Research-Public Relations and Crisis Management -Case Study of BP's Response to Deepwater Horizon Accident

Page | 1
A Critical Examination of How Crisis Management Fits In With Corporate Public
Relations and Reputation Management. A Critique of British Petroleum’s (BP) Use of
Corporate Relations to Manage Negative Perceptions Stemming from the Gulf of Mexico
Oil Spill

Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………….. 5
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction…………………………………………………………………............... 6
1.1 Background of Study……………………………………………………………………………… 6
1.1.1 British Petroleum (BP) & The Gulf of Mexico…………………………………………………… 8
1.2 Research Aim……………………………………………………………………………………… 9
1.3 Research Methodology: Overview………………………………………………………………... 10
1.4 Structure of the Research………………………………………………………………………….. 10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………............... 12
2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………... 12
2.1 Public Relations: Definition………………………………………………………………………. 12
2.1.1 Theories Underpinning Public Relations Practice……………………………………………….... 13
2.2 Impression Management………………………………………………………………………….. 16
2.3 Role of Public Relations in Reputation Management...…………………………………………… 18
2.3.1 Corporate Communication………………………………………………………………………… 18
2.4 Crisis Management………………………………………………………………………………... 19
2.4.1 Role of Corporate Communication in Crisis Management……………………………………….. 20
2.5 The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill……………………………………………………………………… 22
2.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………............. 24
3.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
3.1 Research Approach………………………………………………………………………………... 24
3.2 Research Design…………………………………………………………………………………... 25
3.3 Data Collection Methods…………………………………………………………………………. 25
3.4 Validity, Reliability & Generalizability…………………………………………………………... 27
3.5 Limitations of the Research………………………………………………………………………. 28
3.6 Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………………………………. 28
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS……………………………….. 29
4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
4.2 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill………………………………………………………………………….. 30
4.3 BP Oil Spill & Anti-Capitalist Sentiments……………………………………………………….. 33
4.4 BP’s PR Response to Reputation Horizon Disaster……………………………………………… 34
4.4.1 Risk Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………... 34
4.4.2 Crisis Management……………………………………………………………………………….. 35
4.5 Analysis of Press Release by BP During Oil Spill……………………………………………….. 37
4.5.1 Press Release I: British Petroleum Initiatives Response to Gulf of Mexico……………………... 37
4.5.2 Press Release II: BP Offers Support to Transocean After Drilling Fire.………………………… 38
4.5.3 Press Release III: BP Offers Sympathy to the Families of the Lost in the Accident…………….. 39
4.5.4 Press Release IV: BP Pledges US$500mn for Independent Research………………………….... 40
4.6 Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in BP’s Reputation…………………………………. 40
4.7 Summary of Main Research Findings……………………………………………………………. 40

Page | 4
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………............. 42
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
5.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………. 44
5.4 Directions for Further Research…………………………………………………………………… 45
References…………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
Annex 1: BP Press Release-April 21, 2010……………………………………………………………….. 52
Annex 4: BP Press Release-May 24, 2010………………………………………………………………... 55
Annex 5: Personal Development Plan…………………………………………………………………….. 56

Page | 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this research, attention was devoted to exploring how crisis management fits into
public relations and corporate reputation management. In order to do this, the following issues
were discussed: public relations, crisis management, crisis communication, reputation and
impression management. Discussing these issues contributed to the development of a theoretical
understanding of the underlying subject matter of the research.
In order to achieve the objectives developed for the research, the case study design was
used. In selecting the case study for the research, the following criteria were used: scale of the
crisis; diversity of stakeholders impacted; and the availability of data. The case study selected for
this research was British Petroleum’s response to the deepwater horizon oil spill. In other words,
attention was devoted to critiquing BP’s public relations (PR) response to this disaster. In
critiquing BP’s response, critical discourse analysis (CDA) was used to analyze BP’s press
releases and statements by BP executives.
One of the key findings of this research was that when faced with organizational crisis,
transparency and honesty in communication is critical. Honesty and transparency in
communication can help reduce the apprehension of stakeholders affected by a crisis. In crisis
situations, organizations are supposed to be open about the situation or crisis. Furthermore,
organizations should equally be open about measures being taken by the organization to mitigate
the effects of the crisis. Being open, in this regards, supports the ‘public information’ model of
public relations. The analysis conducted in this research suggests that BP was not honest about
the true picture of the quantity of oil being released into the Gulf. This did not do BP any favours
as it intensified anti-capitalist sentiments and the public’s outrage against all that BP stands for.
In communicating during crisis, press releases –while important- are not the only channel
of reaching out to stakeholders. Television interviews and press conferences are also useful
channels for communicating to stakeholders during crisis. Empathy in communication –
irrespective of the channel utilized- is critical for effective management of organizational crisis.
Demonstrating empathy in crisis response –whether through communication or actions- can help
reduce the tension and apprehension among stakeholders affected by a crisis. Some of Tony
Hayward’s statements in the days and weeks following the crisis were put under the spotlight in
this research. As observed, his statements lacked empathy –especially as it concerned specific
publics directly impacted by the deepwater horizon accident- and made BP appear aloof and
unconcerned about the environmental degradation to the Gulf. This was, in part, responsible for
his ousting as BP CEO.

Page | 6
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
In the current marketplace, which is intensely competitive, corporate reputation can be a
commercial organization’s most significant asset. Corporate reputation can be the factor that
makes a company stand out from its rivals and give it a competitive edge. This is the reason why
many organizations see public relations management as a critical organizational function (Glenn,
2009). Public relations (PR), as an activity or subject matter, is concerned or closely associated
with reputation management (Spaulding & Correa, 2005). For Leary & Kowalski (1990), public
relations is concerned with impression management. Impressions, whether positive or negative,
can form a reputation about a person or organization. Impression management can also be
construed as ‘self-representation’ –a process by which individuals or organizations make an
effort to control or manage the impressions that others have of them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).
From an organizational standpoint, Leary & Kowalski (1990) are of the view that public
relations play a critical role in ensuring that companies make a positive impression about
themselves in their interactions with external stakeholders, i.e. their customers and the public at
large. Based on this position, public relations can be viewed as a tool for managing the
relationship between an organization and its immediate external environment. This perspective
was reinforced by Spaulding & Correa (2005) who indicate that public relations presents an
avenue for companies to manage their reputation or image in a positive or well-received manner.
This research seeks to explore the role of public relations in crisis management. Crisis,
which can occur in diverse forms, is an element that organizations cannot ignore. This is because
crisis reflects poorly on a company and has the potential to damage reputation to a certain degree
(Dilenschneider, 2000). Furthermore Jaques (2007) notes that for corporate organizations, crisis
is inevitable as it can occur through conscious and unconscious actions and decisions. From an
organizational context, Dilenschneider (2000:22) notes that a crisis can be viewed as an event
which poses a significant threat to company operations, and can have negative consequences if
not treated properly. Furthermore, Jaques (2007) indicates that a crisis can generate three main
threats: (1) financial loss; (2) public safety concerns; and (3) damage to reputation. Jaques (2007)
notes that a crisis can lead to financial loss if it disrupts operations. Given the threat of financial
loss and the other aforementioned threats, there is reason not to ignore crisis. Jaques (2007) and
Coombs (2007) note that public relations present a useful tool for managing organizational crisis.
This is largely what has contributed to the popularity of crisis management both as a subject
matter and a profession (Coombs, 2007). For Coombs (2007:3), “public relations is a vital tool in
the arsenal of crisis managers”. This is somewhat ironical especially considering that public
relations is often presented as a means of relationship building based on shared interests while
crisis management is presented as a strategy to decrease the effect of negative publicity. Given
this observation, PR can be perceived as all-encompassing with regard to supporting
relationship-building and managing crisis at the same time. Furthermore, Coombs (2007) noted
that public relations play a role in crisis management especially given the threat of a crisis to a
company’s reputation.
Some of the studies already discussed in this chapter are of the view that companies
cannot ignore crises whenever they arise. Crisis management presents a framework for

