Introduction

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

Million dkr due to the crisis, which was 1/3 of the chains yearly revenue last year (Web4). This paper seeks to analyze the Super Best crisis, how it unfolded, which affect it had on Super Best and how Super Best reacted. I seek to demonstrate how this crisis not only affected SuperBests reputation and revenue, but also threatened their legitimacy and their existence. This crisis makes an interesting case of a modern organization dealing with multiple stakeholders simultaneously. By analyzing this case with stakeholders and crisis theory, the Super Best crisis can be used as a case study for discussing the relevance and usefulness of selected applied theory. Furthermore by the end of the paper, though analysis of the case with selected theory, I will able to provide practical recommendations for how SuperBest could have dealt, and can deal with issue afterwards. 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, 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?

Method and theory

In order to answer the research questions I hereby specify my method and approach along with my selected theoretical framework. I will first begin with short summary of the SuperBest case and the evens that took place. Stakeholder theory This will lead on to a stakeholder analysis to reveal which where the primary and secondary stakeholders in the case. Here I will draw upon Clarksons (1995) definition of stakeholders, where primary stakeholders are those who without their continuing participation SuperBest cannot survive; and secondary stakeholders defined as those who generally influence or affect, 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). I can use this to identify who the different stakeholders in the crisis where, what position, interest and power they had. Each stakeholder should be dealt with according to these factors, 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. This is where stakeholder mapping becomes critical, as a tool to identify which stakeholders should receive the most attention. Issue and crisis management Following the stakeholder analysis I will regard the crisis and the actual actions taken by SuperBest to accommodate it. 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, and an issue may develop into a crisis. Furthermore I will be using Timothy Coombs (1999) book on Ongoing Crisis Communication and his definition of a crisis, as damage in the relationship between an organization and its stakeholder. A crisis affects the relationship that an organization and its stakeholder have build over time, which is the foundation for the image or reputation of an organization with that stakeholder. In this view crisis communication becomes a task of relationship management for the organization.

Coombs work on crisis communication is quite comprehensive and offers a framework for responding to crisis, based on classifying the crisis and evaluating its damaging potential to the organizations reputation. This is evaluated along with whom is responsible for the crisis and the crisis history of the organization, and result in different response strategies. Coombs theory is a normative approach to crisis management, which makes it easier to provide practical recommendations on behalf of the analysis (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). Applying Coombs theory to the SuperBest case, I first wish to analyze what kind of crisis SuperBest where facing, and how severe they where to the organization. I wish to analyze which factors became significant in the development of the crisis, and finally how SuperBest reacted. This will be evaluated with the demands of the relevant stakeholders, to see how well the chosen strategy matched. I will throughout the paper specify Coombs theory further when I apply it. 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, to evaluate the communication from SuperBest to its stakeholders. With Coombs theory I can analyze which kind of crisis strategy where pursued, and with supporting PR and PA theory I can analyze how these strategies where implemented and with what result. 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. Furthermore I will discuss how issue specific responsestrategies can be regarded as either buffering, bridging or advocating (Meznar et al. 2006). Last I will analyze how the publicity created around SuperBest affected the public and political agenda. This will be done with agenda-setting theory (Cornelissen 2008). Data sources and limitations This paper will primarily be focused around secondary sources of data for the analysis. The communication from SuperBest is collected from their homepage

and press center, and from statements given by their CEO in various interviews. Furthermore communication from the different stakeholders are gathered primarily though articles and from the SuperBest blog. In the stakeholder analysis of this case, I will be limiting myself to those stakeholders I find had the biggest influence on the crisis. 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, its important to keep the selected stakeholders in mind, as different results of the analysis might be had, if different stakeholders and data sources had been chosen. Furthermore in dealing with data sources, and secondary data sources in particular, its important to note that these can never be viewed as actual representation of reality, but instead should be viewed as an interpretation of the real world (Fuglsang & Olsen 2005). This is likewise closely related to my scientific position of the paper as I will explain next. Scientific position In this paper I have adopted an approach of social constructionism. This means that reality is a socially constructed phenomenon where concepts are defined or constructed subjectively. Its in the social interaction of people that phenomenas are created and can be analyzed. In social constructionism there can never be given final truth, as reality is always dependent of people and interpretations (Fuglsang & Olsen 2005). 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, but instead should be viewed as a subjective look, which can contribute to future work of crisis communication.

