Responsibility

Introduction

Herbert Morrison’s comments represent an ideal of Ministerial Responsibility which his political heirs and descendants have, in truth, abandoned to a large degree. In part this reflects new political realities and a change in the behaviour of politicians who strive to protect individual reputation at the expense of what was once a sacred principle of Government.

The responsibility to which Herbert Morrison alludes to arises often in the context of when a minister should resign which has undergone some marked transformations over the years as the apparatus of Whitehall has exploded and powers have been invested in individual ministers: non-departmental bodies, public corporations and other agencies such as quangos now complement ever-growing departments.

As Diane Longley & Norman Lewis observe the roots of the principle stretch far back before Morrison’s time to the days of Dicey where the liability to loss of office was extended to “all official acts” which invariably covered departmental maladministration to more serious matters. The principle, as a means of holding the executive branch of the government to account, has been justifiably described as “hollow”, a “ruling fiction” and leading constitutional scholars have called for reform in this area as far back as the year 2000.

Even back in 1956 Professor Finer cast doubt upon its very existence in the wake of the Crichel Down affair. No such reform or replacement has ever arrived, however, and despite notable episodes such as the Hutton inquiry, the cash for questions probes and the recent expenses scandal in Westminster no alternative theory or principle has surfaced. The operation of the principle has also been seen as not aiding government accountability but hindering it by many commentators:

“Many students of public administration, including the authors, have long taken the view that ministerial responsibility/accountability (M.R.) as the ruling convention for calling the executive to account is hollow. Indeed, operating at its most pernicious, it is a system for the mutually-reinforcing active concealment of government action and public purposes.”

This essay will focus on whether the principle of ministerial responsibility, as described by Herbert Morrison, is still accurate in the political climate of 2012. In part 1 this essay will look into the Crichel Down affair of 1937 to establish the supposed convention and then in part 2 the Scott Report, which was commissioned after it emerged that Britain had sold arms to Iraq, will be analysed. The inescapable conclusion is that Morrison’s statement reflects a nobler and purer vision of politics than now endures and that the principle has been so eroded by time as to be virtually unrecognisable: if indeed it existed in the first place.

Part 1: Crichel Down affair

As Bradley & Ewing point out the Crichel Down Affair of 1937 is the acknowledged starting point in any discussion of ministerial responsibility. Farmland in Dorset, which was called Crichel Down, was acquired under compulsory purchase powers by the Air Ministry in 1938 prior to the outbreak of war for a new bombing range. Lieutenant Commander Marten asked that the land be sold back to his family (who had previously owned most of the land) but what followed was, in the opinion of the subsequent inquiry setup to investigate the affair, “muddle, inefficiency, bias and bad faith on the part of some officials named in the report”.

In particular an inaccurate report was drafted by a junior civil servant that led to the Ministry of Agriculture adopting a scheme which deprived the former owners of rights in the land or as Wass succinctly puts it, “bona fide applicants for the land had not been given the opportunity they had been promised to bid for a rental or for possession of the land”. Wass highlights the two senior civil servants identified by the inquiry who did attempt to cover their own tracks once the facts were apparent:

“The one [mistake] on which everyone seized was the impropriety of the two principal officials who, realising that applicants to rent or buy the land had not been given the opportunities they had been led to expect, sought to appear retrospectively to have considered their case. This was manifestly wrong and would have been a suitable subject for a mild criticism by the Ombudsman, if he had existed at the time and had the case been referred to him. But it is pretty clear from the papers that, even if the applicants’ cases had been considered, the outcome, viz. a decision to continue to farm the unit as a single unit by a farmer of proved ability, would have been the same.”

The end result was that the Minister of Agriculture, Sir Thomas Dugdale, resigned and the two civil servants were moved to other duties. The constitutional legacy of Crichel Down was that it is now cited as “the last example of a minister’s acceptance of responsibility for all the acts of his department”. In the subsequent debate in the House of Commons Sir David Maxwell’s Fyfe, the then Home Secretary, sought to clarify four situations in which a Minister must vicariously “accept responsibility” to varying degrees for the actions or inactions of his civil servants ranging from where an explicit order is given to where action is taken by a civil servant of which the “Minister disapproves and has no previous knowledge”.

This continuum of responsibility did not contain any mention of resignation and the topic remains wedded to circumstances: “there is no duty on a minister to resign when maladministration has occurred within his or her department”. The key factors which influence a resignation are for the most part political: a fact which is corroborated by Professor Finer and Bradley & Ewing’s seminal work on constitutional law.

Part 2: Arms to Iraq

By the convention supposedly crystallised in the aftermath of the Crichel Down affair the Ministers responsible for exporting arms to Iraq would have had to have resigned in the wake of the Scott Report into the affair in 1996. Ultimately there were no resignations despite a close vote in the Commons during the debate on the report. The conclusions of the report were, however, devastating in finding that there were numerous failings by ministers to keep Parliament appraised of their arms exporting policy and, fundamentally, they had misled Parliament, albeit not intentionally. Instead the ministers involved managed to slip into what Margaret Liu has called an “accountability gap” which exploits the definitions given to responsibility and accountability respectively. As Liu explains:

“A minister is ‘accountable’ to Parliament for what had occurred in his department without that implying personal blame on the part of a minister if things had gone wrong. By contrast, a minister is said to be ‘responsible’ for broad policy, and the issues that he/she has been personally involved, not for all department affairs. In other words, the minister is not responsible for what is done by the civil service in the Next Steps agency where he has delegated the accountability for administration from parent departments.”

This relatively new artificial distinction allows ministers to escape responsibility for actions in their department carried out by civil servants and ultimately leads, as Liu rightly observes, to “potential areas of government for which no one is ‘responsible’ to Parliament, even though a minister remains ‘accountable”. Thus despite all of the furore created by the report the ministers were ultimately able to hang onto their jobs and there was to be no supreme sacrifice a la Sir Thomas Dugdale in the Crichel Down affair. This distinction appears to have fuelled the practice of misleading Parliament and being creative with the truth to avoid liability in respect of departmental maladministration.

As Liu points out individual ministerial responsibility essentially involves the private conduct of a minister, the minister’s conduct of his/her department and vicarious acts of civil servants. Personal conduct seems to be the exception with many ministers resigning because it was impossible to conduct their duties in the media glare but as Bradley & Ewing note “there have been very few resignations by ministers taking vicarious responsibility for the errors of civil servants in their departments”. The level of culpability was high in the Arms to Iraq case and the fact that no minister lost their jobs is reflective of modern political times where no minister resigns unless the matter is exceptionally serious or private conduct is preventing them doing their jobs. As Longley & Lewis conclude:

“If the minister is indeed responsible for systems, then he is responsible for their failure either directly or through the identification of those who are. If this is not the case, then plainly ministerial responsibility is a myth. Slowly the effectiveness of the convention has been eroded…Scott may have been successfully defused in the party-political arena, but if his report is left to gather dust when it is an indictment of the deep-seated failure of parliamentary government, then the fabled British system will deserve all the disapprobation which it is bound to receive.”

