crisis communication between corporation, the news media
TRANSCRIPT
Crisis communication between corporation, the news media and public:
the case of Primark.
Author: Anne van der Pijl
Student number: 10705090
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s thesis Communication Science: Corporate Communication
Supervisor: F. Schultz
Date: March, 12th
, 2015.
2
Abstract
This present study aims to investigate crisis communication between Primark, the news media
and the public. Previous research on crisis communication is mostly concerned with only
analyzing the organizational perspective. This present study does not only focus on the
organizational perspective, but also focuses on the news media and public reactions. The use of
framing, response strategies, tone and actors and issues was compared between the different
groups. A cross-national comparative research compared UK and Dutch messages.
In this study a total number of 188 documents were analyzed. Both a qualitative and
quantitative content analysis were performed in order to understand how Primark and the
public interact in their crisis communication. The attribution of responsibility frame was found
to be the most used frame in news articles and blogs. Furthermore, this study found in line with
previous research that accommodative response strategies prove to be successful for the
protection of the organizational reputation.
Key words: crisis communication, response strategies, framing, agenda setting, tone, actors,
issues, news media, public, Primark
3
Introduction
Public relations practices have changed a lot since the emergence of Web 2.0. It has both
fostered challenges, as well as opportunities for corporate reputation management.
Corporations use the Web to present themselves as socially responsible citizens and to advance
their legitimacy positions (Esrock & Leichty, 1998). The Internet has challenged the
communication dynamics between organizations and the public. The news media can easily
distribute their news messages to the entire world. But also the public, especially protestors,
increasingly got more power to affect the legitimacy of corporations (Castello, Morsing &
Schultz, 2013). According to Jones, Temperley and Lima (2009) the World Wide Web has
transformed stakeholders into active consumer watchdogs, investigation journalists and
opinion influencers. This has significantly changed the power of the consumer. Once a
negative story about a company is published on for example a blog or social media, it can
reach billions of people all over the world within a few seconds. An organizational crisis can
thus easily evolve. Research on crisis communication suggests that what organizations say and
do during and after a crisis largely determines the aftermath of a crisis. Therefore it is
important for organizations to anticipate in the right way with proper crisis response strategies
using the right type of medium if a crisis occurs (Schultz, Utz & Goritz, 2010; Coombs,
Frandsen, Holladay & Johansen, 2010).
This study will look at the case of Primark, and how the corporation, the news media and
public communicate about Primark’s crises. Primark is an Irish low budget-clothing retailer
that sells fashionable clothes for fairly low prices. Primark claims to be a very ethical
company. There are a lot of CSR related activities mentioned on their website
http://www.primark.com/en/our-ethics. For example, they claim to be involved in local
communities regarding women’s health and educational programs. Furthermore, Primark says
they make sure the factories are safe and that they pay attention to human rights. They also
4
justify how they can offer the lowest prices on the high street (Primark, 2014). However,
Primark recently was involved in two major crises. The first crisis was the collapse of the Rana
Plaza, the garment factory in Dhaka in Bangladesh where more than 1000 people died. This
happened on April 24th
, 2013. The second crisis occurred a year later in June 2014. Several
people reported that they found ‘cry for help’ labels in Primark clothing (for an example see
appendix 1). Primark received a lot of negative media attention, and after both happenings
there was a lot of debate about the work conditions in the Primark factories in Bangladesh and
other developing countries. This study will focus on how Primark dealt with their crisis
communication and response strategies in order to restore their reputation and maintain
legitimacy.
Purpose
There seem to be a lot of ongoing crisis in the fashion and clothing retail industry. There is for
example a lot of criticism on many brands about the working conditions and human rights of
the people who work in their factories in developing countries. However, there is very little
academic research devoted to crises within this sector.
There is a large number of studies on crisis situations, however, according to Coombs (2007)
and Kim and Cameron (2011), this field is dominated by studies that show low ecologically
validity and additionally, therefore these studies often present unidirectional effects. Moreover,
most crisis research is approached from the organizational perspective, and does not take the
perceptions of the media and stakeholders into consideration (Coombs, 2006; Coombs, 2007).
Accordingly, the perspectives of the public and the media have often been ignored in academic
studies. Hence, the objective of this study is to overcome these research gaps. Budget retail
stores (e.g. Primark) are popular among the public, it is interesting to see how the public, news
media and company report on crises in this sector. It is socially relevant to investigate whether
5
the public actually cares, or whether they just want to buy cheap clothes. The frequency of
communication, the content of communication and the tone of the communication from
Primark, the news media as well as the public will be investigated.
The key contribution of this paper is to deepen the understanding of crisis response strategies,
how Primark interacts with the audience, how the news media responds to the crisis, how the
audience responds, and what affect this has on corporate reputation and legitimacy. Both
responses of the company, as well as responses from the public and news media will be
investigated through a comparative study that compares the UK and the Netherlands, in order
to find out how legitimacy is maintained or affected and whether Primark is successful in its
crisis communication in both countries. The research questions will be investigated through a
both qualitative and quantitative content analysis using Atlas.ti and SPSS.
The general research question of this study is:
How do Primark, the news media and the public in the UK and Netherlands report differently
or similarly on both of Primark’s crises and how does this affect Primark’s reputation?
Model 1 was constructed to give a clear overview of the comparison. This model can be found
in appendix 2.
Theoretical framework
Primark’s corporate communication
Organizational reputation and legitimacy
Corporate reputation is essential in today’s corporate environment. Fombrun (1996) defines
corporate reputation as ‘a perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future
prospects that describes the firm’s overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared
6
with other leading rivals’ (p.70). A company’s reputation is constructed through the interaction
between stakeholders and the company. Reputation is not a passive thing, but according to
Christensen, Morsing and Cheney (2008) it must be ‘created, managed and sustained’ (p.90).
Gray and Balmer (1998) argue that corporate reputation is an essential corporate asset, and link
it directly to competitive success.
Corporate reputation management has emerged as an important field in public relations.
However, reputation management is not an easy task because reputation is an intangible
concept. Budd (1994) (as cited in Payne, 2006) argues that “because reputations are not a
physical commodity, the challenge [of managing reputation] lies in managing all signals sent
by a company – a story, an action, a report, a meeting, or an interview - for the best possible
reputation”. This is especially the case in crisis communication. When a company is involved
in a crisis, reputation management is crucial, because negative effects of a crisis can have long-
term consequences on a company’s reputation. Reputational threats can emerge from bad
publicity that appears in the media. The Internet has challenged reputation management since it
is impossible to track everything that is being said on the Web. A damaged reputation can have
negative impact on sales and profits, especially if the crisis is not managed properly
(Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). A good corporate reputation is needed in order to maintain
corporate legitimacy. Corporate legitimacy can be defined as the “license to operate”. The
license to operate is based on social construction of social norms, values and expectations that
organizations perform in their actions (Scherer & Palazzo, 2006).
