Boycott Shell Bulletin

(No. 7)
by Boycott Shell Campaign
Washington, DC, United States
Undated, late June or July 1987
4 pages
Contents: Stockholders Meetings Dominated By Protests • Canadians To Join Boycott • Sullivan Calls For Corporate Withdrawals • Alternative Corporate Report Highlights Mismanagement • Attempt To Distort S.A. Views Fails • Ads By Both Sides Shows Boycott's Strength • SHELL BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN MATERIALS • Protests in connection with Shell's annual stockholders meetings have added fuel to the boycott campaign. Management officials have refused to allow a vote on ending Shell's economic support for apartheid, and major stockholders renewed their call for a special shareholders meeting on this topic. The corporate bylaws allow owners of 10 percent of the stock (about 26.8 million shares) to call a special stockholders meeting with a specific agenda. Already, owners of more than 12 million shares are supporting the call, including major public employee pension funds, churches, and banks such as Wells Fargo and Mellon. Protesters showed up in force at the simultaneous annual meetings of Royal Dutch/Shell's co-owners, Royal Dutch Petroleum (based in the Netherlands) and Shell Trading and Transport (based in London). Representatives of the Dutch labor federation (FNV), the Dutch parliament, churches, and anti-apartheid coalitions spoke at the meeting, as did Andy Smith of the American Baptist Churches and John Banovic, secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Workers. A campaign to boycott Shell has been launched in Canada, the twelfth country with boycott efforts. The Canadian Labour Congress announced that it would promote the boycott, along with church and anti-apartheid organizations. Other countries with active campaigns include the U.S., Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. Rev. Leon Sullivan, whose "Sullivan Principles" for fair employment have been used by corporations to justify continuing to operate in South Africa, announced June 3 that he no longer supports those Principles and now urges cutting off all economic ties with that country. Royal Dutch/Shell has cited its supposed compliance with a similar code of conduct developed by the European Community in defending its refusal to withdraw from South Africa. Royal Dutch/Shell management claimed that anti-apartheid leaders and organizations in South Africa have changed their mind about economic sanctions and demands for disinvestment; South African anti-apartheid leaders quickly set the record straight. Ads supporting the Shell boycott have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Mail, and the New Nation. The newsletter mentions Rev. David Haslam, FNV (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging), black trade unionist in South Africa, Allan Boesak, the United Democratic Front (UDF), TransAfrica, Shell South Africa Chairman John R. Wilson, COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions), Frank Meintjies, Beyers Naude, the South African Council of Churches (SACC), the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU), Bill Lucy, and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
Used by permission of the United Mine Workers of America.
Collection: Kathleen M. Devine papers