In early 2010, an explosion at the BP Deepwater Horizon oil right in the Mexican Golf became one of the largest man-made maritime disasters in US history. The disaster would cause considerable damage regarding the loss of life, damage to the ecosystem, as well as financial and reputational losses. As a way of dealing with this spill, BP established a PR plan focused on communicating with various stakeholders during and after the disaster (Wolf & Mejri, 2013).
I do not believe that their efforts were any successful based on the following reasons. First, to control the incoming press exposure, the company censured, limited, and delayed the release of information to members of the public. Second, the visible negligence and arrogance of the PR manager showed that the company had not fully prepared for an impending disaster. As a result, they are still incurring the damage through legal suits and financial losses (Wolf & Mejri, 2013).
Nonetheless, days that followed saw BP perform better in changing their leadership strategy. In July that year, BP announced a major executive restricting that would see its CEO lose his position to a more responsible company head. The changes would also see the establishment of a disaster response strategy for current and future crises. Indeed, BP had taken an interest in the importance of risk and disaster management (Wolf & Mejri, 2013).
Initially, however, BP should have made significant changes in their communication strategy in disaster management. The company should have considered the power of reputation in the event of any disaster. Their failure to partake in timely communication cost them not only their money but also a chance to redeem their reputation (Wolf & Mejri, 2013).
Based on what I know now, I believe that it is hard to quantify and replace the effects of the spill. I would have established an effective leadership to head the disaster management team. This team would perform the best practices that entail responsible management in the event of crisis. For instance, they should have recognized stakeholders as active partners to the company. Also, it was important that they become truthful, collaborate with the government, meet media requirements, and communicate with clarity and compassion (Wolf & Mejri, 2013).
Finally, I have always thought that during a disaster, a company can lie as well as avoid media attention and yet still keep its reputation. However, the main difference is that BP lost its reputation when management tempered with the communication strategy after the oil spill. The similarity is that companies that eventually tell the truth may regain lost reputation. BP Oil eventually faced the consequences and reduced the impact of their initial actions on company reputation (Wolf & Mejri, 2013).
References
Wolf, D., & Mejri, M. (2013). Crisis communication failures: The BP Case Study. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 2 (2), 48-56.
