While BP is spending in the region of $400 million fumbling around in its oil spill, it’s also spending a whopping $50 million trying to convince us that it is in fact cleaning up. Part of that PR budget has gone to Google, where BP strategically bought a number of search terms to ensure that you and I get the “correct” information when we search for “oil spill”, “BP”, or “Gulf of Mexico”. They are also running a number of television ads, all reassuring us that “[BP] will get this done. [BP] will make this right”.
But let’s not be fooled. When BP talks about getting things done, they are not talking about cleaning up the destruction they’ve caused, and if they are, it is only so they can get back to the business of profit-above-all-else. Their television ads may try to convince us that the environment is their primary concern, but in fact what they actually want to make right are their shares and profit margins. Last year BP recorded profits of $26 billion. If they were really serious about their impact on the environment, they would have been setting aside some of those profits to mitigate their impact on an annual basis. Instead they’ve been basking in their profitability, and passing on fat cheques to shareholders.
In truth, those “profits” are only so large because BP hasn’t been paying all its costs. Their profits come on the back of numerous externalities which BP simply passes on to the environment and society. As I said, if BP was really serious about “making this right” they would consistently set aside part of their so-called profit to cover the full costs of their enterprise. But I guess that would cost a whole lot more than simply pulling the wool over our eyes with a $50 million PR campaign.
So it’s no surprise then that many people are protesting BP’s conduct and boycotting its products — and as with the KitKat campaign, these protests are targeting the image BP has tried to create of itself. In London, for example, where BP is based, activists scaled the company offices and unrolled a mock BP banner which played on the company’s logo. Imprinted with oil stains, it read “British Polluters”. The power of brand spanking is that it uses brands and logos against the very companies which spend so much creating them. These protests tap the most powerful aspect of brands — their recognisability — and use it to raise public awareness and (hopefully) outrage.
But the effectiveness of such protests in the long run will depend on their ability to transcend brand-based politics in favour of a broader critique. In protesting against BP, for example, it’s important we realise that the perpetrator could just have easily been Shell, Sasol, or Exxon. All these corporations run their businesses in more or less the same way, it’s just that in this case BP’s has come under the public spotlight. It’s important, however, that the spotlight doesn’t just stay on BP, but that it comes to highlight the broader system which makes possible the profit-above-all-else motive. Brand-spanking is a doorway to a more fundamental critique; brands are just a lever to be used in underlining problems rooted in the broader global economic system.
I think the problem with many consumer campaigns is that they have failed to link their protests to this broader context. Fair trade, anti-sweatshop, pro-organic, anti-child labour, buy local, or even the seemingly union strike for better wages — all these campaigns are about challenging the way corporations do business. In essence they are all speaking out against the profit-above-all-else model which motivates corporations to boost profits by cutting costs (at whatever cost to society and ecology). But in failing to connect with this broader critique, these campaigns become ad hoc, “niche” protests all competing for attention — the effect of which is to make consumers feel so guilty whenever they buy anything, that in the end the campaigns just get ignored. It’s for this reason that so many consumer campaigns are seen as campaigns of the rich: what could a working-class person possibly have to do with a drive for non-GM food?
If they are to result in any substantial changes beyond flowery words and corporate PR strategies, consumer campaigns must engage and network to create a consumer movement with many faces, challenging the system on many fronts. Campaigns need to show ordinary people that each of their causes are linked; that an anti-sweatshop campaign is ultimately fighting the same battle as protests for better wages, albeit from different angles. It is by using the BP brand to highlight the failures of all-out capitalism that the current wave of protests can go beyond this one oil spill. However, if they remain focused on BP only, they risk being mopped up along with the oil.
When a nation will do almost anything for cheaper oil, surely it must realise that it can’t just start yelling when something goes wrong? Who allowed BP to place equipment where no human could get to if (when) it all went wrong? Who would the Brits yell at if the channel tunnel caved in? Isn’t it time we humans took repsonsibility for OUR desires creating a strain on the earth, instead of blaming everyone else AFTER the fact?
Talk about an eagle’s view, well said Mike, am watching the story to see the outcome.
I like the way it is called an, “oil SPILL”. It makes it sound…like, “ooops, I just spilled some tea”, or “oops, I just spilled some cooldrink” or,
“oops, I just spikked some milk”.
