Master's dissertation for University of Wales, 2013

1. UNLOCKING POTENTIAL
Blake Pickering
DISSERTATION 2013
Uncovering the Motivations behind
Corporate Social Responsibility
in Qatar’s Oil & Gas Sector
University of Wales, Cardiff

3. UNLOCKING POTENTIAL
Blake Pickering
worxpace@yahoo.co.uk
+(974) 7701 3456

5. ABSTRACT
In recent years, Qatar has transformed from a dry and unconsidered
peninsula on the Arabian Gulf into the world’s leading supplier of liquid
natural gas and a regional hub of expanding power and influence. The
nation’s bold ambitions are enshrined in the Qatar National Vision 2030, a
statement of intent by the nation’s leadership that reads like a treatise on
sustainability.
Qatar’s oil and gas sector is comprised of national and multinational
organisations that engineer, extract, refine and distribute the country’s
hydrocarbon wealth. Beyond this core function, these companies are
imbedded in a multi-faceted mission to make the national vision a reality.
This dissertation explores and explains the motivations behind the
revolution in corporate social responsibility in Qatar today.
3

6. Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Defying Definition
Rise of a modern phenomenon
Driving Demand
Constructing Glass Houses
Agency Theory
Game Theory
Resource Based View in Strategic Management
Stewardship Theory
Theory of the Firm
Stakeholder Theory
Institutional Theory
The CSR Spectrum
CSR in the Oil & Gas Theory
Qatar in Context
Qatar National Vision 2030
Qatar National Development Strategy 2011-2016
Research Methodology
Research Philosophy
Research Approach
Survey
Archival Data Analysis
Hypotheses
Questionnaire Development
Challenges and Limitations
CONTENTS
4

7. Finding & Results
Survey Results
Demographics
Personal Perspective
Organisational Policy
Motivations for CSR
Implementation
Archival Data Analysis
Regulation
Reporting
Sector performance
Climate Change
Environment
Health and Safety
Workforce
Society
Economic Development
Analysis
Survey Analysis
Demographic Information
Personal Perspectives
Organisational Policy
Motivations
Implementation
Theoretical Implications
Porter’s Model and a Definition of CSR within Qatar
Theories of CSR
Conclusions & Recommendations
5

9. INTRODUCTION
As a resident in Qatar, one cannot help but
notice the perpetual focus on sustainability and
social development that pervades every element
of the national dialogue. For a nation of less than
2 million in a land half the size of Wales, there is
a specific bent in the lexicon of the land that sets
it apart from anywhere else. From local media to
corporate culture, and issues of personal safety
and responsibility to the grand ambitions of its
political elite, Qatar speaks with a vocabulary
that is borrowed from new landscapes in
academia; repurposed for this nation’s vision of
tomorrow.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its
many synonyms are not new concepts, but
have driven their way to the fore with the rise
of globalisation and the prevailing debate on
the role the private sector has to play within
the new world order. Without a concrete
theoretical foundation or any consensus on its
definition, businesses globally are faced with a
real challenge in adopting CSR into their folds
and practicing it in a way that serves their own
interests and those of the greater good.
The oil and gas industry today are global
champions of CSR, with some of the largest
stakes in social investment in its many facets.
With greener, cleaner identities and a new
focus on managing their many stakeholders,
oil & gas is worlds apart from the industry it
was two and three decades ago. Whereas the
literature has countless examples of corruption,
negligence, environmental catastrophe and
exploitation in the past, oil & gas companies the
world over do seem to have changed their ways.
Despite contemporary examples of the same,
such as BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in
2010, there is genuine evidence of a new way of
doing business, with multinationals collaborating
with environmentalists, developing communities,
building local infrastructure including hospitals
and schools and conceding harshly fought
territory in the debate on climate change.
The motivations behind this transformation
are complex and contentious, and many still
regard them with great scepticism. What is
clear is that the changes have not come about
out of pure benevolence, and while the benefits
of social investment may not return in direct
revenue, there is clear empirical evidence
that companies can reap tangible rewards for
engaging in more transparent, more ethical and
more generous ways of doing business.
The image of the socially responsible
multinational is relatively simple to rationalise.
Wiig and Kolstad (2011) found a link between
Chevron’s achievements in community
development and their award of Angola’s most
lucrative oilfield. As competition grows fiercer
and access to hydrocarbons narrows (Frynas,
2011), issues of reputation and record have a
larger role to play in long-term success.
The picture is less clear when one regards
the national oil companies, which are almost
exclusively extensions of government and not
subject to the same external pressures of
the global concerns. In some cases, such as
Venezuela’s PDVSA, the oil company forms
part of a socialist apparatus that is mandated
7

10. to redistribute the national wealth as widely as
possible (Frynas, 2011). In other cases, such as
Angola’s Sonangol, the company has exclusive
rights to the country’s oil concessions and can
dictate which foreign companies gain access
to those resources, which includes mandatory
‘social bonuses’ valued in the tens of millions of
dollars. Little evidence of the reinvestment is
apparent (Ettenborough, 2003).
The question of what motivates CSR in the oil
and gas sector is central to this dissertation,
with exclusive focus on the Qatar market. Qatar
is an ideal study individual. In the literary review, I
look at CSR’s definitions, origins and the various
theories that underpin contemporary thinking on
the matter. I then look at the context of Qatar,
describing the economic, socio-political and
business environments that form the foundation
of the study. A critical element of this exploration
is the Qatar National Vision 2030, enshrined
in 2008, and the Qatar National Development
Strategy 2011-2016, which are an integral
aspect of the narrative.
Research is undertaken with a two-pronged
approach. The first is a survey aimed at
professionals in the CSR and related fields
within Oil and Gas companies. The aim of the
survey is to gauge perceptions of the policies,
motivations and effectiveness of implementation
of CSR among those that work most closely
with it within the industry. The second aspect of
the research is a study of the archival data that
looks at the specific initiatives being undertaken
by five of the largest oil and gas companies,
both local and multinational, within Qatar. Here
the objective is to gain insight into the extent of
social investment and its possible motivations,
taking into account the frameworks revealed in
the literary review.
This dissertation looks to answer a number of
central questions: How does one explain the
disproportionate focus on CSR in Qatar? What
is its source and what gives it impetus? To
what extent do the various stakeholder groups,
government and competitive organisations in
particular, play in shaping the CSR dimension?
How effectively is CSR implemented, and is the
oil and gas industry the most appropriate actor
to be tasked with its implementation?
Through a process of analysis, the results are
triangulated to present a solid rationale for the
primary drivers of CSR activities in the nation,
and what this could mean for the field from a
broader perspective.

11. Defying Definition
As a concept, corporate social responsibility
(CSR) is a relatively new field within corporate
governance, however the ethics and social
perspectives of engaging in business activities
can be traced to the Greek philosophers. Many
contemporary theories, such as Edward Deci
and Richard Ryan’s (2010) Self-Determination
Theory, are based on Aristotelian ideas of
fulfilment seeking, while others are derived from
Socratic duty and responsibility and the Stoic’s
treatise on change within the extent of one’s
sphere of individual propriety.
The meteoric growth of socially responsible
investment (SRI) has positioned CSR as
the fastest growing facet of the modern
corporation. In the United States in 2012,
socially responsible investments represented
$3,74 trillion in assets (USSIF, 2012), more
than the combined GDP of Brazil and Canada.
As definitions go, there is little consensus,
with an almost infinite number of descriptions
that range from the simple to the complex,
which in turn draw in a vast number of related
terms that include ‘corporate citizenship,
accountability, sustainability, social investment,
the three pillars’ and many others. Lockett
et al. (2006) argue that while “the CSR
field is becoming more established and
distinctive”, there is no evidence of a scientific
foundation emerging for its measurement or
implementation.
Godfrey and Hatch (2006) assert that an
attempt to come to a single definition is
untenable since CSR is in no way a single
activity, but rather a collective name for a
range of activities. This is apparent when
one contrasts environmental remediation
with support of a charitable organisation for
example – each represents a unique kind of
social interaction with completely unrelated root
issues – they cannot both be considered within
the same context of a company’s commitment
to the community.
There is an extensive body of work that
attempts to narrow the scope of the CSR
definition (Carroll, 1999; Joyner & Payne,
2002; van Marrewijk, 2003; Carter & Jennings;
2004), generally with the goal of delivering a
more concrete foundation upon which future
development of corporate sustainability and
its implementation can advance, however even
within this body of work, there are conflicting
definitions (Windsor, 2001). The issue is further
complicated by the apparent gap between the
way CSR managers explicitly define CSR and
their perceptions of the concept when asked
to explore it in greater detail. Azer (2001) and
Johnston & Beatson (2005) reported that while
approximately half the respondents interviewed
could offer a given CSR definition, they had
considerable difficulty in aligning the definition
with their CSR activities or articulating their
definitions in more depth.
Dahlsrud (2006) provides an empirical study
of 37 contemporary definitions of CSR within
five dimensions, namely stakeholder, social,
LITERATURE REVIEW
9

