Social Responsibility of an Employee - Essay Example

? Shell UK Ltd. Employee Corporate Governance Social Responsibility Report Executive Summary This paper seeks to discuss the CSR strategies that Shell UK employs with their employees, including human rights and safety. Shell UK, as a major contributor to the UK’s economy, has a high number of employees, both in its upstream and downstream operations. Because of this, its employees are a crucial aspect of their CSR strategies. Shell UK considers upholding of its employees human rights via requiring its employees to behave in ways, which ensure the rights of other employees and the community is included in its code of conduct. The employees are obligated to operate within the guidelines set by the HSSE&SP, which defines accountability standards for all operation levels. Compliance to the guidelines is monitored via processes of comprehensive assurance. Another important aspect of Shell UK’s Corporate Social Responsibility activities in relation to their employees regards safety. However, these two aspects are not always the case, especially where governments are not keen enough on enforcing the law. The paper also gives recommendations on how to implement CSR strategies more efficiently for Shell UK. Table of Contents Contents Page 1. Introduction…………………………………………………4 2. Findings……………………………………………………..4 2.1 Shell UK; A brief introduction………………………….4 2.2 CSR/stakeholder theory…………………………………5 2.3 Shell UK’s stated position on CSR and employees……..5 2.4 Criticism of Shell UK’s performance……………………7 3. Conclusions………………………………………………….8 4. Recommendations……………………………………………9 5. References……………………………………………………10 SHELL UK LTD. EMPLOYEE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT Introduction CSR is one of the major aspects in business that has received massive recent attention. Companies in the UK, as well as other countries, have shown an increased desire to go green, for instance. Consequently, companies like Shell UK have taken it upon them to improve environmental consciousness. While they are some concerns that various strategies, especially those involving employees and other stakeholders are inspired by PR, employees have embraced the strategies as a way of externality internalization that emanate from the operations of the company. The labor market has increased CSR uptake by companies since the employees want to feel positive regarding their company and employment responsibilities. Thus, companies make commitments to CSR that are in line with the values of their employees. Companies can use this as an appropriate strategy to attract high quality employees. CSR is essential in attracting favorable employees to a company. This paper seeks to discuss the CSR strategies that Shell UK employs with their employees, including human rights and safety. While information on Shell’s CSR programs is scarce, general literature on its CSR strategies and those of the oil industry were useful. Findings Shell UK: A Brief Introduction Shell is a major contributor in the UK, not only in the provision of services and products, but also in investments, tax revenues, and employment that aid in boosting the economy. The company employs approximately 6,400 employees in the UK directly. These employees are essential to Shell UK’s core business of energy provision to millions of clients who rely on the energy for powering and heating. They are also essential in the company’s upstream business, where it has been a leading player for more than 30 years in the North Sea with interests in more than fifty fields, thirty sub-sea installations, thirty platform installations, a marine terminal, and three onshore gas plans (Aguilera et al, 2009: p840). The company is responsible for twelve percent of UK gas and oil supplies. Downstream employees are responsible for staffing more than 1,100 branded stations serving 4 million customers with headquarters In London. CSR/stakeholder theory The organizational stakeholder theory postulates that companies have a broad responsibility set to their employees. This theory contends that individuals who are affected by the business’ operations constitute a stakeholder who must be considered by the business during decision-making (Ite, 2010: p4). Therefore, CSR is aimed at accomplishing a company’s objectives in order to satisfy its stakeholders, in this case its employees. Shell UK Stated Position on CSR and Employees Shell UK considers upholding of its employees human rights via requiring its employees to behave in ways, which ensure the rights of other employees and the community is included in its code of conduct. The company, in 2011, drafted codes of conduct for its employees and suppliers to ensure that their operations are in respect of human rights. The central principle of drafting these requirements were due diligence, as well as access to the social problem remedies (Basu & Pallazo, 2009: p50). These human right principles are formulated by the UN and have key aspects that ensure the business considers the employee’s welfare. Shell UK has undertaken a review of its processes and practices to incorporate principles of human rights and provide employees with an effective manner, to express grievances concerning the company’s operations. It is obligatory for every employee to work within the guidelines set by the HSSE&SP, which defines accountability standards for all operation levels. Compliance to the guidelines is monitored via processes of comprehensive assurance (Basu & Pallazo, 2009: p51). Shell UK is responsible for ensuring that their business operations run smoothly and responsibly. To achieve this, they have to work, with their employees, to aid them in understanding, as well as addressing, how their operations impact on the employees. Another important aspect of Shell UK’s Corporate Social Responsibility activities in relation to their employees regards safety. Shell UK assures safety standards in company operations for all the facilities in the company. Safety is a vital part of the company’s responsible conduct that ensures responsible energy production. The company’s operations are developed in the hope of preventing harmful incidents to employees and are aimed at mitigating the negative impacts that they may have on the environment (Boele et al, 2011: p125). Safety is vital for Shell UK’s operations since it ensures that the company carries out its operations responsibly. Shell UK aims to achieve zero accidents that could harm its employee, as well as zero fatalities in its operations. While the company is not capable of guaranteeing that these will not occur, it must ensure that it takes swift action in response to these