Conclusion

In conclusion Herbert Morrison’s statement was inaccurate even back in the political climate in which it was created: a time when a minister would supposedly fall for the actions of any civil servant and would do the right thing by standing down. As Professor Finer justifiably notes, the cases which precede the Crichel Down affair do not even lend substance to the convention and the principle in fact relies upon factors such as the mood of the Prime Minister and the will of the minister concerned rather than an overriding sense of accepting responsibility for the actions of others. Applied to the modern political climate the statement is wildly inaccurate with various commentators rightly alleging that it is a “myth” in the British constitution. The Scott Report demonstrates the pliability of the principle well and the artificial distinctions between ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’, inextricably linked, serve only to further consign the principle to the dustbin of history save in the most serious of cases. Now creativity is used in giving answers to Parliament and all responsibility is to be evaded until the eleventh hour. This is, as noted in the introduction, a reflection of the growth of the apparatus of the state and the unelected power of ministers. Professor Finer’s four categories are more realistic even in 2012:

“There are four categories of delinquent Ministers: the fortunate, the less fortunate, the unfortunate, and the plain unlucky. After sinning, the first go to other Ministries ; the second to Another Place ; the third just go. Of the fourth there are but twenty examples in a century…”

Bibliography
Journals

1. Finer, E.S. (1956) ‘The Individual Responsibility of Ministers’ Public Administration 377
2. Liu, Margaret L (2002) ‘Ministerial Responsibility and Constitutional Law’ Coventry Law 7(2) pp25-37 at p.29
3. Longley, D & Lewis, Norman (1996) ‘Ministerial Responsibility: The Next Steps’ Public Law Autumn pp490-507
4. Wass, Douglas (1988) ‘The Mystery of Crichel Down’ Public Law Autumn pp473 – 475

Books

1. Bradey, AW & Ewing, KD (2007) Constitutional & Administrative Law Pearson: worldwide
2. Tomkins, Adam (1998) The Constitution After Scott: Government Unwrapped Oxford University Press: Oxford
3. Turpin, Colin (1994) “Ministerial Responsibility: Myth or Reality?” in J. Jowell and D. Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution, (3rd ed), pp. 114-115

Introduction

Apart from profitability, the primary objective of business also includes sustenance of operations into the long term, receiving repeat business and thereby achieve the satisfaction of the needs of its shareholders. This necessitates the examination of operations with a view to advance objectives such as sustainability which entails being ethical and observing social responsibility. To many businesses operating in the modern competitive global economy, however, being ethical or socially responsible in the conduct of business presents an ongoing challenge (Wheeler et al., 2010).
With a focus on Shell Nigeria, this report critically evaluates the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assessing its contribution to the company’s corporate strategy. It begins by assessing the industry background of the oil sector in which Shell operates bringing forth the issues that impact the company and its stakeholders in their engagement. The report then looks at the concept of CSR, assessing its theoretical basis and the actual pursuits undertaken by the company. This culminates in the evaluation of the contribution of these initiatives to the company’s corporate strategy.

Shell Nigeria

Shell Nigeria is an arm of the multinational oil corporation Shell Corporation operating under the entities Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) Nigeria Limited, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCO), and Shell Nigeria Gas (SNG). It has had a presence in Nigeria since its foundation by Royal Dutch/Shell Group in 1936 and has been involved in onshore and offshore exploration and production of oil and natural gas (Shell, 2011). The company’s operations spread out within the Niger Delta (Nigeria) and constituting the Group’s international supply chain comprise 6000km of flow pipeline networks and stations, oil fields and producing wells, gas plants, and two major export terminals (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a; OPEC, 2011).

The parent company, Shell Corporation, is one among major entities participating in the exploration, production, distribution and sale of oil and gas across the globe. The company manages multinational subsidiary petrochemical and energy companies operating in over 80 countries (OPEC, 2011). Exploration and extraction operations of crude oil and gas in Nigeria form an essential component of Shell Corporations upstream supply chain. Its downstream supply chain is engaged in refinery and distribution of oil and gas, as well as trade and shipping of crude worldwide. The company is also involved in the manufacture and marketing of a range of products including petrochemicals for its industrial customers. Its daily volume of production entails 3.2 million barrels of oil and gas (at 48% this output) delivering refined fuel oil to consumers through its 43,000 Shell service stations across the globe (OPEC, 2011).
Nigeria is important for Shell accounting for about a quarter of its worldwide production with an estimated contributed share in profit averaging $1.8 billion annually. This represents 10.4% of upstream operational profits and 7.3% of total profit (Shell, 2011). Given its importance to the Group’s upstream operations, any challenge on this front adversely affects global operations of the multinational corporation (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a; Emesh, 2009). Several challenges beset multinational oil corporations operating particularly in developing countries as explored below.

The dilemma of oil companies operating in developing countries

Significant oil and gas reserves are found in developing countries of Africa (OPEC, 2011). These countries often lack the resource capability both in terms of financial capacity and infrastructure to conduct exploration and extraction operations of oil and gas. This explains the presence of multinational oil corporations such as Shell in these countries and in regions such as the Niger Delta of Nigeria which holds significant oil reserves deemed to be among the largest in Africa (Wheeler et al., 2010).

Operations of oil multinationals in these developing countries are however fraught with huge challenges brought about by the political and social situations which characterise them. Due to their structural and institutional weaknesses, these countries are often prone to recurring conflict and political instability which portends violence and risks to investments (Wheeler et al., 2010; Idemudia, 2009). However, with much to gain from the exploration and exploitation of oil and in spite of the risks and attendant challenges, the multinational oil corporations value the acquisition of market share (Emesh, 2009).

It is also noteworthy that profits accrued from the exploitation of the oil resource have historically been misappropriated, benefitting a few influential people in the local and national governments while the host communities and citizenry at large suffer poverty. With an abundance of oil revenue, a corrupt leadership forego accountability to constituents and undermine political and economic institutions while focus on oil wealth stifles diversification of the economy into other essential sectors (Emesh, 2009; Olowu, 2011). This scenario has often exacerbated the political and social situation, increasing the occurrences of conflicts and violence and threatening sustainability of business and integrity of the supply chain (Wheeler et al., 2010).

The discontent of host communities and stakeholders at the local level has led to acts of vandalism, sabotage and disruption, as well as outright insurgency which not only threaten operations but also impact the prices of crude oil internationally fomenting unnecessary fluctuations (Olowu, 2011). This alongside the adverse environmental impact of the extractive industry in general and impacts on human rights has often injured the reputations particularly of oil multinationals such as Shell Nigeria. They have promoted the perception that such companies are merely profit-oriented and care less about the impacts of their operations (Idemudia, 2009).

