Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Public Education
About Public Education
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      Public EducationAbout Public Education
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • CO10079 | Beyond Petroleum: Limits of Risk Management
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO10079 | Beyond Petroleum: Limits of Risk Management
Bill Durodié

15 July 2010

download pdf

Commentary

The cost of the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has now surpassed the US$3bn mark. That may prove to be a drop in the ocean compared to what will come if governments, businesses and civil-society groups the world over fail to learn one of its key lessons.

Paper Plans

ACCORDING TO BP, the cost of containing, cleaning up after, correcting and compensating for, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion in April had – by early July – exceeded US$3bn, with almost 45,000 people working on the response.

Various interested parties and activists have used this episode to make impassioned assertions about what it is held to suggest about contemporary society – a supposed addiction to oil, human hubris with respect to the environment, and so on. But one of the more salutary lessons revealed through the US House of Representatives subcommittee hearings into the spill appears to have made little impact in policy circles thus far. After all, how could a company the size of BP have failed to plan for such an emergency? The answer is that they did. But there is an enormous gulf between planning and effective action. It is a gulf that is growing in society today, and one that policymakers everywhere ought to pay particular attention to.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment grilled the chief executives – not just of BP, but of the five largest oil companies – about their drilling safety and regulatory standards and procedures in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. What they inadvertently exposed was how many risk management documents today – along with impact analyses, mission statements, codes of practice, and values statements – are just that, documents. They bear little relation to the capabilities and actualities of how companies would respond to a real problem.

To be fair to BP and the other oil companies, this is not a problem restricted to their industry, or even to large corporations in general. The gulf between compliance and capability affects businesses and governments everywhere. Risk management has become a ritual – undertaken in order ‘to be seen’ to be concerned about possible problems – rather than with a view to building up real capacity for dealing with them.

Withdrawal Not an Option

The demand emanating from certain quarters — that society should refrain from dangerous ventures lest they lead to unexpected problems – is often phrased in the apparently reasonable language of the need for precaution. But it is one that actually precludes the possibility of learning and developing new tools to deal with the unexpected. As most people recognise, it is only through making mistakes that we ever learn our limitations and are able to move forwards. Risk management itself then – when taken too far – is in danger of precluding this very possibility of learning and thereby advancing our capacities and capabilities.

While some may view deep sea drilling as a step too far for society, they should note that it also displays remarkable human ingenuity. Whatever the lessons learnt from this particular episode – more effective safety valves, technology for skimming the ocean etc… – these will be of benefit to the industry, other industries, and society for some time to come – until the next unexpected emergency impacts upon us.

In the meantime however, we could all do with learning one of this incident’s fundamental lessons, and examining to what extent policies are just statements of intent rather than genuine assessments of capability. What is quite clear from the BP case is that such documents are produced in an increasingly perfunctory and ritual manner. They are rarely, if ever, inspected or put to the test – a test, the real response to which could only come from taking actual risks and handling genuine problems on a regular basis – not by avoiding them.

Policy as Performance

There is of course, little inherently wrong with planning for the worst and modeling possible outcomes. A cursory look across the policy arena today reveals many government departments – as well as companies – doing just that.

But the danger – revealed through this episode – is the possibility of a performative, ritual aspect to this approach. BP – along with three of the other large oil companies – had included a declaration to protect walruses in their emergency-response plans. This, no doubt, was included specifically to assuage and pander to the concerns of environmentalists, despite the fact that walruses – along with seals and sea-lions that were also mentioned – do not inhabit the Gulf of Mexico.

This should not be seen as a form of dishonesty on the part of BP, but rather as a by-product of a culture that prioritises risk management over learning lessons through taking risks, and that fetishises the production of documents over the delivery of material goods and benefits. Of course, if BP had focused on delivering its core product, rather than self-consciously re-branding itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in 2001, then it may have had rather more engineers than marketing experts to hand to deal with the problem.

Lessons for Policy-Making

All government agencies and businesses today will recognise the danger of image increasingly dominating over insight. Style appears to trump substance at every turn. Generals and armies too have fallen when they invested more in media management than getting on with the job and delivering.

Public life more broadly is in danger of being turned into a series of empty rituals as documents outlining the need for ‘transparency’, ‘best-practice’, ‘dialogue’, and an assorted range of other fashionable phrases and buzz-words, appear from every quarter — often encouraged by civil society groups that demand a lot from others but deliver little of their own.

The real lesson from this disaster is one which not just large corporations, but governments and civil society groups the world over would do well to learn: It is actual, operational action in the real world that teaches us how to deal with emergencies, while models, plans and procedures can often become a way to hide behind the failure to really deliver.

