Oil as One of the Major Sources of Energy - Case Study Example

 Are Oil Multinational Companies in Developing Countries Socially Responsible? A Case Study of Shell in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Abstract Oil is one of the major sources of energy in the world and it is also a multibillion industry for most oil companies. It is however an enterprise which presents many dangers to the environment and to affected communities. This paper is being undertaken in order to determine whether or not oil multinational companies in developing countries are socially responsible. This is a case study focused on the effects of Shell Company in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. This study established that Shell is not acting in a socially responsible manner in the Niger Delta. It has carried out its activities in the area far different from the standards it has used in developed nations. It has carried out environmentally destructive activities which has damaged the flora and fauna in the region. It has cost the people their livelihood and their source of sustenance. It has created political unrest as well as human rights violations in the region. Because of Shell’s blatant disregard of the principles of corporate social responsibility, Nigeria remains one of the most impoverished and underdeveloped regions of the world. Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................... 5 Discussion............................................................................................................................. 5 Corporate social responsibility (elements)............................................................... 5 Corporate social responsibility double standards..................................................... 8 Social and environmental auditing........................................................................... 9 Stakeholder theory.................................................................................................... 11 Environmental sustainability..................................................................................... 14 1. Oil spills......................................................................................................... 15 2. Gas flaring..................................................................................................... 16 3. Environmental impact................................................................................... 17 Strategic Philanthropy............................................................................................... 18 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 20 Reference............................................................................................................................... 21 Abbreviations CSR Corporate Social Responsibility NGO Non-government Organizations BP British Petroleum UAE United Arab Emirates EIA Environmental Impact Assessment PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome UNDP United Nations Development Programme Introduction Oil is one of the major sources of energy supplying most industries, enterprises, and activities around the world. It is also one of the most controversial sources of energy due to the danger it often potentially causes to the environment and to the principles of social responsibility. The current issue with the Gulf oil spill is just one of these issues which imply the delicacy of oil as a source of energy. The millions of dollars in profits which oil multinational corporations make from the industry is a major motivation for these companies to continue to consider this enterprise as a source of energy. The current control and regulations in relation to corporate social responsibility help manage the impact of the oil industry in many developed nations. However, these same control measures are not as strictly complied with in developing nations. With these disparities in implementation, this paper shall seek to answer whether or not oil multinational companies in developing countries are socially responsible. This paper will consider its discussion along the lines of the elements of the environmental and social impact of the oil industry on developing countries. It shall concentrate its analysis on the Shell Company in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria – seeking to assess the company’s practices in the region in relation to the environment and the society in general. This paper is being undertaken in the hope of establishing a comprehensive analysis and understanding of oil companies and their general corporate social responsibility practices. Discussion Corporate social responsibility: elements Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the crucial demands for doing business in the current industrialized economy. It is a concept which mainly speaks of “a commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources”1. It is about tempering the impact of corporate business practices on the society and on the environment – from where businesses often draw out their resources. Corporate social responsibility is a tall order for most corporations because it is often difficult and costly for corporations to comply with. And yet, it is often the standard by which the government, interest groups, and the general public determine their patronage of corporate products and services. There are different elements by which corporate social responsibility is measured. A discussion from one of the University of Miami papers set forth elements which are seen in most discussions and analysis of corporate social responsibility. These elements include: social and environmental auditing, stakeholder theory, business ethics, environmental sustainability, strategic philanthropy, and corporate governance2. Social and environmental auditing is the audit or assessment done by the corporation in order to measure its impact on the society and on the environment3. This audit is used to measure the corporation’s activities in relation to the society and the environment against the standards that it has set as a corporation in different aspects of governance. In this case, the impact of Shell to the environment and the society in Nigeria is the basis for this aspect of CSR. In relation to the stakeholders, these are individuals or groups of individuals which are often affected by the activities of a corporation4. In this case, the stakeholders would involve the people of Nigeria; the local and national officials of Nigeria; the Nigerian labourers involved in the extraction of oil from the delta; those who are displaced by the oil explorations; the shareholders in the corporation; and the local villagers in the immediate vicinity of the oil plant. Business ethics is yet another aspect of CSR. It refers to the standards or the manual by which the corporation runs its business. It identifies the duties which the businessmen have – which the laws or the rules of the game5. For this case, business ethics refers to the laws and the policies which Shell is obliged to follow in its governance. Environmental sustainability is one of the most crucial aspects of corporate social responsibility. More often than not, it is the gauge by which social responsibility is actually measured among oil corporations. Environmental sustainability is related to how well a corporation works to prevent or diminish its impact to the environment; how well it protects the environment before, during, and after its operations; and how it disposes its wastes, conserves energy, and produces safe products and services6. In this case, environmental sustainability would refer to how well Shell has managed and minimized the environmental impact of its operations in the Niger Delta region. Strategic philanthropy in corporate social responsibility refers to the activities of the corporation which focuses on strategies and competencies which help effect social change7. This relates to charitable activities which the corporation engages in as its contributions to help implement social change. In this case, this would refer to the activities in which the Shell Corporation has engaged in order to implement and contribute social change to the Nigeria and the Niger Delta region. Corporate governance is also another element of corporate social responsibility. It particularly refers to the act of making “better decisions for the long term health of the company”8. It is how the corporation manages its business based on its particular operations. In this case, this would relate to how the Shell Corporation has made its decisions for its shareholders and for the corporation in general, including its transparency and auditing practices. Corporate social responsibility double standards The application of corporate social responsibility has shifted in the past few years. While its practice has been strictly complied with in many developed nations due to stringent policies imposed by developed nations, there seems to be a significant gap between policy and application in the developing nations. Just recently, interest groups in India expressed their outrage over President Barack Obama’s statements and stance against BP over the recent oil spill in the Gulf Coast9. Their outrage was based on their own disgust over the Bhopal disaster in their country caused by a US-pesticide company which caused the death of about 15,000 individuals10. In 2001, an Anglo-Dutch company, Unilever was called to task by NGOs in India for their mercury-dumping activities in India11. Interestingly enough, their operations in the Netherlands imposed the ban on the use and the dumping of mercury wastes in the factory premises. The company has managed to protect its workers in the Netherlands from exposure to mercury and yet it still continues its manufacture of mercury thermometers in India12. Again, this is an apparent double standard policy in the practice of corporate social responsibility. The difference here is seen in the diminished concern and application of the standards of corporate social responsibility in the developing countries. This disparity is also seen among oil companies like British Petroleum and the Shell Corporation in their base of operations in the developing countries like Nigeria, Angola (BP-Amoco and Chevron-Texas), South Africa (BP-Amoco and Shell), Chad (Petronas), Congo (ExxonMobil), and other developing nations around the globe in relation to other oil corporations. The particular details about the Shell Corporation’s corporate practices in the Niger Delta region in Nigeria shall now be discussed in the pages following. The elements of corporate social responsibility shall be used to assess the difference or gaps in the practice of CSR in Nigeria as compared to the corporation’s standards in the developed nations. Social and environmental auditing Based on Shell’s report, they are quick to highlight that in order to temper their social impact on the developed nation of United Arab Emirates, they have set-up social investment programmes in order to benefit the countries and the communities where they are currently operating13. They have also opened various community welfare initiatives and projects which have been designed to improve skills and knowledge; to contribute to community development and social cohesion; to