RELACIÓN LONGITUD PARTE APICAL/LONGITUD RAÍZ

Another issue explored is the elicitation of the channels stakeholders suggest or prefer should be used by the MNCs to discharge accountability to communities. This sub- section draws on question 18 of phase one questionnaire and question 18 of phase two questionnaire. Whilst the phase one question seeks respondents’ opinion on whether the channels for discharging accountability to communities should be formal or informal, phase two question seeks the respondents’ opinion on specific channels the companies should use to discharge accountability. Figure 6E shows a summary of responses supporting formal or informal channels of accountability (with corresponding absolute values presented in appendix 6D).

60

102

Figure 6E: Formal and informal channels of accountability

All the stakeholders broadly prefer formal channel of accountability to informal as a means of corporate communication with communities. However, the specific channels through which the companies could provide information to the communities were not clear from this data. Consequently, the phase two questionnaire equally designed an open-ended question to elicit respondents’ preferred channels for the discharge of corporate accountability to communities.

It might be naïve61 to seek from corporations those channels they think corporations should use to provide information to communities. However, the findings might provide insight into other channels that corporations use (perhaps) and/or might prefer to use to communicate with the communities different to the formal channels of accountability in the literature. Whilst the literature might consider conventional annual reports (Adams & Harte, 1998; Campbell, 2000; Gray, et al., 1995a), stand-alone reports and web-based reports (Erusalimsky, et al., 2006; Guthrie, et al., 2008; Unerman, 2000) as a key means of communication, it is apparent from these data that a range of other means of

communication are offered and/or preferred by the corporations, communities,

regulators and NGOs (see Table 6E), which might still be emergent and so might merit developing in future studies (Parker, 2011: 20). These articulated forms of

61

For example, scholars who are critical of corporate impression management and rhetoric might see the approaches chosen by the corporations to be at best superficial or corporate capture of social discourse. 85.4 87.0 _81.5 9.8 _4.9 8.7 _4.3 14.8 3.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MNCs Indigenous companies Regulators % of formal % of informal % of both Stakeholder groups % of re spons es pe r s ta ke hol d er group

103

accountability and their apparent or actual deployment by the MNCs are discussed in the latter part of this section and Section 6.6.

Table 6E: Media/channels preferred for providing information to communities

R an k Respondents Channels M N C s In d ige n ou s C omp an ie s R egu lator s N G O s Total R es p on se s 1 Engagement 11 13 28 23 75 (44.12)

2 Local and other media 10 13 29 13 65

(38.24)

3 Website 2 2 9 6 19

(11.18) 4 Bulletins, pamphlets and

newsletters

2 3 1 - 6

(3.53)

5 Annual reports 1 - 3 1 5

(2.94)

The figures in parenthesis are the percentages of the aggregate of the total responses

The channels they articulated to meet accountability demands of communities largely ignored formal annual reports as shown by Table 6E, which is interesting given the focus on annual reports in the SEA literature. From Table 6E, corporations and stakeholders preferred engagement, and local and other media as the two major accountability channels corporations should use to provide information to the

communities. The caption engagement includes meeting with community group leaders, town hall meeting (which is not restricted to community leaders), consultative forum, memorandum of understanding (MOU), and participation in environmental impact assessments and post impact assessments. However, the evidence in the literature suggests that the corporations exercise hegemonic influence over dialogue with their stakeholders to serve managerial intent (see Archel, Husillos, & Spence, 2011; Brown and Dillard, 2013; Onkila, et al., 2014; Spence, 2009). This might explain why the corporations and regulators as co-partners are advocating engagement as a mode of accountability62. Although other stakeholders hold the same view, the literature argues that power imbalance between the corporations and stakeholders inhibits meaningful

62

However, the literature argues that engagement is not accountability but rather a process to help entrench a mechanism that will promote accountability (Adams, 2004; Unerman & Bennett, 2004).

104

dialogue (Cooper & Owen, 2007; Dillard, 2007, 2011; Gray, et al., 1997; Owen, et al., 2000).

Local and other media caption includes use of local print and electronic media, town criers, and awareness programmes using lectures, seminars, workshops. The majority of those who subscribed to local and other media suggested corporate awareness

programmes as a means to educate communities on the adverse implications of sabotage, which implies it is partly a channel to educate and less likely to discharge accountability. Whilst the deployment of local and other media by the MNCs is not readily discernible from the corporate reports and interview data reviewed, there is evidence that the MNCs deploy engagement in communicating with communities over corporate social and environmental issues that (potentially) affect communities. This evidence is now presented in the remaining part of this section below.