Such global concern over these issues has hitherto led to threats of and actual boycotts of Shell products, costly lawsuits and liabilities, and in addition to attendant inefficiencies and security of assets and resources, these challenges have not only impacted Shell’s local operations in Nigeria but have hindered the potential of the entire multinational corporation internationally (Olowu, 2011).

Companies such as Shell, therefore, continually need to evaluate political and social risks assessing probable effects on their business and the investment climate, as well as the impact on their profit forecasts and sustenance of operations (Olowu, 2011; Fombrun, 2001). This scenario has illustrated that adverse effects can have dire consequences for the entire business beyond its local operational environment. In order to sustain their business and even achieve growth and expansion, it is imperative for companies to enhance their relations with society ensuring that they are strong and mutually beneficial. Beyond the profit objective, multinational corporations are increasingly demanded of to engage with host countries and communities and CSR has become one of the strategies towards this endeavour (Haigh and Jones, 2006).

In response to this demand and in the attempt to shore up its reputation and to build goodwill with local communities, Shell has developed policies and programs aimed at taking on social responsibilities. These programs focus on poverty alleviation, dealing with challenging human rights issues, and the pursuit of sustainable development, seeking to lower the negative environmental impact of their activities (Shell, 2011; Olowu, 2011).

These practices are generally referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR). They can serve as a channel through which to nurture relations with society and stakeholders in general so as to address this dilemma that companies face in the modern business environment (Driver, 2006; Haigh and Jones, 2006). In this regard, it can act dually as an avenue for ethical and social responsibility and as well a worthwhile and essential business strategy.
However, finding the right approach and the right initiatives to undertake is challenging for many entities as expectations are very high and diverse particularly in developing countries. As well, in most cases, the development initiatives anticipated should ideally be the prerogative and duty of respective governments and authorities. Their pursuit enables these public agencies to disregard their duties and to forgo accountability to their constituents, a free hand to misappropriate what would otherwise be spent on development (Frynas, 2005).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

CSR is a fast-growing concept in which organizations consider the interests of various stakeholders including society, the environment, and the community in which they are established, taking responsibility for the impact of their activities. It refers to activities that a corporate entity engages with and which are aimed at investment into better and stronger relations with stakeholders and society (Bourne, 2009). This commitment is a voluntary endeavour to improve quality of life for local communities and society at large and extends beyond the basic requirement to comply with regulations or legislation (Boyd et al., 2007).

Though historically consider to encompass corporate philanthropy, the concept can now be summarized conveniently in the phrase…“doing well by doing good” which is inherent in a firm’s accountability and which underlies its social contract with society (Driver, 2006). It encompasses concepts such as corporate accountability, corporate citizenship, business ethics, sustainability, as well as social responsibility in investment and community involvement (Fombrun, 2001). CSR is thus not the sole responsibility of the multinational corporation, but it also concerns the host communities and countries that can engage in planning and in the push for implementation of activities. This, however, gives the pursuit an arbitrariness that makes assessment of success and effectiveness quite challenging.

Success in business and sustainability of operations significantly depends on an organization’s capacity to maximize benefits accrued from its resources such as financial and human resources, physical assets, as well as intangible resources such as goodwill from stakeholders and society in general (Werbach, 2009). This is quite evident in challenges that have beset Shell’s supply chain stemming from challenges in its operations in the Niger Delta. Even with the right mix of financial and human resources, as well as an adequate asset base, the lack of goodwill leading to discontent locally and globally and acts of reprisals has in the past led to disruption of operations and loss of potential which have had widespread implications, including adverse effects on profitability, the company’s reputation, as well as the prices of crude oil in the international market.

In this regard CSR has become a significant component of Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy in its quest for mutually beneficial engagement with stakeholders and achievement of requisite goodwill (Shell, 2011; Olowu, 2011). Through the proactive pursuit of CSR, companies can take responsibility for the impact of their operations and welfare of host societies, as well as stakeholders in general. Though perceived as an outlay that is difficult to recoup, there is evidence of potential reciprocal effect and business sense in CSR investments attributed to its creation of value and enhancement of stakeholder relations (Driver, 2006;).

Due to the general lack of infrastructure and development projects provided by respective governments in developing countries, the need for CSR covering broader roles such as poverty alleviation, good governance and development is prominent. Multinational corporations such as Shell come under heightened expectations to fill in the gap providing the requisite development (Wheeler et al., 2010). The initiatives undertaken by Shell towards CSR are explored.

Critics bemoan this reality in the expectation for intervention by such business entities on matters outside their primary objective. They posit that this demand influences and affects the conduct of business in the increasingly competitive business environment posing a challenge to strategists in the choice between meeting business objectives and shareholder satisfaction on the one hand, and the needs of the wider stakeholder base on the other (Frynas, 2005). This further complicates the development of corporate strategy given the need to focus on a number of extraneous issues often with private entities arrogating themselves duties that ought to be performed by the state or local councils. Such realities hinder the effectiveness of CSR initiatives and particularly its contribution to the company’s corporate strategy. CSR initiatives of Shell Nigeria are thus evaluated in the following section.

CSR initiatives of Shell Nigeria

Numerous activities that Shell engages in its pursuit of social responsibility are herein evaluated to assess their effectiveness and therefore contribution to the company’s corporate strategy. Initiatives undertaken by Shell Nigeria in its CSR pursuit cover external aspects such as environmental protection, community relations and human rights, as well as internal aspects such as principles and codes of practice, product stewardship, stakeholder and employee rights, and transparency (Shell, 2011; Idemudia, 2009). Shell Nigeria and the entire Group takes up an active leadership role in the development of codes of conduct and practice governing workplaces and their engagement with facets of society (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012b; UN, 2011).

The company has also supported development through programs in education, health, construction, commerce, agriculture, transport, etc. benefiting local communities (Olowu, 2011). Additionally, the company alongside others in the oil industry command leadership in programs promoting CSR internationally on various fronts. This has been facilitated by Shell’s new and sophisticated approach they refer to as Community Development (CD), offering a paradigm shift to environmental responsibility, social welfare, human rights, and political responsibility, among other issues of CSR (UN, 2011). This approach entails greater stakeholder engagement bringing together many entities including NGOs, state and local governments, and community leaders in identifying and implementing projects, ensuring increased local ownership, transparency and accountability (Idemudia, 2009).

Numerous projects have been successfully undertaken through this approach over the years especially benefiting areas in which the company’s infrastructure is located and/or flow lines traverse (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012b; Olowu, 2011). Goodwill generated from such “investments” in CSR has ensured integrity of assets that were hitherto under threat which is fundamental to successful operations. Various initiatives undertaken such as the community Health Insurance Schemes, enterprise development schemes, water supply and electricity supply, among others offer worthwhile lessons through which the success can be replicated elsewhere (UN, 2011; Idemudia, 2009).

