DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING Strategic Management [MG4037]. Spring 2014. Final Assignment: Group (worth 50%): This assignment utilises two key sources: 1. Shell Case Study (pages 420-430), from core text Strategy Theory and Practice (Clegg, Carter et al) available from Library Short Loans. 2. Shell’s 2013 “New Lens Scenario” document, freely available at: http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/scenarios/new-lens- scenarios.html YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO UTILISE ANY OTHER CORRECTLY CITED FACTUAL CONTENT AND/OR THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE (INCLUDING ANY MATERIAL FROM THIS COURSE) THAT IS RELEVANT AND ADDS VALUE TO YOUR ANSWERS. Questions: 1. Evaluate the scenario logic that underpins Shell two identified alternative 2030 scenarios as per their 2013 New Lens Scenario document, i.e. “Mountains” and “Oceans”. (20%) 2. Which of Shell’s two identified alternative 2030 scenarios (i.e. “Mountains” and “Oceans” as per their 2013 New Lens Scenario document) do you feel is the most challenging or incompatible for Shell given their corporate history, goals of sustainable development and their ongoing need to manage stakeholders? [Please note that the core text case on Shell identified above will be necessary to answer this question] (30%) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT [MG4037]. In-term Assignment 3 (Spring 2014) (50% of Total Module Grade) We hereby state that; This submitted assignment is our work alone and that due recognition has been given to any external content through the use of referencing. Name, Student ID Number and Signature: Name Student ID Number Garry Lynch 0871117 Signature Question (1) Before the commencement of the process, it is imperative that one understands the concept of a scenario. A scenario is not a prediction, projection, or preference but rather a coherent and credible alternative story about the future. According to Peter Cornelius, Group Chief Economist at Royal Dutch Shell, the underlying goal in the conduction of this process is to “help companies challenge their assumptions, develop their strategies and test their plans”. By combining this process with other tools including competitive and market analysis, scenarios represent a core element of the firm’s strategy process at all levels. This strategy process has been instrumental to the company’s anticipation in the shifting global energy mix and determining both upstream and downstream investment appraisal which has left the firm prospering in environments in which competitors did not have the foresight to prepare for thus gifting Shell a competitive advantage by welcoming uncertainty with opening arms into its strategic planning approach. (Appendix 1 and 2) Step One: Starting Data and Assumptions: New Lens Scenarios, as per any prudent scenario planning process starts with a quantitative data foundation and starting assumptions about here now and the future. Even prior to the overview and foreword the company states “We base them on plausible assumptions and quantification, and they are designed to stretch management to consider even events that may be only remotely possible”. On the quantitative front, Shell obtained data from some of the world’s most respected and credible institutions including the International Energy Agency, The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, The United Nations population division, The U.S Energy Information Administration, Booz & Company, The International Water Management Institute, The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the World Bank. Normally, one would take the credentials of the above sources to be accurate and realistic however the phrase “as modified by Shell” on page 47 of the document casted some doubt particularly as the starting point is of upmost importance as this will reflect on the validity of any drivers and subsequent scenarios that are identified as a result. We undertook a data collection process of the raw data from the relevant sources in line with the documents quantification tables consisting of total primary energy, total final consumption, total final electricity consumption and net C02 emissions. Due to data availability we were unable to collect the fresh water consumption for energy data and thus take it to be accurate. On the face of it, the data categories used seem very realistic, clear, coherent and relevant to the scenario process. To measure the accuracy we mapped the data we obtained on Shell’s data tables until the year 2009 which would indicate if any of the data had been potentially skewed. Appendix (3) shows our data compared with Shell with some discrepancies coming to light. In relation to the global net energy consumption, data obtained from the EIA shows that Shell have underestimated this demand. The table in New Lens Scenarios is broken down by source indicating some less prominent sources may have been omitted. Similarly global primary energy demand seems to be underestimated up until 2009, Shell states this data to be global however in their table on page 44 their breakdown of regions such as “other Europe” and “Other Asia and Oceania” don’t give enough transparency, the exclusion of Russia also raises questions. Why does data from EIA (one of Shell’s explicit sources) differ from Shell? Global energy final consumption illustrated the highest level of discrepancy with a 3.1% deviation in the 1990s, and a staggering 10.5% deviation in the 2000s between data obtained from the EIA and Shell. Net C02 emissions data also differs, in Shells defence with this table, they have said they rounded the numbers which would justify 1980s levels of 19.42(Bt p/a) according to the EIA and 19(Bt p/a) according to Shell, similarly 1990s levels of 22.162 (Bt p/a) for the EIA and 22 (Bt p/a) for Shell falls into the rounding number acknowledgement however the 2000s figures of 27.4 (Bt p/a) compared to a 24 (Bt p/a) cannot be justified by number rounding and thus indicates omitted variables of some sort. In terms of starting point data, whilst the categories under which data was obtained seem to be relevant, accurate, clear and coherent to gauge potential future environments the data itself seems to lack accuracy compared to the sources it was obtained from. Whether this data differential was intentional or not, it could have an effect on the viability of overall scenarios obtained later in the process. In terms of assumptions, Shell has taken the opposite approach taken by HSBC in The World in 2050 report, where HSBC state they took a “rose tinted spectacles” approach, Shell decided to take a multiple lens approach hoping to broaden the scope of their end product scenarios, they do this through the use of the three paradoxes consisting of Leadership Paradox, Connectivity Paradox and Prosperity Paradox, in addition to these lenses Shell have also used the Room to manoeuvre and Trapped transition pathways “to view landscapes from a fresh angles so we that we can focus and clarify possible futures. We feel that the use of these lenses allow Shell to achieve clear, coherent, accurate and realistic possible views stemming from initial data and assumptions. “Panoramic scenarios highlight broader patterns in possible future landscapes”. Assumptions made at this starting point by Shell include the future of cities as described by “A new lens on cities”. By 2050, Shell predicts that 75% of the global population will be living in cities. With the greatest growth coming from China, Nigeria, India and the US. According to Booze & Co, operating for the World Wildlife Fund, estimate investment required for these cities to be in the region of $350 trillion, the majority of which will be invested in emerging nations. Current data gathered such as the 66% of energy demand stems from cities along with both economic and population growth in addition to the advantageous competitive position of emerging nations such as China, Nigeria and India we feel provides a justifiable approach to view this assumption as realistic and coherent. We would argue however that the U.S inclusion here is somewhat ambiguous, as of 2010 according to the Central Intelligence Agency, 82% of U.S population were living in urban areas, and what raises even more questions is the repeated omission of Russia here with 73.8% of population living in urbanized areas as of 2011 and with a population of 143.5 million as of 2012 according to the World Bank. Comparing this to a Nigerian population of 168.8 million with 49.6% living in urban areas we do not see why such a large nation such as Russia should be left out. Surely a nation with a similar population level, but a much higher current dependency on cities must be included. Shell then apply their multi-colour lenses on this city assumption, the three paradoxes are a culmination of related and interconnected drivers stemming from political, economical, social, technological, environmental and legal environments. The paradoxes are as follows: The leadership paradox whereby the increasing pressures to address global needs is creating an increasingly diverse political coalition, this increase in diversity is bringing along with it an exponential increase in vested interests and therefore can prove to be problematic in reaching optimal and most equitable outcomes needed to solve global stresses. The connectivity paradox arises from technological advancements such as social networking, enabling citizens of different nations, media, corporations, government and society at large to engage in discussion and debate in real-time. It has fuelled further globalization, has extended and deepened trade, spread prosperity by eliminating borders and brought huge adversity to political, economic and leadership arenas by empowering the individual to an almost government level in terms of exposure. The danger here is that a man on the street possesses the power to overthrow prominent members of institutions as seen recently by the Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan having to resign over connected public outrage online. The third paradox is the Prosperity paradox whereby an increase in wealth throughout the globe similar to Maslow’s hierarchy has fuelled heightened expectations in terms of earnings and purchasing power. This paradox clusters financial, political, social and environmental drivers which improve the global wealth distribution however further increases inequitable income distributions within nations resulting in unrealistic expectations and conflict from those who feel left out. Shells two pathways Room to manoeuvre and Trapped transition represent a general roadmap that nations, governments, corporations will face. Either technological, financial, social, political capital will be available to them in order to meet challenges head on and become early adapters resulting in effective change or reform under Room to manoeuvre or such capital will not be at their disposal or will be inadequate leading to a delayed response where conditions now have worsened resulting in a collapse or substantial reset is needed for the survival of the party involved under trapped transition. The Shell team have applied these lenses to the city lens assuming that under the prosperity paradox, cities with abundant resources will grow organically causing an outward sprawl of such cities leading to energy inefficient infrastructures. Short term plans will be prioritized over longer term ones which we feel is a clear, realistic and accurate assumption. Ireland is a great example of this, during the Celtic Tiger all emphasis was put on construction and short term capital taxes, now that the nations boom is over, it is evident that our energy efficiency is far from ideal and in particular our water system where Engineers Ireland gave our system a C grade due to a 41% leakage level and an infrastructure network from the 1970s still in place. In terms of a leadership paradox within cities, Shell feel that if problems seem too complex to solve or too unpopular to implement, they will be left ignored until liveability is threatened. One good example of this is the United States pulling out of the Kyoto agreement due to its unpopularity with corporations. The nation will probably only enter into such an agreement again should living conditions become unbearable due to smog and adverse