It is interesting to note that besides questionnaire evidence apparently privileging

engagement as a channel to discharge accountability, the corporate reports also disclose how the MNCs deploy engagement in relating with the communities. For example:

Constructive engagement and partnerships for sustained development of host communities and neighbours constitute the thrust of our new vision on Sustainable Development (Total Upstream Nigeria 2009a: 12)

ExxonMobil strives to have a positive impact on the communities where we operate. Stakeholder engagement demonstrates our fundamental respect for human rights and our belief that strong, informed communities lead to a stable business environment (ExxonMobil Corporate Citizenship Report 2012: 60)

MNCs also consider the GMOU (Global Memorandum of Understanding) as a veritable means of communicating and engaging with the communities by stating that:

They [GMOUs] encourage greater participation and create a more open and transparent way for SPDC63 to communicate with communities and help support social investment projects (Shell Nigeria 2010: 1)

[T]he final document [MOU] is balanced and has taken care of the maximum number of interests – a really democratic document indeed…. This concept is also enshrined in the MOU we are about signing today. …One feature of this MOU is the participatory approach in implementation (Total Upstream Nigeria 2009b)

63

105

The MNCs also tend to agree with the literature that MOUs and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are useful for trust and relationship building (Fidler & Hitch, 2007) as trust is fundamental to accountability relationship (Swift, 2001).

Eni informs and involves local communities, promoting preventive, free and informed consulting, and considers their claims in relation to new projects, impact evaluations and development initiatives. … [E]ni is committed to guarantee the involvement of communities via consultations and forums before launching any important business project. In 2011 in Nigeria, 3 preventive consultations were held with local

communities (Environmental Impact Assessment- EIA Public Forum) in advance of the start of drilling & exploration in the Bayelsa and Delta States (Eni For 2011: 23) Through early external stakeholder engagement, we are able to identify community concerns and implement mitigation measures during the project planning phase. By attempting to address these issues up-front, we are able to minimize community concerns throughout the life of the project. Ensuring mutual understanding, trust and respect in our stakeholder relationships means that interested parties are represented as project agreements are established. Once a project starts, we provide local groups and individuals with a communication channel to voice and resolve concerns related to a development project without fear of retribution. (ExxonMobil Corporate Citizenship Report 2012: 65)64

However, what is not discernible from the corporate narratives is the extent to which the communities are actually involved in the engagement process given the power

inequality between them. Consequently, whereas the communities recognise the

importance of MNCs’ engagements and dialogues with them, they claim that the MNCs practically dominate the engagement process (e.g., Spence, 2009) as the narrative below suggests:

It is not actually a dialogue so to speak. But it is just like a discussion between the headmaster and the pupils. Yes they determine [everything]. Even when they say they are writing MOU, they decide what is to be given to us. So we will make presentations, ask for this, ask for that, for many things; but in the end they will decide exactly what is to be given. … They decide when next one [MOU] will be written (Personal Interview: Community Stakeholder 4)

The communities also believe the MNCs use the GMOU instrumentally because of the difficult caveat built into it:

They [MNCs] used to put a caveat [in the MOUs], a serious caveat [a clause]. As I told you earlier, it is a discussion between the weak and the strong. The community has no choice than to sign. They will tell you that you have to provide a conducive atmosphere [for them to operate. This is similar to Shell’s and Chevron’s FTO – Freedom-To- Operate]. How are you to do that when the people are angry; the youths are not employed? (Personal Interview: Community Stakeholder 4)

64

This narrative however relates to ExxonMobil global policies, which I believe is also applicable to its Nigerian operations.

106

The FTO clause appeared to have worked very well by restraining the communities from breaching peace that would affect the MNCs’ operations. Two of the three Partnering NGO participants in this study commended the GMOU model for ensuring smooth operations of oil companies in the benefiting communities and they explained that such communities had maintained peace so that they would get their next tranche of funds payable every four months as breach of peace would make benefiting

communities forfeit their allocated funds (Personal Interviews: Partnering NGOs 2 and 3). According to Chevron and Shell, the GMOU is aimed, among other things, to prevent conflict:

The objective is to bring peace, stability and reduced conflict to areas where Chevron operates (Chevron Nigeria 2011)

The model places an emphasis on more transparent and accountable processes, regular communication with the grassroots, sustainability and conflict prevention (Shell Nigeria 2012a: 1)

Whilst this section has explored the conceptions of accountability via questionnaire research instrument as well as the analysis of the deployment of engagement by the MNCs, sections 6.4 and 6.5 explore the conceptions of accountability via interviews and corporate documents respectively.