In today's world, it is quite difficult for organizations to remain silent due to the worldwide multimedia environment. Maintaining silence could be catastrophic or even deny the companies opportunities for thriving or exhibit strengths in a competitive market and create a crisis. A crisis can be described as an event that has the potential to cause instability or danger to an individual, organization, or society (James, Wooten & Dushek, 2011). Crisis management involves strategies initiated to avoid or lessen the damage a crisis can exact on a company as well as the stakeholders (Coombs, 2014). Plans associated with crisis management are necessary for today's business environment due to natural disasters or unplanned incidents that can occur to an organization. Effective communication is an essential tool for any crisis plan. For any organization, crisis communication consistently requires a prompt, open as well as an honest response by the company facing the crises. In the modern business environment, whereby the internet and social media platforms continue to affect the stability and image of a company, communication during a crisis is vital. Failure to disclose or offer prompt explanations has affected small companies with ineffective crisis communication strategies. However, the company's direct legal counsels often recommend limited disclosure to the public in fear that clear communication might result in legal battles against the organization. Peanut Corporation of America management was faced with such a communication crossroad when they found themselves in the middle of a salmonella outbreak in the U.S.
Peanut Corporation of America is one company that chose to remain silent during a crisis that affected it. The situation resulted when the FDA investigated the organization and linked it to the Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak. The outbreak led to hundreds of illnesses and the loss of life of nine people. As a result, the company was forced to recall its products from supply chains. During that period, the organization provided minimum communication in response to the crisis. Although the company handled less than two percent of the U.S peanut butter provision, its peanuts as well as peanut products were among the ingredients used in almost four thousand products, including cakes, pet foods, and cookies. For instance, the company offered no public statement concerning the recalling of its product until months later, when the salmonella cases had been connected to the organization. Peanut Corporation of America could have been prompted to remain silent to corporate protection. In most cases, an organization that is linked to a public crisis tussles with the tension between open communication and the aspect of self-protection. Therefore, the pressure between the desire for transparency and the potential threat of legal suits that arise from such disclosures builds an ethical dilemma for companies such as that Peanut Corporation of America. The management of the company did not undertake adequate and effective responsibility probably because they valued their rights to self-protection. They could have opted to protect their personal interest over open communication to the public as well as the consumer's right. When there exist competing values in any business setting, ethical dilemmas can occur.
The company's lack of transparency led to an information vacuum. Information vacuum can be defined as a lack of important information that could increase or aggravate the severity of a crisis (Liu, Bartz & Duke, 2016). An information vacuum could encourage unfounded rumors or misinformation from the stakeholders or general public. Peanut Corporation of America's silence and lack of disclosure led to an information vacuum. As a result, the consumers knew little concerning the recall of the company's products. The silence also denied the customers the regular information that was necessary to make informed choices and decisions on how to protect themselves as well as their families during the salmonella outbreak.
Proxy communicators involve third parties who offer information or details about a particular issue on behalf of another (Millner, Veil & Sellnow, 2011). During the salmonella crisis, the government agencies and other leaders acted as a proxy for the Peanut Corporation of America. The government officials, as well as leaders, shared information with consumers such as the products that were safe for consumption, what the right action towards contaminated food was, and finally, where one could seek medical assistance. The proxy communicators were fully justified to offer information on behalf of the whole industry, especially since Peanut Corporation of America had ported to remain silent. The proxy communicators also actually spoke on behalf of the specific organization to provide consumers and the general public with the much-needed information. In this case, the government agencies were contributory in providing the stakeholders with information pertaining to the crisis, while the leaders from the peanut industry shared relevant details with the consumers. Moreover, throughout the crisis, organizations such as the FDA, CDC, and Jif shared information mainly for self-protection and to provide clarity to the consumers as a way of countering Peanut Corporation of America's lack of transparency as well as silence. Further, the information offered by these organizations did not criticize the company, but rather the proxy communicators shared messages that were designed to shed light on the situation and empower the customers to safeguard themselves.
In the event that Peanut Corporation of America had decided to communicate to the stakeholders and public during the crisis, several messages of communication would have been useful to the consumers. Such statements include the recall of products in various stores, how to deal with the contaminated items, and what to do in case one had consumed the contaminated products and the severity of the contamination. Moreover, the company could have educated its consumers about what the salmonella outbreak entails to protect the loyal customers of the company from further use of the products. The messages pertaining to the recall of the products could have somehow reduced the severity of the spread of the illnesses since consumers continued to purchase the products. The intervention by the government agencies as well as the leaders in the peanut industry was essential in providing such information that the company was responsible for issuing to the public. The company could also have done due diligence and offer the stakeholder the possible remedies or medical help to those with the illness and avoid more deaths.
Peanut Corporation of America's communication or lack of it during the crisis was not effective. Although the company was trying to protect itself from legal suits that could have resulted from the crisis, it was necessary to issue public statements to avert the further occurrence of illnesses or deaths. Moreover, even though the company opted to remain silent to maintain its corporate image, its lack of led to lack of trust towards the organization among the consumers. Further, the company's lack of transparency enhanced uncertainty and also increased anxiety during the crisis. Also, the company's lack of communication prompted proxy communicators and others to offer consumers the recall of the products as well as how to avoid illnesses.
References
Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.
James, E. H., Wooten, L. P., & Dushek, K. (2011). Crisis management: Informing a new leadership research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 455-493.
Liu, B. F., Bartz, L., & Duke, N. (2016). Communicating crisis uncertainty: A review of the knowledge gaps. Public relations review, 42(3), 479-487.
Millner, A. G., Veil, S. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2011). Proxy communication in crisis response. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 74-76.