Crisis communication
Even with good reputation management, it is impossible for organizations to avoid damage to a
reputation when it is involved in a crisis (Coombs et al., 2010). A crisis can be defined as “a
low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the viability of the organization and is
7
characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution” (Pearson & Clair, 1998,
p. 60). Because of the emergence of Web 2.0, there is no longer full control over media
coverage. The web is a world full of critical voices. In order to restore the reputation that is
affected by a crisis, crisis communication is an essential aspect in crisis times. The Internet has
made crisis communication more complex compared to the old crisis communication that used
traditional media. Macnamara (2010) calls this shift from controlled content (traditional media)
to uncontrolled content (the Internet) the collapse of the control paradigm. Macnamara means
that the Internet has made it much more complicated to steer messages in the right direction to
a specific target audience. Procedures and practices to manage online reputation have therefore
become a vital activity of public relations (PR). However, organizations can also use the Web
to build and maintain their presence and legitimacy because they can go into a direct dialogue
with the public and other stakeholders. For organizations it is therefore important to quickly
anticipate to a crisis with an appropriate response strategy via the right medium type (Schultz,
Utz & Goritz, 2011; Coombs, Frandsen, Holladay & Johansen, 2010).
Coombs (2007) developed the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT).
This theory is a framework that is used to understand how organizations can maximize
reputation management by post-crisis communication. SCCT is a framework that indicates
how reputation is perceived by the public (i.e., favorable vs. unfavorable evaluations) (Kim &
Cameron, 2011). SCCT also holds that information about past crisis events in a (news)
message can significantly affect perceptions of a recent crisis. How well companies perform in
managing their reputation depends on the approach they take. A crucial aspect is how a
company engages with the audience. To achieve maximum success in managing the online
reputation, companies have to engage in conversations with the public (Jones, Temperley &
Lima, 2009).
8
Studies have shown that the type of medium that organizations use, as well as the crisis
response strategies influence corporate reputation (e.g. Schultz, Utz & Goritch, 2011; Coombs
& Holladay, 2007). Responding is thus a key factor to solving a crisis and restoring one’s
reputation. CSR communication is for example seen as an essential part of reputation
management when restoring from a crisis (Jones, Temperley & Lima, 2009; Vanhamme &
Grobben, 2009). It is thus very important how organizations frame and justify their response
regarding a crisis.
RQ 1a: How much did Primark communicate in general in the crises?
RQ 1b: What actors and issues did Primark use in its crisis communication?
Crisis Response strategies and framing
Research has shown that crisis response strategies serve as a toolkit in order to protect a
reputation after a crisis (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs et. al., 2010). Crisis
communication is essential because it can improve or worsen a crisis (Coombs et al., 2010).
The attribution theory is a framework that is used to conceptualize crisis management. This
theory focuses on three dimensions on which people judge a situation; these three dimensions
are locus, stability and controllability (Coombs, 1995). Locus is the locus of control, whether
internal or external factors caused a crisis situation. Stability refers to whether the cause of the
crisis is always present, or just in times of the crisis. Lastly, controllability refers to the level of
control the actor had on the crisis situation, whether it was beyond control of the actor or
whether the actor influenced the cause. Those three attributions shape the perception of a crisis.
Coombs (1995) argues that the stronger the attributions are, the more likely it is that an
organizational reputation is damaged. Proper crisis response strategies are therefore essential to
restore this damage. Common used crisis response strategies identified by Coombs and
colleagues are for example taking responsibility, denial, apology, giving information, blaming
9
other parties or response to embarrassment (Coombs, 1995; Coombs, 2006; Coombs, Frandsen,
Holladay & Johansen, 2010).
Hallahan defines public relations (PR) as ‘the construction of reality’ (1999, p. 206). PR is all
about shaping organizational perspectives, framing is critical because frames can construct
different perspectives. PR is regarded as successful when the content and framing of press
releases are understood by the stakeholders as intended by the organization. Framing is thus an
essential part of PR. Effective PR should (positively) affect the perceptions and reactions
stakeholders hold towards the organization (Schultz, Kleinnijenhuis, Oegema, Utz, & van
Atteveldt, 2012). According to Hallahan (1999) framing is a potential useful paradigm when it
comes to creating public relations response strategies. Framing is connected to underlying
psychological processes that humans use to examine and judge information. Framing provides
contextual cues that guide human decision-making. This means that a frame defines a
message's meaning by shaping the assumptions that people make about the content of the
message (Hallahan, 1999).
RQ1c: What response strategies and frames did Primark use in its crisis communication?
The construction of crises in the news media
How salient a topic is on the news agenda can determine how the rest of the crisis will evolve
and how it is going to affect a company’s reputation. This indicates that agenda setting is a
crucial factor in crisis communication. Caroll and McCombs (2003) define agenda setting as
the ability of the media to influence the salience of a topic on the public agenda.
Which objects appear on the media agenda is the initial stage in agenda setting theory,
attention is thus the starting point (Caroll & McCombs, 2003). Wartick (1992) found that
media coverage does affect a firm’s performance. Agenda setting is an important factor for
10
determining a corporation’s reputation and social legitimacy. If the public forms an image
about an organization, this is often based on messages that appear in the media. So corporate
reputations are often based on how corporations are portrayed in the media (Caroll &
McCombs, 2003). Therefore positive media coverage and public attention are essential for
organizations, and can help them to shape positive reputations. Negative publications about
crisis situations can negatively influence the corporate reputation on the short –and long term.
There is a distinction between first level agenda setting and second level agenda setting. The
first level of agenda setting refers to the salience of objects on the news agenda. These are the
amount of times objects appear on the news – and public agenda. Weaver (2007) refers to this
as the perceived importance of issues. The second level of agenda setting is concerned with the
salience of the attributes of the object (Caroll & McCombs, 2003; Weaver, 2007). This can be
seen as an evaluative dimension, where attributes are typically defined as positive, negative or
neutral. Second level agenda setting is more than looking at facts, it also focuses on feeling and
tone in a message (Deephouse, Caroll & McCombs, 2001; Caroll & McCombs, 2003).
Whereas first level agenda setting is focused on attention, second level agenda setting is more
concerned with comprehension of the issue (Caroll & McCombs, 2003).
RQ 2a: How much did the news media communicate in general about the crisis compared to
Primark?
RQ 2b: What actors and issues did the news media use in its communication compared to
Primark?
