The Rhetoric of Response: BP’s response to the Deepwater Horizon Spill

Introduction

The BP Oil Spill is one of the biggest catastrophes in the history of America. The incident had a wide range of impacts not only to the stakeholders of the company but also to the economy of the country. The aftermath of the spill has many reputational consequences to the company. This required a number of strategies to win the corporation’s reputation. The crisis had its effect on the Company in the entire Gulf of Mexico a fact that led to the management of the oil corporation to protect its reputation and inform the entire public (Bryant, 2011). Stakeholders of the Corporation needed information on the level of impact the spill had caused to employees and the economy of the United States of America. A close examination of the events that followed the crisis revealed strategies by the management of the BP Oil Corporation to repair its reputation. Much information indicates that the corporation is to blame. The management had to address the issue in defence of what happened. The shifting of the blame on other corporations was vital for the attainment of competitive advantage within the market. Compensation of the affected in the oil spill crisis aimed at improving the image of the organization among potential and actual consumers. Taking responsibility of the crisis via an apology was also an image booster within the market with the aim of promoting interaction with consumers. This discussion examines three principal strategies that come out clearly as reputation repair techniques by the company. These strategies include shifting blame on other corporations as key contributors to the crisis, compensation for the affected in the oil spill crisis, and a sense of apology through indication of the corporation to take full responsibility for the crisis.

The oil spill catastrophe raised many questions from the public and stakeholders of the corporation. Most people sought to know the causes of the disaster. Information that circulated through the media identified   the company as fully responsible for the Oil Spill (Bryant, 2011). This hurt the reputation of the company and required that the management give information on exactly happened to repair its reputation. The strategy that stands out in the event of repairing BP’s Oil Corporation reputation is shifting blame to other corporations contracted to work on safety measures within the wells of the company (Coombs, 2007). When asked who was responsible for the oil spill, Tony Hayward who was the chief executive at the time of the explosion pointed out clearly that the initial well integrity failure was because of “bad cement job”. The oil and gas equipment company, Halliburton was in charge of the contract of cementing the well that exploded. This statement by the then chief executive raised a war of words from the Halliburton Company.

According to Halliburton, it had carried out a survey in the cementing of the well and realised a number of flaws- omissions and inaccuracies, in the BP report. In its defence, the company said that it was confident that it performed all the work given to them according to the BP’s specifications (Macalister, 2010). As a result, BP shifted blame to the Transocean, the owners of the rig. They asserted that Transocean failed to maintain the blowout preventer. According to the report given by BP, maintenance records were inaccurate within the management system.

The second strategy BP used to repair its reputation was the compensation to the affected lives (Coombs, 2007). Largely, this included employees of the company. From the report of the crisis, the Oil Spill killed 11 people. From the company’s website, it is evident that the corporation spent approximately $20 billion to compensate people and businesses for the damages relating to the spill. These individuals receiving compensation are key stakeholders in the company. By November 2010, the company had paid $3.8 billion for more than half a million claims. This payment included $600 to the fishing industry. Through such compensations, the management of BP acknowledges that it has a part to play in the disaster of the oil spill, and because of this, it must take responsibility for the loss caused to both the business shareholders and employees.

A close analysis of the company’s website reveals that the management incorporates a form of apology a way of repairing its reputation (Bryant, 2011). This apology comes out through the company supporting a number of projects geared towards recovering the initial state of the environment and the economy. From the website, BP is supporting the economic recovery of the Gulf of Mexico through a number of activities and programmes. The company promotes tourism, community development and support the seafood industry around the Gulf coast. BP is working with the state and federal agencies to identify and support emergency and early projects to recover natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico (Coombs, 2007).

Some of the issues under this include understanding the impact, monitoring wildlife, early restoration projects, and national fish and wildlife foundation projects. In the case of potent, irreversible loss of natural resources, the company has emergency restoration projects in place. The BP Corporation carries out all this projects and initiatives as a form of apology to the affected individuals. This is an act to reassure them that the company is responsible and accepts full charge of the crisis.

Conclusion

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill initiated a number of negative feelings towards the BP Company. This hurt its reputation, and there was a need to repair the company’s reputation through strategies such as shifting blame on other corporations as key contributors to the crisis, compensation for the affected in the oil spill crisis, and finally a sense of apology through indication of the company to take full responsibility for the crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bryant, B. (2011). Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf oil spill – the key questions answered. guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 08.00 BST

Coombs, T. (2007). Crisis Management and Communications

Macalister, T. (2010). BP oil spill investigators place much of blame on Transocean.           guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 September 2010 16.42 BST