2.1 Political connections

Political connections can take various forms, including social networks, familial ties, friendships or institutional affiliations (Dicko et al., 2019; Hashmi et al., 2023). The nature of political connections has been extensively explored in the literature (Habib et al., 2018). Scholars have examined the role of political connections in corporations in China (Cheng et al., 2015; Qian & Chen, 2020), Tunisia (Maaloul et al., 2018) and Canada (Dicko et al., 2019); public administration in Indonesia (Prabowo et al., 2018); and policymaking in the US (Jennings et al., 2021). Although these studies are insightful, they focus primarily on the effects of political connections on corporate performance and valuation (Maaloul et al., 2018), auditor choice (Cheng et al., 2015), voluntary disclosure (Dicko et al., 2019) and leadership changes (Qian & Chen, 2020). In business, political connections often involve corporations seeking favourable contracts or regulatory advantages through affiliations with influential political figures (Elsayed, 2022). Iyengar (1990) highlighted that working in government roles or serving on advisory boards can facilitate interactions with politicians, fostering political connections. However, several negative consequences have been associated with political connections, including corruption, rent-seeking behaviour and distortions in market competition (Shleifer & Vishny, 1994). Furthermore, it can undermine transparency, accountability and the overall effectiveness of governance mechanisms (Hashmi et al., 2023). In other words, this varies with the nature of the political connections and policy salience (Jennings et al., 2021). While these studies have advanced our understanding of the consequences of political connections, the specific mechanisms through which these effects unfold still need to be researched. Investigating how multinational corporations manage and deploy their PCG practices amidst geopolitical disruptions would significantly enhance our understanding of this area.

2.2 Framing and reframing

Framing is crucial because ‘[a]n audience's interpretation of and reaction to a person, event, or discourse can be shaped by the frame in which that information is viewed’ (Benoit, 2001, p. 72). This concept has gained significant attention as scholars have explored the influence of language, communications and cognitive biases on accounting practices (Masiero et al., 2020; Preuss & Königsgruber, 2021). Also, it has been studied in the fields of decision-making (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), politics (Iyengar, 1990) and media discourse (Tucker, 1998). However, our study focuses on framing and reframing PCG, which spans various subfields, such as financial reporting (Preuss & Königsgruber, 2021), social responsibility (Tengblad & Ohlsson, 2010) and risk reporting (Allan et al., 2010).

Understanding corporate framing is essential for gaining insights into corporate behaviour, as it highlights the perceptual and cognitive lenses through which a corporation interprets its environment. Framing influences decision-making processes, strategic choices, stakeholders' perceptions and overall behaviour. Hines (1988) argued that corporate practices are socially constructed to support specific interests rather than being neutral representations of economic reality. Lord (1994) found that negatively framed messages from personal acquaintances significantly increased recycling behaviour in community programmes. Similarly, Davis (1995) demonstrated that framing environmental reporting influences corporate behaviour, encouraging environmentally responsible actions. Recent literature defines framing as using narratives about events and developments to shape how stakeholders present and perceive information (Rosenkranz & Pollach, 2016; Tengblad & Ohlsson, 2010).

Previous studies provide insights into framing corporate narratives. Amernic and Craig (2017) and Craig and Amernic (2019) emphasise the necessity for ethical leadership and robust corporate governance to prevent abuses of power, thereby underscoring the importance of ethical conduct and effective management. They also highlight how leadership language shapes the safety culture at BP, advocating for a comprehensive approach to safety in high-risk industries. Irvine and Fortune (2016) argue that a Football League establishes its legitimacy through annual reports. In contrast, Pengnate et al. (2020) identify the need for an in-depth analysis of the mechanisms influencing managerial discretion in pursuing legitimacy. The media plays a significant role in emphasising framing tactics for corporate performance reporting (Rosenkranz & Pollach, 2016) and facilitating organisational transformation during crises such as the DWH incident (Ammar, 2024). Additionally, Tengblad and Ohlsson (2010) observed a shift in corporate social responsibility framing in Swedish corporations from a national to an international perspective due to globalisation, a finding corroborated by Masiero et al. (2020) in the context of mandatory disclosure and the EU Directive.