assist in the resolution of health, environment and safety-related concerns; and to assist in the enterprise development and capacity building in the communities they serve14. In order to lessen their environmental impact in the UAE, the Shell Corporation has managed to carry about 40 million tonnes of cargo without any oil spill incidents in the area15. They have also been reducing the amount of oil products they have spilled by implementing control measures and by managing corrosion and operational failures16. They have also been reducing their emission of local pollutants through their investments in cleaner-burner equipment and sulphur-dioxide capture technology17. They have also managed to reduce their use of water by coming up with technology in order to avoid their use of fresh water from the immediate areas of their plants18. Most of these measures are also in place in other developed nations like Australia, Canada, and the United States. Shell has managed to lessen its social and environmental impact on these developed countries because of these measures and corporate practices. The same cannot be said for their practices in the developing countries, most especially the Niger Delta region in Nigeria. The area in the Niger Delta in Nigeria primarily affected by the Shell oil operations is considered to be land owned by different tribes and communities. During the start of its operations in the area, Shell was very promising in its statements about a better life for the people in the region. However, after more than 50 years in operation, the area it inhabits remains impoverished. The area’s only hospital remains to be unfinished and the schools are rarely opened19. Some of the known social figures in the area remark that Shell is more concerned with making its plans to develop the area, but not much actual action to implement these plans have been seen. Moreover, interest groups like Amnesty International claim that Shell is also influencing the Nigerian government to carry out violent activities against some of the affected communities20. These activities are just one among the many incidents which show the stark disparity in the actions of Shell in the developed countries as compared to its activities in the developing countries. The social and political liberties it has taken in the Niger Delta are liberties which the corporation has hardly shown or manifested in developed nations. Irresponsible corporate practices have also been seen in how the corporation has managed its environmental impact in the Niger Delta. Activities like flaring of gas, poor pipeline replacement, chronic oil spills, and unlined toxic waste pits remain rampant in the region21. The corporation itself acknowledges that it has problems in its pipelines, however, it claims to be addressing these problems and that the environmental activists are merely exaggerating their claims of environmental destruction of the region22. An assessment of more detailed accounts in the areas affected by the Shell oil plants however indicate otherwise. The discussion on environment sustainability shall detail these deplorable practices. Stakeholder theory In their Australian operations, Shell is also quick to point out that it takes into consideration the concerns of the stakeholders by ensuring that, in general, no harm comes to people23. They also consider the culture of the surrounding community and other industry participants in order to ensure that healthy, safe, and secure policies are in place in their oil operations24. In other developed nations, they emphasize that they make it a point to listen to the local communities and the society in general. This concern for stakeholders was also manifest in their German operations which indicated how well they listen to the local communities, noting their complaints in noise and pollution, and consulting with them on how these concerns can be resolved25. In the Niger Delta region, the same concern for their stakeholders is not seen. In fact, a seeming disregard for the concerns of the stakeholders is apparent in the Shell Niger delta issue. Based on the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), the local communities report that when regional exploration increased in their region, the Federal Government of Nigeria also allowed the acquisition of land through the 1978 Land Use Act26. This acquisition was carried out without consultation or compensation in favour of the local communities. “Crude oil from the region had been exported since at least 1972, so the four Gbarain and Ekpetiama clans have played host to Shell and SPDC for more than 35 years. But like many Niger Delta communities, the clans consider that they have nothing to show for the many years of oil exploration”27. New wells which were dug for the corporation did not undergo public scrutiny and EIA reports were not made available to the local communities, not even to their local leaders28. The EIA reports also did not consider the social and health impacts as mandated by Nigerian laws. Moreover, the protection of ecologically sensitive areas has been ignored by Shell Corporation. It can also be noted that the access road to one of the processing facilities have been passed through a community forest which has been known for its biodiversity and for housing sacred sites, and for serving as breeding grounds for various aquatic species29. Pipelines have also been passed through community settlements and these pipelines and access roads have not undergone the proper consultation process with the communities affected. The actual EIA reports do not even indicate or reflect the actual status of the affected communities. In 