The paradox of voluntary conformance often has challenges. In the case of sustainability reporting by companies, a still largely voluntary activity of global businesses, the closest framework to a gold standard is the G3 of Global Reporting Initiative, an institution based in The Netherlands. In this presentation, using the example of the ‘people’ content of the 2009 sustainability reports of 4 IOCs operating in Nigeria – Shell, Eni, Chevron and ExxonMobil – we demonstrate the fudging effect of the inconsistency in the application of the workforce performance indicators of the G3 framework and its consequence for an overall transparent reporting on the subject. This becomes poignant in view of the near perennial industrial crises in the Nigerian petroleum industry due to allegation of unethical labour practices of the local operations of these companies. The presentation concludes by drawing out lessons for all three constituencies – (1) reporting standard setters which must now clarify their ‘people’ reporting requirements to elicit material and transparent information on the global workforce, (2) local stakeholders and the civil society who must adopt the new tool of reporting engagement besides the traditional strike action and (3 reporting organisations which must move towards a more result-oriented conformance with reporting frameworks.

1. Making the 'People' Content of
Sustainability Reports Work
The Case of the Nigerian Oil
Majors
Based on Technical Paper 150781
presented at National Annual International Conference and Exhibition
of Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Abuja, Nigeria, August 2011
Deji Olatoye
Partner,
The Lodt Law Offices, Lagos, Nigeria
deji.olatoye@thelodt.com
1
NAICE 2011

2. Objectives
This presentation will
 Introduce audience to the principles of Sustainability and
Sustainability Reporting
 Give a theoretical background to the GRI reporting framework
(G3)
 Highlight the performance indicator for the „people‟ content of
Reports in accordance with G3
 Review the „people‟ content of 2009 sustainability reports of four
international oil companies (OICs) with Nigerian operations
 Draw out lessons for various categories of stakeholders in the
sustainability reporting on the Nigerian oil and gas industry
2
NAICE 2011

3. Introduction
The paradigm of business is changing…
3
NAICE 2011

4. Introduction – The Old Paradigm
The old paradigm of business:
Other
 Business exists for Shareholders
Stakeholders
profit motive alone
 Financial indicators
are the only bases for
measuring corporate
performance
 Managers are
accountable to only
shareholders
4
NAICE 2011

5. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
The new, emerging consensus:
Other
 Corporate performance Shareholders
Stakeholders
should be measured by
non-financial as well as Return on Social
Investment contribution
financial indicators
 Such indicators include Capital
Appreciation
Environmental
contribution
the social, environmental
Other financial Economic
and economic indicators benefit
 Corporate accountability
should embrace the
broader stakeholders
5
NAICE 2011

6. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
 One key feature of the new consensus is
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
 It is a tool for effecting conformance with BEST
PRACTICES and EMERGING STANDARDS in the non-
financial aspects of business operations
 It focuses on the company‟s POLICIES on economic,
environmental and social issues and the progress made by
the company in the IMPLEMENTATION of such policies,
including the RESULT of investments made thereby
6
NAICE 2011

7. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
 The consensus is moving even further
 Experts are already talking about the need for
INTEGRATED REPORTING
 Integrated reporting incorporates both the traditional
financial report and non-financial report into a SINGLE
DOCUMENT targeted at all STAKEHOLDERS
 Since March 2011, South Africa has made integrated
reporting a requirement for companies listed on the
JOHANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE
7
NAICE 2011

8. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
Integrated Reporting
Shareholders
Financial
Indicators Employees
Community
Social Indicators
Customers
Environment
Environmental
Non-Financial Government
Indicators Indicators
Supply Chain
Economic
Future Generation
Indicators etc
NAICE 2011

9. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
By way of caution, let us note that it is an EMERGING
CONSENSUS and the landscape is yet unsettled
 Emerging rules vary from mere values to
authoritative standards
Values Principles Codes of Conduct Norms Standards
[1] . Leipziger, D. 2010, The Corporate Responsibility Code Book, Second Edition. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited, p.38
9
NAICE 2011

10. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
By way of caution, let us recall that it is an EMERGING
Consensus and the landscape is yet unsettled
2010 Survey of 142 Standards
with Reporting Requirements
 Not all Standards have from 30 countries
been adopted by
Mandatory
national/regional standards
regulators and of those 35% Voluntary
standards
adopted, not all are 65%
mandatory
[2] . With information from Carrots and Sticks – a report by on trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to
Sustainability Reporting by UNEP et al. 2010.
10
NAICE 2011

11. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
 Only in South Africa has INTEGRATED
REPORTING become mandatory for companies listed
on the JSE
11
NAICE 2011

12. Introduction – Emerging Consensus
The Lessons: Binding laws
and regulations
 The current unsettled nature of
sustainability standards is NO
BOUNDEN DESTINY
Social
 It is a reflection of the typical State Pressure
trajectory of norms in the
GOVERNANCE TRIANGLE Modern
Corporation
 The overall drivers of corporate
decisions can now be found in
the interaction/intersection of Business
Civil
Society
the STATE, BUSINESS and
CIVIL SOCIETY
NAICE 2011

13. Introduction - GRI
An example of a civil society initiative which has now travelled
far in the governance triangle trajectory is the GLOBAL
REPORTING INITIATIVE framework (G3)
 G3, an entirely non-governmental initiative, is now
globally acknowledged as “the most comprehensive
guidance on sustainability reporting” (UNEP, et al)
 Increasingly cross-referenced by other national,
international and multi-stakeholder instruments have
increasingly cross-referenced
 Ten countries have formally referenced it in their
governmental CSR guidance documents (UNEP, et al)
13
NAICE 2011

14. Theoretical Background
What is G3?
 GRI‟s mission is “to elevate the quality of reporting to a higher level
of comparability, consistency and utility” (Leipziger, D., 490).”
 In sum, reporting on economic, environmental, and social
performance by all organizations should be “as routine and
comparable as financial reporting” (GRI).
 G3 is a reporting framework, a procedural mechanism which sets
rules for communicating the conduct of business.
 Unlike a performance standard, it does not propose to set a code for
such conduct.
 However, an effective procedural mechanism could be used to assess
conduct or measure performance.
 Therefore, its ultimate, practical implication is to influence conduct.
14
NAICE 2011

15. Theoretical Background
What is G3?
 To be useful for the foregoing purposes, a reporting
framework should comprise sound GUIDELINES and
PRINCIPLES.
 The guidelines stipulate the substantive and procedural rules
for collating and verifying, even communicating, the content
of a report.
 The principles stipulate qualities which should characterise
both such guidelines and content.
15
NAICE 2011

16. Theoretical Background
G3 Framework
Reporting
Framework
National
annexes
[3] . Adapted from GRI Sustainability reporting Guidelines
(2006). www.globalreporting.org
16
NAICE 2011

17. Theoretical Background
G3 Framework
Guidance Principles
 Guidance for defining report  Principles for defining report
content content
 Guidance for setting report  Principles for ensuring report
boundary quality
Standard Disclosures
 Profile
 Management Approach
 Performance Indicators
[2] . With information from Carrots and Sticks – a report by on trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to
Sustainability Reporting by UNEP et al. 2010.
17
NAICE 2011

18. Theoretical Background
Schematic of label for reporting „In Accordance‟ with G3
Requirement for Reporting “In Accordance” Sign of If How Checked
Reportin External
g Level Assurance Self 3rd Party GRI
Checked Checked Checked
• Disclosure of Profile matters same as „B‟
level reporter „A‟ „A+‟ „A+‟ „A+‟ „A+‟
• Disclosure of Management approach same
Self 3rd Party GRI
as „B‟ level reporter
• Report on all core and supplemental Checked Checked Checked
performance indicators
• Disclosure of „C‟ level profile matters +
more „B‟ „B+‟ „B+‟ „B+‟ „B+‟
• Disclosure of Management approach on each
Self 3rd Party GRI
indicator category required
• Report on minimum of 20 core and Checked Checked Checked
supplemental performance indicators
(including 5 specified indicators)
• Disclosure of stipulated profile matters
• Management approach not required to be „C‟ „C+‟ „C+‟ „C+‟ „C+‟
disclosed
Self 3rd Party GRI
• Report on minimum of 10 core and
supplemental performance indicators Checked Checked Checked
• (including 3 specified indicators)
18
NAICE 2011

