This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
For companies communicating and collaborating with their stakeholders, the notion of being considered legitimate by all relevant stakeholders has become the primary focus of strategic management. Organizational goals and activities must be found legitimate and valued by all market and ”non-market” stakeholders, and precedes solely having a good corporate image or reputation. This is due to the fact that organizations cannot survive without the continuing participation of their primary stakeholders, and thus a failure in meeting these stakeholders’ norms and values results in a lack of credibility and legitimacy which threatens the company (Cornelissen 2008). When organizations are dealing with issues and crisis that has the potential to damage its reputation and its relationship with its stakeholders, its particular important to understand how these issues affect them. In times of crisis, stakeholder perception of organizations change rapidly, and thus developing appropriate communication responses are needed to minimize the damage done to the organizations reputation and relationship with its stakeholders. Organizations must match stakeholder perception of the organizations responsibility for the issue or crisis, since crisis in extreme circumstances may even threaten the very existence of organizations. Therefore the main objective for organizations that face issues that may turn into crisis, is identifying the different stakeholders who are affected or take interest in the issue, and respond to them adequately. (Cornelissen 2008) In September 2009 the Danish grocery chain Super Best faced just such a challenge. After it was exposed in national media that Super Best against the low was frauding with dates on meat sold in their stores, Super Best quickly gained negative publicity and headlines around the country (Web1). With Super Best in the spotlight one issue was suddenly exposed after another and over a month the situation unfolded from a singular issue to a regular crisis. With several stakeholders speaking up and taking action against Super Best, and Super Best facing a 20% loss in turnover on meat, the situation was looking dire and required immediate action (Web2). Furthermore SuperBest was experiencing declining sales on all their general goods, and the grocery industry itself suffered a 7% loss in sales(Web3). Management in Super Best estimated to loose 100
Furthermore by the end of the paper. and can deal with issue afterwards. and what effect did it have on SuperBest and its way to legitimate itself towards its stakeholders? • What recommendations can be given to SuperBest on behalf of the analysis? . the Super Best crisis can be used as a case study for discussing the relevance and usefulness of selected applied theory. This paper seeks to analyze the Super Best crisis. On behalf of the above mentioned I specifically wish to explore the following research questions: • Which stakeholders where mainly involved in the SuperBest crisis and how did SuperBest communicate to them? • Which kind of crisis where SuperBest facing. though analysis of the case with selected theory.Million dkr due to the crisis. but also threatened their legitimacy and their existence. which affect it had on Super Best and how Super Best reacted. I will able to provide practical recommendations for how SuperBest could have dealt. By analyzing this case with stakeholders and crisis theory. I seek to demonstrate how this crisis not only affected SuperBests reputation and revenue. This crisis makes an interesting case of a modern organization dealing with multiple stakeholders simultaneously. how it unfolded. which was 1/3 of the chains yearly revenue last year (Web4).
as damage in the relationship between an organization and its stakeholder. which is the foundation for the image or reputation of an organization with that stakeholder. and different communication strategies may be needed. Stakes of different groups may be at odds with one another and puts pressure on the organization to balance stakeholder interest. . A crisis affects the relationship that an organization and its stakeholder have build over time. or are influenced or affected by the organization. This allows furthermore for a mapping of the stakeholders in relation to the specific SuperBest crisis with a power-interest matrix (Cornelissen 2008). This is where stakeholder mapping becomes critical. In this view crisis communication becomes a task of relationship management for the organization. Here I will draw upon Clarksons (1995) definition of stakeholders. I will distinguish between an issue and a crisis as Chase (1984) describes: an issue often involves a point of matter in contention between an organization and another party. what position.Method and theory In order to answer the research questions I hereby specify my method and approach along with my selected theoretical framework. Furthermore I will be using Timothy Coombs (1999) book on Ongoing Crisis Communication and his definition of a crisis. Issue and crisis management Following the stakeholder analysis I will regard the crisis and the actual actions taken by SuperBest to accommodate it. and secondary stakeholders defined as those who generally influence or affect. I can use this to identify who the different stakeholders in the crisis where. I will first begin with short summary of the SuperBest case and the evens that took place. as a tool to identify which stakeholders should receive the most attention. Stakeholder theory This will lead on to a stakeholder analysis to reveal which where the primary and secondary stakeholders in the case. and an issue may develop into a crisis. Each stakeholder should be dealt with according to these factors. interest and power they had. where primary stakeholders are those who without their continuing participation SuperBest cannot survive.