2003, another EIA report was formulated by Shell, and the local communities rejected this report as, once again, it did not present the actual situation in the Niger Delta region. Moreover, the local communities were not represented and consulted in the formulation of the EIA report. One of the local community leaders was even allegedly included in the report as representing the community, however, he was not ever consulted and made part of the formulation of the EIA report30. Many of the communities demanded that the corporation comply with its core value of ‘respect for the people’ which it often bandied about in its corporate dealings31. These pleas fell on deaf ears. Instead, resettlement and compensation for affected communities were not set in place. For those who were resettled, they were not given the freedom to choose relocation sites. Participatory Rural Appraisal was also often carried out haphazardly, with officers only spending a few days of visits in a village; and some officers just leaving questionnaires for the villagers to answer32. Inadequate PRAs have also been seen in the local communities. The corporation has been known to be selective about its implementation of its development activities. For example, promises of electrification may start off with the erection of poles but then fail to continue with the wiring and installation33. An appraisal of the impact of the presence of unmarried contractors working in the oil processing plants have also caused an increase in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS34. These above circumstances indicate how stakeholders in the local communities affected by the Shell oil processing plants in the Niger Delta region have been ignored by the corporation. It is once again, in stark contrast to the corporation’s practices in relation to CSR as seen in developed nations. Where the corporation actively seeks to comply with stakeholder demands and requirements in developed nations, it blatantly ignores and circumvents these same concerns in developing countries. Environmental sustainability In terms of environmental sustainability, the Shell Corporation has implemented various environmentally sustainable activities in various developing countries. These activities include: reduction of level of greenhouse gas emissions up to 35% based on 1990 levels; establishment of water recycling plant in Australia; establishment of first CO2 carbon and capture project in Germany; collaboration with Wetlands International for biodiversity conservation; completion of biodiversity action plans to protect ecosystems rich in biodiversity; launching conservation of fuel programs and activities; launching of reduction of carbon emission programs; pumping of CO2 to nearby greenhouses in the Netherlands, thereby helping tomatoes to grow; ending continuous venting of natural gas in their oil processing operations; and introducing biodiversity programs35. Comparing the above activities implemented in the developed nations, once again, we see different standards set in the company’s operations in the Niger Delta. Some incidents which negate activities in relation to environmental sustainability have already been discussed. But there are more violations of environmental sustainability activities which would be detailed in this analysis. These are now detailed below. 1. Oil spills Oil spills in the Niger Delta region due to the operations of the Shell oil company have been reported to be at significant levels according to the Oil Spill Intelligence Report prepared by Greenpeace International36. The report covers a 10-year spill record in Nigeria. Shell oil spill is revealed to be at a total of 7.4 million litres; and forty percent of their total worldwide spills are in Nigeria37. The oil spill continues to contaminate a stream which is used by the Ogoni farmers; the same stream is also their main water supply38. One of the members of the Greenpeace reported that “the air stinks. The few fish left from spills before it are dying. Vegetation is coated with oil, then killed by oil”39. The Niger Delta is considered to be the catchment area for 20 rivers and close to six million individuals depend on the Delta’s rich fishing grounds and agricultural lands for their income and sustenance40. And yet, these rivers are now contaminated by the oil spills and the corporation is not doing anything to control or clean up the oily mess. Many residents also complain about the high pressure pipelines which run directly through their villages, as these pipes literally litter their doorsteps41. They also point out that all vegetation in the region – most especially the Mangrove swamps – are now dying because of the oil residues running through the river systems. Many of them rely on these vegetations and Mangroves for their sustenance and income. Moreover, the environmental diversity and balance in this region has long been compromised, with many of the plant and fish species being eradicated. 