Background
British Petroleum (BP) is an oil company based in London, England that has business operations in more than 80 countries. With the production of approximately 3.8 million barrels of oil per day and more than 22,000 service stations, BP is considered the fourth largest global company in terms of revenue (Reuters, n.d.).
However, BP is also responsible for causing the worst environmental disaster that is attributed to oil and gas companies. On April 20th 2010, the Deepwater Horizon Rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded. The explosion killed 11 people and the drilling rig proceeded to spill approximately 200 million gallons of oil and 225,000 tons of methane before it was finally capped on July 15th, nearly 3 months later (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011).
According to the Center for Biological Diversity (2011), the BP oil spill killed or harmed approximately 82,000 birds, 6,000 sea turtles, and 25,900 marine mammals. In addition to the environmental damage, the BP spill affected the economy of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi because those states heavily rely on the seafood industry and tourism. It is estimated that the damages to both industries in the affected areas exceed $5.5 billion (Bergin, 2010).
It is highly likely that BP’s reputation will never completely recover after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Even though the company assumed full responsibility and promised to address all legitimate claims, the attempts to restore their public image possibly had undesirable consequences. The company used visual rhetoric, corporate apologia, and propaganda to recover their image after the accident, but the execution of those strategies does not appear sincere, so the company is more likely to place itself at risk for being ostracized rather than restore its credibility.
BP Crisis Management Strategies
Corporate apologia was one of the strategies used that could potentially restore BP’s credibility after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the statement by former CEO Tony Hayward, BP assumes full responsibility for the accident and promises to address all legitimate claims (Bergin, 2010), even though the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 allows the company to limit compensation payouts to $75 million for private parties. According to Dudley (2011), BP’s group chief executive, the company paid over $5 billion to individuals and organizations that have been affected by the spill. That communications strategy can be categorized as corporate apologia because it aims to repair the public image of the company by promising to fix the consequences of their wrongdoing, and the company took corrective actions to deliver on their promise (Hearit, 2006).
Dudley (2011) also mentions that the company had maintained a local presence to deal with the issue and fund independent research aimed at restoring the damaged ecosystem, which indicates that the company is not only looking to financially compensate affected individuals, but also repair the environmental damage and provide long-term support in the area. Finally, Dudley (2011) explains that BP’s responsibility is to ensure that the company implements the learning experience from the accident in their worldwide business. The promise that the company will learn from its mistakes is a powerful persuasion strategy BP used to regain the public’s trust.
In addition to the attempt to maintain their public image by accepting full responsibility through formal documents and press statements, BP also aimed to improve their public image by utilizing social media. There are various examples of YouTube campaigns, such as the “Voices from the Gulf” series, the “Gulf Snapshots” series, and the “Message from Tony Hayward” video, that are aimed at restoring the public image of BP. The key strategies used in the videos to achieve the company’s objectives are visual rhetoric and propaganda.
Visual rhetoric is a persuasion method that aims to affect the audience’s perception through visual imagery. In BP’s YouTube campaigns, images of wildlife, workers, and clean waters are common because they want to associate those images with their company. The campaigns “Voices from the Gulf” and “Gulf Snapshots” also feature local small business owners, so the viewers can identify themselves with those people and will more likely trust them when they speak positively about BP.
However, several mistakes and wrong choices were made during their campaigns. For example, a key mistake in the video “Message from Tony Hayward,” which was removed from BP’s official YouTube channel, was the appearance of Tony Hayward in front of the camera. His facial expression and tone of voice leave the impression that he is not apologizing for the accident because he wants to reach out to the affected people, but because he just wants to save his position and the company’s reputation. According to Coombs (2012) corporate videos for crisis management must be sincere and genuine or they will negatively impact the company’s public image, and in BP’s case, Hayward’s presentation ensured the latter.
Propaganda was also used in BP’s campaigns, but that communication strategy is not compatible with modern media. Propaganda is defined as a communication strategy that aims to affect public opinion, but it is usually associated with half-truths and emotional manipulation (Coombs, 2012). In BP’s videos, testimonials about BP’s efficiency in resolving the problems associated with the oil spill have been slightly exaggerated, and they pretend that the lingering negative outcomes (e.g. 75% of the oil remaining one year later in the Gulf of Mexico) of the spill are non-existent. However, YouTube and the Internet level the playing field for large corporations and individuals, so statements that contradict BP’s videos on how they have been helpful can also be found. Propaganda may have worked through traditional media, which would make it difficult for individuals to spread their opinions, but on a platform where anyone can voice their opinions and experiences, people will always hear both positive and negative sides of important global events.
Because of their failed attempt to fix their public image through social media, BP was also featured in Parker and Stone’s (2010) television series “South Park,” in which the CEO of BP apologized for the spill and later apologized again for opening a demon portal while trying to fix the issue. The exaggeration of the consequences of the BP leaders’ incompetence certainly did not help their efforts to maintain their public image after the accident.
Even though BP aimed to improve their public image by communicating their mistake and reminding the public that their interest is to prevent future mistakes from happening, their communication strategies in this case are irrelevant because their actions were not in alignment with the messages they are sending to the public. For example, immediately after the spill, BP tried to clean up the 200 million gallons of oil with 1.8 million gallons of dispersant (Rotkin-Ellman & Solomon, 2012). The dispersant used to clean up the oil spill was banned in the UK because it was associated with adverse events, such as increasing toxicity to underwater life and causing underwater oil plumes (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011). Therefore, instead of removing the oil, the toxic dispersant simply broke it down into smaller particles.
