The attempts of BP to transform itself by moving away from a primary focus on oil and a greater emphasis on “alternative energy sources” was severely disrupted when an explosion that fines (Case Study). The appointment of a new chief executive, Tony Hayward, sought on paper to make changes to the organization that would create new and safer opportunities for the organization; however, no real actions were taken in this regard to strengthen the organization’s reputation to the public and its governing regulatory bodies (Case Study).
In addition, BP was in a difficult position due to the shutdown in Alaska for a leaky pipeline which led to additional fines (Case Study). A reset towards improved safety was promised by the organization to ensure that its future operations were deemed more effective and safe to the environment and for human activity; however, further evaluations did not demonstrate any real changes in how the organization responded to these differences (Case Study). The strategy associated with cost containment was a significant driver in its ability to be productive and to embark upon a new era of safety; furthermore, the explosion, subsequent fatalities, and spill of massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico were significant and further demonstrated the organization’s lack of cohesivity and strength in following through on its promises to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and to those affected by their actions in the United States and around th world (Case Study).
The organization said the right words in the public eye, but its actions were more suspect and created challenges that it could not easily overcome, as it continued to spread the blame to other people and organizations and did not want to assume full responsibility for its actions at its refineries throughout the world (Case Study). BP appeared to be in a state of denial and could not recover from one incident after another, thereby creating new difficulties that could have been prevented had it followed through on its promises. In this context, there are many issues to consider in regards to BP’s ability to make amends with its customers, critics, and regulatory agencies, thereby creating a difficult workplace environment with little room for improvement in its current state.
BP has lost its reputation for “integrity” in the United States and cannot add any additional drilling licenses there, and this demonstrates the serious nature of the violations that BP is facing and how these might continue to impact its future in different ways. These issues require further analysis and consideration because BP did not attempt to move forward with changes in its current practices and did not appear to take their fines and the actions that led up to these charges seriously. It was necessary for the organization to consider possible solutions to its problems that could have a positive impact on the organization moving forward and which could gradually restore its reputation as best as possible, given the lack of expansion that was available to them in the United States.
The role of BP in establishing a new culture of safety was of critical importance in addressing some of the most pressing challenges at the organization, and this required an understanding of its faults and its overall lack of support and enthusiasm for improving its safety practices. A culture of safety is not established overnight and requires multiple key stakeholders to commit to these practices and to determine the best possible options that are available to support and strengthen its practices from a safety perspective (Tabibzadeh & Meshkati, 2015). These efforts are critical in advancing key operations and in recognizing the demand for increased services and oversight from a long-term perspective to ensure that BP will transform its practices and make a difference in the lives of its employees, customers, and the surrounding environment in many different ways.