weather conditions. The connectivity paradox in cities will result in all members of society collaborating with each other and government in order to incentivize and sanction smart growth of cities. Integrated infrastructure, housing and traffic systems are given as examples. We feel that this is another plausible assumption with inherent realism, we can see such connected traffic systems already such as New York’s Adaptive Control Decision Support System using real-time data and sensors to optimize traffic flow. We see the pathway assumptions emerge through visionary leadership, prudent foresight by authorities and knowledge sharing alleviating stresses under cities from prudent infrastructure according to the room to manoeuvre pathway and with ad hoc last ditch efforts for survival under trapped transition. Further assumptions are made in regard to the global political environment, with the next 10-20 years seeing a change in the US-China relationship, assuming the United States will retain its global power however the gap will narrow with an increasingly powerful China. Shell assumes that the US will no longer be able to act unilaterally and provide to globe with public goods. The Shell team have argued that a leadership vacuum will emerge and that China will be uncomfortable to autonomously assume such enormous power. Whilst we agree with Shells thoughts on tensions emerging over trade and a Chinese pegging against the US dollar as they are already evident with the U.S calling for China to re-evaluate it’s currency or float it, we feel that the assumption that a nation running consecutive current and capital fiscal deficits, a federal debt of over $18 trillion dollars retaining power in the international world order whilst engaging in a reckless monetary expansion Appendix (4) is optimistic at best 20 years down the line given the economic jumps made by China in recent years. We also disagree with the “uncomfortable” aspect of China accepting leadership of the world order, given enough time we feel China may well be ready to accept this responsibility as evident by its readiness and ability to turn its economy around as illustrated by Appendix (5). Yet again Russia has not been considered here, we suggest a look at Appendix (6) which we feel warrants Russia some consideration in the world power. Appendix (7) and (8) shows China has surpassed the U.S in terms of exports and that Russia and China are much less reliant on non-domestic goods and services thus making their economies much more robust. We agree with Shell in the two Asia assumption whereby countries like China lead the way along with nations like the Philippines who HSBC predict will jump 27 places in the global economy pecking order to form the 16th largest economy by 2050, dragging along nations such as Japan with it who are still feeling the effects of the lost decade and deflation. Likewise, we feel that there will be turbulent times ahead for institutions trying to deal with problems such as globalization, trade protection, climate change, and nuclear disarmament and therefore class the rugged terrain for international institutions to be a coherent, realistic and accurate assumption. The squeezed growth and zero sum perception assumption is also an assumption oozing realism, coherency, clarity and accuracy. We are already seeing nations such as China and Russia who are state minded when shaping domestic economic and social policy who are benefiting from economic rigour as a consequence. Shell further assume globalization to stabilize however we would argue that Appendix (9) seems to have a rather upward trajectory to it, one that will fuel such conflicts between nations particular revolving around trade and resources. Over all, whilst we feel the data categories Shell decided to use in this starting point were prudent in creating plausible drivers and scenarios, we feel that certain omitted data as outlined above, modified figures and somewhat relaxed assumptions could hinder the scenario planning process in the later stages. Step 2: Inductive cycle: As illustrated in Appendix (1), by taking the initial data and assumptions from step one, Shell can engage in a group discussion, debate about what could arise from the starting point, revise their data and as Jeremy Bentham, Head of Shell Scenarios states “an amalgam of a strategic thinking process, a mode of analysis, a social process of engagement and influence, and, at its most powerful, an enabler of individual and group exploration and discovery.” We see the train of thought of the groups at Shell begin to diverge into two separate directions. Patterns seem to emerge in relation to aspects such as wealth distribution, natural resource availability, economic performance, political temperament and social cohesion begin to shift the global outlook under different conditions being viewed under different lenses (Paradoxes and Pathways). Under these lenses, different forces will have unique impacts on the global future, under certain conditions, economic performance will be a more acute factor than political performance and social cohesion and vice versa. Questions such as which paradox will have the biggest impact? What will the resolution of such changes be? Which corporations, nations, institutions and populations will have room to manoeuvre in order to minimize adverse effects of such changes and which will be trapped in transition absorbing the negative impacts of such changes? How will the global order power play out? Will China revaluate its currency giving developed nations an opportunity to pounce on manufacturing trade or will the status quo ensue resulting in very turbulent conditions for developed nations whilst simultaneously opening up great opportunity in developing nations. Could the United States potentially address its trade balance deficits and regain some of the ground lost to China and India or will technology be the hero with the likes of 3D printing dropping the competitiveness ball back in the United States court? Will capital, collaboration and creativity abundances or scarcities result in who comes off for better or worse? By going to some of the most respected individuals and institutions on the planet, Shell were able to obtain and contextualize data they felt were valid for this inductive process. As mentioned earlier, quantitative experts such as the UN, World Bank, EIA, IEA, IWMI, CSIS, Booz & Co, in addition to Yan Xuentong, Joseph Stiglizt, Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter providing a theoretical qualitative backbone makes for a diligent manner of approach when taking into account different possible events bringing different uncertainties with them be it a predetermined element such as demographic changes or a critical uncertainty such as future political regimes, by engaging in such an iterative cycle at each stage of scenario development (See Appendix 1 and 2 ) Shell can be as confident as possible that they have incorporated the necessary dimensions needed to make the end result scenarios plausible. Stages in such a cycle include brainstorming sessions amongst internal and external experts in a range of fields from economists, strategists, accounting, market and competitive analysts, engineers, consultants, statistic gurus, marketers in combination with conventional market and competitive analysis and is often equated to the financial real options analysis under the presumption that investments in the past and present result in consequences and different routes to go down as the time to maturity closes in. Once the brainstorming sessions have been commenced with starting data and assumptions, pre-determined elements and critical uncertainties can be incorporated and issues can then be ranked both in terms of impact and uncertainty. If the ranking metric illustrates elements uncovered illustrate high levels of impact and uncertainty it be concluded that they meet the scenario logic criteria and subsequent drivers and scenarios can be identified. For example, future political and institutional relationships identified in step 1 such as the US-China relationship, the two Asia’s and rough terrain for institutions will have a major impact on the global environment in additional to producing major uncertainty thus providing an almost proof of concept to the planning process. Whilst we fully agree with the inductive process carried out by Shell in facilitating well thought driver and scenario creation however feel compelled to revert back to our criticisms on the utilization of the starting data and assumptions and the knock on effect this may have on the inductive cycle’s realism, accuracy, coherency and clarity. The exclusion of Russia at the starting point could result in unaccounted for shifts to world power, global economics, technological advancements, conflict amongst nations and energy resource levels. At this time of writing, the world is seeing a major critical uncertainty amongst political regimes in the form of conflict between Russia and the Ukraine. The United States have enforced economic sanctions on Putin’s nation however huge confusion remains particularly within the European Union and NATO. Could the violence in this invasion escalate? Could World War 3 perhaps be in the not so distant future? These are unincorporated elements that could render subsequent outcomes incoherent, unrealistic, in-accurate and lacking in clarity all of which stem from Russia’s exclusion. Step 3: The Drivers: By utilizing the PESTEL framework against the thoughts, data and assumptions from steps 1 and 2, Shell were able to generate drivers relating to the political, economical, social, technological, environmental and legal framework. Once the drivers were identified, opposing key drivers are then created in order to separate this planning process from conventional methods, solely using drivers identified in addition to data and assumptions no matter how many inductive cycles occurred would merely make this exercise a glorified forecast without absorbing uncertainty into the mix. These driving forces are critical to the overall scenario process, placing it second only to starting data and assumptions in terms of importance. In order for a scenario process to add value to a firm by means of foresight and readiness to act in certain situations they must be plausible and flawless, otherwise exploitation of welcomed scenarios and the mitigation of not those not so welcomed could be less than optimal as reinforced by Van der Heijden “Fundamental forces that bring about changes...underpin observable events in the world. Understanding the interrelatedness of forces gives insight into the systemic nature of the problems we are exploring”. In terms of the political environment, Shell identified high legacy positions, high levels of human inertia and bounded rationality, inequitable power distribution in terms of counter currents. Shell were able to apply these drivers to their data and assumptions by concluding if the identified drivers impacted the data and assumptions it would do so by encircling power to the incumbent institutions, nations and corporations thereby reducing the trajectory of global developments to the agenda of this limited number possessing power, where a project meets such incumbents needs developments will be facilitated and swift however when developments do not match incumbents interests progress will be slow. The opposing driver here would suggest increased expectations linked with a higher level of accommodation between the empowered. This comes with an increase in the number of empowered institutions both new and old, the benefits being that developments are met initially with open minds fuelled by a moral obligation to improve society, however this increase in political power eventually slows down progress to the overall detriment of society as the emergence of bureaucracy and red tape ensues. Individual levels include national governments such as the U.S, China, Japan, Russia and their respective interests in terms of policies, developments and investments whilst external levels include the European Union, United Nations, NATO, how the U.S, China, Japan and Russia engage with one another over cross-border trade and the interaction of members in NAFTA. The scope, speed and thoroughness of progress will be dependent on how power is distributed, levels of inertia, legacy