Page | 7
addressing these crises sequentially and properly; in a manner that brings about limited damage
to a company’s reputation (Dilenschneider, 2000; Coombs, 2007). Jaques (20070 notes that crisis
management offers a useful framework for protecting a company and its stakeholders from
threats or reduce the effect from the materialization of such threats. While crisis management can
help to limit the damage emanating from crisis, it should equally be noted that crisis can present
an opportunity for good public relations (Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010). In investigating the role
that public relations, some of the discussions in this research look at the issue of crisis
management closely. Given that crisis management can be categorized into three main phases
(Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010) –pre-crisis; crisis response; and post-crisis- added attention is
devoted to the ‘crisis response’ and ‘post-crisis’ phase. In so doing, data collected for the
research examines BP’s response to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill in both phases of crisis
management.
As alluded to by Coombs (2007) and Jaques (2007), the perceived role that public
relations play in crisis management is reinforced by the increasing attention to media relations as
a tool for managing corporate reputation. Spaulding & Correa (2005) note that one of the most
critical factors in crisis management is working with the media. The array of media
communications –especially as we increasingly live in a digital landscape- has given credence to
crisis, whether organizational or national, as a newsworthy item. This is evident by the global
media attention to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Most global news channels, such as CNN, BBC
and Al Jazeera, devoted a significant amount of time to broadcasting heart wrenching images of
the effects of the massive spill on aquatic life. In investigating the role played by PR in crisis
management, British Petroleum (BP) formed the case study for the research. It is important to
note that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the rig responsible for the spill, was owned by BP. Thus,
the research critiques BP’s media response to the negative perceptions emanating from the oil
spill disaster. Before providing an overview of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, as the background
context for the research, it is important to provide a brief understanding of what public relations
entails. In the second chapter, added attention is devoted to exploring some theoretical models
underpinning public relations practice.
What is public relations? Glenn (2009) note that public relations is about reputation –the
consequence of your actions, what you say and what others say or think of you. From an
organizational perspective, Girboveanu & Pavel (2010:3) define public relations as, “the
management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between a
company and external stakeholders on whom its success or failure depends”. Looking at PR as a
‘management function’ does reinforce its importance in corporate relations as alluded to by
Glenn (2009). The cause of divergence in definition of PR can be traced to the possibility of
viewing it from multiple dimensions. Glenn’s (2009) views PR from the perspective of the
individual. Girboveanu & Pavel (2010) view PR from the perspective of the corporate
organization. Furthermore, PR can be seen as an all-encompassing concept involving crisis
management. In any case, how PR is defined can be influenced by the perspective from which it
is considered. In essence, PR is critical to managing the relationship between a company and its
diverse range of stakeholders. Allen et al., (2008) defines public relations as the profession or
activity that is concerned with reputation management, with the objective of gaining
understanding and support and influencing public opinion and behavior. Furthermore, Allen et
al., (2008) indicate that public relations entail a planned, structured and sustained effort to create
and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between a company and the public. PR

Page | 8
management applies to or can be used by a broad spectrum of stakeholders such as, private
sector organizations, public sector organizations, non-governmental organizations, development
agencies, and even individuals (i.e. celebrities) (Glenn, 2009). Having presented and discussed
some of the definitions of PR, I shall now provide an overview of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
and how this event affected BP. This is done in the next section.
1.1.1 British Petroleum (BP) and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, started on
20th April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. The spill was the
result was the result of an accidental gas release and subsequent explosion. In the addition to the
massive oil spill, the accident claimed eleven lives. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is regarded as
the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry with an estimated
10% to 32% rise in volume when compared to the previous largest, the lxtoc 1 oil spill (BBC
News, 2012). Following the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, a sea-floor
oil gusher flowed for a period of 87 days. In fact, the United States Government contended that
an estimated total discharge of 5 million barrels flowed from the leak (Weber, 2010). The effect
of the spill on marine in the area was both palpable and incalculable. Juhasz (2012) notes that as
a result of three-month long spill, along with the adverse impacts of response and cleanup
efforts, large scale damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and
human health concerns have continued through to 2014 (see Figure 1).
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill led to national and global outrage, most of which was
directed at BP, the company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon rig. This event significantly
disrupted BP’s operations which ultimately resulted in significant financial loss. In 2012, BP and
the US Government came to a settlement for federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to
11 counts of manslaughter, 2 misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned BP from new contracts with the US
Government (Thompson, 2012). In the same year, BP and the US Department of Justice agreed
to a record-setting US$4.25 billion in fines and other penalties (Muskal, 2013). In addition, as at
February 2013, BP incurred a cost of US$43 billion as a result of criminal and civil settlements
and payments to a trust fund (Fontevecchia, 2013). The financial loss also includes the cost of
BP’s response to the crisis. In fact, BP (2013) notes that the cost of sealing the oil rig
permanently and for cleanup activities was about US$14 billion. In the crisis response phase, BP
conducted a series of press conferences to update the public on the status of efforts as regards the
complex activity of curbing the leak; this was in addition to being involved in the cleanup effort,
i.e. containment, collection and the use of dispersants.
When it comes to critiquing BP’s PR response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Robertson &
Krauss (2010) described it as ‘clumsy’ and not ‘properly thought out’, especially when citing
comments made by Tony Hayward, the former chief executive of the company in the wake of the
disaster. Given that the PR strategy for dealing with a disaster such as the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill was always going to be about damage limitation, Webb (2010) describes BP’s PR response
to the crisis as the worst in US history. Attempts by BP press officers to transfer blame to
Transocean only backfired as subsequently, it was deemed that BP lied to the US Congress about
the causes and true extent of the oil spill disaster. In light of the observations by Robertson &
Krauss (2010) and Webb (2010), this research undertakes a critique of BP’s PR response to the
disaster, especially as it concerned the management of negative perceptions emanating from the

Page | 9
event. Having provided an overview of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, it is now time to present the
aim of the research.
1.2 Research Aim
The main aim of this research is to explore how corporate organizations utilize public
relations to manage their corporate reputation in the face of crisis. In doing this, focus is devoted
to critiquing British Petroleum’s PR response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In fulfilling this
aim, the research undertakes a critical stance against corporate public relations. It should be
noted that corporate PR tends to be perceived as a means through which the organizations
promote their agenda irrespective of public perceptions and concerns. For instance, although
CSR is a welcome initiative –from the standpoint of corporate accountability to the communities
in which they operate-, it is often viewed by some as a PR ploy to create a favorable image of
themselves irrespective of reality. While examining how corporate organizations use PR to
manage their corporate reputation, effort will be devoted to undertaking a critical and objective
analysis of this approaches especially as it concerns the public sphere. In order to realize the
central aim of this research, these key questions were developed by the researcher:
Research Questions
i.) How do organizations use corporate and strategic communications to manage their
corporate reputations in the face of crisis?
ii.) How do organizations manipulate corporate relations to maintain their agenda when
faced with crisis?
iii.) What was the nature of British Petroleum’s (BP) response to the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill?
Research Objectives
In light of the context of the research and the research questions earlier highlighted, these are
the main objectives of the research:
i.) To undertake a critical examination of how corporate organizations use strategic
communications to manage their corporate reputations in the face of crisis.
ii.) To critically examine how organizations manipulate corporate relations to maintain
their agenda when faced with crisis.
iii.) To critically examine British Petroleum’s (BP) use of strategic communication to
manage public perceptions of its culpability in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
In exploring the role of that public relations play in the reputation management, especially
when faced with crisis, the following issues will be discussed:
 Definition of Public Relations.
 Theories underpinning public relations practice.
 Role of public relations in crisis management.
 Relationship between public relations and reputation management.
 Public relations and corporate agenda setting.
 Role of corporate communications in crisis management.

Page | 10
1.3 Research Methodology: Overview
In this research, a qualitative research approach is used. Collis & Hussey (2005) note that
the qualitative research approach is concerned with recording, analyzing and making an effort to
uncover the deeper meaning and importance of human behavior and experience. The decision to
use this particular research approach is driven by a series of factors. One concerns the nature of
objectives developed for the research. In order to understand how organizations use public
relations to drive their own agendas, undertaking a critique of their corporate communications is
critical. In many cases, such communication consists of qualitative data hence, the usefulness of
the qualitative approach. Again, the qualitative research approach provides a useful way of
gaining an improved understanding of communication relationships and the social world
(Daymon & Holloway, 2011).
Strategic communication plays a part as an ‘unseen influence’ (Heath, 2009) which seeks
to inform how and what we know at the individual and societal levels, and also how we define
our own identities in connection to others. Understanding the nature of this unseen influence
requires critical thinking. Critical researchers are interested in encouraging emancipation and
social transformation, for instance, challenging orthodox practices and ways of thinking, or
unraveling what has been marginalized. Their methodological approaches are usually based on
interpretive thinking. Interpretive thinking is useful in research because it challenges and
reformulates dominant paradigms. Communications relationships cannot be separated from the
social and historical contexts in which they occur, and this is demonstrated in the contextual
nature of qualitative research. These observations drove the decision to use the qualitative
research approach as a way of realizing the set objectives for the research.
One of the useful ways of applying the qualitative approach is through critical discourse
analysis (CDA). This methodology is used when analyzing the corporate communications of BP
during the Gulf of Oil Mexico oil spill. In other words, BP’s press releases during this period is
analysed using CDA. The central objective of this research is to explore how corporations
manipulate or use spin to manage the public’s perceptions of their reputation when faced with
crisis. To do this the case study design is used. The case study design offers a useful way of
understanding a complex problem by examining a real-life scenario (Collis & Hussey, 2005).
Regarding the collection of data for this research, only secondary data is used. The secondary
data will consist of corporate communications and press releases by BP during the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill.
1.4 Structure of the Research
In carrying out this research, the issues to be discussed are presented in five main chapters.
Each of these chapters serves a particular purpose. In the first chapter, the background context
for the research is presented. Here, different critical issues concerning the underlying subject
matter of the research are touched on: definition of public relations; crisis management; and the
role of public relations in crisis management and reputation management. In addition these
issues, an overview of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is presented. Furthermore, the key aim and
objectives of the research are presented in this chapter.
In the second chapter, a comprehensive review of literature dealing with key aspects of
public relations management is conducted. In addressing these aspects, views and perspectives

