Crisis communication: why fact-based arguments fall short

Effective crisis communication extends far beyond simply detailing the facts, outlining the action taken on the ground or attributing responsibility. It requires engaging with the public’s often-overlooked collective emotions, such as disgust or contempt for the company implicated in the crisis. Three researchers – including NEOMA’s Branko Božič – studied this broader perspective in a recent article, where they demonstrate its potential to generate better targeted, more persuasive arguments.

Gulf of Mexico, 2010: the Deepwater Horizon oil platform explodes, unleashing an oil spill that plunges BP into a crisis that will cost it $23 billion and tarnish its reputation for a decade. 

Despite extensive crisis communication efforts by BP, the company ultimately failed to contain the reputational fallout or negative public perceptions about its competence and ethical standards. This is a recurring scenario that casts doubts on the effectiveness of the messaging the companies deployed.

Defusing anger, though crucial, is not enough

What sets the work of the three researchers apart? They reframe the issue by looking at how the general public engages emotionally with a crisis. These emotional responses play a decisive role in shaping how the public understands, interprets and remembers the crisis in the long run. If the initial reactions are intense and negative, it will undermine the credibility of all subsequent information and messaging. The goal of crisis communication is to minimise the impact of these emotions as much as possible.

In reality, however, companies focus their crisis strategies on trying to defuse one emotion alone: anger. The media, social networks, online forums and similar platforms zero in on the event itself, voicing concerns about its repercussions, demanding reparations and striving to pinpoint the guilty parties. In response, the offending company issues updates about the situation, the resources mobilised and the degree of responsibility it acknowledges. This is the standard scenario. 

Going further: sharing information about the company's competence and ethical standards

This strategy has a major shortcoming: it fails to address two other very common emotional responses to a crisis: disgust and contempt. Disgust takes aim at a company’s ethical conduct, moral integrity or underlying goals. So, for example, one internet user on a forum dedicated to the Deepwater Horizon disaster expressed their outrage at BP’s “sickening greed”. Contempt is directed at the incompetence of a company for failing to prevent a crisis or fix it when it has broken out: BP engineers were called “stupid”, “idiots” and “morons” on the same forum. 

Crisis communication that prioritises objective information and accountability can defuse the public’s anger. But it is powerless in the face of disgust and contempt, which also have long-term consequences. Why? Because these emotions are not directed at the event itself, but at the company that is responsible for it, which is perceived as being immoral, incompetent and toxic – a reputation that will cling to it for many years. By contrast, anger over an accident may ease once the damage is made good and the victims compensated.

When crisis communication only makes matters worse

This analysis through the lens of emotions also unpacks the sometimes disastrous consequences of certain crisis communication strategies, notably when the first public statements are handled poorly: vague messaging delivered by a visibly uncomfortable CEO, slow action on the ground or a refusal to take responsibility.

The anger felt by a certain section of the public then morphs into contempt: “Just how incompetent are they?” or disgust: “They don't give a damn!”. Meanwhile, this series of blunders only entrenches the views of those members of the public who had been feeling these two emotions from the outset. Tensions mount, and the situation grows more and more dire: the company itself – not the event – comes under heavy attack and will pay a hefty price. BP stock, which was trading at $60 just before the Deepwater Horizon platform explosion, plummeted… and has never regained its pre-crisis level even 15 years after the event.

Segmenting messages to address the entire range of emotional responses

To help other companies avoid the same type of fallout, the authors advocate a more refined crisis communication strategy that addresses all three emotions felt by the public. Anger is mitigated more effectively by focusing the messaging on the event itself and discussing its causes and consequences, the actions taken and the issue of accountability. This might involve demonstrating that the damage is ultimately less serious than initially feared, outlining the corrective measures being taken or acknowledging the company's responsibility.

To mitigate the public’s feelings of disgust and contempt, the messaging should centre on the company with solid guarantees about its ethical integrity and professional competence. The organisation could, for example, highlight past achievements in these areas (such as awards, certifications and official labels) or present the substantive improvements implemented following the crisis. 

Identifying public emotions at the outset

Once the segmentation and message definition are complete, the crisis communication strategy needs to be streamlined and harmonised: the public will receive it and perceive it as a unified whole. The operation, it follows, becomes progressively more complex, but speed is always a critical factor: in times of crisis, delayed communication can have serious repercussions.

Lastly, the researchers recommend that companies should assess the collective emotions from the very onset of a crisis using tools specially designed to monitor social media. The public's initial reactions then become one of the key inputs for any communication strategy, making it more impactful and protecting the interests of the company involved.

Find out more

P. Antonetti, C. Valor and B. Božič, Mitigating Moral Emotions After Crises: A Reconceptualization of Organizational Responses, Journal of Business Ethics, July 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06042-5