This way, the company has benefited from consistency afforded enabling it to meet tight lead times and to better align supply and demand through greater efficiency. Success of development initiatives has enhanced well-being and economic empowerment of communities thereby reducing dependency for regional development which had burdened the company (Shell, 2011; Emesh, 2009). Additionally, initiatives undertaken in partnership with numerous players aimed at enhancement of the conservation of biodiversity through the minimization of the negative impact of activities have enabled reduction of environmental impact due to gas flaring and oil spills. The diversification into the production of natural gas has benefited the company significantly, becoming a worthwhile revenue stream (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a).

Through a variety of indices assessing social and environmental performance of entities such as Shell, its CSR initiatives have earned it recognition globally as a leader in responsibility and a CSR champion. These indices include: the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)- 2010; Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DSI)- 2010; Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index – 2011, the FTSE4Good and Goldman Sachs Sustain ESG (environmental, social and governance) – 2010 (UN, 2011; Shell, 2011; OPEC, 2011). Good ratings attained in these indices are evidence of the impact that it has had in its CSR pursuit. The recognition has been beneficial in shoring the company’s reputation across the globe enhancing its corporate value and standing of its brand.

However, oil multinationals (including Shell) remain at variance with local communities regarding the success and effectiveness of these CSR initiatives with the latter still not content. This represents the major challenge with CSR pursuits, particularly in cases such as this where expectations are quite high (Frynas, 2005). The actual success of Shell Nigeria’s CSR is evaluated to assess its contribution to its corporate strategy and bottom line.

Contribution of CSR to Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy

Corporate strategy focuses on the organization’s overall scope with an aim to sustain growth and to achieve strategic positioning. The maximization of profits and minimization of costs is a primary goal of any business venture. This not only necessitates continuous improvement along the supply chain towards the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness, but also entails an important aspect in the modern competitive business environment, value creation (Werbach, 2009; Kazem and Richard, 2008).

Competitive advantage entails the capability a business to provide superior products, services, or value differentiating itself from its competitors. Price/cost advantage, delivery, quality and flexibility are identified as among the components of the value advantage which enhance competitive capability. To be able to sustain its competitive advantage, a company or organization has to exploit such available capabilities which are as important as resources such as physical assets, financial resources, and human resources (Werbach, 2009).
However, the oil industry is characterized by minimal capacity for value addition to products and services, exploitation of a price advantage, or physical resource capabilities (Wheeler et al., 2010). It is therefore crucial for players in the industry to focus on value advantage deriving from delivery efficiency, quality, flexibility, as well as intangible aspects such as corporate value and reputation. The pursuit of corporate value and goodwill through CSR is therefore crucial for an entity to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage given the intense competition and capabilities (Fombrun, 2001).

According to Sachs et al., (2009) and Driver (2006), the CSR idea… “ties up with the drive for sustainability which is to develop solutions for business in such a way as to meet the requirements of the current generation without compromising the ability to provide the needs of future generations in bounty and diversity.” This is the basis for Shell’s renewed and revitalised pursuit of CSR which has enabled it to assume leadership on the responsibility front, a model for corporate citizenship (Shell, 2011). Despite the challenge in defining actual benefit and achievement in sustainability initiatives, the pursuit of CSR has granted Shell an important edge in the intensely competitive environment, enhancing the company’s corporate value.

Corporations invest in CSR motivated by the view on business ethics which holds that shareholders and stakeholders desire a financially stable and responsible corporation adhering to values of ethical conduct and environmental sustainability. A worthwhile brand image and reputation is thus central to strategy (Sachs et al., 2009; Haigh and Jones, 2006). This is the primary thesis of this report and which is shown to guide Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy, as well as that of the entire Group.

Benefiting from reduced civil tension, as well as oil theft and sabotage, Shell has, in recent years, managed to increase production from new ventures such as offshore deep water explorations, as well as enhanced supply chain efficiencies – achieving increases in production averaging 31% year-on-year. Diversification into Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) production has enabled the company to enhance its revenue and to develop a new market (both locally and for export). Its economic potential has generated incentive and economic impetus to enhance the capture of natural gas associated with oil reserves that would otherwise be flared (Royal Dutch Shell, 2012a; Shell, 2011; Fombrun, 2001). Reduced flaring and the clean-up of oil spills have had a positive effect on the company’s risk and reputation management warding off potential lawsuits and liabilities (Shell, 2011; Dyer and Chu, 2003).

Turbulence in the political and social environment and the resultant uncertainty in supply and demand, as well as concerns over bad repute negatively affect investor decisions and therefore share prices (Fombrun, 2008). A firm that wishes to attain success in the modern business environment must keenly assess these fundamental flags and their associated costs , as well as future value or potential which significantly influence investor decisions. These may influence the company’s access to capital and to new markets and cannot be ignored (Sachs et al., 2009; Dyer and Chu, 2003). These factors can be adequately addressed through the focus on enhancement of goodwill and efficiency through social responsibility pursuits.

It is evident therefore that Shell’s CSR initiatives have contributed significantly to the company’s corporate strategy enhancing its capacity to sustain its operations and to thrive despite the challenges in the extractive sector and developing countries hosting it.

Conclusion

Through the pursuit of CSR, oil multinationals such as Shell can gain valuable goodwill enabling success of their operations and the enhancement of their overall image and perception as a corporate citizen both locally and internationally. Shell Nigeria’s proactive community development initiatives have in the most part significantly reduced conflict resultant from discontent and grievance of local communities and global concern impacting the corporate reputation of the entire Group internationally. Reductions in civil tensions, oil theft and sabotage have enabled increased production and new ventures and as well, the venture into the capture of associated natural gas has seen the company diversify into new revenue streams and markets of LNG. These benefits as well as the bolstering investor confidence due to this revitalization are evidence of the contribution of CSR to Shell Nigeria’s corporate strategy.

Bibliography

Bourne, L., 2009. Stakeholder Relationship Management. CA, USA: Gower..

Boyd, E., Spekman, R., Kamauff, J., and Werhane, P., 2007. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply

Chains: A Procedural Justice Perspective.” In: Long Range Planning, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 341-356.

Driver, M., 2006. ‘Beyond the Stalemate of Economics versus Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility and the

Discourse of the Organizational Self.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 337–56.

Dyer, J., and Chu, W., 2003. “The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance:

Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea.” Organization Science 14 (1), 57–68.

Emesh, E., 2009. “Social Responsibility in Practice in the Oil Producing Niger Delta: Assessing Corporations and

Government’s Actions.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.113-125.

Fombrun, J., 2008. Corporate reputations as economic asset. In: Freeman, E., Harrison, J. S., (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of strategic management. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 289–312.

Frynas, J., 2005. “The False Developmental Promise of Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Multinational Oil Companies.” International Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 581-598.