Page | 11
from different studies are presented. Studies covering the following issues are discussed:
definition of public relations; theories underpinning public relations practice; role of public
relations in corporate reputation management; role of public relations in crisis management; and
public relations and media relations. Prior to the conclusion of this chapter, BP’s PR response to
the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is briefly examined.
In the third chapter, a detailed description of the methodology used in carrying out the
research is presented. Here, the approaches and design used are discussed with reference to
information from the review of literature. Furthermore, the methods used in collecting and
analyzing data for the research are discussed. This chapter concludes with a description of ethical
considerations permitted for the research.
The fourth chapter is where the data collected for the research is presented, analysed and
interpreted with reference to the objectives established. Here, the corporate communications of
BP both during the ‘crisis response’ and ‘post-crisis’ phases are critiqued with a view to
understanding how BP managed negative perceptions emanating from the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill. This chapter concludes with a presentation of the main findings from the analysis and
discussions conducted.
The fifth chapter is where the conclusions for the research are presented. The conclusions
highlight results from the critical analysis of BP’s use of PR to manage reputational issues
arising from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The conclusions also show how contemporary
conceptions of corporate PR.

Page | 12
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction
The range of issues discussed in this chapter helps to form the theoretical framework for
the research. The chapter begins with exploring some of the standard definitions of public
relations. In addition, some key models and theories underpinning public relations practice are
explored in this chapter. After exploring these theories, the issue of impression management is
discussed. This forms the basis for reviewing literature on the role of public relations in
reputation management. In addition to this, the role of corporate communications in crisis
management is discussed. It is important to do this given that the case study for the research
involved a company’s response to a crisis situation. Consequently, best practices in crisis
communications are also discussed. An overview of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is provided
together with snapshots of how British Petroleum (BP) responded to this crisis. This chapter then
concludes with a summary of the main issues discussed.
2.1 Public Relations: Definition
Different definitions have been provided to help capture the essence of public relations
management. In this section, some of these definitions are discussed. Exploring some of these
definitions will set the stage for the different range of issues addressed in this chapter. These
definitions will give a sense of what public relations is and what it does? The first World
Assembly of Public Relations held in Mexico city in August 1978 defined public relations as,
“the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling leaders
of organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both
the company and the public interest” (Allen et al., 2008). What can be drawn from this particular
definition is that public relations (PR) is a field concerned with maintaining public image for
high profile projects, companies and people. Joye (1997) notes that public relations people
enable people to establish and maintain effective relationships with external stakeholders, i.e.
third parties. This particular definition views public relations as being concerned with
relationship-building or the management of stakeholder relationships. Dan et al., (2004) define
public relations as a leadership and management function that supports the achievement of
corporate objectives, define corporate philosophy, and encourage organizational transformation.
Dan’s (2004) definition views public relations as a management function designed to to support
the realization of corporate objectives. While this research seeks to explore contemporary
perspectives of PR in the corporate discourse, Dan’s (2004) perspective is limiting as it views
public relations as something domiciled to corporates. PR, according to Allen et al., (2008), can
also be applied to individual relationships. Furthermore, Dan et al., (2004) note that public
relations is concerned with the management of the network of relationships that an organization
is directly and indirectly engaged in. In this particular context, public relations practitioners
create, implement and evaluate company programs/activities that promote the exchange of
influence and understanding among a company’s constituent parts and publics (Allen et al.,
2008). Given differing perspectives highlighted in some of the definitions presented, the
common theme among all of them is the fact that PR is concerned with the management of
relationships.

Page | 13
Public relations is something that organizations invest in given its ability to promote
mutually beneficial relationships. Allen et al., (2008) provides a characterization of public
relations:
i. Public relations is a condition common to every person and organization in the human
environment –whether or not they acknowledge or act upon the fact- that refers to
their reputation and association with other external stakeholders.
ii. Public relations is the structured function that assesses the attitudes and behaviours of
external stakeholders; harmonizes the objectives, policies, and processes of a person
or company with the public interest; and implements a program of action to gain
public support and acceptance.
iii. Public relations is the complete flowering of the democratic principle, in which every
member of society is treated with respect, and has both a right and the responsibility
of expressing their views on public concerns, and in which policies are made on the
grounds of uninterrupted exchange of those views that results in public consent.
What can be deduced from the aforementioned conjecture of public relations is that it is at
the core of corporate reputation management. This is evident in how it seeks to enhance the
appeal of an organization to its diverse range of stakeholders including customers, the
government, civil society organization e.t.c. The third conjecture of PR provided by Allen et al.,
(2008) is somewhat altruistic as it sees PR as democratic in nature. The argument against this is
that PR can be used by corporate organizations to promote their own agendas irrespective of the
interests and needs of external stakeholders. Dan et al., (2004) note that integral to the success of
public relations is the proper identification of critical stakeholders. Identifying stakeholders
enables an organization to properly allocate its public relations efforts. Dan et al., (2004) note
that the process of identifying stakeholders can be achieved by the preparation of a stakeholder
matrix.
2.1.1 Theories Underpinning Public Relations Practice
This research’s purpose will be better served by exploring certain theories that lay the
ground for public relations practice. From a theoretical standpoint, PR practice can be explained
by different theoretical categories, some of which include: the theories of relationships (e.g.
situational theory) (Grunig & Repper, 1992); and the theories of mass communication (e.g.
framing theory and agenda setting theory) (Cohen, 1963). It is essential to examine the theories
of relationships because some of the studies already looked at in the first chapter indicated that
public relations is concerned with the management of relationships –the network of relationships
between an organization and its external stakeholders (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Spaulding &
Correa, 2005). Examining the theories of mass communication is critical because public relations
belong to mass communication discipline, which is an aspect of marketing.
Theories of Relationships
Situational Theory
In looking at the theories of relations, more attention is devoted to the ‘situational
theory’. Grunig & Repper (1992) are of the view that the concept of stakeholders provides a
useful means of describing and understanding relationships as a result of existing conceptions of

Page | 14
PR as a means of promoting and persuasion. However, they concluded that not all people in
stakeholder groups would be equally likely to communicate with an organization. Grunig et al.,
(2002) note that publics range from those who actively seek and process information about an
organization or an issue of interest, to those publics who passively receive information. Grunig et
al., (2002:52) note that three factors predict when publics will search and process information
about a subject: problem recognition; constraint recognition; and level of involvement. What is
critical is that publics are situational. In this regard, as a situation, problem or issue changes, the
publics, with which the company must communicate, and constantly change. In essence,
situational changes lead to perception changes among stakeholders.
Situational theory also helps in explaining why certain groups are active on a particular
issue, others are active on many issues, and others are uniformly unconcerned (Grunig & Repper,
1992). The particular relationship is determined by the nature of the groups (active or passive)
and how a company is connected with the issue (Grunig & Repper, 1984; 1992). The situational
theory keeps us focused on the types of information that publics want as opposed to the
organization’s preference of the type of information it wants to disseminate. Furthermore, the
situational theory operates on the assumption that publics will pay attention and search for
information that is in their best interests.
Theories of Mass Communication
Agenda Setting Theory
Cohen (1963) notes that although media cannot determine what people will think, they
are stunningly successful in telling them what to think about. This view is supported by the study
conducted by Shaw & McCombs (1977) into the media reporting and voter perceptions. Shaw &
McCombs (1977) discovers a positive correlation between what voters said was important and
what media were reporting as being critical. Even more amazing from the results of this
particular study was the fact that voters were more likely to agree with the composite media
agenda than with the position of the candidate they claimed they favored (Shaw & McCombs,
1977). Public relations practitioners make an effort to influence the media agenda by offering
news items for public consumption (Akpabio, 2005). To achieve this, they identify subjects that
editors and news directors consider news, localize their messages, and help media representatives
cover the story.
Framing Theory
Mass media scholars, such as Entman (1993), are of the view that the messages and
information sent to audiences contain with them pre-existing set of meanings or what some
would refer to as ‘frames’. Entman (1993) defines framing as an active process of drawing out
dominant themes from the content. Dozier et al., (1995) notes that these meanings stem from the
cultural and social groupings in which we live and work. For instance, the culture in the United
States is one that is highly individualistic based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework
(Hofstede, 1990). This cultural attribute tends to be reflected in stories presented by the media.
For example, CNN tends to carry stories of people who overcome adversity or those who excel
in sports. As a result, the focus on individual effort shapes the way people in the United States
communicate. The framing theory is of importance to public relations practitioners because
understanding common frames makes for easy and meaningful communication with the public or