About the Author

Bill Durodié is Senior Fellow with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS) of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Non-Traditional Security / Global

Commentary

The cost of the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has now surpassed the US$3bn mark. That may prove to be a drop in the ocean compared to what will come if governments, businesses and civil-society groups the world over fail to learn one of its key lessons.

Paper Plans

ACCORDING TO BP, the cost of containing, cleaning up after, correcting and compensating for, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion in April had – by early July – exceeded US$3bn, with almost 45,000 people working on the response.

Various interested parties and activists have used this episode to make impassioned assertions about what it is held to suggest about contemporary society – a supposed addiction to oil, human hubris with respect to the environment, and so on. But one of the more salutary lessons revealed through the US House of Representatives subcommittee hearings into the spill appears to have made little impact in policy circles thus far. After all, how could a company the size of BP have failed to plan for such an emergency? The answer is that they did. But there is an enormous gulf between planning and effective action. It is a gulf that is growing in society today, and one that policymakers everywhere ought to pay particular attention to.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment grilled the chief executives – not just of BP, but of the five largest oil companies – about their drilling safety and regulatory standards and procedures in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. What they inadvertently exposed was how many risk management documents today – along with impact analyses, mission statements, codes of practice, and values statements – are just that, documents. They bear little relation to the capabilities and actualities of how companies would respond to a real problem.

To be fair to BP and the other oil companies, this is not a problem restricted to their industry, or even to large corporations in general. The gulf between compliance and capability affects businesses and governments everywhere. Risk management has become a ritual – undertaken in order ‘to be seen’ to be concerned about possible problems – rather than with a view to building up real capacity for dealing with them.

Withdrawal Not an Option

The demand emanating from certain quarters — that society should refrain from dangerous ventures lest they lead to unexpected problems – is often phrased in the apparently reasonable language of the need for precaution. But it is one that actually precludes the possibility of learning and developing new tools to deal with the unexpected. As most people recognise, it is only through making mistakes that we ever learn our limitations and are able to move forwards. Risk management itself then – when taken too far – is in danger of precluding this very possibility of learning and thereby advancing our capacities and capabilities.

While some may view deep sea drilling as a step too far for society, they should note that it also displays remarkable human ingenuity. Whatever the lessons learnt from this particular episode – more effective safety valves, technology for skimming the ocean etc… – these will be of benefit to the industry, other industries, and society for some time to come – until the next unexpected emergency impacts upon us.

In the meantime however, we could all do with learning one of this incident’s fundamental lessons, and examining to what extent policies are just statements of intent rather than genuine assessments of capability. What is quite clear from the BP case is that such documents are produced in an increasingly perfunctory and ritual manner. They are rarely, if ever, inspected or put to the test – a test, the real response to which could only come from taking actual risks and handling genuine problems on a regular basis – not by avoiding them.

Policy as Performance

There is of course, little inherently wrong with planning for the worst and modeling possible outcomes. A cursory look across the policy arena today reveals many government departments – as well as companies – doing just that.

But the danger – revealed through this episode – is the possibility of a performative, ritual aspect to this approach. BP – along with three of the other large oil companies – had included a declaration to protect walruses in their emergency-response plans. This, no doubt, was included specifically to assuage and pander to the concerns of environmentalists, despite the fact that walruses – along with seals and sea-lions that were also mentioned – do not inhabit the Gulf of Mexico.

This should not be seen as a form of dishonesty on the part of BP, but rather as a by-product of a culture that prioritises risk management over learning lessons through taking risks, and that fetishises the production of documents over the delivery of material goods and benefits. Of course, if BP had focused on delivering its core product, rather than self-consciously re-branding itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in 2001, then it may have had rather more engineers than marketing experts to hand to deal with the problem.

Lessons for Policy-Making

All government agencies and businesses today will recognise the danger of image increasingly dominating over insight. Style appears to trump substance at every turn. Generals and armies too have fallen when they invested more in media management than getting on with the job and delivering.

Public life more broadly is in danger of being turned into a series of empty rituals as documents outlining the need for ‘transparency’, ‘best-practice’, ‘dialogue’, and an assorted range of other fashionable phrases and buzz-words, appear from every quarter — often encouraged by civil society groups that demand a lot from others but deliver little of their own.

The real lesson from this disaster is one which not just large corporations, but governments and civil society groups the world over would do well to learn: It is actual, operational action in the real world that teaches us how to deal with emergencies, while models, plans and procedures can often become a way to hide behind the failure to really deliver.

About the Author

Bill Durodié is Senior Fellow with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS) of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Non-Traditional Security

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info