"No harm to people, no damage to environment"
On the company's new focus on safety and responsibility, BP spokesman David Nicholas was quoted as saying,
The change represents an evolution and expansion of green as a brand value rather than a replacement.
The new brand value, 'Responsible', encompasses BP's original aspirations towards the environment, in addition to other key areas such as safety and social welfare.
Our aspirations remain absolutely unchanged: no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment.
BP Back-Peddling Renewable Energy Investment
Which certainly sounds good, but when juxtaposed with BP pulling out of the UK green energy sector, cutting renewable energy investment by 30% and its own solar power workforce by 25%, you can't help but get the impression that BP wants to move, at least partially, back to petroleum.
Workers Committed to Environment, But the Company?
Though the original piece quotes a environmental consultant with BP as saying that the people who work at the company are as committed as ever in upholding green values (which may very well be the case on the individual basis), 'responsible' offers a much greater range of interpretation than does the admittedly broad 'green'.
What do readers think: Is this just greenwashing or do you really believe that when BP re-brands itself as 'responsible' it's talking about environmental responsibility?
via: BBC News
BP, Sunoco & Shell Ranked Greenest Oil Companies in Sustainability Survey
Greenpeace Stages Greenwashing Award Ceremony in BP Headquarters Lobby
Verenium & BP Formalize Cellulosic Ethanol Collaboration, New Biorefinery in the Works
Shell Gets Out of Wind & Solar Power, Backs Biofuels and CCS Instead
Tar Sands Less Damaging Than Coal Shell Says, But They Sure Are Profitable