12. economic, voluntariness and environmental.
The most commonly cited definition was
provided by the Commission of the European
of Communities in 2001: “A concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in
their interaction with their stakeholders on a
voluntary basis.”
The second is from the World Business Council
for Sustainable Development in 1999: “The
commitment of business to contribute to
sustainable economic development, working
with employees, their families, the local
community and society at large to improve their
quality of life.”
Of the above definitions, only the first
incorporates all five CSR dimensions. Another
such inclusive definition was presented by
Business for Social Responsibility in 2000:
“Business decision making linked to ethical
values, compliance with legal requirements,
and respect for people, communities, and the
environment.”
For the sake of this dissertation, two definitions
have been selected. The first is a definition
for sustainable development presented by
Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Bruntdland at
the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development: “Meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”. The
second is a definition offered by Kilcullen and
Kooistra (1999): “CSR is the degree of moral
obligation that may be ascribed to corporations
beyond simple obedience to the laws of the
state.” While this definition only incorporates
the voluntariness aspect of CSR, it does raise
an interesting issue with the remit of this
paper. The issue of voluntariness within Qatar’s
oil and gas sector is indistinct. While there
certainly is free will among companies to direct
their efforts and fierce competition to deliver,
there is also an obligation to meet regulatory
expectations that is growing with each passing
year. The hydrocarbons sector is held under
close scrutiny by official sources, which grant an
annual Consent to Operate (CTO) that is based
upon several performance metrics. This will be
revealed in detail later.
Another definitional dimension that features
within the research is the Triple Bottom Line,
first coined by John Elkington (1997). A concept
ratified by the United Nations in 2007, the
Triple Bottom Line highlights three spheres
of value creation: people, planet and profit,
which provides organisations with a measure
for assessing success in social, ecological and
financial terms.
Beyond definition, Adi & Amaeshi (2007)
identified twelve interpretations of CSR that are
useful in understanding the business motivations
that drive ethical management. Authors have
variously construed CSR to be business ethics
and morality (Stark, 1993; Freeman, 1994;
Phillips, 2003), corporate citizenship (Carroll,
2004; Andriof and Waddock, 2002), corporate
accountability (O’Dwyer, 2005), corporate
philanthropy (Carroll, 2004), corporate greening
(Crane, 2000; Hussain, 1999), environmental
responsibility (Desjardins, 1998), diversity
management (Kamp & Hagedorn-Rasmussen,
2004), human rights (Cassel, 2001; Welford,
2002), responsible buying and supply chain
management (Spekman et al., 2005; Amaeshi,
2004; Graafland, 2002), socially responsible
investment (McLaren, 2004; Warhurst, 2001),
stakeholder engagement (Andriof et al., 2002,
Freeman, 1994), and sustainability (Korhonen,
2002; Bansal, 2005). Many of these terms are
used interchangeably with CSR, which further
expands the purposes and delineation of the
construct.
10

14. Rise of a modern phenomenon
To better understand what motivates CSR
activities today, it is important to have some
insight into the history and origins of the
movement. The earliest indications of a
movement toward social welfare in business
began at the latter stages of the industrial
revolution, where reformers began criticising
factories for their negative influence in poverty,
unrest, child labour and unsafe working
conditions. Innovative industrialists such as
John H. Patterson of National Cash Register
created programmes that sought both to
alleviate labour issues and improve overall
business performance, such as provision of
clinics, lunch-rooms, recreational facilities and
profit sharing (Wren, 2005). It is unclear to
what extent these actions, came as a result of
a desire to improve worker welfare beyond the
minimum requirements for doing business, and
to what extent they were merely an attempt
to improve productivity. However it is clear
that the emerging philanthropy of the era had
little precedent beyond the workplace, and
that it would take more than half a century
before business began to acknowledge any
responsibility for the community beyond their
individual employ (Carroll, 2008).
Much of the literature on CSR points to the
1950s and 1960s as the decades where the
contemporary form of the movement began
(Godfrey & Hatch, 2006; Carroll, 1999).
Patrick Murphy (1978) highlights four eras in
the lead up to and beyond 1950 that shaped
the modern CSR movement. Murphy suggests
that up to the 1950s was the ‘philanthropic
era’, manifested by a contribution to charity by
leading capitalists of the time. The years 1953-
1967 are dubbed the ‘awareness era’, where
the sense of responsibility that business had to
its immediate community began to enter the
discussion. The ‘issue era’ followed from 1967-
1973, where urban decay, racial and gender-
based discrimination and pollution took centre
stage. Finally, from 1974 and beyond, the
‘responsiveness era’ began, where companies
first started taking managerial action in
addressing social issues.
One of the first books published on CSR was
Social Responsibilities of the Businessman by
Howard R. Bowen in 1953. Bowen believed
that as centres of power and influence, the
decisions businesses made had a direct impact
on lives beyond the company walls. He posed
the question: ‘What responsibilities to society
might businessmen reasonably be expected to
assume?’ (p. xi), which remains a core line of
enquiry in CSR today.
In the 1960s, a confluence of legislation,
literature and cultural revolution contributed to
the birth of the modern CSR movement, in what
was a broader quest for peace and prosperity
that dictated the latter half of the 20th century
(Amaeshi & Adi, 2007). The authors Keith Davis
(1960) and William Fredrick (1960, 1978)
were instrumental in formalising CSR and first
suggested that socially responsible investment
may have long-term financial benefits for an
organisation. Towards the close of the 1960s,
there was a measurable change in business
practices, particularly in philanthropy, workplace
conditions, employee relations and stockholder
relations; however there was still more talk than
action (Heald, 1970).
The 1970s heralded an acceleration in the CSR
movement, with authors Morrell Heald (1970)
and Harold Johnson (1971) first alluding to
stakeholder theory that expanded the role
of business beyond the organisations direct
influence to a ‘multiplicity of interests’ that
include ‘suppliers, dealers, local communities,
and the nation’ (Johnson, 1971, p.50).
12

15. A ground-breaking paper was published by the
Committee for Economic Development (1971),
which further expanded this notion by identifying
three concentric circles of social responsibility:
the inner circle, which ‘includes the clear-cut
basic responsibilities for the efficient execution
of the economic function—products, jobs and
economic growth’, the intermediate circle,
representing ‘a sensitive awareness of changing
social values and priorities: for example,
with respect to environmental conservation;
hiring and relations with employees; and
more rigorous expectations of customers for
information, fair treatment, and protection
from injury’, and ultimately the outer circle,
outlining ‘newly emerging and still amorphous
responsibilities that business should assume
to become more broadly involved in actively
improving the social environment’.
The debate in the 70s saw a greater emphasis
on responsiveness (Bauer and Ackerman,
1976) with scholars highlighting the need to
extend beyond basic social requirements to ‘a
level where it is congruent with the prevailing
social norms, values and expectations of
performance’ (Sethi, 1975). The decade
also saw writers stressing the need for a
managerial approach to CSR that incorporated
planning, organisation, assessment and
institutionalisation of a CSR policy and strategy
(Carroll, 1977).
CSR in the 1980s was marked by a move
to refine and define the concept of CSR
more clearly, as well as the exploration
of complementary themes such as public
policy, social performance, business ethics
and stakeholder theory, particularly with the
publication of Freeman’s (1984) seminal
work on the topic. Thomas Jones (1980)
presented a new model of CSR by suggesting
managers tackle CSR as a process of decision
making, rather than a set of desired outcomes.
Corporate Social Performance (CSP) also rose
to the fore, with several authors suggesting it
become the governing model under which CSR
would be incorporated (Wartick and Cochran,
1985), with corporate social responsibilities,
corporate social responsiveness and social
issues organised in a framework of principles,
processes, and policies. The 1980s featured a
range of corporate ethical scandals, including
the Union Carbide explosion in India that killed
thousands, the rise of Apartheid in South Africa
and several Wall Street scandals that rocked
global financial markets.
The 1990s saw few meaningful contributions to
expanding CSR theory (Carroll, 2008), but the
core themes continued to grow and take shape.
Two key issues, sustainability and corporate
citizenship, became distinct areas of study, with
the latter competing with CSR for conceptual
and academic prominence. Philanthropy and
social investment began the exponential rise
that continued into the new Millennium, with
globalisation and the rise of the internet age
fundamentally transforming the way people
communicated, traded and interacted. One
significant step forward was in the realm of
business practice, with the establishment of
a non-profit organisation called Business for
Social Responsibility (BSR), which has grown
to become the world’s leading resource on
equipping “its member companies with the
expertise to design, implement and evaluate
successful, socially responsible business
practices”. BSR has been instrumental in
defining key terms including business ethics,
corporate citizenship, corporate accountability,
and sustainability, as well as providing models
and frameworks that focus on providing
practical tools to business managers. Notably,
many of the world’s leading organisations began
focusing on CSR reputation in the 1990s,
including Coca Cola, IBM, Merck, Johnson &
Johnson and McDonald’s (Carroll, 2008).
13

16. The turn of the 21st Century saw a move away
from theoretical explorations of the concept
CSR to a greater focus on empirical research,
as well as a greater expansion of related topics
such as sustainability, CSP, corporate citizenship
and stakeholder theory (Carroll, 2008). Several
studies began correlating the impact on social
reputation with long-term financial performance,
brand perception and employer attractiveness.
Conceptually, Schwartz and Carroll (2003)
refined Carroll’s earlier four category framework
to a three dimensional Venn diagram that
placed economic, ethical and legal dimensions
at the forefront, and related each dimension to
a set of organisational characteristics that could
be utilised to analyse social performance. By
placing different emphasis on each dimension,
organisations could develop one of a range of
CSP ‘portraits’ that could serve as benchmarks.
In the business sphere, benchmarking and
best practice took the lead, the Kotler and Lee
(2005) publishing a pivotal book that catalogued
the performance of 25 leading companies in six
categories of social investment, demonstrating
how an ethical strategy and proactive approach
to stakeholders was instrumental in value
creation and reputation management.
The new Millennium also witnessed the
globalisation of CSR, with lagging markets in
Eastern Europe, Middle East, the Subcontinent
and Asia all engaging socially responsible
ways of doing business on an unprecedented
scale (Frynas, 2009). Globally, there has
been a marked elevation in CSR management
expertise, with the institutionalisation of legal
and ethical compliance standards, internal
practices, specialised consulting and auditing
and reporting of activities. Today, many

