One of my ongoing projects is analyzing the relationship between corporate rhetoric and behavior.  One of my hypothesis is that when a corporation engages in significant amounts of rhetoric, there is an increased likelihood that the rhetoric will influence corporate behavior because by building its reputation around the rhetoric, the corporation or rather corporate decision makers will feel some obligation to conform corporate behavior to that rhetoric and even shape corporate policy to be in tune with the rhetoric.

BP appears to negate that hypothesis--and with tragic consequences.  Indeed, the company adopted what seemed to me an aggressive marketing strategy seeking to define itself as socially and environmentally responsible.  In fact not just its commercials, but also the company’s website, annual report and sustainability report are saturated with rhetoric about its responsibility and the importance of translating its values into action.  Yet the allegations of BP’s behavior in Texas—and not merely the tragic accident itself, but rather allegations that the company ignored significant safety problems at the plant—discredit any notion that BP felt any behavioral allegiance to its rhetoric.  (Although one could argue that it was not BP but certain officers at BP that were out of step with the rhetoric).  Nevertheless, those allegations seem to confirm the common intuition that corporate rhetoric of responsibility is just a marketing ploy with no impact on behavior.

| Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8356dc23769e2

Links to weblogs that reference BP and the Rhetoric of Responsibility: