MSCP 650 9040 Crisis Communications (2258) Discussions
Unit 1 Discussion 1: Crisis Preparedness
Individuals, companies, and organizations often learn too late that they should have safeguarded themselves against a crisis situation. Having never been directly impacted by a crisis can lull some into a false sense of security but, rest assured, a crisis is inevitable and it is wise to be prepared ahead of time, which makes the post-crisis journey to restoration potentially easier.
Knowing what you know about your own organization, how crisis-prepared (or not) is it?
CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
Sample 1
While my organization hasn’t faced a major crisis in recent years, that lull can be both comforting as well as risk. Like many nonprofits, we operate with a relatively small staff and budget, so a major event such as a natural disaster, reputational issue, or funding disruption could really throw us for a loop.
We do have some safeguards in place. Our close relationship with the National Park Service gives us access to emergency response protocols when needed. And our leadership team is used to adapting quickly when projects or events face unexpected challenges. However, we do not have a formal crisis communications plan that details roles, responsibilities, messaging strategies, and recovery steps.
This leaves a gap in our preparedness. In a nonprofit that relies heavily on community trust, volunteers, and donor support, the speed and clarity of our communication during a crisis could determine how well we recover afterward. Building a proactive crisis plan would make the post-crisis steps much smoother.
Ultimately, while we are adaptable and resourceful, our current level of crisis preparedness is more reactive than strategic. Taking steps now to formalize plans would ensure we are not caught off guard when a crisis happens.
Sample 2
In my opinion, my organization is not very well prepared to respond to the crisis, though there is certainly a scope to enhance its preparations. Some of the minimum protocols that we do have are an emergency contact system, data backup procedures, and a chain of command of decision making. Such measures provide us with a point of departure in the case of a disruption. It has however come to my attention that we have not done a recent simulation or practice that involved a crisis and therefore many members of the team may not be aware of their specific roles when faced with high pressure situations.
The other gap is our practical scanning of the potential threats. There is even the occasional discussion of risk at our meetings but we have no systematic mechanism to check up on warning signs sometimes called prodromes the signals that would enable us to fix a problem when it was still a problem and not yet a complete crisis. Such absence of routine threat analysis may make us helpless particularly in an escalating circumstance. On the bright side, we do have good relations with our clients and partners, and these relations may serve towards maintaining the trust in hard time. Nevertheless, I feel we should have a proper crisis communications plan, with proper messaging plans as well as media practices and pre-designated representatives. By improving these factors today, we would change position, previously being reactively active, to becoming completely crisis-equipped without having to lose our reputation or our operations.
The other gap is our practical scanning of the potential threats. There is even the occasional discussion of risk at our meetings but we have no systematic mechanism to check up on warning signs sometimes called prodromes the signals that would enable us to fix a problem when it was still a problem and not yet a complete crisis. Such absence of routine threat analysis may make us helpless particularly in an escalating circumstance. On the bright side, we do have good relations with our clients and partners, and these relations may serve towards maintaining the trust in hard time. Nevertheless, I feel we should have a proper crisis communications plan, with proper messaging plans as well as media practices and pre-designated representatives. By improving these factors today, we would change position, previously being reactively active, to becoming completely crisis-equipped without having to lose our reputation or our operations.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
Unit 1 Discussion 2: Creative Ways to Convince Skeptical Executives to Invest in Crisis Communications Planning
Convincing skeptics to do anything can be challenging, particularly when it involves them investing financial and other resources into something like crisis preparation. Think of crisis preparation as a form of insurance—we may never need to use it, but it sure helps if we do. Drawing on this unit’s readings, share creative ways you would attempt to convince skeptical executives to invest in crisis preparedness.
Sample 1
The process of convincing skeptical executives to invest in crisis preparedness requires showcasing both the practical and strategic value of preparation. A creative, yet practical approach is to frame preparedness as building organizational resilience. Duchek (2019) explains that resilience is not just about bouncing back after disruption, but about developing the ability to adapt and even thrive during crises. This positions crisis planning as an investment in long-term stability and competitiveness.