costs, bounded rationality, levels of self interest and openness to engage in discussion. Taking other interests into consideration and where priorities lie such as regional/national wellbeing, entitlements to public goods compared to power hunger political regimes, obsessed in terms of strength, trade and power placing self interest over collective wellbeing. Economical driving forces identified by Shell come in the form of wealth distribution, consumer choices, prices, technology and behaviour efficiency standards and the abundance/scarcity of energy resources. The future distribution of wealth will be equitable or inequitable, such a distribution may have a knock on effect on whether global commodities are offered to nations in the form of an open market using demand and supply as the criteria in deriving pricing or in the form of a hierarchy whereby those possessing goods and services will be in a position to dictate pricing potentially pricing those lower on the wealth distribution out of contention thus reserving such goods and services for the wealthy. Externalities will be directly effects by which platform transactions take be it open market or hierarchy which will have a knock on effect on how technological efficiencies and behavioural efficiencies emerge. For example, if those lower of the wealth distribution scale are gradually being squeezed out due to pricing, we may see huge increases in behavioural efficiencies from those lower in wealth whilst a disregarding attitude by those higher in the wealth distribution as they have the capital resources to acquire more. Similarly the abundance or scarcity of resources such as oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewable and biomass resources may also influence such attitudes for example Appendix (10) shows efficiency and consumption rates of nuclear abundant France, oil abundant Saudi Arabia and gas abundant Russia we can see how efficiency levels have been decreasing or levelled at best whilst consumption has increased for the most part, compared to Appendix (11) resource strapped Ireland and the United Kingdom whereby due to the lack of resources, emphasis is placed on improving consumption and production efficiency whilst increasing research and development in renewable energy in order to become self-sustaining. These drivers have a high level of interdependence amongst each other which could result in inflated or deflated prices, make the global wealth distribution more equitable or even more inequitable, have an impact on behavioural or technological efficiency standards and determine whether markets are open or take a hierarchical approach. Social drivers identified by Shell include the creativity of individually and collectively to increase developments and achievements in the arts, technology, business & political model innovations, cultural elements such as individualism and collectiveness emerge for example “our way of doing things” at local, regional and global levels, relationships between elites and majorities are identified and ideology of people and nations are looked at such as the “master of my own fate” or “we are in this together”. Technology plays a pivotal role for Shell in the New Lens Scenarios, will innovative technologies emerge from an open innovative platform where individuals contribute freely allowing everyone to benefit or will it by a by product of massive investment by a minority of elite institutions or corporations will the end results being heavily protected by intellectual property rights to prevent competitive nations or institutions from utilizing such breakthroughs fuelling further volatility between political relationships of nations and the distribution of wealth at the expense of society. Will technological breakthroughs be implemented on a broad or narrow scale due to financial restraints or political popularity such as the adverse thoughts by many on the seismic affects of hydraulic fracking hindering its overall implementation determined by cultural differences? Technology drivers include advancements in CCS, hydraulic fracturing, hydrogen, tight-shale gas, solar, Cool Bed Methane, bio-fuels, and methane hydrate will determine the ease of which nations will be able to meet the needs of its citizens down the line. If technologies fail to deliver, it may prove to be a catalyst in the political, economical and social realm where panic ensues and nations stop accommodating one another in order to protect their own self interest, conversely if the technologies proven to be a great success, further collaboration and innovation may emerge as nations are in a more comfortable place in relation to their resources levels in the short run at least. The goal in relation to technology is to be able to develop a global system whereby self sufficiency is achieved more ideally by renewable means such as solar, electric or nuclear renewable. Environmental drivers identified consist of land use, whether cities would continue to sprawl outwards as the world population increases to 9 billion according to United Nation predictions will have an impact on the food-water-energy stress nexus as inefficient ways of living will end up creating somewhat of a stress nexus, standard of living trade-offs which could potentially spark political conflict thereby effecting technology development slowdowns and result in negative consequences for society, similarly if nations do begin sustainable city development the opposite may occur bringing about positive aspects to nations by reducing the stress nexus thereby improving or at a minimum sustaining living standards which may improve inter-city and inter-nation communication and dialogue which could lead to increased trade among nations and a fairer wealth distribution along with better results for society. Land pollution clearly is one area of huge importance to society, and thus political establishments must strive to ensure land pollution is kept to a minimum not least to avoid legacy costs arising from having to clean up messes from a lack of focus on this driver. This is easier said than done however with certain nations having a higher tolerance level for pollution than others, for example, nations in Africa such as Nigeria for instance are comfortable with a certain level of pollution in order to maximize capital gain from foreign direct investment, subsequently society enjoys the economic gains from such investment thus this driver is inter-connected to politics in the form of policy (Do we encourage pollution for the sake of jobs?), society in the form of jobs (Do we accept higher levels of pollution in order to gain economically?), economically by asking are we discouraging companies from coming here if we are too stringent on pollution?, even technology is affected here, if pollution is discarded as a priority for a nation, then the impetuous to develop technology to address such matters reduces as there is no major problem to be solved. Regulatory stances and the expression of the public in a local context will be of major relevance here, will nations with exogenous states have an advantage over nations that do not? For example does the fact that individual U.S states have the power to address policy on an ad hoc basis in the interest of their own state provide advantages over nations like Ireland whereby the law affects all counties in the region? Climate change similarly to land pollution will have a similar effect, if nations such as China and India feel as though it is their time to shine and are of the opinion that the current climate crisis is down to the actions of the likes of the United Stated and the United Kingdom, climate may go on the backburner as these developing countries feel they are entitled to catch up on the developed world. Appendix (12) shows that developed nations are still emitting far more c02 than their emerging counterparts and thus need to take the lead in order to contain consequences as a result of climate change. Political agendas of developing and developed nations may collide here resulting in a divide politically, socially, economically, technologically and environmentally. Opposite drivers here may consist of everyone agreeing to collaborate to solve the problem, Kyoto agreements of the future may take into considerations the benefits the developed world has gained and allow higher emission levels to those developing. Such legally binding agreements will be imperative to the solution of this problem, the United States pulling out of the Kyoto agreement accelerated this driver and the outcome is very much unknown with many knock on effects. We feel Shell have done a good job identifying potential driving forces in-line with the data collated providing them with a robust set that can be tested against assumptions both individually and clustered. For example, the prosperity, leadership and connectivity paradoxes emerge as a result of clustering these political, economical, social, technological, environmental and legal drivers together to allow plausible and alternative scenarios to ensue. This domino effect will determine which of the two identified pathways a nation will be forced to go down, if the nation is lucky in the sense that it has abundant resources in terms of financial capital, technology, political influence, social cohesion it will be in a position to gauge a drift arising from mounting stresses allowing it to reform in a timely manner avoiding a major crisis by facilitating a minor one known as Room to manoeuvre. Those not in such an ideal position will have to succumb to such stresses due to delays in response submersing it into a cycle of crisis whereby the only way out will be in the form of major reset or complete collapse. Examples of this are already evident such as the prompt recovery of BRIC nations that were acutely hit by the global financial crisis and credit crunch, they had the resources to adapt early in response and reform thereby escaping a prolonged period of adverse conditions (Room to manoeuvre), Europe on the other hand did not prove to have such resilience partly down to a lack of sovereignty. The can kicking approach adopted by the EU has resulted in huge political and economic tensions, along with social reactions such as the Greek bailout riots. With this political, economic and social capital reduced, Europe had entered into a cycle of crisis with the predicted outcome by Shell being in the form of financial and political write-offs or the collapse in the Euro. We feel the former will be the most likely. The inter-connectivity here is clear, a change in one driver for better or worse has a domino like effect on the others. Albeit our criticisms in relation to the data and assumptions in step one, we agree with Shell that the drivers identified allowed a thorough and rigorous testing, in addition to the clustering of the paradoxes and the pathways of early adaptation in room to manoeuvre or the trapped transition engulfing reset or collapse. Our one suggestion that may be able to aid in the pinpointing of which drivers may affect certain political regimes and societies more acutely than others would be to collate the data from The Hofstede Centre, and apply Gert Hoftstedes’ Cultural Dimensions Theory in doing so Shell could gauge how changes in the PESTEL framework could lead to disproportionate consequences to different nations based on their levels of power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. We feel that adding this theory to the driver step in the scenario planning process could facilitate increased levels of accuracy between scenarios and reality outcomes. Appendix (13) shows the cultural dimensions theory levels of the United States and China, the higher power distance in China (80) compared to that of the U.S (40) could provide an insight into how society may react to actions may by government, if actions are of self-interest and greed in pursuit of power at the expense of society these figures allow for the assumption that the Chinese societies would be less likely to revolt compared to their US counterparts as they can only tolerate half the hierarchy that the Chinese can. This process could be applied to each driver identified in order to derive the most complete drivers. Step 4: Crafting the scenarios: With the drivers identified, we now move on to the crafting of scenarios by pushing such drivers to extremes in