BP running on empty

BP purports to operate via a code of conduct that espouses “doing the right thing”, yet Sars now alleges it has been booking fuel exports to Zimbabwe fraudulently to avoid paying local duties and then selling this fuel locally — and more than once (“Sars wrestles with BP in multimillionrand tax rebate dispute)”, January 15).

BP has had other run-ins with the authorities in recent times over required environmental impact assessments for its Gauteng filling stations.

The company also tried to wriggle out of its commitment to fund its medical aid for pensioners by selling the scheme to Momentum Health. The Council for Medical Schemes brought an injunction against this scheme’s board last year for failing in its fiduciary duties and being constituted illegitimately as a board.

None of this behaviour would be sanctioned by BP’s code of conduct. And yet the parent company has seemingly washed its hands of the local subsidiary. Is there a pattern to such misdemeanours? Are there more? Are they all being perpetrated to secure performance bonuses for senior managers?

The attempt to sell BP Medical Aid to Momentum was a blatant effort to clear BP’s balance sheet of a substantial contingent liability that no new owner would have been prepared to take on. Inflating returns on fuel sales by avoiding taxes and duties eases the route to targeted profitability. Cutting corners with environmental law saves costs in developing new filling stations.

Can BP’s hyperbolic code of conduct really be taken seriously, given that the local management team appears to expediently flout its intent?

Nigel Lees

Hout Bay