In 2010, Nestlé, a company that has been a name in many households for decades, found themselves in a huge crisis. The issue? Palm oil sourcing and its impact on the environment. Greenpeace accused Nestlé of buying palm oil from suppliers involved in deforestation, which was destroying rainforests and endangering wildlife. This caused public outrage put Nestlé in a spotlight.

What happened? 

Greenpeace launched a campaign targeting Nestlé for its palm oil suppliers, who were linked to deforestation. Greenpeace’s campaign included a viral video, which seen as controversial. It mocked a KitKat commercial, replacing the chocolate bar with a severed orangutan finger.
People went on the company’s social media pages and demanded the company to take action. Instead of addressing the situation, Nestlé tried to remove the video. This made the company appear untrustworthy and caused a lot of discussions. In the age of social media, people expect transparency, accountability, and quick responses. By trying to shut down criticism, Nestlé essentially made things worse. A good crisis communication plan includes owning up to mistakes, being transparent with the public, and showing a genuine willingness to make things right. Nestlé did not try that approach at first.

Looking at the crisis through the lens of crisis communication theory, particularly Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), it’s clear that Nestlé’s response would have worked better if they had acted sooner and more transparent. SCCT suggests that organizations should work out their responses based on their level of responsibility in the crisis. In Nestlé’s case, people saw them as directly responsible. So instead the communication strategy should be take accountability, apologize, and make real commitments to change.

Nestlé’s initial defensive response made them look like they were trying to avoid the issue. Realizing the gravity of the situation, Nestlé shifted their strategy. They announced a promise to source sustainable palm oil and began working with organizations towards that goal. This was a big step in rebuilding trust with the public and environmental groups.

Nestlé’s palm oil crisis is a perfect example of how a company can go from a public relations disaster to a chance to make good change. But that turnaround only happened because they eventually chose to listen, be transparent, and own up to their mistakes. For companies facing similar challenges, this crisis shows the power of effective crisis communication: be accountable, engage with your stakeholders, and above all, take steps to make things right.

In 2005, Nestlé and Tetra Pak faced huge crisis, when isopropylthioxanthone (ITX), a chemical used in packaging ink, was found in their products. It was not found immediately harmful by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), but the late responses and the messages from different stakeholders turned this into a crisis. The Social Mediated Crisis Communication Theory (SMCCT) can be applied the following.

ITX traces were identified in products in Italy. Initially, the companies involved attempted to minimise the severity of the situation. However, by the time the Italian authorities were alerted, the contamination had already spread to other countries.

When it was revealed to the public, Nestlé’s decision to delay a public statement while taking some products off the shelves was met with criticism. Later on the company declared the recall was a precautionary measure, reassuring customers that the contamination was no real threat.

The SMCCT model highlights the importance of digital communication during a crisis, and Nestlé and Tetra Pak failed to do so by not addressing concerns on public platforms where the conversation was gaining attention. If the companies had engaged with parents and health professionals through these emerging digital platforms, they could have slowed down the spread of misinformation. Immediate communication would have helped control the crisis. The SMCCT emphasizes the need for consistent messaging from all stakeholders involved in a crisis. In this particular crisis this did not happen. If the companies would have worked together with health regulators and experts, they could have sent a much more clearer message and avoided confusion. Nestlé and Tetra Pak’s delayed public acknowledgment of the problem allowed rumors and speculation to spread and have impact on their reputation. A quicker, more transparent response would have helped to ease public worries and restore trust in the companies.

Timely engagement with stakeholders is important to managing the crisis effectively. Transparency and reaction are key to rebuilding trust, and brands must engage directly with their audience to correct misinformation and take accountability.

In 2006, Cadbury faced a crisis when huge amounts of products had to be recalled due to contamination with Salmonella. The contamination was traced back to a leaking pipe at the company’s Marlbrook factory, where chocolate crumb used in various products was produced. What followed was a series of actions by Cadbury aimed at managing the crisis, rebuilding trust, and addressing the public’s concerns.

The Crisis: What Happened?

The issue came to light when traces of Salmonella were discovered in Cadbury’s products in January 2006, however the company didn’t report it to the food safety authorities until June. This delay allowed potentially contaminated products to remain on store shelves, open for consumption. Cadbury was criticized for not acting sooner.

Cadbury’s Response to the Crisis

According to the Situational Crisis Communication Theory the Cadbury crisis was a preventable crisis. Meaning the company should act swiftly and take responsibility immediately. Once the contamination issue became public knowledge, Cadbury began to downplay the issue. Because the recall of the product took some time as well, this approach was not received well by the public. The recall happened way too late, which is the oppositive of what the SCCT suggest doing, act immediately. Cadbury’s next step followed the SCCT, which is reassuring and trying to keep and rebuild trust. The company also set up a helpline for consumers seeking further information about the recall. The company issued a formal apology, stressing their dedication to quality and safety. The delay in reporting the contamination damaged Cadbury’s credibility, and a more immediate response could have helped prevent further harm.