order to stress test the implications it may have on other drivers, and subsequently the global environments that emerge as a result. It is these environments that the scenarios embody. The first driver pushed to its limits is one of a political nature. In the first case, the key driver is the political environment. Developed nation political regimes are trying to recover from adverse economic conditions whilst simultaneously developing nations are enjoying more and more of the global power and benefits of economic trade. With developed nations power and prosperity under threat by developing nations narrowing the gap between power and prosperity distribution, developed nations in response to this force a shift in a social and political manner. A divide in society ensues consisting on the elite and the non-elite resulting in a society driver. Multinational companies, political institutions and high net worth individuals form this new elite and despite often having similar objectives, a battle for power, money and wealth becomes widespread. In order to protect their interests, these elite combat geo-political drivers such as globalization by asserting power on local and regional markets within their nations in order to ensure that their interests are insulated from threat posed by globalization. As potential threats heighten, this new social elite exerts its power and influence on its political elite peers to allow them acquire the legal system in order to justify their actions. Further social shifts ensure as a result of this privatization of the legal system as tolerance for compliance with the law increases. As society becomes more and more normalized with ultra-hierarchies, the international powers of governance become so powerful that they literally possess the ability to destroy the future global outlook by adopting policies unopposed to by anyone outside of their circle. Incumbent powers’ reluctance to give up power results in a conflictive environments whereby nations like China and the U.S have a standoff power and advantage over each other with technological drivers reducing the prospects of military action through nuclear warheads. The political environment in this case emerges into one of ad hoc coalitions in constant competition with one another. In the 2020s , through a recognition of mutual interests stemming from economic drivers, China and the US adopt a marriage of inconvenience shifting power in the political world from the G8 to the G2 (China and US). Tensions are still widespread along with social and political shifts occurring in those outside of the G2 as their power reduces rapidly. By the 2030s, economical drivers in the form of increasing economical development of nations like Brazil and India drive a change to the incumbent political structure, demanding it to create a new world order to deal with the environmental stresses of climate change, energy resource stresses and social demographic issues such as aging populations. This economical driver spurs the geo-political world to become one of shared interest but different values. Over time, these coalitions develop relations deepening their scope and influence. Economic drivers of increasing inequitable wealth distributions result in social shifts including a stagnated middle class, reduced social mobility, an alleged meritocratic education system that is in fact one of kakistocracy where tax exemptions further benefit the wealthy whilst the middle and poor classes become increasingly dependent on philanthropy. Technological developments further fuel this social divide when the likes of 3D printing taking away jobs in manufacturing and well paid jobs diminish in order to mitigate stagnant economic conditions and protectionism re-emerges as nations attempt to protect their interests. Economic drivers of slow economic growth reduces the demand of energy, and supply side policies through technological drivers facilitate in the unlocking of natural energy resources providing the global with a sustainable future in terms of energy. The technology drivers here involve the development and success of hydraulic fracturing allows vast amounts of tight-shale gas, cool bed methane and liquid rich shale. With the success of such technologies, clean resources such as natural gas are driven by political policies to form the backbone of the energy system. This substantial increase in natural resources quietens concerns about the sustainability of the global energy system which reduces financial volatility aiding in the objective of policy developing tomorrows’ energy infrastructure. Further technological drives come in the form of carbon capture and storage developments in addition to policies adopting gas opposed to coal allows for environmental benefits of greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030, whilst developments in hydrogen further improve the global energy stock with an emphasis on utilizing gas as the backbone to a new cleaner energy system whilst combining gas and hydrogen in order found new electrical grids helping provide social benefits by electrifying transport as sustainable compact cities become a priority politically. Despite emissions increasing through the 2020s, of more importance is the sustainable, zero carbon emission energy system deriving from the political, environmental, social, technological, economical and legal factors as outlined. This scenario stemming from a political driver of hierarchies is very much aptly named as Mountains, the structure of which illustrates its starting point. We feel that the drivers used in this scenario were diligently applied, with the knock-on effects addressed, and is very much a plausible future. Naturally, the opposing key driver of Mountains , is that of a flat structured political regime. Shell apply this flat structure political key driver to their next scenario. With social expectations at a height, pressures on politics ensure causing a change in the political environment. Vocalised, debate driven politics emerge whereby actors engage in discussion in order to overcome conflict of interests resulting in a democratic policy process. Society adopts an almost communities of practice approach to challenge incumbent powers and overcome problems. Values in society shift to one of inclusion and equity as opposed to the materialistic and power-hungry values initially associated with Mountains. Capitalism is challenged by society, driven by developments in technology namely social media as the power currency moves from those with capital abundance to those possessing a high extended network. People are put first here, with “Netizens” fuelling the topics of discussion at a political level. Non-government organizations are revitalized because of the collective shift and similar to society’s change in mindset, these NGOs are mandated with improving systemic issues as approach to particulars. Politicians and corporations are viewed negatively by society as trust issues emerge, the social media developments multiply this negative view with the result being a widespread damage to the reputation of companies and governments. Increased globalization results in these technological, social and political shifts becoming more than national issues as the international order becomes open, decentralizing and diffusing power across the globe. The effects of this are so stark that previous “laws of science” such as the “There Is No Alternative” mentality to globalization, liberation and technology shift to a one of “There Are Real Alternatives”. Under “TARA”, states once plagued by inequity catch up to those who once were the neglecters through the emergent new open world order. The U.S faces a dramatic reduction in power but continues to lead in terms of productivity and technological advances. “Soft power” emerges whereby values dictate policies that are adopted. An almost Stakeholder theory is adopted here similar to that of a Chaebol or Keiratsu as opposed to Mountains neo-classical theory of the firm approach. The political environment moves from one of multi-lateral in statue to one of minilateral in nature as the number of constituents getting involved increases exponentially. This minilateral approach however brings with it some economic problems. Do to the sheer number of those to be included in decisions, financial transactions reduce due to the increased complexity of fulfilling in trying to co-ordinate so many different actors. Changing economic environments as a result of this political driver form tensions. As the wealth distribution becomes more and more equitable, those once benefiting from such an inequitable distribution begin to confront those only newly experience this wealth. The result of this leads to collisions amongst those in favour of democracy and those engaged in popularism. Naturally such volatile conditions have an immediate impact economically at the financial markets whereby transitions and economic growth are equally volatile. Allegiances amongst groups are not strongly tied with groups moving freely engaging in discussion regarding policies and the needs of society often solved through compromise. Tensions still remain between political and social environments as governments struggle to keep up with society’s demands and upheaval. Throughout its lifespan, this environment normalizes turbulent stresses and shocks. By 2030, in line with societies demand for collectiveness, the world is governed by a flat, opened and disembodied group of economic relationships. With economic benefits for emerging nations as wealth is further equally distributed. As mentioned earlier, the increased turbulence of this new economical environment results in some major social shifts, firstly a transfer the wealth of success occurs, this transfer involves large economies falling behind to smaller ,open and more adaptive ones due to the political and economical barriers to providing highstandard education which is an identified critical factor of success. The barriers here are the inability to deal with complex decentralizations and fiscal transfers. Due to the lowering of education standards, large economies become poor whilst the small-medium and open economies become wealthy due to an inequitable global education distribution. The middle income trap is the economic shift where emerging economies sustain a greater level of economic growth in this open world order due to the gap existing between them and developed nations. Whilst emerging economies continue to grow economically under this environment, naturally there is a strong increase in demand for energy resulting in a strain on supply and demand. The lack of coherent policies adds to this. Nations outside the U.S lose out on the prospect of sustainable natural energy resources due to a lack of policy, geology makeup and technological developments thereby splitting the globe into the U.S tight-shale gas and CBM haves and the rest of world energy resource have-nots. Economic consequences of these political, environmental, and technological barriers result in a major decline in oil production and investment. High oil and gas prices become the norm which leads to society and politics needing to address it leading to an unlocking of resources and developments in other technologies. The solutions lead to a long oil game and solar power rises to significance. By 2030, it is expected the OECD’s share of energy demand is to reduce from 45% in 2010 to 33% illustrating the increasingly equal prosperity of emerging nature, this collectively prosperous economic environment makes addressing energy scarcities a key priority. Initially, incentives for efficiency, recycling and reuse become important elements in society. Efficiency gains in buildings through the increase in passive homes and retrofitted homes become the benchmark in new housing stock. Technological advancements aiding efficiencies in combustion engines keep people travelling despite high oil prices whilst further developments in electricity and the economical costs of solar photovoltaic technologies provide a possible sustainable energy system. Oil demand grows up until the 2030s where it plateaus by 2040s. High oil and gas prices along with a high level of demand, stimulates the need to produce more difficult oil supplies. Incentives are created for bio-fuel with first-gen products experiencing high levels of growth, second-gen