Corporate Social Responsibility Congruence - Walking the Talk

p>The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by theefforts and is giving BP a black eye. Oil and gas
rupture of one of British Petroleum's off-shore oil rigsexploration is a risky business, but if you would like to
has been front page news for some time now. Thebe seen as a "greener", more socially responsible
scope of the disaster is such that it is expected toenergy company than your competition, perhaps you
surpass the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in termsshould be prepared to take more care mitigating
of the quantity of oil spilled. Hundreds of thousandsthose risks than the competition. Not only does BP
of barrels of oil have been spewed into the gulf as aseem to be more aggressive in the risks they take,
result of the rupture of their well with much more oilthey also seem to be extremely unfortunate in
threatening to follow. The current attempt to capterms of the results. Their employees especially
the spillage by sinking a dome over top of theseem to be at risk when BP tries to cut corners with
ruptured well has met with challenges in part becausesafety. Their record setting fine in Texas was not
they are working at a depth of 1500 metres andfor the accidental explosion but for safety measures
must position the dome with robots and remotethat they had violated. It is still not clear what caused
cameras. They have also been challenged by a buildthe Gulf accident but we can speculate that there
up of gases in the dome which prevent the siphoningwas more than one cause and that one of the
off of the oil.causes was a failure of the equipment that should
The explosion that ripped the system of valves andhave cut off the oil after the well exploded.
shutoffs from the head of the well was responsibleThe impression one gets from looking at the record
for the deaths of 11 of the workers on the platformof the company is of a Doctor Jekyll and Mister
at the time of the explosion. Things have goneHyde. One arm of the company is focused on making
down-hill for BP since then. They have been criticizedprofits from their oil and gas exploration endeavours,
for the lack of immediate response to the disaster.whatever the costs while the other is focused on
BP claims that the owner of the drilling rig should beargreen initiatives such as cutting their CO2 emissions
some of the responsibility - BP rents the platformand investing in alternate energy sources. They
from a company specializing in providing theseappear to be successful in both areas, if you
platforms to companies like BP who use them to drilloverlook their accident record for the moment.
for oil. They also claim that preventative action wasBringing the two sides together though, seems to be
hindered by their attempts to rescue the 11 workers.a challenge they aren't up to. Their investors don't
An attempt was made to discover the whereaboutsknow what to make of their efforts either. Their
of the 11 but they were never found.shares have not gained since 2000 while their
The human tragedy stands at 11 deaths but the fullcompetitions share prices have soared with the
affect the spilled oil is having on the environment hasincreases in oil prices.
not been felt yet. The oil that is gushing from theWhen a speaker gives out conflicting messages - a
well is heading towards the mouth of the Mississippiverbal message saying one thing but body language
River where it will undoubtedly kill the marine wildlifedelivering a different message, we say there is no
native to that area. The area affected by the spill is"congruence". This seems to be the case with BP.
a commercial fishing area for crab, shrimp, andTheir CSR efforts are delivering one message but
oysters. Fleets of fishing boats in the Louisianatheir safety track record is delivering another. One
coastal area have already been idled by the spill andalmost gets the impression that CSR has no role to
the affect of the spill on the shell fish is unknown atplay in the oil and gas exploration projects the
this point.company undertakes. If BP wants to recover from
This is not the first time that BP has found itself inthis PR nightmare, they need to establish congruence
the news, being portrayed in an unfavourable light. Inbetween their CSR message and their projects. Each
2001 BP paid a $10M USD fine for violation of cleanproject needs to establish its own CSR goals and
air laws for pollution at 8 of its refineries. BP pledgedobjectives and these need to be prioritized against
to spend $500M USD on upgrades to its pollutionthe monetary goals and objectives of the project.
control methods. In 2005 an explosion at one of itsRisks to these goals and objectives should be
Texas refineries killed 15 people. BP was fined $87Mmitigated with vigour equal to the mitigation
USD by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Healthstrategies used for risks to profit related goals and
Administration, the largest fine of its kind up to thatobjectives. Establishing congruence between their
time. In 2006 their Prudhoe Bay operations wereCSR policies and their projects may reduce the
found to have leaked more than 1 million litres ofnumber and type of projects they undertake, but
crude oil due to corroded pipelines. The governmentshould increase their credibility with the societies they
forced BP to replace 26 km of its pipelines to ensuredo business in and eventually with their share holders.
that there would be no further leaks.BP may also want to take a page from the Risk
BP launched a massive CSR (Corporate SocialManagement playbook of the financial industry. This
Responsibility) campaign in 2000, spending overmay sound strange in light of the recent debacle but
$200M USD in an attempt to rebrand itself as athe financial and insurance industries are proponents
socially responsible energy producer. They markedof Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) which places
the rebranding with a new tagline: Beyond Petroleum.responsibility for managing risk at both the board and
They made efforts to cut their CO2 emissions tomanagement levels. The board is responsible for
back up their CSR public relationships efforts and bydefining the risk "appetite" of the corporation which in
2002 they had succeeded in reducing emissions toturn gives direction to management in terms of how
10% below 1990 levels. This accomplishment actuallyto manage risk. Actually, the Committee of Steering
exceeded goals set forth by the Kyoto Protocol.Organizations (COSO) makes this definition a dual
They also invested in alternate energy sources andresponsibility: the board and management must work
became the 3rd largest maker of solar panels in thetogether to arrive at a definition. It seems to me
world.that taking a similarly holistic view of CSR and risk
There seems to be a massive gap between the talkmight benefit BP. Identifying CSR goals and
and the walk at BP. While their achievements in theobjectives with each project and then defining the
area of CO2 reduction and alternate energyBP appetite for risks to those goals and objectives
development should not be discounted, their trackwould make their approach more congruent.
record with drilling safety counter-balances these