In April 2010, BP found itself at the center of one of the largest environmental disasters in history—the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. While the company faced enormous legal challenges and financial penalties, it was its mishandling of public relations during the crisis that compounded its troubles. BP’s litigation PR strategy was not only ineffective but also contributed to the long-term reputational damage and legal complications that followed.
The Disaster Unfolds
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which occurred off the coast of Louisiana, resulted in millions of barrels of crude oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico for months, devastating marine life, local economies, and ecosystems. The scale of the environmental damage and the loss of life was staggering, but the legal implications were even greater. BP was facing lawsuits from government agencies, environmental groups, local businesses, and individuals, all seeking compensation for the damages caused by the spill.
Despite the gravity of the situation, BP’s response to both the crisis and the litigation that followed was marked by a series of PR missteps. These errors not only caused immediate public outrage but also complicated the company’s legal defense, resulting in billions of dollars in fines, settlements, and legal fees.
The Role of Litigation PR in the BP Crisis
BP’s litigation PR team was tasked with managing the media narrative, guiding public opinion, and mitigating the legal consequences of the disaster. Unfortunately, the company’s PR strategy was woefully misaligned with the severity of the situation. Here are several ways in which BP mishandled the PR aspect of the disaster:
- Underestimating the Scale of the Disaster: From the outset, BP downplayed the scale of the spill. CEO Tony Hayward famously said in an interview, “I want my life back,” which quickly became one of the most criticized statements in PR history. At a time when the public was horrified by the images of oil-covered wildlife and polluted shores, Hayward’s comment appeared callous and out of touch with the gravity of the situation. His lack of empathy and failure to communicate the company’s commitment to environmental recovery exacerbated public anger.
- Lack of Transparency: Transparency is a cornerstone of effective litigation PR, yet BP consistently failed to provide accurate, up-to-date information about the situation. In the early days of the spill, BP’s statements were evasive, and they were slow to admit the full extent of the disaster. The company initially claimed that only 5,000 barrels of oil were leaking per day, when in fact the actual figure was much higher. This lack of transparency led to further erosion of public trust, which made it more difficult for BP to manage media coverage and mitigate the legal fallout.
- Failure to Apologize Sincerely: Apologies are a key component of litigation PR, particularly in cases of corporate negligence. A genuine, heartfelt apology can go a long way in diffusing public anger and rebuilding trust. BP’s apology, however, lacked sincerity and failed to resonate with the public. The company’s initial attempts to address the situation seemed more focused on protecting its financial interests than on showing empathy for the affected communities. BP’s eventual apology, issued months after the spill, came across as a legal necessity rather than a heartfelt expression of remorse.
- The Inconsistent Message: BP’s communications were inconsistent and contradictory. At different points during the crisis, the company’s spokespeople sent mixed messages about the steps being taken to contain the spill and the timeline for recovery. Some BP officials minimized the environmental damage, while others admitted that the company was struggling to stop the leak. The lack of a coordinated, consistent message only fueled public confusion and frustration.
The Legal Fallout and Reputation Damage
BP’s PR blunders were not limited to its communications with the public. The company’s mishandling of litigation PR also had significant legal consequences. BP’s defense attorneys were forced to contend with an avalanche of negative media coverage, which created an environment where jury pools were tainted, and public opinion was overwhelmingly against the company. In the end, BP was held responsible for the spill and agreed to a record-breaking settlement with the U.S. government, amounting to $20 billion in environmental fines and penalties.
The PR missteps also resulted in long-term reputational damage. BP’s brand, once synonymous with energy innovation and corporate responsibility, became a symbol of environmental negligence and corporate greed. The company struggled for years to restore its image, and despite some efforts to improve its environmental practices, the public’s perception of BP remained tainted.
The BP oil spill serves as a stark reminder of how litigation PR can either mitigate or exacerbate a crisis. BP’s failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster, its lack of transparency, and its insincere apology all contributed to the company’s legal and reputational struggles. Effective litigation PR requires a company to be empathetic, transparent, and consistent, especially when dealing with a crisis of such magnitude. Unfortunately for BP, its PR mismanagement during the Deepwater Horizon spill only made a bad situation worse.
Ronn Torossian founded 5WPR, a leading PR agency.