Thanks for this blog. It was a very interesting read, and I feel a lot smarter for it.
I find all types of protest to be a waste of time once the excitement about the method has worn off. The first internet protest against Nestle was a beaut. It worked. Now everyone is waiting to see if it will have the desired effect with BP. What everyone seem to forget is that as the predator evolve so does it prey. The 50Mil in PR could well be buying necessary time so that BP’s lawyers can come up with a solid attack-defense. Defamation, sabotage, all following on solid green PR could turn the tides and the balance sheet. I have no illusion left where big corporates are concerned. By the next brand spanking episode the corporate involved would have learned from BP and Nestle and by the 4th the public would start to see the act as a waste of time. Eventually, it will have the same nuisance/threat value as striking, which will work against, rather than for spankers.
Would it, as an alternative, not be far more effective to go the current status and actual facts route. This means that instead of “BP is spending 40 mil cleaning up” we are told: how, with what equipment, involving who and the progress hour by hour. I.o.w treat disaster like disasters, not sensationalism. The other lack that no-one seems to have thought of filling is legislation to insure seaworthiness of vessels carrying hazardous chemicals. One simple international law: No International port maintenance certificate, no go.
While all the Big Oil companies are a filthy business, BP is now emerging as about the worst – over 97% of recent safety violations in the US were on BP rigs. Leaked internal memos & ex-BP employees are revealing a pervasive corporate culture of quick profits over following safety, health & environmental regulations; bribes to the MMS; poor maintenance on outdated technical systems and so on and so on.
If we can boycott BP and make it unsustainable for them to do business-as-usual, we’ll at least get the worst kid off the playing field.
Environmentalists should share the blame for this disaster since it is they who pressured the US into banning coastal offshore drilling, forcing oil companies to explore the much riskier deep seas.
Hmmm yes. Critise oil companies if you don’t drive a car, fly in a plane, eat food delivered by truck and rail, use anything that contains plastics, man-made fibres etc.. Critise coal powered electricity if you don’t use electricity in South Africa. Seeing as you use these forms of energy (computer and internet represent at least plastics and electricity) then it is likely that you do so for your personal “profit” because they are the current cheapest forms of energy available. Given that you use these forms of energy and know that there are environmental consequences, do you put aside some of your salary and donate it for counter-acting your impact or are you purely “profit” based too? I would guess that you have your own externalities as I am sure you do not follow your waste to the dump and sewage farm and see that it is disposed of properly.
@Richard – To all those questions? No, no, no, and yes, but oil is not the only raw material, it can be grown, locally.
@ Richard
Arguing that I can’t criticise oil companies because I use their oil is just ridiculous.
Does your use of the national roads mean that you can’t critique government when there are potholes in the roads? Does your use of the roads mean that you can’t raise concerns about where roads are placed?
You are talking nonsense.
The point is that currently we have no other option because everyone thinks that oil and coal are the cheapest forms of energy – but they are only so cheap because of their externalities.
One of the points I keep trying to make is that other solutions become more feasible when all the costs are taken into account.
Forgive me for my subjectivity but this is absolute hogwash….
Yet for all the vitriol directed at BP, the oil company has at no point tried to evade overall responsibility for the spill or resile from paying the cost of what Tony Hayward (BP’s CEO) has described as the biggest environmental clean- up in history.
Hayward revealed that the company had paid every compensation claim presented to it “and we will continue to do that”. He also said that BP’s working relationship with all the federal agencies was “exemplary”.
Perhaps it is time a clearly penitent BP is given a little credit for its Herculean efforts to clear up the mess it has made
I know it won’t make much difference to BP but I will certainly not use their products anymore. My transport company uses about R100,000 worth of diesel per month. It is about the principle of making a greedy, irresponsible giant richer.
Interesting comments. Regarding the central issue of boycott, it is clear that it’s only a temporary effect often (Exxon, newly named, just posted the highest profit in the U.S. this year). In this case, however, any attention brought to the practices of BP may well have an effect on the overall ‘money is all’ corporate mentality. Press attention is showing that the company only pays attn. to the bottom line in a way that the Exxon incident didn’t. A large segment of an influential population is being exposed to how these mega-corporations infiltrate government, write the regulations themselves (Cheney et.al, Halliburton and oil companies, as well as the recent departure of a senior figure from the Interior Department regulating exactly this sector – having previously been an employee of BP), and grease the wheels of inspection, its corruption world renown. As a radical environmentalist, I feel it is unreal to not expect humans, like all other species, to use every resource open to it, all oil and coal will be used as the world ‘develops’. Here, this disaster will pressure for uncorrupted regulation of the inevitable, in full view of the world, not hidden in Nigeria or Uruguay. The facts of the process are coming out, BP’s every step a misstep, including the exclusion of volunteers and press from public areas, alienating large sectors of the population. Uniting to eliminate greed etc. sounds great, lets see the plan. Free speech, universal education and world regulation?
That’s a very good article. Yes, it’s not only BP, but accountability has to start somewhere, and if we as consumers make BP leave SA (for example), then they will learn they HAVE TO comply with decency norms.
Look at any BP service station, still as busy as any other, THAT is a disgrace, stand up against them, consciously.
@ General,
When the spill first began, before protests really got going, BP CEO Hayward did his very best to downplay the catastrophe. He referred to the spill as the “tiny in relation to the ocean”.
Its only because there has been so much focus on the spill that they are making such an effort now. The company they lease the rig from, Transocean i think they’re called, is in the process of trying to limit the total amount it is liable for to $27million.
Initially BP was being very difficult about paying out claims – this sudden turn around is again due to media exposure and protest.
What concerns me is whether these big companies through their buddies in government will get the laws changed to put a stop to the use of their logos in protests. Unfortunately these companies often buy politicians through campaign contributions. Either that or they use their money to abuse the current laws in court as companies like Sony have done. Judges seem easily conned by their slick lawyers.
@Dave – I agree, if it exists, humans will find a way to turn it into money with no regard for anyone else or even their own families suffering the consequences. The only solution I see, as stated often before, is to quantify the harm an action brings and make the perpetrator pay, not in sums of money but in actual, provable repair. If the general public is then educated with their environmental rights, the reason they exist, and a general knowledge of the fragility of Earth systems, the war is half-won against the destroyers. Big corporates cannot claim ignorance like rural people when it comes to the effect of their actions. BP knew the risks it took and they lost the gamble. That is business. If it seems abhorrent to those of us who know how crazy it is to gamble with remaining ecosystems, be sure the only thing big business finds abbhorrent is a loss of profit. Therefore, the only way to communicate our viewpoint to them is to make them pay. As Mike Baillie explained, each product must include its full cost in the price. Perhaps then, oil and coal will not be so cheap any more and solar/wind/geothermal will start looking like a viable option.
@Dave, do yourself a favor and check out our and other countries’ environmental laws. We thankfully do not have to wait for business to develop moral decency, which they never will. The downside is that laws must be policed and perpetrators caught and punished. Do you see it happening here in this country at present?
Mike Baillie. You clearly do not work in the energy industry or you would know that they are not cheap because of externalities, but cheap because of their energy concentration and relative ease of access. Trying to trap sun rays or wind is very expensive because of the energy concentration and variability. So please let me know what form of energy is cheaper even including externalities? Your comments on this and topics such as global warming indicate only that you have the freedom to say something which I grant you is your right, they definitely do not indicate that you have anything useful to say though which is the more important thing than the mere freedom to rant.
@ X Cepting
You are spot on!
Oil and coal use seems so cheap and viable only because so many costs are excluded. If the full cost of their use was taken into account (social and environmental etc.), then they wouldn’t appear so cheap. This would create further incentive to explore other methods of energy production which currently seem too expensive in relation to using fossil fuels.
@Richard – Chemically/Physically speaking you get more energy out of burning oil/coal than the sun, using present methods of energy capture and conversion. This does not calculate in the cost of extraction/purification or the human costs in treating polution related diseases, loss of ecosystems, transport, war because of scarcity, etc. etc. The scientifically peer-reviewed literature on this is so vast that trying to capture it into a forum debate would be silly and cumbersome. Journalists, by necessity simplify matters so that the general public can keep up with the argument. This does not mean they do not understand what they are talking about.