The news media and framing
According to Schultz, Kleinnijenhuis, Oegema, Utz and van Atteveldt (2011) framing is
especially important in crisis communication. Framing is a very important aspect of crisis
communication because the media attention an organization receives during a crisis can
11
influence their legitimacy. The way a message is framed determines how people make sense of
the event. Pattriotta, Gond and Schultz (2011) argue that legitimacy requires social actors to
justify their positions towards the public. Thus in order to receive legitimacy, actions in which
the organization is involved should be justified towards stakeholders. According to Pattriotta,
et al. (2011) this has three important aspects. The first aspect is that, when developing
justifications, corporate actors have to come up with rationales that match the socially accepted
definitions of the common good. Second, in order to do this, corporate actors have to take into
consideration that there are different social groups have competing definitions of what is the
common good. Corporate actors have to engage in these conversations about what is the
common good to different social groups. And third, to develop effective justifications, specific
competencies are needed in order to construct convincing accounts and arguments.
Previous literature has identified a wide range of different frames. In their study on crisis
frames An and Gower (2009) used five frames that according to Neuman, Just and Crigler
(1992) are the most dominantly used frames in U.S. news coverage. An and Gower use these
frames to see which frames are most used in crisis communication. These five frames are
human-interest, conflict, morality, economic consequences, and attribution of responsibility.
The human-interest frame “brings a human face or an emotional angle to the presentation of an
event, issue, or problem”. (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000, p. 95). This frame is focused on how
people are personally affected by an issue or event. This frame stimulates emotional response,
and often leads to a more negative attitude toward the crisis. Within the conflict frame a
conflict between certain groups, individuals or organizations is central. The morality frame is
about the context of morals regarding the problem or event. The economic frame is concerned
about economic consequences an issue or problem can have on individuals, groups or
organizations. The attribution of responsibility frame is how responsibility of an issue or event
is attributed to a group, individual or organization.
12
According to Boin, ‘t Hart and McConnel (2009) crisis communication can be seen as a
‘contest’ between frames and counter-frames from various groups that are involved in the
particular crisis. Those frames portray differences in the nature and severity of a crisis, its
causes, the responsibility or escalation of the crisis, and the future implications for the
organization and stakeholders. Within this ‘contest’ contestants are in a battle to have their
frame accepted as the dominant frame. Framing is also about the tone of a message. This tone
can be either negative, positive or neutral. Framing analysis is a useful tool for analyzing crisis
communication because it can provide insights into which crisis response strategies are
appropriate to reduce the damage to the organizational reputation (An & Gower, 2009).
RQ 2c: What frames did the news media use in it crisis communication compared to Primark?
RQ 2d: What tone did the news media use in its communication?
The public and crisis communication
When a crisis occurs, organizations have to convey messages to their stakeholder groups to
inform them about the crisis. Crisis communication is a way to reestablish organizational
legitimacy (Lee, 2004). However, there are few practical insights on how the public actually
responds to a crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). This present study argues that blogs are a rich
source to find out what the public opinion is on a crisis. Blogs are easy to create and often
express personal opinions on contemporary issues that receive a lot of media attention
(Thelwall & Stuart, 2007).
According to Lee (2004) the severity of a crisis is largely determining how consumers react to
a crisis. High crisis severity may trigger negative emotional responses; this might also send
danger signals to other observing consumers. It is for example an important factor if there are
direct consequences for the consumers. Pennings, Wansink and Meulenberg (2002) argue that
the attitude of the public towards a crisis largely depends on risk perception and risk attitude.
13
They suggest that when a company is involved in a crisis that poses direct risks to the public,
effectively communicating correct information is a powerful tool that can change the attitudes
and behavior of the public.
According to Lee (2004), the response strategy of the organization can influence the public’s
evaluation of the organization. For example, denial as response strategy can lead to a negative
evaluation where the public thinks the organization avoids the blame. In this case the public
perceives the actions of the organization as blameworthy. Acceptance of responsibility appears
to be more honest, which may reduce negative reactions of the public. Previous research (e.g.
Lee, 2004; Coombs & Holladay, 2008) confirmed that acceptance of responsibility of a crisis
can increase sympathy and forgiveness.
Highly accommodative strategies, to which Coombs and Holladay (2008) refer to as strategies
that show apology, sympathy and concern for victims by for example paying compensation, are
found to be the most effective response strategies in crisis communication. Previous research
compared those accommodative strategies to less accommodative strategies (e.g. refusing to
comment, denial, excuse, or justification of actions). These studies found that apology is the
preferred strategy, because it has the strongest positive effect on perceptions of an
organization's reputation. This shows that honesty and responsibility are highly valued by the
public.
RQ 3a: How much did the public communicate in general about the crisis compared to
Primark and the news media?
RQ 3b: What actors and issues did the public communicate about compared to Primark and
the news media?
RQ 3c: What frames did the public use in its crisis communication compared to Primark and
the news media?
14
RQ 3d: What tone did the public use in its crisis communication compared to the news media?
Method
Procedure
In order to understand how Primark, the news media and the public communicate in their crisis
communication a content analysis was conducted. This study specifically looks at the messages
(press releases, news publications and blogs) of Primark, the news media and public. The main
focus of this study is on how they report differently or similarly on both the Rana Plaza and
help label incidents and how this way of reporting possibly affects Primark’s reputation. In this
study a total number of 188 documents were analyzed. This study used a combination of both
qualitative and quantitative content analyses. This is also called triangulation; this involves the
comparison of two or more research techniques to study the object of research interest. If the
data from two or more methods point toward the same conclusion, then validation is enhanced
(Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Using these two different forms of content analysis enriches the
results and implications of this study. According to Lindlof and Taylor (2011) organizational
documents are a site of claims to power, legitimacy and reality. Crisis communication practices
are encoded and preserved as documents. Therefore analyzing these documents is a rich source
of data to gain insights in crisis communication practices and the implications it has.
This study focuses on UK and Dutch news media and messages from the public. It is
interesting to see whether the news and public perception differ in these countries.
First, a qualitative analyses was performed, Atlas.ti was used to analyze the unstructured
qualitative data. A codebook was developed to label the relevant content that was found in the
documents. A concept indicator model was created to summarize the findings. After the
analysis in Atlas.ti the data about the frequency of the all codes were transformed to an Excel
file. This Excel file was exported to SPSS in order to perform some basic statistical analyses.
15
Data collection and units of analysis
The messages that were analyzed for this study were specifically focused on two crises, the
crisis of the collapse of the Rana Plaza in April 2013, and the cry for help labels that were
found in Primark clothing in June 2014. This study was conducted from November 2014 –
January 2015. The data that were used in this study were collected in December 2014.
Therefore, the messages, publications and blogs that were analyzed for this study date from
April 2013 – December 2014.
Documents were retrieved from various online sources such as newspaper websites and blogs.
All Primark press releases were directly sourced from the official Primark website
(http://www.primark.com/en/our-ethics). Since there is an endless amount of blogs and
websites discussing issues related to Primark and its crises (some just one sentence, some
entire documents), the websites with the highest search engine optimization (SEO) were
selected for this study. All blogs and news releases had to specifically talk about Primark in
relation to the Rana Plaza or ‘cry for help’ label incident. Just mentioning the name of Primark
as supplier did not suffice.
