Shell Nigeria Case
Management 307
Shell-Nigeria case
The Business Ethics of Shell in Nigeria
The Shell-Nigeria case has produced great debates about business practices and what is deemed ethical behavior. When applying the views of some of the great moral philosophers, economists, and philosophical concepts in history to the Shell-Nigeria case, one is left with a variety of diverse viewpoints about whether or not Shell’s business practices were ethical. Philosopher and economist, Adam Smith, would likely have approved of Shell’s business practices since the organization was pursuing its self-interest which is the purpose of a business entity. On the other hand, economist, Milton Freidman, would have scorned Shell’s business practices as the organization engaged in fraudulent behaviors which gave it an unfair advantage over competitors. Professor of business ethics and philosophy, Norman Bowie, would deem Shell’s business practices as unethical because Shell placed emphasis on profit before social responsibility. The philosophical concept, universalism, would view Shell’s business practices as unethical because it violated basic human values. Another philosophical concept, relativism, would also deem Shell’s business practices unethical as Shell abided by its own values at the expense of violating the host county’s values. Business ethics professor, Thomas Donaldson, would have deemed Shell’s business practices unethical because the company violated ethical behavior principals as well as deeply held values. Lastly, my point of view regarding the Shell Nigeria case is in-line with the Universalist point of view, that Shell was unethical because it violated basic human values.
Adam Smith would have approved of the Shell’s practices because the organization was pursuing self-interest which is for the greater good of the market. In Smith’s mind, people are self-interested so the Shell-Nigeria case probably wouldn’t have come as a surprise to him. Shell’s main goal was to
Shell-Nigeria case
The Business Ethics of Shell in Nigeria
The Shell-Nigeria case has produced great debates about business practices and what is deemed ethical behavior. When applying the views of some of the great moral philosophers, economists, and philosophical concepts in history to the Shell-Nigeria case, one is left with a variety of diverse viewpoints about whether or not Shell’s business practices were ethical. Philosopher and economist, Adam Smith, would likely have approved of Shell’s business practices since the organization was pursuing its self-interest which is the purpose of a business entity. On the other hand, economist, Milton Freidman, would have scorned Shell’s business practices as the organization engaged in fraudulent behaviors which gave it an unfair advantage over competitors. Professor of business ethics and philosophy, Norman Bowie, would deem Shell’s business practices as unethical because Shell placed emphasis on profit before social responsibility. The philosophical concept, universalism, would view Shell’s business practices as unethical because it violated basic human values. Another philosophical concept, relativism, would also deem Shell’s business practices unethical as Shell abided by its own values at the expense of violating the host county’s values. Business ethics professor, Thomas Donaldson, would have deemed Shell’s business practices unethical because the company violated ethical behavior principals as well as deeply held values. Lastly, my point of view regarding the Shell Nigeria case is in-line with the Universalist point of view, that Shell was unethical because it violated basic human values.
Adam Smith would have approved of the Shell’s practices because the organization was pursuing self-interest which is for the greater good of the market. In Smith’s mind, people are self-interested so the Shell-Nigeria case probably wouldn’t have come as a surprise to him. Shell’s main goal was to