BP CASE STUDY

ANALYSIS
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

Conclusion
COMPANY OVERVIEW

 One of the world's leading international oil and gas companies; providing
customers with fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, retail services
and petrochemicals products for everyday items

 The BP group operates across six continents, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe,
North America and South America and its products and services are available in
more than 80 countries. The values, the code of conduct under which the
company operate and the BP brand define what the company stands for and how
they run the business

 BP wants to be recognised as a great company – competitively successful and a

force for progress. Their fundamental belief is that they can make a difference in
the world

 BP helps the world meet its growing need for heat, light and mobility and strive
to do that by producing energy that is affordable, secure and doesn’t damage
the environment

 Hydrogen testing and exploration is a major strategic effort and this has been
approached in partnership with several stakeholders
COMPANY OVERVIEW

QUICK FACTS & FIGURES

Sales and other operating revenues $297,107 million (year 2010)

Replacement cost profit $4,519 million (year 2010)

Number of employees 79,700 (at 31 Dec 2010)

Proved reserves 18,071 million barrels of oil equivalent

Retail sites 22,100

Upstream Active in 29 countries

Refineries (wholly or partly owned) 14

Refining throughput 2,426 barrels per day (year 2010)

SWOT ANALYSIS
Positive
Internal Factors External Factors
Strengths
 Dominant market position
 Vertically integrated operations
 Global presence
Opportunities
 New market trend for more fuel
efficient and environmentally
friendly vehicles
 Niche markets i.e. hydrogen buses
(hydrogen seen as the fuel of the
future)
 Increased mileage with hydrogen
fuel
 Absence of noise – reduction in
noise pollution
 Develop a solution for London’s
transport system – less vehicles
and emissions
 Improved Brand Image and Public
Perception
Negative
Weaknesses
 High project start-up costs
 New entrant into mature industry i.e. bus
transportation
 Poor brand management (on-going
controversies and public criticisms)
 Poor Corporate Responsibility image
Threats
 Hydrogen is expensive to create as well as
store, it is an explosive substance
 Hydrogen buses way more expensive than
traditional diesel buses – £800,000 and
£120,000 respectively
 Environmental regulations – only
hydrogen derived from renewable sources
is free of pollution
 Absence of noise – liable to create more
accidents
PESTEL ANALYSIS
CASE SUMMARY – KEY FACTS
CASE SUMMARY
STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS REQUIRED
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS / BARGAINING POWER
RESIDENTS PERSONAL SAFETY & PRESERVATION OF
COMMUNITY
POWER TO STALL THE PROJECT

REGULATORS SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC SAFETY

INFLUENCE OUTCOME & SPEED OF APPROVAL
PROCESS

MEDIA ADVANCING PUBLIC CONCERNS

STRONG INFLUENCERS OF PUBLIC OPINION

COUNCILLORS & POLITICIANS CONSTITUENTS AND RE-ELECTION

NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL PARTICIPATIONG IN EU
INITIATIVES

BP EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT & PR EFFECTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TEAM ENHANCING BP’S BRAND PERCEPTION
CASE SUMMARY – PROGRESS BY PHASE
CAUSE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
PR MANAGEMENT A MAJOR CONCERN
 The key forces impacting the project dictated the need for effective PR Management

 Any trial of a new Technology that came with public risk needed to be properly
communicated with supporting and convincing justification to alleviate public concerns

 Media coverage needed to be effectively managed to ensure the correct messages were
being delivered at every stage of the project; preventing any negative impact on the
company’s brand and project status

 BP’s role extended beyond capital funding, the company had access to the most relevant and
updated industry/product data that was needed by key stakeholders to make informed
decisions

Key Forces
KOTTER & SCHLESINGER (1979) – CHANGE MODEL
Kotter and Schlesinger suggests that there are four (4) reasons why people
resist change:
KOTTER & SCHLESINGER MODEL EXPLAINED
The Kotter and Schlesinger change model discusses six (6) Change
Approaches to prevent, decrease or minimize resistance to change:
CONSIDERATION OF LEWIN’S CHANGE MODEL
ANALYSIS OF KOTTER & SCHLESINGER MODEL TO CASE
ACTION LEARNING REFLECTIONS
What aspects went well….
 The Core Profile of the group was ‘ST’. The ‘ST’ trait is a common trait for most
managers which was very good for the group; we were all on the same page!
There is a preference for taking in information through the five senses and
observing what is actual. Rational analysis is used to achieve conclusions.
 We worked well to divide tasks while trusting each other’s judgment
 Members shared information and in return benefited from the knowledge and
experience of others

What aspects the group enjoyed….