Primark is active on Facebook and Twitter, but those social media account are solely used to
promote their products, and are not used for corporate messages related to crisis
communication or CSR efforts. Therefore Primark’s social media pages are not taken into
account in this study. News outlets that use social media often refer to the full article on their
website, this makes analyzing social media posts ineffective. To make the comparison fair,
social media messages from the public were also not taken into account.
For public messages the focus is on public blogs and websites/blogs/press releases from protest
groups/NGO’s. As mentioned before, these were selected based on their SEO. For articles from
the news media, the online versions of major UK and Dutch news outlets were used as source.
16
The following British outlets were selected: BBC, the Independent, Daily Mail, the Guardian,
the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Daily Mirror, the Huffington Post (UK). The Dutch
news outlets that were studied were: de Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad, NU.nl, Volkskrant and
Trouw. The English newspapers the Times and the Sun and Dutch newspaper NRC were left
out because these newspapers required a paid subscription to enter the online database. In total
200 articles were selected. During the analysis 12 articles seemed to not meet the selection
criteria, therefore n=188. Table 1 shows a specific overview of the units of analysis. This table
can be found in appendix 3.
Data analysis
The Atlas.ti software was used to structure and code the data. All articles were coded according
to a codebook. The first step in this coding process was to define the initial categories based on
the theories that were relevant for this study. After the initial categories were defined, the
further coding happened through an open coding process, this means that during the coding
procedure new codes emerged. In order to analyze all messages a codebook was created as
guideline to label all relevant data. The complete codebook is attached in appendix 4.
After this qualitative analysis in Atlas.ti, an additional quantitative analysis was conducted. All
the data from Atlas.ti were exported to Excel, in order to create a list of all codes that occurred
in the different groups (Primark press releases, UK news, Dutch news and UK blogs and Dutch
blogs). This Excel file was exported to SPSS so that a second analysis could be performed. A
one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the mean differences of the
variables between the groups. Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) was used as post-hoc
analysis. The variable ‘groups’ was measured as independent variable, and the remainder
variables were the codes that were used in the qualitative analysis (e.g. frames and response
17
strategies), these were measured as dependent variables. All the measures were tested on a
95% confidence interval.
Operationalization of concepts: codes and categories
The variables that were used in this study are source (press release, news release, blog), year,
country of origin, actors and issues, frames, tone, response strategies and reaction of the public.
These are the variables that were coded in the analysis. The actors and issues that were
identified are the key players in the crises. This study identifies several actors that were
involved in both crises; these actors are Primark, the government, the industry, NGO’s and
protest groups. The issues that are analyzed are the two crises; the collapse of the Rana Plaza
factory and the help label incident. The frames that were used in this study were based on the
frames that An and Gower (2009) used in their study on crisis communication. They used five
frames that according to Neuman, Just and Crigler (1992) are the most dominantly used frames
in U.S. news coverage. These five frames are human interest, conflict, morality, economic
consequences, and attribution of responsibility. The response strategies that will be analyzed in
all messages are taking action, taking responsibility, denial and apology. These are a few
common strategies that are identified by e.g. Coombs, 1995; Coombs, 2006; Coombs,
Frandsen, Holladay & Johansen, 2010. In order to analyze reputational impact of the crises, the
reaction of the public is also analyzed. This study looks at whether the public reacts favorable,
unfavorable or wants to take action towards Primark. This analysis also looked at the tone of
the message. Tone is a very subjective variable that is hard to measure. However, this study
tried to look at whether there was a positive or negative tone towards Primark. Messages that
were considered to be neutral were not coded.
18
Findings
This chapter discusses the results of the qualitative and quantitative content analysis. The
differences between the groups, Primark, UK news media, Dutch News media, UK blogs and
Dutch blogs are discussed. A concept indicator model was created to give an overview of the
findings. A frequency table of the occurrence of all codes is provided in appendix 3.
Actors and issues
Actors
In all articles (including news articles and blogs), Primark was 179 times found as an actor, this
is in 95% of the articles. Actor Primark was found to have a small statistical significance
between groups, as a one-way ANOVA showed an exact value of p=.05, F (4,74) = 2.42,
p=.05). A post hoc test showed a small significant difference (p=.004) between Dutch news
and UK blogs. Other retailers were also found to be actors, the word ‘retailer(s)’ occurred in
total 162 times. Primark works together with other actors in order to improve the conditions in
the garment factories. The garment industry, NGO’s and the Bangladeshi government were
also mentioned as actors that were involved in “solving” the Rana Plaza crisis by providing aid
to wounded victims and relatives of the victims that died.
The word ‘industry’ occurred 135 times, and was found to be an actor in 31 articles. A one-
way ANOVA showed significant differences for actor industry between groups, (F (4,74) =
8.74, p=.000). A post-hoc LSD test showed that these significant differences occurred between
various groups: between blogs and Primark, between UK news releases and Primark, and
between Dutch news releases and UK blogs. The word ‘government’ occurred 72 times, but
was only found as an actor in 7 articles. A one-way ANOVA did not indicate any significant
differences between groups (F (4,74) = .34, p=.85). Another actor that frequently occurred in
relation with Primark were NGO’s. The word ‘NGO’s’ appeared 37 times, and was found as an
19
actor in 29 articles. A one-way ANOVA showed for actor NGO’s (F (4,74) = 4.77, p=.001).
Significant differences were found between UK news and blogs and between the Dutch news
and Primark’s press releases. The last group that occurred as actors are protesters or protest
groups, they were actors in 25 articles. A one-way ANOVA did not indicate any significant
differences between the groups (F (4,74) = 1.35, p=.26).
Issues
The Rana Plaza issue had a higher position on the agenda than the help label issue. Primark
released 16 press releases about the Rana Plaza incident and 3 press releases about the help
label issue. In total, the Rana Plaza was found as an issue in 147 articles, whereas the help label
issue was found to be an issue in 63 articles. The Rana Plaza issue was also frequently
mentioned in articles that discussed the help label.
For the Rana Plaza issue, a one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences between groups
(F (4,74) = 5.55, p=.000). A LSD post-hoc test showed that the differences occurred between
the following groups: UK news and Dutch news, UK news and Dutch blogs, Dutch news and
UK Blogs, Primark and UK blogs and between Primark and UK news.
For the help label issue, a one-way ANOVA found significant differences between groups (F
(4,74) = 4.45, p=.002). The post-hoc test indicated significant differences between Dutch blogs
and UK news, Dutch blogs and Dutch news, UK blogs and Dutch blogs and between Primark
and Dutch blogs.