bridging or advocating (Meznar et al. I will be using Grunigs public relations models (Hansen 2004) to explain how the communication from SuperBest can be viewed as either symmetrical or asymmetrical towards its stakeholders. This is evaluated along with whom is responsible for the crisis and the crisis history of the organization. The communication from SuperBest is collected from their homepage . to see how well the chosen strategy matched. based on classifying the crisis and evaluating its damaging potential to the organizations reputation. Last I will analyze how the publicity created around SuperBest affected the public and political agenda. Applying Coombs theory to the SuperBest case. This will be done with agenda-setting theory (Cornelissen 2008). I wish to analyze which factors became significant in the development of the crisis. which makes it easier to provide practical recommendations on behalf of the analysis (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). and with supporting PR and PA theory I can analyze how these strategies where implemented and with what result. and result in different response strategies. I will throughout the paper specify Coombs theory further when I apply it. I first wish to analyze what kind of crisis’ SuperBest where facing. and finally how SuperBest reacted. This will be evaluated with the demands of the relevant stakeholders. Furthermore I will discuss how issue specific responsestrategies can be regarded as either buffering. Public relations and public affairs As Coombs theory of crisis communication revolves around the relationship or communication between an organization and its stakeholders I will supply Coombs theory with frameworks of public relations and public affairs. 2006). Data sources and limitations This paper will primarily be focused around secondary sources of data for the analysis.Coombs work on crisis communication is quite comprehensive and offers a framework for responding to crisis. to evaluate the communication from SuperBest to its stakeholders. and how severe they where to the organization. Coombs theory is a normative approach to crisis management. With Coombs theory I can analyze which kind of crisis strategy where pursued.
its important to note that these can never be viewed as actual representation of “reality”. if different stakeholders and data sources had been chosen. In social constructionism there can never be given final truth. which can contribute to future work of crisis communication. Scientific position In this paper I have adopted an approach of social constructionism. In the stakeholder analysis of this case. it’s important to keep the selected stakeholders in mind.and press center. Analysis SuperBest case summary In september 2009 the Danish grocery chain SuperBest where investigated by a TV-show focussed on comsumer rights working for one the two national tvchannels. as reality is always dependent of people and interpretations (Fuglsang & Olsen 2005). Furthermore communication from the different stakeholders are gathered primarily though articles and from the SuperBest blog. Furthermore in dealing with data sources. This tv-show called “Kontant” could reveal that SuperBest in eight out . This is likewise closely related to my scientific position of the paper as I will explain next. and secondary data sources in particular. These selected stakeholders will be the ones I will discuss further in the paper. When evaluating the recommendations I present for SuperBest in the end of the paper. as different results of the analysis might be had. but instead should be viewed as a subjective look. This means that reality is a socially constructed phenomenon where concepts are defined or constructed subjectively. but instead should be viewed as an interpretation of the real world (Fuglsang & Olsen 2005). Its in the social interaction of people that phenomena’s are created and can be analyzed. I will be limiting myself to those stakeholders I find had the biggest influence on the crisis. and from statements given by their CEO in various interviews. This brings that analyzed data and results in this paper never can give a definitive conclusion as to how SuperBest should have handled the case.