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. This tv-show called Kontant could reveal that SuperBest in eight out

of 12 tested supermarkets, out of a total of 220 supermarkets, where relabeling old meat and reselling it again as freash meat the day after (web1). This made the Danish Veterinary and Food administration also investigate SuperBest who likewise found violasions in seven out of 10 tested stores (Web5). These viloalitons caused the consumers and politicians to speek up and SuperBest where fined. SuperBest responded by firering chef butchers from seven of their stores, and sending out a press release where the management took a strong distance from the actions committed by the chef butchers (Press 1) . A small month later followed the revelation of, that SuperBest where selling lamb meat which contained pork in some of the packages(Web6). This made SuperBest realease another two press releases: one which they imideatly stopped all sales of lamb meat in all their stores (Press2), and one in which they exsplained a series of approaches and regulations they would implement to secure the control in their stores (Press 3). On top of this SuperBest where facing further investigations from Danish Veterinary and Food administrations, as the tv-show Kontant could reveal, that all the stores which had violations, had had best level of rating (an elite smiley) from the government despite their violations (Web7). One week later a new meat issue arised. This time it was revealed that two SuperBest stores had falsely marked pork as free going pigs, although this wasnt the case (web8). Again SuperBest fired the personnel responsibel and released a pressrelease (press 4). The next issue which arised came just 10 days later. This time it was published that wine SuperBest had been selling for two years, had been tampered with from the Italian wine producer, and was actually cheap win sold as expensive. Again SuperBest responded with a pressrelease where they offered every buyer their money back, but proclaiming their innosence in the matter (press 5). By the end of these tree months the five issues Superbest had faced had turned into a crisis, and SuperBest they took a number initiatives to attone for the complications they had faced. First off they released a national campaign with fullside side text reading We are sorry (Web9). 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. 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).

Stakeholder analysis The aim of this analysis is to dertermine which stakeholders where affected by the issues SuperBest faced, and what level of intensity the issues had in the public domain. The level of intensity influences SuperBest ability to resolve the given issue towards a stakeholders (Cornelissen 2008). 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. As primary stakeholders pre crisis especially the employees and costumers must be mentioned as stakeholders who which without their participation SuperBest cannot survive. As secondary stakeholders of importance can be mentioned the government, suppliers, political groups, the press and investors. I will map these stakeholders according to their power and their interest in the crisis, to figure out what actions, if any, should be taken towards them (Cornelissen 2008).

Power
Costumers

Investors

Employees

The Press Politicians

Suppliers

NGOs

Interest Risk

The Press The press takes a very imporatant role in the development of this crisis for SuperBest. While the media coverage does not strictly determinate SuperBests reputation, it does have an impact in terms of highlighting the issues, and increasing the already negative view of the organisation. The power of the press can be explained through the amplifying effect of agenda-setting (Cornelissen 2008). The press dont tell the people what to think, but rather what to think about as people use the media to decide which issues are important. Throughout the crisis the danish media affect the salience of SuperBest by reinforcing the image that SuperBest is bungling. Each story relates negative attributes or associations which over time makes issues develop into crisis (Web12). So the power that the press hold in this crisis is not directly influincing SuperBest, but rather power that influences other stakeholders relation to SuperBest. The interest that the press holds in this crisis is also high, as storys of bungling within prominent companies are storyes that sells. With this in mind the press can be catogarized as an important stakeholder, but neither supporting or antagonisting towards SuperBest in the crisis. Most likely though, the press will follow the generel public or consumers in their position of the crisis, as journalist are also consumers or posible costumers of SuperBest. Costumers The cosumers of SuperBest can be catagorised as an antagonistic stakeholder as they are directly influenced by the issues this crisis revealed. They are likely to oppose SuperBest and be hostile towards the actions taken, and furthermore they hold a large power and influence, through their purchasing power. The actions taken by SuperBest in this particular crisis, posibly holds the consequence of endagering public health, and therefore the intensety and interest becomes very high among SuperBest costumers. This is visible on a numerous mediawebpages, where users comment very strongly against SuperBest. Also in the SuperBest webblog (web xxx) emotions and critisism runs high against SuperBest. As SuperBest are particular dependent of their costumers they may want to take specific communicative actions towards this