Another strategy is to highlight the importance of mindset. Jin et al. (2024) describe readiness as more than plans or resources—it is a psychological state that gives leaders and employees confidence to act decisively under pressure. By investing in training, simulations, and communication systems, organizations strengthen this collective mindset, making them more effective in real emergencies.
Finally, the insurance metaphor can be powerful: like paying premiums, organizations may not “use” their crisis plans often, but when a crisis does occur, those investments prevent catastrophic losses. Offering executives small-scale drills or simulations can demonstrate measurable improvements in coordination and response, making the value of preparedness concrete.
To conclude, reframing preparedness as resilience, readiness, and insurance helps turn skeptics into supporters.
References
Duchek, S. (2019). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215–246. https://fallstongroup.com/crisis-preparedness-package/
Hollis, S. (2024). Contingency, crisis & disasters: Broadening the research agenda. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(1), e12538. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12538
Learn Signal. (n.d.). The Wells Fargo Fake Accounts Scandal: A Comprehensive Overview. Learn Signal. https://www.learnsignal.com/blog/wells-fargo-fake-accounts-scandal-overview-2/
CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
Unit 2 Discussion: Discuss Your Group’s Choice of Client to Represent, and for Whom You Will Develop a Crisis Communications Plan
In the discussion, each group elects a member to post the following on behalf of the whole group:
- Identification of the client,
- The crisis situation the client faces, and
- Why the client was selected
Drawing on the resources covered during the unit, share with the class your rationale for pursuing a relationship with your particular client, and provide feedback to other groups on their client choices.
Sample 1
Our group has selected Red Cross as the client organization for which we will develop a crisis communication plan. With its extensive international presence, Red Cross is recognized as a leading authority in global humanitarian aid and disaster response. Its brand is built on public faith and its proven ability to respond in times of crises. Its mission is to “prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face of emergencies by mobilizing the power of volunteers and the generosity of donors” (American Red Cross, n.d.). Given the complexity of its operations, Red Cross is exposed to a wide range of internal and external threats. Developing a strategic crisis communication plan for Red Cross is an essential component of sustaining the organization’s mission, credibility and reputation.
One crisis the American Red Cross has faced involves criticism over a lack of transparency and accountability in some major disaster relief efforts. These concerns undermine confidence among donors, volunteers, and the broader public, putting at risk both funding and the organization’s ability to mobilize effectively during future crises. Since Red Cross operates in partnership with government agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and maintains a global presence, the potential reputational damage from such a crisis could have wide-reaching consequences.
Another crisis Red Cross has faced is having less than a one-day supply of critical blood types. They have had to limit blood product distributions to hospitals due to the limited blood supply. At times, as much as one-quarter of hospital blood needs are not being met.
In recent months, an increase of attacks on humanitarian workers have also caused alarm. Red Cross humanitarian workers have been injured, detained and killed while trying to help others. “2024 was the deadliest year on record with 32 volunteers and staff of national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies dying while performing their humanitarian duties. 2025 is on track to be worse” (American Red Cross, 2025). This violence not only endangers lives, but it also prevents critical aid from reaching people in desperate need.
Drawing on frameworks highlighted in this unit, such as the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Framework (NRF), we recognize the importance of coordination and consistent messaging across agencies during crisis response. Crisis communication theories such as Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) emphasize that crises threaten reputational assets and that response strategies must align with how stakeholders assign responsibility.
Ultimately, Red Cross represents an ideal client for this project because of the high stakes tied to its reputation and its global footprint. By applying evidence-based crisis communication strategies, our group can help strengthen the organization’s ability to maintain public trust and continue its humanitarian mission.