2. Gas Flaring Gas flaring in the Niger Delta region has also risen to alarming levels. Their increased oil production in recent years has made Nigeria the world’s biggest gas flarer with about 2 - 2.5 billion scf a day being flared42. Experts peg this to be equal to approximately 25 percent of the UK gas consumption43. And the biggest flarer among the different oil companies operating in the Niger Delta region is the Shell Company. These flares are said to cost the country about 2.5 billion US dollars in economic losses44. These economic losses however, are nothing compared to the environmental impact of these flares. A report by the World Bank reveals that flaring in Nigeria has “contributed a large percentage of greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere than all other sources in Sub-Saharan Africa combined – and yet this gas is not being used as fuel”45. It is an unnecessary danger posed to our environment as it contributes significantly to climate change. In turn, climate change is said to produce other environmental effects including food insecurity, increased risk for disease, and increased cost of extreme weather conditions46. Locals who live around the areas emitting gas flares mostly inhabit agricultural lands and rely on wood for fuel and candles for their light47. These local villagers are exposed to the toxins found in these flares. Toxins like benzene pollute the air and cause various respiratory problems including asthma and bronchitis48. Villagers also complain of acid rain corroding their buildings. Particles from the flares fill the atmosphere and are washed away by the rain, thereby contaminating their waterways49. Moreover, many of these local villagers live and work near these flares without any physical protection. Nigerian legal policies indicate that general flaring was made illegal in 1984 and was allowed only under special circumstances via a ministerial certificate. And yet, no certificates were ever issued by the government in favour of these oil corporations who were indiscriminately allowing their gas flaring to continue50. 3. Environment and community impact of Shell In assessing the general impact of the oil operations in the Niger Delta region, a detailed analysis by Ogbodu reveals that rusty pipelines caused the Shell oil spill in 2008 which destroyed the livelihood in the agrarian community of Okuakpalala51. No compensation or clean-up efforts by Shell were ever carried out after this incident. In 2008, the Arema community also suffered the effects of another oil spill and about 7 people, including children burned to death after an explosion followed the oil spill52. Still, no compensation or clean-up efforts have been undertaken by Shell. At one point, the corporation claimed that the Arema oil spill was an act of sabotage against the company53. These disturbances in their social and economic stability have prompted many youths to take up arms against the government and against Shell54. And these are effects of what may be seen to be indicators of inadequacies on the part of the government and the corporation for actions in relation to corporate social responsibility. Strategic philanthropy Philanthropic activities by the Shell Corporation implemented in developed countries are more than substantive. Through their Shell Foundation, they are implementing various charitable activities to benefit the people in developed nations. They have implemented national programmes, education skills development activities, health and safety programmes, environmental protection, and social cohesion activities all over the United States and in other developed countries55. The projects they choose are sustainable and are often able to deliver self-support for the beneficiaries. While these activities abound in the developed world, they are paltry as compared to the development and philanthropic activities seen in the developing nations, including Nigeria. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) highlights how oil corporations like Shell have carried out appalling corporate practices in the Niger Delta region. Some corporations, including Shell, have used strategic corporate philanthropy in order to gain the consent of the people in the use of their resources, like oil and gas56. At one point in its corporate history when the decision in the Saro-Wiwa case went against Shell, the corporation made attempts to repair its image and it saw CSR as a tool in this regard57. And yet, this CSR has still failed in the region. Even as Shell claimed to have implemented 81 community projects in the Niger Delta region, deeper investigations reveal that “20 of these did not exist, 36 were partly successful, and only 25 were working effectively”58. The corporation also claimed that it released about US$242 million in 2009 alone for community development programmes in Nigeria. However, in a leaked confidential report for Shell, these payments were found to be divisive – “increasing conflict and violence, rather than benefiting the communities”59. Amunwa also points out that even if Shell’s development activities were actually existing and working, they still cannot make up for the social and environmental chaos that the oil corporation has brought upon the Niger Delta region60. It is also important to note how the corporate activities in the region have brought about poverty and insecurity among the people. Many government security forces are now under the payroll of international oil corporations and reports from human rights groups reveal that these security forces have been carrying out summary executions, killings, torture, and detainment in the name of the oil corporations61. In one incident, a man and his wife were said to be brutally tortured by armed soldiers because of their opposing opinions against Shell. Many other incidents spurred on by the presence of the corporation in the region have triggered graft and corruption by the Nigerian elite62. Under the mantle of CSR, other programmes and activities for the promotion of the people’s welfare have become the means of carrying out injustice and other human rights violations. These reports are hardly heard of in many developed nations. And this shows a blatant disparity in the implementation of corporate philanthropy in the developed nations in contrast with the developing countries. Conclusion The