that SuperBest where selling lamb meat which contained pork in some of the packages(Web6). out of a total of 220 supermarkets. One week later a new meat issue arised. although this wasnt the case (web8). and was actually cheap win sold as expensive. Again SuperBest responded with a pressrelease where they offered every buyer their money back. where relabeling old meat and reselling it again as freash meat the day after (web1). and sending out a press release where the management took a strong distance from the actions committed by the chef butchers (Press 1) . had been tampered with from the Italian wine producer. . but proclaiming their innosence in the matter (press 5). as the tv-show Kontant could reveal. This time it was revealed that two SuperBest stores had falsely marked pork as free going pigs. and SuperBest they took a number initiatives to attone for the complications they had faced. that all the stores which had violations. They created the webpage SuperBest orientates (Web10) which is a page where you can find all the info around the issues and what SuperBest are doing to work on them. had had best level of rating (an elite smiley) from the government despite their violations (Web7). Again SuperBest fired the personnel responsibel and released a pressrelease (press 4). By the end of these tree months the five issues Superbest had faced had turned into a crisis. SuperBest responded by firering chef butchers from seven of their stores. On top of this SuperBest where facing further investigations from Danish Veterinary and Food administrations. These viloalitons caused the consumers and politicians to speek up and SuperBest where fined. This made the Danish Veterinary and Food administration also investigate SuperBest who likewise found violasions in seven out of 10 tested stores (Web5). First off they released a national campaign with fullside side text reading “We are sorry” (Web9). The next issue which arised came just 10 days later.of 12 tested supermarkets. This made SuperBest realease another two press releases: one which they imideatly stopped all sales of lamb meat in all their stores (Press2). And lastly they opened up a new blogging area on their main webpage where consumer and stakeholders now can blogg with management about SuperBest issiues (Web11). and one in which they exsplained a series of approaches and regulations they would implement to secure the control in their stores (Press 3). A small month later followed the revelation of. This time it was published that wine SuperBest had been selling for two years.
to figure out what actions. if any. Power Costumers Investors Employees The Press Politicians Suppliers NGO’s Interest Risk . As primary stakeholders pre crisis especially the employees and costumers must be mentioned as stakeholders who which without their participation SuperBest cannot survive. and what level of intensity the issues had in the public domain. As secondary stakeholders of importance can be mentioned the government. should be taken towards them (Cornelissen 2008).Stakeholder analysis The aim of this analysis is to dertermine which stakeholders where affected by the issues SuperBest faced. suppliers. political groups. I will map these stakeholders according to their power and their interest in the crisis. the press and investors. Whats unique with the SuperBest case is that they faced severel issues within a short period of time and thus ended up having severel stakeholders higly involved in the crisis. The level of intensity influences SuperBest’ ability to resolve the given issue towards a stakeholders (Cornelissen 2008).
through their purchasing power.The Press The press takes a very imporatant role in the development of this crisis for SuperBest. posibly holds the consequence of endagering public health. but rather what to think about as people use the media to decide which issues are important. as journalist are also consumers or posible costumers of SuperBest. Also in the SuperBest webblog (web xxx) emotions and critisism runs high against SuperBest. They are likely to oppose SuperBest and be hostile towards the actions taken. and therefore the intensety and interest becomes very high among SuperBest costumers. Most likely though. where users comment very strongly against SuperBest. With this in mind the press can be catogarized as an important stakeholder. as storys of bungling within prominent companies are storyes that sells. This is visible on a numerous mediawebpages. The power of the press can be explained through the amplifying effect of agenda-setting (Cornelissen 2008). it does have an impact in terms of highlighting the issues. and furthermore they hold a large power and influence. and increasing the already negative view of the organisation. Each story relates negative attributes or associations which over time makes issues develop into crisis (Web12). but rather power that influences other stakeholders relation to SuperBest. but neither supporting or antagonisting towards SuperBest in the crisis. As SuperBest are particular dependent of their costumers they may want to take specific communicative actions towards this . So the power that the press hold in this crisis is not directly influincing SuperBest. the press will follow the generel public or consumers in their position of the crisis. Costumers The cosumers of SuperBest can be catagorised as an antagonistic stakeholder as they are directly influenced by the issues this crisis revealed. While the media coverage does not strictly determinate SuperBests reputation. The actions taken by SuperBest in this particular crisis. Throughout the crisis the danish media affect the salience of SuperBest by reinforcing the image that SuperBest is bungling. The press don’t tell the people what to think. The interest that the press holds in this crisis is also high.
