‘The BP is a great British company’: The discursive transformation of an environmental disaster into a national economic problem

BP

As one may expect, BP is the most salient social actor in the coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Primarily, it is represented as a collective by the term ‘BP’ and, secondarily, by the term ‘company’. In the US subcorpus, the number of occurrences is much smaller than in the British subcorpus, with 48 versus 101 occurrences for ‘BP’ and 7 versus 19 hits for ‘company’. Since the British subcorpus is only slightly larger than the US subcorpus (6358 vs 5263 words), this difference can only partly be attributed to the difference in size of the subcorpora.

In the US newspapers, BP is mainly activated and mostly regarding ‘material processes’ (Halliday, 1985), that is, processes of doing and happening, such as stopping the oil leak (for detailed discussion on grammatical participant roles, see Halliday, 1985; cf. Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999: 213; cf. Van Leeuwen, 1996). Second, activation is realized regarding ‘relational processes’ (Halliday, 1985), that is, processes that characterize or identify an actor. The company is depicted as ‘best equipped’ but still unable to control the leak, or in other ways as negative:

(1) The problem is that BP – not the federal government – is best placed and equipped to stop the leak, yet the challenges presented by the Macondo wellhead are so great that BP might be unable to make much headway until August. (US3)

(2) But rather than helping, being seen to make the effort to ‘make it easier for people to find out more about our efforts in the Gulf’ may make matters worse, by instead feeding a meme that BP is tone-deaf – more concerned with polishing its reputation than cleaning up its mess. (US5)

Excerpt (2) refers to the acquisition of online search terms by BP. This is interpreted as an attempt by the company to market their image rather than being helpful for the public as described in the quote of a BP spokesman in this excerpt. Overall, seven negative versus one case of positive ‘beneficialization’ (Van Leeuwen, 1996), which is the passivation of a social actor who forms a third party, show the negative impact of the scandal on the company.

Activation in the British newspapers is also mainly in relation to efforts of stopping the leak. In contrast to the US newspapers, activation is additionally regarding costs BP must face. Moreover, a more neutral word choice illustrates a somewhat milder attitude of the media toward the company. Compare Excerpts (1) and (3) from US newspapers with Excerpts (4) and (5) from British newspapers:

(3) Such admissions can haunt a company in court, but BP’s inability to apologize has hurt its ability to have an honest conversation, however difficult, with the public. (US5)

(4) Overall, BP has scooped around 368,000 barrels – 15.5m gallons – of oily liquid from the sea. (UK2)

(5) ‘We need to ensure that BP is not unfairly treated – it is not some bloodless corporation’, said one of Britain’s top fund managers. (UK5)

The comparison of the corporation with a human body through the metaphor in UK5 invokes the concept of ‘corporate personhood’ (e.g. Gibson, 2011; Shever, 2010; Walenta, 2015). According to Walenta (2015), the humanization of the corporate body ‘naturalize[s] the concept of corporate personhood imagined through a single, unified body’ (p. 557). The corporate body then offers corporate protection for individual bodies associated with it. In this context, the metaphor seems to be aimed at reminding people that the company is composed of individuals whose well-being depends on the company’s prosperity. This serves as the justification for the change of focus from BP as an agent in the disaster to passivized in the court of public opinion.

The British newspapers also activate BP more often regarding ‘verbal processes’ (Halliday, 1985), that is, processes of communication, thereby giving the impression that the company is a trustworthy source of information. This is highlighted by three instances in which BP is defined as ‘British’ and therefore as highly important for the British people and economy:

(6) He [former Labour minister Tom Watson] said last night: ‘BP is perhaps the most strategically important company for Britain and for UK pensioners …’. (UK5)

(7) BP was Britain’s biggest company before the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20 and worth around £122 billion but is valued [sic] has now halved. (UK6)

Excerpt (6) foregrounds the interests of British pensioners, and Excerpt (7) places relevance on the economic implications of the scandal for the company. This ties in with the portrayal of the company as a human body in Excerpt (5). BP is embodied in British citizens, in particular, British pensioners. Meanwhile, the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, including disappearing livelihoods in the United States, is suppressed. The two newspapers drawing this connection discuss in detail the implications of the US government’s and president’s reaction to the scandal and their treatment of the company. The 25 instances of negative ‘beneficialization’ (Van Leeuwen, 1996), versus only three positive instances, reinforce the finding of the alignment of the British media with BP. This is evident in the choice of lexical items such as ‘attacks’, ‘punished’, ‘unfairly treated’ and ‘bashing up’. ‘Attack’, in contrast to ‘war’, construes unidirectional violence (Lukin, 2013: 432). Similarly, ‘punish’ and ‘bashing up’ appear in contexts where they describe unidirectional aggression, usually against a person. The implicit evaluation of BP’s treatment through US authorities as evident in these terms is spelled out explicitly by ‘unfairly treated’. This culminates in the newspapers citing sources that accuse the US president of engaging in an ‘anti-British’ rhetoric.