stakeholder. SuperBest may even be forced to directly change to their costumers values and norms, as they perhaps their most important stakeholders. 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. The politicians are highly affeced by the agendasetting of the media, and are forced into this crisis by pressure from the public and the press. This happends when revelations from Kontant force the authoreties to investigate SuperBest (web5). Furthermore as the crisis develop among the press and the public, the topic of food regulations becomes an issue related to electioneering which hightens the interest among politicians. The government likewise has a high influence of power, although not as big as the costumers, as they are limited to making sure SuperBest follows the law. The strategy towards this stakeholder therefore might be limited to keeping them satisfied, as their interest in the matter probably will fade if the public looses interest. Therefore this stakeholder might be considered more problematic then antagonistic. Employees The employees of SuperBest are an imporant stakeholder as they are highly involved and affected by this crisis. They will most likely react like the general public, but may not be as hard to communicate to as the costumers. Employees have the power to lay down or quit if they do not feel their organization reflects their own personnel norms and values. In regards to this crisis SuperBest employees can be considered as both supporting and problematic, depending on their loyalty and the nature of responsibility in crisis. Though as employees posess a high level of power, their information level is also high, and they require communication though out the crisis. Depending on this communication employees take greater action and interest in the crisis. Investors, 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. These stakeholders can be catogorised as low priority. NGOs or political groups are not really involved in this crisis, but usually take a high interest and have limited amounts of power.

Sum up I have specified the different stakeholders and their stakes towards SuperBest in the issues they where facing, but mainly I have focussed on those who are of the biggest important, and left some out who are lesser important. Its clear that these stakeholders all have different agendas or stakes, and that they effect each other as the issues for SuperBest develops. As this categorization is complete the idea is that communication strategies can be worked out that deal with each type of stakeholder approprietly. As I do not have acces to internal communication from SuperBest I will in the following analysis focus on SuperBests external communication, and how this is a means to communicate with to their stakeholders. 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 the stakeholderanalysis I have analysed which norms and values could be identified with the different stakeholders in the crisis, 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). 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). In the following I will therefore first identify what kind of crisis SuperBest where facing. Identifying the crisis means analysing who had the responsibility for it and how big the thread was to SuperBests reputation. From issues to crisis Regarded individually SuperBest where facing five different issues of different severity. Wieved seperately these may not have caused the loss in sales and reputation SuperBest are facing, but wieved as a whole they give the picture of an organisation in turmoil and crisis. When identifying a crisis Coombs specifies this as the crisis history of the organisation (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). Whenever an issue can be linked by stakeholders to similar sounding issues in the past, the severity of the new issue will cause bigger damage to the organisation.

Prior to these issues SuperBest did not have any related problems1, 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). Another way of evaluating how severe an issue is, is though the life-cycle of an issue (Cornelissen 2008). A lifecycle of an issue consist of four stages: 1. emergence 2. debate 3. codification 4. enforcement. 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 idea is that its important for organisations to detect issues when they first emerge, so they can engage stakeholders beforefor the issues turn to enforcement. When the first issue of relabeled meat surfaced SuperBest where taken by surprise and the issue could be labeled as (4) enforcement, as consumer boycuts and government interference where the result. The deficulty that SuperBest faced, was,that they saw this incedent as a single misfortune happening, instead of the emergence (1) of severel meat issues. When more meat issues arised SuperBest where caught offguard again and thus faced further costumer boycuts, where they instead could have stopped the issues at emergence or debate. 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. 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, the publicity saw a steady rise climaxing in october where SuperBest where mentioned more then 1000 times in media around the country2. This chart is also good display of how the latent issues vent from active, to intense climaxing as a crisis in october.