Response strategies Primark
Primark’s response strategies were found to different in both crises. Their responses to the
collapse of the Rana Plaza were apology, taking responsibility and taking action. Taking action
is the most frequently used strategy in Primark’s press releases (used 22 times); this strategy is
20
also often mentioned in the news and in blogs. In each press release about the Rana Plaza
incident Primark mentions the actions they will take. Words like ‘pay/ paid’ (221 times),
‘compensation’ (250 times), ‘improve’ (46 times), ‘inspect/ inspections’ (65 times),
‘investigations/ investigation/ investigate/ investigated’ (85 times) all relate to the actions that
were taken by Primark. A one-way ANOVA showed significant results between groups for the
use of the response strategy taking action (F (4,74) = 9.31, p=.000). Those differences occurred
between UK blogs and all other groups.
Primark does not only provide help to victims, they also want to improve safety of the
factories. An example of this kind of action mentioned in one of the press releases is signing
the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, initiated by the IndustriALL and UNI
Global Unions. Primark states: “under the terms of this agreement, signatories commit to
financing and implementing a joint fire and building safety programme. This will include
safety inspections, remediation and fire safety training at supplier factories.”
Primark takes responsibility for the Rana Plaza crisis. Primark’s response strategy taking
responsibility occurred in total 52 times (9 times in Primark’s press releases). The words
‘responsible/responsibility’ occurred 82 times in total. Primark immediately took responsibility
for the Rana Plaza collapse. In one of the first press releases they state: “Primark confirms that
one of its suppliers occupied the second floor of the eight storey building, which housed
several suppliers to the garment industry making clothing for a number of brands.” A one-way
ANOVA indicated significant differences between groups (F (4,74) = 5.39, p=.000). A LSD
post-hoc test showed that these differences occurred between UK blogs and Dutch news, UK
blogs and Dutch news, UK blogs and Primark, UK news and Dutch blogs, Dutch news and
Dutch blogs, Dutch blogs and Primark.
21
Primark also apologizes for what happened to the Rana Plaza. This strategy is only used a few
times. They do not directly say ‘sorry’, but for example in one press release they state: "the
company is shocked and deeply saddened by this appalling incident at Savar, near Dhaka, and
expresses its condolences to all of those involved”. The following words are related to the
apology strategy: ‘sorry’ (4 times), ‘apologizing’ (2 times), ‘condolences’ (10 times). These
word frequencies are low. A one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences between
groups (F (4,74) = 3.46, p=.009). These differences were found between UK news and UK
blogs and between UK news and Dutch blogs.
The reaction towards the help label incident is the opposite, as Primark uses denial. Primark
does take action by investigating the origins of the labels, but in the end they deny
responsibility by claiming the labels are a hoax. In a press release Primark states: “our
investigation into the labels sewn onto two garments bought separately from our Swansea
store in 2013, has led us to the conclusion that it is more likely than not, to have been a hoax
carried out in the UK.” In all articles the words ‘deny/ denial/ denies/ denied’ occurred 21
times. A one-way ANOVA did not find significant results between groups (F (4,74) = .91,
p=.46).
Primark and framing
The frame that occurred the most in Primark’s press releases is the morality frame (used 11
times). The second most used frame by Primark is the economic consequences frame (used 10
times), which is used to stress the economic actions that were taken by the company. The
human-interest frame was used in 8 press releases. The attribution of responsibility frame
occurred 5 times.
22
Primark uses the morality frame as a way to show that they are a morally right (and ethical)
company. This frame is used in all their press releases. A one-way ANOVA showed a
significant difference of the use of the morality frame between groups (F (4,74) = 11.59,
p=.000). A LSD post- hoc test indicated that all p-values of Primark compared to the other
groups are significant, since p=.000 for all groups. This indicates that Primark used the
morality frame more than the news media and public. Primark expresses its morality by
discussing the actions they take after the Rana Plaza incident. Primark also stresses that they
are involved with local communities and the safety of the factories. They show their morality
by for example talking about their ethical trading: “our Code of Conduct states that suppliers
and factories must ensure products are made in good working conditions, and that the people
making them are treated decently and paid a fair wage. We inspect each factory to ensure it is
meeting the Code and support it by providing guidance and training when issues are identified
and are a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative.”
The attribution of responsibility frame is also clearly visible in Primark’s press releases. In the
first press release after the collapse of the factory they stated: “Primark confirms that one of its
suppliers occupied the second floor of the eight storey building, which housed several
suppliers to the garment industry making clothing for a number of brands”. Primark shows its
responsibility by calling other brands to take action, and by also paying compensation to
victims that worked for other brands. Primark says: “Primark is calling on other brands
involved in the Rana Plaza disaster to make a contribution by paying short-term aid to some
3,600 workers (or their dependents) who made clothes for their labels. To date these workers
have been supported by Primark, even though the workers involved did not make clothing for
the company but for other brands”. A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference of the
use of the attribution of responsibility frame between groups (F (4,74) = 10.85, p=.000). A
23
LSD post- hoc test shows that all p-values of Primark compared to the other groups are
significantly different, since p=.000 for all groups.
Framing in the news media and in public blogs
Attribution of responsibility is by far the most dominant frame used by the news media and in
blogs. It appeared 58 times in the news media, and 66 times in public blogs. Not only Primark,
but the entire clothing industry is held responsible for the bad working conditions in the
factories in order to produce cheap fashion. The news media hold various actors responsible.
The following paragraph in the Huffington Post makes this very clear: "Factory owners show
no responsibility for the very poor working conditions in Bangladesh, the government of
Bangladesh is poor at enforcing their own weak laws about safety, and the international
brands must also bear some responsibilities. Primarily, it is them putting extreme pressure on
local factory owners to produce at a very low price. And because of that, factory owners have
to slash many other areas to keep their profits. In the garment sector, the brands determine the
price; if you cannot match it they go elsewhere. The price they want is so low it can barely
cover the cost. So owners try to cut down on other costs, the wages, fixing problems in the
factory. This all contributes to the situations like what we saw at Rana Plaza. It was not the
first case and will not be the last one". Public blogs and protest groups also frequently use the
attribution of responsibility frame in the same way as the news media. The public also holds
various groups responsible. A one-way ANOVA shows a significant difference of the use of
the attribution of responsibility frame between groups (F (4,74) = 10.85, p=.000). Post Hoc
comparisons using LSD showed that Primark significantly differed from all groups.
The economic consequences frame is also frequently used in relation to the Rana Plaza
incident. This frame is used when Primark’s economic compensation is stressed, and what
economic consequences it has for the company and the victims. In the news media this frame
24
occurred 16 times, and it was identified in 10 blogs. A one-way ANOVA showed significant
differences in the use of the economic consequences frame comparing Primark’s press releases
to the public blogs (F (4,74) = 4.58, p=.002). There is no significant difference between other
groups. Many news media articles discuss Primark’s economic actions to compensate the
victims. The Telegraph for example reports: “British clothing firm Primark says it will pay a
further $9 million (£5.4m) in long-term compensation to victims of the collapse of the Rana
Plaza factory in Bangladesh. The compensation, announced on Tuesday, March 18, is being
paid to the 580 employees of Primark supplier, New Wave Bottoms, which occupied the second
floor of the eight-story structure. A further $1 million (£600,000) is being made to workers in
the supply chain of competitors and will be paid to a trust fund run by the International Labour
Organization”. The economic consequences frame is mostly used by Primark and the news
media, and not so often by the public.