Page | 15
audiences (Dozier et al., 1995). In fact, Entman (1993) notes that if we want to communicate
effectively with each other, we are bound to utilize common frames as an essential condition to
being understood.
2.1.2 Models of Public Relations
One of the most effective ways of contemplating and understanding the issue of public
relations has been through the identification of widely shared orthodox thinking behind public
relations practive and how these are connected to each other (Broom & Dozier, 1986). Grunig &
Hunt (1984) propose four models of public relations that are dependent on communication,
research and ethics: press agentry; public information; the two-way asymmetrical model; and the
two-way symmetrical model. For the purposes of this research, focus is placed on ‘press
agentry’, ‘public information’, and the two-way asymmetrical model. The rationale for focusing
on these three models stems from the fact that they deal with communication mechanisms
between an organization and its stakeholders or the public.
Press Agentry
Press agentry is the model where information moves one way –from the company to its
publics. This is one of the oldest or most traditional models of public relations. This particular
model is concerned with the issues of promotion and publicity. Adherents of this particular
model are always seeking opportunities to get their company’s name favorably stated in the
media (Grunig & Repper, 1984). This model includes propaganda tactics such as the use of
celebrity names and attention-gaining tools such as giveaways, parades, and grand openings.
Despite the fact that press agents are not unethical, they do not desire to be ethical either. The
louder the noise, the more attention-getting the story, whether it is true or false, the better they
are at doing their jobs (Gruning & Hunt, 1984).
Public Information
Public information differs from press agentry because the intent is to inform as opposed
to press for promotion and publicity, but the communication is still essentially one-way (Grunig
& Hunt, 1984). Currently, this model represents public relations practices in government,
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and even in certain corporate organizations.
Public relations practitioners that adopt this particular model do very limited research about their
audiences beyond testing the lucidity of their messages. Such PR practitioners are seen as
“journalists-in-residence”, who place value on accuracy but decide what information is best to
disseminate to their audiences (Grunig & Repper, 1984; Grunig & Hunt, 1984).
Two-way Symmetrical Model
The two-way symmetrical model is also referred to as ‘mixed motives’, ‘collaborative
advocacy’, and ‘cooperative antagonism’ (Grunig, 2000). This particular model highlights a
public relations orientation in which organizations and their publics adjust to each other. This
depiction of public relations placed the organization and its publics on a continuum (Dozier et
al., 1995). It stresses the utilization of social science research methods in accomplishing mutual
understanding and two-way communications rather than one-way persuasion (Grunig, 2001).
This particular model is regarded as the most ethical because all groups are involved in the
problem resolution process.

Page | 16
2.2 Impression Management
Included in the scope of the research is the role that public relations play in impression
management. Impression management is critical because it can build up into defined reputation.
Bearing in mind that public relations is about managing relationships (Spaulding & Correa,
2007), understanding how to manage impressions is important because it forms the basis for
developing positive interpersonal relationships. Leary & Kowalski (1990:34) define impression
management as the process by which people control the impressions others have of them. People
and organizations have a continuous interest in how others see and evaluate them. Schlenker
(1980) notes that impression management is also referred to as ‘self-presentation’. Schlenker
(1980) further notes that because the impressions individuals make on other people have
implications for how others see, evaluate, and treat them, as well as for their own views of
themselves, people sometimes act in ways that will create particular impressions in others’ eyes.
Different factors motivate and constrain public impression management and private self-
image maintenance differs in many respects. Many of the purely social variables that influence
people’s images play little or no part in private self-maintenance. As Tedeschi (1986:10)
observes, “secret agendas, a desire to manipulate other people, the goal of making other people
to mediate reinforcements that otherwise would not be attainable, together with possession of
different views, information, and values contribute to significant variances between the
observations and evaluations of one’s on behavior and the attributions made by other people”.
Given that a person is motivated to create an impression on others, the issue becomes one
of determining precisely the type of impression one wants to make and choosing how one will go
about making that impression. Impression management is looked at differently. Gergen (1965)
views impression management as primarily the attempt to create impressions of one’s personal
characteristics. Gaes et al., (1978) treat impression management as being more or less equivalent
to self-description. Miller & Cox (1982) view impression management as the management of
physical appearance. Forsyth et al., (1977) and Leary & Kowalski (1990) view impression
management as involving all behavioral efforts to create impressions in others minds. For Leary
& Kowalski (1990), individuals attempt to create impressions not only of their personal
attributes, but also of their attitudes, moods, roles, status, physical states, interests, beliefs etc.
Furthermore, people also use means other than self-description to create desired impressions
(Leary & Kowalski, 1990). This position is supported by Jones & Pittman (1982) who also
indicate that both verbal and non-verbal cues are critical in how people form the impressions that
they want others to believe or accept.
The construction of impression is a structured, conscious and continuous process. The
process of creating an image to sell to a target audience is a conscious effort which is designed to
influence the perception and evaluation of the target audience (Miller & Cox, 1982; Leary &
Kowalski, 1990). For an organization, the formation of corporate mission and objectives serves
as a guide for determining the image that it wants to convey, both to its customers and other
stakeholders. This image tends to be reflected in the organization’s products or services, culture,
internal processes and structure (Broom & Dozier, 1986). Furthermore, the cultivation of this
image or identity is achieved through corporate and media communications. Sriramesh & Vercic
(2003) note that corporate identity management is a term used to identify the different strategies
used to oversee and direct variables that impact the company’s identity, both internally and
externally. This means that the identity management effort not only has to do with the cultivation

Page | 17
of a viable corporate culture that lends itself well to the interests of the company. Earlier on, it
was noted that the cultivation of corporate image can be facilitated through corporate and media
communications. Sriramesh & Vercic (2003) note that as an internal process, corporate identity
management will usually pay added attention to developing an internal flow of information that
makes it possible for staff members at all levels to actively participate in moving the
organization forward. Having looked at the issue of impression management, it is now time to
look at the role of public relations in reputation management. This is done in the next section.
2.3 Role of Public Relations in Reputation Management
Reputation management has emerged as a popular theme in corporate communications
and public relations. In addition to looking at the how PR facilitates reputation management, the
issue of corporate communications is discussed in this chapter. Girboveanu & Pavel (2010) note
that public relations is all about reputation –the result of what you do, what you say and what
other people say about you. Spaulding & Correa (2007) note that public relations is the discipline
which looks after reputation, with the objective of gaining understanding and support and
influencing opinion and behavior. Furthermore, Spaulding & Correa (2007) indicate that public
relations is the planned and sustained effort to create and maintain good will and mutual
understanding between a company and its external stakeholders or publics. Sriramesh & Vercic
(2003) note that public relations not only tell a company’s story to the publics, it also contributes
to the shaping of an organization and the manner it works. Through research, feedback,
communication and evaluation, the PR practitioner needs to find out the concerns and
expectations of a company’s publics and explain them to its management (Chartered Institute of
Public Relations, 2009). Reputation management is the process or practice of monitoring the
reputation of a company, addressing contents which are damaging to it, and utilizing customer
feedback solutions to get feedback or early warning signals of reputation challenges (Milo,
2013). Lieb (2012:43) notes that public relations is critical to reputation management because it
bridges the gap between how an organization perceives itself and how others see it.
The reputation of an organization is not just the image the company conveys, it also
entails what external stakeholders think of the company (Lieb, 2012). The process of building
positive images in the minds of these external stakeholders is determined by the nature of
relationships between the company and these stakeholders. When it comes to the role of PR in
reputation, an interesting observation was made by Horton (2009:4):
We can’t manage reputation –never could, if we mean controlling how other people
independently evaluate a person or organization. On the other hand, if reputation
management is construed as monitoring how other people think and attempting to
persuade them to think in a different way, then perhaps we do ‘manage reputation’ to a
certain degree (Horton, 2009).
Horton (2009) further notes that the monitoring function of reputation management is
concerned with gathering intelligence from the external environment to inform decision-making,
especially in the nature of corporate communications. Monitoring engenders situational
awareness, but it can also lead to paralysis when there are divergent opinions. The reputation of
an organization stems partially from perceptions of actions and partially from misinformed
observations (Horton, 2009). This view is supported by Bilton (2011) who indicates that while
public relations can communicate accurately and clearly what the company is doing and try to

