To a younger generation what do initials like 3M, ANZ, ING, HSBC - and now, BP mean? Okay, 3 of them are banks, one is a manufacturer of things like post-it notes and the last - well, it's on everyone lips in America at least, as British Petroleum.
All the above initials are the result of abbreviating company names originally denoting a geographical area/region. Thus 3M was formerly Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, HSBC was the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (yes, Hongkong is spelt like that in the company name!). There are many others that have similarly shortened their names as a result of having become more global than regional/domestic companies, meaning that their former geographical names could be considered more of a hindrance than a help.
BP is one such company. It is all very well blaming this British company for what is an appalling disaster - and one which should have been dealt with sooner, faster and with more thought being given to the PR aspects of the case. So I am not about to defend the company for its actions. This is an ecological disaster - make no mistake.
But for once I am not going to sit back and let the Brits take all the blame as a convenient scapegoat for a problem that is not exactly "British". For example, hands up who knows how many Americans work for BP, and how many British people? Well, it's double - British employees 10,000, US employees 22,000. Okay, you say, it is a company listed on the London Stock Market so it's obviously British. Ah, well yes and no - British shareholders, it is true, account for about 40% of the number, and those from the USA a mere 39%. Oh dear - isn't that about the same? But surely the number of directors on the board will indicate that the company is clearly British. Not so, I'm afraid. It is six all! Well at least the company is headquartered in Britain. Guilty as charged - so that must be it then. It's a British company and therefore the Brits are guilty for creating an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico!! (Statistics gleaned from an article in the British Times of London - but easily verifiable from other independent sources).
So I believe we should think carefully about where we start throwing the "bricks of blame". An "incredibly angry" President Obama, on the subject of interfering with dividend payments, should note that were he to be listened to, this will affect as many Americans as it will British. And if the company starts to shed jobs as a result of all these goings on then presumably it will, in the interests of fairness, carry them out in the same proportion as the employee mix.
And Christine Loh in Hong Kong made a fair point the other day too about the length of time this oil spill has been going on. The USA has access to some of the best brains in the oil business; people well used to dealing with catastrophes. Why on earth did he not assemble them quickly, sit them all around a table, with BP, and work out a way to stop the leak. BP would pay - for sure - but sometimes collective heads are better than one!
And finally, what about those initials? Does the location of headquarters alone, in this wired world, actually matter a great deal? Why shouldn't HSBC have its headquarters in Hong Kong if it wanted to, and BP put its headquarters in Houston. Given the statistics and the fact that the majority of its business seems to be in North and Central American wouldn't it make sense?
So if you are thinking up a name for a new company - keep away from geographical references. They might bring you some unwanted consequences. And headquarter your company in a jurisdiction that is good for the company!!
An interesting point of view, (& perspective) on this awful disaster!
The full Company names, perhaps an anachronism from when it was respectable to raise the flag, confident in the belief that your brand represented standards beneficial to mankind! (Added to your examples, I wonder how many people know the national origen of Shell?)
How different it is today, as your blog implies, when treading carefully is so important; legally & from the PC point of view! Good in some ways, but perhaps with a loss of something?
Not sure the points made in your blog would be welcome in The White House?! It might undermine Obama's opportunity to try to demonstrate that he has international teeth - up until now lacking, internationally & domestically!
Is he another Blair?!! (Of course, Blair remains popular in the USA, possibly more than Obama. Amazing!!!!)
Posted by: Robert | 08 June 2010 at 06:11