17. developed nations have CSR deeply imbedded
in the social order, with a far closer relationship
between business, government and non-
governmental organisations (Moon, 2005).
The evolution towards more ethical, more
transparent and more equitable ways of doing
business has given rise to a host of non-
governmental organisations such as the World
Resources Institute (WRI), Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), AccountAbility, various arms
of the United Nations and the International
Standards Organization (ISO 14000) that play
a significant role in making CSR a universal
practice.
However, despite considerable research, the
link between social investment and long-term
profit remains tenuous (Godfrey and Hatch,
2006), and with increasing global competition
and perpetually uncertain financial markets,
the future of CSR, at least in its most idealistic
sense, is anything but assured.
2.3. Driving Demand
Why do companies engage in CSR, and why is it
growing today at an unprecedented rate, even
when a direct link with profit is anything but
clearly established? Several studies have found
that companies are more likely to engage in
CSR activities if they believe CSR will have long
term benefits (Graafland, 2002; Spence, 2008).
Porter and Kramer (2006) identify four core
arguments that proponents of CSR rely on when
making their case, namely moral obligation,
sustainability, license to operate and reputation.
Appealing to morality is an argument for
businesses to ‘do what is right’, and is central to
a number of CSR definitions and organisational
visions.
Sustainability is generally a focus on
environment and community, arguing that it is
within an organisation’s best interests to foster
both in order to ensure longevity.
License to operate ties into the idea of the social
contract – namely businesses cannot exist
without the implicit sanction of the communities,
societies and networks they engage with. This
idea derives from stakeholder theory, discussed
later in this dissertation.
Reputation is the argument for organisational
benefit through an increase in brand equity,
customer and employee loyalty and in some
cases revenue and market share.
This framework is particularly poignant within
the context of Qatar. As will be illustrated later,
the role that that these four rationales for CSR
have adopted considerably different meanings
when the relationship between company and
government is objectively considered.
There is empirical evidence that CSR can
benefit an organisation over time. Certainly, a
well-coordinated CSR campaign can and very
often does result in improvements in company
reputation (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990).
Customers have been shown to choose or
reject consumer goods as a result of a social
reputation (Alexander, 2002). Reputation can
also have an impact on influencing customer
appraisal of a given product, with negative
reputations lowering scores and positive
reputations enhancing them (Brown and Dacin,
1997).
One could also make a strong case for seeking
out ethical behaviour as an ideal. Garratt
(2010) demonstrates that unethical behaviour
at a board level commonly results at unethical
conduct at strata throughout the organisation.
Success, and even survival, in the contemporary
marketplace depends on a company’s ability
to meet the normative expectations of the
business environment (Scott, 2008). When
companies adopt an air of controversy to
observers, they lose constituents, external
15

18. support and provide ‘ammunition’ for rivals
(Elsbach & Sutton, 1992). Empirical evidence
clearly shows that organisations that stand
out as ‘bad apples’ within a market sector
can suffer poor staff retention, declining
sales, lawsuits, reduction in market share
and network partner loss as a result of poor
reputation (Haunschild and Sullivan, 2006).
While the literature predominantly focuses on
the positive aspects of CSR activity, the result of
the opposite, namely social irresponsibility, can
clearly have long-term detrimental effects on an
organisation, with considerably greater impact
in arousing the ire of a firm’s observers (Lange
and Washburn, 2012).
In Qatar, reputation with stakeholders is a
primary driver behind the delivery of CSR
initiatives. While in other markets these
stakeholders are widely varied, in the local
market the evidence suggests that the impact
of the regulatory body has the greatest impact
in drawing CSR efforts into focus.
Then there is the question of attracting
and retaining talent, a key advantage in the
knowledge economy. With a limited pool of
exceptional individuals available, they are fiercely
fought over in corporate circles. Studies indicate
that losing a key member of staff can cost up
to 213% of their annual compensation (CAP,
2012). Bhattacharya et al. (2007) showed
that CSR is a crucial point in the “employee
value proposition” and that CSR humanises a
company, and is instrumental in developing an
emotional bond with staff. An ethical workplace
improves loyalty and job satisfaction, raises
productivity and reduces absenteeism (Sims
and Keon 1997).
There are a number of interrelated actors that
give CSR its impetus. These are presented in
Table 1.
MOTIVATORS NOTABLE AUTHORS
Table 1. Motivators for CSR
Government
National business systems
Personal values
Power relations
Institutional isomorphism
Social network pressures
Social actors & consultants
Competition
Globalisation
Amran & Devi, 2008; McWilliam & Siegal, 2006
Matten & Moon, 2008; Tengblad & Ohlsson, 2010
Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004
Prakash, 2001
Husted & Allen, 2006; Moir, 2001
Burke & Logsdon, 1996; Aguilera & Rupp, 2007
Fassin, 2008
Porter, 2008; Smith, 2007
Werther & Chandler, 2005
16

19. Constructing Glass Houses
The lack of consensus among academics on
what CSR is what direction it should take goes
beyond the lack of a definition. There remains
a lack of agreement too on how CSR should
be studied, its core facets and the theories
that underpin it. It has been variously explained
as a consequence of government action or
inaction and the dynamics of global governance
(Jenkins, 2005); the propagation of global
communications and the resulting corporate
scrutiny by external entities (Fabig and Boele
1999); as well as a symptom of globalisation
and a new economic paradigm (Korhonen
2002). What motivates organisations to
engage in CSR and how they choose to do it also
lacks a clear explanation. In many instances,
companies take up the mantle of CSR with little
external pressure, and pursue programmes
out of proportion with their size, while in others,
companies put under severe duress remain
unmoved (Frynas, 2009). It is thus worth
examining some of the prevailing theories that
have been identified as drivers of CSR globally to
better understand the dynamics.
Management studies identify seven primary
theories to explain organisational responses
to social and environmental pressure, namely
agency theory, stakeholder theory, stewardship
theory, institutional theory, game theory, theory
of the firm and the resource-based view in
strategic management (Fynas, 2009). Of these,
stakeholder theory and institutional theory
dominate in the literature as more generally
accepted and widely explored, and for the
purposes of this dissertation will be looked at
in more detail, while the others warrant brief
explanation.
Agency Theory
Agency theory holds that the contemporary
manager is held under consistent and
unrelenting pressure by a variety of stakeholder
groups to commit resources to CSR initiatives,
with customers, suppliers, employees,
community concerns, government and
institutional shareholders each advocating a
distinct agenda.
As a result, senior executives feel compelled
to adopt strategies that respond to these
pressures, even when these strategies are
costly to shareholders and are not necessarily
within the organisation’s best interests. Agency
theory has been supported by empirical study
demonstrating that managerial strategies
are often caused by extra-economic pressure
as opposed to value enhancement objectives
(Wright & Ferris, 1997).
Game Theory
Simply put, game theorists propose that
organisations, as rational self-serving entities,
are forced into CSR programmes via a game
of brinkmanship with other actors within their
given field, where present costs are traded off
for perceived future benefits, as is illustrated in
the prisoner’s dilemma (Fehr and Fischbacher,
2003). In order to meet the normative
standards of an industry, no company dares be
the one to be informed upon, and resultantly
pre-empts that eventuality through actions
that do not serve their best interests (Sacconi,
2010).
Resource Based View in Strategic
Management
The assumption within the resource based-
view of the firm is that CSR has the potential to
utilise specialised skill or capabilities to capture
a competitive advantage (Hart, 1995). By the
nature of its internal or external resources, an
organisation can create inimitable strategic
capabilities based on technology, design,
procurement and production. This can in
turn be leveraged for three kinds of strategic
17

20. capabilities, viz. pollution prevention, product
stewardship and sustainable development.
Stewardship Theory
In contrast to Agency Theory, Stewardship
Theory rejects the concept of self-interest
and opportunism as the core motivator of the
executive manager, and instead presents the
image of an executive as an individual motivated
to serve the best interests of the organisation
and to do a good job (Donaldson, 1990; Davis
et al., 1994). Rather than driven merely by
financial incentive and a quest for personal
status, the manager has a strong sense of
duty and the desire to work with others to
achieve collectively. When a company adopts
stewardship, certain policies and procedures
naturally follow. Objectives are clearly defined
and managers are given the freedom to achieve
them. Within this context, a successful steward
satisfies most groups, since most stakeholder
groups benefit from an increase in the
company’s wealth (Robbins, 2008).
Theory of the Firm
The Theory of the Firm is a concept whereby
CSR is driven by a supply of or demand for
social activities by political entities within the
marketplace (Baron, 2001). The premise of
the theory is that an activist group will seek
to transform a firm’s production practices to
affect redistribution to the interests it supports
through support for its cause by the public.
As a result, firms will respond for one of three
reasons. The first is out of moral obligation, the
second as a response to the external threat,
and the third for the potential for market
reward.
Institutional and Stakeholder Theory are
governing themes that are closely interlinked
and inescapable in the modern discussion and
analysis of CSR. Analysis by Garriga and Melé
(2004) of the extensive body of research on
ethics and social responsibility show that a
significant majority of the literature is devoted to
stakeholder and institutional theory in one form
or another.
Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder Theory holds that a business should
reject the classical view of business simply as a
profit making enterprise, and instead embrace
either a socially-aware view, whereby firms
should be sensitive to the potential harms
that its actions cause on various stakeholder
groups, or even adopt the more open social-
activism view, whereby business must use its
resources and capabilities towards the greater
good (Lantos, 2001). Freeman (1998) defined
stakeholders as “groups and individuals who
benefit from or are harmed by, and whose
rights are violated or respected by, corporate
actions”, which may include but are not
limited to government, employees, customers,
suppliers, creditors and debtors, trade unions,
stockholders, lobbyists and local communities.
Even to CSR’s most ardent critics, stakeholders
remain a primary consideration. Carr (1968),
who exemplified the extreme classicist view,
even suggesting that a strong measure of
dishonesty was a natural and acceptable part
of business, recognized that if a company aimed
at long-term profitability, “it will need to preserve
amicable relations with whom it deals. A wise
businessman will not seek advantage to the
point where he generates dangerous hostility
among employees, competitors, customers,
government, or the public at large.”
The classicist view and social view depart at
the point of pursuing social good for its own
sake: “value-seeking should be a company’s
only objective function… managers should
not be allowed to pursue moral goals at the
expense of profitability” (Freeman, 1998).
Stakeholder theorists affirm that organisations
18

21. must consider all parties’ interests that are
affected by their actions as a matter of social
responsibility. Decision-making should go beyond
considering shareholders alone to include
anyone who is or may be affected (Branco and
Rodriguez, 2007). This stands in contrast to
the classical view by asserting that “the goal of
any company is or should be the flourishing of
the company and all its principal stakeholders”
(Werhane and Freeman, 1999).
Stakeholders are divided into ‘primary’ and
‘secondary’, representing those that are integral
to a business’ survival and those who are not
respectively (Clarkson, 1995), and ‘mute’ and
‘absent’, representing groups such as the
environment and future generations respectively
(Capron, 2003). The latter present considerable
challenges to Stakeholder Theory, as neither
can be consulted or made recipients of a benefit
scheme.
In taking a stakeholder approach to
management, it is then critical that the needs
and impacts of stakeholders are prioritised
and managed correctly. Mitchell et al.
(1997) provide an approach to stakeholder
identification and ranking based on a manager’s
assessment of three factors, namely their
power to influence the company, the legitimacy
of the relationship with the company and the
urgency of their claim on the company.
Here many authors depart from the profit-
maximisation classical view, and offer models
that refocus stakeholder engagement in a
way that provides broader benefits. One such
example is Jensen (2001), who proposes
‘enlightened stakeholder theory’, where he
argues that value cannot be maximised if any
relevant stakeholder is overlooked or abused,
and that long-term value can be achieved
through a holistic view of stakeholder issues.