Page | 18
decrease misinformation, it does not have incentives or punishments to stop rumour mongers,
agitators, disgruntled investors/employees, or committed activists. In other words, reputation
management is not about controlling perceptions rather it is more about influencing the views,
opinions and perspectives of external stakeholders.
Given that the opinions and views about an organization can change, many organizations
have a dedicated PR department. The approach used by the PR department can be categorized as
being either reactive or proactive (Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010). Girboveanu & Pavel (2010) note
that whether the reactive or proactive approach is used, chief of the public relations department’s
functions is managing the organization’s reputation and responding to any crisis that threatens
the positive image of the organization. The reactive PR approach is one where the organization
waits for bad publicity or public criticism before they act or respond. Bearing in mind that
reputations are formed and re-informed in people’s minds continuously, and because public
issues debates are continuously taking shape, a more strategic approach is to be proactive
(Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010).
2.3.1 Corporate Communication
There is a popular belief in the management world that in the current business
environment, the future of any organization is critically dependent on how it is perceived by its
stakeholders, such as shareholders, customers, consumers, and other members of the community
in which the business operates (Horton, 2009). Perception management is of more importance to
organizations because of globalization and corporate crisis (Marchand, 1998). In a study
interviewing chief executive officers and senior managers of large corporations on the
importance of reputation management, Murray & White (2004) discover that the majority view
was that companies nowadays consider protecting their company’s reputation as ‘critical’ and
view corporate reputation as a very important strategic objective. Given this observation, Horton
(2009) notes that the goal of developing, maintaining and protecting a company’s reputation is
one of the core responsibilities of corporate communication practitioners.
In the past, practitioners used the term ‘public relations’ to describe communication with
stakeholders. This public relations function, which tended to be tactical in many companies,
largely involved communication with the press (Harris, 1991). But when both internal and
external stakeholders started to demand more information from companies, it became clear that
communication was more than public relations (Marchand, 1998). At this point, it is essential to
define what ‘corporate communication’ is. Hutton (1996) defines corporate communication as a
management function that offers a framework for the effective coordination of all internal and
external communication with the aggregate objective of creating and maintaining favorable
reputations with stakeholder groups upon which the company is reliant. Furthermore, Hutton
(1996) notes that corporate communication can be a complex undertaking for companies with a
broad geographical span. This is because the coordination of communication ends up being a
balancing act between the company’s head office and its network of subsidiaries and branches.
Whatever be the case, Hutton (1996) is of the view that corporate communication plays a
critical role in corporate reputation management. Hutton (1996) suggests that communication is
strategic because it informs the company’s image over time –from the past to present. This is
reinforced by the following key concepts that encapsulate the strategic role of corporate

Page | 19
communication: stakeholder; public; corporate reputation; corporate identity; corporate image;
mission; vision; corporate objectives; and corporate strategies (Hutton, 1996; Marchand, 1998).
2.4 Crisis Management
In the previous section, the need to explore the role of corporate communication in crisis
was mentioned. Before doing this, it is essential to understand what crisis management is all
about especially as Dilenschneider (2000) notes that public relations enable organizations to
address organizational crises in a proactive manner. Coombs (2007) defines crisis management
as a process that is designed to prevent or lessen the damage a crisis can inflict on a company
and its stakeholders. Nwaocha (1999) defines crisis management as the application of proper
steps to either present a crisis from happening or to promptly control it once it happens. In
addition, Fearn-Banks (2001) notes that crisis management is proactive, preventive, planned and
structured in nature. Barton (2001) notes that crisis management is a critical organizational
function, and that one of the tasks of public relations practitioners is to help organizations
address organizational crises. Furthermore, Barton (2001) notes that failure can lead to serious
harm to an organization, especially its reputation and financial position. Dilenschneider
(2000:22) notes that a crisis can be viewed as an event which poses a significant threat to
company operations, and can have negative consequences if not treated properly. Furthermore,
Jaques (2007) indicates that a crisis can generate three main threats: (1) financial loss; (2) public
safety concerns; and (3) damage to reputation. Jaques (2007) notes that a crisis can lead to
financial loss if it disrupts operations. Given the threat of financial loss and the other
aforementioned threats, there is reason not to ignore crisis.
As crisis management can be categorized into three main phases –pre-crisis; crisis
response; and post-crisis (Girboveanu & Pavel, 2010) - added attention is devoted to the ‘crisis
response’ and ‘post-crisis’ phase. In so doing, data collected for the research examines BP’s
response to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill in both phases of crisis management. The crisis
response phase of crisis management deals with what management says and does after the crisis
hits. Here, public relations plays a vital role in the crisis response phase by helping to create the
messages that are sent to different publics (Coombs, 2007). Furthermore, Coombs (2007) notes
that the crisis response phase consists of two aspects: (1) the initial crisis response; and (2)
reputation repair and behavioural intentions. The initial response aspect stresses the need for
communication to be quick, accurate and consistent. While the reputation repair aspect deals
with the following: attack the accuser; denial; look for a scape goat; look for an excuse etc
(Coombs, 2007). In the case of Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP adopted the scapegoat approach
when it blamed Transocean for safety issues that led to the environmental disaster.
Effective crisis management deals with threats in a sequential manner. The fundamental
concern in a crisis has to be public safety (Jaques, 2007; Coombs, 2007). Jaques (2007) notes
that a failure to deal with public safety concerns only intensifies the damage caused by the crisis.
Reputational issues and financial concerns are viewed as also important, that is after public
safety concerns have been addressed (Jaques, 2007). The post-crisis phase of crisis management
is the phase where the organization is returning to normality after the worst of the crisis has been
felt. This phase is critical as it is here that the company rebuilds trust with its external
stakeholders (Coombs, 2007). Thus, the reputation repair aspect can continue into the post-crisis
phase. Critical to the effective crisis management in the post-crisis phase is communication. In
this regard, the onus lies on the organization to provide regular information on the recovery

Page | 20
process. Regular provision of information is critical to rebuilding trust with external
stakeholders. Coombs (2007) provides the following post-crisis best practices:
 Deliver all information promised to stakeholders as soon as the information is known.
 Keep stakeholders updated on the progression of recovery efforts including any
corrective measures being taken and the progress of investigations.
 Analyze the crisis management effort for lessons and integrate those lessons in to the
company’s crisis management mechanism.
The aforementioned best practices proved useful while examining the BP’s crisis
management response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It should be reiterated that in analyzing
BP’s PR response to the crisis, more attention is focused on the ‘crisis response’ and ‘post-crisis’
phases. Given the importance of communication in crisis management situations, attention is
devoted to looking at effective communication during crisis management in the next section.
2.4.1 Role of Corporate Communication in Crisis Management
Companies operating in crisis mode typically create a team of senior executives to
manage the crisis. This small group of executives usually includes the chief executive officer or
managing director, the chief financial officer, the senior operations manager, the senior legal
counsel and other managers relevant to the crisis (Marra, 1998). The media relations officer
usually acts as the interlocutor between the company and the media especially as news reporters
are usually drawn to crisis situations. Crisis communication plans and strategies offer the means
to collect and release information as rapidly as possible during a crisis. Authors such as
Bernstein (1986), Barton (1993) and Fearn-banks (1996) describe crisis communication tactics in
great detail. Fearn-Banks (1996) notes that crisis communication tactics usually perform an
important function by enabling companies to provide correct and particular information on very
short notice. To critical publics demanding immediate answers to a crisis that impacts them.
Barton (1993) notes that when it comes to communication during crisis situations, certain
organizations often find themselves trapped in the myopic view that public relations is a one-way
communication to reporters. This perception can carry far-reaching consequences on the crisis
management effectiveness of the organization. Furthermore, Barton (1993) notes that companies
that place more emphasis on ‘the general public’ at the expense of more specific publics such as
staff members, customers, government officials, shareholders, and members of the community
usually suffer unnecessary financial, and perceptual harm. Stocker (1997) notes that effective
public relations during crisis management is dependent on the ability of companies to
immediately provide customers with explanations and information during a crisis that go beyond
the primary information offered by reports in the mass media. Furthermore, Stocker (1997) notes
that majority of costs connected with a crisis are not legal costs or penalties. Citing the case of
Sears to buttress this position, Stocker (1997:6) observes:
Sears reputation with customers was severely damaged in 1992 when its automotive
centres were accused of selling unnecessary repairs. Auto centre repairs decline by
US$80 million and generated a third-quarter loss. Legal fees were about US$11 million.
Reimbursing California for its investigation and offering mandated employee training
added another US$5 million. By far the biggest losses were to the shareholders and