The Cadbury Salmonella shows how crisis communication is crucial to maintain consumer’s trust during a food safety crisis. While Cadbury’s initial missteps created a lot of questions, their communication later on, which was issuing a public apology, recalling the affected products and working on a solution helped the company recover their reputation over time. 

In the early 2000s, Hershey, a huge player in the global chocolate industry, found itself at the center of a crisis when the issue of child labor in its cocoa supply chains came to light. For a company with a long-standing reputation for social responsibility, this revelation raised serious questions about its commitment to ethical business practices.

What happened?

Hershey’s cocoa supply chain, particularly in West Africa, where most of the the world’s cocoa is produced, was found to be linked to child labor. Children working on cocoa farms were subjected to dangerous conditions, including exposure to toxic chemicals. Hershey’s brand image has always had an association with family and childhood, so this topic raised many questions.

Many NGOs responded to this crisis and started organizing campaigns like “Raise the Bar, Hershey!” to demand action. Many wondered how a company could overlook such serious abuses in its supply chain.

In terms of crisis communication, Hershey’s response changed over time. Initially, the company employed a denial strategy, denying the accusations of child labor. This approach was poorly received by the public. It was seen as an attempt to downplay the issue and avoid accountability. More accusations followed, when Hershey’s reports, which highlighted partnerships with organizations like “the World Cocoa Foundation” did not talk about the issue of child labor directly.

According to the SCCT, Hershey’s crisis could be categorized as preventable because the crisis was due to lack of action within the company, when they were aware of the issue before it came to light. Instead, Hershey should have taken responsibility, apologized and explain further actions. Facing potential boycotts and pressure from the public, Hershey changed their strategy. The company started sourcing Rainforest Alliance certified cocoafor its chocolate line in 2012 and expanded this commitment to all their products by 2020. Additionally Hershey pledged to improve transparancy in its supply chain and ensure that cocoa farmers were paid fair wages. These commitments were part of a broader initiative to improve working conditions and stop child labor. While these steps show a shift toward responsibility, the lack of immediate accountability in the early stages and the amount of time it took to implement changes on all their products, raised doubts about the sincerity of Hershey’s efforts. 

Immediate, transparent, and empathetic responses are crucial in managing crises, particularly preventable ones, where companies must take responsibility and outline clear change plans. Key takeaways for companies include proactive issue management, genuine accountability, and engaging stakeholders to build credibility and restore trust.

While Hershey has taken steps toward sustainability, it remains clear that the company, along with others in the industry, must continue to prioritize transparency andcethical sourcing.

In 2010, Procter & Gamble (P&G) found themselves at the center of a shitstorm when their Pampers Dry Max diapers were accused of causing severe rashes and burns on babies skin. These claimes were shared all over the internet and caused a huge customer outrage. While the allegations were unproven, the claims itself were a huge threat to Pampers’ reputation. 

What happened?

After the launch of the new pampers product called Dry Max, a Facebook group titled “Recall Pampers Dry Max Diapers!” gained thousands of followers. Parents shared alarming stories and images, sharing their assumption that Dry Max Diapers were the cause of it. Many Media outlets and social media profiles shared these assumptions. P&G was suddenly under pressure to respond to an insinuation, with already thousands of people waiting for a statement by the company.

Their Response

If we take a look at the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), P&G’s communication strategy can be explained. SCCT categorizes crises into three types: victim, accidental, and preventable. This categorization shows how much responsibility a company should accept and which strategies they should use in their crisis communication.

In this case, P&G treated the situation as a victim crisis, stating that the claims were based on rumors and not actual evidence. They combined denial, evidence-based reassurance, and empathy for concerned parents. P&G kept reassuring that Dry Max diapers were not the cause of the reported rashes and burns. They released a statement denying the allegations and emphasizing that the materials used in the new diapers were the same as in their other products, which haven’t gotten any accusations. P&G also worked with independent experts, including dermatologists and pediatricians. They found no link between the product and the claims being made. Even tho they kept denying their responsibility, P&G still expressed empathy towards the parent’s frustrations and the issues they were experiencing. 

They used social media for their advantage and kept communicating that way as well. They responded to concerns and gave out evidence-based information. To clear their name they also collaborated with influential parenting bloggers and invited them to look over their safety testing that Pampers products undergo.

How did P&G get out of the crisis?

P&G successfully navigated the crisis because they responded immediately, truthfully and with empathy. None of the Investigations found any evidence that proved the accusations against Dry Max diapers.Despite the initial damage, Pampers retained its position as a trusted brand in the market.

For most people their data security is a non-negotiable, so data breaches can shatter trust in many companies. In 2022, Medibank, a private health insurance based in Australia, experienced a data breach that left millions of customers and their data exposed. 

What happened?

In 2022, Medibank revealed that there had been a cyberattack against their servers. They had noticed suspicious activity and realized the attack had happened. At first they were downplaying the severeness of the attack and  ssured their customers that they would not have to worry and that no sensitive information had been compromised. Further Investigations later on, proved that the personal data of 9.7 million current and former customers had been accessed and stolen.  