22. Wood (1991) suggests that at its core, CSR is
an acknowledgement “that business and society
are interwoven rather than distinct entities;
therefore, society has certain expectations for
appropriate business behaviour and outcomes.”
Ultimately the point of difference between
the two schools of thought is the relationship
between ethics and enterprise. Freeman et al.
(2004) refer to the ‘separation thesis’, arguing
that values are not necessarily and explicitly
a part of doing business. Detractors of this
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory emphasizes the role of
social and cultural pressures imposed on
organisations that influence organisational
practices and structures (Scott, 1994). Taking
it from a classicist viewpoint again, if the raison
d’être for a company’s existence is the pursuit
of profit and the maximisation of shareholder
value, then a programme of CSR is extenuating
view argue that businesses do not operate
in isolation, and that any economic activity is
“infused or embedded with ethical assumptions,
implications, and overtones” (Carroll,2000).
Carroll (1991) presents a pyramid of
responsibilities (Fig 1.) that places economic
responsibilities as the base upon which all other
efforts are predicated and where philanthropy
is the apex, however he points out that all
efforts can only be achieved harmoniously and in
synergy with the others.
and unnecessary, unless it directly benefits
the firm’s bottom line. Said differently, if a
company can gain financially in ways that are
irresponsible, then there is a sound argument
within the classical view for doing so. Several
lines of academic inquiry have been based on
this hypothesis, finding that when companies are
presented with opportunistic prospects that go
against ethical values, they will most often do so.
Fig.1 Carroll’s Pyramid of Responsibilities
Economic Responsibilities
Be profitable
The foundation upon which others rest
Legal Responsibilities
Obey the law
Play by the rules of the game
Ethical
Responsibilities
Philanthropic
Responsibilities
Do what is right
Protect the environment
Be a good corporate citizen
Improve quality of life
20

23. Research has shown extensively that financial
incentives can be created by subverting quality
standards, exploiting regulatory loopholes and
separating lines of political control between the
firm and its stakeholders, particularly employees
and suppliers (Crouch & Streeck, 1997).
There are countless examples of organisations
that will go to extreme lengths in irresponsibility,
including poisoning the environment, cheating
customers, dehumanizing employees, releasing
unsafe products, defrauding the receiver
and many others (Hearit, 1995). On the
opposite side of this coin is organisations that
contribute extensively to the good of society
through philanthropy, community development,
outstanding corporate governance, superior
employee welfare standards and environmental
initiatives. The question this poses to academia
is why this should be. In environments of equal
opportunity, with the base objective of profit
maximisation, why would one organisation go
well beyond the remit of regulation to contribute,
while others flaunt all ethical norms with no
regard for the social impact?
Research indicates that institutional behaviour
varies widely from country to country (Maignan
and Ralston, 2002), and even from city to
city within the same country (Lambooy and
Moulaert, 1996). That said, institutional
researches have established a direct correlation
between the way corporations treat their
stakeholders and the institutional framework
within which they exist (Hall and Soskice, 2001).
There are several base factors, including the
company’s overall financial status, the state of
the economy and level of competition that all
have a role to play in whether a corporation is
likely to act responsibly or not (Campbell, 2007).
Waddock and Graves (1997) showed that the
better a company performs the more likely it is
to engage in social responsible activities. This
is particularly relevant in the case of Qatar’s oil
and gas sector, where extensive profit is a given.
Fligstein (1996) showed that when successful
firms are seen engaging in positive action,
there is a high probability of other organizations
with ill-defined environments mimicking their
behaviour.
Perhaps the most powerful influencer of
institutional transformation is the professional
manager. Managers undergo formal training,
gain insight and experience, and then take that
with them through their career, importing new
practices into an organizational environment
(Edelman, 1990) and allowing for the spread
of knowledge and practices (Abrahamson and
Fombrun, 1994). When a practice such as
CSR is seen as effective and essential in one
organisation, the managers can symbiotically
bring the same sense of legitimacy to the
organisations that they then move on to (Dobbin
and Sutton, 1998). In the global economy, this
has larger implications, and could account
for the rapid growth of CSR in geographic
locations such as the Middle East, where the
philosophical traditions that underpin CSR are
not immediately apparent.
21

24. The CSR Spectrum
Godfrey and Hatch (2006) offer a simplified
model that presents CSR as the relationship
between two polar extremes in academia:
economics on the one hand, which focuses on
the fiscal health of an organisation and profit as
the overriding objective of business, and moral
philosophy on the other, with its focus on social
and ethical imperatives, and the wellbeing of
society as its primary aim. The authors posit
that all debates within the spectrum of CSR are
a combination of elements from within these
two schools of thought and how they relate to
a business’ social obligations, and while some
of the theories and models view economics
and moral philosophy as opposing, others view
them as complementary. Within this framework,
Godfrey and Hatch devise an array of five
categories under which prevailing models fall,
illustrated in Table 2.
CSR in the Oil & Gas Industry
The oil and gas industries have emerged as
significant champions of CSR, particularly
since the mid-90s, where a number of crises
coincided to catalyse the need for a revolution
in the way oil multinationals approached their
social images. Shell and BP were pioneers in
this movement, responding to a barrage of
public relations disasters that had positioned
them as pariahs through a concerted effort
by activists and governments to expose their
wrongdoing (Frynas, 2010).
The first of these incidents was the planned
sinking of the Brent Spar oil storage facility in
the North Sea. When the British government
approved Shell’s application to dispose of
the facility, the environmentalist organisation
Greenpeace successfully launched a high-profile
media campaign to prevent the plan going
forward. For over two months, the Brent Spar
issue dominated press in the UK and Europe,
with footage of Greenpeace campaigners
dodging water cannons and occupying the
offshore rig. The issue sparked a massive
boycott of Shell petrol stations in the UK and
northern Europe, and an official objection from
the German government. Ultimately, Shell
reversed its decision to scuttle the Brent Spar,
while standing by its assertion that this was the
safest option for the environment and industrial
health and safety standpoint (Rice & Owen,
1999).
Shell also faced severe criticism in the same
year for its handling of the Ogoni Tribe in
Nigeria. Shell has been active in the Ogoni
region since 1956. In a 15 year period leading
up to 1991, over 2,900 oil spills of some
2.1 million barrels of oil were reported in
Ogoniland. The result was that the once fertile
land was no longer arable, and groundwater
was contaminated with Benzene to 900 times
WHO safe levels (UNEP, 2011). In 1990, Ken
Saro-Wiwa, an activist leader of the Ogoni
people, presented the government of Nigeria
with The Ogoni Bill of Rights, asking for political
autonomy for the Ogoni tribe and control of
its lands. Protests against the laying of new
pipelines resulted in military action from the
government, where 2,000 Ogoni people were
killed and 80,000 more displaced (Terminski,
2011). Shell withdrew from the troubled
region in 1993, however as a response the
Nigerian government executed Saro-Wiwa and
eight others in 1995. This galvanised a global
campaign by non-governmental activists that led
to worldwide protests and boycotts.
These incidents generated a major shift in
social strategy in Shell. In 1996, the ‘Society’s
Changing Expectations’ project was launched,
which involved a worldwide audit of the
company’s shareholders and their needs.
Statements supporting human rights and
22

25. TYPE
SHAREHOLDER
CAPITALISM
CAUSERELATED
MARKETING
STRATEGIC
PHILANTHROPY
STAKEHOLDER
MANAGEMENT
BUSINESS
CITIZENSHIP
Table2.TheCSRSpectrum
PropertyRights
Asproprietors,
shareholdershave
fullrightstothe
earningsofan
organisation.CSR
isanunwarranted
expensethat
cannotbejustified.
Socialinvestment
hasapositive
impactonthe
company’sincome
andistherefore
justified
Corporate
property
rightsformpartof
thesocialcontract,
andasaresult,
thecompanyhasa
socialresponsibility
tofulfil
Corporationsexist
withinasocial
constructthat
compelsthem
tocontribute
tocommunity
institutionsand
upholdhuman
rights.
Aslongas
shareholdersplay
anactiverolein
theexpenseCSR
entails,thereisno
violationoftheir
rights
Acompany
contributesto
societymost
effectivelythrough
thepursuitof
profitandits
naturaloutcome
intermsofjobs,
taxesandproduct
Organisations
benefitfrom
contributing
tosocial
programmes
throughgoodwill,
customerloyalty
andenhanced
brandimage
Acompany’s
resourcescan
contribute
positivelytothe
socialgood,
andshouldbe
obligatedto
influencewhere
theycan
Asacorporate
citizen,companies
areobligatedto
contributetothe
socialgoodinthe
broadestsense
Organisationscan
positivelyimpact
societythrough
pursuingboth
profitandsocial
causes
Friedman,1970
Reich,1998
Grayetal.,1996
Margolis&Walsh,
2003
Logsdon&Wood,
2002
Buffett,1997
Ostas,2001
SocialWelfare
NotableAuthors
23