Furthermore, the Gulf of Mexico spill was a long process that had lasted for several months before it was stopped on July 15th 2010, so it is apparent that BP did not take immediate action to prevent further damage to the local ecosystem and the economy of local states. One year after the incident, the Center for Biological Diversity (2011) reported that only 25% of the leaked oil was recovered while the rest was floating in small particles. Therefore, even though BP assumed full responsibility for their mistake and aimed to reach out to the public through social media, their actions were clearly not in alignment with their communication attempts aimed at restoring their public image.
Finally, the recent spill of approximately 500 gallons of crude oil from BP’s refinery into Lake Michigan that occurred in March 2014 suggests that BP did not implement the precautionary measures they promised in order to prevent future ecological catastrophes. According to Plume and McAllister (2014), BP had a two-year government ban lifted in March 2014, so it was allowed to bid on new federal drilling leases again just prior to the accident at Lake Michigan.
Although the accident was small in magnitude when compared to accidents like the Gulf of Mexico or Prince William Sound, the timing of the accident in Lake Michigan increases the negative public perception of the company. According to Hearit (2006) corporate apologia is effective when the company shows it learned from its mistakes, but the new spill in Lake Michigan indicates that BP contradicts Dudley’s (2011) statement that they will implement their learning experience from the Gulf of Mexico in other business operations.
Comparison with Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Exxon’s oil spill is comparable to the BP oil spill because of the magnitude and coverage of both events, but several differences that impact their public image have to be noted. First, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker immediately spilt 11 million gallons of crude oil after grounding on Bligh Reef. The BP oil spill was capped only after approximately 200 million gallons of oil leaked into the ocean. Therefore, the BP oil spill was not only 20 times greater than the Exxon oil spill in terms of the amount of oil leaked into the ocean, but a significant portion of the leak could have also been prevented with a timely intervention.
Second, the reaction to the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred within 12 hours of the accident, and Alyeska (i.e. an association representing seven oil companies, including Exxon) immediately assumed responsibility for cleaning the area and implemented the contingency plan (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2014). Various other government agencies, such as the National Response Team and the Coast Guard, also responded to the Exxon oil spill. In the BP oil spill, there was no contingency plan, which is why the spill managed to spread and continued leaking for almost 3 months.
Finally, the US Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 one year after the Exxon Valdez accident, which improved regulations imposed on oil companies, so tank hulls today are reinforced to withstand stronger impact (EPA, 2014). After the BP oil spill, no significant action was taken to improve regulations and safety measures in the oil and gas industry.
Conclusion
Exxon’s spill in Prince William Sound was devastating to the wildlife and local population, but Exxon managed to overcome that crisis because appropriate actions, including a timely response and a subsequent improvement in regulations, were taken after the accident took place. However, BP will probably never completely recover their reputation from the spill in the Gulf of Mexico because of the magnitude of the disaster, the company’s slow reaction time in addressing the leak, lack of contingency planning, and their poor performance on social media.
Although BP aimed to reach out to rebuild their public image via social media, the video testimonials and the apology by Hayward seemed artificial and insincere. In some ways, the videos were diversions from the problems caused by the spill because they used imagery and stories that presented the oil spill as something that had already been solved. Therefore, the videos were not only ineffective, but they also crossed the line between persuasion strategies and manipulation attempts, making BP’s communication unethical and reducing their credibility even further.
Furthermore, the public perception of BP has not changed during the past 4 years, especially because the recent spill in Lake Michigan revived the negative attitudes towards the company. Even though the spill was small, negative comments from US residents who rely on Lake Michigan as their drinking water source can be found on various older YouTube videos that addressed the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and were posted on BP’s official channel. Therefore, it is highly likely that the public perception of BP has not changed in the past 4 years, and BP will probably never recover completely because of their ineffective and unethical use of crisis management strategies.
References
Bergin, T. (2010, April 30). BP CEO says will pay oil spill claims. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/30/idINIndia-48135020100430
Center for Biological Diversity. (2011, April). A deadly toll: The gulf oil spill and the unfolding wildlife disaster. Retrieved from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/a_deadly_toll.html
Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dudley, B. (2011). New era, new responsibilities. Vital Speeches of the Day, 77(5), 174-178.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Exxon Valdez spill profile. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/emergency-response/exxon-valdez-spill-profile
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parker, T. & Stone, M. (Creators). (2010). Coon 2: Hindsight [Television series episode]. In T. Parker & M. Stone (Producers), South park. Los Angeles, CA: Parker-Stone Studios.
Plume, K. & McAllister, E. (2014, March 25). Update 4—Oil spills into Lake Michigan from BP refinery. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/refinery-operations-bp-whiting-idUSL1N0MM0RQ20140325
Reuters. (n.d.). Profile: BP Plc. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/ companyProfile?symbol=BP
Rotkin-Ellman, M., & Solomon, G. (2012). FDA risk assessment of seafood contamination after the BP oil spill: Rotkin-Ellman and Solomon respond. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(2), a55.
