The report is divided into two questions, the first which I have already done, was to firstly describe and discuss how the operational environment changed for Arcelor-Mittal in West Africa due to the Ebola outbreak, and secondly how Arcelor-Mittal tried to manage the Ebola outbreak.
The second part of the question which I would like to ask you to do it for me is:
Q)Which of Shell’s two identified alternative 2030 scenarios (i.e. “Mountains” and “Oceans” as per their 2013 New Lens Scenario document) do you feel is the most challenging or incompatible for Arcellor-Mittal given their goals of corporate social responsibility and their ongoing need to manage stakeholders, with particular reference to future possible Ebola outbreaks in West Africa?
The criteria in which this question must be tackled are as follow:
Choosing the least favourable scenario for Arcelor-Mittal
(A-M) given their CSR goals by:
1. Clearly identifying and articulating A-M’s CSR goals (10%).
2. Firstly, mapping the current CSR state for A-M using Stakeholder mapping; (5%)
3. Secondly, mapping the future CSR state for A-M using Stakeholder mapping for both new lens 2030 scenarios (10%)
4. Thirdly, discussing how and why stakeholder positions have changed or not between now and both future scenarios as the case may be (10%)
5. Fourthly, deciding on the least favourable scenario given the outcomes of the CSR stakeholder mapping exercise, consideration of future scenario stability and reliability, and considering how A-M managed the 2014 Ebola outbreak(15%)