Strategic Change for Revival in BP

BPs management must consider bringing about strategic change to revive the company due to its poor reputation and brand image following past environmental damage and worker hazards. The need for change is driven by internal and external factors, including compliance with government policies, compensation for losses incurred during the oil spillage incident, and the implementation of innovations to develop business operations that are environmentally friendly. To achieve this, BP should implement Lewin's three-phase planned change model, consisting of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing, to ensure a smooth transition and promote internalization of new behaviors among employees.

CASE STUDY 1
CASE STUDY: BP’s STRATEGIC CHANGE INITIATIVE
Student’s Name:
Institution’s Name:
Course Title:
Date of Submission:

CASE STUDY 2
Introduction
Change is quite natural in the context of organizational management. It has been
proven again and again that change is the primary constant in the sphere of organizational
management. In this respect it should be noted that change can be of many types, including
strategic and operation, but whatever might be the genre of change, it must be noted that it
should be managed strategically in a way in which it aligns with the goals and objectives of
the organization in a thorough manner. This report is going to discuss about the management
of strategic change that should be ushered in the realm of British Petroleum in order to obtain
competitive advantage. How the Company has been in need of introducing change should be
discussed along with the need for managing such strategic change in both the short- and long-
run.
Company Background
British Petroleum (BP), an energy company, is one of the world’s leading oil and gas
companies, having its headquarters at London, UK. The Company provide customers with
fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, lubricants for keeping engines moving, and
petrochemical products that are used for making everyday items including paints, clothes, and
packaging (BP Global, 2018). The Company operates in more than seventy countries
worldwide and it finds and produces oil and gas on land and offshore (BP Global, 2018). The
Company also manufactures and markets fuels and raw materials that are used in the making
thousands of everyday products ranging from mobile phones to food packaging (BP Global,
2018). About seventy five thousand BP people work day and night to serve millions of
customers who are in need of energy in different forms and due to the reach and incredible
human resources that BP has emerged as a Company among very few companies that are
equipped with innovation and technologies to deliver light, heat and mobility on a scale that

CASE STUDY 3
is global in nature (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). But despite of having such a reputation,
BP is also known to the world for its ill-repute in respect of its aversion in preventing
mishaps like oil spillage while drilling (The Ocean Portal Team, 2017). British Petroleum oil
spill in the Mexico Gulf is still considered to be the largest and worst oil spill accident in the
history of petroleum industry and it is the ill-reputation gained from such event that has
forced the Company to bring about strategic changes and manage the same to keep its hold on
the market. The oil spill of 2010 killed eleven people and injured seventeen people and in
addition it severely affected the marine life in the Gulf of Mexico causing marine
environmental damage and ecological imbalance, which, in turn, affected lives of millions
(Amadeo, 2018).
The Need of Implementation of Strategic Change to Impact Positively on the
Environmental and Leadership Policies
Since the incident of oil spillage, the management of BP is faced with several legal,
social, and economic challenges. Though the spillage disaster had been gradually tamed and
brought under control, the Company is still trying to revive from its drastic downfall that
occurred (as is still impacting) since 2010 (Ebinger, 2016). To gain the competitive edge, BP
must now indulge in bringing some strategic changes that would help the Company’s
management in keeping its hold over the global market. On BP’s risk register the requirement
of indulging in the formulation of an innovative environmental policy should have been given
a high priority and that is one primary reason why the Company is eyeing at ushering and
managing some specific strategic changes. Though considered on a cost-benefit basis, the
management strategy of BP should now be changed in order to bring about sustainability and
to regain the lost market reputation. The costs to rectify the grim outcomes of the spillage did
involve the Company in the process of spending billions in trying to contain the spill and this
did put the Company in utter financial trouble (Grush, 2015). The Company did pledge

CASE STUDY 4
millions for an open investigation into the spill and for researching in better ways about the
tracking of oil spills with innovative technologies. The disaster did cost BP a reduction in
market value and it contributed to the rapid reduction in its share prices. Such events
eventually have become the reasons of stakeholders’ dissatisfaction and the degree of such
dissatisfaction has made the Company more vulnerable to organizational change. Moreover,
the litigations brought against the Company by different types of stakeholders have also
forced the management of the Company to think about bringing strategic changes to address
the problems and to formulate a better environmental policy. It should be noted that being a
public corporation, BP has the responsibility and ethical obligation to fulfil some major duties
to both internal and external stakeholders and to the society as a whole. This is needed on the
part of the Company to regain its lost reputation and trust on the part of stakeholders. It must
be noted that investigation reports revealed that BP did not give much importance to
employee safety and to job safety related issues (Elkind, Whitford & Burke, 2011). This
caused the disaster and triggered the related losses. It was revealed through investigation
reports that the Company tried to cover up the extent of damage by refraining from providing
relevant data and information to the government and to the public. Furthermore, the
Company’s wrong policies affected the marine environment in a thorough manner and this
further triggered the need of ushering strategic changes in BP’s operational policies too.
It must be noted that in order to avoid future disasters the Company’s management
has to bring about strategic changes in leadership policies too. The management of the
Company has understood by now that though deep drilling is already ingrained with some
potential risks, a strong leadership is required to keep the risks at bay. Lack of proper
leadership also contributed greatly to the disaster that put the reputation and market position
of the Company at stake for both the short- and long-term (“BP Gulf Coast Disaster and
Recovery”, n.d.). The need of good leadership in terms of providing training on safety