discussion above demonstrates the double standards applied by Shell Corporation in the Niger Delta region – which is contrast with their standards in the developed nations. As the corporation has implemented and has complied with the legal and the corporation standards of corporate social responsibility in developed nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, United Arab Emirates, and Australia, among others, it has however not complied with these same standards in the developing nations, especially the Niger Delta region in Nigeria. Its social and environmental impact has been very much detrimental to the people, as well as to the flora and fauna found in the area. These are their sources of living and income and have now been destroyed or contaminated by oil residue from the corporation’s processing plants. The corporation has also not complied with the consultation requirements before pipelines and oil wells are drilled. Philanthropic activities by the corporation have not been implemented to a full extent and have been used as an excuse for exploiting the people’s physical and environmental resources. Many of these programmes have not been implemented in the region – leaving the area one of the most impoverished regions in the world, and causing social unrest and rampant corruption in the area. And yet these practices are well-guarded by the corporation in developed nations. Hardly any reports are heard about detrimental CSR practices by Shell in developed nations. This clearly implies how the corporation promotes, protects, and complies with the standards or corporate social responsibility only because they know they can get away with these practices. Reference Amunwa, B. (2010) Shell in Nigeria: The Struggle for Accountability, Anarkismo.net., viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15876 Belfrage, E. (n.d) A fine line between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility, International Chamber of Commerce, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/CG/New_stories/060630_ICC_Belfrage%20on%20CRS%20CG%20nexus_0%20(3).doc Burke, J. (2010) India fury over US 'double standards' on BP and Bhopal, Guardian.uk, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/23/india-barack-obama-bhopal Friends of Earth (2004) Gas flaring in Nigeria, FOE.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/media_briefing/gasflaringinnigeria.pdf Hancock, J. (2004) Investing in corporate social responsibility: a guide to best practice, Business Planning and the UK's Leading Companies, London: Kogan Page Publishers Hinman, P. (1993) Greenpeace exposes Shell's pollution record, Greenleft, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5720 Hooker, J. (2003) Why Business Ethics? Carnegie Mellon University, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://web.tepper.cmu.edu/ethics/whybizethics.pdf Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2005) Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Kretzman, S. (1999) Nigeria’s “Drilling Fields” Shell Oil’s Role in Depression, Center for World Indigenous Studies, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://cwis.org/fwdp/Africa/shelogon.txt Ogbodu, J. (2010) Living with oil spill...in Niger Delta, Nigerian Compass, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.compassnewspaper.com/NG/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61808:living-with-oil-spillin-niger-delta-&catid=38:life-a-style&Itemid=689 Putnam, K. (n.d). What is Strategic philanthropy, Putnamcic, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.putnamcic.com/pdf/StrategicPhilanthropy.pdf Shell (2009) Climate change and Shell, Shell.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.shell.com/home/content/are/environment_society/respecting_the_environment/ Shell (2009) Society, Shell.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.shell.com/home/content/are/environment_society/shell_in_the_society/ Shell (2008) Shell in Australia: Who we are & what we do, Static.shell.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www-static.shell.com/static/aus/downloads/corporate/shell_report.pdf Shell (2009) Sustainability Report, Shell.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://sustainabilityreport.shell.com/2009/servicepages/downloads/files/all_shell_sr09.pdf Shell (2009) Sustainable Development, Shell.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/s_development/journey/ Shell (2009) Social investment, Shell.com, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/society/our_neighbours/social_investment/ Tokoro, N. (2006) Stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A New Perspective on the Structure of Relationships, Asian Business & Management, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/abm/journal/v6/n2/full/9200218a.html Tolhurst, N. (2010), The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility, Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons University of Miami, (n.d) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), University of Miami, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/pdf_files/csr_guide.pdf Van der veer, J. (2005) Shell in the Niger Delta: A Framework for Change Five case studies from civil society, Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, viewed 17 July 2010 from www.eccr.org.uk/.../ECCR_executive_summary_Shell_in_the_Niger_Delta_2010.pdf Van der Zwarlt, A. & Tulder, R. (2006) Case study: Double standards for mercury? Greenpeace and Tamilnadu Alliance Against Mercury (TAAM) versus Unilever, International Business Society Management, viewed 17 July 2010 from http://www.ib-sm.org/CaseUnilever.pdf Read More