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 July Septem ber Novem ber Search conducted on Infomedia. 2 Graph showing the result of a search conducted on Infomedia in all Danish media with SuperBest as searchword.
1

Articles on SuperBest

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). The significance here is that stakeholders may not always have the correct view of a case, but may still posses enough power that organisations must react towards them. Fighting the righteous cause is often a complicated and expensive issue (Johansen & Frandsen 2008), Coombs devide crisis responsibility in four catagories: internal/external and intentional/unintentional. 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. Other then that all the issues that arise are either due to personnel breaking company conduct code, or because procedues in SuperBest are not up to government required standards. While this is pretty clear, finding the correct culprit is a more delicate issue. As I will explain later SuperBest changes their response strategy as the crisis develops. This might very well be due to changing perceptions in the stakeholders, as to which degree SuperBest are responsibel for the crisis. The issues can eiher be viewed as intentional or unintentional. Since only the people responsibel can really know, stakeholders can only rely on communication from SuperBest and the press to determine if SuperBest are to blame. 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). 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. 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. The act of responsibility became a transgression, but SuperBest protected their brand by distancing themselfes from the guilty. With the following meat issues SuperBest took similar actions fireing more personnel and blaming bad internal procedues as the reason for the issues. With

each surpassing issue the press and the public became more and more vokal towards SuperBests management demanding further explenation (web13). This is a good indication of, that people where perceiving that responsibilty of the crisis where not only among SuperBest personnel but management aswell. Coombs desribes this as stability; which refers to the fact that if an organisation is frequently involved within the same kind of issue resulting in a stabil event, the more likely people are to ascribe responsibility to that organisation (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). Furthermore he adds the dimension of locus; 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. We can establish that the crisis had a high stability for SuperBest. We can also establish that as Kontant made the first revelations about meat labeling, other grocery chains where also involved and mentioned (web1). But as more stories turned up all regarding SuperBest, they became the agenda-setting topic, not the meat. The locus in the issues where poiting to SuperBest as they turned up again and again. These are some of the factors that points to why some of the stakeholders might demand an action from SuperBest management, as they thought they shared the responsibility. To identify the type of crisis by analysing the factors above, I will define the SuperBest crisis according to Coombs 3 groups of crisistypes low-moderate-high (Johansen & Frandsen 2008). 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. These crisis are often accidents done by the organisation unintentional, and stakeholders see a moderet level of guilt with the organisation. This moderate crisis then developed further to a crisis which posed a high level af treat towards SuperBests reputation. These crisis are defined as human or organisztional misdeeds which breaks laws and regulations and which can lead to personneldanger. This shift in crisistype is as exsplained not solely due to a new more severe issue arising, but due to the severel issues arising within the same time. Crisis response strategy

To analyse which type of responsestrategy SuperBest followed, I will be comparing their communication with Coombs four groups of responsestrategies which each contain two public relations strategies (Heath and Coombs 2006). These four groups are Denialreduction, rebuilding and reinforcing. Each strategy should be chosen on a base on what kind of crisis where at hand, and as a generel rule, the larger the responsibility stakeholders ascribe to the organisation, the more forthcomming the organisation has to be. 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). This strategy can be classified as reduction strategy, where both exsplaining away and justifying given actions apply as strategies. SuperBest wants to distance themselves from the few people responsibel. With the following two issues and press releases SuperBest offer no real parts of people responsibel, but instead engage in a reinforcing strategy exsplaining how they will not tolerate violations, using propping up strategies to announce that they are constantly improving procedues, training personnel and sharpening controls (Press 2 & 3). Issue four follows a repeet reduction strategy from issue one and people are let of in two different shops (Press 4). 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). This strategy is a mix of denial strategy, where suppliers are scapegoated, and a rebuilding strategy offering people compensations or their money back. Buffering and bridging What then followed was a complete change in communication and responsestrategy from SuperBest, as they launched tree new initiatives just shortly after their fifth issue. First was a national campaign in all major written papers with a full page bearing the heeder We are sorry (Web9). The add was a full out rebuilding strategy using formal apology, and taking full responsibility for the crisis and asking stakeholders for forgiveness. Along with this came the launch of a new webpage (Web10). This page was dedicated to supplying information off all the different issues SuperBest had faced, but more importantly how and what they where doing to approve and move on. This weppage had a reinforcing strategy providing stakeholders with