Furthermore, Loroz (2007) addressed the underlying mechanism that may drive framing effects on persuasion and concluded that negative frames are more persuasive with self-referencing appeals. In contrast, positive frames are most effective when highlighting benefits to oneself and others. In narrative reporting, Merkl-Davies et al. (2011) studied impression management of the Chairman's statements of 93 UK-listed companies, and they reported that adverse organisational outcomes prompt managers to engage in retrospective sense-making. Additionally, Liu et al. (2015) examined the interactive effect of control strength and control frame on managers' fraudulent reporting decisions. They suggested that when controls are framed for monitoring purposes, more robust controls will result in less fraudulent reporting than weaker controls. Therefore, corporate framing provides a means to analyse the corporate choices, strategies and responses to various stimuli (e.g., geopolitical disruptions), advancing our knowledge about strategic management, organisational development and effective decision-making.

The current literature on framing strategies and political connections provides insights into corporate governance. However, a significant gap exists in understanding how multinational corporations (e.g., BP) employ these strategies during geopolitical disruptions. While previous studies have examined the overall impact of political connections on corporate disclosures, they have overlooked addressing how BP frames and deploys PCG practices amidst geopolitical disruptions. This research area is central to enhancing academic knowledge of the relationship between geopolitical disruptions, political connections and strategic communication in BP's organisational behaviour.

4.1 Environmental disruptions

This quotation underscores the IAB's role in providing crucial advice to BP's leadership, particularly in areas where they lack expertise. This role was highlighted following the DWH disruption. This IAB included former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, whose membership and expertise likely facilitated BP's coordination and response with affected stakeholders, including the US government, particularly in addressing the environmental impact of the DWH incident. His appointment could be seen as a tactical effort to bolster BP's image as a responsible company and rebuild trust in the aftermath of the disaster.

Similarly, the inclusion of Lord Patten of Barnes in the IAB utilised his distinguished background, including his roles as Chairman of the BBC Trust and Chancellor of the University of Oxford, making him exceptionally well-suited to manage the crisis, media exposure and public relations. This appointment is particularly significant given the intense media scrutiny and the exposure of BP's perceived deficiencies in safety culture, which historically have been attributed to prioritising ‘cost-cutting’ (Bower, 2010) measures. Lord Patten's expertise in navigating the media landscape and public opinion was likely to be applied in shaping and framing public perception during the DWH crisis, thereby assisting BP in mitigating negative coverage and demonstrating its commitment to safety and corporate responsibility.

This committee aimed to ensure that the GoM Committee oversaw BP's response to the DWH incident and the response efforts. According to Bob Dudley, this data influenced the committee's discussions. BP developed an organisational response to shape stakeholders' perceptions. The advice of Josh Bolten and Lord Patten of Barnes likely informed this response.

By highlighting Bowman's expertise, BP reported that it was committed to addressing the shortcomings revealed by the DWH incident and preventing recurrence. This inclusion is part of BP's broader strategy to rebuild trust, indicating a shift towards stringent safety protocols and expert-driven operational improvements in response to the challenges highlighted by the DWH spill. This reframing strategy in BP's reporting shifts the narrative from immediate crisis response to a focus on long-term process safety improvement.

It is argued that BP's recovery from the DWH crisis could be attributed to collaborative efforts within BP through PCG, leveraging the expertise of Bolten, Patten, Davis and Admiral Bowman. The GoM Committee, led by Ian Davis, was established in 2010 with six directors, reflecting BP's commitment to addressing the crisis and rebuilding its reputation. This collaborative approach underscores the vital role of PCG, highlighting the synergy between political actors and corporate governance directors in steering BP towards recovery and restoring its reputation.