The discrepancy between the two subcorpora is also apparent in those instances in which BP is referred to by the term ‘company’. Consider the following examples from the US and the British corpus, respectively:

(8) If the government finds the company negligent or the leak avoidable, BP will owe royalties on the lost oil, Minerals Management Service spokesman Nicholas Pardi told CNN. (US2)

(9) ‘When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves’. (Stated by Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson; UK5)

While the US newspapers activate the ‘company’ in seven and passivate it in only two cases, the British newspapers show an almost equal frequency of passivation, mostly in the form of negative beneficialization, and activation. BP is thereby depicted as a victim of attacks either by a ‘backgrounded’ (Van Leeuwen, 1996) agent, an agent who may not appear in the context of the action but elsewhere in the text, as in the example above or by US authorities as in the following examples:

(10) The shares slump, which came despite a BP statement saying it was ‘not aware of any reason’ for the share price movement, put renewed pressure on David Cameron to make his position clear as the company comes under intense pressure from the White House over its efforts to clean up the spill. (UK5)

(11) The Prime Minister at last weighed into the row after fellow Tory Boris Johnson ramped up the pressure by accusing the U.S. President of ‘buck passing’ and ‘beating up’ the British-based company. (UK6)

The only individuals who worked for BP at the time of the oil spill represented in the corpus are Tony Hayward, the chief executive of the company, Toby Odone, a BP spokesman, and BP chief operating officer, Doug Suttles. These individuals are always ‘nominated’, that is, identified by means of their unique identity, and ‘functionalized’, that is, identified by means of their function they share with others (Van Leeuwen, 1996: 52–59). Hayward is also represented by ‘formalization’, namely, his surname only or his surname in combination with the respectful address term ‘Mr’ after having been identified as the head of the company. While Odone and Suttles are activated regarding verbal actions as they comment on the company’s handling of the scandal, Hayward is additionally passivated regarding verbal and material processes that present him in a negative light. See Excerpts (13) and (14), respectively:

(12) Chief executive Tony Hayward said on Twitter: ‘Our top priority is the Gulf. I will not be diverted way [sic] from that. We will spend what it takes to make it right’. (UK2)

(13) Meanwhile, the group’s chief executive Tony Hayward was branded ‘the most hated and clueless man in America’, by the New York Daily News over the weekend. (UK2)

(14) The leader [President Barack Obama] has already said the executive should be sacked, setting the stage for a tense meeting. (UK6)

While Hayward depicts himself as determined and committed to finding a solution to the oil spill in Excerpt (12), references to US sources in the media in Excerpts (13) and (14) portray him as incapable of doing so. In another instance, this is expressed by the noun phrase ‘BP’s embattled boss’ in UK2. Hayward describes himself as part of the company using the personal pronouns ‘our’ and ‘we’. First, this presents the company as a collective and signalizes consensus (Van Leeuwen, 1996: 50); second, it may be a strategy of the chief executive to fend off potential liability charges, since the ‘corporate persona’ functions as a protection for individuals working within it (cf. Walenta, 2015). Indeed, the British media do not support the negative portrayal of Hayward and his suggested resignation through US voices (the New York Daily News in Excerpt (13) and President Barack Obama in Excerpt (14)); they position themselves and the British population as supportive of the company and its CEO:

(15) Mr Obama’s attacks – in the past week he has said he wants to know whose ‘ass to kick’ at BP and said its chief executive Tony Hayward should be sacked – have only fuelled concern for the firm. (UK6)

Overall, the British media seem more sympathetic toward BP than the US media. They place importance on the company’s role for British pensioners. Rather than depicting the company and corporate representatives as the perpetrator, the media takes their side or at least express concern for the treatment and well-being of BP.

National authorities and institutions

The US government is represented in collective terms such as ‘government’, ‘administration’ and ‘scientists’ in the US subcorpus. The ‘government’ is always activated. However, it only plays an active part in determining the dimensions of the oil leak or the company’s responsibility for it, as well as in relational processes describing it as ‘careful’ and ‘not best placed’. The government is thereby depicted as somewhat impotent to solve the crisis, which is reinforced by means of backgrounded agency in three of eight cases.

