Corporate responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by Fortune 500 companies

Abstract

COVID-19 created a challenging environment both for businesses and individuals. Effects of the pandemic on companies had the potential to create negative public relations as entities attempted to deal with the worldwide crisis and to communicate their situation. Many companies were quick to provide information to customers and employees early in the pandemic about how they were responding to the crisis, while other companies provided limited immediate response to COVID-19. An examination of the top 300 companies listed in the 2020 Fortune 500 found that 186 of those companies communicated their status and plans in press releases posted from January 2020 through May 2020 regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. This study, based on Situational Crisis Communication Theory, qualitatively analyzed the releases via constant comparative method. The analysis resulted in four primary categories that dominated company releases: (1) In This Together, (2) Perseverance Through Strength, (3) We are Here for You, and (4) Fighting for the Team.

COVID-19 created diverse challenges for companies around the globe. Although the virus was not associated with particular businesses, the outcome and rapid spread of COVID-19 quickly became a global crisis for companies, including the necessary implementation of steps that ranged from social distancing to closure (Kochar, 2020). The pandemic had major effects on U.S. business operations regarding their stakeholders, both internally and externally, including having employees not report to work ("2020 results," 2021).

That organizations will encounter some form of crisis is a matter of when one will occur rather than whether or not it will happen (Coombs, 2010). The issue, then, is how the organization will deal with a situation, whether it is perceived to be relatively minor or large and international in scope. Therefore, it requires developing a response plan that considers the diversity of an organization’s constituents. That is true even when a crisis is indirectly related to the company. COVID-19 is an example of such a situation. Despite an origin of the pandemic that was external to organizations, those entities still had to implement approaches that communicated the company’s position and actions related to the crisis.

Organizations that do not anticipate crises are prone to deal reactively versus proactively with situations (Claeys & Coombs, 2020). Their decisions may be based on actual knowledge or experience, while other responses might derive from viewing how other organizations have dealt with a particular crisis, much like observability in Rogers’s (1995) diffusion of innovations.

Issues to consider in crisis response are time, pressures, the organization’s individual who makes decisions, and the perception of the anticipated outcome of the communication (Claeys & Coombs, 2020). An essential element in crisis communication is the content of messages, particularly empathy in building a positive reputation of the organization (Schoofs et al., 2019).

Commensurate with the issue of message content is recognizing the importance of ethical narratives when communicating with an audience in order to enhance connections, trustworthiness, and positive attitudes toward the communicator (Clementson, 2020). Another consideration is the types of communication tools an entity uses to reach its constituents, as well as how and when they are implemented among target publics (Ozanne et al., 2020).

Prior studies have examined various aspects of organizational communication and COVID-19 (e.g., Guzzo et al., 2021; Sanders et al., 2020). Some research considered how global companies communicated their response to the virus (e.g., Im et al., 2021; Margherita & Heikkila, 2021). The present study fills a gap in existing literature by using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to analyze how 186 of the top 300 companies in the U. S. Fortune 500 (Fortune, 2020) publicly communicated their responses to the crisis through press releases about COVID-19 on their websites from January 2020 through May 2020. This research can lead to better understanding and preparedness for corporate crises, whether the crisis originates within or outside an organization. The way companies communicated this issue was crucial to the publics’ potential perception about their situations. Through the use of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (Coombs, 2006b), one can determine the far-reaching implications of how an organization should react to such a health crisis in the future. The theory further provides an examination of the range of elements in SCCT in relation to whether the companies followed effective communication strategies when interacting with stakeholders.

1. Organizations and crisis communication

Previous corporate crisis communication research offers several important considerations in effectively communicating during a crisis. Although many studies are not specific to SCCT, they offer examples of how companies have responsed to various situations. Those studies also offer a broader picture of organizational crisis management.