References
American Red Cross. (n.d.). Mission & values.
https://www.redcross.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-values.html
American Red Cross (2025, Aug 18). World humanitarian day — Aid workers face danger
while trying to help others. https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/news/2025/aid-workers-face-danger-while-trying-to-help-others.html
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. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets:
Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233
CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
Sample 2
Patagonia has long been celebrated as a corporate leader in ethical and environmental responsibility. Its brand identity is closely connected to its mission, setting it apart from competitors and fostering a fiercely loyal customer base (Patagonia, n.d.). However, recent controversies have created a significant “hypocrisy gap,” challenging the company’s core values and threatening its hard-earned reputation. There are, at least, two distinct but interconnected crises that demand immediate and professional intervention from strategic communications professionals.
The first, and perhaps most damaging, controversy relates to allegations of ethical breaches within Patagonia’s supply chain. While the company has prided itself on transparency and fair labor practices, a 2023 investigation by the Dutch collective “Follow the Money” revealed contradictory evidence. The report alleged that some of Patagonia’s garments are produced in the same Sri Lankan factories used by fast-fashion giants like H&M and Zara where workers face difficult conditions, including harassment, inadequate wages, and excessive hours (Schmitt, 2023). This situation is a direct and serious conflict with Patagonia’s public-facing promise of using business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis. A report by Good On You, a sustainability rating platform, noted that while Patagonia’s social auditing program is accredited by the Fair Labor Association, it was also “linked to a labour rights scandal in the last 3 years without demonstrating best practice remediation” (Good On You, 2024, para. 4). When a company’s actions are perceived to be out of sync with its values, it creates a fundamental breakdown of trust with its stakeholders who have bought into the brand not just for its products but for what it represents.
The second crisis involves a legal battle over the company’s “Worn Wear” trademark, a cornerstone of its sustainability model. Patagonia is engaged in a trademark dispute with another company, Worn Again Technologies, to protect the exclusivity of its brand (TFL, 2025). While brand protection is a standard business practice, this particular conflict carries significant public relations risk. For a company that champions reuse and a circular economy, engaging in a contentious legal battle with a similarly mission-driven firm can appear to be corporate bullying. It can undermine the very spirit of collaboration and community that the “Worn Wear” program is meant to embody, shifting the public narrative from shared environmental goals to competitive legal maneuvering. A piece from Medium further explores this tension, arguing that Patagonia’s position as a “moral exemplar” sets it up for increased scrutiny and that its activism can be seen as a “strategic facade” that raises concerns about the authenticity of its mission (McAuley, 2024). This situation has the potential to alienate customers who value Patagonia’s non-traditional, anti-consumerist approach to business.
These controversies make it clear that Patagonia desperately needs professional communications help. Its brand equity is its most valuable asset, built over decades of consistent messaging and purposeful action. However, the current crises are threatening this foundation. The company is facing a strategic communications challenge where the court of public opinion is as important as the legal and ethical issues at hand. Strategic communications professionals would be tasked with not only managing the immediate media fallout but also advising on a comprehensive, long-term strategy. This strategy must prioritize radical transparency, a clear and decisive action plan to address the supply chain allegations, and a reframing of the “Worn Wear” legal battle that aligns with the company’s core values. The goal is to close the “hypocrisy gap” by demonstrating that Patagonia’s commitment to its values is not just a marketing tool but a genuine, living part of its corporate identity. Without such a response, the brand risks becoming just another corporation with a green facade, a fate that would be devastating to its business and mission.
References
Good On You. (2024, February). Patagonia – Sustainability Rating. Good On You Directory. https://directory.goodonyou.eco/brand/patagonia
McAuley, C. (2024, November 23). Patagonia’s activism: Genuine commitment or a strategic facade? Medium. https://medium.com/design-den/patagonias-activism-genuine-commitment-or-a-strategic-facade-0ea6a7b0b7bc
Patagonia. (n.d.). Outdoor clothing & gear. https://www.patagonia.com/home/
Schmitt, C. (2023, August 11). Patagonia: A not-so-ethical brand? Blog Bio Ressources. https://blog.bio-ressources.com/2023/08/11/patagonia-a-not-so-ethical-brand/
TFL. (2025, January 13). Worn Wear: A battle over Patagonia’s burgeoning brand. The Fashion Law. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/worn-wear-a-battle-over-patagonias-burgeoning-brand/