this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023

358 points (98.4% liked)

Europe

8324 readers

3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

358

Shell no longer allowing journalists to participate in financial presentations (nltimes.nl)

submitted 1 year ago by ModsAreCopsACAB@lemm.ee to c/europe@feddit.de

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 108 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just buy one share and attend as a shareholder

[–] Chup@feddit.de 86 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As per the 1st sentence of the article, it's less about being there but about asking questions:

Shell will no longer give press conferences when presenting its annual and quarterly results.

Journalists will be allowed to call in and listen but not ask questions

So even when supporting Shell and buying shares to attend, there won't be a press conference with questions and answers.

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Shareholders can ask questions at shareholders meetings

[–] Chup@feddit.de 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is article is not about a shareholder meeting though. It's naming the annual and quarterly financial presentations.

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I've read a bit more on it, and it's not good. The regulations haven't been changed since 1985, they need to be reformed with more power given to individuals.

Problem is most people buy shares from intermediaries where you don't actually get registered as a shareholder with the company.

[–] 520@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Realistically though they will only address the questions from the biggest shareholders.

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Yep

https://www.cityam.com/shells-refusal-to-answer-questions-is-an-affront-to-ordinary-shareholders/

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“What about the droid attack on the Wookies?”

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And instantly create a conflict of interest that undermines your reporting.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Shell's currently trading at 60 bucks; that's not much of a COI.

[–] 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

But what about when the share price reaches $6 1? Then you've made a whole dollar. Who knows? You could make $2.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's not a conflict of interest to report on something you have a financial stake in? Just because the stock is at $60 doesn't mean you wouldn't profit if it went to $80.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Such a small amount of money is easily explainable in the journalistic report. In fact, I did so right now. "In order to gain access to this event and be allowed the provelidge to ask follow up questions, this reporter was forced to buy one stock of Shell at $60 a share. I did my best to not let this influence my journalism in any way."

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's proper that a journalist should put a disclaimer in their article, stating the conflict of interest. That does not mean the conflict of interest is suddenly done away with - it's still there.

Having a conflict of interest also doesn't mean the person cannot be trusted. However buying shares in the company you're reporting on would be introducing a significant doubt that isn't really worth the minimal benefits they'd get from attending shareholder meetings.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guy buying one share of a company to gain access to a stockholder only event is not a conflict of interest. Think about it critically for any length of time and you'll realize this.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mate, it's called a conflict of interest. By owning a share in the company, you have an interest in the company's success, and therefore an inherent bias in any reporting you do. You might not act on that bias, but it's still there - and most importantly for journalists it's perceptible to any and every reader.

I'm sure most journalists would not let it influence them. However the issue is it affects the quality of their writing towards their audience. It's not about whether or not they will act on their bias, but their appearance of bias.

Ultimately, it's just not worth the hassle. Otherwise we would already have journalists doing this - just because Shell are no longer letting journalists into shareholder meetings doesn't mean it's a new thing.

You're not arguing against me thinking this isn't a good idea, you're arguing against the entire journalism industry thinking that.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not a conflict of interest if you buy a share as part of the investigation, literally I have no clue how to tell you this in any other way. If you need to own a share to ask questions, it is only proper to buy a share and ask the questions. You are the reason journalism is dying.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

The reason you buy it does not matter. Owning a share in a business you're reporting on is a de facto conflict of interest. You merely saying it isn't does not make your statement true. Coming up with excuses for why it was bought doesn't either. A good journalist will at least still declare their conflicts of interest, but that declaration does not dispell it.

You are the reason journalism is dying.

You are being an ass.

[–] Frog-Brawler@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, at $60 it’s not a conflict of interest. $60 is negligible.

[–] taladar@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Unless their stock price drops to $0 or doubles it is not even $60 but just a small fraction of that.

[–] ViewSonik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Oh please.. pennies… less than pennies in this context.

[–] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Not if it's 60 bucks and was specifically bought to be able to participate and report, come on.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If only reporters had some way of telling readers about their potential conflicts of interest. Like, I don't know, telling readers you had to buy shares to participate and report on it? But that just seems to crazy to exist....

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I didn't say it would invalidate their reporting, but even with a disclaimer the conflict of interest is still there and still undermines the article. A report without the conflict of interest is always better.

Is that really worth it, just to go to their shareholder meeting and try to turn it into a mini press conference? I think most professional journalists would say no.

American oil and gas companies ExxonMobil and Chevron also don’t hold press conferences

I mean, I'm sure they've thought about this with regards to these other companies, yet we don't have journalists buying shares to report on them. Maybe I've not hit the nail with their exact reasoning, but whatever their reasoning is no one in the industry seems to think it's a good idea.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 25 points 1 year ago

Translation: We're making sooo much money off the backs of the suckers we employ that we're concerned of the backlash if they found out just how bad we're screwing them.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

Man, making so much money that even the shameless feel ashamed.

[+] tal@kbin.social -35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Shell's kind of got a point that the purpose of the shareholder meetings isn't to create a forum for political activists, but to report to shareholders how the company is doing. I mean, it's going to be disruptive to them doing that, because they've got a finite amount of time for that.

If you buy a share of an oil company specifically because you don't like oil companies and want to show up at the shareholder meeting and complain about oil companies, the shareholders who are interested in the thing as a business probably aren't going to appreciate it much.

If shareholders were saying "I don't agree with the CEO pay package" or something, okay, that's within the realm of the company's operations.

I'd also add that if you don't want oil extraction, Shell isn't the party to talk to, even via another route than shareholder's meetings. Shell is gonna do what regulators permit if it makes financial sense for Shell. You aren't gonna convince Shell otherwise. If you want to say "no crude oil extraction", then you want to talk to regulators and lawmakers, not to the companies operating within the bounds that they set. Hell, even if you did convince Shell, it'd just mean that another oil company would step in to do the same.

If crude oil extraction causes problems to people other than Shell or Shell customers, then that's an externality, and internalizing that is what regulators are there for. That's not the job of companies.

[–] agrammatic@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not sure if we are on the same side, and honestly in this case it doesn't matter, since you are right: a corporation only has to care about the externalities as much as they are forced to and not even an inkling more than that.

People who think that an enterprise in a free market will respond to any other force than economic force are wasting activism time that could be better used elsewhere.

If you want a corporation to stop performing a socially harmful business, you need to make that business unprofitable.

[–] Taival@suppo.fi 9 points 1 year ago

I agree with your sentiment, but I wouldn't call activism (and especially not journalism) a wasted effort in that regard. Bringing issues to light is the first step in creating a visible dent in the balance sheets. Public perception shapes consumer behavior to some degree and can put pressure on lawmakers to introduce legislation against harmful conduct. On the other hand, if the general public only hears the company's side of the story underlining how clean and ethical they are, there will never be any pressure for change.

[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you want a corporation to stop performing a socially harmful business, you need to make that business unprofitable.

This is neigh on impossible. I don’t shop at Amazon, but I doubt they even noticed. I try to avoid brands like Nestle but they’re still going.

The last thing I ordered that wasn’t from Amazon was still delivered by Amazon. I was shocked.

[–] agrammatic@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

My intention was to suggest that you make those businesses unprofitable by intervening in the market with far-reaching regulations.

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

You are right, but a corporation is not run by robots. There are individuals making these decisions, and they must - and will be - held accountable.

[–] UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When Shell stops donations to political parties, candidates and all of its lobbying I'll agree with you.

[–] apis@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Again though, Shell aren't going to push for that. Their beneficiaries aren't either, unless the rest of us make it untenable for legislators to fail to ban such donations.