Lessons in Crisis Communication: An analysis of BP’s response to the Gulf oil disaster
Nearly one year ago this week, an oil rig located 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana exploded into flames, killing 11 workers. As a result, millions of barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico over the course of three months, and the event became known as the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
The rig, known as Deepwater Horizon, was licensed to BP, and the corporation ultimately took the heat for the ensuing economic and environmental disaster. In hindsight, we stand to learn many timeless lessons in crisis communication from this momentous event. Let’s review some of the textbook advice for communicating during a crisis and assess how BP handled the situation.
Plan ahead.
Three words: Anticipation. Preparation. Practice. Smart organizations routinely assess their risk for potentially disastrous occurrences and develop a crisis response plan for worst-case scenarios. Then they practice.
For example, in the wake of the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks, the mainstream media dubbed former New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani, “America’s Mayor,” for the leadership role he played during and after the crisis. Giuliani credits his statements and actions during that uncertain time to the emergency management and crisis communication planning and practice that took place long before the attacks ever occurred.
Unfortunately for BP, the company never acknowledged any real risk of a deepwater oil spill, and therefore did not appear to have any related response plan in place. As they previously sought to expand deepwater oil exploration along with the rest of the oil industry, BP categorized a deepwater spill as decidedly unlikely and claimed that if such a spill occurred, the industry was equipped to promptly mitigate any damage.
Had BP been honest with itself — at least on the second account — industry experts would have had the opportunity to consider how they might address a major accident, and BP corporate leaders could have prepared their spokespeople accordingly. As we know now, neither occurred.
Express contrition, compassion and conviction.
In the midst of a crisis where an organization appears to be at fault, spokespeople should admit the company made a mistake; express sincere concern for those affected; and firmly state the company’s commitment to identifying the cause and ensuring it never happens again.
Legal counsel may advise against admitting guilt and issuing an apology, but frankly, the legal ramifications of a crisis situation are likely the least of a company’s concerns. The success of any business hinges on its reputation, which, once shattered, could take many years and millions of dollars to rebuild.
Initially, rather than admitting fault and accepting full responsibility for the oil spill, BP CEO Tony Hayward insisted the incident wasn’t entirely BP’s fault since another company owned and staffed the rig. And even when he apologized, it came across as empty and indifferent.
Will Rogers once said, “When people are stressed and upset, they want to know that you care before they care what you know.” Unfortunately, certain spokespeople for BP failed to take this into consideration.
In fact, Hayward told The Today Show, ‘‘There is no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back.’’ That didn’t sit so well with the general public, and neither did the statement made to reporters by BP Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, in which he said, ‘‘People say that large oil companies don’t care about the small people. But we care. We care about the small people.’’
In addition, Hayward continuously dismissed public concerns about the incident, and at one point even told The Guardian that, “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”
Because BP never effectively expressed genuine concern and empathy for those affected by the situation, the public never fully trusted them to rectify the problem, pay for the damage done and implement safeguards for the future, despite the company’s repeated promises to do so.
Stick to what you know.
When communicating during a crisis, spokespeople should state only what they can confirm and defer to third-party experts on matters outside of their expertise. And when asked hypothetical questions, spokespeople should refrain from speculating and bridge back to what they know.
During the months of failed attempts to plug the leaking wellhead, BP did well to offer no guarantees on the success of any particular tactic. However, BP’s CEO repeatedly underestimated the damage of the spill and frequently commented on topics that should have been answered by someone more credible.
For example, when asked about the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, Hayward told the Financial Times, ‘‘Almost nothing has escaped.’’ It was later confirmed that more than 50,000 barrels of oil per day had escaped from the wellhead, totaling more than 4 million barrels over the course of a few months.
Then, as scientists from universities and institutions throughout the country reported evidence of underwater oil plumes, Hayward told the Associated Press, “The oil is on the surface. There aren’t any plumes.”
Hayward continued to put his foot in his mouth as he speculated on CNN that oil spill cleanup workers may have fallen ill due to food poisoning rather than from breathing in oil fumes and dispersants.
And finally, Hayward told Sky News, “I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest,” when in reality, scientists are still measuring its impact today. Hayward would have done well to simply state, “At this point in time, no one can know for sure exactly how this disaster will impact the environment. But I can assure you that we will continue to work with the world’s most knowledgeable scientists to help mitigate any damage done.”
In the End…
While BP leadership certainly made mistakes in communicating during this crisis, it’s important to realize that even the most well-planned and executed response to a crisis situation cannot compensate for fundamental organizational flaws. In other words, if the worst oil spill in U.S. history happens on your watch, there’s only so much that strong public relations can do for you.
Had BP acknowledged the risk — no matter how slight — of a deepwater oil spill, they could have taken steps to further reduce the probability of such a disaster, while also devising a plan to remedy any such occurrence immediately.
It seems Hayward would agree. In an interview with the Financial Times, he acknowledged BP had not been fully prepared for a deepwater oil leak and called it a “low-probability, high-impact” accident. “What is undoubtedly true,” he said, “is that we did not have the tools you would want in your toolkit.”
Stacey Getz , APR is our director of strategic communications. Read her bio here.
Leave a Reply