Similarly, if referred to by means of the term ‘administration’, the US government is taking action only in regard to the material and verbal processes of ‘meeting’, ‘proposing’ and ‘beginning’, the last instance even being modified as a possibility:

(16) The President’s statements Thursday also left open the possibility that the administration may begin easing its ban on new permits in shallow waters – many of which involve drilling for natural gas. (US1)

When represented by ‘scientists’, specified as ‘government’ or ‘federal’ scientists, or ‘team’ which gives their expert opinion on the disaster, the government is once more in the role of the observer:

(17) It’s also the more conservative estimate of two reached by two separate teams of government scientists who used two different methods, McNutt told reporters Thursday. (US2)

In the British subcorpus, the US ‘government’, also represented by ‘US’ and ‘US politicians’, is mentioned 13 times in collective terms and activated in all but one case. In contrast to the US newspapers, the British newspapers activate it mainly regarding actions against BP directly or offshore drilling:

(18) The sector has also been rocked by the US government’s move to halt deepwater drilling activities in the Gulf of Mexico after the spill. (UK2)

(19) Last week, the US launched a criminal investigation into whether the oil giant broke any laws in its handling of the spill. (UK2)

(20) BP oil spill: shares plummet as US warns it will ‘take action’ to stop dividend. (UK5)

(21) Experts have said that the clean-up costs of the oil spill will run to between £10 billion and £20 billion but the biggest cost to the company is from investors dumping stock for fear of BP being further punished by the US Government. (UK6)

As suggested in section ‘BP’, the British media depict the US government’s actions as much more aggressive than their US counterparts. In fact, they are regarded as severe enough to harm the relation between the two nations:

(22) According to reports in The Daily Telegraph, the scale of the clean-up could impact US relations, after suggestions from some US politicians that BP may be barred from future government contracts. (UK2)

Another striking feature of the British subcorpus is the mentioning of the UK government. As a collective, it is completely absent from the US subcorpus and represented by means of nomination of its Prime Minister and other British politicians exclusively in the British subcorpus as we will see in the next section. UK6 assigns responsibility for the protection of BP from potential harm to the UK authorities:

(23) ‘I [former Labour minister Tom Watson] want to see the UK government defend the company while it is under this attack’. (UK6)

The fact that the newspaper cites a British politician may imply that they take the stance that the oil spill and its consequences for BP is a matter of national concern.

In addition to the US government, the only other US institutions represented in the British newspapers are ‘a team from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’ and ‘the US Geological Survey’, which are both involved in measuring the amount of oil that leaks into the ocean. The environmental impact of the spill is marginalized due to the sparse attention paid to these actors.

The most relevant social actor in the discourse after the multinational company itself is US President Barack Obama as a representative of the US government (14 cases in US vs 27 cases in British subcorpus). His more frequent appearance in the British media can be explained by the fact that two of the newspapers, UK5 and UK6, extensively discuss Obama’s verbal commentary on BP as we have already seen in section ‘BP’.

In the US newspapers, Obama is either nominated in the form of formalization, functionalized as ‘President’ or represented by means of a combination of the two. He is only once referred to as ‘Mr. Obama’. The British newspapers, by contrast, never refer to him in terms of his function alone. They either use formalization, semi-formalization or combine these forms of nomination in half of the cases with ‘Mr’. At the same time, he is functionalized as ‘President’ only in two instances. Since honorifics are used to pay respect to someone, their absence in the British newspapers may serve to downplay his standing.

The US President is activated almost in every instance in both subcorpora. In the US subcorpus, he is mainly activated when he expresses his critical position toward oil production and the severity of the situation; he is activated only twice when he targets BP directly, for example by ‘cursing’ the company in US5, suggesting his irrationality. In the British subcorpus, activation is particularly regarding processes directed at BP instead. See Excerpt (15) and the following:

(24) Mounting criticism of BP’s handling of the crisis in the US has given way to a ‘furious’ President Obama, who said on Saturday: ‘These folks work hard, they meet their responsibilities. But now, because of man made catastrophe, one that is not their fault and is beyond their control, their lives have been thrown into turmoil. It’s brutally unfair, and it’s wrong’. (UK2)

Although agency is backgrounded by possessivation and nominalization, the word choice illustrates a critical view of the newspapers on the US president’s commentary toward BP. By describing Obama as ‘furious’, his feelings and behavior seem to be evaluated as irrational and impulsive. This ties in with the meaning of ‘attack’ explained in section ‘BP’, which suggests unidirectional aggression toward BP on the part of the US president in this case. The newspaper seems to support this claim by referring to the president’s use of the informal phrases ‘to kick someone’s ass’ and ‘to sack someone’ (Excerpt (15).