The public and news media also use the human-interest frame in order to provoke emotions.
This frame is not used in Primark’s press releases. A one-way ANOVA indicated significant
differences between groups (F (4,74) = 2.94, p=.022). A post-hoc LSD test showed that these
differences occurred between Primark and the public blogs. There were no significant
differences between the other groups.
The conflict frame is the least used frame. In total it occurred 18 times. This frame was used
when articles talked about a conflict between Primark and other groups, for example when
protest groups were in conflict with Primark. A one-way ANOVA did not show significant
results for differences between the groups (F (4,74) = 1.03, p=.393).
25
Tone in the news media and in blogs
The tone in the news media is most of the time quite neutral, whereas blogs expressed more
negative tones in their messages. In the news media and blogs, the negative tone was visible in
73 messages, and the positive tone was apparent in 17 messages. A negative tone was for
example coupled to words like ‘sweatshop’ (75 times), ‘shocking / shock/ shocked’ (61 times),
‘victims’ (265 times), ‘death(s) / dead’ (154 times). ‘slavery’ (9 times) in relation to Primark.
A positive tone was for example used when the words ‘positive’ (20 times), ‘initiative’ (45
times), or ‘good’ (45 times) were mentioned in relation to Primark.
The tone is somewhat positive when Primark’s actions are compared with other companies.
The Huffington Post for example quotes Oxfam's Bangladesh Country Director, Gareth Price
Jones, he said: "Primark's decision to compensate survivors and families who lost loved ones
in the Bangladesh Savar building collapse is welcome - other companies who had premises in
the building should follow their example”. For a positive tone there were no significant
differences found between groups (F (4,74) = .61, p=.66).
A negative tone was more often used in blogs than in the news media. A one-way ANOVA
found significant differences between groups (F (4,74) = 10.47, p=.000). A LSD post hoc test
indicated that these differences occurred between UK news and Dutch news, UK news and
Primark, Dutch news and UK blogs, Dutch news and Dutch blogs, UK blogs and Primark, and
between Dutch news and Primark. A negative tone is most of the time used to describe the bad
conditions in the factories, which is also blamed on the clothing companies. One public
blogger from the UK writes for example “Primark, the UK clothing store often criticised for
its use of ‘sweatshop labour’, has emerged as something of a white knight following the
collapse of compensation talks surrounding April’s Rana Plaza factory disaster. The UK
brand, owned by Associated British Foods, was the only one to agree to pay more short-term
26
aid at the talks in Geneva, to which only nine out of the 29 invited brands turned up”. Another
blogger is maybe even more negative, by stating that: “Primark has worked over the years to
improve on its sustainability image, but it isn’t about to shift its image as the bad boy of the
high-street. This is an image build up over years, the knowledge that there has to be a sacrifice
somewhere for the cheap prices that consumers desire. And when disasters like Rana Plaza
happen, they highlight that no matter how shiny your sustainability plan, there are major
problems“.
There are also examples of the news media using a negative tone towards Primark. The
Huffington post writes for example: "if Primark had taken its responsibility to those workers
seriously, no one need have died this week". The Daily Mirror is also quite negative by saying
that “the company faced criticism for failing to carry out structural tests on the factories and
for using low-cost suppliers”.
Reaction of the public
The reactions of the public towards Primark were diverse. There were many unfavorable
reactions regarding the bad conditions in the Bangladeshi factories. But on the other hand part
of the public reacts favorable to the fact that Primark takes action to financially compensate the
victims. There are also reactions of protest groups to take action. A one-way ANOVA found
significant differences between the groups for a unfavorable reaction (F (4,74) = 6.51, p=.000),
and for the reaction take action (F (4,74) = 4.82, p=.001).
A LSD post-hoc test revealed that the unfavorable reactions significantly differed between UK
News and Dutch news, Dutch news and UK blogs and between Dutch news and Dutch blogs.
A quote that is often repeated is a quote from Rebecca Gallagher, who reacts unfavorable to the
help label incident: “I was amazed when I checked for the washing instructions and spotted
27
this label. To be honest I’ve never really thought much about how the clothes are made. But
this really made me think about how we get our cheap fashion. I dread to think that my summer
top may be made by some exhausted person toiling away for hours in some sweatshop
abroad.”
Another reaction is a call for action; this is done by various protest groups. A LSD post-hoc
test revealed that the reactions about taking action significantly differed between UK news and
Dutch news, Dutch news and UK blogs, and between UK news and UK blogs. These actions
vary from boycotting Primark or actually participating in public protests in front of Primark
stores. The word ‘protest’ is used 48 times, and the word boycott(ting) is used 33 times in all
articles. One common reaction of the public and news media is that people should carefully
think about the origin of their clothing and in which circumstances they are produced. There
are also a few public blogs that stress that people should not boycott Primark or other clothing
stores. The following blog author argues that this can have negative consequences for the
people that work in the Bangladeshi garment industry: “We zouden allemaal kunnen stoppen
met het kopen van goedkope kleding: maar een morele algemene boycott zal niet veel goeds
betekenen voor mensen in ontwikkelingslanden die hun banen als gevolg hiervan zullen
verliezen en voor diegenen in ontwikkelde landen waar het kunnen kopen van een jeans van 5
euro het verschil maakt tussen armoede en het hebben van een klein beetje materieel geluk”.
There are also reactions in which it becomes clear that not everybody cares. Poor people and
young girls like fashionable clothes, and do not care about the origin and bad circumstances
their clothes are produced. One public blog reports about a survey that was conducted amongst
the public: “Fashion forecaster Mintel conducted a survey with over 2,000 shoppers aged 16
and above, 3 months after 1,129 people were killed in the Rana plaza building collapse, to
assess their opinions on ethics in fashion. The results were dismal – only 44% of women and
28
38% of men considered the treatment of workers as top priority. ‘When asked what was
important when making a purchase, the treatment of workers was valued as “low” and
environmental friendliness was “ranked even lower as a concern for clothes shoppers.”’
UK and Dutch articles
The English news media and also bloggers from the UK report more on both crises than the
Dutch news media and bloggers. 58 UK news articles, and only 24 Dutch news articles were
found for this study. There were also big differences in the amount of public blogs, 68 public
blogs were found, and only 19 Dutch blogs. The ANOVA’s often indicated significant
differences between the UK and Dutch messages. As reported above, for most variables
significant differences were found between the two countries.
A concept indicator model was created to summarize the findings. This model can be found in
appendix 5.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to investigate how the public, news media and Primark interact in
their communication about Primark’s crises by conducting a quantitative and qualitative content
analysis. The frequency of communication, the content of communication and the tone of the
communication from both Primark as well as the public were investigated. This study found
similarities, as well as many differences between Primark, the news media and the public in
their reporting on both crises.
