Crisis Management in a Food Company - Article Example

Crisis Management in a Food Company Student’s Name: Institution: Date: Crisis Management in a Food Company An Asian food company which processes and packages different types of foods has been accused of selling contaminated food in Britain to its customers. Consumers who ate the firm’s packaged beans product complained of stomach upsets. This crisis severely affected the image of the firm in the market. The firm’s management met and decided to utilize some aspects of the situational crisis communication theory to communicate its position to all stakeholders in the industry. This crisis was an accidental occurrence because the organization was not aware that it was going to happen. However, it could have been preventable had strict health and safety precautions were followed before the product was deemed safe for human consumption. The organisation used the image restoration theory to help it turn around a wave of public criticisms by various stakeholders in the industry (Coombs 2007). The main objective of the firm is to understand the real issues that have been caused by the crisis. The firm embarked on a fact finding mission to establish the cause of this crisis and how it was likely to affect its operations in the industry. The firm intended to give its side of the story to the media by acknowledging health and safety mistakes which had occurred (Coombs 2007). It also made promises to the public that it was undertaking specific actions to minimise the damage which had been done. The firm used both traditional and online media platforms to inform the public about the problem which had occurred and how it intended to rectify it to put the situation under control. This approach was practical because the harmful products went through the normal distribution chain before they were sold to consumers. Therefore, the firm has a responsibility to protect its consumers from health risks they are exposed to while consuming its products. The firm used the accidental cluster to put forwards its claim regarding the contamination of its products before they were sold to consumers in the market. This approach helped the firm create more levels of understanding with its consumers and market regulators who were under pressure to take legal action against the firm. The firm resolved to halt production for more than a month after it held a meeting with its distributors and suppliers to give it more time to resolve the problem it was facing. Since there were no fatalities associated with this problem, the crisis was not as big as it had been made out to be by various media outlets in the country. The firm used internal quality experts to find out the real source of the contamination (Coombs 2007). Medical and nutrition experts analysed samples used to produce the packed beans product to find out the real problems that caused the contamination. The team found out that a week earlier, the firm had approved new packaging containers for these new products which were made out of lead. These tiny deposits of lead must have found their way into the food packaged into these containers resulting in contamination. The most frequent speaker during this crisis was the brand manager of the product and he was supported by the production manager. The brand manager talked about issues related to image restoration to ensure consumers’ confidence in the product was not severely affected (Hearit 2006). In the initial stages, the CEO was involved in key meetings with all managers together with the firm’s legal secretary to come up with a unified approach on how to resolve the crisis. As a result, all managers decided that the firm was going to give out different messages to consumers and other stakeholders about actions being undertaken to resolve the crisis. The brand manager informed the public that the specific product which had contaminating elements had been recalled from the market until further notice. The brand manager relied on the rebuild crisis response strategies arguing that the organisation was doing all it could in its power to minimise the harm done to different people by the crisis. The brand manager after consulting with other managers informed all consumers of the product to carry a receipt that showed where they had purchased the product from (Hearit 2006). All products which had been released in the market in the previous week had a serial number and date of manufacture and this made it easy for the firm to identify genuine claims from fraudulent ones. The brand manager also communicated to the public about specific improvements the firm intended to initiate to ensure such an occurrence did not happen again in future. The message strategies used were different between speakers. The CEO spoke about general issues related to the firm and was able to communicate with stakeholders about the firm’s previous history and reputation in the industry. In the first three days of the crisis, the CEO did all he could to restore the faith of consumers and the public in the firm’s products. He insisted that the problem which had taken place was not going to harm the good relations the firm enjoyed with its customers in the 15 years it had operated in the industry (Hearit 2006). He also argued that the firm would increase health inspections of all its food production divisions to ensure they conformed to high health and safety standards which were enforced in the country. He used the bolstering crisis response strategies to inform all stakeholders that the firm had also experienced heavy financial losses due to the crisis. The production manager was also involved in giving out messages about the crisis. He used the rebuild