4.2 Regulatory disruptions

BP publicly reported this disruption, presenting it as a measure to comply with international sanctions and regulatory requirements. The motivation behind this action could be attributed to BP's intention to distance itself from Iran, limiting their relationship to a partnership in exploration. However, the EU and BP sanctions have been lifted or suspended, with BP resuming its operations in the North Sea (see BP-PLC, 2017, p. 244).

Furthermore, BP engaged in PCG practices to manage geopolitical disruptions pertaining to regulatory aspects (i.e., the ones encountered in the North Sea). Romano Prodi, a former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission, also served as a member of the IAB. Prodi's extensive political experience and connections were instrumental in managing the regulatory disruptions associated with the Rhum gas field in the UK. His role was likely pivotal in facilitating dialogue, mitigating conflict and safeguarding BP's interests while adhering to international norms. This underscores BP's collaborative approach to managing sanctions risks. In the same context, Javier Solana was appointed to BP's IAB from 2011 to 2017, bringing his expertise to the PCG for regulatory disruption management. Solana's extensive political background, including his roles as Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain, Secretary General of NATO, and various positions within the EU, provided BP with valuable insights into complex political landscapes and EU regulations. His knowledge of international sanctions regimes was likely beneficial in BP's efforts to navigate the lifting and suspension of EU and US secondary sanctions concerning the Iranian Oil Company.

The rationale for reporting these precautionary measures to stakeholders, particularly shareholders, highlights BP's cognisance of these risks and its dedication to managing them. To address and understand how geopolitical regulatory disruptions (i.e., as encountered in Bolivia), BP engaged in PCG practices for regulatory disruption management. In the Latin American context, Ernesto Zedillo was appointed as a member of the IAB from 2010 to 2017. His contribution could be seen in BP's PCG's navigating and mitigating geopolitical disruptions, particularly in Bolivia. As former president of Mexico, his expertise in economics and politics helped BP analyse the potential impacts of Bolivia's intentions to nationalise and develop strategies to mitigate regional disruptions. Overall, these influential individuals formed a critical element of BP's PCG practice, enabling the company to navigate complex political terrains, ensure compliance, minimise potential disruptions, secure operational stability and capitalise on emerging opportunities, as will be discussed in the following sections.

This legitimised the continuation of the IAB, providing essential support to the Geopolitical Committee, the CEO and the Chairman. This integration between the Geopolitical Committee and IAB represents PCG practice developed amidst regulatory disruptions. It drew on diverse individuals, each bringing various perspectives and expertise. Members such as Ian Davis, Admiral Frank Bowman and Sir John Sawers were also part of the Geopolitical Committee, suggesting that the board members come from various countries, including Sweden, the UK, the US and the Netherlands, reflecting the global nature of the organisation's operations and its efforts to have diverse perspectives. Each board member brought unique skills and experience to their respective roles. Overall, the collaboration between political actors and members of the Geopolitical Committee at BP shaped a PCG practice that empowered BP to navigate complex political landscapes (Sharma & Lowe, 2023).

4.3 Political disruptions

BP has reframed the write-off following the terrorist attack as driven by a comprehensive security assessment conducted in response to the incident. BP prioritises safety and security, especially in regions affected by terrorism. By highlighting security, BP conveys a sense of responsible disruption management and ethical consideration, aligning with global expectations for corporate behaviour in high-risk environments. This reframing strategy may protect BP's reputation, reassure stakeholders and justify the financial decision in the context of heightened security concerns.

BP employed another PCG practice (personnel and mechanisms) to address emergent threats of political uprising. The appointment of Kofi Annan to its IAB shows BP's intention to assess and manage geopolitical disruptions in its operations. As an international diplomat and former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Annan brought his expertise into navigating political transitions and economic uncertainties, particularly in the MENA region. His expertise in conflict resolution and understanding of regional complexities might be utilised to evaluate security risks and explore alternative approaches in Egypt, Libya and Algeria. Annan's advice on engaging with local authorities, negotiating agreements and assessing security environments would inform BP to ensure workforce safety and operational continuity and identify development opportunities. Annan's role demonstrates the focus of BP on PCG as informed by decision-making and responsible engagement in volatile areas.