General frequencies of communication
Primark only communicated through the 19 press releases that were published on their
corporate website. It is remarkable that they only used one communication channel. Primark
did not use social media in its crisis communication, and did not participate in a direct dialogue
29
with its consumers. This study only focused on online news publications, it is therefore
impossible to say how often the news media in total communicated about the Rana Plaza and
help label crises since paper newspapers were not taken into account. This study analyzed 82
news messages, but only from selected news outlets, since not all media outlets granted free
access to their articles. In total, 87 blogs were analyzed. This does not mean that only 87 blogs
regarding this issue were published. The blogs were selected through the highest SEO on
Google, this means that not all public blogs on the Internet could be analyzed. However, it can
be concluded that the UK news media, and also the UK blogs paid more attention to Primark
and the crises.
Primark’s content of communication
The findings of this content analysis show that overall Primark did a good job with its
responses by showing responsibility and taking action during the Rana Plaza crisis. Primark
confirmed to be an actor that was involved in both crises. The company immediately decided
to take action and pay compensation to victims. Primark clearly showed its corporate social
responsibility (CSR) efforts in their communication. They even launched a website
http://www.primark-bangladesh.com to show what they did after the Rana Plaza incident. The
attribution of responsibility frame is also often used in Primark’s press releases. Previous
research (e.g. Lee, 2004) confirmed that acceptance of responsibility of a crisis can increase
sympathy and forgiveness among the public. According to Coombs and Holladay (2008),
taking action by compensating victims is as effective as an apology, because it shapes the
public perception of the organization taking responsibility for the crisis because they show that
they focus on the wellbeing of the victims. These accommodative strategies also proved to be
successful for Primark. An experimental study by Pace, Fediuk and Botero (2010) showed a
positive relationship between accepting responsibility, showing regret or apology and
reputation. Accepting responsibility is not just apologizing, but companies need to explicitly
30
state that they accept responsibility and show their regret. This can reduce the amount of anger
of stakeholders and to leads to reputation protection. The findings of this study by Pace et. al
(2010) show the importance of the content of crisis response messages.
Because Primark immediately took responsibility and promised to take action, the news media
and the public were in general not so negative towards Primark as they were towards other
actors (e.g. Carrefour, JC Penny and Matalan) that were also involved in the Rana Plaza
accident and did not take action to help the victims. Primark not only said they would help the
victims; they were also the first to actually provide money and other forms of emergency-aid to
the victims. This positively contributed to the protection of Primark’s reputation.
However, Primark denied involvement in the help label issue. Primark claimed that it was a
hoax. This reaction evoked more negative reactions among the public. Especially protest blogs
reacted negative, by highlighting the bad working conditions in factories in developing
countries. The different response strategies indeed show that accommodative strategies work
better than low accommodative strategies such as denial and shifting the blame.
The news media
In general, it was remarkable that there were more news reports on Rana plaza than on the help
label issue. This could indicate that direct human suffering was considered to be more
important on the news agenda. The news media mainly focused on the attribution of
responsibility of both crises. An and Gower (2009) argue that it is logical that when the news
media reports about a crisis, they tend to assign responsibility to organizations for a crisis,
especially when it concerns coverage of preventable crises where organizational misdeed is the
case.
31
Overall, Primark was not portrayed in a very negative way. Just like Primark’s press releases
and the public blogs, the news media also stressed that Primark took action to help the victims.
Since Primark was one of the first companies that admitted they were involved and promised to
take action, the company was not as bad portrayed as other companies in the news media.
Reaction of the public
Just like the news media, the attribution of responsibility frame also occurred the most often in
blogs. This indicates that the aspect of responsibility was the most important aspect in
reporting on both crises.
The human-interest frame is mostly used by protest groups who want to stress human suffering
by focusing on the bad conditions in the Bangladeshi garment factories. This frame stresses
death and suffering of victims and portrays Primark and the other actors that were involved
with the Rana Plaza crisis in a negative way. The human-interest frame is most of the time
coupled with a negative tone. The fact that people work in bad circumstances and thousands of
people died because of this provoked many unfavorable reactions. The unfavorable reactions
are towards the entire Bangladeshi garment industry but also towards the cheap fashion chains.
Primark is also an actor that is being held responsible for this.
Unfavorable reactions often occurred in combination with a negative tone. A negative tone was
often used when articles used the quotes from the women who found cry for help labels in their
Primark clothes. In general people reacted favorable to Primark’s effort to compensate the
victims of the Rana Plaza collapse, the actions taken by Primark were discussed in the majority
of blogs. Kim and Cameron (2011) found that the use of emotional news in the media leads to
more emotional and negative responses of the public. This means, that the use of human-
32
interest frame in the news could have affected the emotions of the public, which in turn led to a
more negative evaluation of Primark.
Despite a negative tone that appeared in more than half of the public messages, on July 11th
the
Guardian reported a 20% increase in sales over the past 3 months. This indicates that despite
the Rana Plaza accident, consumers decided not to boycott the retailer (Guardian, 2013). The
company claims the sales have increased because of changes in the weather. But it can be
concluded that both crises did not influence Primark’s sales. However, it shows that the
unfavorable reactions of the public in blogs do not represent the reactions of the general
consumers. On the other hand, it could also be the case that British people do not care about
the origin of their cheap clothes.
Previous studies (e.g. Pennings, Wansink & Meulenberg, 2002; Lee, 2004) found that crises
that pose direct threats to stakeholders tend to lead to more negative evaluations of an
organization than when a crisis does not directly harm stakeholders. Both Primark crises did
not directly harm consumers, which leads to less negative evaluations from the consumer
perspective. Primark’s response strategies also show that they did a good job in their crisis
communication, and that Primark’s legitimacy and reputational damage does not significantly
affect their sales.
Discussion
The key contribution of this paper was to deepen the understanding of crisis response
strategies, how Primark interacts with the audience, how the audience responds, and what
affect this has on corporate reputation and legitimacy.
33
Implications
The practical implications of this study are confirmed by previous research, accommodative
response strategies were found to be effective in crisis communication. The recent crises in
which Primark was involved also show how hard it is for organizations to claim that their
products are “ethically sourced”. Primark used its corporate social responsibility efforts as a
way to show their morality. The company showed that expressing efforts of taking action are
important in crisis communication as tool to protect organizational reputation.
