IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buhirw/v94y2020i4p729-751_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ghost in a Shell: The Scenario Tool and the World Making of Royal Dutch Shell

Author

Listed:
  • Andersson, Jenny

Abstract

This article examines the history of the Royal Dutch Shell scenarios, from the first horizon scan exercise in 1967. It proposes that forward-looking scenarios were integrated in planning at Shell as tools for managing uncertainty in global time and space relations of oil after 1967. Specifically, the article proposes that Shell strategically used the scenarios to respond to arguments, emanating both from OPEC and from the Club of Rome, of oil as a limited resource. Shell used the scenarios to create images of a future oil market dominated by innovation, creativity, and sustainable solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andersson, Jenny, 2020. "Ghost in a Shell: The Scenario Tool and the World Making of Royal Dutch Shell," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(4), pages 729-751, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:94:y:2020:i:4:p:729-751_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007680520000483/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christophe Bonneuil & Pierre-Louis Choquet & Benjamin Franta, 2021. "Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses to global warming, 1968-2021," Post-Print halshs-03390521, HAL.
    2. Christophe Bonneuil & Pierre-Louis Choquet & Benjamin Franta, 2021. "Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses to global warming, 1968-2021," SciencePo Working papers Main halshs-03390521, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:94:y:2020:i:4:p:729-751_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bhr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.