I like how Naomi Klein put the BP crisis in perspective here. She's not the first to observe how crazy it is that we watched the earth bleed on a livecam in real-time for months, or to note that what's scarier than that is the carelessness and lack of remorse that precipitated this event in the first place.
But she raises important questions scientists often pose with regard to the way we approach what should be long-term industrial development. Instead of taking those questions into serious consideration, decision-makers usually ask, "What's the latest we can wait?"
Worse than that is the sensibility that because that livecam is cut, this crisis is over. We can be so forgetful. But there are things that we can't afford to forget, to jury-rig at the last minute. And it's not merely because it's ethically irresponsible, it's unsustainable and technologically counterproductive. Mistakes like this kill invisibly for years.
Historically, BP's managed to slip out of accountability's grasp because it's older than the queen and incredibly large and powerful. It is our civic responsibility to show it that times have changed.
It brings to mind something Havas' David Jones said during the AdForum Summit of 2009. Someone in the audience had asked what the reason was for this big investment, unable to perceive Havas' stake in the future of something that doesn't serve the bottom line: in this case, its 100% nonprofit Tck Tck Tck project.
“Profit for its sake, and capitalism for its sake, will actually become unstuck, unwind and not work,” he said, emphasising that social responsibility must become the heart of tomorrow's business strategy. It's the only way to assure the world, and its people, will be willing to carry you on their shoulders over the long-term: technology today forces an incredible transparency and sense of accountability that didn't exist prior, and an increasingly educated public will and should be the ultimate check and balance.
That is, if we can all step away from Jersey Shore for a couple of hours.
In related material, you can check out my presentation on how BP fumbled from a PR perspective.
4 comments:
"technology today forces an incredible transparency and sense of accountability that didn't exist prior, and an increasingly educated public will and should be the ultimate check and balance."
I'd like to share your optimism, but transparency isn't the same as visibility, and no amount of either helps when people basically see what they want to see, regardless of what's to be seen (just look at global warming or evolution denial for examples of this). There's a thin line between democracy and populism, or the wisdom of the crowd and the wisdom of the mob; education per se isn't much of an antidote to this, in my experience.
And it's hardly BP's fault that we (that great American public) keep demanding cheap gas and (implicitly) all that goes with it, including oil spills and ecological disasters. BP's basically unaccountable because we are unaccountable... not that this necessarily goes against what either you are Klein are saying, but I do get mildly irritated when we all blame BP for doing what most of us have asked it to do.
I'm sure I'll make more sense when I've had my coffee.
We're a people ruled by convenience, and once positive alternatives are made reasonably convenient I think this time will be done. The east and the west will take up more sustainable solutions, and over time - a much longer time - the middle of the country will begin to change too, by necessity if not by conviction.
In general I shared your skepticism but since reading "The Science of Liberty" I have decided that it's too easy to be condescending about the messiness, educational wants and the wince-worthy pop culture born of democracy. A liberal country by its nature will advance positively because curiosity and skepticism will be able to thrive, and with that science, and with that technology.
And I do think BP should be blamed. It's fair to say Americans elected for this negligence with our insatiable need for cheap gas, but unfortunately that's how our civilisation is currently structured: you need to drive to get around in the vast majority of the country, and people in general are too flooded with the day to day concerns of survival to ensure BP is doing its own homework.
The burden of responsibility lies with the company, because its business isn't just to deliver a product. It is also to ensure smooth operations, consider the safety and well being of employees, and proactively work to avoid (as well as remedy) dramatic accidents like this one, in which its product causes incalculable harm to the environment and others.
BP must by necessity change.
I don't necessarily disagree with the first two paragraphs of your comment (except to say as someone who did four years of HPS I found "The Science Of Liberty" to be nearly unreadable) -- I'll just take issue with the statement that "[BP's] business isn't just to deliver a product. It is also to ensure smooth operations, consider the safety and well being of employees, and proactively work to avoid (as well as remedy) dramatic accidents like this one, in which its product causes incalculable harm to the environment and others"
BP's business is about delivering shareholder value consistent with the law -- i.e. by any means necessary. It's only by changing what can make value for BP shareholders, or by forcing the issue through law, that things like this change. The latter seems anathema to many Americans -- but then the real solution -- i.e. getting people to use a lot less energy -- is even more disliked. So we implicitly egg BP on, and then rap them over the knuckles when the predictable disasters happen. And they'll go on happening one way or another until we stop focusing on BP as the problem and start focusing on us as the problem...
Share holder value should be tied to how well the best interests of clients are served, not how long you can fuck everybody. The latter works awhile but is unsustainable.
We're part of the problem but that by no means absolves BP.
Post a Comment