Haigh, M., and Jones, M., 2006. “The Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Review.” The Business Review, Cambridge, 5(2): 245–51.

Idemudia, U., 2009. “Oil Extraction and Poverty Reduction in the Niger Delta: A Critical Examination of Partnership

Initiatives.” Journal of Business Ethics: Supplement 90: 91. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest.

Kazem, C., and Richard, L., 2008. Sustainable competitive advantage: towards a dynamic resource-based strategy. East London Business School, University of East London, UK

Olowu, D., 2011. “From Defiance to Engagement: An Evaluation of Shell’s Approach to Conflict Resolution in the

Niger Delta.” African Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 10, Nr.3, pp. 75-100.

OPEC, 2011. Nigeria facts and figures Viewed on 8/7/2014 from: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/167.htm
Royal Dutch Shell Public Limited Company, 2012a. Shell Petroleum Development and Exploration Company report: “Environmental Performance: Oil Spills. Shell Nigeria, Shell Petroleum Development Company.” Viewed on 3/7/2014 from www.shellreport.com

Royal Dutch Shell Public Limited Company, 2012b. Shell Petroleum Development Company, Shell Nigeria report: “Improving Lives in the Niger Delta.” Viewed on 3/7/2014 from www.shellnigeria.com

Sachs, S., E. Ruhli and I., Kern, 2009. Sustainable Success with Stakeholders. Palgrave Macmillan

Shell, 2011. “Sustainability Report: Royal Dutch Shell Sustainability Report 2010.” In: Royal Dutch Shell

Sustainability Report, pp. 1-37. Viewed on 6/7/2013 from: http://sustainabilityreport.shell.com/2010/servicepages/previous.html

UN, 2011. Supply chain sustainability. United Nations global compact. Viewed from: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/supply_chain/index.html

Werbach, A., 2009. Strategy for sustainability: a business manifesto. Adam Werbach. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press

Wheeler, D., H., Fabig, and R., Boele, 2010. “Paradoxes and Dilemmas for Stakeholder Responsive Firms in the Extractive Sector: Lessons from the Case of Shell and the Ogoni.” In: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, pp. 297-318.

Introduction

In South Korea the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) developed from past 20 years ago and as well the country developed in socially and economically. The main CSR activity involved in Korea to community by volunteering, charity programmes, creating a new bright generations, eco-friendly business process. The different expression are use in CSR such as Corporate Citizenship, Corporate philanthropy, Corporate Diplomacy and Sustainable Development which are commonly used.

In Korea the companies perform a major role in social responsible activities. The survey conducted by the industrial Association Federation of Korean industries (KFI) in 2006 about 75% of the 120 companies developed CSR activities. The leading companies such as kt, Samsung, sk energy, Hyundai-Kia Motor Group, and Hynix. These companies spend 2% of their profit for CSR activities. Through THE CSR events the companies create a good image in the community, second increased improvement of profit and value of the company. Thus these, the social involvement of companies in Korea has a major impact on customers behaviour

According to survey conducted by the Korean chamber of industry and trade (2007),80% of the 500 people measured an d understood that they wished to buying things from companies that perform CSR activities. Through the these activities customers to increase trust towards the companies. On 2008 the directors of the FKI approved a official agenda for companies to increase their commitment towards the community. Thus the companies force to themselves to take on economic, legal, ethical, public responsibilities.

In 2008, FKI approved a official resolution to increase the social involvement of companies. Thus the member companies force themselves to take on “economic responsibility, legal responsibility, moral responsibility and “social responsibility.

Activities for this include, the establishment of a CSR committee that should monitoring whether the companies are take up their duties, the development of the relationship among the employers and employees to rise productivity and competitive skills, as well as the reassurance of a society of donation and charitable aid activities. NGOs, consumer organizations, etc. have also newly publicized great notice in involvement companies’ to the environment. Thus, for example, the umbrella organization of the environmental NGOs, the Korean Federation of Environment Movement (KFEM), has introduced a platform called SMILE (Sustainable Management and Investment Guideline) with which it judges companies’ CSR actions. The Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility guides companies on the publication of so-called global reporting initiative reports.

Reference

http://csrtoday.org/sites/default/files/South%20Korea%3A%20CSR.pdf

Abstract

This paper critically examines the role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the financial performance of British Airways. The paper posits that as much as CSR is meant to give back to the community where the company operates; this is seldom the case in today’s business environment. Many companies use CSR as a marketing stance or to maintain relevance in todays green business, and technology. British Airways has a strong and distinct CSR; it stands out in the airline industry. This paper examines the principles that form the basis of this CSR and analyses their effectiveness in attracting benefits to the company. This analysis is aimed at proving that British Airways has greatly benefited financially from its CSR, and it will continue to do so. The airline company has attracted used CSR to establish an efficient human resource and has successfully created meaningful partnerships that have brought tangible financial rewards. The analysis points at the fact that despite having CSR as beneficial to the communities where British Airways operate; it directly benefits the company, as well.

Introduction

British Airways has a well laid out Corporate Social Responsibility agenda that is a key component of its business plan. The company has defied all odds in regard to the recent economic challenge, and fully protected its resource level in order to maintain its commitment to the most important destination, the Corporate Responsibility programme. This makes it easy to assume that British Airways is a head of competition due to its distinct CSR programs. British Airways, on its website describes their CSR as “being a good neighbour, concerned for the community and environment” (British Airways, 2013). These CSR principles are built on environmental issues such as carbon efficiency, elimination of emissions, noise reduction, recycling and fundraising (British Airways, 2013). The airline’s commitment to this mission is demonstrated through its innovative and creative execution of its sustainability agenda (Bowman, 1975). This is shown by its partnership with Solen on bio-fuel development. It is in the light of these developments that this paper critically discusses the financial benefit of CSR to British Airways.

CSR and Employee relationship

The implementation of CSR strategy for British Airways has multiple benefits and specifically for the fact that it differs in importance according to its operations. In the era of green revolution and technology, emission reduction is viewed as a positive marketing strategy for most companies. This is more so in the airline transportation industry that is responsible for 2 percent pollution worldwide (Krukowska, 2013). This can be seen as a driver of competitiveness as it results in increased company reputation as well as staff satisfaction (Anttila & Kretzschmar, 2010). For British Airways, a good employer reputation is a way of differentiating it from its competitors. The company is establishing a solid, distinctive and attractive that can resonate with potential employee’s identity. This could translate as pre cursor to the way British Airways would treat potential employees or an indication of how the airlines has a deeper congruence between individual values and those portrayed by the company. Today it is common for employers to focus on their corporate social performance especially in regard to recruitment (Turban & Greening, 1996). According to Bevan et al. (2004), there is a significant correlation between employees who thought they had a responsible employer and organizational effectiveness. In this regard, British Airways seem to value its employees; the company claims that Genuine and effective consultations with other staff members is essential in empowering them provide efficient service that makes it an ideal to work (British Airways, 2013).