as they perhaps their most important stakeholders. Furthermore as the crisis develop among the press and the public. as they are limited to making sure SuperBest follows the law. This happends when revelations from Kontant force the authoreties to investigate SuperBest (web5). but may not be as hard to communicate to as the costumers. SuperBest may even be forced to directly change to their costumers values and norms. Employees The employees of SuperBest are an imporant stakeholder as they are highly involved and affected by this crisis. Suppliers and NGOs Investers and suppliers are minor players in the SuperBest crisis and are probably mainly concerned by the generel wellbeeing of the firm.stakeholder. and are forced into this crisis by pressure from the public and the press. depending on their loyalty and the nature of responsibility in crisis. Employees have the power to lay down or quit if they do not feel their organization reflects their own personnel norms and values. These stakeholders can be catogorised as low priority. as their interest in the matter probably will fade if the public looses interest. The politicians are highly affeced by the agendasetting of the media. the topic of food regulations becomes an issue related to electioneering which hightens the interest among politicians. NGOs or political groups are not really involved in this crisis. Depending on this communication employees take greater action and interest in the crisis. In regards to this crisis SuperBest employees can be considered as both supporting and problematic. but usually take a high interest and have limited amounts of power. Though as employees posess a high level of power. their information level is also high. and they require communication though out the crisis. The strategy towards this stakeholder therefore might be limited to keeping them satisfied. Investors. They will most likely react like the general public. . The government likewise has a high influence of power. Therefore this stakeholder might be considered more problematic then antagonistic. although not as big as the costumers. The government The government and politicians take a specifik role in this crisis. as they hold the enforcing power of foods and goods which is the field SuperBest is in.
Crisis analysis Earlier I have defined how Coombs (1999) defines a crisis as damage done in the relationship to an organisation and its stakeholder. In short this can be described with: All crisis communication is dependent on the specific situation at hand which results in the appropriet response strategy (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). and how this is a means to communicate with to their stakeholders. Identifying the crisis means analysing who had the responsibility for it and how big the thread was to SuperBests reputation. As this categorization is complete the idea is that communication strategies can be worked out that deal with each type of stakeholder approprietly. but wieved as a whole they give the picture of an organisation in turmoil and crisis.Sum up I have specified the different stakeholders and their stakes towards SuperBest in the issues they where facing. Whenever an issue can be linked by stakeholders to similar sounding issues in the past. . In the following I will therefore first identify what kind of crisis SuperBest where facing. the severity of the new issue will cause bigger damage to the organisation. but mainly I have focussed on those who are of the biggest important. Wieved seperately these may not have caused the loss in sales and reputation SuperBest are facing. and how this affected the situation for SuperBest. With this in mind I will now analyse the actual crisis events further using Coombs Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Heath & Coombs 2006). and left some out who are lesser important. When identifying a crisis Coombs specifies this as the crisis history of the organisation (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). From issues to crisis Regarded individually SuperBest where facing five different issues of different severity. and that they effect each other as the issues for SuperBest develops. As I do not have acces to internal communication from SuperBest I will in the following analysis focus on SuperBests external communication. It’s clear that these stakeholders all have different agendas or stakes. In the stakeholderanalysis I have analysed which norms and values could be identified with the different stakeholders in the crisis.
Prior to these issues SuperBest did not have any related problems1. When the first issue of relabeled meat surfaced SuperBest where taken by surprise and the issue could be labeled as (4) enforcement.that they saw this incedent as a single misfortune happening. debate 3. 2 Graph showing the result of a search conducted on Infomedia in all Danish media with “SuperBest” as searchword. 1 Articles on SuperBest . A similar way of analysing how this crisis evolved for SuperBest is by looking at the amount of public debate that was generated during the months of the crisis. With each issue surfacing without the stakeholders of SuperBest feeling their norms and values beeing met. to intense climaxing as a crisis in october. This chart is also good display of how the latent issues vent from active. When more meat issues arised SuperBest where caught offguard again and thus faced further costumer boycuts. instead of the emergence (1) of severel meat issues. where they instead could have stopped the issues at emergence or debate. The idea is that its important for organisations to detect issues when they first emerge. emergence 2. The deficulty that SuperBest faced. as consumer boycuts and government interference where the result. so they can engage stakeholders beforefor the issues turn to enforcement. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 July Septem ber Novem ber Search conducted on Infomedia. enforcement. Another way of evaluating how severe an issue is. is though the “life-cycle” of an issue (Cornelissen 2008). was. codification 4. but as these five cases came within the same perioed of time they where easely related by the press and created returning headlines (web 12). This made SuperBest face severel issues in a row which all where in the enforcement stage and which had a huge impact on their reputation. the publicity saw a steady rise climaxing in october where SuperBest where mentioned more then 1000 times in media around the country2. A lifecycle of an issue consist of four stages: 1. This can be a helpfull way for organisations to classify whether an issue is active or intense based on the amount of public debate about the issue and the pressure upon an organisation to do something about it.