crisis strategies to inform all stakeholders about specific processing improvements which were being undertaken by the firm. These process improvements would be used to prevent such occurrences in the future. The production manager was also quick to defend the firm’s previous track record and regretted the food contamination crisis the firm has been forced to deal with (Witt & Morgan 2002). As a result, he was able to demonstrate to all stakeholders that the firm has acknowledged the problem and it has implemented quality system processes to increase the value of its products in the market. The brand manager was able to make all stakeholders understand why the product had some defects. He made them understand that the upgrading process was responsible for the food contamination that endangered the health of many consumers. In the beginning, the messages from the CEO and other managers sought to restore confidence in the firm’s ability to handle and resolve the crisis. They wanted to cool down people’s anger towards the firm due to the serious health effects they suffered after consuming the packed beans. The firm explained the reasons for these problems and promised to do all it can to correct all the problems that had taken place in the market (Witt & Morgan 2002). The firm’s messages were focused on changing the perception that it was negligent in its responsibilities which resulted in the health complication being felt by people who had purchased the products. Gradually, customers and other stakeholders were willing to be part of the solution to help the firm restore the quality of its products in the market. The product and brand managers began giving out information on the steps the firm was taking to resolve the problem. They made customers aware that all products which were contaminated had been recalled from the market, a week later. Three days after the first case of contamination had been reported, the CEO had informed all stakeholders through various media platforms that all products were being recalled from the market. The statement made by the two managers helped to restore consumers’ trust in the firm and its processes. The two managers also issued a joint statement revealing that the firm was doing everything possible to compensate customers who had been affected by this problem (Witt & Morgan 2002). As a result, all managers were able to restore consumers’ confidence in the firm, and after a month the firm’s operations were back to normal. When the crisis was first reported, there was a lot of uncertainty in the firm because senior managers did not understand the full repercussions the firm was likely to experience. Therefore, all managers met and brainstormed on the best approach to be used to resolve the crisis the firm was facing at the time. They also consulted the company’s lawyer about the legal consequences the firm was likely to face due to this situation. Therefore, all managers decided that since there was evidence of contamination in the firm’s products, all departments needed to share information about their processes to find out the main cause of the problem. All senior managers decided that the firm’s best option was to acknowledge the problem and propose specific solutions that had been put in place to solve the crisis (Heath & O’Hair 2009). Since the firm had never faced a similar crisis before, a rebuild crisis response strategy was the best approach which all managers felt that would help the firm restore its image in the industry. The communication response used by the organisation helped to improve the relationships it has with its stakeholders. All managers were able to brainstorm and proposed an effective communication plan which was used to change negative perceptions about the firm in the market. In effect, this communication approach helped the firm turn around the situation to its own advantage. The managers who responded to questions from the media had all the necessary information and whenever they were not sure about something, they would delay making any definitive statement. As a result, the firm was able to move in a positive direction because all important stakeholders understood what they needed to do to achieve good outcomes (Heath & O’Hair 2009). The firm’s communication strategies were backed up by actual plans which were put in place to resolve the problems caused by the crisis. Customers and other stakeholders were able to see that it was making a significant effort to resolve the problems. As a result, the firm’s communication plans were seen as credible by customers and the media who felt that it was doing all it could to restore peoples’ confidence in its products. The firm was able to take note of its ethical responsibilities which made government regulators not to impose severe penalties on the firm (Heath & O’Hair 2009). The communication approach used by the firm was effective and I would not do anything different from what the firm did to resolve the crisis. All decisions which were made were beneficial to the firm’s operations in the long run. In conclusion, the strategy used by the firm helped to restore consumers’ confidence in its products. As a result, the firm managed to turn around the crisis to its advantage. References Coombs, WT 2007, Ongoing crisis communication: planning, managing, and responding, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hearit, K M 2006, Crisis management by apology: corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Heath, R L & O’Hair, DH 2009, Handbook of risk and crisis communication, Routledge, New York. Witt, JL, & Morgan, G 2002, Stronger in broken places: nine lessons for turning crisis into triumph, Times Books, New York. Read More