Page | 21
employees. The stock immediately lost 1.5 points, or an estimated US$565million.
Finally, 1993 revenues declined by US$1.5 billion (Stocker, 1997:6).
The observation by Stocker (1997) underscores the variety and intensity of damage that a
company can suffer from bad or negative publicity. In investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
an effort will be made to provide a profile of the reputation and financial losses suffered by BP
as a result of this particular crisis. Furthermore, regarding Sears, Stocker (1997) indicates that
poor communication by management contributed to mounting losses suffered by the company.
Although it was inevitable that Sears was bound to suffer financial harm from the mis-selling
debacle, effective, detailed and immediate communication to customers would have reduced the
extent of losses suffered by the company (Stocker, 1997).
Effective crisis management cannot exist without exceptional communication. Regarding
the role of communication in crisis management, companies must compare their ability to
communicate in a crisis situation against the following attributes of excellent crisis
communication identified by Marra (1992) & Grunig (1992): pre-crisis relationships; autonomy
of the public relations staff; and communication culture.
Pre-Crisis Relationships
Marra (1992) argues that six attributes consistently appear in the management and
communication studies as a measure of relationships –trust, understanding, credibility,
satisfaction, cooperation, and agreement- and all of them are applicable to crisis public relations.
Marra (1992) notes that poor or non-existent relationships work in the opposite direction –they
can easily magnify the negative effects of a crisis. In essence, if you do not trust someone, or are
not satisfied, you are not likely to agree with their actions during a crisis. Grunig (1992) notes
that companies cannot build or repair relationships during a crisis, and even the most
comprehensive crisis plan cannot compensate for poor pre-crisis relationships.
Autonomy of the Public Relations Staff
The degree to which a company’s communication staff can become involved in deciding
the mature of communication response to a crisis, independent of the control of senior
management, can significantly determine the effectiveness of crisis communication. Companies,
therefore, are required to give their public relations staff the necessary autonomy to communicate
with relevant publics during crisis situations. In the absence of autonomy for public relations
staff, communication response to a crisis is likely to be delayed and tepid.
Communication Culture
Companies have many varying cultures within themselves. Mitroff & Kilmann (1984)
identifies different typical company values: do not disagree with your boss; do not rock the boat;
enjoy your work; treat women with respect; be diligent in your work etc. In similar vein, many
companies possess definable communication cultures. While certain organizations rely on two-
way communication during a crisis, some others may rarely provide information to relevant
publics. Mitroff & Kilmann (1984) suggests that a communication culture that is open,
responsive and multi-dimensional is likely to be more effective at responding to a crisis situation
than one which is not. Again, Grunig (1992) advises that the role of public relations cannot be
underestimated and should be treated as strategic. Consequently, the top communicator for an

Page | 22
organization should be involved in the board room. Having explored the importance of
communication in crisis situations, it is now time to present an overview the Gulf of Mexico Oil
Spill and BP’s PR response to this effect. A more detailed analysis of BP’s PR response to the
crisis is presented in the fourth chapter.
2.5 The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
9% to 32% increase in volume when compared to the previous largest, the lxtoc 1 oil spill
(Robertson & Krauss, 2010). In terms of the cost of the oil spill to BP, here are some startling
financial statistics: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned BP from new contracts
with the US Government (Thompson, 2012). In the same year, BP and the US Department of
Justice agreed to a record-setting US$4.25 billion in fines and other penalties (Muskal, 2013). In
addition, as at February 2013, BP incurred a cost of US$43 billion as a result of criminal and
civil settlements and payments to a trust fund (Fontevecchia, 2013). The financial loss also
includes the cost of BP’s response to the crisis. In fact, BP (2013) noted that the cost of sealing
the oil rig permanently and for cleanup activities was about US$14 billion.
Majority of the public criticism suffered by BP at the onset of this crisis stemmed from its
inept and haphazard PR response to the crisis. BP’s poor PR response to the crisis was
encapsulated by some of the comments made by its former CEO, Tony Hayward (Beam, 2010).
For instance, on an interview with the Guardian immediately following the explosion on the rig
and the subsequent leakage of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Tony Hayward noted:
“This was not our accident…This was not our drilling rig….This was Transocean’s rig. Their
systems. Their people. Their equipment”. In fact, BP’s press officers, whilst briefing journalists
in the week that the accident occurred, repeated the line that, “this was not our accident”. This
approach could be seen as the, “looking for the scapegoat approach” (Webb, 2010). Webb (2010)
notes that Tony Hayward’s comments made a bad situation worse. In fact, Duncan John, a
partner at StrategicFit, a strategy consultancy, made the following comments regarding the
comments by BP’s CEO and press officers: “communication over the degree of their
responsibility and the consequences may run the risk of aggravating an already skeptical public if
not carefully managed” (Webb, 2010). What can be perceived from the initial communication
response of BP was a demonstration of lack of consideration for public safety. Based on the
issues discussed in this chapter, this can be perceived as poor crisis management in the crisis
response phase. Ultimately, this made the public suspicious of BP’s every move thus,
complicating its already compromised crisis response mechanism.
Following what has been broadly judged as poor crisis response, BP continues to devote
sufficient effort and resources to rebuilding its corporate image. This is buttressed by its
willingness to accept financial liabilities where due and the speedy release of information on
BP’s effort at restoring the ecosystem in and around the Gulf of Mexico. In December 2013, BP
issued the following statement:

Page | 23
We have acted to take responsibility for the clean-up, working under the direction of the
federal government to respond swiftly to compensate people affected by the impact of the
accident, to look after the health, safety and welfare of the large number of residents and
people who helped respond to the spill. We have equally carried out studies with federal
and state natural resource trustees to identify and define the injury to natural resources in
the Gulf of Mexico (BP, 2013).
The overview presented in this section drives the direction of the research. In essence,
during the data analysis and interpretation phase, attention is devoted to critiquing BP’s response
to the Gulf of Mexico crisis with a view to identifying dos and don’ts in crisis management. At
this point, it is essential to conclude this chapter by summarizing the main issues discussed.
2.6 Conclusion
The review of literature highlights the importance of public relations to the corporate
discourse. This is because organizations are involved in a network of relationships, whether
consciously or unconsciously, with a broad range of stakeholders –customers, government,
NGOs, CSOs, consumers, regulatory agencies etc. Public relations present a useful means of
managing these relationships. PR is there to enable organizations build a positive image with
these stakeholders. This is the reason why PR plays a huge role in corporate reputation
management. Reputation management is the process or practice of monitoring the reputation of a
company, addressing contents which are damaging to it, and utilizing customer feedback
solutions to get feedback or early warning signals of reputation challenges. Public relations is
critical to reputation management because it bridges the gap between how an organization
perceives itself and how others see it. When it comes to the best PR approach to use when
managing the image of an organization, some of the studies examined (Girboveanu & pavel,
2010), stressed the need to be proactive.
Critical to building a positive reputation during and after a crisis situation is
communications. Crisis communication is critical to how an organization is perceived during
crisis mode. Communication is a very sensitive issue and must be treated with care especially
whilst communicating relevant publics during a crisis situation. Hutton (1996) suggests that
communication is strategic because it informs the company’s image over time –from the past to
present. This is reinforced by the following key concepts that encapsulate the strategic role of
corporate communication: stakeholder; public; corporate reputation; corporate identity; corporate
image; mission; vision; corporate objectives; and corporate strategies. Poor communication in
the crisis response phase was cited as being responsible for the public outrage that BP felt during
the Gulf of Mexico crisis. As a result, in critiquing BP’s response to the crisis, some of deal of
attention is devoted to its communication during this period. As stated earlier, this analysis will
help to identify best practices in crisis management communication.

Page | 24
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, attention is devoted to discussing the methodology adopted for the
research. This chapter begins by looking at the research approaches used. The approach selected
for the research informs the method for analyzing the data collected for the research. Following
the discussing on the research approach used is a discussion of the research design. The design is
central to the methodology of the research. In addition to identifying the design used, the section
on the research addresses how data is collected and analysed. This chapter also addresses the
issues of validity, reliability and generalizability. After these issues are addressed, the underlying
limitations of the research are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion on critical
ethical considerations for the research.
3.1 Research Approach
The approach selected for a research usually underscores the technique to be used to
address the questions developed for a research (Saunders et al., 2005). Collis & Hussey (2005)
defines the research approach as a method for fabricating new or innovative knowledge or
deepening understanding about the subject matter under investigation. In essence, the research
approach is a method for confirming facts and generating new information. When conducting
research, there main approaches are available to a researcher. These approaches are: the
quantitative approach; the qualitative approach; and the mixed methods approach (Collis &
Hussey, 2003). The mixed methods approach entails a mix of the qualitative and quantitative
approaches (Collis & Hussey, 2003).
The researcher’s interest in crisis management requires consideration of established
procedures and protocols for ‘good practice’ in professional PR. In view of this observation, a
qualitative approach is used. Denzin & Lincoln (2005) define the qualitative research approach
as a form of investigation used in different disciplines, especially in the social sciences, but
equally in market research. Furthermore, Denzin & Lincoln (2005) further note that the
qualitative research approach is one where the researcher is interested in obtaining an in-depth
understanding of human behavior and the reasons that determine such behavior. This particular
explanation contains one of the justifications for use of the qualitative approach in this research.
In the literature review, public relations is identified as dealing with a network of relationships
that an organization is involved in (Joye, 1997; Allen et al., 2008). In corporate settings, public
relations concern how companies manage their relationship with external stakeholders –the
community in which they operate; their customers; the government; the media etc (Allen et al.,
2008). This network of relationships can be categorized as belonging to the social sciences
domain hence, the suitability of the qualitative approach for this research. It is essential to note
that irrespective of its usefulness in social sciences, one of the main weaknesses of qualitative
approach is that it is a subjective method of inquiry (Collis & Hussey, 2005). The qualitative
research approach is usually used in social science research. In essence, the qualitative approach
is useful when studying human behavior actions. Consequently, it is a useful approach for
understanding how companies and their representatives respond to crisis, especially from a PR
perspective, ie. communications, actions, behavior of executives etc.