versions start commercial production by the 2020s. Successful developments in Solar PV allows homeowners to convert from traditional energy sources to using electricity in the home. The combination of economic drivers of oil prices , environmental drivers such as the Arctic possessing oil and technological developments such as new drilling capabilities in harsh conditions, enhance the realism in enhanced oil recovery techniques. Hydraulic fracturing and these new drilling techniques allow for the creation of light-tight oil and liquid-rich shale innovations depending on the environmental factors of geology formation. The high price oil environment in addition to new capabilities in terms of technical prowess encourage the production of extra heavy oil in nations such as Canada and Russia. In this scenario, nations who produced more than 75% of oil in 2012 will have an even more pivotal role going forward. This world of open rule, volatile economics, and scarce natural energy is known as Oceans, with a heavy focus on solar energy going forward as a means for a sustainable energy system. Overall, we feel that Shell’s use of identified drivers was done in a very plausible manner. Starting with the key driver of political environment, Shell have shown the inter-relatedness that this has between social (how society reacts to the practice of their respected governments), technological (whether or not incentives are provided in order to develop and advance technologies), environmental (policies drawn up to address issues such as climate change, land use for bio-fuels, the harsh exploration of unique sites such as the Arctic) , economical (whether or not scarce energy resources lead to investment on alternative methods in order to find a solution). The derivation of the worlds in Mountains and Oceans consist of a hierarchical political system in Mountains compared with an open and loud democratic world order in Oceans. Economic environments in Mountains are comprised of stable markets allowing for investments into technology whilst in Oceans volatile conditions lead to a delay in policy and progress in securing sufficient energy resources for the future. Socially, society in Mountains are more conservative having faith in their respected nation to look out for their interests which for a large part is neglected as nations merely lead to satisfy themselves, conversely in Oceans the floodgates open to those wishing to engage in debate and the policy process which prima facie seems like a contemporary and inclusive approach, it hinders policy progress and hampers financial transactions given the complexity of the system. Technology drivers play a key role in both, with advancements in hydraulic fracturing, CCS, and hydrogen achieving big success, converting the foundations of the energy system to one of gas. These technology developments culminate to create a sustainable zero carbon emitting energy system for the benefit of the globe. In Oceans, such technologies have limited success, with the ability to harness thick oil from exploratory drilling techniques, a long game in oil ensues, in order to have a sustainable energy future, Solar energy plays a pivotal role in achieving so. Overall we conclude that despite earlier concerns in relation to the data, Shell have done a good job in crafting their two scenarios, perhaps our expressed concerns may come into play during the lifespan of these plausible future assumptions to create a hybrid scenario as per Appendix (4). Question (2) Understanding Shell’s corporate history: (i) Past Scenario Planning: Scenario planning at Shell provides additional information to the firm when evaluating risk and investments in full recognition of the external environment. Sheltering from risk and the protection of capital is not the only use for such processes however as these changes in the external environment allow for opportunity even in what initially seems to be an adverse change in the global environment, one example of this is the fall of the Soviet Union which facilitated capital inflows to Russia, one of the world’s most resource abundant nations. Pauses in the business environment present the biggest hurdles to firms in the energy sector particularly given the size of average investment and the time required in order to generate a return. It was for this reason that Shell decided to incorporate scenario planning into their development process. In 1972, the company crafted 6 scenarios with each revolving around economic growth, oil supply and oil price. Whilst geographical and political drivers were incorporated, the priority was on the key variables that direct affected business at the conglomerate. One of the scenarios crafted by the company went against the trend in terms of economic performance. At that time, the world was going through a continuing cycle of economic gain and economic stability however Shell wanted to prepare itself for the day that trend reversed through a disruption in the oil supply and higher oil prices. By October of 1974, this scenario had become reality with the Arab Oil Embargo as a result of political and social drivers of the Yom Kippur War raising prices to unprecedented levels. This reversal in the economic environment provided the scenario planning process with huge amounts of credibility. In 1974, the company crafted the Belle Epoque and World of Internal Contradiction scenarios to provide two plausible alternative worlds based on social and geo-political drivers in addition to economic and energy market assumptions. 1984 saw the crafting of the Next Wave scenario which incorporated economical drivers outside of the energy price and supply criteria that Shell had previously solely focused on. In Next Wave, the company took a tightening of credit markets in conjunction with the U.S fiscal deficit as key drivers which could severely impact the price of oil in a downward spiral. With increased recognition in the logic behind creating such scenarios within the company, by 1987 the firm were creating separate documents for scenarios focusing on oil, energy and socio-economic trends. This shows how Shell were increasingly recognizing the importance of including elements of uncertainty into their planning process as opposed to the narrow lens of oil prices and supply for the sake of their future readiness and subsequent performance in a changing environment. By the 1990s, scenario planning at Shell was taking global issues such as globalization into account whilst environmental issues were also viewed as becoming important enough to cause a shift in the current environment. These new uncertainties being incorporated saw the emergence of the Sustainable World scenario driven by the possible consequences a mounting debt burden in emerging nations and in legally binding treaties in relation to corporations responsibilities to limit the damage being done to the environment. The Roaring Nineties incorporated the above drivers but also needed to include that of new economic drivers emerging such as globalization breaking down borders between nations, the social and political drivers resulting in the liberalization of markets allowing them to become truly open and technology trends whereby the conveyor-belt like developments were introducing affordable personal computers, the internet being opened to the masses, a huge increase in information flow which made a significant step towards a truly global market. The “There Is No Alternative” was developed here as corporations struggled to mitigate the constant opening of markets and globalization. With corporations growing more and more frustrated at the lack of foreight of governments later in the 1990s further developments were made under the Just Do It! document which saw The New Game and People Power scenarios begin to incorporate elements such as corporate governance, rising populations, and increasing distribution of wealth and the higher standards of education that were beginning to drive the external environment. Further variables were taken into consideration in the Business Class and Prism scenarios whereby the effects that globalization was having on societies took precedent as opposed to purely economic consequences. 2005 saw the crafting of People and Connections which absorbed elements of trust and security which were a by-product of terrorist attacks on the U.S and the reckless operations from some of the globes biggest companies including Enron, Worldcom and Tyco. Shell were able to relate how negative events such as these can have a knock on effect in society which can then drive objectives of security, efficiency and equity as the main priority of social and political environments. In order to include all these elements appropriately, low trust globalization, open doors and flags emerged as plausible alternative worlds whereby regulation, codes of practice, international co-operation in addition to differing Governmental stances in different nations (populist/democratic) were all taken onboard as uncertainties contributing to the scenario development as political, social and legal drivers. 2008 saw the publication of Shell energy scenarios to 2050 whereby Blueprints and Scramble incorporate further fear and security of society, incompetent decision makers slowing progress in policy and environmental drivers such as activists make a dent in the external environment. Finally the 2013 New Lens Scenarios publication of 2013 looks at shifts in political structure, technology success, new behavioural concepts such as efficiency and possible major shifts in society and its relationship with corporations of governments are incorporated into the planning process. Clearly, Shell have come a long way in terms of the scenario planning having initially solely focused economic environment elements affecting the firms performance in the form of energy levels, supply, demand and prices to include a wide range of indirect shifts in political, economical, social, technological, environmental and legal uncertainties allowing the company to prepare itself for a vast array of possible future business environments and exploit identified trends in order to maximize profits. Advantages from incorporating such a range of uncertainties is not merely logical from a theoretical standpoint but empirical evidence has shown the benefits of such a process can have on a firms performance. In 1973, following the break out of the Yom Kippur War, a social divide was evident driven by the West’s support for Israel angering which angered oil abundant Arab nations leading to an oil embargo. Fuel deficiencies in the west as a result lead to a global recession and a stock market crash which left the majority of corporations left severely hit. Shell on the other hand were prepared for such a case through scenario planning and during the same years reaped huge rewards to the tune of billions of dollars profit by having the foresight to re-configure, sell and decide not to replace further refineries and installations. 