Case Study: Beyond Petroleum s Unethical Public Relations. By: Rachel Bell

Transcription

1 Case Study: Beyond Petroleum s Unethical Public Relations By: Rachel Bell

2 Reputation is paramount in the realm of public relations. Ironically, the public relations industry has had much difficulty building its own reputation as an honest and ethical profession in the eyes of the public. To ensure that public relations practitioners uphold an ethical approach to their work, the Canadian Public Relations Society created a code of ethics; this code however, is not always upheld. This paper will examine Beyond Petroleum s response to the explosion of Deepwater Horizon and consequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP provides a perfect case of what not to do, as it breached various ethical codes by failing to practice public relations according to the highest professional standards, not dealing honestly with the communications media and public, as well as their blatant attempt of knowingly disseminating false or misleading information. This paper will use specific examples to demonstrate how BP broke multiple clauses in the CPRS s code of ethics in order to protect their image and maintain profit. On April 20 th there was an explosion and fire on the BP-licensed Transocean drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. ( BP Oil Spill Timeline, n.d.) The rig consequently sunk over 5,000 feet into the water, prompting one of America s largest environmental disasters to date. Initially, the US coast guard estimated that the well was leaking 1,000 barrels of crude oil per day. ( BP Oil Spill Timeline, n.d.) The world quickly took notice of this disaster, as BP s shares fell amid fears that the cost of cleanup and legal claims [would] hit the company hard. ( BP Oil Spill Timeline, n.d.) A week after the leak began, the coast guard claimed that the flow of oil was 5,000 barrels of crude oil per day, five times greater than first estimated. ( BP

3 Oil Spill Timeline, n.d.) With shares falling fast and the whole world watching, the pressure was certainly on for BP s public relations department. BP made many attempts to seal the leak, but to no avail. In need of a quick solution, BP opted for a chemical dispersant called Corexit to help mask the constant flow of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. On April 26 th. BP placed roughly 15,000 gallons of dispersants at the spill site. ( BP Oil Spill Timeline, n.d.) By late July, BP had applied a record 1.8 million gallons of dispersants. (Sheppard, 2010) A company named NALCO manufactures Corexit, and although technically legal, the use of it was by no means an ethical decision, as crude oil becomes 52 times more toxic when combined with Corexit. (Rico-Martinez & Snell, 2013) Furthermore, according to the NALCO manual, Corexit is an eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anaesthetic or narcotic effects. (Rubio, 2012) This dispersant therefore not only posed a risk to the inhabitants of the Gulf of Mexico, but also those who were assisting in the clean up. It is standard procedure to provide information to any work site where hazardous materials are present; this however, was not the case, as interviews with numerous clean up workers propose that this mandatory provision was rarely if ever followed during the BP clean up. (Hertsgaard, 2013) In addition to not receiving safety manuals or training, clean up workers were told: Don t worry about it, [and that they could] either be relieved of [their] duties or deal with it. (Hertsgaard, 2013) By using a chemical dispersant to help mask the multitude of the issue, as well as blatantly lying to clean up workers about the hazards of Corexit, BP is certainly guilty of breaching

4 the third clause in the CPRS s code of ethics, which states: A member shall practice the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, integrity and truth, and shall not knowingly disseminate false or misleading information. ( Code of Ethics, n.d.) Falsifying and downplaying the hazards of Corexit went hand in hand with BP s underestimation of the oil spill flow rate. Internal BP s showed that BP secretly calculated that the runaway well could be leaking from 62,000 barrels a day to 146,000 barrels a day. (Rudolf, 2012) Meanwhile, BP officials were telling the world that only 5,000 barrels a day were leaking. (Rudolf, 2012) Although estimates varied throughout the ordeal, analysis by experts later indicated approximately 53,000 barrels or 2.27 million gallons of oil leaked out per day. (Rubio, 2012) If determined guilty, BP would have been fined per barrel of oil judged to have leaked. Therefore, concealing the oil with Corexit and providing false estimates worked jointly in lowering the amount of oil that BP may have been charged for releasing. BP acted in an unprofessional and unethical manner by providing false estimates of how much oil had leaked, thus breaching the first clause of the CPRS code of ethics, which states: A member shall practice public relations according to the highest professional standards. ( Code of Ethics, n.d.) With no end in sight to the oil leak, BP s public relations team certainly faced a massive dilemma. In order to maintain BP s brand name, the company resorted to online reputation management. This is a common practice, and necessary for many companies to promote themselves; BP however, promoted itself by supressing

5 information. In two months, BP went from spending a minimal $57,000 a month on search advertising, to becoming one of Google s top advertisers, dropping nearly $3.6 million in June alone. (Kabay, 2011) With this money, BP launched a pay-per-click campaign through Google s AdWords. BP bought search terms such as oil spill and leak in order to have their stories pushed to top of search engines, effectively bumping down critics. By intentionally supressing information in order to provide their own spin on the story, BP broke the second clause in the CPRS code of ethics, which states: A member shall deal fairly and honestly with the communications media and the public. ( Code of Ethics, n.d.) The BP oil spill perfectly demonstrates an effective yet unethical public relations campaign. The more a company has to lose, the more aggressive its public relations practices seem to be. Effective public relations do not need to be unethical; for BP however, the organization and public s interests were mutually exclusive. By underestimating and hiding the amount of oil leaking, as well as suppressing the opinion of critics and dissenters, BP acted in an unethical way in order to save itself, all at the expense of everyone else.

6 References BP Oil Spill Timeline. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2014, from Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2014, from Hertsgaard, M. (2013, April 22). The worst part about BP's oil-spill cover-up: It worked. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from Kabay, M. (2011, May 5). Online Reputation Management: The BP Case. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from Rico-Martinez, R., & Snell, T. (2013, February 1). Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from Rubio, S. (2012, November 11). The Deepwater Horizon Spill: An Ethical Nightmare. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from Rudolf, J. (2012, December 8). BP Oil Spill Flow Rate Vastly Understated For Weeks, s Show. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from Sheppard, K. (2010, October 1). BP's Bad Breakup: How Toxic Is Corexit? Retrieved November 23, 2014, from