Mike met a oil insider a few days ago, works on rigs mainly in the North Sea and he gave us an interesting other side to oil sea pollution. Seems that the Katrina hurricane wiped out almost 50 rigs but the pollution was “un-noticed/ignored” by the worlds media perferring to focus on the devasation and rioting/looting in New Orleans + attacking Bush for his supposed poor performance in dealing with the problem allowing the oil companies to quietly go about cleaning up and compensating where necessary.
Seems also that the extent and area covered by the Katerina oil spills were worst than the current terrible drama.
Go figure and ask do you jornos report or make the news?
Brent
Mike regarding BP and their CEO Hayward i saw him interviewd (so it is not a BP promo story) by an assertive reporter on CNN ± a week after the accident and he clearly said the following:
- it is our responsibility and we are responsible for stopping the spillage and for clearing up all damage and paying compensation
- we are activating an officially approved plan and are doing more than this plan requires us to do
- they were in hourly contact with the relevant federal authorities making sure every move got approval and then he detailed exactly what they were doing in terms of numbers of ships (25 at that time) resources etc they were deploying.
If Obama had of left the handling of the disaster and BP to his relevant department and their experts instead of grandstanding and then attacking Hayward for every minor word he said things would be much better now as there would have been more a spirit of co-operation and not confrontation, which as you so weel know all politicians thrive on.
Brent
What a bunch of garbage.
First and foremost the “BP” that is in GOM is the US BP, whose offices in Houston are far larger than in London, houses about 3x the employees than in London, and is self (mis)managed.
That area is nototious in the business for its “cowboy” attitude, and this is simply a manifestation of that.
I can only express admiration to Tony Hayward for being gentleman enough to face the music on behalf of those daft yanks out there – and in particular to not take to task that idiot Obama (yes I was glad when he was elected) for his absurd tirades. I mean he doesn’t even know what BP stands for! He neglects to mention that Halliburton and Transcocean – both US companies – are AT LEAST equally to blame for this tragedy.
One cannot blame the BP management for trying to salvage what can be salvaged – at any cost.
“One of the points I keep trying to make is that other solutions become more feasible when all the costs are taken into account.”
Solar panels take at least as much energy to manufacture as they will produce over their lifetime. Wind power is rather unreliable and windmills really messes up the landscape and a bird’s feathers.
One thing that the politicians and businessmen forget, time and time again, is that time is of the essence in dealing with any spill. Whilst they squabble and grandstand the damages becomes more expensive. Instead of pretending that it will never happen again and should be dealt with by either a particular government or the company who caused it, why (oh why) can some of that wasted UN funds and time not be spent in forming an international environmental disaster response squad that will be able to react immediately to any disaster with the correct tools and best practice and then bill the guilty parties afterwards, once their percentage guilt is established by an environmental court? This will keep costs to environment and perpetrators alike to a minimum.
@Brent – I agree, journos should report what happens objectively and from every angle, not just the fashionable one.
@X Cepting – Good journalism simplifies the argument to help the general public understand the issues at hand. Bad journalism simplifies it to drive an agenda by leaving out information that is not supportive of the agenda. This article is a case in point. Mike accuses BP of making profits on the back of externalities for which he provides a link. This then links not to BP externalities as proof, but to another article ranting on about Nikey accusing them of dumping waste into the river flowing past the factory. He contrasts BP’s $400 million worth of fumbling around in the oil spill with their “strategic” $50 million to save them for another day of profits. He would not dare tell you that BPs focus on safety has significantly reduced their recordable case rate and number of spill equivalents over the last 5 years, or their $4 billion in renewables investments since 2005 or the massive tax they pay which governments use to improve people’s lives. He may brush these claims off as further PR stunts so they can go on destroying the world in the name of profits. That is what I mean by bias. I don’t work for BP but I can understand why they have to spend PR money to counter nonsense journalism such as this.