19. Review
We will be reviewing the following Sustainability Reports of
international oil companies (IOCs) for the period 2009:
 The Sustainability Report of Royal Dutch Shell
Plc (Shell Report)
 Sustainability Report of Eni (Eni Report)
 Corporate Citizenship Report of ExxonMobil
(Mobil Report)
 Corporate Responsibility Report Chevron
(Chevron Report)
19
NAICE 2011

20. Review
Why there Reports should interest Nigerians:
 Nigeria hosts MAJOR OPERATIONS of the IOCs, e.g.,
9% of Shell‟s production in 2009.
 Obversely, REVENUES from oil and gas form about
80% of Nigeria‟s total income, and 95% of its foreign
income (CIA).
 The imminent FRAGMENTATION of the industry by
the local content policy may create a regulatory
nightmare unless the sustainability practices of major
players such as IOCs are minded.
20
NAICE 2011

21. Review
Additional reasons are that the following two major crises in
the Nigerian industry have sustainability implications:
 Environmental degradation in the Niger Delta.
 Industrial dispute over „casualisation‟.
„Casualisation‟, according to industry unions, means that
companies:
 Phase out full, direct employment for junior workers
 Engage their services through temporary contracts or
outsourcing
 Limit worker‟s Freedom of Association and social
entitlements
 Erase clear career path for such workers
21
NAICE 2011

22. Review
Basis of review:
 This review is not an assessment of the overall quality
of the four Reports.
 The review is anchored on a single core performance
indicator of the G3 on scoping and dimensioning of the
workforce (paragraph LA1).
 We believe that a balanced assessment of disclosures
made on people-centred investments by the IOCs can
only be made with a proper scoping and dimensioning
of the workforce in the Reports
22
NAICE 2011

23. Review
Why anchor review on G3?
 We acknowledge the disparate application of G3 by the four
IOCs
Frame-work Application External How
Used Level Assurance Checked
Shell Report G3 A A+ A+ GRI
Checked
Eni Report G3 B B+ (limited B+ 3rd Party
assurance) Checked
Mobil Report IPIECA Lloyd‟s
API Register
Chevron Report Informal G3 and
IPIECA
IPIECA: Oil and Gas Industry Guidance on Voluntary Sustainability Reporting developed by IPIECA, API and
API: American Petroleum Institute‟s Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Methodologies for the Oil
and Gas Industry (2004)
23
NAICE 2011

24. Review
Why anchor review on G3?
 We are of the view that the G3 is a proper tool to use
for a comparable assessment of the four Reports.
 Firstly, all the reports, at a minimum, informally
referenced the G3 framework, including using its
content index.
 G3 is the most globally acceptable framework for its
comprehensiveness
 The industry-specific IPIECA is fast converging with
G3 with the development of an oil and gas sector
supplement for G3 in 2011
24
NAICE 2011

25. Review
The Questions to be answered in this Review:
 How do the portions of the Sustainability Reports on
labour-related matters (THE „PEOPLE‟ CONTENT)
address employee issues?
 How do the Reports conform to, say the labour-related
performance indicators of the G3 framework (LA1)?
 Are there loopholes in the framing of the LA1 which
allow for non-clarity in reporting?
 How are the IOCs using the tool of sustainability
reporting to address the crisis of „casualisation‟ in their
industrial relations?
25
NAICE 2011

26. Review
Key requirements of the LA1 performance indicator:
 Reports should capture total workforce by employment type
(full- or part-time), employment contract.
(indefinite/permanent or fixed-term/temporary), and region.
 While excluding supply chain workers, the LA1 associated
protocol requires disclosure where “a substantial portion of
the organisation‟s work” is performed by persons not falling
within the foregoing categories.
 Persons in the latter category would include self-employed
persons and, presumably, supply chain workers.
26
NAICE 2011