Sir John Sawers' expertise in intelligence, diplomacy and geopolitical factors significantly benefits BP in assessing and managing geopolitical disruptions in the MENA region, evaluating risks and implementing necessary precautions. Sawers' advice on political dynamics and stakeholder relationships would inform BP's decision-making process and help mitigate potential disruptions.

BP has deployed the IAB and Geopolitical Committee to address political disruptions in Libya, Egypt and Algeria. The PCG, consisting of experts in geopolitics, disruption management, security and political analysis, plays a crucial role in identifying and mitigating potential disruptions. First, the Geopolitical Committee closely monitors these countries' political developments, social tensions and geopolitical dynamics. By staying informed and up to date, the committee can assess the potential impact of political uprisings on BP's operations, reputation and financial performance. Second, the committee reviews BP's activities in the context of political and economic developments in its operating regions to provide guidance on strategic considerations and the company's annual plan.

Furthermore, the PCG integrates its expertise into the decision-making process. Its members contribute their insights and analysis to assess the potential impacts of emerging disruptions, develop strategies to mitigate them and provide guidance on investment and operational decisions in these countries. The collaboration between Kofi Annan, Antony Burgmans and Sir John Sawers strengthened BP's ability to address and manage geopolitical disruptions. Deploying Annan's diplomatic experience, Burgmans' reputation and crisis management expertise and Sawers' intelligence and diplomatic approaches could be understood in BP's navigation of risks associated with uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Algeria. The collaborators' combined expertise enabled a comprehensive assessment of consequences, including security and reputational risks. With their input, BP developed effective strategies to mitigate disruptions and ensure operational continuity.

5.1 Unfolding politically connected governance

The concept of PCG underscores the interaction between public figures or political actors and non-executive directors who are members of corporate governance committees to navigate complex geopolitical disruptions. This concept is fundamentally distinct from the notion of political connections documented in previous literature, which often focused on the mere presence of politically connected executives and independent directors and their impact on corporate outcomes (Habib et al., 2018). The differentiation lies in both the nature and mechanisms of these concepts.

Previous research has predominantly focused on comparing politically connected and non-connected firms, frequently overlooking individuals' demographics integral to these political connections. Such studies have concentrated mainly on the outcomes these firms seek to achieve through their political affiliations, including the impact of political connections on corporate performance and valuation (Maaloul et al., 2018), auditor choice (Cheng et al., 2015), voluntary disclosure (Dicko et al., 2019) and leadership changes (Qian & Chen, 2020). Furthermore, these needed to adequately explore the mechanisms through which these political members interact with (non-)executives.

This study addresses this gap by introducing the concept of PCG, which aims to clarify the demographics of public figures and political actors involved with BP in managing political disruptions. It examined the characteristics of these political actors in terms of background, positions and expertise. Additionally, it investigates the modes of interaction between these political figures and BP personnel, encompassing both non-executive and executive members. By doing so, this research provides an elaborate understanding of the dynamics between political actors and corporate governance, thereby highlighting three practices of PCG in managing geopolitical disruptions and fostering corporate governance practices. Such an approach acknowledges that the importance of political connections is not merely about having them but about the specific characteristics and expertise that these individuals bring. It recognises the importance of tailored expertise in managing different types of disruptions.

The three practices deployed during geopolitical disruptions include environmental, regulatory and political instability. These PCG practices involved members with diverse nationalities, positions, socio-economic backgrounds and expertise within the IAB and corporate governance. This study contributes to the existing literature by detailing how such expertise is utilised, mainly through the roles of the Chairman and CEO (Elsayed & Ammar, 2020).

