| download XLS |
|
|
SOCIAL |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fatalities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employees |
7 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
Contractors |
60 |
57 |
44 |
55 |
37 |
45 |
42 |
35 |
33 |
35 |
|
|
Total number |
67 |
63 |
47 |
60 |
40 |
53 |
47 |
37 |
36 |
37 |
|
|
Fatal accident rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of fatalities per 100 million exposure hours (employees and contractors) |
9.0 |
8.6 |
6.9 |
8.2 |
5.2 |
6.3 |
5.6 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
4.6 |
|
|
Injuries – total reported case frequency (TRCF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per million exposure hours (employees and contractors) |
4.1 |
4.4 |
3.7 |
3.2 |
2.9 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
2.5 |
2.3 |
|
|
Lost time injury frequency (LTIF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Injury hours per million exposure hours (employees and contractors) |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.4 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
|
|
Total reportable occupational illness frequency |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illnesses per million exposure hours (employees only) |
N/C |
3.2 |
3.5 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.0 |
1.8 |
|
|
Security % of countries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using armed security |
N/C |
24 |
26 |
22 |
18 |
16 |
22 |
18 |
19 |
15 |
|
|
Using armed company security |
N/C |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Using armed contractor security |
N/C |
16 |
15 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
22 |
11 |
11 |
9 |
|
|
Gender diversity % women[F] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In supervisory/ professional positions |
N/C |
N/C |
15.4 |
17.1 |
17.7 |
18.9 |
19.5 |
20.7 |
21.8 |
23.2 |
|
|
In management positions |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
8.9 |
9.3 |
9.2 |
11.3 |
12.2 |
12.9 |
16.2 |
|
|
In senior leadership positions |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
7.2 |
7.9 |
8.8 |
9.6 |
9.6 |
9.9 |
11.6 |
|
|
Unions and staff forums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated % employees members of unions |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
19 |
19 |
13 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
|
|
Staff forums and grievance procedures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% staff with access to staff forum, grievance procedure or other support system |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
99.9 |
99.9 |
99.9 |
100 |
100 |
99.2 |
|
|
Child labour % countries checking to ensure procedures [G] in place |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In own operations |
N/C |
64 |
82 |
84 |
89 |
86 |
78 |
83 |
88 |
95 |
|
|
Contractors |
N/C |
39 |
46 |
51 |
57 |
56 |
57 |
61 |
69 |
89 |
|
|
Suppliers |
N/C |
21 |
30 |
31 |
41 |
42 |
50 |
53 |
62 |
82 |
|
|
Contracting and procurements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated spend on goods and services from locally owned companies in low and medium countries[H] $ billion |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
5.2 |
6.3 |
9.2 |
10 |
|
|
Contracts cancelled due to incompatibility with Business Principles |
N/C |
69 |
62 |
106 |
100 |
54 |
49 |
64 |
63 |
41 |
|
|
Joint ventures divested due to incompatibility with Business Principles |
N/C |
N/C |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Business integrity[I] |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
123[J] |
102[J] |
96 |
|
|
Social investment (equity share) $ million |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
85 |
85 |
96 |
102 |
106 |
127 |
140 |
|
|
Favourability[K] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Special public |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shell |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
43 |
59 |
43 |
47 |
49 |
|
|
Nearest competitor |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
39 |
52 |
46 |
45 |
47 |
|
|
General public |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shell |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
44 |
46 |
44 |
41 |
29 |
|
|
Nearest competitor |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
N/C |
40 |
37 |
35 |
33 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/C = not calculated |
|
|
[F] Data reflects the changed scope of senior leader and management positions in 2005. Data for previous years has been restated. |
|
|
[G] Prior to 2003 we asked if procedures existed, not if they were actively enforced. |
|
|
[H] Country income level as defined by the UNDP human development index. |
|
|
[I] Incidents of bribery and fraud, gathered by our internal audit system. |
|
|
[J] Minor data error corrected to avoid previous double-counting between bribery and fraud. |
|
|
[K] We have received higher scores than competitors from the general public since the Reputation Tracker survey began. We retained that position in 2006 although among the general public, the gap with our nearest competitor narrowed significantly. We believe this is a result of a general deterioration of sentiment towards all oil companies in 2006. We have a high market profile in the countries selected for measurement and as a market leader have suffered more from the downturn in general public opinion than some of our competitors. |