(New York, USA)
Earlier this month Shell agreed to pay $15.5 million to settle a lawsuit which alleged that the company were behind the campaign of “murder, torture and other abuses” perpetrated by Nigeria’s former military government. Shell denied any involvement before inexplicably accepting the financial imposition. Malcolm Brinded, executive director for exploration and production, was reported as saying, “Shell has always maintained the allegations were false”.
According to the Forbes Global 2000 list for 2009 Shell is the second biggest company in the world, so I imagine the compensation figure will not represent any hardship for them. As a proportion of their annual profit (as listed by Forbes) it would be the equivalent of my paying around ten cents of my own salary (if my sums are right).
The difference is that I would not be prepared to pay even ten cents for something I had not done. I contribute to charity on a monthly basis and I would have no problem in attempting to help any community in as desperate a situation as the Ogoni people of the Niger delta, but I would not pay for a crime I had not committed and I would certainly not allow such a serious charge as that levelled at Shell to be attached to my name.
Perhaps, if I was guilty, and somebody offered me the chance of paying ten cents to avoid any prosecution and the subsequent confirmation of guilt I would overcome my principles and accept. Perhaps if I was the sort of person who was guilty of such crimes there would be no principles to overcome. I would bite their hand off. If I was guilty.
It is clear then that I don’t understand one important detail – if Shell are innocent, why have they paid up?
And the Nigeria affair begs another question – how bad does the situation in Mayo have to become before it is necessary for Shell to settle with the Irish government?
No comments:
Post a Comment