The company undertook an employee survey in 2012; a response to colleague feedback and one that featured few, but relevant question. The survey was done by ORC International, an independent research company and it gave a confidential means for every staff member to air their views on their feelings about working at the airline firm. This survey according to British Airways (2013), attained a response rate compared to none. The airline company was pleased with the response as there was an indication that an overwhelming number of employees were committed and proud in the airline. In 2013, British Airways established a partnership with the University of Glamorgan. Through this partnership, students in the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering department will be given an opportunity to receive industry-standard training that will be incorporated in their BSc degree, and this will be done at the British Airways facility in Cardiff (British Airways, 2013). This is consistent with Turban and Greening (1996) claim that

Large companies go to considerable lengths to get potential graduate recruits by showing their CSR credentials. Nonetheless, in this partnership, engineering staff at British Airways will also get a rare opportunity to study academic modules from the institution at both undergraduate and postgraduate level (British Airways, 2013). The airline claims that, by 2012, there were 50 new graduates introduced to its operations (British Airways, 2013). It further claims that graduates are important for the airline’s long term plans and alumni from this partnership scheme are many in the company. Furthermore, this scheme has been in operation for little over five years, and this is consistent with British Airways history of recruiting and developing graduates; most of the senior positions in the company are held by these alumni (British Airways, 2013). In addition, there is a statistical significant correlation between employee loyalty and a company’s CSR rating among those employees who are ethical (Bevan et al., 2004). British Airways has taken this as an option for it sustainability agenda, employees who are satisfied result in customers who are satisfied and ultimately to higher revenue (Rucci et al., 1998). This is creative capitalism as British Airways can not claim to be socially responsible, it is done to benefit the company(Kerr, 2009)

CSR and Efficiency

British Airways CSR principles are built on environmental issues such as carbon efficiency, elimination of emissions, noise reduction, and recycling (British Airways, 2013). This is an indication that the company is committed through practice to these principles. It is obvious that, with such a commitment, it would definitely have an improved operational efficiency and cost savings as a benefit. This begs the question, whether this CSR is genuineAccording to Khanifar et al., (2012 ), in this commercial era, businesses are under pressure to play an active role in society, but this is not for the society, most companies have intelligently used this opportunity to gain publicity and enhance their revenue. It is evident that the British Airways is a leader in the implementation of a responsible approach in regard to the effects of aviation on the environment. However, it claims that this approach is not only important for the environment; it is the ideal approach in saving on cost considering the economic hardship marked with high fuel costs (British Airways, 2013). This calls for efficient management approach and continuous examination of the operational process; this is a sure way of conserving energy as well as turning waste into revenue. British Airways (2012), claims through its CSR report that it made an operating profit of ?274 million, in addition to maintaining non-fuel costs flat.

CSR and Partnerships

In addition, CSR is an ideal way of improving business connections, there is always the possibility of the emergence of meaningful, long term partnerships. British Airways partnership with Solena Fuels Corporation is one such partnership as a result of its CSR agenda. The two companies are establishing a bio-jet facility, the first one in Europe and one that will propel the planes in the near future (British Airways, 2013). This has opened a new channel from which the airline will source sustainable fuel at market competitive rates. In addition, British Airways CSR has created synergies; in 2012, it successfully made cost synergies one of its partners in the industry, airline Iberia. This was an indication that British Airways had done better in its revenue synergy targets for the second year. Flammer (2013), claims that CSR is a mgnet that attracts business from customers as well as shareholders. Consequently, British Airways raised its revenue and cost target to 560 million Euros from 500 million Euros in 2011, where it delivered the cost and revenue synergy worth 13 million Euros (British Airways, 2012).

Conclusion

British Airways with its strong, distinct and elaborate CSR makes it stand out among its competitors. It appears that, with this well laid out CSR agenda, it is a major component of the airline’s business plan. The company has defied all odds despite the recent economic difficulties and protected its resource level in order to maintain its commitment to this important activity. However, evidence suggests that CSR is not just giving back to the community, but also runs a performance agenda. Most of the people working at the management levels are alumni of a scheme started by British Airways as a CSR activity. In addition, the airline has partners who have continually provided it with direct financial benefits such as Solen. British Airways has taken advantage of its CSR to strengthen its position in the market.

Bibliography

Anttila, T. & Kretzschmar, A., 2010. Application of CSR Programs in the Airline Industry. International Business.

Bevan, S., Isles, N., Emery, P. & Hoskins, T., 2004. Achieving high performance CSR at the heart of business. London: The Work Foundation.

British Airways, 2012. Corporate Responsibility Report 2012. [Online] British Airways Available at: http://www.onedestination.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/BA_CRR_Full_Report.pdf [Accessed 20 December 2013].

British Airways, 2013. British airways social & environmental policy. [Online] British Airways Available at: http://www.britishairways.com/cms/masterEN/content/company_information/ community_and_environmental/social_and_environment_policy.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2013].

Flammer, C., 2013. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial PerformanceA Regression Discontinuity Approach. MIT Sloan School of Management .

Kerr, J.E., 2009. The Creative Capitalism Spectrum: Evaluating Corporate Social Responsibility Through a Legal Lens Abstrac. Social Science .

Khanifar, H., Nazari, K., Emami, M. & Soltani, H.A., 2012. Impacts Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Company Financial Performance. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 3(9).

Krukowska, E., 2013. Global Emissions Plan for Airlines Gets First UN Approval. Bloomberg , 04 October.

Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S. & Quinn, R.T., 1998. The employee-customer-profit chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review, pp.83-97.

Turban, D.B. & Greening, D.W., 1996. Corporate social performance and organisational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), pp.658-72.

Do you believe the United Nations and individual states have a “responsibility to protect” people from oppression by their own governments? If not should they?

Introduction

The advent of globalisation and the end of the Cold War resulted in a multi-polar balance of power, where state sovereignty was diminished by the forces of globalisation (Kaldor, 2007: Rosenau, 1990). The role of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN) increased, to reach areas in the past exclusively tied to the capacities of the state (Ohmae, 1990; Rosenau, 1990, Scholte, 2006; Krasner, 1999). Recent inter-state conflicts such as the wars in former Yugoslavia, the conflict in Rwanda, and the events of the Arab Spring have called for supranational, rather than national measures for the protection of civilians against their own governments (Bain, 2003; Brown, 2006).

This essay will look at one of the recent developments in – the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The author will support the statement that the UN, as well as individual states, have the responsibility to protect their own citizens against oppression from their own governments. The reasons for this are triggered by both external and internal factors, which will be separately approached in this discussion. The external factors which necessitate the responsibility of the UN and individual states to protect citizens against oppression relate to the changing nature of the international system itself, to globalisation, and to the presence of emerging or “failed” states. The internal factors are bound by the very notion on which R2P rests – national sovereignty, which in this paper will be discussed as a responsibility, and not only as an absolute right. The paper will show how each set of factors pertains to the position that both the UN, and individual states, have the responsibility to protect citizens against their own governments. For clarity, the rest of the paper is divided into the following sections: definition of terms; the UN and the changing world order: quasi states, failed states and the responsibility to protect; the UN, R2P, and sovereignty as a non-absolute right; and conclusion.