The significance here is that stakeholders may not always have the “correct” view of a case. Other then that all the issues that arise are either due to personnel breaking company conduct code. If they arnt to blame the issues can be classified as accidents which are unintentional and happen during the couse of organizational operations (Cornelissen 2008). With the first issue of meat labeling SuperBest proclaimed (Press 1) that culprits within the organisation where action independantly and breaking company code and had severel people fired. If they are to blame its rather an act of transgression where intentional acts taken by an organisation knowingly places stakeholders at risk or harm. This might very well be due to changing perceptions in the stakeholders. With the following meat issues SuperBest took similar actions fireing more personnel and blaming bad internal procedues as the reason for the issues. Coombs devide crisis responsibility in four catagories: internal/external and intentional/unintentional. but may still posses enough power that organisations must react towards them. All the issues SuperBest are facing througout the crisis are internal and can only in the wine issue with a cheating supplier be classified as external. but SuperBest protected their brand by distancing themselfes from the guilty. as to which degree SuperBest are responsibel for the crisis. stakeholders can only rely on communication from SuperBest and the press to determine if SuperBest are to blame. finding the correct culprit is a more delicate issue. or because procedues in SuperBest are not up to government required standards. With . The act of responsibility became a transgression. As I will explain later SuperBest changes their response strategy as the crisis develops. The issues can eiher be viewed as intentional or unintentional. Fighting the righteous cause is often a complicated and expensive issue (Johansen & Frandsen 2008).Crisis responsibility An important factor in choosing the correct response strategy to a crisis revolves around what level of responsibilty the stakeholders affected ascribe to the organisation (Coombs 1999). Since only the people responsibel can really know. While this is pretty clear.
To identify the type of crisis by analysing the factors above. These crisis are defined as human or organisztional misdeeds which breaks laws and regulations and which can lead to personneldanger. These are some of the factors that points to why some of the stakeholders might demand an action from SuperBest management. which refers to the fact that if an organisation is frequently involved within the same kind of issue resulting in a stabil event. This moderate crisis then developed further to a crisis which posed a high level af treat towards SuperBests reputation. Coombs desribes this as stability. but due to the severel issues arising within the same time. they became the agenda-setting topic. the more likely people are to ascribe responsibility to that organisation (Johansen & Frandsen 2008).each surpassing issue the press and the public became more and more vokal towards SuperBests management demanding further explenation (web13). which refers to if the issiue is viwed as something regarding the organisation (SuperBest) or if the issue is about a subject (meat/wine) which SuperBest is involved in. other grocery chains where also involved and mentioned (web1). We can also establish that as Kontant made the first revelations about meat labeling. that people where perceiving that responsibilty of the crisis where not only among SuperBest personnel but management aswell. The SuperBest crisis started out as a moderate threat to the reputation of SuperBest. These crisis are defined as challenges which leads to failure and results in calling back products. and stakeholders see a moderet level of guilt with the organisation. I will define the SuperBest crisis according to Coombs 3 groups of crisistypes low-moderate-high (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). as they thought they shared the responsibility. Furthermore he adds the dimension of locus. not the meat. But as more stories turned up all regarding SuperBest. These crisis are often accidents done by the organisation unintentional. This shift in crisistype is as exsplained not solely due to a new more severe issue arising. We can establish that the crisis had a high stability for SuperBest. Crisis response strategy . This is a good indication of. The locus in the issues where poiting to SuperBest as they turned up again and again.