27. Review
The objectives of the LA1 performance indicator:
 Breaking down the workforce by employment type,
employment contract, and region (region refers to
„country‟ or „geographical area‟) demonstrates how the
organization structures its human resources to implement
its overall strategy.
 It also provides insight into the organization‟s business
model, and offers an indication of job stability and the
level of benefits the organization offers” (see paragraph 1
of the associated protocol).
27
NAICE 2011

28. Review
Implication of the requirements of the LA1 performance
indicator and its associated protocol for reporting by IOCs:
 Where a substantial portion of the IOCs‟
workforce are drawn from contract/temporary or
outsourced hands, disclosures should be made
regarding these.
28
NAICE 2011

29. Review – Shell Report
LA1 disclosures and reticence:
 As an „A‟ level reporter, Shell is required to report on
LA1 indicators or give reasons for non-disclosure.
 Global figure for the workforce include 101,000
employees and 400,000 contractor staff.
 However, there is no definite figure for suppliers as the
scope of their contribution to the workforce is captured by
the clause: “a huge number of suppliers” (see page 18).
29
NAICE 2011

30. Review – Shell Report
Implication of partial non-disclosures and reticence:
 Shell Report fails to account for supply chain workers in
definitive terms.
 This has a negative implication for other workforce-related
information in terms of its applicability to the entire workforce.
 For example, Shell Report on fatality, while showing the figure
on employees and contractors, is silent on fatality with respect
to independent contractors working on sites controlled by Shell,
a requirement of the associated protocol to Indicator LA7.
 Suppliers would, for the most part, constitute that category of
the workforce.
30
NAICE 2011

31. Review – Eni Report
LA1 disclosures and reticence:
 As a „B‟ level reporter, Eni is required to report
on LA1 indicators or give reasons for non-
disclosure Eni Report also fails to disclose figures
on the size of its contractors although
acknowledging that contractors “represent a
constantly increasing work force at the oil and gas
exploration, development and production sites.”
 Also, the Eni Report does not make any
disclosure on the proportion of suppliers in its
workforce.
31
NAICE 2011

32. Review – Eni Report
Implication of partial non-disclosures and reticence :
 The admirable visualisation of the breakdown of
employee figures by gender, professional category and
geographical area does not remedy the reticence on supply
chain and contractor workforce (see p. 63 of the Report).
 The real value of regional breakdown under Indicator LA1
is to account for national/regional disparity in the legal
definition of employee, contractor and related categories
with a view to properly contextualising the global
employee-contractor ratio (see paragraph 2 of the
associated protocol).
32
NAICE 2011

33. Review – Chevron Report
LA1 disclosures and reticence:
 Chevron Report only applies the G3 informally and
declares only a limited application of Indicator LA1.
 Therefore, there is no breakdown of Chevron‟s workforce
according to employment and contract type.
 So also is the Report silent on the proportion of supplier
within the workforce.
 However, instructively, the figures on fatality show that
only contractors are affected in the nine such incidents for
the year.
33
NAICE 2011

34. Review – Mobil Report
LA1 disclosures and reticence:
 Mobil Report applies the IPIECA and API guidelines and
does not consider the directions of Indicator LA1 protocol in
reporting „people‟ issues.
 For example, its workforce disclosures are basically with
respect to employees (broken down mainly by gender, region
and ethnicity, with some of these categories based on the
figure for new hires. See pages 22 – 23).
 It however breaks down figures on fatality and incident
rates by employees and contractors.
 The report is silent on supplier contribution to its operations.
34
NAICE 2011

35. Review – Observations
 The IOCs have yet to reconcile themselves to the
need for incorporating information of
supplier/supply side workers to report on the global
workforce
 This has negative implications, including:
 The Reports fail to satisfy the objectives of LA1 indicator
 The Reports fail the tests of the key principles of G3 and other
standard reporting frameworks
 Poor workforce scoping negatively affects the applicability of
other people-centered information for the purpose of assessing
global impact of workforce policy and investments.
35
NAICE 2011