Definition of terms

Before we proceed with the rest of the paper, it is important to briefly define the main term related with the research question – “responsibility to protect”.

It was first coined in a 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), set up by the Canadian government (ICISS, 2001). Its report, called “The Responsibility to Protect” argued that the sovereignty not only gave a state the right to “control” its affairs, but the main responsibility to protect the people residing within its borders (ICISS, 2001: IX-XIII). The report also proposed that when a certain state fails to protect its citizens, due to inability or unwillingness, then this responsibility should be conferred to a higher authority in the face of the international community or the UN. Finally, the report outlined the three main elements of the responsibility to protect: responsibility to prevent, to react and to re-build (ICISS, 2001: IX). This definition reveals the changing nature of the world order, in which the cooperation between national governments and the UN is no longer a matter of diplomacy, but of necessity.

It also needs to be mentioned, however, that the “responsibility to protect” is a norm, a concept, and in this sense, as Bellamy (2008) rightly observes, a proposal. Yet, it has been incorporated into the practices of the UN, and is a common standard, to which governments pledge both domestically and internationally (Bellamy, 2008: 5). Bellamy’s definition shows that the responsibility to protect is therefore an obligation of the UN and its member-states, despite the ongoing debate whether it is a norm, idea, or a concept.

As the next sections of this paper will argue, because of the changing nature of security and the complex processes of state-building, the responsibility to protect is no longer only in the hands of individual countries and their national governments.

The external factors: “quasi states”, “failed states”, and “the responsibility to protect”

In order to understand the concept of R2P and why it is applicable in the context of both the UN and individual states, we need to briefly examine the changing world order. This will give us a notion of the “external” factors which make both the UN and individual states responsible for the protection of their own civilians. This section will look at state-building and globalisation, as a result of which emerging states, incapable of providing for their own citizens appeared. This called for a more global approach to the protection of citizens against oppression.

With the end of the simple bipolarity shared between the Soviet Union and the United States, the world saw the rise of non-state actors, and other threats to security coming from within the states (Kaldor, 2006; 2003). The end of the traditional state-to-state wars necessitated the actions of a global civil society. Also, the demise of communism led to the rise of newly formed states, in which the transition to democracy and human rights protection is yet to be completed (Jackson, 2006; Ghani and Lockhart, 2008). As Ghani and Lockhart suggest, these “failed states” became the source of security concerns for the international community, because they are often the stage for violent conflicts, economic instability, terrorism and networks of criminality (Ghani and Lockhart, 2008). In this sense, they present a threat to their own populations. Many of these countries are still struggling to achieve stable institutions, transparency of the state authorities, civil liberties, freedom of speech and economic development. In addition, with the end of colonialism, newly formed independent states from Latin America and Africa, despite having judicial sovereignty, have not completely acquired domestically and internally the institutional features of sovereignty as defined by classical international law (Jackson, 2006). As Jackson suggests, these states or as he calls them “quasi states” have not reached the level where they can provide for their own citizens, because of predicaments of political and institutional character. In those countries, the very process of state-building has not been completed, and is thus resulting in refugee flows, crimes against humanity, and poverty (Ghani and Lockhart, 2008). In those countries state-building is often hindered by internal ethnic and religious tensions, leading to constant turmoil and grave violations of human rights. The cases of Rwanda, Congo, Syria, and Libya are only few examples which demonstrate state-building in its early stages (Ghani and Lockhart, 2008; Jackson, 2006). Therefore, the protection of civilians needs to be conceived as a top-bottom strategy, and then implemented on a domestic level, so that these countries can fulfil their sovereign obligations towards its citizens (Bellamy, 2008).

The concept of sovereignty will be discussed in more detail in the next section of this essay. Here it is more important to understand how globalisation is related with the rapid emergence of newly formed states, whose capacity as security and stability providers is undermined by a variety of factors. One of them as observed by Stiglitz (2003) is related with the rapid globalisation of markets, and the inability of newly emerged states to meet the demanding expectations of globalising markets. The other one as already mentioned is related with state-building, where external intervention is necessary so that government institutions can be stabilised, and structures for the institutionalisation of the peace can be established (Chesterman, 2004). Therefore, state-building needs to be assisted not only internally, but with extended international involvement, in the face of the UN and other international organisations. The responsibility to protect in this sense reflects this newly conceived vision of state-building, because its main emphasis is to help states “build the capacity” to assist their own populations (ICRtoP, 2005). This capacity is the actual core of state-building, and it entails constructing or reconstructing the institutions, which are responsible for providing economic stability and security for the citizens. The capacity to build is also what lies at the heart of the R2P and explains why organisations such as the UN have responsibility to protect in cases, where national governments are unable to and the process of state-building has been hindered or slowed down.

In summary, globalisation has catalysed the process of state-building in different parts of the world. This has led to new security challenges, coming from within failed or failing states, torn by ethnic and religious conflicts and branded by political instability and poverty. These external factors and the changing international system have made the UN and individual states obliged to protect citizens from oppression.

The internal factors: The UN, R2P, and sovereignty as non-absolute

The previous section has discussed the external factors which explain why the UN and individual states have the responsibility to protect their own citizens and how R2P has been justified by globalisation and state-building. This section will look at the argument from another perspective by discussing sovereignty as a defining element and an internal factor which makes states and the UN responsible for the protection of the citizens.

In the early 1990s members of the UN Security Council like the UK and the US started to refer to sovereignty not only as a right, but also as a responsibility (Bellamy, 2008:5). In the 2005 World Summit, the member states determined the final scope of R2P in the following way:

“Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity […] We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability […]. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” (ICRtoP, 2005, paragraphs 138-9).

A year later the United Nations Security Council formalised its support for R2P in Resolution 1674 (UN, 2006).

Here it is important to explain clearly the connection between sovereignty, and the R2P. If we understand sovereignty in its traditional, “Westphalian” sense of the word, then the focus is on non-intervention and territorial integrity (Krasner, 1999). In a global world order however, this notion is already anachronistic and inapplicable. Because of the changed global dynamics, there is a different conceptualisation of sovereignty. This is namely sovereignty as responsibility, where national governments have the obligation to provide and not only to control, and if they are unable to fulfil these responsibilities, then international intervention might be legitimised (Bellamy, 2008). As mentioned earlier, this new vision of sovereignty is triggered by the changing nature of the international system, and the facts that traditional wars between states are withering away, to be replaced by internal conflicts, for which international intervention becomes a viable option (Bellamy, 2008). In this sense, the very concept of sovereignty has evolved, in response to the evolving international system. International intervention is no longer to be conceived as a direct violation of classic sovereignty, but as a necessity, which can help with the enforcement of human rights and peace.