Limitations and future research
This research found insights in the communication between company, news media and the
public, but significant research gaps remain. A first limitation is that this study analyzed blogs,
but blogs do not represent the general public opinion, therefore it is impossible to generalize
what the public actually thinks about Primark’s crisis communication. Further experimental
research is necessary, so that perceptions of the public regarding different response strategies
can be directly measured. This type of research can help to draw conclusions on reputational
effects of different crisis response strategies. Future research could also focus on how crisis
communication and reputation after a crisis affect consumer behavior by conducting
experimental or survey research that measures consumer behavior. A second limitation is the
sampling in this study. Not all messages from news outlets could be analyzed due to a paid
subscription. Blogs were found through their SEO, which is not the most reliable way to select
a sample. Another limitation is that social media were not analyzed in this study. Especially the
public uses social media as an outlet for their personal opinion. Future research should focus
on comparing social media messages from the company, news media and the public in order to
find out what effect communicating through social media has on crisis communication and
corporate reputation.
34
References
An, S.K., & Gower, K.K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of
crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review 35, 107–112.
Boin, A., 't Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts
of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81-106.
Carroll, C.E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting Effects of Business News on
the Public’s Images and Opinions about Major Corporations. Corporate Reputation
Review, 6, 36–46.
Castello, I., Morsing, M., & Schultz, F. (2013). The communicative construction of corporate
social responsibility in network societies: A mediation perspective. Journal of Business
Ethics, 118, 683–694.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate communications:
Convention, complexity, and critique. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Coombs, W.T. (1995). Choosing the Right Words: The Development of Guidelines for the
Selection of the ''Appropriate'' Crisis-Response Strategies. Management
Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.
Coombs, W.T. (2004). Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication: Insights From
Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41(3),
265-289.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing
reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12, 241-260.
Coombs, W.T. (2007). Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development
and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corporate Reputation
Review,10(3),163–176.
35
Coombs, W.T., & Holladay, S.J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An
experimental study of crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8,
279–295.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic. Exploring
the impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication
Management, 11(4), 300–312.
Coombs, W.T., & Holladay, S.J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response
strategies: Clarifying apology's role and value in crisis communication. Public
Relations Review, 34(3), 252–257.
Coombs, W.T., Frandsen, F., Holladay, S.J., & Johansen, W. (2010). Why a concern for
apologia and crisis communication? Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 15(4), 337-349.
Deephouse, D.L., Carroll, C.E. & McCombs, M.E. (2001). The role of newsroom bias and
corporate ownership on the coverage of commercial banks in the daily print media’.
Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Identity,
and Competiveness, Paris.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Gray, E.R., & Balmer, J.M.T. (1998). Managing Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation.
Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695–702.
Hallahan, K. (1999) Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.
Jones, B., Temperley,J., & Lima, A. (2009). Corporate reputation in the era of Web 2.0: the
case of Primark. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(9), 927-939.
36
Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness
in the publics' response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response.
Communication Research, 38, 826–855.
Lee, B.K. (2004). Audience-Oriented Approach to Crisis Communication: A Study of Hong
Kong’s Consumers’ Evaluation of an Organizational Crisis. Communication Research,
31(5), 600-618.
Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2011). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. London:
Sage.
Macnamara, J. (2010). ‘Emergent’ media and public communication: understanding the
changing mediascape. Public Communication Review, 1(2), 3-17.
Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Neville, S. (2013, July 11). Primark sales rise 20% despite Bangladesh factory disaster
backlash. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/11/primark-sales-rise-despite-
bangladesh-factory
Pace, K.M., Fediuk, T.A,, & Botero, I.C. (2010). The acceptance of responsibility and
expressions of regret in organizational apologies after a transgression. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 15(4), 410 – 427.
Pattriotta, G., Gond, J.P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders
of Worth and Public Justifications. Journal of Management Studies,48(8), 1804-1836.
Payne, L. L. (2006). Synthesizing crisis communication and reputation management: an
experimental examination of memory. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(3-4),
161-187.
Pearson, C., & Clair, J. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management
Review, 23(1), 59-76.
37
Pennings, J.M.E, Wansink, B., & Meulenberg. M.T.G. (2002). A note on modeling consumer
reactions to a crisis: The case of the mad cow disease. Internal Journal of Research in
Marketing 19, 91–100.
Primark. (2014). Our Ethics. Retrieved from: http://www.primark.com/en/our-ethics
Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2006). Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative
Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71-88.
Semetko, H.A. & Valkenburg, P.M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis
of press and television news. Journal of Communication,50(2), 93-109.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Goritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and
reactions to crisis communication via Twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public
Relations Review, 37, 20-27.
Schultz, F., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Oegema, D., Utz, S., & van Atteveldt, W. (2012). Strategic
Framing in the BP crisis: A semantic network analysis of associative frames. Public
Relations Review, 38(1), 97-107.
Thelwall, M., & Stuart, D. (2007). RUOK? Blogging communication technologies during
crises. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 523-548.
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). ‘‘Too Good to be True!’’. The Effectiveness of CSR
History in Countering Negative Publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 273–283.
Wartick, S.L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in
corporate reputation. Business Society, 31, 33–49.
Weaver, D.H. (2007). Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming. Journal of
Communication, 57, 142–147.
38
Appendices
Appendix 1
This is an example of a cry for help label that was found in Primark clothing.
Appendix 2
Model 1
An overview of the comparison in this study.
Appendix 3
Table 1
Units of analysis per group.
Source Number of articles
Press releases 19
39
News papers UK 58
News Papers NL 24
Protest blogs 31
Public blogs 56
Total (N) 188
Appendix 4
Codebook
Source:
- Press release Primark
- Newspaper
- Other news media
- Public blog
- Protest blog
Country of origin:
- UK
- NL
Year:
- 2013
- 2014
Issue:
- Rana Plaza
40
- Help label
Actor:
- Government
- Manufacturing industry
- Primark
- Protest groups
- NGO’s
Frames:
- Human Interest
- Conflict
- Morality
- Economic consequences
- Attribution of responsibility
Tone:
- Negative
- Positive
Response from Primark:
- Apology
- Denial
- Taking responsibility
- Taking action
41
Reaction public:
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Take action
- Don’t care
- No Boycott
How is Primark portrayed in the message?
- Positive
- Negative
Appendix 3
Table 2
Frequency table of all codes
Code Amount
Actor Government 7
Actor: Industry 31
Actor: NGO’s 29
Actor: Primark 179
Actor: Protest group 25
Frame: Attribution of responsibility 129
Frame: Conflict 18
Frame: Economic consequences 36
Frame: Human interest 37
Frame: Morality 23
Issue: Help Label 63
42
Issue: Rana Plaza 147
Origin: NL 45
Origin: UK 120
Primark: Apology 10
Primark: Denial 36
Primark: Taking action 139
Primark: Taking responsibility 52
Reaction public: Don’t care 9
Reaction public: Favorable 5
Reaction public: No boycott 6
Reaction public: Take action 33
Reaction public: Unfavorable 57
Source: Newspaper 69
Source: Other news media 9
Source: Primark PR 19
Source: Protest blog 31
Source: Public blog 56
Tone: Negative 73
Tone: Positive 17
Year: 2013 88
Year 2014 94
43
Appendix 5
Model 2
Concept indicator model