clear acces to strenghtening information on how SuperBest was improving with severel initiatives, which had been contained in interviews and ealier press releases. With this webrelease came an overall change in the way SuperBest communicated about the crisis. Earlier attemps of communication had been focussed on buffering behavuir but now shifted to bridging behavior (Meznar et al. 2006). With the first five issues SuperBest faced, they attempted to change external expectations and stonewall the issue with press releases. This led to attempts of postponing internal decisions and slowing development of the crisis. With the release of a dedicated weppage SuperBest instead followed a bridging behavior, recognizing they had to change their own practices according to external expectations and not the other way around. 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, and openly communication about it. A final initive to their bridging behavior was the release of a brand new blogg on SuperBest main webpage. On this page bloggers can read articles from the CEO of SuperBest and engage in discussion about SuperBests old and new issues. 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). This means that the organisation has a way of communication views and opinions straight out to the public, and are open to the similar in return. This views in return then does not only affect how SuperBest henceforward communicates, but also affect how they act in the market and in the society. Its a means of communication where both parties are acknowledged with the terms and thus can communicate freely. Sum up I have analysed the crisis response strategy that SuperBest took throughout the case, based on the influence that stakeholders had on the development of the crisis. From this it becommes obvioues how SuperBest where faced to change the way they communicated, as they failed to legitimicy their initial actions towards their stakeholders. This change was required for SuperBest to be able to live up to its stakeholders norms and values, and did not only affect the communication

from SuperBest, but also its future way of engaging in stakeholder relations through bridging and symmetrical communications.

Conclusion and recommendations

The SuperBest case is a good exaple of what challenges modern companies face in an increasingly transparrent society. Stakeholder perceptions of organisations change rapidly in times of issues or crisis, and they have the power to greatly affect the way companies act and communicate. As this case study shows crisis can evolve fast even in successfull companies, and the sooner you react to your stakeholders the better are the chanses of saving reputation. In the SuperBest crisis the main stakeholders involved where the employees, the press, the government and in particular the costumers. All of these possed high interest and power in the crisis, but had different agendas or stakes which where close interviewned and related. As the crisis unfolded and more and more issues where reavealed for SuperBest, so changed the stakeholder perception of the organisation. SuperBest where constantly communication and taking actions throughout the crisis, but since their actions and communications where not aligned with the changing norms and opinions of their stakeholders the crisis kept on developing. The reason for the changing stakeholder perception, can be found in the catagorizing of the crisis and the way stakeholders ascribed responsebility throughout the issues. As more issues where revealed, the crisis changeed from beeing of moderate danger to high danger for SuperBest reputation, as stakeholders started holding the entire SuperBest corporation accountebel for the crisis, instead of just the few individuals SuperBest tryed to communicate where to blame. Finally this forced SuperBest to change their actions, taking tre new initiates who where all centered around a new approach. This involved a rebuilding marketing strategy where SuperBest apologized to the public, and two new other initiatives focussed on bridging with their stakeholders and two-way symmetrical communications. So ultimately this crisis has changed the way in which SuperBest communicate and engage with their stakeholders in generel. As a result to this experience and changing stakeholder influence, SuperBest is now finding new ways to ligitimize itself.