Empathy is one factor that plays a large role in how a crisis is perceived. Schoofs et al. (2019) state that individuals can sympathize with organizations, if that company is seen as a victim. The study, which looked at the role of forgiveness, found that the ability to have empathy was vital in decreasing the damage the crisis did to the organization’s reputation. They discovered that, if the company was not at fault for the crisis, then stakeholders viewed the company much more favorably in the future. They also determined that organizations who were in the victim crisis mode garnered considerably more empathy from the public, post-crisis. Butler (2021) argued the customers could show empathy for the reality of an organization’s problems, if they knew the organization was not to blame for the problem. At the same time, an organization’s time crunch and financial future led to increased corporate pressure during the crisis. Coombs (2020) urges companies to demonstrate empathy towards stakeholders, arguing that it plays a vital role in crisis communication.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) also was found to impact how customers regarded accountability for a crisis, leading to different purchase decisions. For example, Ham and Kim (2019) found that CSR activity did not impact how a company was viewed. Furthermore, it could lead to negative interpretations of a company’s image if the CSR appeared forced and especially if it was more of an attempt to look good, rather than encouraged by a desire to actually do good. Key aspects of their study showed that the crisis type and knowledge of the crisis did influence consumers’ future buying habits. The researchers learned that the longer the company’s CSR activity had been in place did sway consumers’ opinion of the firm; short-term CSR activity was eyed with suspicion. History of CSR was important, in the long run.

Kim (2019) found that the type of crisis that a company experienced did not explicitly affect an organization’s reputation but that how the public perceived the corporation’s character in terms of “preventability, blame, and trust” was vital (p. 136). That is, post-crisis reputation was influenced by the organization’s steps to prevent the crisis, if it was to blame and/or if the crisis was preventable. If the crisis was an accident but the company was willing to take corrective steps, this also made a difference (Kim). At the same time, Christensen and Laegried (2020) found that working together to deal with the COVID-19 crisis led to citizen support of government programs and better communication between the government and its people. They found that this, in turn, led to more trust in government and successful management of the crisis.

Emerging media use, such as social platforms, was another consideration. Zheng et al. (2018) maintained that changes in social media have led to the new ways that organizations handled crises, largely due to the fact that individuals and stakeholders were able to post their thoughts immediately on social media. The conversation has become more two-sided, rather than being linear in nature. At the same time, they argue that the spiral of silence could cause individuals who agreed with public opinion to be more forthright about their sentiments, while those who views were from a different perspective might be silenced in the public arena. This could, in turn, lead to negative opinions becoming overwhelming to a corporation, as those who agreed with an unpopular corporate stance were hesitant to express a dissenting viewpoint. Public criticism could spiral out of control, leaving a negative reputation of a corporation.

Likewise, Camilleri (2021) argued that forthright and recurrent communication is vital to bringing about credibility in the relationships between organizations and their stakeholders; he further posits that information shared must be germane to the situation at hand. Capriotti et al. (2021) contend that the internet has affected communication between organizations and individuals. They urged corporations to maintain an active, ongoing presence in social media outlets, which can lead to better communication that demonstrates their wish to communicate with their stakeholders. Furthermore, this communication will lead to better interface between parties.

1.1. Situational Crisis Communication

Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) deals with how organizations handle crisis situations in a way that allows the organization to come through the crisis without damaging its reputation. According to SCCT, there are three core responses: the situation itself, how an organization responds to that situation, and how to match the crisis with a predetermined crisis response (Coombs, 2006b, Coombs and Holladay, 2002). Coombs (2006b) argues that there are three response options: denial (i.e., there is no crisis), diminish (the organization either meant no harm or could not control the hurt), or deal (the company offers sympathy or empathy to the victims). Coombs (2007) posits that organizations are better able to manage their reputations following a crisis, if they have engaged in good post-crisis communication, which leads to improved relationships with stakeholders and consumers alike.

For example, Butler (2021) studied Boeing’s response following crashes of two of its 737 airplanes. Butler argued that the corporate response moved from a diminish strategy to that of defensiveness to a denial take on the crashes. Following investigations, the company quickly transitioned into a rebuild strategy, in an attempt to protect the corporate reputation. Boeing responded with sympathy and empathy, while also acknowledging the complex nature of the situation and informing the public of its intention to cooperate fully with ongoing investigations.

