بررسی راهبردهای واکنش بحران موثر  Exploring effective crisis response strategies

1. Introduction A crisis is generally considered an unpredictable event that can potentially generate negative outcomes and may threaten corporate reputation (Coombs, 2007a). Companies need to effectively communicate with the public about crises to protect themselves from reputational decline. Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) outlined by Coombs (2007a) provides a framework for understanding and choosing an appropriate crisis response strategy. According to Coombs (2007a), initial crisis responses (base responses) include instructing information (what happened, how the crisis might affect the public, and what the public should do) and adjusting information (what the company is doing to prevent a repeat of the crisis). Then, reputation repair strategies can be used to repair or avoid any reputational damage. Coombs (2007a) outlined ten reputation repair strategies and grouped them into four clusters by postures: denial (attacking the accuser, denial, scapegoating), diminishment(excusing, justification), rebuilding (apology, compensation) and bolstering (reminding, ingratiation, victimage). Although base responses are required for all crises and could be combined with reputation repair strategies (Coombs, 2007a; Kim & Liu, 2012), base responses have received little attention in previous studies. Many studies have focused more on reputation repair than on base response or no response. It is important to understand the effects of different types of crisis response strategies such as no response, base response, reputation repair, and both base response and reputation repair on the public’s perceptions of a company. Regarding reputation repair strategies, this study focuses on reminding strategies to determine the effectiveness of reminding consumers of a company’s prior good works (Coombs, 2007a), because many companies utilize corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies these days. Given that CSR may result in greater expectations for a company’s behavior, it is important to examine how CSR influences the public’s perceptions of corporate crises and responses. Specifically, the question of how a crisis could be communicated, especially when the crisis is related to a company’s prior CSR efforts, is an important one to consider. Taking BP’s oil spill crisis as an example, should BP have defended itself by reminding the public about its environmental protection campaign? Or, would it have been better to not mention its CSR activity because the perceived connection between the environment-related crisis and the main theme of the CSR campaign could have produced more skepticism? The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of CSR-crisis relevance and crisis response strategies on the public’s perceptions of message credibility (RQ1), trust in the company (RQ2), attitudes toward the company (RQ3), perceived corporate reputation (RQ4), and supportive behavioral intentions toward the company (RQ5) in times of crisis.