In response to your peers, state whether you agree with their choice as the most likely scenario to occur and the advice that they have given to prepare Shell to succeed in the face of likely government impacts. Justify your critique of your peer’s scenario advice and support your justification with scholarly research cited in APA format.

4 sentences per discussion is okay.

discussion 1

In the face of the energy and the environmental crisis Shell is trying is trying to foresee the world energy future with two options. The question is which scenario will help in the best way. The scenarios are the scramble energy option or the blueprint energy scenario option. Therefore to make a choice here we need to make some comparative study between the three (Scramble, Blueprint, and Ocean) scenarios, before making any decision, even though the both scenarios call for improvement.

In the scramble, I would say that the security of energy supply and fears of losing economic ground shape decision -making. With the scramble option, there is no meaningful change at the long term. I feel that the business lacks direction for technology investment to improve emissions management. In the Scramble world, no one is prepared to change the status quo. Dealing with today’s problem takes priority. By the 2020s, life has become volatile and uncertain. Energy availability is often tight. Severe weather events are blamed on a lack of previous action on climate change. The public cries out. And governments in the different regions respond in different ways – but without consistency or cohesion. Eventually a new, more positive phase emerges. Enforced steps to reduce energy demand gradually have an effect. …Individual, local efforts to promote renewable energy sources start to pay off. Renewables become well enough established, and on a large enough scale, to be competitive. Greenhouse gas emissions eventually begin to fall in the Scramble world. But the earlier periods of economic volatility, and the legacy of high emissions, continue to have an impact. Because events outpaced actions, major work will still be needed after 2050 to achieve real sustainability.

When it comes to Blueprint, people are very worried and want to achieve collective actions all across the world for now and in very long future for many generations. People don’t see thing just in their own environment. The Blueprint is working in a diversify way to achieve its desire. Different parts use different approaches to promote energy efficiency, and technology development. Some choose taxes. Others use mandates. Some look for voluntary action by businesses and consumers. The most successful approaches spread. However, the diversity makes life difficult for investment. Pressure is created on local, national and international authorities to harmonize arrangements better.

With harmonization comes widespread adoption of good efficiency practices. Trading schemes for carbon dioxide emissions rights begin to cover a critical mass of industry sectors in a critical mass of countries. Meaningful carbon dioxide pricing gives people and organizations more incentive to improve their energy efficiency and invest in technologies, paving the way to carbon capture and storage after 2020. Meanwhile, transport is becoming greener through growth in hybrids and later full-electric vehicles. Biofuels play a role alongside traditional oil products. By the 2040s, the Blueprints world sees renewable energy technologies compete on price against fossil fuels, which are well managed with carbon capture and storage. But collaboration, successful carbon policies, and faster technology deployment have all contributed to a more sustainable world than Scramble. According to John: ‘’to succeed in meeting with its objectives, a business must be responsive to both economic and its noneconomic environment’’ (John, 2016, page 7).

In addition even though the two cases are willing to improve the world of energy and environment, but the Blueprint would achieve better job than the Scramble. I think the blueprint has a great way of achieving sustainability in the future. The way Blueprint is managed fit today world, and predict a clear direction without doubt for our future.

My advice to Shell here is to Shell is to go with Blueprint, even though the Ocean sound good but the Blueprint maximize human interest. According to John: ‘’ in the Blueprint the world is prompt’’ (John, 2016, page 23). The blueprint take into account the historical forces, the globalization, all nation-States, and there is a great leadership.

Reference:

John F. Steiner George A. Steiner. (2016). Business, Government, and Society: A managerial perspective. Thirteenth Edition.

discussion 2

Although I believe both scenarios are plausible, I think oceans is currently more likely. Considering a historical perspective our book described, I believe we are currently shifting focus from our dedication to our nation and one of what can our nation do for us (Shell, 2017). With rising healthcare and education cost, and our growing concern with environmental impact, all with little guidance from our government, I believe focus is shifting within individual thinking as well as corporate thinking. The oceans scenario appears to be a more individualist concept. One where the people start to better control government regulation and agenda (Shell, 2017). Considering a historical perspective, this in essence, has been the American struggle from conception. As our original settlers escaped religious and other persecutions, Americans, along with many other countries, fight for a global market, with less cultural influence, where all ideas are welcome and encouraged. Although the oceans scenario presents a great many challenges, personally, it is the more appealing of the two.

In the 1960’s the scenario concept began with teams of elite scholars (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Shell began using these teams and scenarios in the 1970’s to shape corporate planning (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Currently, Shells Vice President of global business environment, chief political analyst, projects manager, and chief energy advisor make the scenarios team (Shell, 2017). Over the last 5 years, Shell has utilized the assistance of Ecofys for collaboration (Shell, 2017).

The advice I would give to Shell is simple, consider the people. Less people vote, but most people still have an opinion and it greatly influences how corporations handle business, as well as government regulation. As the individual voice becomes more prominent and demands change, it will further change government regulation on business, such as those effecting climate and environmental concerns. These changes will directly affect companies like Shell. Therefore, understanding and trending where individual thought is headed will give Shell an advantage when making future plans.

References

Shell Global (2017). Shell Scenarios. Retrieved on June 21, 2017 from

http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/new-lenses-on-the-future.html

Steiner, J.F. and Steiner, G.A. (2012). Business, Government, and Society. A Managerial

Perspective, Text and Cases. McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York, New York.