin, D. & Rossiasco, P. (2011). Securing development and peace in the Niger

Delta: A social and conflict analysis for change. Wood Wilson International Center for

Scholars.

Human Right Watch (1999). The price of oil: Corporate responsibility and human rights

violations in Nigeria’s oil producing communities. Human Rights Watch.

Idama, S.O. (2017). Corporate social responsibility: Assessment of Shell Petroleum

Development Company of Nigeria’s compliance in Delta State 2010-2017.

Unpublished Manuscript; University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

International Council of Red Cross (2008). Programme/project management: The results-

based approach. International Council of Red Cross.

Mbalisi, O. F. & Okorie, C. U. (2016). Environmental adult education: A key to achieving

environmental justice and sustainability in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Journal of

Technical and Science Education, 19 (1), 25-38.

Melanie, Z. M. A. (2009). Oil companies in Nigeria: Still fuelling violent conflict or

contributing to governance. A paper presented to ECPR Joint Sessions in Lisbon,

Portugal from April 14 to 19, 2009.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

131

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Naanen, B. & Tolani, P. (2014). Private gain, public disaster: Social context of illegal

bunkering and artisanal refining in the Niger Delta. Port Harcourt, Nigeria: Panam

Nigeria.

Nwaokugha, D. O. (2015). Providing education for mitigating climate change in the Niger

delta Region of Nigeria. Sacha Journal of Environmental Studies, 5(1), 36-49.

Oghifo, O. T. (2011). Gas flaring/power plants in Nigeria: Socio-economic and

environmental impact on the people of Niger Delta. Universitet I Nordland;

Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

Oil Change International (2017). Protesters continue to defy Shell by occupying plant in

Nigeria. Oil Change International.

Shell (2014). Shell general business principles. Shell.

Shell (2018). Our activities in Nigeria: Shell sustainability report 2017. Shell.

Shell (2019). Shell in Nigeria: Social investment. Shell.

Tamuno, T.N. (2011). Oil wars in the Niger Delta 1849-2009. Ibadan, Nigeria: Stirling-

Horden Publishers.

Theis, T. & Tomkin, J. (2012). Sustainability: A comprehensive foundation. Houston-Texas,

USA: Connexions.

Udoidem, S. I. (2006). The philosopher in the market place: Reflections on the future of

Nigeria. Inaugural Lecture Series 49: University of Port Harcourt.

UNDP (2000). Results based management: Concept and methodology. UNDP.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

132