36. Review – Observations
Failure to satisfy the Objectives of LA1 indicator
 Breakdown of workforce information should be with a view to
accomplishing the following objectives:
 Demonstrating how the organization structures its human
resources to implement its overall strategy.
 Providing insight into the organization‟s business model
 Offering an indication of job stability and the level of benefits the
organization offers” (see paragraph 1 of protocol)
 Reticence on or facile disclosure of supply side workforce
information does not satisfy the above OBJECTIVES of indicator
LA1.
36
NAICE 2011

37. Review – Observations
Materiality and Sustainability Context are two key principles in
defining the boundary of reporting under the G3 framework. The
Reports fail relevant test of these principles for at least two reasons:
 The evidently significant scope of the contributions of supply chain
workers to the organisation‟s operations.
 The industrial crises precipitated by the human resource model of
the IOCs in an important country to the operations of the IOC.
 Example:
 Although Shell demonstrated leadership by providing a special national
context on Nigeria (pp. 22&23), nothing in the spotlight shows that Shell
considers the „casualisation‟ crisis a significant risk to its operations.
 Recall that „casualisation‟ is one of the two sustainability crises in the
Nigerian oil and gas industry.
 Note also, significance of risk and geographical contexts are key tests of
Materiality & Sustainability Context.
37
NAICE 2011

38. Review – Observations
Impact of poor workforce scoping other people-centered
information such as health, safety and general welfare
 For example, figures relating to injuries and fatalities shows that the burden
of such incidents on contractors far outstrips that on employees.
 For Chevron, the 2009 fatality figure shows 100% for contractors while that
of Shell is 95%.
 For Shell, the contractor contribution to the workforce is outstripped by its
fatality burden by some 15%.
 Shell‟s 2009 fatality ratio for the contractors itself represents a more than 3%
escalation over the average of 92% for the decade up to 2009.
 The four Reports disclose the IOCs‟ efforts – policies and investments – in
improving the health, safety and general welfare of the workforce, many of
these often incorporating suppliers within the coverage of such efforts.
 However, the effectiveness of such measures can not be properly measured
without the willingness to report on the entire gamut of the workforce in a
comparable manner
38
NAICE 2011

39. Conclusion
Lessons for Reporting Framework developers:
 The need to continuously move towards more contextualised frameworks,
including sector and national/regional specific supplements.
 For example, the preponderance of contractor and supply chain workers
in the global workforce should receive special attention in both sectoral
and national contexts of the oil and gas in Nigeria.
 A suggestion is to consolidate the „people‟ information of certain
categories of providers in the supply chain with that of their IOC clients
for the purpose of sustainability reporting.
 For example, suppliers whose businesses with IOCs represent an
overwhelming percentage of their turnover or whose size means that they
could easily escape national regulations or industry self-regulations on
labour-related matters.
 In essence, the IOCs should begin to take responsibility for the labour
practices in their supply chain
39
NAICE 2011

40. Conclusion
Lessons for Civil Society actors engaging with the industry:
 Labour unions and other advocates of sustainable labour practices
by the IOCs need to adopt new tools of engagement beyond
traditional call-outs.
 Engagement through study and critical review of sustainability
report could be a new, useful tool of engaging and altering the
conduct of the IOCs in view of the globalisation of sustainability
reporting and the growing convergence of its standards.
 This requires the development of new competencies in preparing,
assuring and checking sustainability reports.
 For example, none of the external experts or firms engaged for
checking and assurance purposes in the four reports reviewed for
this paper is identifiably Nigerian even where there are special
Nigerian spotlights.
40
NAICE 2011

41. Conclusion
Lessons for IOCs and other sustainability reporters:
 Reporting organisations should strive to gain on the full
benefit of the largely voluntary efforts put into
sustainability reporting.
 Sustainability reporting should not just be a tool of
stakeholder engagement and communication alone.
 It should also be seen as a tool of risk assessment and
management.
 The example of the four reports reviewed for this paper
shows how possible it is to underplay or even completely
ignore a major, brewing sustainability crisis in a country
hosting some of the largest operations of a global industry
41
NAICE 2011

42. Acknowledgment
The Institutionalisation team at
The Lodt Law Offices, Lagos
42
NAICE 2011

43. 43
NAICE 2011

44. Thank You
44
NAICE 2011