Highly sensitive information was accessed and leaked, some including health claims. As it later turned out, the reason this cyberattack was possible, was because the company did not use two factor authentication. And a worker had his password And login on his private computer saved. So with only a simple password the hackers were able to access the customers data.

Initial response and public backlash

Medibank’s initial communication was vague and they claimed that sensitive data did not get accessed. Which later turned out to be untrue. As the scale of the breach became more clear, the company was accused of failing to act quickly and transparently. Customers flooded social media with complaints, worried about identity theft and their medical information being exposed. 
The situation worsened when it was revealed that Medibank didn’t have cyber insurance, meaning the company would have to pay all of the consequences themselves. Customers began to question how a company entrusted with such sensitive information could be so unprepared for an attack.  

How Medibank responded

Once the backlash reached its peak, Medibank shifted its approach and implemented several measures to manage the crisis:  They started issuing regular updates, providing customers with details about the breach and the steps being taken to address it. They also set up a dedicated hotline and resources to assist their customers. Credit monitoring and identity protection services were offered. Medibank also worked with government agencies and cybersecurity experts to investigate the attack. 
On their Website everyone can find a Q&A about everything customers have to know about the attack, what is going on and who they can contact for further information.

Lasting damage 
Two years later there is still damage on Medibank’s reputation. Many customers felt betrayed, especially those whose deeply personal medical information was leaked. Trust in the company got lost and many customers left the company. Even Financially, the attack cost Medibank millions in response efforts, legal fees, and lost customers. 

The Medibank data breach serves as a example about the importance of cybersecurity and fast and honest crisis communication. For companies handling sensitive information, customer trust is the most important thing. Medibank’s inability to prevent the breach, coupled with its initial missteps in managing the crisis, show the rapidity with which reputations can be destroyed. Even with a better crisis communication at the beginning the biggest mistake was not protecting data enough and not being prepared for cyberattacks while handling data on servers. The combination of being unprepared and instead of owning up immediately, lying to their customers about the breach of their data has made a permanent damage on the company’s reputation. No one wants to realize that the company you trusted with really sensitive data did not think it was important enough to protect.

Two plane crashes in five months – 346 people lost their lives. What did they have in common? Both planes were Boeing 737 Max.
One of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers began to get attention in 2018, after the first plane crash happened. A second crash happened just a few months later. Fast forward five years, and the company doesn’t seem to have recovered from these tragic events.

What happened?

The Boeing 737 MAX, a new addition to the successful 737 series, was designed to compete with the Airbus A320neo. With the new design, Boeing developed a new system called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It was supposed to automatically adjust the angle of the plane to prevent stalls.

As it later turned out, a system that failed and caused the two fatal plane crashes.

In October 2018, Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea, killing all 189 passengers and crew. Just five months later, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed, killing 157 people on board. Both crashes were traced to the MCAS, which Boeing initially denied, sparking a huge debate over the company’s involvement.

How has Boeing responded to these tragedies?

Boeing’s initial response after the first crash in 2018 was to deny that the crash could have been caused by a malfunction in the plane. In a press release after the crash, they assured their customers and passengers that the “373 Max is as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies.”
Instead, they implied that it must have been pilot error.
It wasn’t until the second crash in 2019, five months later, which killed everyone on board, that the fact that Boeing itself was at fault became more apparent. Boeing themselves hadn’t admitted any mistakes, even as countries around the world began grounding the Boeing 737 Max.
Boeing’s lack of accountability led to much public discourse and outrage.
After the second crash and due to pressure around them, Boeing finally admitted that their MCA system was the cause of both crashes. As documents were released with statements from test pilots who had raised safety concerns before the crashes, Boeing’s admittance of their faulty system came too late and caused a permanent damage to their reputation and trust.
With the Boeing 737 Max grounded, the company took all its resources to work on the problems of the aircraft to get it ungrounded by the authorities.

Permanent damage

The 737 MAX crisis has cost Boeing billions. The company faced legal claims from families of crash victims, compensation payments, and costs of redesigning the plane.

Not only that, but Boeing seems unable to repair its reputation. Thousands of people who never cared before what aircraft was used for their commercial flights, suddenly have more doubts about booking certain flights if it is a Boeing. Even though the company has been trying for years to rebuild trust and reassure passengers that their safety is a priority, the attempts do not seem to be working for many people.

The 737 MAX was officially recertified to fly in late 2020, and while it’s been almost impossible to regain trust, they took another hit in early 2024. During a commercial flight in the United States of America, a door plug came off, essentially putting a giant hole in the plane. An investigation was launched into Boeing’s planes and several flaws and safety issues were found.

Overall Boeing failed to communicate quickly and honestly, which has put the company in a spiral over the past few years from which no one is sure they can recover. If people refuse to be passengers on Boeing planes, airlines will stop ordering them and Boeing will not be able to keep themselves afloat.
It is a good example of how the wrong communication strategies can ruin a company forever. Especially in a business where customer safety and trust are a priority.