Although the R2P proposes military intervention only as a final resort, and its ability to prevent crimes remains a matter of debate, it is an exemplification of the collective effort of a global civil society to achieve international peace and stability. As already observed, R2P is applicable in cases where the state is unable to complete its national obligations, and as Bellamy (2008) concludes, no state should fail with its responsibility to protect its own citizens and to provide for their well-being. In situations where this is not possible, the state itself should welcome international assistance to corroborate its own efforts as a security and stability provider (Bellamy, 2008: 22).

In summary, the UN and national governments have the responsibility to protect their own civilian populations because they are bound by the evolving notion of sovereignty, which in modern days exists not only as a right, but also as an individual obligation of each one of the member-states.

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to explain why the UN and national governments have responsibility to protect. The author has proposed internal and external factors to support the above statement. The internal factors are related with national sovereignty, which in an age of globalisation, can no longer be viewed only as an absolute right – it is an obligation, and entails responsibility which all sovereign countries have. From an external perspective, the responsibility of the UN and states to protect their citizens is dictated by globalisation and state-building. The withering away of the classic state-to-state conflicts and old territorial wars has paved the way for a much more complex system of relations, with threats coming from within the states. In these cases the need for a collective effort on behalf of the UN to keep the world peace is more than a necessity.

A relatively new concept, R2P remains controversial despite its strong theoretical and political fundaments. Issues related with its enforceability and ability to actually prevent grave human rights violations remain in question. In addition, its efficacy in conflicts like the one in Syria remains to be tested, as does its applicability for military intervention in cases when the UN Security Council has not given its consent. All this however, is a subject of further discussion.

Bibliography

Bain, W. (2003) Between Anarchy and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bellamy, A. (2008) Responsibility to Protect London: Polity

Brown, C. (2006) Sovereignty, Rights and Justice, London: Polity

Cunliffe, P. (ed.) (2011) Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect, London: Routledge

Chesterman, S. (2004) You the People: the United Nations, Transnational Administration and State-building, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 3

Ghani, A. and Lockhart, C. (2008) Fixing Failed States, Oxford: Oxford University Press

ICISS (2001) “The responsibility to protect”, Available

at:http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf, Accessed 20 November, 2013

ICRtoP (2005) “Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document”

Available at: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=398

Accessed 20 November, 2013

Fukuyama, F. (2005) State Building, (London: Profile Books), Chapter I

Jackson, R. (1996) Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Cambridge: Oxford University Press

Kaldor, M. (2006) Old and New Wars, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity press

Kaldor, M. (2003) Global Civil Society: An Answer to War,(London: Polity)

Krasner, S. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Ohmae, K. (1990). The . London: Collins

Rosenau, J.N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory and Continuity, Princeton; Princeton University Press

Scholte, J.A.(2006). Globalization: a Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Stiglitz, J. (2003) Globalization and Its Discontents, W.W Norton

United Nations, (2006) “Resolution 1674”, United Nations Security Council, April 2006, Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/331/99/PDF/N0633199.pdf?OpenElement

6. Discuss a company which has failed to comply with CSR principles. Explain what the company has done that violates CSR. Include information on the company and its business operations in your discussion.

Volkswagen “VW” Is a German company and is a one of an auto manufacturer. VW is a company that failed to follow Corporate Social Responsibility principles (CSR). Their only objective is to maximize profit. The Volkswagen company represent a full failure in terms of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). VW has violated CSR; the company set out to design a trick to control emissions. The aim of this trick is to give the company an unfair feature over its competitors which made it the world’s first car maker. While the company should be environmentally friendly according to the basis of cars, VW was poisoning the planet by Issuance 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide. Volkswagen has a polluted engine, and they did everything they could to hide the fact that its diesel engines were highly polluted, and the head of CSR reject that fact. Because for Volkswagen, CSR is a marketing exercise. (Dans, 2015)

Some of Volkswagen business operations: develops vehicles, produces and sells vehicles especially passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.

VW has produced 11,000,000 diesel cars, and they used to cheat on emissions tests; the cars were not tested, and they release 40 times the legal levels of nitrogen oxide pollution. This scandal has harmed consumers, governments, and the health of the citizens in the communities. VW market value fell by 23% in September 2015, after they admitted they were cheating about the diesel emissions. (3p Contributor , 2016)

The company had a negative impact on brand trust and reputation, customer satisfaction, employee morale and loyalty, and investor confidence. Trust, once lost, is notoriously hard to regain.

;

VW cars released about 41,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere each year. Complying with the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards that the cars need to release 1,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides each year. Nitrogen oxides affect the ozone, and it pollute the air, which will harm human health like asthma and will harm other living species in the earth. After VW admitting what happened, half of their profits which was about $7.3 billion goes to fix the cars, pay fines and settle customers’ lawsuits. (Mazzoni, 2015)

3. Discuss why Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability are important for stakeholders.

Stakeholders are a variety of people, and they are consumers, shareholders, workers, and societies with a fixed interest in a business strategy and developing plans. The primary stakeholders are usually internal stakeholders, engage in economic transactions with the business, and they depend on the company’s financial well-being — examples: shareholders, strategic clients, suppliers, creditors, and employees. The secondary stakeholders have an indirect relationship with a company, they are external stakeholders, and they are affected by the business but do not depend on its financial well-being — examples: competitors, vendors, government, media, banks, customers, environmental activists. Since stakeholders include citizens of the country, businesses are linked with the economy and these citizens are affected by the business strategy and their sustained effort and their environmental effort.

Having poor stakeholder commitment can lead to issues later on. Stakeholders can get annoyed, consumers can view the business being unresponsive and not responsible, and local societies can respond negatively if they are ignored.

Corporate social responsibility in business has a positive impact on the business’s reputation with its stakeholders. With this positive reputation, it guarantees stability and sustainability and financial benefits of the business. Dissatisfaction of secondary stakeholders in any of the markets it shows that the company runs can quickly spread onto other markets, and therefore risk the business operations in markets in which the company will be recognized as successful and socially responsible.

The effects of socially responsible activities are not aimed only for the secondary stakeholders but primary stakeholders of the business which acts as a good communication channel toward external groups of stakeholders as well.

Apart from the positive effect on profitability and economic growth, it has been shown that the concept of CSR surely changes the satisfaction, motivation, and loyalty of workers, while allowing the management to obtain the best features from every worker, which straight adds to the creation of positive business trends. Having a higher level of CSR can positively affect the commitment of workers which significantly increases the efficiency of business processes. Having a higher level of motivation, loyalty, and satisfaction affected by socially responsible business operations, enables the workers and other internal stakeholders to recognize organizational values.