Page | 25
Another rationale for the use of qualitative approach stems from the nature of data
collected for the research. The data collected for the research is largely qualitative –corporate
communications; media reports; observations, comments, reports- hence, the suitability of the
qualitative approach to the demands of this research. There are different tools or instruments
which can be used when using the qualitative approach. Some of these are: ethnography;
grounded theory; case studies; discourse analysis etc. For this research, case studies and
discourse analysis is used.
3.2 Research Design
Bryman & Bell (2011) define the research design as a systematic plan to solve or study a
problem, whether scientific or unscientific. In addition, Bryman & Bell (2011) suggest that the
research design solves the research problem by addressing the following concerns: hypotheses;
research question; study type; issues of causation and correlation between independent and
dependent variables. Yin (1989) notes that the research design underscores the logical
approaches for addressing the research problem. In essence, the study design deals with the
logical structure of inquiry. Collis & Hussey (2005) note that the research or study design
underscores the strategy for answering the questions developed for a research. There are different
designs which can be used when conducting research. Some of these are: descriptive design;
exploratory design; case study design etc (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
For this research, the case study design is used. Collis & Hussey (2005) note that the case
study design is a design where an organization, event, or scenario is studied closely as a means
of addressing a research problem. The case study is useful when doing qualitative research. Yin
(1989:1) notes that the case study is employed in many situations to contribute to our knowledge
of individual group, organizational, social, political, and associated phenomena. In order to
understand how crisis management fits into corporate public relations and reputation, the case
study is a critique of British Petroleum’s use of corporate relations to manage negative
perceptions stemming from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In essence, careful attention is devoted
to examining BP’s response to this crisis from a public relations perspective. In addition, the
responses of stakeholders –environmental groups; the American government; affected
communities; and the public- to BP are also examined. The critical analysis of perspectives from
these different groups will form the basis for drawing valid conclusions for the research.
Furthermore, this particular case study is selected because of the scale of the damage to the
environment from the deepwater horizon oil spill. This particular oil spill has been described as
the worst in American history. Again, the diversity of stakeholders affected by this spill –
government, fishermen, the US government, communities in coastal states bordering the Gulf;
and shareholders-makes it a useful case study for understanding PR in the context of crisis of
management. In critiquing BP’s PR response to the deepwater horizon oil spill, more attention is
devoted to examining the behavior of BP executives and press releases by BP in the days and
weeks following the accident.
3.3 Data Collection Methods
This section addresses the nature of data collected for the research. In addition to
describing the nature and how data is collected for the research, this section also shows how the
data collected is analysed.

Page | 26
3.3.1 Primary Data
Primary data can also be referred to as ‘raw data’ (Collis & Hussey, 2003). This
description stems from the originality of primary data (Collis & Hussey, 2005). Bryman & Bell
(2011) referred to primary data as data that is directly collected by the person doing the research
other than another party. Easterby-Smith et al., (2008) defined primary data as data or
information that is collected directly from first-hand experience. In other words, primary data is
the creation of the researcher as it does not previously exist. Based on the definitions highlighted,
primary data can be described as having two main qualities: originality; and it is collected only
by the researcher (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Primary data could also be derived from empirical
recording. Arguably, it is the act of researching that turns information into data although there is
still an element of interpretation and choice by the researcher that constructs data as such.
This research involved the collected of primary data. The primary data collected for this
research involved the following: feedback from interviews conducted with individuals in
affected communities (sourced through Youtube); feedback from interviews conducted with BP
officials (newspaper, Youtube and other media sources); responses from officials of the
American government (newspapers and Youtube); and remarks by public relations practitioners
(newspapers, Youtube, and other media channels). Data from these sources are subjected to the
analytical framework developed for the research. The information obtained from these sources
form the primary data used for the research. Information from the aforementioned media sources
–Youtube and newspapers- are regarded as primary data because the researcher is studying the
constructions and interpretations of media commentators who are working within the terms of
journalistic discourse.
3.3.2 Secondary Data
Secondary data is different from primary data. Collis & Hussey (2005) define secondary
data as information that is not collected by the researcher but collected by other parties. In other
words, unlike primary data, secondary data lacks the quality of ‘originality’. Bryman & Bell
(2011) note that secondary data usually consists of information that is already in existence. This
is the reason why secondary data can be accessed or sourced from public domains such as
websites, academic textbook, academic journals, company publications, unpublished
manuscripts, and other public domains. Information is obtained from these sources for the
purposes of this research. The fact that secondary data is information that is collected by some
other party does not in any way reduce its usefulness. For the purposes of this research, the
information obtained from Youtube is treated as primary data because as mentioned earlier, the
researcher is studying the constructions and interpretations of media commentators who are
working within the terms of journalistic discourse.
In fact, secondary data can be used to support any primary data collected for a research.
This is the case in this research as secondary data was used to develop the literature review
chapter for the research. In addition, information from the literature review chapter is used to
support the analysis of data collected for the research.

Page | 27
3.3.3 Analysis of Data
This section solely addresses how the critical data collected for this research is analysed.
While discussing the approaches adopted for the research, discourse analysis is identified as one
of the principal instruments of qualitative research. Given that this research uses the qualitative
research approach, critical discourse analysis (CDA) is used to analyse to primary and secondary
data collected for the research. In addition to CDA, textual analysis will equally be used to
analyse the data collected for the research.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of
discourse that sees language as a type of social practice and places more focus on the means
through which social and political domination are reproduced in text and talk (Fairclough &
Clive, 1995). Van Dijk (1993:353) views critical discourse analysis is a study of the relations
between discourse, power, dominance, social inequality and the position of the discourse analyst
in such relationships. Van Dijk’s (1993) position highlights the suitability of CDA for the
analysis of data collected for the research. Given that relationship management-especially with
critical stakeholders- is a dimension of public relations practice, the application of CDA in this
research enhances understanding of the implications of language and communication of
perceptions, especially stakeholder perceptions. The application of CDA in the data analysis
phase of this research entails a critical examination of corporate communications –press releases-
by BP during the crisis and stakeholder interpretations of the use of language in these
communications.
To support the CDA analysis, textual analysis will also be used to analyse or assess the
content of communication both from BP and the content of interpretations from different
stakeholders. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) defines textual
analysis, “as a systematic analysis of the content rather than the structure of communication,
such as written work or speech, including the study of thematic and symbolic elements to
determine the goal or meaning of the communication”.
3.4 Validity, Reliability & Generalizability
Winter (2000:1) notes that, “the concept of validity in qualitative research is not a single,
fixed or universal concept, but rather a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in the
processes and intentions of specific research methodologies”. Bashir et al., (2008) notes that the
validity in qualitative research implies the degree to which the data is plausible, credible and
trustworthy; and as such, can be defended when challenged. Furthermore, Bashir et al., (2008)
suggests that validity exists to enhance researchers to achieve rigor in qualitative research. To
issue of validity in this research is addressed by the use of rigid techniques for the analysis of
data collected. This is achieved through the application of textual analysis and Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) to the data collected.
Regarding the issue of reliability in research, Lincoln & Guba (1985:300) likened the
concept to dependability. In essence, reliability in qualitative research can be seen as a form of
‘inquiry audit’. The suitability of methods selected for data analysis can be influence the
dependability of a research’s methodology, and indeed its findings (Saunders et al., 2005). Given
that one of the disadvantages of qualitative research is that it is subjective (ie. result in subjective
findings), rigid forms of analysis can be used to enhance the dependability of findings. To