The VW crisis in 2015 used more of a diminish strategy in the company’s response to their own situation. Painter and Martins (2017) examined the crisis in which VW automobiles were fitted with devices that incorrectly showed that their cars were not exceeding U.S. emissions limitations. Following Coombs and Holladay’s (2002) idea that the type of crisis determines how a company should respond, Painter and Martins contended that VW chose to downplay the situation, arguing that no one was injured, that they complied with legal limits, and that the cars were still a safe means of transport. By diminishing the crisis, VW took more of a “no harm, no foul” approach to the public relations difficulties they faced as a result of their poor management of the situation.

Stieglitz et al. (2018) also examined the VW crisis and found that using social media outlets such as Twitter could help organizations recover from crises more quickly. The company issued an apology for the crisis, but Stieglitz et al. questioned why VW chose a bolstering message one month after the crisis began. They further argued that VW could have painted themselves as victims of persons who have left the company, reminding consumers of their past good works.

Also facing problems in the automobile industry, Chrysler allegedly engaged in unethical practices. Shon and Edwards (2018) discussed the crisis faced by Chrysler, when it was discovered the company had disconnected odometers in the 1980s, selling test-driven cars as new vehicles when they were actually used. The researchers argued that, despite issuing an apology, the company’s use of mixed messages of apology and bolstering Chrysler’s image was seen as justification for its actions and a reason to avoid taking responsibility for the crisis.

In more of a deal response, British Petroleum sought to offer substantial and regular public responses during its time of crisis. Wickham (2013) studied BP’s use of press releases to mitigate the PR effects of the Gulf oil spill in 2010. He argued the corporation wanted to stabilize the situation while also rebranding itself as a company that cared about the incident. The company did not accept responsibility for the crisis, though they did demonstrate a willingness to respond to the crisis, in an attempt to rebuild their damaged reputation.

Coombs and Holladay (2002) list 13 different options such as the harshness of the damage, the history of crises within the organization, and the relationship history. Coombs (2006b) further states that organizations need to determine what happened in the crisis, how the organization can protect stakeholders, and how the organization can stop this situation from reoccurring. These steps, joined with a specific response strategy, can work to preserve an organization’s reputation (Coombs, 2004). The cornerstone of SCCT is how much stakeholders believe that an organization is responsible for a crisis (Coombs, 2004).

Coombs (2006b) posits that the organization must provide instructional information that offers three components: the basics of the crisis, how the stakeholders can protect themselves, and what is being done by the organization to ensure that the crisis does not happen again. Coombs (2007) argues that the first responsibility of an organization is to protect stakeholders, giving them information on how to prevent physical harm.

Next, Coombs (2007) suggests that companies help in relieving the psychological distress that comes from dealing with a crisis. He maintains that organizations must offer information as soon as it is available, since this would work to assure stakeholders that everything that could be done was being done and steps were being taken to avoid a similar situation in the future. Finally, the organization must demonstrate its concern for the feelings of stakeholders, while saying at the same time the company was not guilty of causing the crisis. Coombs (2007) argues that it is only after these steps have been taken that an organization can begin trying to repair or protect its own reputation. The goal then becomes to not accept the blame for the crisis, thus preventing damage to how the public views the organization, which could result in a loss of business.

It is in this phase of the crisis management that organizations move into what Coombs (2007) calls the “rebuild strategy” (p. 172). In this phase, companies offer not only tea and sympathy, but real contributions, however small, of financial support or material objects that will help stakeholders through their suffering. This serves to improve public relations between the company and the stakeholders, especially if the organization can also show itself to be as much a victim of the crisis as the stakeholders. Failure to provide some source of comfort can lead to a negative attitude towards the company, which could negatively impact the public’s opinion of the organization in the future.