occurrences, especially so as to minimize the impact that these occurrences will have on its employees (Frankental, 2010: p20). This, in turn, will minimize the incidents’ negative impact and enable Shell UK to learn to improve performance and safety in the future. Shell UK manages safety via a rigorous process that integrates a culture of safety into the company’s facility operation and daily work. Their operations are required to follow standards that are in place regarding different areas that are vital in the company’s operations, for instance, social performance, safety, security, health, and the environment. Shell UK has standards that are meant to determine required operational controls to ensure safety with regards to aspects such as boreholes, aimed at reducing accident risks. The company, in addition to its contractors, is obligated to operate according to these standards, local laws, permits, and terms of approval (Matten & Monn, 2009: p410). Shell UK also considers it essential to deploy adequate standards of safety to enable the company reduce the likelihood of long-term effects on the employees, as well as respond quickly to incidences. Risk prevention is the core in ensuring that employees are safe and involves a 2-fold approach. First, the risks are identified and assessed and then necessary steps are taken in the elimination or reduction of these risks. The employees are also prepared in their response to accidents should they occur; they can take measures of recovery to make sure that the incident has as little impact as possible. These actions for emergency response to incidences such as fires and spills are vital for the employees’ preparedness in reducing the negative impacts that these incidents portend on the environment, the company’s facilities, and the employees (Matten & Monn, 2009: p411). The company also holds collaborative drills between its employees and local response crews to improve their responsive efficiency. Criticisms of Shell UK’s Performance Shell UK having a high level of Corporate Social Responsibility, especially to its employees, which aims at ensuring that the wellbeing of the employees is safeguarded. However, Shell UK’s recent ventures into developing nations have not seen a similar commitment level. Shell has seen its major operations in countries such as Nigeria where there are high rates of employee injuries and accidents. Shell, in this region, has not been involved in training of employees in response to accidents. The company has had over 2,000 oil spills that have been allowed to go unchecked as the employees are not trained in reduction of oil spill impacts (Unerman, 2010: p670). Shell has been accused of negligence and taking advantage of the low levels of follow up by governments due to low governance integrity levels. Because of this, the local institutions are unable to put Shell to task for this negligence. Conclusion Shell UK places a high degree of emphasis on their employees since they are essential to their operations, including making them part of the Corporate Social Responsibility strategies. One way it has done this is through ensuring that it includes respect of its employees’ human rights in its code of conduct. Shell also scores highly in the integration of safety measures for its employees into its Corporate Social Responsibility strategies, by ensuring that the employees are enabled in the prevention and management of harmful incidents. However, research into Shell’s operations in the developing nations has shown that the same is not extended to employees in these regions, especially due to poor governance that limits follow-ups and safety checks. Human rights for Shell UK also work the other way with the employees also expected to respect those of the communities in which they work, especially in their operations in the field. Shell’s actions to ensure that its employees are prepared to face most disasters in collaboration with local response crews, allow the employees to feel important in their activities for Shell UK. Recommendations First, Shell UK should take the political sensitivities and realities of the country in which they work into account. Their Corporate Social Responsibility strategies must be applied in a manner that takes these considerations into account because human rights and its politicized nature could lead to poor rankings in CSR by watch groups (Snider et al, 2011: p180). In addition, it is a prerequisite for them to be careful on how they approach the issue since some countries are sensitive to the use of the word “human rights”. For instance, they could use “business principles study” as a replacement. They should avoid carrying out risk assessments in some of their work stations, especially those in countries that could find it offensive to include their progress in achieving international human rights responsibilities and embedding them into their national practices and laws (Snider et al, 2011: p182). Shell UK should also consider cultural differences, especially since they have employees from different walks of life. The CSR strategies that they adopt for their employees must be adapted to the setting, for instance, the manner in which they can ensure the privacy of an employee when these governments consider communication monitoring to be vital (Snider et al, 2011: p185). References Aguilera, Ruth., Rupp, Deborah., Williams, Cynthia., & Ganapathi, Jyoti., 2009. Putting The S Back In Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory Of Social Change In Organizations. Acad Manage Rev, 836-863. Basu, Kunal. & Palazzo, Guido., 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 45-56. Boele, Richard., Fabig, Heike. & Wheeler, David., (2011). Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: II. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management’ versus a rights-based approach to sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 121–135. Frankental, Peter., 2010. Corporate social responsibility – a PR invention? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18 - 23. Ite, Uwem., 2010. Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in developing countries: a case study of Nigeria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1–11. Matten, Dirk. & Moon, Jeremy., 2009. Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. ACAD MANAGE REV, 404-424. Snider, Jamie., Hill, Ronald. & Martin, Diane., 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: A View from the World's Most Successful Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 175-187. Unerman, Jeffrey., 2010. Methodological issues - Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , 667 - 681. Read More