Inter‐organisational post‐crisis communication: Restoring stakeholder confidence in the UK oil industry safety regime following two helicopter incidents

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to analyse the post‐crisis communication response of the UK oil industry both from a management and employee perspective following two major helicopter incidents in 2009. The purpose of this paper is to develop further understanding of the merits of a cross‐industry post‐crisis communication strategy for certain crisis types.

Design/methodology/approach

This research is a single case study focusing on the Helicopter Task Group (HTG). Thirteen members of the HTG were interviewed and 250 questionnaires distributed to the workforce. Results were analysed against a literature review of current post‐crisis communication theory.

Findings

The study demonstrates that where a crisis is deemed to genuinely cross company boundaries, an inter‐organisational approach to post‐crisis communications is of mutual benefit to all stakeholders, providing certain conditions for dialogue are met.

Research limitations/implications

This paper only focuses on one crisis event. Further research is required with other inter‐organisational groups formed to lead a cross‐industry response to a crisis.

Practical implications

This case study provides a model for cross‐industry pre‐crisis planning and post‐crisis renewal strategy where the aim is not to attribute blame, but to respond to a wider community of concerns and issues that are deemed to cross company and institutional boundaries.

Originality/value

The research demonstrates that the process of rebuilding stakeholder relationships and renewal is possible prior to any formal attribution of blame or apology.

Citation

McDonald, J. and Crawford, I. (2012), "Inter‐organisational post‐crisis communication: Restoring stakeholder confidence in the UK oil industry safety regime following two helicopter incidents", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281211220300