CASE STUDY 5
measures has also been felt by the Company’s management. It should also be noted that the
management has also understood that enhancing leadership in deepwater drilling is the need
of the hour and for bringing such enhancements more training and development programs
should be introduced and implemented. It must be noted that “Enhancing leadership in deep-
water drilling procedures will certainly effect in more well organized procedures, improved
safety, superior job satisfaction, and minimized cost over the long term, pledging the
capability to supply energy profitability and safely far into the future” (Karatay, 2013). BP’s
negligence of the safety measures and risk mitigation strategies resulted in the oil spillage,
and this time the management must ensure that such mistakes are not repeated again.
Moreover, being non-compliant with laws of the land, BP’s management did put the
Company’s future at stake during the process of hiding the facts and truths from the
government and the internal and external stakeholders. This time the Company must indulge
in the implementation of a leadership style that would ensure compliance and would make
sure that the Company is running towards an ethical direction in terms of business operations.
Why strategic change is important for BP is due to the fact that it is time for the management
to establish a leadership regime that would ensure that the organization is transparent to its
stakeholders and the Company is working towards building and achieving stakeholders’ trust
and faith. The leadership would ensure that owing to the implementation of the change
process the management of the Company would be able to engage the stakeholders in the
process of building organizational sustainability and securing competitive advantage.
Moreover, as Senge has pointed out (as cited in Karatay, 2013) “BP needs to develop
significant change management strategies to gain competitive advantage to deal with the
challenging external and internal market pressures.”
Implementation of Strategic Change Management

CASE STUDY 6
Before discussing about how BP should implement the process of strategic change
and manage the same it is needed to know what change management actually is. Change
management “is a generic process applicable to all kinds of organizations, which uses
knowledge and skills to bring about substantial organizational change to improve
effectiveness and efficiency” (Karatay, 2013). Moreover, it should be noted that “Change
may be required due to an outdated organizational structure, poor responsiveness to clients,
technological change, a merger, or an appropriate organizational culture (Karatay, 2013).
Change management is a concept that has received much attention from both the practitioner
and scholar communities across the globe. It must be noted that change, being the only
constant in the sphere of organizational growth and development, must be managed in a
proper manner to enjoy its effectiveness and benefits. Today, leadership and management
both must join hand in hand in the process of contributing to the development of a proper
change management process and system that would help an organization in ushering those
strategic changes that are needed to secure competitive advantages (Augustine, 1995). It
should be taken into account that strategic change management, in particular, is a well-
planned process. It is a process of managing change in a way which can be deemed
structured, thoughtful and ordered, having goals and objectives that align with organizational
goals and objectives, mission and vision.
Lessons Learnt from the Review about the Management of Change
There are different reasons for bringing change into the operation and management
sphere of BP. Changes like customs change, business process engineering, empowerment and
total quality, branding, reputation are often the reason of change in many organizations and
for BP it is due to enhancing the reputation and brand image of the Company that BP’s
management should think about bringing strategic change for revival. BP had the need to
change because it had bitter experience of controversies regarding past business practices that

CASE STUDY 7
eventually caused environmental damage and it has to bring about change to alleviate the
degree of risks of hazards to workers. BP has to opt for ushering strategic change to ensure
that its future business practices and operations would be environment-friendly and the
Company must ensure such environment-friendly practices through investments in renewable
energy and support of ethics and to processes that would make the Company more compliant
with rules, laws and regulations. British Petroleum now has to usher strategic change to make
sure that it is a Company that is looking beyond profit-making and looking forward to
enhance its corporate responsibility performance in a sustainable manner. Strategic change is
needed in BP because it has to adapt to changes that are occurring in the business sphere in
which the Company operates. There is need for change because there are internal and
external development factors to be met in a thorough manner. It must be noted that the ill-
reputation that BP has gained through the oil spillage incident in the past has actually made
the competition difficult than the past and now the Company has to share and gain
competitive advantage over its competitors because now it is time for BP to learn to change
to meet the stakeholders’ demands in a more thorough manner. The strategic change is
essential for PB because it needs to adapt to the changes and it has to transform itself into a
greener company that is more concerned with corporate social responsibility (CSR) than only
profit-making. The change is needed for the management of BP to evaluate and understand
what exactly is needed by the stakeholders and how such needs can be actually met. A
PESTEL analysis if BP is needed to understand why strategic change has become so much
essential for the Company. From the perspective of political needs if judged, it can be seen
that BP needs to bring about change to become more complaints with government policies,
taxation policies, foreign trade regulations and social welfare policies. From the economic
perspective it can be seen that the Company needs to enhance its business cycles, GNP
trends, and it has to compensate for the losses it has accrued through the event of oil spillage.

