BP is intentionally not going into deep analysis of the causes of the oil spill, ultimately in protection of the company’s image. Repositioning the competitor discussed in Positioning of a Product, relays that by convincing consumers to view the competitor in a different way is an effective strategy to gain the consumer’s mind. In this situation, it’s not another competitor, it’s themselves. If they were to give an in-depth analysis it may open a bottle of bad decisions on their behalf, giving the company a negative image.

This outlines the company’s business ethics – they are more concerned about protecting the company rather than facing the consequences of their faults and learning from them! “Mark Bly, head of safety and operations for BP PLC, told a National Academy of Engineering committee that a lack of physical evidence and interviews with employees from other companies limited BP’s study.” That limits their study to a degree, but by making conclusions without examining the drilling rig limits their study even MORE; contributing to the imposition of the analysis being incomplete. 

BP did not have access to samples of the cement, yet they reported that the cement failed? This is misleading and erroneous, just as the $15/unit was in the Lieber case. “[They] ignored many red flags!” and it shows! In their eyes sacrificing their moral integrity by lying isn’t worth the bad rep for their wells.

 Work Cited:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/experts-question-bps-take-on-gulf-oil-spill/article1726504/
word count: 194 excluding quotes