but instead engage in a reinforcing strategy exsplaining how they will not tolerate violations. where both exsplaining away and justifying given actions apply as strategies. SuperBest wants to distance themselves from the few people responsibel. Buffering and bridging What then followed was a complete change in communication and responsestrategy from SuperBest. and a rebuilding strategy offering people compensations or their money back. and taking full responsibility for the crisis and asking stakeholders for forgiveness. the larger the responsibility stakeholders ascribe to the organisation. With issue five SuperBest claim complete innocence and puts all responsibility on their wine supplier while offering people money back from wine purchased (Press 5). As ealier mentioned SuperBests first actions to the first issue. was to fire seven butcher chefs all in different stores for breaking the company regulations and the law (Press 1). I will be comparing their communication with Coombs four groups of responsestrategies which each contain two public relations strategies (Heath and Coombs 2006). Issue four follows a repeet reduction strategy from issue one and people are let of in two different shops (Press 4). Each strategy should be chosen on a base on what kind of crisis where at hand. Along with this came the launch of a new webpage (Web10). This weppage had a reinforcing strategy providing stakeholders with . training personnel and sharpening controls (Press 2 & 3). the more forthcomming the organisation has to be. This page was dedicated to supplying information off all the different issues SuperBest had faced. First was a national campaign in all major written papers with a full page bearing the heeder “We are sorry” (Web9). With the following two issues and press releases SuperBest offer no real parts of people responsibel. This strategy can be classified as reduction strategy. and as a generel rule. rebuilding and reinforcing. These four groups are Denial¸reduction. but more importantly how and what they where doing to approve and move on. This strategy is a mix of denial strategy. where suppliers are scapegoated. as they launched tree new initiatives just shortly after their fifth issue. The add was a full out rebuilding strategy using formal apology.To analyse which type of responsestrategy SuperBest followed. using propping up strategies to announce that they are constantly improving procedues.
This views in return then does not only affect how SuperBest henceforward communicates. This is a way of which SuperBest can communicate two-way with their stakeholders. The communication can be labeled as a dialog beeing two-way and symmetrical (Hansen 2004). A final initive to their bridging behavior was the release of a brand new blogg on SuperBest main webpage. recognizing they had to change their own practices according to external expectations and not the other way around. but also affect how they act in the market and in the society. This change was required for SuperBest to be able to live up to its stakeholders norms and values.clear acces to strenghtening information on how SuperBest was improving with severel initiatives. Earlier attemps of communication had been focussed on buffering behavuir but now shifted to bridging behavior (Meznar et al. From this it becommes obvioues how SuperBest where faced to change the way they communicated. On this page bloggers can read articles from the CEO of SuperBest and engage in discussion about SuperBests old and new issues. 2006). which had been contained in interviews and ealier press releases. It’s a means of communication where both parties are acknowledged with the terms and thus can communicate freely. With the first five issues SuperBest faced. as they failed to legitimicy their initial actions towards their stakeholders. With this webrelease came an overall change in the way SuperBest communicated about the crisis. they attempted to change external expectations and stonewall the issue with press releases. This means that the organisation has a way of communication views and opinions straight out to the public. By realising this crisis was not something SuperBest could avoid they instead sought a way to accommendate their stakeholders and change the organisations plans and operations. Sum up I have analysed the crisis response strategy that SuperBest took throughout the case. and are open to the similar in return. and did not only affect the communication . With the release of a dedicated weppage SuperBest instead followed a bridging behavior. and openly communication about it. This led to attempts of postponing internal decisions and slowing development of the crisis. based on the influence that stakeholders had on the development of the crisis.
as stakeholders started holding the entire SuperBest corporation accountebel for the crisis. Stakeholder perceptions of organisations change rapidly in times of issues or crisis. so changed the stakeholder perception of the organisation. can be found in the catagorizing of the crisis and the way stakeholders ascribed responsebility throughout the issues. All of these possed high interest and power in the crisis. The reason for the changing stakeholder perception. and they have the power to greatly affect the way companies act and communicate. So ultimately this crisis has changed the way in which SuperBest communicate and engage with their stakeholders in generel.from SuperBest. and two new other initiatives focussed on bridging with their stakeholders and two-way symmetrical communications. As the crisis unfolded and more and more issues where reavealed for SuperBest. As this case study shows crisis’ can evolve fast even in successfull companies. SuperBest where constantly communication and taking actions throughout the crisis. As a result to this experience and changing stakeholder influence. and the sooner you react to your stakeholders the better are the chanses of saving reputation. Conclusion and recommendations The SuperBest case is a good exaple of what challenges modern companies face in an increasingly transparrent society. taking tre new initiates who where all centered around a new approach. but also its future way of engaging in stakeholder relations through bridging and symmetrical communications. Finally this forced SuperBest to change their actions. but since their actions and communications where not aligned with the changing norms and opinions of their stakeholders the crisis kept on developing. instead of just the few individuals SuperBest tryed to communicate where to blame. the government and in particular the costumers. . the crisis changeed from beeing of moderate danger to high danger for SuperBest reputation. but had different agendas or stakes which where close interviewned and related. As more issues where revealed. In the SuperBest crisis the main stakeholders involved where the employees. the press. This involved a rebuilding marketing strategy where SuperBest apologized to the public. SuperBest is now finding new ways to ligitimize itself.