26. sustainable development were added to the
company’s business principles, and lines of
engagement were opened with several non-
governmental organisations (Frynas 2003).
In 1996, BP was implicated in colluding with the
Columbian government, paying millions of dollars
and providing information to paramilitaries
and the army about anti-oil activists, which
led to severe punitive measures including
assassinations, assaults and disappearances.
While not as quick to react as Shell, there is
evidence that the Columbian situation and
an emerging age of scrutiny had fomented
a change in direction. David Rice, a senior
manager at BP, stated: “We’ve learned from
our mistakes, not least because we’ve been
challenged by NGOs. In Colombia we were
accused of getting too close to the army and
police in order to protect our operations. We
listened, approached Human Rights Watch
for advice, and then organised new security
arrangements.”
BP initiated a major overhaul of its stakeholder
strategies, began engaging non-governmental
organisations and began embracing CSR
initiatives such as the United Nations Global
Compact (Frynas, 2011).
In the US, Exxon’s defining moment came with
the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska
in 1989, where over 11 million barrels of oil
devastated hundreds of miles of shoreline. The
spill ultimately cost the company US$4.5 billion
in clean-up costs and legal settlements.
The organisation also met with rising criticism
over its policies on climate change, beginning
in the mid-1990s. However, rather than
engaging critics, Exxon spent millions promoting
alternative explanations for rising global
temperatures and lobbying lawmakers. The lack
of willingness to bend to environmental critics
can be explained with stakeholder theory. The
stakeholders it faced simply lacked the power
to meaningfully shift public opinion, while Exxon’s
internal capacity to shape the debate won over
in a cost-benefit analysis (Frynas, 2011).
Although stakeholder theory does explain the
strategies held by Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron
at the turn of the Millennium, it does not explain
the evolution of CSR within the four since. Today,
all four feature very similar commitments
to social investment, including community
development projects, emission reductions,
revenues transparency and corporate
governance. All four organisations have put
signatures to the Voluntary Principles on
Security and Human Rights and the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative (Frynas,
2011).
The global change is better explained by
institutional isomorphism, whereby CSR policies
have become generalised through competitive
forces, mimicry and the shift of senior
managers from one organisation to another
(Delmas and Toffel, 2004).
Studies have indicated that organisations
are initially shaped by institutional pressures
within their local sphere, and this shapes their
responses to the issues that confront them.
However, as these issues are elevated across
the industry, the mechanisms for dealing with
those issues become more sophisticated and
ultimately are institutionalised across the sector
and adopted uniformly (Levy and Kolk, 2002).
This goes some way to explaining why
Exxon’s leadership, which has never publicly
acknowledged the existence of global warming,
have recently begun to discuss the merits of
a cap-and-trade carbon system versus a flat
carbon tax, and even entering into dialogue with
environmental activists (Colvin, 2007).
The oil and gas industry, following the above
24

27. scandals and more recent examples such
as the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, has attracted a convergence of activist
attention from a range of disparate causes
that can be associated with a larger picture of
anti-globalisation struggle. Rather than simply a
result of the growth or improved organisation of
these groups, it is instead a case of ‘the more
the public domain is privatised, the more that
the private is politicised and becomes a matter
of public concern’ (Shamir, 2005).
This expansion of ‘civil regulation’ represents
what some authors refer to as a ‘third way’,
where activists and NGOs, wary of what
they view as state failure, have looked to
shape their actions through softer channels.
These include publicising and denouncing
malfeasance, imposing boycotts, legal action
both in international and national courts, utilising
complaints procedures available in codes of
practice or CSR guidelines, consumer rights
advocacy and collective bargaining (Utting and
Ives, 2006).
Oil companies have responded, developing broad
based strategies to build reputations and shape
the dialogue in their favour. This has taken the
form of global advertising and PR campaigns,
as well as substantive changes to codes of
conduct, environmental management systems,
engagement with NGOs, investing in recycling
and renewables, involvement in community
development projects and the publishing of
sustainability reports (Utting and Ives, 2006).
While there has been a considerable shift in
all the multinational oil companies towards
embracing CSR, the movement has not been
identical. One explanation is the influence that
such strategies have on unlocking access to
new oil and gas fields. As little as a decade ago,
the opportunities for multinational oil companies

28. were extensive, with exploration projects
underway in all corners of the world. Today, the
picture has changed. Nationalisation, depletion,
regulation and restriction of access have made
the prospects for global oil companies far
narrower (Frynas, 2011). There is evidence
that a positive CSR record can play a role in the
awarding of oil contracts.
Greater emphasis is now being placed on
multinational oil companies to go beyond their
basic role of developing economic growth
as concepts such as resource curse gain
international status. Today, oil companies are
expected to alleviate local poverty, develop
community infrastructure such as schools and
hospitals and make meaningful environmental
remediation through all project stages. The
capacity and willingness to invest in these areas
are largely attributed to Chevron’s award of the
‘Block 0’ project in Angola, the countries more
profitable oil asset (Wiig and Kolstad, 2011).
The costs of these investments have grown
considerably over the course of the decade.
In 2001, it was estimated the $500 million
was spent on local social investment by all oil,
gas and mining companies globally. By 2006,
the same outlay was made by Shell, BP, Exxon
and Chevron alone (Frynas, 2011). This pales
into insignificance when contrasted with the
investments made by national oil companies.
Venezuela’s PDVSA spent $13.3 billion on social
investment in 2006, double that of its spending
a year earlier, with Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and
Russia’s Gazprom also spending in the billions.
These investments come as a direct result of
governmental orders, where the organisations
are viewed as an extension of the bureaucracy.
Ultimately, with all global oil and gas companies
investing significantly in social schemes,
the nature of the organisations have been
fundamentally transformed. Today, as
well as engaging in the specialised field of
hydrocarbons, oil and gas companies have taken
on a quasi-developmental nature, requiring
entirely new skill sets and management
techniques (Frynas, 2011).
Qatar in Context
Qatar’s growth and development has had
few equivalents in recent times, and cannot
be explained merely by the abundance of
hydrocarbon resources that the nation is
blessed with. A tiny peninsula on the Arabian
Gulf with a landmass of some 11,000 square
kilometres, Qatar’s success has largely been
due to the steady hand of its leadership and the
visionary development of its liquid natural gas
(LNG) reserves. Despite seeming preordained,
the unlocking of the North Field, the world
largest gas reservoir, took three decades to
profitably accomplish (Ibrahim & Harrigan,
2012)
Today Qatar is the world’s leading exporter
of LNG, supplying an international network of
end users with 77 million tonnes of capacity
annually. Qatar’s economy has grown rapidly
over the past three years (2009: 12%, 2010:
14%, 2011: 18.7%) (see Fig 2.), doubled in size
between 2006 and 2010; today ranking Qatar
as the world’s fastest growing economy.
Qatar’s leadership have been careful to learn
from the mistakes of their neighbours, ensuring
that the wealth accumulated from hydrocarbons
has been appropriately distributed among the
nation’s citizens, with higher living standards
and increased consumer spending a key feature
of Qatari life.
Despite reserves of natural gas that are
expected to last for more than a century,
Qatar’s political establishment have moved
quickly to develop a diversified knowledge-based
26

29. economy and a civil infrastructure on a par with
the world’s leading nations.
In 1994, Qatar Foundation was developed
to broaden the nation’s reach in education,
research, technology and science. Qatar
Investment Authority (QIA) was established in
2005 to manage state investment, which today
spans the globe in diverse asset classes that
includes real estate, securities, luxury brands
and the arts. Institutions such as Qatar Airways,
Al Jazeera Media Network, Qatar Education
City, Qatar Science Technology Park, ICTQatar
and Qatar Financial Centre further underscore
the broad-based development underway in the
country. Qatar has a population estimated at
1,9 million, which has grown at 5% a year for
the past 5 years, making it the world’s fastest
growing nation (See Fig 3.), predominantly
the result of migrant labour. Qatari nationals
account for only 14% of the total population,
with 61% of the population men aged between
20 and 49 years old.
The rapidly expanding population brought with
it a slew of challenges for the nation. By 2007,
Qatari citizens expressed distress at the dilution
of the culture and traditions. Water resources,
electricity, urban infrastructure and the
administrative capacities of government were
stretched to breaking. Inflation soared to 15%
early in 2008 and public service delivery failed
to keep up with the rising demand.
Acknowledging the need for a response to
the unprecedented rate of change, the Emir
of Qatar, HH Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al
Thani, appointed the General Secretariat for
Development Planning (GSDP) in July 2006.
The Secretariat was briefed to define the
path forward that Qatar would take, with a
framework for holistic development that would
be to the benefit of all the nation’s residents.
0%
6%
9%
12%
15%
3%
Qatar NJA LATAM Turkey Global Russia USA Saudi Kuwait UAE
Fig.2 Qatar’s Economic Growth
27

30. Qatar National Vision 2030
Virtually all nations within the developing
world have committed to sustainable
practices in some form or another. Major
global sustainability forums such as Rio+20
and Cop18, held this year in Doha, provide a
platform for leaders to debate, provide solutions
and sign accords towards this end. Few
countries however, have managed to integrate
sustainability as fundamentally and broadly as
Qatar has into the constitutional framework of
the nation. The unveiling of the Qatar National
Vision 2030 (QNV2030) in November 2008
was a landmark moment in the nation’s history.
Based on Qatar’s permanent constitution,
which was ratified in 2005, the QNV2030 was
developed within a comprehensive stakeholder
engagement process between 2005 and
2007. It lays out a clear set of national values,
goals and ambitions, defining a framework for
sustainable development.
The Qatar National Vision identifies five main
challenges that the nation must balance to
remain true to its values:
• Modernisation and preservation of
traditions
• The needs of this generation and the
needs of future generations
• Managed growth and uncontrolled
expansion
• The size and the quality of the
expatriate labour force and the selected
path of development
• Economic growth, social development
and environmental management
The Vision describes four interdependent pillars
that form the basis of this sustainability, namely:
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.5
1981 1988 1995 2002 2009 2016
Fig.3 Qatar’s Population Growth (millions)
28

