Greenpeace and the Brent Spar

The environmental protection agency Greenpeace considered itself victorious after it prevented the multination corporation Royal Dutch Shell from sinking the Brent Spar, an oil storage installation platform, in the North Sea. The Brent Spar had been ordered to be decommissioned and the way in which Shell planned this to most successfully occur was by sinking it into a deep section of the North Sea. Greenpeace didn't believe this to be the most environmentally conscious way of disposal and immediately set up an effort to prevent this from happening. It is important to understand how the much smaller organization of Greenpeace was able to defeat one of the largest corporations in the world in Royal Dutch Shell, and how Shell failed in its attempts to carry out the sinking.

The way that Greenpeace eventually prevented the sinking was by gaining much support among very influential bodies and having these bodies pressure Royal Dutch Shell into changing the plan. This was accomplished was through an outstanding public relations agenda that put a very negative spin on the possible sinking plan. Immediate action was taken by Greenpeace in the form of a banner being hung from the Brent Spar that read "Save the North Sea" along with the announcement to the press that members of Greenpeace would stay aboard the platform until Shell or the UK government changed their mind. Greenpeace also kept a large ship close to the oil platform which served as a lookout post and more importantly as the closest place news reporters could get to the platform, so it became the reporting stage. These were the first important steps by Greenpeace: to make a strong statement and receive favorable media coverage of the event, given by reporters from Greenpeace's own boat.

Greenpeace continued to reach out to the media, eventually spending an estimated $2 million dollars on the campaign against Shell, including $540,000 that was spent specifically towards television segments. This was the major issue that Greenpeace was fighting for at the time and they devoted a great deal of effort and finances to the effort.

Over time Greenpeace released documents and reports that had different scientific findings than those found by the Shell scientists. They promoted their new findings and gained even more support all over Europe. The reaction was especially strong in favor of Greenpeace in Germany, where massive boycotts against Shell took place. Greenpeace had gained a large amount of public support through their extensive slanted media coverage and their new scientific findings. They were making every effort possible, including the exaggeration of a few key facts, to get the public on their side because they knew that Shell was completely dependent as a corporation on favorable public support.

Government officials and even some Shell officials in European countries such as Germany began voicing out against the plan to sink the Brent Spar and were siding more on the side of Greenpeace. Eventually this pressure grew strong enough to persuade Royal Dutch Shell to get rid of the Brent Spar in a way other than that of by sinking it. Greenpeace had used a very aggressive stance and extensive media coverage to very quickly gain the support of the public in Europe and this in turn created enough pressure to successfully accomplish their goal.

The question that now arises is if Greenpeace was so successful in accomplishing what they wanted to, why was Royal Dutch Shell so ineffective in preventing the block by Greenpeace? The answer lies mainly in the fact that they did not have the ability to rebut Greenpeace and make the public aware of why Greenpeace was mistaken. While Greenpeace was creating a scene so to speak and strongly attacking Shell's analysis, Shell was not in turn strongly rejecting what Greenpeace was saying and if they were it was not attracting the same kind of public attention through the media as Greenpeace was. It might be true that Greenpeace has the advantage in that their entire purpose is to call out anyone whom they believe to be harming the environment and they have a credible record in doing so and therefore the environmentally conscious public might be more inclined to want to listen to Greenpeace, but that is not an excuse for a huge corporation such as Royal Dutch Shell.

Shell simply was not as organized in promoting their scientific research and this lapse gave Greenpeace the chance they needed. Although people in the UK such as the British House of Commons Prime Minister John Major, strongly supported Shell, and Major specifically rebutted German Chancellor Kohl, who was in favor of Greenpeace, they were unable to gain support of enough of the European public. Shell already had the legal ability to sink the Brent Spar so might not have felt the strong need to prove that they were more accurate than Greenpeace to the public, but this turned out to be a fatal error. People will generally listen more to the person or organization who talks to them in a more urgent sounding tone than the opposition who sits back and thinks everything will be ok, as Shell seemed to do.

Now that the causes of Greenpeace's success and Shell's failure have been pointed out, it seems logical that Shell could have in fact gone ahead with their initial plan had they been more successful in their effort to influence the public to favor their side. In reality they did have more truthful and appealing scientific evidence than Greenpeace did, but the problem was the fact that they didn't get this information to the general public in an adequate fashion. If another oil company such as Shell is forced to get rid of one of their oil platforms in the ocean, they can learn from the mistakes made by Shell. First off, they should make sure that everyone in the company is aware of the possible plans of destruction so that everyone is on the same level and so that local employees can better inform their communities. Along with better communication within the company, a future company in the same position would also want to have much better communication with the general public.

From the perspective of a billion dollar oil corporation, if a relatively small organization throws $2 million dollars to influence people to support them, the oil company should spend double that amount, or triple, or whatever it takes to secure an outcome. An opponent like Greenpeace should be taken seriously, and when taken seriously any oil company would realize it could outspend and out strategize Greenpeace heftily to support their cause and in doing so would gain much more public support, especially given the fact that the company will probably pick the best decision for the safety of the employees and the environment in the first place. Basically if a large oil corporation like Shell doesn't want to be beaten by a small opponent like Greenpeace, all they have to do is act as motivated as Greenpeace, spend as much or more money as Greenpeace, and make people know that your side is the right side to be on. The art of manipulation of the public is the most important factor, and in this rare case Greenpeace out witted the giant corporation, Shell, although this does not seem to happen very much any more, unfortunately, or we would no longer be driving cars that rely on gasoline and oil.