Experience teaches a powerful pattern of operational decision-making and corporate behavior that can quickly restore credibility in damaging situations. Each step is required
to begin promptly rehabilitating trust and credibility. It is the order and the velocity of action that make the approach so strategically powerful.
Once you resolve the problem itself, take immediate steps to deal with those most directly affected and victims. Next, answer employee questions and help them understand what's
going on, then involve those indirectly affected - neighbors, colleagues, partners, government officials. Lastly, deal with the self-appointed, self-anointed critics, including
the media, competitors with a point of view and public commentators. Activation within the first hour or two of crisis recognition is crucial.
The Coca-Cola European contamination scare last summer is an excellent example of what happens when this established set of steps is ignored, delayed or short-circuited. Rule
number 1 is that virtually anytime there is a threat to people from food-borne sources, a full scale, no-holds-barred response is required. The bigger the brand, the more powerful
the response has to be. A useful way of analyzing and learning lessons from situations like Coca-Cola is to do, what I call, an "expectations analysis." Simply stated, this is an
approach that compares what a directly affected public, constituency or victim group expects with the company's proposed or actual behaviors. This analysis produces some self-
evident lessons in emergency and crisis management.
Community/Victim/Public Expectation #1: Candor
Outward recognition, through promptly verbalized public acknowledgement (or outright apology) that a problem exists; that people or groups of people, the environment or the
public trust is affected; and that something will be done to remediate the situation.
Coca-Cola's Response: No acknowledgement at first. The company appeared to be unconcerned that hundreds of children were made ill and that Coke was the probable cause. Chairman
and others finally took notice 14 days after the first warning that incidents occurred.
Expectation #2: Explanation (no matter how silly, stupid or embarrassing the problem-causing error was).
Promptly and briefly explain why the problem occurred and the known underlying reasons or behaviors that led to the situation (even if we have only partial early information).
Also talk about what you learned from the situation and how it will influence your future behavior. Unconditionally commit to regularly report additional information until it is
all out, or until no public interest remains.
Response: Coke's response was always in terms of quality - that quality was the No. 1 issue. Since quality was never higher, it was unlikely that there was a problem with the
product. These were isolated incidents anyway. Coke said drinking the tainted soda could cause headaches, nausea, and cramps, but didn't present any health risk.
Expectation #3: Declaration
A public commitment and discussion of specific, positive steps to be taken to conclusively address the issues and resolve the situation.
Response: The head of Coke's French packaging and distribution unit stated that, "It has been formally established that the drink itself is without fault. Its quality is
irreproachable." But there were problems with mold, a coding on some of the shipping flats and other issues.
Expectation #4: Contrition
The continuing verbalization of regret, empathy, sympathy, even embarrassment. Take appropriate responsibility for having allowed the situation to occur in the first place,
whether by omission, commission, accident or negligence.
Response: Coke issued a formal public apology on June 22, seven weeks following the first incidents of illness. Real commitment to resolving the issues came more than five
weeks after the initial series of illness incidents. Chairman and CEO Douglas Ivester's July 1 letter to shareholders began, "You have likely heard about . . . [Coke] is focused
on quality, customer confidence, . . ." No early mention of compensating those who became ill.
Expectation #5: Consultation. Promptly ask for help and counsel from "victims," government, and from the community of origin - even from your opponents. Directly involve and
request the participation of those most directly affected to help develop more permanent solutions, more acceptable behaviors, and to design principles and approaches that will
preclude similar problems from re-occurring.
Response: Coke blamed uncooperative bottlers, advice they got from government and media that blew the problem out of proportion.
Expectation #6: Commitment
Publicly set your goals at zero. Zero errors, zero defects, zero dumb decisions and zero problems. Publicly promise that to the best of your ability situations like this will
never occur again.
Response: Coca-Cola warns investors that "second quarter earnings will be hurt due to temporary product withdrawals . . . some losses covered by insurance . . . the worst is
behind us," said Ivester.
Expectation #7: Restitution
Find a way to quickly pay the price. Make or require restitution. Go beyond community and victim expectations and what would be required under normal circumstances to remediate
the problem. Adverse situations remediated quickly cost a lot less and are controversial for much shorter periods of time.
Response: "One day soon every Belgian will get a free, ice cold Coca-Cola," to help forget about a health scare related to the famous soft drink, Ivester promised.
James E. Lukaszewski, APR, Fellow PRSA, is a specialist in helping clients
deal with sensitive situations including anti-corporate activism and activist
attacks. He has an international practice and teaches crisis communication strategy
at New York University. For more information, check out his Web site at http://www.e911.com.