Accordingly, in the three cases in which the president is passivated in the British newspapers, he himself is ‘accused’ or ‘attacked’ for his commentary since his actions against BP are labeled as ‘anti-British’:

(25) The warnings came as Barack Obama was accused of holding ‘his boot on the throat’ of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company’s value. (UK5)

(26) Conservative Mayor of London Mr Johnson and former trade and industry secretary Lord Tebbit have both now openly attacked Mr Obama’s anti-BP rhetoric, accusing him of ‘petulance’ and trying to shift the blame. (UK6)

Actions against BP are interpreted as actions against British pensioners since their pensions depend on the company’s value. The media thereby draws a close connection between the British-based corporation and the British nation. This is also apparent from the fact that the opinion of Norman Tebbit and Boris Johnson, two British politicians, is presented as relevant to the discussion about the oil spill. Striking in Excerpt (25) is once more the word choice (‘to put one’s boot on someone’s throat’). Together with the preceding examples, the excerpts demonstrate that the discussion of the BP case is emotionally highly charged. Once more, the US government’s actions are portrayed as unidirectional aggression, which is directed not only against the corporate persona but against innocent British citizens. This paves the way for the argument that BP needs protection, a claim made explicit by way of the quotation of another British politician:

(27) Tom Watson, the former Labour minister, was planning to table a Commons motion today in support of BP and urging MPs to understand the importance of the company to pensioners in this country. (UK5)

Excerpt (27) raises the question of responsibility. In fact, it is shifted from BP to a backgrounded actor. This actor is identified in another instance in which attention is once more paid to Tebbit’s opinion:

(28) Lord Tebbit pointed out that U.S. engineering giant Halliburton was also involved in the events leading up to the Gulf disaster … ‘At the very least, the President might acknowledge that the company directly responsible for the Gulf disaster was American, not British …’. (UK6)

Responsibility is explicitly assigned to the company Halliburton. Notably, specific emphasis is placed on the nationality of the company. Like Tebbit, Johnson fends off responsibility for the oil spill from BP and transforms the scandal into a matter of ‘national concern’:

(29) Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, this morning became the most senior UK politician to defend BP, saying ‘anti-British rhetoric’ levelled at the company was a matter of ‘national concern’ and that the oil giant was paying ‘a very, very heavy price’ for what had been an accident. (UK5)

The head of the British government at the time of the oil spill, Prime Minister David Cameron, is mentioned as an individual representative of the UK government exclusively in the British subcorpus. He is formalized, semi-formalized or functionalized. Seven cases of activation oppose three cases of passivation, which are all negative beneficializations. He is portrayed as ‘under pressure’ to speak up for BP in response to the US president’s verbal attacks; however, he refuses to do so:

(30) Shareholders have seen another £5bn wiped off the value of BP, putting pressure on David Cameron to intervene in a row engulfing the oil company. (UK5)

(31) David Cameron today refused to publicly back BP and instead expressed his sympathy for Barack Obama who has been an outspoken critic of the oil giant’s handling of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. (UK6)

The representation of the US president in the news coverage of the BP oil spill could be expected, since the spill took place in the Gulf of Mexico and had direct impacts on the livelihoods of US citizens; the nomination of the three British politicians, including the head of the government, is surprising, by contrast. Involving them in the discussion on the disaster removes attention from the environmental implications of the scandal to a potential economic impact on the UK, which may occur due to negative publicity about BP. This may be interpreted as evidence for the entangled identification between the corporation and the nation.

In summary, US media adopt a critical view on the efficiency of the US government’s reactions to the scandal. The UK media, on the other hand, depict the US government’s actions as harmful to the interests of an important part of the British population.

People affected

In the discussion of the BP oil spill, the media considers implications for different human social actors. The US newspapers prioritize the individuals who were immediately killed by the explosion on the drilling rig:

(32) He [Hayward] meant it as evidence of how hard he was working on the problem, but critics reminded us that the 11 people who died on the Deepwater Horizon rig 53 days ago would never be getting their lives back. (US5)

The victims of the explosion are excluded from the British newspapers. In fact, the British news thematize the deaths of individuals killed in oil spills caused by two companies explicitly identified as ‘American’, as if in response to the US newspapers:

(33) ‘It is time that our American were reminded that they sang a different tune when the American company Union Carbide killed many thousands of Indians at Bhopal. Not to mention when the American company Occidental killed 167 people on a North Sea oil rig in 1988’. (Stated by Tebbit; UK6)

This comparison diminishes the damage done by BP and supports the point made earlier by the British media that the BP may be unfairly treated by the American government. Two British newspapers do, however, report on the spill’s implications for the fishing industry, represented by ‘these folks’ in Excerpt (24) above and as a collective in the following:

