Skip to main content
Log in

Dealing with Wicked Issues: Open Strategizing and the Camisea Case

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, based on an extensive study of the Shell-led Camisea gas project in Peru, how what we believe to be a new approach to dealing with stakeholders, focusing on sense-making and combining industry dynamics and stakeholder empowerment, was developed. The project’s success was measured by the fact that, unlike similar projects around the world, it did not meet with major opposition during its 4-year life span. Those involved in the Camisea project succeeded in creating an open approach to building stakeholder relationships, allowing them to navigate through a number of diverse and challenging socio-political and ecological issues. An integral part of Shell’s approach was acting upon its commitment to high standards of operation and values. The insights from this case clearly indicate that stakeholder management and theorizing can profit from a less controlled, open and sense-making oriented strategizing with stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Shell as well as the stakeholders interrogated have been providing the data for the study. All analysis and conclusions are the author’s responsibility.

References

  • Anonymous. (1994). Shell to study development of Peru’s Camisea gas/condensate. Oil and Gas Journal, 92(13), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J. (2000). Talking for change? Reflections on effective stakeholder dialogue. New Academy of Business Innovation Network (online). Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://www.new-academy.ac.uk/publications/keypublications/documents/talkingforchange.pdf.

  • Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. (2005). Setting new agendas—Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good—Tackling public problems in a shared power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1980). Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not. In K. Knorr, R. Krohn, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The social process of scientific investigation—Sociology of the sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 197–219). Dordrecht and London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation—Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1992). The dynamics of techno-economic networks. In P. S. R. Coombs & V. Walsh (Eds.), Technological change and company strategies—Economic and sociological perspectives (pp. 72–102). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camillus, J. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frynas, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and international development—Critical assessment. Corporate Governance, 15(4), 274–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrisson, D., & Laberge, M. (2002). Innovation, identities and resistance—The social construction of an innovation network. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R. B., & Diffenbach, J. (1989). Strategic credibility—The basis of a strong share price. Long Range Planning, 22(6), 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idemudia, U. (2009). Oil extraction and poverty reduction in the Niger delta—A critical examination of partnership initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. (1997). The role of stakeholder participation—Linkages to stakeholder impact assessment and social capital in Camisea, Peru. Greener Management International, 19(3), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor network—Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Retrieved December 15, 2003, from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Notes-on-ANT.pdf.

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005a). Corporate citizenship—Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005b). What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 6–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P., Dabbs, A., Fernandez-Davila, P., Gonçalves da Vinha, V., & Zaidenweber, N. (1999). Corporate roles and rewards in promoting sustainable development—Lessons learned from Camisea. Berkeley, CA: Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, A., & Jeurissen, R. (2006). A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility—Introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 316–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, N., & Czuba, C. (1999). Empowerment—What is it? Journal of Extension, 37(5) (online). Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/comm1.html.

  • Pasquero, J. (1996). Stakeholder theory as a constructivist paradigm. Proceedings of the international association for business and society, Seventh annual conference, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 584–589.

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, S. L., & Calton, J. M. (2002). Towards a managerial practice of stakeholder engagement—Developing multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. In J. Andriof, S. A. Waddock, B. W. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 121–135). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation—Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramiller, N. (2005). Applying the sociology of translation to a system project in a lagging enterprise. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 7(1), 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozas, U. (1997). Umweltschutz vor Menschenrecht? Erdölexploration im Madre de Dios (Peru) im Spannungsfeld von Profit, Naturschutz und indigenen Rechten. Infoe Magazin, Zeitschrift für Ökologie und “vierte Welt”, 12(1), pp. 24–27.

  • Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, S., & Terence Gomez, E. (2008). Transnational governmentality and resource extraction—Indigenous peoples, multinational corporations, multilateral institutions and the state, identities, conflict and cohesion programme. Paper Number 13, United Research Institute for Social Development.

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate citizenship in a globalized world—Introduction to the handbook of research on global corporate citizenship. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 1–21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwerin, E. (1995). Mediation, citizen empowerment and transformational politics. London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1978). A social world perspective. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 119–128). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.

  • Strauss, A. (1988). Negotiations—Varieties, contexts, processes and social orders (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., Sabshin, M., & Schatzmann, L. (1991). Negotiated order and the coordination of work. In A. Strauss (Ed.), Creating sociological awareness (pp. 3–32). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research—Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2001). Integrity and mindfulness. In J. Andriof & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship (pp. 26–38). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worden, S. (2003). The role of integrity as a mediator in strategic leadership–A recipe for reputational capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research—Design and methods (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Schmitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmitt, R. Dealing with Wicked Issues: Open Strategizing and the Camisea Case. J Bus Ethics 96 (Suppl 1), 11–19 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0938-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0938-2

Keywords

Navigation