The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

Corporate Social Responsibility 

BP is an international oil and gas company centered in London, UK. The company’s safety policy acknowledges that the success of the business relies on safety of the workers and the communities around. Safe management of the environment through delivery of safe energy to the world is key to BP. Despite the hazardous nature of the business, BP is committed to excellence through systematic and ethical management of operations. Their sustainability framework focuses on improving people’s lives and caring for the planet by engaging all stakeholders. The objectives of their health, safety, security, and environment (HSSE) are zero accidents, zero harm to the people and the environment. Every member is required to protect the environment a matter of priority. The workers have been trained on emergency procedures and channels of speaking up in case of an unsafe working environment. BP embraces diversity and treats every employee with respect. Added, their social responsibility involves working with communities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to create jobs and support community programs by investing in the people. BP promotes initiatives, innovations, and projects that encourage the use of green energy. The company supports and invests in projects that alleviate the global challenges of climate change.

Legal Compliance 

The company complies with the laws and regulations governing the industry. BP only partners with businesses that are committed to safety and are compliant with all rules and regulations. To ensure internal adherence to laws and regulations, the company has set out Anti-Money Laundering requirements, Competition and Antitrust requirements, Procurement Authority requirements, and International Trade requirements. Moreover, BP has Ethics and Compliance registers that address the issues of conflict of interest. In addition, the company has Anti-Bribery and Corruption rules, guidance on the role of non-executive directors and a framework on handling of workplace relationships. All these measures have been put in place to ensure checks and balances in compliance with legal requirements and further channels of identifying, reporting, and addressing any breach of these legal requirements. The guidelines set out prohibit illegal practices such as price-fixing to lock out competitors and money laundering.

Ramifications of non-compliance with legal mandates 

The cost of non-compliance with legal mandates is weighty. These costs can be in form of fines and penalties which significantly dent a company’s profit margins and stifle business processes. Secondly, non-compliance taints a company’s brand image. Bad company image leads to loss of business opportunities. For instance, the unprecedented BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill that occurred in the Mexican Gulf in 2010 was regarded as neglect of environmental laws, corporate laws, work safety, and neglect of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The tragic spillage that lasted three months caused temporary unemployment of over 100,000 people. BP was viewed as a company with dismal environmental standards and safety procedures (Cherry & Sneirson, 2010). Reports pointed out that, the accident could have been avoided if the company had taken more precautions such as use of better underground drilling equipment and proper maintenance of the equipment. Due to this disaster, BP was regarded as a company with a corporate culture that ignored safety (Cherry & Sneirson, 2010). BP was fined $20 million in compensation as demanded by US President Barrack Obama. Further to this loss, the company had to invest heavily in marketing and advertising in an effort to regain the former status of a reputed brand. Non-compliance attracts additional audits to uncover the reason for non-compliance. Audits are time-consuming, costly and can affect business operations. Other legal ramifications include civil or criminal prosecutions for the owners, directors and persons deemed responsible for the act of negligence. Those found culpable may end up in prison or face hefty fines or suffer both. Such a disruption affects the running of any organization since processes cannot run smoothly. In worst cases, non-compliance can result in termination of the business if the severity of the damage caused warrants closure.

BP encourages whistle-blowing whenever something harmful, unsafe, or unethical is identified. It is the responsibility of everyone in the company to raise concerns in case of a violation of the company’s code of conduct. The company is against retaliation behaviors such as humiliations, threats, exclusions, intimidations and malicious reporting. To curb the retaliatory behavior, the company has put up resources for speaking up without revealing identity. Anonymous online reporting can be accessed through the Speak Up intranet and opentalk.bpweb.com. Other resources that promote a safe working environment free from intimidation are OneHR Global information intranet, Legal Data Privacy intranet, and Diversity and Inclusion intranet. BP accords total confidentiality to personal information and any cases of breach of confidentiality are reported to the local privacy coordinator.

Code of Ethics that promotes Ethical culture in BP 

BP code of conduct is founded on safety, respect, excellence, courage, and teamwork. The company has stipulated the responsibility and role of every stakeholder in adhering to the code of conduct. Importantly, BP has an internal whistle-blowing mechanism that safeguards confidentiality and has zero-tolerance to retaliation. BP promotes diversity and inclusivity and equal opportunities for all employees. Such policies promote an ethical culture since every employee feels confident, protected, and appreciated. The harassment-free environment enables immediate reporting of any unethical concerns. The organization is fully compliant with local and international regulations involving the oil and gas business. Further, it has solid procedures and strategies for business partnerships. BP does not trade with businesses that violate laws, participate in money laundering, or engage suppliers who have conflicts of interests. The corporate social responsibility charter promotes practices that reduce environmental pollution, and advance innovations and projects in the renewable energy sector. For BP, their operations are beyond profit-making. The code of conduct is instrumental in developing an ethical culture in BP

Process of raising ethical concerns 

The process of raising unethical conduct in BP entails reporting to the line manager about the issue. If unable to contact the line manager, contacting another line manager is recommended. If reporting to another manager is untenable the process requires the whistle-blower to contact a relevant supporting function. However, if none of the above steps work, the final stage is speaking up through OpenTalk. The OpenTalk tool offers a confidential way of reporting issues and concerns on unethical behaviors such as bribery, money laundering, and discrimination. OpenTalk can take calls in 75 different languages and it is confidential as stipulated in confidentiality laws. The most effective resource in rising unethical concerns in BP is using OpenTalk. The tool safeguards confidentiality and safeguards the whistle-blower from intimidation or harassment.