1989 saw further gains by Shell with the collapsing of the Berlin wall. Shell had the ability to gauge future social and political cohesion between Eastern and Western Europe and that tensions would lower. Prior to the landmark destructing of the boundary wall, Shell had been developing infrastructure, opening new refineries in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union ready to exploit opportunities stemming from increasingly positive ties between the two geographies. Clearly the performance of firms engaged in such activities stand to gain at the expense of competitors still neglecting to incorporate uncertainty fully into their strategy planning processes. (ii) Corporate Social Responsibility at Shell The arena of corporate responsibility and the obligations that corporations are obliged to fulfil outside of economic and legal requirements has been one that has evaded practitioners and academics alike. With origins tracing back as far as 1622, ironically to the Dutch East India Company where shareholder Isaac Le Maire began to expose the information asymmetry between the owners and controllers of the organization and the difference in objectives. According to Clarkson there is a fundamental problem within society due to no complete definition for nor a framework or model in place in relation to the obligations of a company beyond the scope of economic and legal obligations. The scope of opinion amongst academics and practitioners range from the extreme neoclassical views of Milton Friedman whereby a firm owes no obligations to society in its quest to maximize profits for shareholders in order to fulfil its economic and legal obligations to the views of Howard Bowen whereby corporate social responsibility “refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and value of our society.” Joseph McGuire defined the concept as “ the corporation has not only legal and economic obligations but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these obligations”. Clearly the differences in defining the concept makes its implementation difficult to say the least. Arguments from neo-classical academics have included what exactly are these additional obligations? To whom exactly are they owed to and in trying to meet these expectations is the firm negating on its obligations in maximizing the firms’ profits in the event that in order to meet these additional obligations the firm has to pursue alternative routes in operations that may result in additional costs thereby not maximizing the firms’ profits? The concept is one of interpretation with even the U.S Supreme Court unable to make a ruling for or against such matters as per the case Kasky V Nike. Shell clearly feel morally obligated to achieve the best for the company and its stakeholders given the lengths it goes to ensure consistent financial performance through the use of scenario planning however outside of these economic and legal obligations there are some serious questions surrounding its obligations beyond that of a economic and legal nature. According to Kristen, Bell, De Tiene and Lewis 75% of investors consider social responsibility to be a critical factor in their investment appraisal. We assume that since Shell are viewed as qualitative and quantitative visionaries in terms of scenario planning, they have the financial prowess to also be aware of this figure and therefore incorporate it into its practice despite whether or not it truly is a goal of theirs. Kristen et al further indicate that “there is a fine line between optimism and deceit that is very hard to distinguish” in terms of commercial speech. In the time period of 24th to the 26th of February 2013 at the time of publication of New Lens Scenarios, Shells RDS-A stock increased by 11.25% and in the space of 18th March to the 15th of April 2008, at the time of publication of Shells energy scenarios to 2050 its stock enjoyed a further 9.65% boost. One needs to ask the question is the corporation engaging in corporate social responsibility actions and speech doing it for the benefit of society or is it using such concepts as additional avenues to maximise its profits for shareholders? Rationale for engaging in social responsibilities include (i) As a reaction to a past event, in order to restore a lost reputation, (ii) to allow the firm appeal to and manage stakeholders, allowing them to progress with business operations in a unhindered manner be it for a genuine belief in it owing further obligations to society or just to ensure operations run smoothly with no intention of fulfilling such additional obligations. (iii) To utilize the concept as a barrier to control and limit intervention in the corporations market by means of regulation.(iv) Create entry barriers to competitors by setting a benchmark by requiring a huge investment in such a concept in order to gain acceptance of the society of that market. During the 1970s and 1980s, it’s evident that corporate social responsibility was of relatively little concern to Shell which is somewhat ironic, Shells past in scenario planning illustrated their sensitivity to environments when gauging investments however they had not contributed to the improvement nor had they attempted to recognize the moral, social and environmental obligations society felt they owed to such environments. This however, changed after 1995. The period 1990-1995 saw a huge transition in the appreciation of corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management as a reaction to mounting pressures within society demanding so after the occurrence two incidents namely the Brent-Spar incident and the environmental damage to the Niger River Delta in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. In 1991, after a review of refurbishment costs Shell along with its joint venture partner Exxon Mobil decided to decommission a 14,500 tonne oil storage buoy as it would not be economical. In October 1991, research studies were commissioned in order to gauge how best to dispose of it as its size was inhibiting traditional methods of disposal. In its quest for the Best Practical Economic Option, Shell U.K narrowed the options down to onshore dismantling or deepwater disposal. A study conducted by Aberdeen University revealed that the deepwater disposal method would have been the best solution. Shell then consulted with local government in addition to interest groups focused on conservation and fishing. In February 1995, the U.K government approved the deepwater proposal with no objections from any of the other 12 EU nations along with the European Union itself. Without any objections, the U.K government gave its approval. The non-government organization Greenpeace however felt very strongly against such a disposal. Greenpeace’s concerns were that (i) the precedent that the deepwater disposal would have on the 130 other offshore spars that would soon come up for decommission. (ii) Greenpeace claimed the environmental damage from such a approach would be far more severe than Shell’s calculations had predicted and (iii) the organization objected to such an action out of principal. The organization attempted to get involved in the process with the U.K Department of Trade and Industry and Shell however they were not included in proceedings. Once the deepwater solution was chose, Greenpeace decided it would occupy the spar. A huge media presence ensued resulting in a rapid increase in customers, politicians and governments around Europe began to condemn the sinking of the spar. Shell tried to defend its decision with the U.K government supporting the decision engaged in litigation against the activists. Greenpeace decided to initiate a boycott against the oil company which resulted a mass upheaval against Shell across Continental Europe, particularly in Germany. Petrol stations were reporting 50% decreases in revenues and the company was being hit with criminal damage to 200 service stations and even two of which were fire-bombed. In June 1995, another occupation ensued with two members of Greenpeace arriving by helicopter, took chemical samples from the spar which Greenpeace then released. By now, Shell had realised that the deepshore disposal was no longer an option. Greenpeace hailed it as a victory, Shell described it as an act of “the heart over the head” whilst the British Government who were the only defender of the deepshore disposal felt betrayed, threatening Shell with the possibility of not granting an onshore disposal, while also threatening to withdraw the 50% contribution it was going to make under the initial agreement. Shell benefited from the compromise by receiving co-operation from stakeholders such as the Norwegian government offering the use of its waters until new disposal options were decided. Greenpeace were also forced to apologise for incorrect sample results and admitted to huge inaccuracies. This incident we feel illustrates a social responsibility stance shift from one of laissez-faire to one as a forum for stakeholder interaction whilst changing their social responsiveness strategy from one of reaction to one of accommodation. By not engaging and including stakeholders Shell in fact inflicted the damaging media, lost station revenues, protests and criminal damage on itself. Shortly after the Brent-Spar crisis, a further event of significance presented itself for Shell in Nigeria. On the 10th of November 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa, a Nigerian writer and spokesperson of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People was hanged in Port Harbour along with eight other Ogoni activists all of whom had been involved in protests against the oil industry in the Niger Delta. The protestors were tried and convicted by an ad hoc tribunal, the case of which was built by the Nigerian military government who’s practice violated international standards of due process. Similar to the Brent-Spar incident, the event received immediate and widespread media attention including comments from the British Prime Minister John Major who claimed the executions to be “judicial murder”. Shell had discovered and developed a major oil reserve in1958 at the home of the Ogoni people who are amongst the poorest demographics in Nigeria. MOSOP was a coalition established to express the locals grievances in relation to oil production on a nation and international stage. Throughout 1993, Shell had enjoyed 28,000 barrels of oil courtesy at the expense of the regions environment. According to Saro-Wiwa, the area had been “completely devastated by three decades of reckless oil exploration or ecological warfare by Shell”. Shell responded to these allegations with a reaction social responsiveness strategy stating “Allegations of environmental devastation in Ogoni , and elsewhere in our operating area, are simply untrue”. December 1993 saw MOSOP giving an ultimatum to the oil producers in the area demanding compensation and royalties within 30 days or leave the area. During the height of the crisis, further allegations were made against Shell claiming they were requesting the Nigerian military government to take “ruthless military actions” against the Ogoni people as per a leaked government document. Shocking details of Ogoni demonstrators being detained and beaten by Shell police were also met with denials by the company, stating they had never engaged in any collusion with authorities in Nigeria. It later emerged by admission that the company had made direct payments to Nigerian authorities on at least one occasion. Even more terrifying was the revelations that emerged that Shell had been in negotiations for the import of arms for the Nigerian police forces. When confronted with these allegations Shell responded saying “we may want to see the weapons currently used by the police who protect Shell people and property upgraded”. Pressure began to mount on Shell both from within and outside of Nigeria to intervene on behalf of the Ogoni nine during their trial and subsequent conviction. Shell initially responded to such pressures again in a reactionary way claiming it would be “dangerous and wrong” for Shell to intervene and use its influence with the “legal process of any sovereign state”. In fact that pressures became so high that CAJ Herkstroter, the president of Shell wrote a letter to the Nigerian General Abacha pleading him to mitigate the penalty for the nine Ogoni people on humanitarian grounds all the while Shell were repeatedly sticking with their “to interfere in such processes…would be wrong”. Similar to the Brent-Spar, Shell experienced mass boycotts following the executions in the U.S and Europe whilst a Nigerian oil embargo was established until the militia government stepped down. After a realization that the brand and company were in jeopardy, Shell quickly changed its stance on matters claiming it fully supported the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that the Nigerian government had “ a duty to investigate the murder of the four Ogoni leaders…But trials must be fair. And they must be seen to be fair”. Sustainable Development at Shell: Clearly moral, social, environmental and legal obligations had fallen to an all time low at Shell and it was time for change. With increasing pressure on companies the term stakeholder began to emerge alongside the term shareholder. In 1994, Cor Herkstroer called for a re-examination and review of the company’s organization and structure due to lacklustre financial performance compared to competitors. A strategic change was taken place, rapidly accelerated by the Brent Spar and Ogoni crises which is in line with Stakeholder Framework Theory by Clarkson whereby proposition 3 states “ A firm who has below average profits… is creating sufficient value and wealth for one