32. • Human Development - development
of all its people to enable them to
sustain a prosperous society
• Social Development - development of
a just and caring society based on
high moral standards, and capable
of playing a significant role in the global
partnership for development
• Economic Development -
development of a competitive and
diversified economy capable of meeting
the needs of, and securing a high
standard of living for, all its people both
for the present and for the future
• Environmental Development -
management of the environment such
that there is harmony between
economic growth, social development
and environmental protection
Beneath each of the four pillars, a set of desired
outcomes is described:
Human Development
• An educated population
• A healthy population: physically and
mentally
• A capable and motivated workforce
Social Development
• Social care and protection
• A sound social structure
• International cooperation
Economic Development
• Sound economic management
• Responsible exploitation of oil and gas
• Suitable economic diversification
Environmental Development
• A balance between development needs
and protecting the environment
In an address to Rio20+, the Secretary General
of the QNV2030 committee, Saleh Al-Nabit,
stated:
“Qatar’s development is being carried out
with responsibility and respect, balancing
the needs of economic growth and social
development with the conditions for
environmental protection, ensuring the
country is on a pathway for sustainable
development.”
Qatar National Development
Strategy 2011-2016
A roadmap for the achievement of the
QNV2030 was launched in March 2011. The
National Development Strategy 2011-2016
(NDS) delivered a course of action with clear
targets, milestones and mandates for each
governmental ministry. Qatar’s NDS is a plan of
action that aligns national growth and prosperity
to the reality of environmental limitations. It
prioritises national development projects and
initiatives, and provides targets for advancing
the nation towards the objectives of QNV2030.
The formation of the Supreme Committee for
Development Planning in 2011 provided the
oversight needed for the sweeping changes that
were required to take place. Processes were
implemented align and coordinate government
in its entirety, incentive schemes and controls
were developed to ensure optimal efficiency was
achieved, and a budget assigned to fund each
action point (Ibrahim and Harrigan, 2012).
A simplified version of the sustainable
development framework developed by the NDS
is presented in Fig. 4
The NDS makes direct reference to Qatar’s
hydrocarbon sector, stating that it:
30

33. “…provides a means to invest in world-
class infrastructure; build efficient delivery
mechanisms for public services, especially
health and education; create a highly skilled
and productive labour force; and support
the development of entrepreneurship and
innovation capabilities. These resources also
provide a means to invest in new technologies
and frontier scientific research and
development. It is thus anticipated that these
investments will form a strong foundation for
Qatar’s long term sustainable development
vision.”
It goes on to state:
“Where hydrocarbon rents are shared with
private investors, the government will seek to
ensure that these rents are compensated by
other benefits that flow to the country, such
as the acquisition of technology, infrastructure
and knowledge and skills.”
What is apparent in the QNV2030 and NDS is
a commitment to sustainability that is enshrined
at the highest level. These concepts essentially
represent a constitutional commitment to the
development of Qatar that goes beyond the
public sector. It sets standards and expectations
for all sectors to work towards fulfilling the
broader vision through a tangible and workable
action programme based on consecutive five
year windows.
As the cornerstone of the economy, the
hydrocarbon sector is given a specific mandate
that extends well beyond the pursuit of
economic ends. Whether quasi-governmental
or private interest, oil and gas companies are
obligated to contribute to Qatar’s realization of
QNV2030 through initiatives of infrastructure
development, public services, healthcare,
education, environmental protection, community
building and many more.

34. Fig.4 Themes and sub-themes selected for analysis of Sustainable Development
THEME
Economics
Social
Environment
Partnerships
SUB-THEME
Sustained Economic Prosperity
Sound Social Development
Strengthened International
Coopoeration
Cleaner water and sustainable use
Cleaner air and effective climate
change response
Nature and heritage sustainably
managed
Reduced waste, more recycling and
efficient use
Sustainable living environment
Governance for effective
environmental management
Expanding the productive base
Enhancing economic stability and efficiency
Building a diversified economy
Building global partnerships for development
Advancing human development
Nurturing a healthy population
Building knowledge and skills
Fostering a capable and motivated workforce
Encouraging sports
Encouraging family cohesion
Ensuring public safety and security
Promoting sustainable water consumption
Reducing greenhouse gasses
Reducing air pollution
Valuing biodiversity
Maintaining fisheries
Preserving coastal areas
Improving waste management
Managing urbanisation
Improving governance and increasing awareness
32

35. Research Philosophy
In linking research and theoretical
considerations, two primary approaches are
available (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2008).
Deductive reasoning is the most common
stance applied in linking theory and research,
whereby a developed theory is subjected
to specific testing to measure its fallibility
(Burney, 2008). Most commonly, five steps
are characteristic of the deductive approach,
namely inferring a hypotheses, expressing
the hypothesis in practical terms, testing the
hypotheses, examining the outcomes, and finally
confirming the hypothesis or explaining the need
for its modification (Saunders et al, 2003).
In inductive reasoning, the contrary approach
is taken, where the hypothesis emerges from
observations that result from the research, and
generalised theories are shaped by a larger
body of work (Douglas, 2003).
Two epistemological positions dominate the
formation of business theory: positivism and
interpretivism (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Positivism promotes according the same
methods applied in the natural sciences to
develop insights in the social sciences, using
deduction to develop hypotheses that can then
be tested rigorously. Interpretivism draws on
the existing body of knowledge in the prevailing
literature to develop the understanding
inductively, based on a consensus that the
social sciences and natural sciences are
fundamentally dissimilar (Eriksson, 2008).
Although there are exceptions, the deductive
approach to research is most commonly linked
to quantitative analysis, while the inductive
approach lends itself to qualitative outcomes.
For the purposes of this dissertation, the
emphasis is strongly skewed towards qualitative
analysis, with inferences drawn from the
perceptions of professionals working within
the oil and gas industries contrasted with the
available data from sustainability publications.
Some deductive analysis is included in an
attempt to strengthen the findings, with Bryman
and Bell (2007) stating that this approach
can add weight to the strengths of the data
collection and analysis techniques.
Several of the approaches described by
Saunders et al. (2003) have been incorporated
into this research, including cross-sectional,
archival research, ethnography and survey.
Survey is generally associated with the deductive
approach, allowing a large amount of data to
be collected economically and from a large
sample of the population. Ethnology describes
and explains the world that research subjects
inhabit in the way that they would describe
it. Archival research makes use of existing
documents as the principal source of research.
Cross sectional research studies a particular
phenomenon at a particular time (Saunders
et al., 2003). It is clear that this particular
combination of approaches may create conflicts
between the inductive approaches, however as
Saunders (2003) states: “what matters is not
the label that is attached to the exact strategy,
but whether it is suitable for the specific
research questions and objectives”
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
33

36. Research Approach
This analysis is based on two-pronged approach
to assessing the motivations, implementation
and effectiveness of CSR programmes among
oil and gas companies in Qatar. The first aspect
utilised a questionnaire-survey circulated to
CSR professionals in Qatar’s oil and gas sector.
The second aspect is based on an analysis of
existing CSR reports on CSR and sustainability
projects undertaken by the same companies in
Qatar.
The research aimed to:
• Assess the motivators and business
drivers behind CSR initiatives within
Qatar’s oil and gas organisations
• To identify or ‘map’ the extent of these
investments
• To describe the current role of the oil
and gas sector in Qatar’s CSR activities
• To ascertain to what extent government
and its vision plays in driving CSR
programmes
• To offer a superficial assessment of the
success of these initiative in meeting
Qatar’s current social, economic,
environmental and human development
needs
Survey
Initially, a face-to-face interview methodology
was preferred, however due to the challenges
presented by internal security measures
within the target companies, which prevents
non-associated individuals from entering
oil and gas facilities, and their geographical
distribution across the country, as well as
some respondents requesting an email survey
due to time convenience, a web-based survey
was selected to reach the broadest possible
audience. Several benefits of web survey are
reflected in the literature, including significantly
lower costs, less burden in returning a survey
for respondents, greater response speed and a
higher response rate (Kwak and Radler, 2002).
The self-completion questionnaire was chosen
for its appropriateness to a cross-sectional
study (Bryman and Bell, 2007)
Overall, 42 individuals were emailed based on
a mailing list. In total, 9 of those executives
responded, representing a 21.4% response
rate. Of the 15 companies that were
targeted (See Appendix 2), 6 companies were
represented, with one respondent opting not to
reveal his or her employer, representing a 40%
response rate.
Respondents were middle and senior
management executives working directly or
indirectly in CSR, predominantly in corporate
and internal communications, public relations
or specific CSR or corporate citizenship roles.
Email addresses were obtained via a CSR
mailing list provided by a CSR executive in one of
the target companies, which was supplemented
by some of the respondents themselves, as well
as via miscellaneous connections in the market.
Respondents were assured of the confidentiality
of the results and that the survey was for
purely academic purposes. The questionnaire
was divided into five sections. The first section
asked demographic information and some
qualifying questions. The second section gauged
each respondents personal CSR perspectives,
including their definition of CSR, where they fell
on the CSR spectrum and their view on CSR
in Qatar. The third section looked at specifics
about each company’s CSR policies. The
fourth aimed to gain insight into the perceived
motivations for the CSR programmes, and the
fifth measured the perceived effectiveness of its
implementation.
34

37. Archival Data Analysis
An extensive review of existing literature
was undertaken, focusing on 5 oil and gas
companies with significant CSR programmes
in Qatar. Three national companies and two
multinational companies were selected, these
were: Qatar Petroleum, RasGas and Qatargas
as national companies and ExxonMobil and
Maersk Oil as international companies. It should
be noted that the multinational companies
in Qatar are not independently owned. As
per Qatar’s corporate law, all private sector
companies with the country are majority
owned by Qatari interests, and as a result, the
multinational companies within this study are
generally part of joint ventures with the national
companies. As a result, many of the CSR
initiatives are undertaken as partnerships and
there are several synergies and duplications
between national and multinational concerns.
This aspect of the study involved research
archival publications of, inter alia, corporate
websites, annual reports and press releases,
however the majority of the focus was placed on
specific sustainability and corporate citizenship
reports published by the companies themselves
and by Qatar’s Ministry of Energy and Industry
under the Sustainable Development Industry
(SDI) Reporting Initiative. The goal within this
phase was to develop an overview of the CSR
activities undertaken in the oil and gas sector,
and to develop profiles of the organisations,
their sustainability focus, and the means of
implementation.
It was during this process and the undertaking
of the literary review for this dissertation
that the questionnaire for the first aspect
of the research was developed. Elements of
the diagnostic tools developed by Dr Michael
Warner (World Bank, 2006) for the Overseas
Development Institute were utilised in this
process. Similar study methodologies have been
utilised in several national markets, including
‘Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy
And the Oil Industry in Angola’ (Ettenborough
and Shine, 2007).
Hypothesis
There are a number of central hypotheses
that the above research is aimed at confirming
or invalidating. The first is that the State of
Qatar and its National Vision for 2030 is the
primary driver of CSR and sustainability in
Qatar. The second is that competitive forces
between oil and gas companies and institutional
isomorphism also have a considerable role to
play in shaping the national social investment
landscape. The research also aims to place
Qatar’s CSR activities relative to Godfrey and
Hatch’s CSR Spectrum and in light of the seven
prevailing theories of CSR presented earlier.
Questionnaire Development
The following describes the rationale behind the
questionnaire developed for the empirical data
phase of the research. The questionnaire was
divided into five sections, namely demographic,
personal perspective, company policy,
motivations and implementation.
Within demographic information, name, age and
gender information was omitted as they hold
little or no relevance to the findings. Company
names were requested to cross-check against
the list of targeted organisations, however
in the briefing phase, potential respondents
were assured that findings would not be tied
to employer as this would likely have prejudiced
decisions to take part in the survey or biased
the results. Job titles, years of experience, direct
or indirect exposure to CSR work and personal
knowledge assessment questions were added
to qualify respondents.
35