Whistle-blowing can result in victimization or dismissal if not properly undertaken. Before speaking up, the whistle-blower must ensure that there is a valid unethical case worth reporting and not malicious reporting. Secondly, the correct reporting channel must be used in reporting the right concerns. Thirdly, consider the moral and financial implications of the unethical issue before reporting (Depoorter & Mot, 2006). How damaging is the matter to yourself and the company? Using the wrong channels which do not safeguard confidentiality can result in intimidation. Using the right channel ensures that the unethical concern is handled efficiently without inflicting damage to the company brand or the whistle-blower.

Internal whistle-blowing involves reporting workplace misconduct to the supervisor or line manager. Where the illegality is being committed by top managers, the whistle-blower can consider external reporting resources such as the media or authorities through the False Claims Act (FCA). The first step in whistle-blowing is ensuring that there is evidence of misconduct. Concrete evidence in case of fraud includes email trails, billing records, contacts of parties involved which would form a shred of documentary evidence (Weber, 2015). Step two entails analyzing the best reporting channels depending on the magnitude of the unethical concern. If the misconduct cannot be reported internally, the whistleblower should resolve for confidential external resources that assure confidentiality such as FCA (Depoorter & Mot, 2006). Wait for the relevant body to respond and be ready to testify. If successful, the whistle-blower can earn rewards as stipulated in FCA and Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act.

Effect False Claims Act on Whstle-blowing 

The incentive effect of the False Claims Act (FCA) induces whistle-blowers who would have otherwise opted to remain quiet to come out and report fraudulent activities in an organization. Therefore, increasing the incentives to the whistle-blowers encourages qui tam suit where private citizens can assist the government in prosecution and receive part of the financial damages recovered (Depoorter & Mot, 2006). FCA enables the government to take over litigation in cases that would otherwise not come to public attention. Ideally, the government can recover public resources through the prosecution of the culprits.

On the contrary, when the government declines to take up litigation, the full burden of litigation is left to the whistle-blower. In cases the suit turns unsuccessful, the whistle-blower bears the entire cost of litigation, thus discouraging whistle-blowing. In addition, these financial incentives may promote malicious reporting from opportunistic and uninformed persons. Uninformed reporting may result in damages to otherwise innocent parties (Depoorter & Mot, 2006). Disclosure of whistle blower’s identity may result in harassment and some instances firing from the organization.

US sentencing Guidelines 

US sentencing guidelines require that an organization remedy the harm whenever found culpable. In case an organization’s operations were for criminal purposes, the punishment is set high to liquidate all the assets of the organization (Loewy, 1987). Also, the penalty is based on the severity of the harm and the level of culpability of the organization involved. Finally, probation is given as a sentence to encourage the organization to put in place measures to avert future misconduct. The guidelines are designed with the purpose of deterrence and just punishment. Just punishment requires that the punishment corresponds to the degree of culpability (Loewy, 1987). The guidelines enable organizations to eliminate unethical conduct by putting in place self-policing mechanisms that ensure internal reporting. Such incentives encourage organizations to develop strategies that promote ethical business culture and compliance to all legal requirements.

Culpability factors are used to determine the level of involvement in crime and the sentencing that should be accorded. Factors that increase culpability are tolerance to criminal activity, previous history of violations, obstruction of justice, and a violation of a court order during the occurrence of crime under prosecution (Loewy, 1987). If the court determines that the organization tolerates criminal activity and has a record of violating legal procedures, the court will conclude that the organization is highly culpable for the offense. The gross violations will result in severe sentencing. On the other hand, if an organization has efficient internal systems that promote compliance an ethical culture, the court shall be lenient in sentencing. Additionally, if the court determines that the organization made efforts in self-reporting, cooperated with authorities, and did not obstruct justice, less severe sentencing is accorded to deter the misconduct. Evidently, the culpability factors further support the aim of US sentencing guidelines which encourage organizations to develop ethical code of conduct that ensure compliance and procedures that detect and report any unethical conduct.

References 

Cherry, M. A., & Sneirson, J. F. (2010). Beyond profit: Rethinking corporate social responsibility and greenwashing after the BP oil disaster.  Tul. l. rev. ,  85 , 983.

Depoorter, B., & De Mot, J. (2006). Whistle-blowing: an economic analysis of the false claims act.  Supreme Court Economic Review , 135-162.

Loewy, A. H. (1987). Culpability, dangerousness, and harm: Balancing the factors on which our criminal law is predicated.  NCL Rev. ,  66 , 283.

Weber, J. (2015). Investigating and assessing the quality of employee ethics training programs among US-based global organizations.  Journal of Business Ethics ,  129 (1), 27-42.