or more stakeholder groups but has not for one or more of its other stakeholder groups”. The key objective for such a change was to develop a system of management at the company whereby principles of of sustainable development by addressing a wider range of stakeholder concerns and contribute to the long term performance of the firm. The company recognized that its economic obligations in the long run would be fulfilled only if the company was trusted and abided by the expectations of society. The implementation of the sustainable development at Shell came from multiple levels of the firm from staff on the ground, to members of management to senior management at the company. Shell frequently illustrated their commitment to such an inclusive stakeholder theory through internal and external communication by means of speeches, publications and annual reports related to stakeholder matters. A governance structure was also initiated which included a board level Sustainable Development committee and a corporate level Sustainable development group. The strategy had three main elements in its makeup (i) An annual Shell report that showcased the company’s economic, social and environmental performance for the year (ii)a management system designed to embed such practices into the organizational culture which was named Sustainable Development Management Framework, (iii) Key performance indicators were developed in order to monitor performance and further drive improvement. Each one of these elements met the three conclusions drawn by Clarkson in terms of distinguishing between stakeholder and social issues, conducting the necessary analysis at the appropriate level and analyzing performance by the company’s management in how it manages the relationships it has with stakeholders. The Sustainable Development Management Framework’s objective was to integrate economic, social and environmental elements into everyday business whilst simultaneously engaging and learning from stakeholders in a transparent and open way which could be measured via reporting and verification. There was eight steps involved in the framework consisting of (i) identifying stakeholders, risk and opportunities, (ii) setting priorities on risk, opportunities and set objective, (iii) define strategy, (iv) set plans and targets, (v)mobilizing resources, (vi) carry out plans, (vii) monitor and review, (viii) report and communicate, review and embody learning whilst demonstrating leadership. In 1999, during Shells worst performance economically for a century, the SDMF was distributed to senior management around the globe. Chairman Mark Stuart-Moody attributed the poor performance down to a lacklustre effort in dealing with stakeholders stating “ financial performance is essential, but without working on the other two legs of the stool, environmental and social performance, we have not developed a business platform that is balanced and sustainable in the long term”. In order to deal with this, Key Performance Indicators were developed to provide greater accountability for performance and to settle demands from external stakeholders for a greater level of transparency. The company arranged over thirty five meetings with identified stakeholders both primary and secondary including non-government organizations, academics and government in order to create a set of such KPIs. Sixteen of these indicators came to light including total shareholder return, reputation, brand performance, integrity, environmental data, health and safety data, greenhouse gas emissions, diversity and inclusion rates at the workplace, stakeholder perception of quality of engagement, social performance and acceptability of environmental performance. With the introduction of all these measures, it looked as though Shell was on its way to redemption having incorporated many academic thoughts into its sustainability development strategy however events subsequent to this suggest that all of this effort being carried out by Shell may have been idealistic and seen as mandatory for success rather than a voluntary act which violates Thomas Jones idea that obligation must be voluntary in nature. In 2002, after the setup of the Niger Delta Development Commission, Shell’s contributions t development in Nigeria rose from $330,000 in 1989 to $68.9 million in 2004 whilst claiming that 70% of its investments were classed as being sustainable. Non-governmental groups criticized Shells selection and timeframe of the studies claiming it skewed them to garner recognition for community development success. Questions were raised by Friends of the earth as to why Shell didn’t setup an independent foundation without links to the oil giant in order to increase transparency in line with the SDMF. This case of blue-washing was seen by many to be very disappointing. Greenpeace responded to such claims by Shell stating “their human record is deplorable beyond our imaginations. When Shell is ready to have a human conscience then we as consumers will start to have some trust in their deeds”. Consensus was reached by those external to Shell that “the company fails to respond to community concerns until its bad practices are brought to public attention.” Nicholson (1996) states a company “outlining objectives to the public is not enough. It must perform in accordance with what it says”. We feel Shell has violated such a statement. Further evidence of disregard for conforming to its sustainable development strategy came in 2007 in a green-washing case. The UK watchdog, Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against Shell for an advert in which the company claimed it used its carbon dioxide waste to grow flowers, thereby portraying an image of sustainability and concern for environmental obligations. It later emerged that a minuscule 0.325% of this waste was involved in such a process . 2008 saw another green-washing incident surrounding the Canadian $10 billion Athabasca Oil Sands Project. “We invest today’s profits in tomorrow’s solutions” was the headline of the advert giving the illusion that Shell were helping the globe prepare for future energy needs whilst helping the environment. A report conducted by the WWF indicated that in fact these tar sands were 3-10 times greater in terms of emissions than conventional energy. WWF stated that “for Shell to claim otherwise was wholly misleading”, such an incident plays nicely into comments by Stoll (2002) stating in relation to Nike, “While exaggeratory claims may be somewhat expected by society with regard to product advertisement, corporate conduct marketing should be held to a higher standard”. Clearly Shell were not interest in sustainability and the transparent engagement with stakeholders in this instance. In 1997, the proposal of the Kyoto agreement saw Shell take an accommodative strategy to social responsiveness by recognizing the problem of climate change and stated it would work with environmental groups in order to try and mitigate its effects. Shell International Renewables was formed with an initial outlay of $500 million over a five year period in order to try and address a problem of which Shell had played a participatory role as a by-product of its oil and gas operations. Corporate Watch awarded Shell the Green-wash award that year stating the disparities between rhetoric and action were startling again in stark contrast to Nicholson whereby firms must act accordingly to what it says whilst simultaneously breaking its own sustainable development code as they were clearly prioritizing shareholders over stakeholders here which completely contradicts the “profits and principles, does there have to be a choice?” rhetoric and subsequently diluted the credibility of Stuart-Moody’s equal sided stool. Further evidence of exploiting the apparent sustainable development strategy emerged when Shell adopted voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction targets however the 5% reduction in emissions between the years 1990 and 2010 were immaterial at best and contradicted its SDMF by setting petty objectives which created no value for stakeholders. 2005 saw Shell invest $1 billion dollars into renewable energy which was criticized for representing a mere 1% of total capital investment for the period 2001-2005. In 2006 , with record profits of $13 billion, Shell emphasized its commitment to sustainable development by announcing investments in biofuels, wind, solar and hydrogen power. Graeme Sweeney, Executive Vice President of Shell Renewables stated “Much of our current investment goes into wind, because this sector shows the best prospects” however 2008 saw the giant pull out of the worlds’ largest offshore wind farm project in Britain claiming that renewable focus was to be shifted to the US. By 2009, such US focused renewable had be stopped and the company decided to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen as “they continue to struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities in our portfolio”. Clearly Shells strategy remains one based on economic principles and portfolios. In 1998, following the negative reputation it earned after Nigeria and Brent-Spar, the company withdrew its participation from the Global Climate Coalition a trade association opposed to the IPCC’s proposals of limits of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007the company joined the US Climate Action Partnership which was a group adamantly supporting such emission caps. Shell are still a member of the American Petrol Institute which opposes such measures that Shell apparently stand for. The API have also provided schools and teachers with propagandic materials such as the leaked document to inform “teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science”. From the examples above, we think it is fair to say that the goal of sustainable development at Shell is far from one of idealism, showing a combination of enlightened self interest and forum for stakeholder interaction social responsiveness stances on social responsibility whereby they can deceive stakeholders into thinking they are going above and beyond economic, moral, social and environmental obligations providing them with a better reputation and brand while in fact the firm is solely focused on generating as much profit as it can for shareholders using any means necessary which we feel John Sauven summed up nicely saying Shell “had rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world”, this is somewhat different to Shells Sustainable Development Group founding member Mark Wade who said the reasons for such a shift in strategy was because they “were more hurt emotionally” by their neglect for society and the environment on which this sustainable development goal was apparently based. 