38. Within the personal perspective section,
respondents were asked to offer their own
definition of CSR. This was then contrasted
with questions on CSR’s financial and social
roles, which utilised Godfrey and Hatch’s CSR
spectrum to ascertain where CSR professionals
in Qatar are positioned. Further questions
on CSR’s growth globally and relatively within
Qatar aim to triangulate perceptions with data
collected in the second part of the study – the
review of archival publications.
Questions in the company policy section aim
to ascertain where the emphasis of CSR in
lies within these organisations. Respondents
were asked to rank their companies focus on
social, environmental, economic and corporate
governance initiatives. They were then asked to
identify which stakeholder groups they believed
were most influential. Additional questions
looked at the clarity of strategy, impact on
employees perceptions, and whether CSR
increased or reduced operational cost.
On motivations, government, the Qatar National
Vision, competitors and other stakeholder
influences are compared. The influence of
consultants and the global headquarters is also
questioned.
Within implementation, the perceived
effectiveness of implementation and
effectiveness of addressing national needs
are ranked on a Likert Scale. The question
of whether key personnel or organisational
strategy drives CSR is posed. Respondents are
asked to judge whether brand equity or initiative
delivery is more important to the company,
and finally how widely the benefits of the CSR
programmes reach.
Challenges & Limitations
The sample of professionals working in CSR in
a specific sector in a country the size of Qatar
is a narrow one, and even within this scope, the
number of respondents to this survey is limited.
Despite the author’s best efforts, a majority
representation of oil and companies in Qatar
could not be obtained. Furthermore, with the
limited number of responses to the survey, the
results should be considered tentative and not
necessarily reflective of the prevailing market
environment. Further study and analysis on
a broader sample is required to achieve an
accurate perspective.
36

40. FINDINGS & RESULTS
Survey
Demographics
As experienced professionals working in the oil
and gas sector in Qatar, all nine respondents
were well qualified for the survey and none
were redacted. Seven of the 9 respondents
work directly in CSR, while 2 work in adjacent
roles. The average level of experience across
the sample was 6 years, with 10 years as the
highest and 11 months given as the lowest.
More than three quarters of the sample rated
their knowledge as ‘good’, with 1 given as
‘reasonable’ and 1 as ‘excellent’.
Personal Perspective
Six of the nine offered definitions of CSR in their
own words:
• National and commercial companies
has a duty towards the surrounding
society in terms of social development,
education, health, safety and
environment (sic)
• It is the ‘conscious’ of a business with
the aim to uphold what it stands for by
making socio-economic contributions
to the community it operates in and
the stakeholders it impacts.
Encouraging best practices and
contributions to the society. (sic)
• Since I am in the energy industry I feel
that our company implements an
initiative to assess and take
responsibility for our and our end user’s
effects on the surrounding environment
in the northern region of Qatar and
impact on social welfare.
• Support the community and
environment to protect it from the
impact of our operations.
• Shared value. Managing a profitable
and sustainable business that makes
a positive economic, social and
environmental contribution to the
society in which it operates.
With regards to the organisation’s CSR’s social
role, the following responses were given (see
Fig. 5):
In contrast, CSR’s financial role returned the
following results (see Fig. 6).
On the question of the benefits of CSR,
respondents were asked to select up to three
of a list of benefits. Reputation received the
highest response count, with 78%. Helping a
company meet the ethical standards required
by customers was second highest with
56%. ‘Making a company more attractive to
employees’ and ‘developing better relationships
with government’ both received 44%, while
higher revenues received no votes.
38

41. A company best contributes
to society through the
pursuit of profit, as well as
jobs, taxes and product
Shareholders have full rights to
the earnings of an organisation.
CSR is an expense that cannot
.be justified
A company’s resources can be
used to contribute positively to
society, and a company should
be obligated to contribute in its
areas of specialization As a corporate citizen,
companies are obligated
to contribute to the social
good in the broadest sense
Corporations can do more
than governments to change
society for the better, and
have a duty to spend and
make the world a better place
Organisations can
positively impact society
through pursuing both
profit and social causes
Businesses are part
of society, and have a
financial responsibility to
the people they impact in
their day-to-day business
Fig.5 CSR’s Social Role
Fig.6 CSR’s Financial Role
39

43. Seven of the nine respondents consider CSR
a growing concern for oil and gas companies,
while two found it to be stable. Similarly, seven of
the nine found CSR to have a major influence on
improving reputation with government, while two
saw it as a minor influence.
Five of the nine stated that there is more
emphasis on CSR in Qatar than abroad, while
four regard it as equal.
Organisational Policy
In the section on the respective company’s
CSR policies, corporate governance and
environmental initiatives ranked equal first place
(see Fig 7.).
In terms of stakeholder groups, respondents
were asked to rank three as highest priority.
Employees were favoured by some margin,
however beyond that the selections were
difficult to critique (see Fig. 8).
Eight of the nine respondents testified that their
organisations had clear CSR strategies, while
one found to the contrary.
Three descriptions of company CSR
philosophies were offered:
• We support the Qatari Social and
educational activities (sic)
• Cintrubute in areas that the company
has expertise in. Providing value adding
and sustainable contributions rather
than random spending. (sic)
• The Ras Laffan Community Outreach
Programme (RLC-COP) has been
created to serve the neighbouring
communities located in the northern
region of Qatar. RLC-COP is responsible
to build a respectful, trust based
partnership between the industry
0
2
3
4
5
6
1
Corporate Governance Environmental Social Economic
Fig.7 Ranking of Emphasis
1
2
3
4
41

44. and community and manage meaningful
relationships with the community and
stakeholder expectations. RLC-COP
conducts routine and non-routine
events and participates in select
national and international events where
the community outreach has relevance.
Through these events, the RLC-COP
engages the community at large
by highlighting its activities and
sustainable initiatives.
Definitive responses were delivered on
the question of whether CSR impacts the
organisations and the employee perception of
it, with 89% and 78% finding for the affirmative
respectively. Less decisive was the question
of operational cost – 56% believe that CSR
increases costs, 22% believed the opposite and
22% were uncertain.
Motivations for CSR
As expected, the government and the Qatar
National Vision ranked high among the
motivators of CSR in Qatar, with 44% ranking
government as the greatest influence and 44%
suggesting it was a major influence (Fig. 9). The
National Vision performed even more strongly,
with 78% ranking it as the greatest influence
and the balance viewing it as a major influence
(Fig. 10). Three respondents indicated the
consequences of not meeting this stakeholder’s
expectations:
• Bad performance
• Quite serious consequences
• Impact on reputation as a responsible
and reliable business partner
Competitive forces, while ranked at a lower level
of emphasis, still feature strongly among the
0
4
6
8
2
Employees
Customers or clients
Local Communities
Government
NGOs
Media Opinion Leaders Suppliers
Board of Directors Shareholders
Fig.8 Stakeholder Ranking
42

45. motivations, with even billing at 44% among
‘major’ and ‘minor’ influences (Fig. 11).
Among the most influential stakeholders, again
government was the clear leader (67%), with
competition ranked second (44%) (Fig. 12).
Outside consulting firms, while influential in oil
and gas sector, are seen to be approximately
as influential as the firm’s CSR staff. Among
Implementation
Seven of the eight remaining respondents
believed that their CSR activities were ‘quite
effective’ in their implementation, with one
opting not to offer an opinion. Interestingly,
none of the respondents believed that the
company was more concerned with reputation
than effective implementation. 63% found that
multinational respondents, the global head office
was viewed as somewhat more influential than
the local office. It should be noted however that
at least four of the respondent work for national
oil and gas companies, while only 2 selected
‘does not apply’, hence this result should be
considered suspect.
companies were equally concerned with image
and implementation, while the balance believed
that delivering effectively was the primary goal
(Fig. 13)
Results relating to an individual manager’s role
in implementing CSR were inconclusive. Two of
the respondents believed that key people were
the key drivers, while the organisation and ‘both
equally’ were given 3 votes each.
Not Sure
The greatest influence
A major influence
Fig.9 State of Qatar’s Influence
43

46. Three respondents offered insights into how
their CSR programmes are developed:
• Monitoring social development events
& receiving sponsorship events
Setting plan for CSR participation
within budget
Having Management approval
Contacting the social representative
Deciding upon the elements of
sponsorship
Review and assessment of the results
• Sustainable value adding projects that
are linked to the objective of QNV2030
• Through brainstorming sessions with
our partners and CSR team members.
The greatest influence A major influence
A major influence
A minor influence
Not sure
Fig.10 Qatar National Vision’s Influence
Fig.11 Competitor Influence
44

47. 0
4
6
8
2
Government
Business System
Company Values
Power Relations
Expat Influence
Social Network NGOs Globalisation
Consultants Competition
Fig.12 Most Influential Stakeholders
Fig.13 Company Reputation VS CSR Objective
Both equally important
CSR objectives
more important
45