Recommendations On behalf of the analysis and oberservations done in this paper, the following recommendations can be given to SuperBest both to the crisis which passed and to the furture of stakeholder communications. Blogging online

The online blog is a very good tool to engage with different stakeholders. However blogging is a modern trend which about every organisation is doing now a days. Therefore it is critical that this blog does not become a pubblicity stunt, but instead a ginuent tool in communications practices. Issue scanning

Close related to the blog is the ability to probe public opinion about upcomming or latent issues. As this case showed SuperBest failed to aknowledge that public opinion was forming against them, which could have been a keyfactor in responding to the crisis faster and better. This new blog could among other initiates become a tool for probing public opinion. Crisis strategy

Throught the crisis SuperBest adopts severel different crisis strategies. This is generally a bad approach as stakeholders become confused as to which opion is the real of the organisation. SuperBest might want to have a bigger crisis contingency plan ready, if they even have one now. Internal communications

After a long period of external turmoil and pressure where the organisation has been highly focused on adjusting to external stakeholders, it might be time to spend an effort in internal communications. As employees are different stakeholders at the same time, it may be hard to analyse which norms and values they follow to. Furthermore since employees have a critical insight to the organisation, its vital that they also still support the organisation after the crisis, as they are still a primary stakeholder. This may easyli be forgotten in times of external pressure.

Litterature
Chase, W.H. (1984): Issue Management: Origins of the Future. Stamford, CT: Issue Action Publishers Clarkson, B.E. (1995): A stakeholder framwork for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1): 92-117 Coombs, W. Timothy (1999): Ongoing Crisis Communication Planning, Managing, and Responding, 2. udgave, Sage Publications Cornelissen, Joep (2008): Corporate communications, a guide to theory and practice. Sage publications Fuglsang, L & Olsen, B.P (2005); Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne p tvrs af fagkulturer og paradigmer, 2. udgave, Roskilde Universitetsforlag Hansen, J.O.K. (2004): I andres brd. Hndbog om informationsjournalistisk, virksomhedskommunikations og public relations. rhus: Ajour Heath. R.L. & Coombs, W.T. (2006): Todays public relations: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications Johansen, Winni & Frandsen, Finn (2008): Krisekommunikation. Forlaget Samfundslitteratur Meznar, B.M. & Johnson, H.J. & Mizzi, J.F. (2006): No news is good news? Press coverage and corporate public affairs management. Jounal of public affairs: Feb 2006: 6,1; pg. 58 Press releases (Press 1) = http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/36C1D19D-76E5-40F6-B4F1005B85D7CE33/1506278/Pressemeddel.pdf (Press 2) = http://www.superbestorienterer.dk/forbud_mod_hakket_lammekod.pdf (Press 3) = http://www.superbestorienterer.dk/superbest_tager_konsekvensen.pdf (Press 4) = http://www.superbest-orienterer.dk/friland.pdf (Press 5) = http://www.superbest-orienterer.dk/gobi-vin.pdf Web sources Web 1 = http://www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/09/29130909.htm Web2 = http://ekstrabladet.dk/kup/fodevarer/article1250265.ece Web3 = http://www.erhvervsbladet.dk/virksomheder/koedskandale-kostersuperbest-dyrt Web4 = http://finans.tv2.dk/nyheder/article.php?id=26101379 Web5 = http://www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/09/29151559.htm Web6 = http://www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/10/20173806.htm Web7 = http://www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2009/10/27143152.htm Web8 = http://www.dr.dk/Regioner/Sjaelland/Nyheder/Ringsted/2009/10/28/085742.htm

Web9 = http://i.pol.dk/tjek/dagligliv/article829349.ece Web10 = http://www.superbest-orienterer.dk/ Web11 = http://www.superbestblog.dk/ Web12 = http://ekstrabladet.dk/kup/sundhed/article1231208.ece Web 13 = http://www.superbestblog.dk/hvad-mener-du