. As employees are different stakeholders at the same time. its vital that they also still support the organisation after the crisis. • Crisis strategy Throught the crisis SuperBest adopts severel different crisis strategies. the following recommendations can be given to SuperBest both to the crisis which passed and to the furture of stakeholder communications. SuperBest might want to have a bigger crisis contingency plan ready. This new blog could among other initiates become a tool for probing public opinion. as they are still a primary stakeholder. This is generally a bad approach as stakeholders become confused as to which opion is the “real” of the organisation. but instead a ginuent tool in communications practices. As this case showed SuperBest failed to aknowledge that public opinion was forming against them. Furthermore since employees have a critical insight to the organisation. it may be hard to analyse which norms and values they follow to. • Internal communications After a long period of external turmoil and pressure where the organisation has been highly focused on adjusting to external stakeholders. • Issue scanning Close related to the blog is the ability to probe public opinion about upcomming or latent issues.Recommendations On behalf of the analysis and oberservations done in this paper. it might be time to spend an effort in internal communications. Therefore it is critical that this blog does not become a pubblicity stunt. which could have been a keyfactor in responding to the crisis faster and better. However blogging is a modern trend which about every organisation is doing now a days. • Blogging online The online blog is a very good tool to engage with different stakeholders. if they even have one now. This may easyli be forgotten in times of external pressure.
Jounal of public affairs: Feb 2006: 6.dk/NR/rdonlyres/36C1D19D-76E5-40F6-B4F1005B85D7CE33/1506278/Pressemeddel.O. 2.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/09/29151559.dr. virksomhedskommunikations og public relations.P (2005).dr. Forlaget Samfundslitteratur Meznar.dr. Sage publications Fuglsang. Joep (2008): Corporate communications.dk/virksomheder/koedskandale-kostersuperbest-dyrt Web4 = http://finans.pdf Web sources Web 1 = http://www. L & Olsen.superbest-orienterer.htm Web8 = http://www. udgave.dk/forbud_mod_hakket_lammekod. Århus: Ajour Heath. B. J.erhvervsbladet.1.htm Web6 = http://www.E. 2.superbestorienterer. Timothy (1999): Ongoing Crisis Communication – Planning.dk/friland. Stamford. R. Academy of Management Review. (2006): No news is good news? Press coverage and corporate public affairs management. J.pdf (Press 4) = http://www. (1984): Issue Management: Origins of the Future.htm Web2 = http://ekstrabladet.php?id=26101379 Web5 = http://www. CT: Issue Action Publishers Clarkson.superbest-orienterer.htm . 58 Press releases (Press 1) = http://www. pg.M.dr. & Coombs. H.tv2.dk/nyheder/article.J.htm Web7 = http://www.dr. udgave. (2006): Today’s public relations: An introduction.superbestorienterer. 20 (1): 92-117 Coombs.L.pdf (Press 3) = http://www.pdf (Press 5) = http://www.dk/Regioner/Sjaelland/Nyheder/Ringsted/2009/10/28/085742. (1995): A stakeholder framwork for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance.dk/superbest_tager_konsekvensen.T. W. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications Johansen. Roskilde Universitetsforlag Hansen.dk/gobi-vin.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/09/29130909.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/10/27143152.K. and Responding. W.F.Litterature Chase. (2004): I andres brød.dr.pdf (Press 2) = http://www. Winni & Frandsen. Finn (2008): Krisekommunikation. Håndbog om informationsjournalistisk. Sage Publications Cornelissen. B. Managing. a guide to theory and practice.ece Web3 = http://www.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/10/20173806. & Johnson. W.H. B.dk/kup/fodevarer/article1250265. Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne – på tværs af fagkulturer og paradigmer. & Mizzi.
superbestblog.superbest-orienterer.ece Web 13 = http://www.dk/kup/sundhed/article1231208.pol.Web9 = http://i.dk/tjek/dagligliv/article829349.dk/ Web11 = http://www.dk/hvad-mener-du .superbestblog.dk/ Web12 = http://ekstrabladet.ece Web10 = http://www.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.