48. The wider community
Only the communities
we impact
Only internally
Not sure
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig.14 CSR Community Target
25% of the respondents believe that CSR
programmes are ‘extremely effective’ in
addressing Qatar’s needs, while 75% believe
this to be ‘quite effective’.
Five of the eight respondents stated that their
CSR programmes target the wider community,
while three suggested it only touched the
communities that their business activities
impact (Fig. 14).
Regulation
All CSR reporting in Qatar is subject to
regulation by the HSE Regulations &
Enforcement Directorate (hereafter: The
Directorate). The Directorate was created by
the Minister of Energy & Industry in 2005. The
Directorate falls under the auspices of Qatar
Petroleum and currently has 60 full time staff.
The archival study compares and contrasts a
wide range of published data on CSR, corporate
citizenship and sustainability initiatives from
five oil and gas companies (Qatar Petroleum,
Qatargas, RasGas, ExxonMobil and Maersk
Oil) as well as governmental agencies. As the
largest organisations in terms of market share
in Qatar, this sample is representative of the
sector as a whole. An exhaustive list of the
publications studied can be seen in Appendix 4.
According to The Directorate, its goals are to:
“…deliver effective and efficient regulation
and enforcement of the petroleum industry
in the State of Qatar as well as to maintain
and improve standards of health, safety and
environmental (HSE) performance and to
assure that the HSE risks are appropriately
managed in both the short and long- term.”
(HSE Directorate Website, 2013)
46

49. According to The Directorate, its ambition is to
become a single regulatory body, to ensure that
HSE risk is managed in accordance with global
best practice.
As part of its mandate, The Directorate
responsible for enforcing the sector’s
Sustainable Development Industry Reporting
(SDIR) Programme, which obligates all
companies within the oil and gas sector to
report sustainable development activities
in accordance with it reporting guidelines
(hereafter: The Guidelines). The following
is included in The Guideline’s introductory
statement:
“The State of Qatar considers the
interdependent and mutually reinforcing
pillars mainly environmental stewardship,
economic growth, social progress and human
development together with responsible
governance as being essential part of
sustainable development of Energy and
Industry Sector”
Within the scope of the guideline, all petroleum
companies are obligated to publish:
• A Sustainability Report –
Comprehensive reporting on the
sustainability indicators of the individual
companies’ operations in Qatar
• A Fact sheet – with information on
the company’s focal point for
sustainable development
• Sustainability Strategy and indicators
- Information on the company’s
Sustainable Development Strategy
(SDS) or equivalent and information on
indicators for sustainable development
• Submission of case studies (optional)
– Case study of a successful sustainable
development initiative, programme or
strategy
The Guidelines require strict adherence
to content and structure. Three groups of
sustainability indicators are required, namely:
• Environmental indicators, which
incorporates climate change and energy
ecosystem services and local
environmental impact
• Health and Safety indicators, which
includes workforce protection, product
health, safety and environmental risks,
and process safety and asset integrity
• Social and economic indicators,
including community and society, local
content, human rights, business ethics
and transparency and labour practices
In framing the sustainability aspects of the
guideline, sustainability is represented in the
form of a Venn Diagram (Fig. 15), followed by
an explanation of the four pillars of the Qatar
National Vision 2030.
Throughout The Directorate’s publications,
references to the National Development
Strategy 2011-2016 and the National Vision
abound and form the basis for all strategy,
reporting, assessment and awards undertaken
by the Directorate, and in turn sets the
expectations and reflects in the strategies of all
oil and gas companies within its stead.
47

50. Fig.15 Sustainability Venn Diagram
Environmental
Social Economic
A viable natural
environment
Nurturing
community
Sustainable
development
Sufficient
economy
Sustainable
economic
development
Sustainable
natural built
environment
Equitable
social
environment
Regulation
Every oil and gas company within Qatar is
obligated (as of 2012) to publish a sustainability
report annually within The Directorates
SDIR programme. This is supplemented by a
generalised sustainability report published by
The Directorate in association with the Ministry
of Industry and Energy, which has been in effect
since 2010. Participation in reporting increased
from 17 companies in 2010 to 33 companies
in 2011, which at time of writing was the latest
edition. All five of the companies that are the
focus of this section of the research were
invited to and participated in the SDIR.
Within the 2011 report, the following decisions
were announced by The Directorate:
• Make the scheme for the next reporting
period mandatory for all the operators
within the sector.
• All operators to comprehensively report
their HSE and SD performance and
evolve a 5-year strategy that
incorporates continual improvement in
this regard.
• The report shall be issued each year
to the HSE Regulations and
Enforcement Directorate who will
have the responsibility to produce the
Annual SD Report reviewing the overall
sector performance to [the Chairman]
(Qatar Energy and Industry Sustainability Report,
2011)
48

51. The opening statement from the Chairman
includes a mandate that all sustainability reports
must support the Qatar National Vision 2030
and the National Development Strategy 2011-
2016. This is reiterated in the statements of
the Director General of The Directorate, who
states:
“Notable improvements in this year’s report
include… explicit alignment of sector level
performance measures with the objectives
and measures of the Qatar National Vision
(QNV) 2030 and National Development
Strategy (NDS) 2011-2016, thereby
quantifiably capturing the contribution of the
sector towards these national strategies.”
(Qatar Energy and Industry Sustainability Report,
2011)
The report places greatest emphasis on
two issues. The first is the reporting on
specific safety standards for employees and
contractors, the second is climate change
approach and performance.
Along with the decision to make reporting
mandatory, there is significant evidence within
this report of the expanding scope and role
that The Directorate will play in sustainability
reporting, including:
• Development of an IT portal for online
sharing of data and best practices.
• Creation of a sector-wide sustainable
development policy and strategy.
• Production of additional guidance on the
reporting priority areas for the 2012
reporting cycle (workforce health and
well-being, and energy and water
management).
The SDIR programme framework includes six
priority areas and 31 performance indicators.
Table 3 provides a snapshot of the 6 priority
areas and 11 related indicators:

52. Sector Performance
Within this section of the research, an overview
of each of the target company’s initiatives is
provided as a means of analysing the social
investment to ascertain some of the potential
motivations. As can be seen in the sections
above, governmental expectations are high
and broad-based, however some insight can be
gained through scrutiny of specific initiatives,
predominantly through speculation, as to what
might motivate these programmes. As a point
of focus, the priority areas given by the SDIR
in Table 4 above will be used to compare and
contrast the efforts of each company.
Climate Change
The Qatar National Vision (2008) states that
Qatar will provide “support for international
efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change”
and take “a proactive and significant regional
role in assessing the impact of climate change
and mitigating its negative impacts, especially on
countries of the Gulf”.
Qatar’s oil and gas sector are responsible
for producing 49.5% of the nation’s carbon
emissions. The SDIR has formulated a strategy
to counter this, which includes standardising
the measurement and reporting of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, flaring reduction, energy
efficiency, and carbon capture, storage,
recovery and reuse.
PRIORITY AREA PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
Climate change and energy Total GHG Emissions (Tonnes Co2
e)
Total Flaring (MMSCM)
Environment Total water consumed (million m3
)
Significant spills (>one barrel)
Health & Safety Employee fatalities
Contractor fatalities
Workforce Workforce size
% Qatarisation
Society Total social investment budget
Economic Performance Revenue (USD)
Number of new jobs created
Table 3. SDIR Priorities and Indicators
50

53. All five target companies adopted a
standardised measure for GHG emissions,
introduced by Qatar Petroleum (QP), which is
based on EU standards and IPCC guidelines.
The measure brought companies in line
with international regulations and ensures
verification of reports by a qualified third party.
In January 2009, QP signed a three-year
partnership agreement with the World Bank’s
Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) initiative on
behalf of the oil and gas sector. Qatar was the
first Gulf country to do so.
In 2011, the QP commenced an initiative to
compile a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
inventory, to be launched in 2013 and
incorporating all QP business units. It aims to:
• Develop an annual emission inventory
• Assess GHG emission reduction
opportunities
• Provide reliable emission data for
climate change policy
As part of this project, a Guideline for
Monitoring & Reporting of Greenhouse Gas &
Air Quality Criteria Pollutant Emissions (GMRE)
was endorsed in February 2011.The company
is also collaborating with other industry players
and the Imperial College London in a $70-million
10-year project to provide the foundation for
that can be applied globally.
In the area of energy efficiency, Maersk Oil’s
award-winning Al-Shaheen gas field used highly
efficient burners, as well as integrating a multi-
dimensional approach to flaring to produce
considerably lower emissions. Flaring today has
been reduced less than 10% of its 2007 levels,
and less than 50% of GHG emissions over the
same period.
ExxonMobil focuses on increasing energy
efficiency in the short term; implementing
emission-reducing technologies in the near and
medium term; and developing breakthrough
technologies for the long term, and supports
both RasGas and Qatargas in reducing flaring
and improving energy efficiency. The company
is also supporting QP in the engineering phase
of a project that will reduce energy usage by
20%. ExxonMobil has several large scale global
projects in the GHG and energy efficiency fields
that are being implemented in Qatar, including
streamlined product design, advanced energy
generation plants, Controlled Freeze Zone
technology and algae-based biofuels.
In 2011, RasGas completed a 5-year flaring
minimisation programme - the first of its kind in
Qatar. In 2005, RasGas was flaring 1.37% of its
intake gas. As a result of the measures, flaring
had been reduced to only 0.47 per cent of gas
by 2010, an overall reduction of 66% over the
five years (RasGas, 2011).
Both RasGas and Qatargas have incorporated
larger vessels in their shipping fleets fitted with
reliquefaction facilities, reducing the number
of voyages required and emission levels.
New hull coatings have been used to cut fuel
consumption. RasGas has developed a GHG
policy (Fig. 16) which aims to reduce emissions
across its entire value chain, which will be
implemented from 2012.
Qatargas managed to reduce the total volume
of gas flared by 24% between 2010 and 2011,
despite gas production increasing by 65%, while
flaring intensity was reduced by 54%, largely
thanks to a multi-disciplinary flare management
strategy. Qatargas is also spearheading the
innovative Jetty Boil Off Gas (JBOG) project that
is expected to reduce JBOG flaring by 90% and
recover gas for industrial use. The company has
also pioneered a long-term GHG management
strategy, which will reduce emissions
throughout the value chain.
51