SCCT maintains that, by having an understanding of the crisis, the organizational manager will be better prepared to successfully address the problem and will, therefore, be able to minimize damage to the organization’s reputation (Coombs, 2007). Coombs finds that there are three crisis clusters: victim, accidental, and preventable clusters (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Coombs (2004) later changed the third type to intentional. An organization may be viewed as being as much of a victim to the crisis as the general public (Coombs, 2007, Kim and Liu, 2012). This ties into the idea that the victim cluster is responded to from a victimization point of view (Coombs, 1999). It is its presence in this cluster that keeps an organization from looking like the party who is responsible for the crisis, lessening the damage to the corporate reputation. Still, a response is necessary to demonstrate the organization’s goodwill and desire to help others, while maintaining a positive corporate image. A victim cluster disaster is dealt with via a deal response, where the organization expresses compassion and/or regret for the crisis and offers monetary help to those injured by the crisis (Coombs, 2006b).

Coombs (2007) refers to how an organization responds to a crisis as the frame through which the crisis can be seen. This, in turn, allows the public to see a specific aspect of the crisis and thereby influences how they view the organization, for better or worse, as guilty of carelessness or innocent of contributing to the crisis. Moreno et al. (2020) stated that the public will exhibit information-seeking behaviors; therefore, it is in an organization’s best interest to offer its take on a given situation, since public trust diminishes with a lack of readily-available information. Moreno et al. also discovered that trust in the sources of information on the virus weakened over time, even as the public desired to have more news and sought out a variety of sources in order to get it.

The organization’s reputation is seen as the key to overcoming the situation and reducing the public’s desire to blame the organization for the problems which ensued (Coombs, 2007, Coombs and Holladay, 2002). However, Kim and Lui (2012) warned that focusing too much on protecting the organization’s reputation can backfire in the long-term, regardless of how well it seems to work in the short-term. They ask if adding public education to the focus on reputation management leads to better long-term reputation results. The researchers found that some organizations, during the 2009 H1N1 crisis, tried to transfer the standing of the World Health Organization and other respected health organizations onto themselves by claiming to have joined forces with medical professionals during the crisis. Kim and Sung (2013) argued that organizations should not focus only on their reputations; instead, the primary concentration should be on public safety. They further contend that organizational transparency will lead to increased credibility and, by extension, be deemed more trustworthy.

1.2. COVID-19 company crisis response

Dozens of studies published since the incidence of the coronavirus in 2020 have examined a diverse set of issues associated with COVID-19 and its impact on organizations and companies. Particularly pertinent to the present study is Margherita and Heikkila’s (2021) research regarding how the top 50 Global Fortune 500 companies addressed COVID-19. They found there were five types of responses: those that related to the operation of the company, responses that were customer associated, the company’s internally actions about the situation, management issues, and how companies responded to external populations.

Compared to other past crises that affected companies, COVID-19 brought different challenges that precipitated the need for diverse responses, particularly given the extent of the virus globally. The rapid onset of the virus also demanded immediate actions and the importance of preparing for such crises rather than only reacting to them (Bryce et al., 2020). Furthermore, concerns revolved around how the pandemic affected issues associated with corporate social responsibility and changes to companies’ marketing approaches during a time of restrictions (He & Harris, 2020).

The pandemic had widespread impacts across the world and on varied industries. One study examined the letters of hospitality company CEOs, focusing on the rhetoric used in those communications during the early months of the pandemic (Im et al., 2021). Results of the analysis showed that the CEOs used rational appeals to discuss what their company was doing and credible appeals to indicate the company was able to deal with the situation. Additionally, the letters included logos to discuss why the company was taking certain actions, ethos to express the credibility and reliability of the organization, and pathos to focus on the audience.

The pandemic also resulted in the increased use of digital technologies in the face of lockdowns and stay-at-home requirements (Soto-Acosta, 2020). Businesses implemented digital tools to handle specific effects of the pandemic on a variety of levels from retail to restaurants to educational institutions in what the researchers posited was transformational rather than simply changes.

