¶ … BP's corporate image in a negative light. The first reason is that it will give the media a negative talking point about the company. The second reason is that it will give an audience to critics of the company's environmental policies. The third reason is that it will raise some of the issues with respect to the North Slope oil business, including the age of the pipelines and the quality of crude. For BP, the company has worked to try to create an image of being environmentally responsible, and events like this contradict those efforts. This would especially be damaging if further investigation by the media were to find that BP was negligent in some way with respect to pipeline maintenance, and was at fault for the spill. There are also potential legal remedies, and the court of public opinion can certainly hold sway over the EPA or other agencies that would be investigating the spill. There are many stakeholders in this incident. The immediate stakeholders are BP, the environment...

There are a wide range of other stakeholders that need to be taken into consideration, and media involvement in an issue like this will bring the event to the attention of such external stakeholders. These include BP shareholders and senior management, competitors who also have a stake in the North Slope oil business, native and environmental groups, the EPA and other regulators, the media, the general public, Alaskan politicians (most of whom have a stake in decisions regarding oil exploration in the region), and the BP employees affected by the spill. The spill will not affect the price of crude, so the world oil market in general is not going to be a stakeholder here, nor are consumers.
3. BP has some options with respect to public relations. The company should adopt an approach that expresses responsibility. Legally, it might want to avoid culpability, but it should appear that the company is taking responsibility for the situation…