We have noted that parts of the UK media have decided recently to engage in a debate about CSR. This was, perhaps, inevitable following the recent and ongoing events in the Gulf of Mexico. Obviously this development is useful to us in CO3 world. However it is a shame that much of the commentary seems to be so ill informed.
A good example appeared in the business section of London’s evening newspaper (the Evening Standard) yesterday. The article starts off with the rather interesting suggestion that the most “damning indictment” of BP’s handing of its affairs in the Gulf of Mexico is that the audience at a CSR conference thought a blog on the subject was funny.
A supporting statement to this standpoint pointed out that “the Gulf of Mexico (incident) was always going to be a serious crisis for BP”. I think we might have worked that one out don’t you?
One of the fundamental mistakes that most journalists make when discussing this subject is that they think the communications, reporting, transparency and PR aspects of what they see as CSR are the most important. In doing so they betray the fact that they haven’t the first idea concerning what CSR is about.
BP’s current problem was not caused by its decision to rebrand a few years ago. Nor was it caused by its poor public relations surrounding the recent and ongoing incident as the piece seems to imply. BP’s current problem is that it has been associated with an accident that has significant environmental and health and safety implications. A number of people lost their lives. It is being widely suggested that the episode could and should have been preventable. It is likely to cost the company billions and may threaten its opportunity to conduct its business independently in the future.
A responsible oil and gas business ensures that the likelihood of such an incident occurring is extremely remote. How good the organisation is at branding and PR, if this isn’t addressed properly, frankly is of no relevance whatsoever.