The first PCG practice emerged during an environmental disruption in the US, involving public figures connected with the US or specialised in reputation management, highlighting BP's experience shortage. The second practice, deployed amidst regulatory disruption, relied on politicians experienced in international policy and diplomatic relations, which is essential among IAB members and the corporate governance committee. The third practice emerged during political instability in the MENA region; necessitating members experienced in Middle Eastern affairs from the IAB and corporate governance committee.

This analysis extends prior studies on the quality of political connection members, providing practical implications on their impact. It underscores that political connections are not monolithic but tailored to specific contexts and challenges: environmental disruptions require reputation management expertise, regulatory disruptions necessitate international policy experience, and political instability demands knowledge of regional affairs (Babcock et al., 2022).

The distinction between defensive and proactive roles (Elsayed & Ammar, 2020) played by PCG practices offers valuable insights. The defensive role, as seen in the response to the DWH incident, highlights the importance of protecting corporate reputation and interests. On the other hand, the proactive roles in subsequent regulatory and political disruptions demonstrate the ability to leverage past experiences and pre-emptively address potential challenges. This adaptive capacity accentuates the strategic value of PCG. From a practical standpoint, we are establishing specialised committees within the governance structure inspired by BP's example. This empirical evidence also expands on the concept of action (for example, what step should we take?) (Babcock et al., 2022).

5.2 Implications of framing and reframing strategies

BP's strategy of employing framing and reframing techniques by engaging its PCG practice to manage geopolitical disruptions is influenced by the nature of these disruptions and targeted stakeholders. This underscores the importance of narrative control in crisis management. By carefully crafting messages to address different stakeholders' concerns, BP shifted the focus from the negative impacts of the DWH incident to positive aspects such as governance reforms and managerial changes. This aligns with the findings of Habib et al. (2018), Masiero et al. (2020) and Merkl-Davies et al. (2011) on the strategic use of narrative disclosures to create specific impressions. It suggests that companies facing similar disruptions can benefit from a deliberate and adaptive narrative strategy.

We identified three patterns of organisational behaviour at framing geopolitical disruptions. The environmental disruption caused by DWH was immense, and efforts to reframe the public's perception regarding restoration of the damage were insufficient (Summerhays & de Villiers, 2012). Instead, BP responded to the public demand for organisational change/reform by developing new reframing strategies. This included keeping the stakeholders, particularly shareholders, informed about highly influential advisors (e.g., IAB as political connections), governance reforms (e.g., GoM and Geopolitical committees) and managerial changes (e.g., CEO). This presented an opportunity to satisfy the public demand and legitimise the blending of political connections and corporate governance in shaping PCG. By involving high-profile advisors and governance reforms, BP addressed immediate stakeholder concerns and established a longer-term narrative of accountability and reform. Using governance as a legitimising tool is crucial for firms operating in politically volatile environments, as it helps build resilience against future disruptions (Ammar, 2024; Elsayed & Ammar, 2020).

The lessons learned from DWH enhanced BP's approach to framing geopolitical disruptions caused by regulatory change. Compared to the environmental disruption of DWH, the disruptive effect of imposed sanctions and nationalisation threats were relatively insignificant. Therefore, BP's framing strategy focuses on compliance with sanctions while shifting focus towards strategic investment in more profitable regions (e.g., Azerbaijan and Russia) in response to the threat of nationalisation. This strategic approach aligns with previous studies on impression management (Merkl-Davies et al., 2011). However, this dual adherence and strategic realignment approach is a critical insight for companies navigating regulatory pressures. It shows that while compliance is necessary, companies can simultaneously pursue new opportunities to mitigate the impact of regulatory challenges.

In the MENA region, BP's reframing strategy involved enhancing PCG to manage higher political disruptions as the geopolitical disruptions were beyond the capabilities of executive and non-executive directors (Babcock et al., 2022). The proactive involvement of public figures (i.e., members of the IAB) and collaboration with regional regimes based on mutual interests indicate a sophisticated approach to managing political disruptions. This highlights the necessity for companies to engage deeply with the political landscapes of their regions, leveraging local connections and understanding to safeguard their investments.