CASE STUDY 8
From the socio-cultural perspective it has been observed that BP needs to bring about change
after analyzing the demands and likes and dislikes of the stakeholders. The external
stakeholders must be appeased and the internal stakeholders must be conveyed that the
Company has been on the verge of changing into a greener and more environment-friendly
Company. From the technological perspective, when judged, it can be seen that BP is in need
of implementing innovations to develop its business operations. And to develop innovative
business operations, it is imperative to bring about strategic changes to the organization.
From the environmental perspective it should be said that the Company needs to usher the
strategic changes in order to ensure that it complies with the laws that uphold and promote
the ‘go-green’ movement. The Company needs to be more environment-friendly in its
approach towards dealing with the business operations that are likely to have impact on the
surrounding environment and ecology. The spillage did cost dearly to the ecology and to the
marine environment and moreover, it did affect the business of BP worldwide. Hence,
considering the need of rebuilding its market reputation and regaining its market hold, BP
now needs to usher changes in environmental policies. Finally, when judged from the legal
perspective it can be found that BP needs to usher strategic changes to overcome the
legislative constraints that it had to face due to the spillage. The Company has to be more
compliant with health and safety legislations and this would overcome the barriers to the
Company’s initiatives in establishing joint ventures or collaborations with other companies
within the industry.
Conclusion
It has to be understood that change is the primary constant in the business spheres. To adapt
to the ever-changing needs of the environment, of the society, of the economy and of the
legislations, BP has to encourage and implement the process of strategic change. It has to
usher and manage strategic change to regain its reputation and market hold. The Company

CASE STUDY 9
has already incurred loss due to getting involved in the spillage disaster, and now it is high
time for BP to ensure proper implementation of change policies that would help the Company
in regaining the competitive edge that it had lost.
BP should usher change and it should do so through the implementation of Lewin’s three
phases of planned change model. Lewin’s change model is constituted of three phases, viz.
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing (). BP’s top management should employ the model in
order to bring about change. The management must first unfreeze the entire organization and
its members by creating a need for change through analysis of current situation (which is in
this regard the ill-reputed phased faced as an outcome of the oil spillage). The management
should create a self need by introducing the strategies for involvement, disconfirming
information etc (). Moreover, the management should develop change leaders who would be
able to manage change and prevent resistance to change. Then, after completing the
unfreezing phase, the management should move on to the changing or moving phase where it
should implement new systems of operation meant for ensuring worker safeguard and safety
means. It is through the process of providing safety trainings that the company’s management
should try to help the employees in learning new attitudes and behaviours. Finally, the
management should indulge in the process of refreezing in which the leadership should
implement positive reinforcement of desired outcomes in order to promote internalization of
new behaviours learnt on the part of the employees through receiving trainings. The
leadership then should evaluate
• Refreezing
– positive reinforcement of desired outcomes to promote internalization of new
behaviours.
– evaluation to ensure new ways habitualised.

CASE STUDY 10
References
Amadeo, K. (2018). BP Gulf Oil Spill: Facts, Economic Impact. The Balance. Retrieved
February 24, 2018, from https://www.thebalance.com/bp-gulf-oil-spill-facts-
economic-impact-3306212
Augustine, N.R. (1995). Managing the Crisis You Tried to Prevent. Crisis Management.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from
https://hbr.org/1995/11/managing-the-crisis-you-tried-to-prevent
BP Global (2018). BP at a glance. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/bp-at-a-glance.html
BP Gulf Coast Disaster and Recovery (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2018, from
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/053846738X_246856.docx
Ebinger, C.K. (2016). 6 years from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill: What we’ve learned,
and what we shouldn’t misunderstand. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2016/04/20/6-years-from-the-bp-

CASE STUDY 11
deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-what-weve-learned-and-what-we-shouldnt-
misunderstand/
Elkind, P., Whitford, D., & Burke, D. (2011). BP: ‘An accident waiting to happen’. Fortune.
Retrieved February 13, 2018, from http://fortune.com/2011/01/24/bp-an-accident-
waiting-to-happen/
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2018). BP PLC. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/BP-PLC
Grush, L. (2012). BP fined a record $20.8 billion for oil spill disaster. Retrieved February 24,
2018, from https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9454393/bp-oil-spill-record-fine-
doj-settlement
Karatay, M.O. (2013). What Change Management Strategies Can Be Undertaken By British
Petroleum after Undertaking Strategic Analysis to Help Them Gain Competitive
Advantage. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from
https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/d791sg676/Thesis_Karatay.pdf
The Ocean Portal Team (2017). Gulf Oil Spill. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from
http://ocean.si.edu/gulf-oil-spill