Royal Dutch Shell Group .com Rotating Header Image

Mission Statement is a free access non-commercial website with no subscription or other charges.

Our objectives are simple. We want Royal Dutch Shell executives to act at all times in accordance with Shell General Business Principles which include the claimed core principles of honesty, integrity, openness and respect for people in all of Shell’s dealings.

This is surely not an unreasonable ambition given that the principles were devised by Shell, are promoted by Shell and are supposedly current and binding on all Shell operations everywhere. In other words, we are only asking Shell executives to do what they already claim to be doing.

The plain fact is that if Shell executives had abided with the SGBP, scandals such as the reserves fraud involving blatant deceit and cover-up, the preventable Brent Bravo deaths which flowed from the Shell “Touch F*** All” safety culture on North Sea Platforms, and the more recent PR humiliations arising from outrageous examples of greenwash advertising, could not have occurred.

We do not believe that it is morally acceptable that Shell executives are indemnified so that even if they cheat, deceive and cover-up serious misdeeds, treating shareholders and the public as gullible fools, they are still able to walk away as winners. In the case of Sir Philip Watts, with a severance package/pension pot reportedly worth $18.5 million USD.  We think that this is disgraceful situation at odds with all ethical norms including the SGBP and will continue to say so on this website.

The SGBP is being used as a PR tool to promote undeserved confidence in the scruples and honesty of Shell senior management.  

While Shell execs continue to make pledges of ethical trading which they flout, we will continue our humble efforts to expose their hypocrisy.

The gap between Shell rhetoric and reality is evidence from Shell’s appalling track record including a leadership role in price fixing cartels, numerous Clean Air Act violations, repeated environmental infringements, multimillion dollar fines for groundwater contamination, more fines for unauthorised venting and flaring of gas. We also have to add to this litany, Shell’s exploitation and reckless disregard of the safety of its employees and its global espionage operation against its own employees trying to prevent whistleblowers. Shell’s espionage activity in the USA and Nigeria have been exposed in 2010.

Shell employees in Africa protest against being ’sold’ by Shell

In the wake of Shell “lies corruption, despoliation and death”: “Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil”

This website and sisters,,,, and, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.


  1. Different perspective says:

    Deceived as probably many others, I came across this website in search of information about Shell. What an incredibly naïve bunch trying to make out as if Shell is the (only) big evil doer in the world. Most of the accusations are just too selective. When Shell does business in South Africa they are propping up the apartheid-regime but no word about for instance the countless companies that by the same logic were propping up the Blair regime supporting the US in a totally illegal and unjustified war against Iraq. This just because the Americans had the urge to show the world after Sep 11 that they were still a powerful nation and Blair saw an opportunity to relive some gore and glory of the empire days by clinging onto the big American boot. With hundreds of thousands (mainly civilians) killed as a result and millions displaced/disowned/homeless and leaving a perfect vacuum for IS to fill, the murderous Bush/Blair regimes make apartheid pale into insignificance. Logically, Shell should therefore have to leave the UK and the US. Also, paying a government royalties for permits is not corruption because the politicians steal part of it – that is a problem for the electorate. In London and New York politicians and criminal financiers continuously swap places making all excessively wealthy. Blair is still collecting millions every year providing advice and influence to many companies, most notably CitiBank, making Blair a rather well rewarded war criminal. And the list goes on and on. Not sure why it should be the responsibility of Shell to put an end to all that or leave the country even more so as the British electorate chose not to do a thing about it. Missing sorely is your endorsement of countries clean enough to allow Shell a presence. To put so much effort in persecuting Shell is just too ridiculous for words and the arguments pathetically naïve and seem mainly aimed at the gullible and the uneducated. Wake up to the real world and cut the crap.


    What deception? Where does it say that we believe Shell is the only evil doer in the world? This website is focussed on Shell, not other brands, companies, countries or politicians. The clue is in the domain name.

  2. Keith Richardson says:

    Most of your contributors seem to have worked for Shell in the past. Seems to me that they were happy to take the money until they were released. Perhaps some unbiased contributors would be in a better position to discuss issues.

  3. openandhonest says:

    Anyone in the London area interested in meeting to talk about some of the anti-corruption measurements Ban-Ki Moon suggested be implicit in the creation of new corporate companies. I feel that talking in person is often easier, safer and more honest than from behind a screen.
    Please post again on this page with reply and details to get in touch (e-mail preferably) by the 30/4/10.

    I’m particularly interested in this so called “impoverished pensioner”


  4. Impoverishedpensioner says:

    I think the story about the leaked directory is a total Non-event and am bored reading about it. Strongly suggest you just drop it John. There are far more important things to discuss

  5. rockdude1950 says:

    The dirty little secret of Shell’s reorganization

    It comes under many guises and code words, it is hushed at the high levels, among VPs, and in the HR circles, it is not to be openly recognized, it is hidden behind a thin veneer of diversity and giving opportunities to the young. The little secret of this reorganization is blatant age discrimination. Nobody will admit to it, at least not in public, but the signs and its effects are clear: age, specifically the 55-year-old barrier, is the determining factor in appointments at the EC-1 and EC-2 levels, and it has been hinted as one of the main criteria in EC-3 decisions. The statistics are eloquent: from the over 55 population that applied to EC-1 and EC-2 positions, barely a couple people survived, and will probably be out before the middle of next year. The less experienced VP’s and HR people will admit that renewing the management ranks and giving way to youth are goals of the transition. As one review panel member put it in choosing an inexperienced younger person over a clearly more qualified but over the hill candidate for an EC-2 position, the younger person had “higher potential”. Or that people are strongly discouraged from applying to lower salary group positions to give opportunities to younger staff. In other words, over 55 need not apply. The unwritten goal of the transition seems to be to shed 10 years off the average manager’s age. I suppose that the US Equal Opportunity Commission, and its EC equivalent would take a grim view of this policy. It would be hard to find written evidence, but it can be shown that age discrimination exists by its effects, like the changes in age distribution before and after the transition, or the percentage of unsuccessful over 55 applicants. Some took early retirement, some simply gave up and sold out, but many were simply forced and eased out. I am surprised that the staff council in Holland has not picked up on this. I am surprised that the head of HR and the head of ethics and compliance would go along with this policy.

  6. downunder123 says:

    First of all, welcome Ann Pickard to Australia. We anxiously await your arrival and hope you are not another of the same kind as your predecessor, the popular name that appears in this blog now and then! Time will tell….
    On your successor, I never worked with Ian Craig, but I would at this stage think he is the lucky product of an outdated Shell internal selection process! To put it bluntly, he is probably the better one among the worse in the pool of Shell “talents”! But, you never know, the Nigerian may love him so much to give him the opportunity to shine……Again we will closely monitor the production situation from Nigeria in the coming months.
    The bottomline is NEW or OLD Shell you may like to call it, it is the god damned SAME Shell with the same blood – nothing is changed unfortunately!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.