fbpx

Boardroom Simulation-Shell and Gazprom Case

A. Joint-venture with Shell and Gazprom in the Russian Arctic

Discussion ORDER YOUR PAPER NOW

The first day started with the board receiving a message from Russian President Vladimir Putin inviting shell to form a partnership with Gazprom in the Russian arctic. The opening remark was given by the CLO who warned us about the sanctions we could face if we make the deal with Gazprom. Wilma (the CLO) also tried to caution her fellow boardroom members for the legal consequences a new deal with Russia would create. Her interest was to protect the company legally. More pressure from the EU and USA could mean them suing us. But the director of upstream and CHRO (Leila) suggested that it a very good opportunity for the company generate more revenue and create more employment which could lead to better relationships with Russia. While, José (CEO) wanted to hear the opinions of the board before state an opinion of himself. It really showed that he valued opinions of his team. The CFO (Achal) suggested that it would highly profitable for the company to go through with this deal but also there was another issue where we could lose money due to legal sanctions taken by the EU and USA. The CHRO (Leila) commented that the labour costs in Russia is very cheap than that from EU whereas DoUI suggested that this could give more opportunities and open more trade routes in Russia and Eastern Europe. Besides, Trinh was in her element as the director upstream international, she really saw the potential that the business opportunity with Gazprom has. Wilma really wanted to protect the company legally and also said that Shell might be liable for lawsuits if they trade with Russia when sanctions against Russia are still in place. But she also mentioned that Gazprom could sue Shell if they back out, however unlikely that is due to the amount of investment Shell has in the project.

SDIB Assignment ORDER YOUR PAPER NOW

  1. Describe the main models/theories related to Governance and Sustainability (Anglo-Saxon v Rhineland/Rhenish model; stakeholder v shareholder, sustainability concepts and theories; for an overview of the latter cf. https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sustainability+theory&*)
  2. (If applicable) After your experience of the Boardroom simulation exercise, in which ways and to what extent have these theories and models given you an orientation, fenced you in, or given you criteria for decision-making?
  3. In which ways do these theories/models in practice present challenges/opportunities to business decision makers? To what extent do they need to be amended, subjected to trade-offs, or implemented in diverse ways?
  4. Please reflect on number 3 above with reference to two phrases from the IBR list of key terms which can be found on Blackboard under Course Material:
  5. “Competing” against complexity, unpredictability, systemic flaws, institutional traps, path dependency, cognitive biases, and inconsistencies in satisficing behavior.
  6. “Games against nature” from mathematical game theory extended to “games against nature and socio-economic reality”

Please meet the following requirements:

  1. Incorporate a way of substantiating the assertions you are making that meets master level academic standards.
  2. Give attention to having your academic English fit the purpose.
    3. Include a list of references, too.
    4. Your paper should have a word count of no more than 1500 words.
error: Content is protected !!
blank