 The Action Case was extremely challenging due to the time pressures; however,
the group enjoyed the case review
 There is now a greater appreciation of models and theories learnt in previous
modules now that they have been reviewed against a real-world situation for its
relevance
 Re-confirmation that our group dynamics remains stable at the “Performing”
stage and works well, even under pressure
ACTION LEARNING REFLECTIONS
Other reflections…..
In the Belbin’s model, there are eight team roles: Shaper (SH), Coordinator (CO),
Plant (PL), Resource Investigator (RI), Implementer (IMP), Team worker (TW),
Monitor/Evaluator (ME) and Completer/Finisher (CF)
The most preferred roles for the group were IMP and CF while PL and SH were the
least preferred as shown
Based on Belbin’s model, implementers do not produce good teams collectively.
Such a team would get full marks for organisation and effort, but it would be a bit
short on real ideas and once the team had a plan it would push it through at all
costs

Team Member Most preferred role(s) Least preferred role(s)

Jason Bowen IMP, CO PL, RI
Alison Browne-Ellis IMP, CF PL, SH
Carlo Goodman IMP, PL ME, CF
Sandra Payne IMP, CF PL, SH
Jacqui Redman CO, CF ME, TW
RECOMMENDATIONS
For BP to get the extension to planning permission in time to continue operation, the
company must address and change its Public Relations (communication) strategy.

Grunig and Hunte (1984) define public relations as "the management of communication
between an organisation and its publics". It is a strategic function and can render an
organization effective or ineffective.

Grunig's Four models of Public Relations

Model Name Type of Communication Model Characteristics

Press agentry/publicity One-way communication Uses persuasion and manipulation to influence

model audience to behave as the organization
desires
Public Information model One-way communication Uses press releases and other one-way
communication techniques to distribute
organizational information. Public relations
practitioner is often referred to as the
"journalist in residence.
One-way asymmetrical One-way communication Uses persuasion and manipulation to influence
model audience to behave as the organization
desires. Does not use research to find out how
it public(s> feel about the organization.

Two-way symmetrical Two-way communication Uses communication to negotiate with the

model public, resolve conflict, and promote mutual
understanding and respect between the
organisation and the public
ENHANCED PUBLIC RELATIONS MODEL
All future communication efforts need to be structured so that the messages are tailored to
specific target groups in order to ensure overall effectiveness of the project.

Due to the negativity associated with the project, moral suasion through key stakeholders will be
necessary. In line with Grunig’s PR Model, the enhanced PR strategy is being recommended to
mitigate further project impact. Additionally, as PR Consultant, our recommendation is for BP to
engage our services for a six (6) month period to guide the formulation of the new PR Strategy.
CONCLUSION
 Failure to render an integrated communications strategy resulted in the current project status

 Achieving public trust is critical in ensuring the success of the project due to the associated
perceived risk to the residents. This will go along way for future projects

 Adopting the recommended strategies will aid BP through this crisis stage and allow them to
achieve the planning extension to move the project forward
REFERENCES
BP Global. http://www.bp.com/bodycopyarticle.do?categoryId=1&contentId=7052055
(Accessed: 16 April 2011).

CUTE. http://grupoulisses.blogspot.com/ (Accessed: 16 April 2011).

Electric bus. http://www.tbus.org.uk/leeds.htm (Accessed: 16 April 2011).

Grunig’s model. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall99/Westbrook/models.htm

(Accessed: 16 April 2011).

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-best-bp-protest-signs/ (Accessed: 16 April

2011).

Hydrogen and fuel cells.

http://www.netinform.net/h2/h2stations/h2stationsdetail.aspx?id=51 (Accessed: 16
April 2011).

PESTEL http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/tools/pestle-swot (Accessed: 16 April 2011).