(34) Oil in the coastal estuaries and marshes would also pose the biggest threat to commercial fisheries. (According to Denise Reed, a geomorphologist at the University of New Orleans; UK3)

The wider context around Excerpt (24) indicates that ‘these folks’ relate to the people working in the fishing industry. While BP is personalized by the British media, these fishers are either collectivized or corporatized, as in Excerpt (34). At the end of the article, victim status is assigned to BP and other companies involved in the scandal or working in the oil industry, as in Excerpts (35) and (36):

(35) However, other companies involved in the disaster have also fallen victim to the markets. (UK2)

(36) Meanwhile, Halliburton – the sub-contractor in charge of securing the well, has suffered a 27 per cent fall in its shareprice. (UK2)

These excerpts indicate a certain degree of sympathy toward the companies involved on the part of the media. This is apparent in the repeated humanization of corporations: they are identified as ‘victims’ who ‘suffer’.

Only three articles provide detailed information on the environmental impact of the oil spill, with the information provided in the US newspapers being much more extensive than in the British:

(37) Coastal marshes now inundated with oil from the BP spill serve as nurseries for much of the Gulf’s marine life, so they’re vital to the regional ecosystem and the U.S. seafood industry, Texas Tech University ecotoxicologist Ron Kendall told National Geographic News. (US1)

(38) The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is increasingly visible, with masses of oil-laden birds and other animals now on Louisiana shores. (US6)

(39) The spill could be disastrous for the endangered bluefin tuna – it coincided with the spawning season and there are fears that up to 20 per cent of this year’s larvae may die. (UK3)

US1 and US6 draw a line from the described environmental implications to economic ones, which illustrate capitalist priorities. Another article in the British subcorpus thematizes environmental implications; however, they are seen in relation to the damage the oil spill, as well as the reaction of the US government, causes at BP:

(40) Although fund managers accept that BP must pay compensation for the oil spill and the damage it is doing to parts of America’s coastline, they argue that the cost to the company’s market value from the president’s criticism is far outweighing the clean-up costs. (UK5)

By accepting responsibility for the clean-up, but excluding responsibility for the spill and the damage it is causing, the fund managers can portray BP as the victim. The media emphasizes the ‘unfair’ treatment of the company, thereby recontextualizing the environmental issue into an issue of economic value. This is achieved by supporting the picture of the company as a person and as linked to the lives of individuals:

(41) Mark Dampier of the financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown said: ‘[President Obama] is playing to the gallery but is not bringing a solution any closer. Obama has his boot on the throat of British pensioners. There is no point in bashing BP all the time, it’s not helpful. It is a terrible situation, but having the American president on your back is not going to get it all cleared up any quicker’. (UK5)

As in earlier instances, Excerpts (11), (15) and (25), Obama’s reactions to the scandal are described as overly aggressive, indicated by ‘bashing’. Moreover, the company is portrayed as a person with the phrase ‘to have someone on your back’. This strengthens the argument, evident in sections ‘BP’ and ‘National authorities and institutions’, that the livelihoods of British pensioners are threatened through the president’s behavior.

In summary, the environmental implications of the oil spill seem to receive minor attention in comparison to the economic impact of the spill, especially in the British subcorpus. Also, the economic damage raised in the US media is different from the one raised in the UK media: while the former focuses on the economic damage to the fishing industry in the region, the latter diverts attention to the financial implications for the company and the British economy.

Summary

In the news coverage under investigation, corporate responsibility, national responsibility and victim status are recontextualized differently in the US and the UK subcorpora. While the US media focus on the human damage and pollution through the oil leak, the UK media move attention to the economic implications of the scandal around BP for Great Britain. With one exception in the British subcorpus, responsibility is not assigned explicitly; however, implicitly it is allocated in accordance with what is construed as the problem. In the US media, responsibility is assigned exclusively to BP and victim status to the animals and people dependent on the Gulf region’s preservation; the harm to companies in the oil industry and BP itself is mentioned but backgrounded. The UK media, by contrast, allocate responsibility for the oil spill not only to BP but also, and explicitly, to Halliburton, an American company that oversaw thr securing of the oil well. Those articles that reconstruct the environmental issue as an economic problem, on the other hand, assign responsibility to the US government and president who are presented as victimizing BP and, indirectly, British pensioners and the British economy.

In summary, the British media establish a strong link between the corporation and the nation state by drawing on comments by high-ranking individuals within British politics and including British pensioners as victims while excluding environmental implications of the oil spill. The oil spill is thereby reconceptualized in terms of an economic rather than an environmental problem and reflects diverging national interests or priorities of the two nations represented by the media sources analyzed.