Page | 28
enhance the objectivity of the analysis and ultimately the findings of this research, triangulation
(ie. use of information from the literature review chapter) and references to some of the theories
and models discussed is used to interpret the results from the application of CDA and textual
analysis.
Generalizability is mainly concerned with the degree to which a research’s findings can
be applied to other scenarios. Given the rigor of the analysis, the results of this research offer a
useful lens for understanding how communications can be used to influence public perceptions.
Furthermore, the results of this research can be used to show how crisis management fits into
public relations and reputation management.
3.5 Limitations of the Research
When conducting a research, there is potential for encountering certain difficulties or
challenges. These challenges are also referred to as ‘limitations’. They are limitations because
the can affect the research process. In addition, they can affect the validity and reliability of a
research’s findings (Bryman & Bell, 2011). One of the main limitations of this research is the
inability of the researcher to conduct face-to-face interviews with PR practitioners to get their
perspective of British Petroleum’s management of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill crisis from a PR
perspective. Such interviews would have generated additional useful information for the
research. In absence of the interviews, the research relied on information in the public domain.
To compensate for the lack of these interviews, the researcher ensures that the analysis of both
the primary and secondary data collected are as rigorous as possible to generate useful findings.
Another limitation of the research stems from the use of only the qualitative research
approach. As mentioned earlier whilst discussing the approach selected for the research, one of
the weaknesses of the qualitative approach is that it is subjective in nature, ie. dependent on the
researcher’s perspective or point of view. To address this particular gap, the researcher uses
triangulation during the analysis of data collected. In essence, results from the review of
literature are referenced during the interpretation of data collected for the research. The use of
triangulations contributes to making the research less subjective.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Before providing a definition of what ‘research ethics’ is, it is helpful to first understand
what ethics is. Ethics refers to professional norms of conduct that create a distinction between
what is right and what is wrong (Resnick, 2011). In many cases, different disciplines or
professions, have their own ethical standards that guide actions and behavior (Resnick, 2011).
Research ethics is mainly concerned with the rules or guidelines that a researcher is expected to
adhere to while conducting research (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Collis & Hussey (2003) refers
to research ethics as the code of conduct for carrying out research-related investigations or
inquiry.
Given that majority of the data collected for this research are collected from public
domains, the researcher that sources were appropriately referenced. The referencing style used is
the Harvard referencing style. In addition, given that particular attention is devoted to the content
of communication both from BP and other stakeholders, careful attention is devoted to ensuring

Page | 29
that any information presented is not falsified or distorted. This helps to enhance the validity and
reliability of findings for the research.

Page | 30
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, attention is devoted to addressing and critiquing the public relations
approaches used by British Petroleum (BP) to manage negative perceptions stemming from the
Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In carrying out this critique, content analysis and critical Discourse
analysis is used. Furthermore, some of BP’s press releases in the days and weeks following the
deepwater horizon accident are subjected to analysis using established PR models. At the end of
the discussions in this chapter, a summary of the main findings of the research is presented.
These findings are used to develop the conclusion chapter of the research. At this point, it is
essential to present an overview of Gulf of Mexico oil spill. This overview then forms the
context for the other discussions conducted in this chapter.
4.2 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Background
10% to 32% rise in volume when compared to the previous largest, the lxtoc 1 oil spill (BBC
News, 2012). Following the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, a sea-floor
oil gusher flowed for a period of 87 days. In fact, the United States Government contended that
an estimated total discharge of 5 million barrels flowed from the leak (Weber, 2010). The effect
of the spill on marine in the area was both palpable and incalculable. Juhasz (2012) notes that as
a result of three-month long spill, along with the adverse impacts of response and cleanup
efforts, large scale damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and
human health concerns have continued through to 2014 (see Figure 1).
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill led to national and global outrage, most of which was
directed at BP, the company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon rig. This event significantly
disrupted BP’s operations which ultimately resulted in significant financial loss. In 2012, BP and
the US Government came to a settlement for federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to
11 counts of manslaughter, 2 misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned BP from new contracts with the US
Government (Thompson, 2012). In the same year, BP and the US Department of Justice agreed
to a record-setting US$4.25 billion in fines and other penalties (Muskal, 2013). In addition, as at
February 2013, BP incurred a cost of US$43 billion as a result of criminal and civil settlements
and payments to a trust fund (Fontevecchia, 2013). The financial loss also includes the cost of
BP’s response to the crisis. In fact, BP (2013) notes that the cost of sealing the oil rig
permanently and for cleanup activities was about US$14 billion. In the crisis response phase, BP
conducted a series of press conferences to update the public on the status of efforts as regards the
complex activity of curbing the leak; this was in addition to being involved in the cleanup effort,
i.e. containment, collection and the use of dispersants. Before critiquing BP’s response to the oil

Page | 31
spill disaster, it is essential to highlight the effects of the oil spill, together with identifying the
key stakeholders in this disaster.
4.2.1 The Effects of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
It is necessary to highlight some of the main effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. This
is important because it will form the context for identifying the principal stakeholders that BP is
accountable to following the oil spill disaster. While several studies are under way to determine
the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Gulf of Mexico, the degree and severity of
these effects and the value of the resulting losses cannot fully be measured without considering
the commodities and services provided by the Gulf (National Research Council, 2012). At the
moment, state and federal agencies are utilizing a process called the ‘Natural Resources Damage
Assessment’ which is authorized under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (National Research
Council, 2012). In addition to the environmental impacts stemming from the oil spill disaster,
there are also individual and economic effects that equally demand consideration. Among the
effects of the oil spill are: impact on livelihoods; impact on coastal wetlands; impact on marine
mammals; and impact on the deep sea.
In terms of the impact on livelihoods, the oil spill has affected the fisheries industry in the
United States. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012), fishery
closures reduced commercial production by 20%, which created an immediate economic
hardship for fishermen. The spill also contributed to increased public concerns concerning the
safety of Gulf seafood, ie. poisoning. Furthermore, EPA (2012) notes that as a result of the toxic
effects of the oil spill, the productivity of fish populations would be affected for a significant
period of time. This could have far-reaching implications on jobs in the fishing industry.
Regarding the impact of the oil spill on marine mammals, dolphin populations have been
affected in the Gulf of Mexico. Dolphins provide scientific, cultural, and recreational services in
the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Since the oil spill in 2010, over 800 bottlenose dolphin deaths have
been recorded (EPA, 2012). This could also affect the hospitality industry in communities whose
coastal areas transverse the Gulf of Mexico.
The deep sea is the largest yet least well-appreciated region of the Gulf of Mexico,
making it challenging to ascertain the total effect of the oil spill on ecosystem services. Among
the services derived from the deep sea are pollution attenuation by hydrocarbon-degrading
microbes, and nutrient recycling, which supports much of the marine biodiversity at all depths in
the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (National Research Council, 2012). Based on the issues discussed in
this section, it is clear that the oil spill has led to both environmental and economic effects. At
this point, it essential to identify the stakeholders in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Having
provided an overview of the oil spill, the stakeholders of the oil spill are as follows: communities
in the coastal areas traversing the Gulf; the US fisheries industry; the government; environmental
groups; and the public (see Figure 1). These stakeholders form the people that BP is responsible
to and as such, their perspectives are taken into consideration whilst examining BP’s response to
the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Page | 32
Figure 1: Stakeholders of British Petroleum
Figure 1 highlights the main stakeholders of BP. On a more specific note, the relevant
stakeholders in the oil spill disaster are as follows: fishermen living off the sea; inhabitants of
affected coastal states; the US government; media; families of employees who lost their lives in
the accident (specific public); shareholders; and environmentalists. Consequently, in addition to
addressing the concerns of the general public, BP must device more specific measures for
addressing the unique concerns of the aforementioned relevant stakeholders in the oil spill
disaster. Given the magnitude of the disaster, there is need to consider the varying perspectives
of specific publics. These perspectives and concerns ought to be taken into consideration by BP
in its response –action and communication- to the crisis. The specific publics discussed are the
following: fishermen; BP shareholders; inhabitants of affected coastal states; environmentalists;
and the US Government.
Stakeholder Perspectives of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Fishermen:
Fish, crab and fish farmers have described the disaster as the worst for the fishing
industry according to Matt O’Brien, owner of Tiger Pass Seafood (New York Times, 2011). The
US Chamber of Commerce (2011) reported that it would take years for the US fishing industry to
recover. The impact on jobs and livelihoods of communities in the coastal states impacted appear
dire according the US Chamber of Commerce (2011). According to the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (2012), fishery closures reduced commercial production by 20%,
which created an immediate economic hardship for fishermen.

Research-Public Relations and Crisis Management -Case Study of BP's Response to Deepwater Horizon Accident

Research-Public Relations and Crisis Management -Case Study of BP's Response to Deepwater Horizon Accident

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Research-Public Relations and Crisis Management -Case Study of BP's Response to Deepwater Horizon Accident

Similar to Research-Public Relations and Crisis Management -Case Study of BP's Response to Deepwater Horizon Accident (20)

More from Gerald Ogoko

More from Gerald Ogoko (15)

Research-Public Relations and Crisis Management -Case Study of BP's Response to Deepwater Horizon Accident