3) Ongoing need to manage stakeholders: Firstly, in order for Shell to ever achieve a sustainable development goal it will have to abide by its sustainable develop framework. Progress will not be made until Shell starts meeting actions with words in order to generate the trust pivotal to with many stakeholders going forward. The greenwashing, blue-washing, under-investment and exploitation of schemes such as carbon emission reductions cannot be tolerated any longer in addition to genuine commercial speech to society. Appendix (14), (15) and (16) illustrate the change in environments prima facie from now to Mountains and Oceans. In Mountains we see city planners become a player needing to be managed closely as the reduction to the stress-nexus depends on their foresight in addition to policymakers granting them the approvals needed in order to develop the cities of the future. Competitors in Mountains shift from being one of a crowd to a context setter and will also shift from being secondary stakeholder to a primary one as joint-ventures begin to increase as the global economy stagnates. The consumer stakeholder will be split into one of importance (elite) and one of insignificance (non-elite). Product development firms, technological firms and management consulting firms emerge from areas that once were dormant stakeholders to being players, examples of this may include technology brokering processes as per Hargadon and Sutton , whereby solutions to problems in other industries begin to aid in the solving of issues in Mountains such as the cities dilemma, the implementations of widespread CCS in combination with policy holders and engaging with their network to gain access to intellectual property rights to further enhance development. The ever-increasing inequitable distribution of wealth will mean that poorer nation governments will have to create extremely good relationships with the like of Shell, collaborating gas and oil experts insuring their interests are best served to minimizing legacy costs. The auto industry, construction industry become players as the need to develop cities efficient enough will rest on their collaborations with city planners in order to sustain standards of living. Financial markets also play a pivotal role providing the capital resources to aid with a room to manoeuvre pathway given the slowdown on the global economy. Oceans, on the other hand experiences more of a change in terms of the significance of stakeholders. We see non-governmental organizations comeback into the driving seat as the main long-term planners for society, whilst a new once dormant stakeholder in Netizens emerge also as a player with huge political influence, power and interest in having the needs of their society served as best as possible. Consumer awareness groups will play a key role in leading the way to efficient usage of energy as a context setter, because they are mainly interested in the consumer’s wellbeing rather than Shell’s goal we have decided not to include them as a player. Academics in collaboration with management consultants, technological brokers and members of the battery industry will pave the way to developing longer lasting batteries aiding in the solar and electrification of the energy system in this scenario. The financial markets will take the form of a player, dictating whether short term or long term investments are adopted given the highly volatile swells and troughs. The media shifts to a position of a player as it is government and corporations gatekeeper to engage with the masses of netizens all of which are expecting more and more from them. Conclusion: According to Sophie Punte of Clear Air Asia and formerly of KPMG, speaking at the New Lens Scenarios conference in the Phillipennes, there is no sustainable development future under the scenarios Mountains and Oceans, she believes in fact that the future will produce a combination of the two given the nature of the problems both scenarios present. There are many elements to incorporate such as whether the ruling elite in mountains realise they need to change before having change forced upon them resulting in a trapped transition? Will competing nations have the competence to realise collaboration is necessary in order to address key issues and push appropriate industrial policy? Will such protecting of power and self-interest hinder developments of technologies such as CCS requiring long-term investments in a stagnated global economy. Oceans sees the rise of people power and equality, with such an opening of the global order will those feeling victimized in this “more equitable” society hinder progress by resisting to certain measures and forming their own netizen constituency? With such an emphasis on peer groups what happens when influential people are drawn into advocating certain policies due to peer pressure? What happens if people with this netizen framework become fearful? Do they withdraw from the network thereby hindering progress? Similarly, in a logical world and including one of oceans, governments and nations that need each other will collaborate, nations with no need for collaboration which may impact on the wealth distribution and subsequently the sustainability of the energy system. The Oxford dictionary defines sustainable as “Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources” whilst defining development as “An event constituting a new stage in a changing situation”. If Shell is truly seeking a scenario that achieves sustainable development, then the solution and in fact the probable reality according to Dr. Choo-oon Khong, Chief Political Analyst at Shells Scenario Team, is a hybrid of the two. By combining the control elements of Mountains ensuring social order, with the discussion and values of society of oceans, non-governmental organizations can steer government to adopt policies that benefit society as a whole. Flexible governments acknowledging the role of the state and the role of the people will gain by addressing the true problems such as transport, energy, environment and infrastructure which could reduce the possibility of a trapped transition. If Shell really is a company embracing sustainable development, it should champion such an outcome and proceed diligently into the future. Appendix: Appendix (1):Iterative Cycle Diagram: Appendix (2): Scenario planning process timeline with iterative cycle: Appendix (3): Data comparison to Shell’s initial data Kw to E(j) Conversion formula: e(j) = Kw x 1000 x s (s=31536000 per annum) Global Net Electricity Consumption E(j) 60 50 40 EIA Data 30 Shell 20 10 0 1980s 1990s 2000s BTU to E(j) Conversion formula = 1BTU = 1.0543503E-15 (E(j)) Global Primary Energy Demand E(j) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 Shell EIA 150 100 50 0 1980s 1990s 2000s BTU to E(j) Conversion formula = 1BTU = 1.0543503E-15 (E(j)) Global Energy Final Consumption E(j) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 EIA Shell 100 50 0 1980s 1990s 2000s Certain regions neglected by Shell causing a 3.1% deviation from EIA figures between the 1980s1990s, and a staggering 10.5% between the 1990s-2000s. Net C02 Emmission (Bt) 30 25 20 EIA 15 SHELL 10 5 0 1980s 1990s 2000s 1980s EIA levels of 19.4236 p/a compared with 19 p/a of Shell indicate similar results however still differ slightly, Shell have said that they have rounded the numbers. 1990s levels again show an almost identical figure4 EIA 22.162 p/a and Shell with 22, 2000s figures however are quite different, EIA with a figure of 27.4 p/a and Shell with a figure of 24 p/a represents a deviation of 10.9% which is a substantial difference possible influencing the validity of the drivers and scenarios identified. Appendix (4): United Stated Monetary Expansion: US $ Money Supply Billions 1980-2013 12000.0 10000.0 8000.0 6000.0 4000.0 2000.0 0.0 M1 2013-01-01 2011-01-01 2009-01-01 2007-01-01 2005-01-01 2003-01-01 2001-01-01 1999-01-01 1997-01-01 1995-01-01 1993-01-01 1991-01-01 1989-01-01 1987-01-01 1985-01-01 1981-01-01 1983-01-01 M2 (World Bank) Appendix (5): China’s almost vertical GDP increase catching up on the U.S. GDP US $ 2000-2012 $18,000,000,000,000.00 $16,000,000,000,000.00 $14,000,000,000,000.00 $12,000,000,000,000.00 $10,000,000,000,000.00 China $8,000,000,000,000.00 USA $6,000,000,000,000.00 Russia $4,000,000,000,000.00 $2,000,000,000,000.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $- (World Bank) Appendix (6): USA cash deficit crisis with Russia in a much stronger position: Cash Deficit/Suplus as % of GDP 1500% 1000% 500% USA 0% RUS -500% -1000% -1500% (World Bank) Appendix (7): Chinese economy surpasses the U.S in exports Exports (Current US $) $2,500,000,000,000.00 $2,000,000,000,000.00 $1,500,000,000,000.00 China $1,000,000,000,000.00 United States Russian Federation $500,000,000,000.00 $- (World Bank Databank) Appendix (8): The U.S much more reliant on foreign goods and services than China and Russia: Imports (Current US $) $3,000,000,000,000.00 $2,500,000,000,000.00 $2,000,000,000,000.00 China $1,500,000,000,000.00 United States $1,000,000,000,000.00 Russian Federation $500,000,000,000.00 $1 3 5 7 9 11 13 (World Bank Databank) Appendix (9): Globalization slowing down? The world is getting increasingly connected: Cellular Subscriptions per 100 people 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 China Russia USA Internet Users per 100 people 90 80 70 60 50 China 40 Russia 30 20 10 0 (World Bank Databank) USA Appendix (10): Abundant Energy Resources: (World Bank) France electricity consumption and efficiency 2007-2010 8.0 6.0 Efficiency of total electricity generation (%chg) 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 Efficiency of thermal power plants (%chg) -4.0 Electricity consumption (%chg) -6.0 -8.0 -10.0 -12.0 Russia 2005-2011 20 15 Share of renewables in electricity generating capacity 10 5 0 -5 2005 2009 2010 2011 -10 Share of renewables in gross electricity consumption Average electricity consumption of households per capita -15 -20 -25 Saudi Arabia 1990-2011 45.0 40.0 Efficiency of total electricity generation 35.0 30.0 25.0 Efficiency of thermal power plants 20.0 15.0 Average electricity consumption of households per capita 10.0 5.0 0.0 1990 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 Appendix (11): Scarce Energy Resources: Ireland 1990-2011 60.0 Efficiency of total electricity generation 50.0 Efficiency of thermal power plants 40.0 30.0 Share of renewables in gross electricity consumption 20.0 10.0 0.0 1990 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 Average electricity consumption of households per capita United Kingdom 1990-2011 50 45 Efficiency of total electricity generation 40 35 30 Efficiency of thermal power plants 25 20 15 10 5 0 Share of renewables in electricity generating capacity 1990 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 Share of renewables in gross electricity consumption Appendix (12): Climate Change Driver: BRIC nations c02 emissions (tons per capita) 14.00 12.00 10.00 China 8.00 India 6.00 Brazil 4.00 Russia 2.00 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 U.S and UK c02 emissons (tons per capita) 25.00 20.00 15.00 United States 10.00 5.00 0.00 U.K. Appendix (13) Culture Dimensional Theory: Appendix (14) Shell Current stakeholder map: Appendix (15) Stakeholder map Mountains: Appendix (16) Stakeholder map Oceans: Bibliography Manby, B. Shell in Nigeria:Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis. Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). The Evolution of Shell's Stakeholder Approach: A Case Study. Business Ethics Quarterly . Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2002). The Social and Environmental Responsibilities of Multinationals. Journal of Business Ethics , 141–151. Hargadon, Andrew, and Robert I. Sutton. "Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm." Administrative science quarterly (1997): 716-749. Cornelius, Peter, Alexander Van de Putte, and Mattia Romani. "Three Decades of Scenario Planning in Shell." California Management Review 48.1 (2005). Bell DeTienne, K and Lewis, LW. (2005) ‘The Pragmatic and Ethical Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: The Nike Case’, Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 359-379. Carroll, Archie, B. (1999) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct’, Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295. Clarkson, M. (1995) ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, The Academy of Management Review, 20, (1). David, J., Donaldson, L. and Schoorman. F. (1997) ‘Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management’, The Academy of Management Review, 22, 1, 20-47. Den Hond, F, de Bakker, Frank G. A. and Neergaard, P. (2007) Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action – Talking, Doing and Measuring. Friedman, A. and Miles, S. (2002) ‘Developing Stakeholder theory’, Journal of Management studies, 39(1), Friedman, A. and Miles, S (2006) Stakeholders Theory and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hummels, H. (1998) ‘Organizing Ethics: A Stakeholder Debate’, Journal of Business Ethics. Friedman, A. and Miles, S. (2002) ‘Developing Stakeholder theory’, Journal of Management studies, 39(1). Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. David, J., Donaldson, L. and Schoorman. F. (1997) ‘Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management’, The Academy of Management Review, 22, 1, 20-47. Carter,C. Clegg, S and Kornberger, M (2011). Strategy Theory and Practice. Team, Shell Scenario. "New Lens Scenarios." A Shift in Perspective for a World in Transition. The Hague: Shell International BV (2013). Ward, Karen. The world in 2050: Quantifying the shift in the global economy. London: HSBC, 2011. Wollenburg, and Edmunds, (2014). Anticipating Change: Scenarios as a Tool for Adaptive Forest Management. 1st ed. Bibliography: Shell, (2013). Shell New Lens Scenarios Forum. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faqA07KK1og [Accessed 22 Apr. 2014].
© Copyright 2018