@X Cepting on June 10th, 2010 at 12:43 pm, I might be misunderstanding, but perhaps you might rather read what I wrote rather than suggest I look at national laws, as my point was the corruption as a focal point, and it is now being exposed unusually and broadly in a way that everyman can see and actually do something about it. Watch. A starting point to reach out to even places where corruption is a way of life accompanied by the finest laws. As to a comment above about actual costs of various energy energy sources all considered, there is a great deal of similarity in ones that are suitable for the massive amounts necessary. Green sounds so nice, but is either costly or impossible to scale to the level of world ‘development’, and actually can be a distraction to the inevitable relatively unregulated and vastly polluting nature of fast expanding ‘modern’ society. Obama grandstands because one third of the US population with a loud voice will say he is doing nothing, even if he is – they demand that he ‘acts tough’ as they see it as leadership. Free speech and education are necessary for regulation to work. The technology to drill far outpaces the technology to contain, as industry admits. The seas are dying for many reasons, and de-speciation in a few generations taking place, not seen for many tens of millions of years, and in ways that have never been seen before. Better organize fast.
Richard is pulling you up at every turn chaps .. stop frothing and READ what he’s saying. Thank goodness for measured, rational posts like his.
@Dave – sorry mate, I put that a little strongly and it came out wrong. What I meant to say was “Taking into account how fine our environmental laws are” If you read my comment to you before that one it all sort of makes sense.
I agree with you that business needs to be held responsible since they will never act so by themself, profit being bottom line. Regulation, as you advocate, or law always follow disaster, agreed. It brings it back under the spotlight, but, as you mention, the public memory is short and this publicity does not last long. Add to that the fact that no amount of law or regulation will stop perpetrators if they are powerful enough (the point I tried to make to you), and one have reason to gnash one’s teeth. I quite agree and have often advocated the establisment of an International Environmental organisation to regulate these matters.
When you talk about “actual costs”, I think I should explain what I mean by by the term first. If something is being mass-produced and it is therefor cheap, that would not be what I mean by “actual cost”. The internal combustion engine mfrs would not have suppressed the electric motor for vehicles if they did not find it a threat to their market. BTW – I never subscribe to something that sounds nice, prefering to check the facts and common sense first. Big business loathe green power, because anyone can produce it small scale.
@ Mike Baillie – your comments regarding the potholes on the road illustrate that you don’t get my point. You are welcome to criticise anything you like. For your criticism to be of any value, you should be manifesting the same behaviours that you expect of BP in this article and Nikey in your other article. For Nikey one of your criticisms is that “They are also not going to dispose of their waste in the most ecologically responsible fashion” and the gist of your article is that they are profit driven. Now if you are not ensuring that your waste is disposed of in the most ecologically responsible fashion, or if you are paying your gardener or maid the going rate, or if you are using products from an industry you claim has unacceptable externalities, then you create a gap between what you say and what you do which is called hypocrisy. Your point that you have no other option is nonsense. It is only no other option if you are not prepared to adjust your life to meet your claimed standards which would suggest that your life is also profit based. So build your house using renewables, install solar geysers, wind turbines, ride a bicycle, plant equivalent to your consumption. If you don’t live in “the most ecologically responsible fashion”, then please adjust your requirements for the rest of us.
@ RICHARD
I get what you are saying completely.
For your information, though not that i think it means anything, because this type of argument tends to lead to a slippery slope, I use public transport rather than drive alone, I ride a bike, don’t have a maid, only use (fricken expensive) green cleaning products, eat red meat once a month, only buy free range etc.. I also don’t use Nestle products, buy Nike etc…
The point is that this sort of action leads to almost nothing – the impact on corps is minimal. Usually it has the effect of making consumers feel fed up and guilty. In the end they just decide to carry on as before.
My point was that we need to pressurize corps so that more of the externalities are incorporated into the prices we pay, and responsible living becomes (more) feasible.
@ Richard,
And as for your quip about BP investing $4 Billion in renewables, I suggest you place this little investment in context of their investments into sourcing oil from the tar sands in Canada. This process generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the production of conventional oil. So far they have already invested 1.5bn in this project, but old Tony has said he’d like to see that investment tripple in the next 5 years…
Furthermore, according to the Telegraph, last year BP “shut its alternative energy office in London and reduced its spending on renewable energy by up to £500m”.
@ Mike Baillie – I don’t need to place their renewables investments in context because I am not bashing them on profit over everything, you are. I am merely highlighting that your bias leads to a distorted message. Similarly I challenged your stance on global warming on your dear denialist post given that I am one of the “dimwits who had his head in the exhaust fumes”, but with good scientific justification. Your approach raises the question of situational ethics. Is it acceptable to do the wrong thing to bring about the right result? Is it acceptable to use your media platform to provide distorted views of corporations and of the scientific debate around global warming? You criticised BP for utilising the media to present the “right” view of the spill, yet utilise the media yourself to distort the message to exactly the opposite extreme. Don’t you find some irony in that? I certainly do. So it is great that you feel we should not turn a blind eye to externalities, and even better that your life reflects your stance to a limited extent (agree about the slippery slope), but the power of your message becomes lost in the contradiction you create. Your approach starts to appear like some climate scientists who are prepared to cheat to preserve their message for the good of humanity. What starts out sounding noble quickly degenerates into something selfish.
@Richard – How much is BP paying you? Perhaps you drive a 4×4 and cannot face life without the petrol sucking engine? You see, any argument can be twisted to suit the agenda at hand. This article was about BP & environmental accountability, not journalism bad or good. The fact that you attack Mike’s standard of journalism instead of factually negating the claims he makes about BP, tells me that in BP’s case, there is actually a fire under those smoke signals. Are you sure they are not paying you? Perhaps you would hate to lose your 4×4 and drive a slower electric vehicle?
@X Cepting – BP pay me R500 per post I make. It costs me R650 to fill the tank of my Range Rover 4.6SE Sport so I try and post regularly to cover this expense. Neither of these is true which I guess disappoints you but I thought that I would play to your somewhat typical response. After all, anyone who does not think fossil fuels are destroying the earth via catastrophic global warming but have rather sigificantly improved our quality of life must be a denialist evil profit grabber in the pay of big oil. I find your comment to Brent earlier quite informative as follows: “@Brent – I agree, journos should report what happens objectively and from every angle, not just the fashionable one.” Why are you also commenting on journalism in an article about BP and environmentalism? The smoke/fire analogy you refer to in Mike’s article I have already responded to discussing renewables investments, improving safety/spill record, tax payments. Further to this, for 2009 BP are rated by the sustainability auditing company M&E as first under alternative technologies and environmental transparency and second under safety of the leading oil/gas companies. Now please would you or Mike give some facts to show that they are “profit-above-all-else” and not serious about their impact on the environment. Mike has provided no proof to his claims so I hope you apply the same standards to his article.
@ Richard,
In my latest post you’ll see I briefly talk about BPs investment in oil sands. This is a highly highly invasive method of obtaining oil, and generates a huge carbon footprint.
I also mentioned in an earlier comment how BP “shut its alternative energy office in London and reduced its spending on renewable energy by up to £500m” — as reported in the Telegraph.
They have also withdrawn completely from the UK onshore wind industry, and closed down a number of solar projects in both the US and Europe.
I think this seems to fly in the face of their slogan “Beyond Petroleum”.
And as for being entirely profit driven… deciding to invest in the aforementioned project in Canada, despite the carbon footprint – which BP even acknowledges – says that they are very much driven by profit.
All this definitely goes some way to create the impression that “Beyond Petroleum” is not much more than a glossy, green badge for BP to wear.
@ Richard
Dude, you seriously need to get your head out of the fumes as mike said in a previous post.
And – more proof that BP is profiting from externalities – “The Wall Street Journal has reported that BP’s well used a cheaper technology than the industry standard and was less secure against natural gas blowouts of the type that destroyed it. The newspaper’s analysis found that BP used the cheaper technology much more frequently than rivals” – an article on the M&G.
The oil spill is nothing to laugh at but I just saw a kid wearing a t-shirt that cracked me up. BP – We’re bring oil to America’s shores. I died laughing because BP’s billion dollar image change to their new sunflower logo is forever going to be associated with the worst environmental disaster to strike America. Check out the shirt here – http://bit.ly/bJAuTb
BP damaged more than its own brand. It also damaged the image of the communities involved and made it harder for them to compete for capital investment. Read about the work being done to help economic development professionals refurbish their community brands.
http://strengtheningbrandamerica.com/blog/?p=343
Mike you can’t bash BP when we all need oil so desperately. That is called hypocrisy.