While some research examined the types and uses of technologies, their underlying organizational effects also were an important consideration. Leonardi (2021) argued that situations associated with COVID-19 pressed companies to increase the use of digital technologies and have employees work remotely. Those decisions could have future effects on business operations, including the ability to track and analyze digital usage behaviors, culminating in the use of artificial intelligence to set policy (Leonardi, 2021).

This present study proposes three questions: (1) How did companies approach their response to the pandemic via news releases? (2) How did they communicate their concern for their internal and external stakeholders? (3) How do the company’s responses correspond to Situational Crisis Communication Theory?

2. Method

This study was conducted via a qualitative analysis of the top 300 companies in the 2020 Fortune 500, which are listed in descending order starting with the company that had the largest revenue. Examining 300 of the US Fortune 500 companies offered an excellent cross section of the corporations, providing a thorough variety of top-producing organizations. However, it should be noted that some organizations in the 300 did not provide a COVID-19 response during the time examined in this study. Thus, out of the 300 organizations, 186 posted press releases specifically dealing with the topic of this analysis.

Research focused on COVID-19-related press releases that were posted on the websites of the companies during the initial months of the spread of the virus in the U.S. Press releases containing those messages were those posted from January 2020 through May 2020. The date range of the press releases was selected due to the rapid spread of the virus, which reached more than a million cumulative cases in the U.S. by late April 2020 (“Trends in number,” n.d.). Artefacts were gathered for analysis between January 2021 and April 2021. Also, given the qualitative nature of this study, analyzing the messages themselves took precedence over the number of companies. At the time data were initially gathered for this study, the Fortune 500 list was openly available on Fortune’s website, but now requires a subscription for access.

Research took place in four steps. After dividing the list of companies between the researchers, they first accessed the pages on each company’s website that featured press releases. Those pages included titles such as “press room” or “media room” and provided for publicly available corporate communication related to COVID-19. Information from COVID-specific pages, such as dashboards, were not included in this study.

In the second step, the researchers looked for the first press release that was posted about the virus during the time studied. Releases ranged from statements about the company’s COVID-19 response as part of a particular industry to releases about specific actions the company had taken or planned to take. If the researchers did not locate a release with a general response message, a press release indicating actions taken by the company in relation to COVID-19 was used in the analysis. Not all companies in the top 300 posted at least one press release that fit the qualifications in this study, resulting in 186 releases being examined in this analysis.

The third step involved analyzing the messages in each release. Researchers used the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The process starts with placing the content being studied into various categories and assigning codes to them on the documents as well as in notes that provide for further discussion of the categories. The second step is bringing together the various categories based on similar characteristics. As more materials are analyzed, this results in locating increasingly fewer new categories, so that the establishment of new categories has been reached. Finally, the researcher is able to propose a theory from the findings.

In the final stage of analysis, the researchers printed the set of press releases to allow for manual coding. Researchers then examined each release for dominant categories, indicating those in the margin of the release and in separate notes. Each item was reviewed multiple times to verify their presence. As noted in the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), categories reached a point at which commonalities began to emerge. Some categories resulted in sub-categories, which were then combined under related primary categories and included in an analysis of findings. The researchers discussed the results that were derived from their individual analyses and combined them into a set of dominant categories that emerged from all press releases.

3. Results

The analysis of COVID-related press releases resulted in four primary categories: (1) In This Together, (2) Perseverance Through Strength, (3) We are Here for You, and (4) Fighting for the Team. Categories were those that emphasized common approaches to the virus and, in some cases similar terminology and overall language.

In This Together: The first sub-category indicates that COVID affects everyone. Indeed, it seems that almost everyone has either had the illness or knows someone who has. For that reason, companies sent the message that collaboration is needed and companies must address the skills needed for this partnership. Paul Donahue, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Genuine Parts Company (2020), commented, “Protecting our people and keeping our operations up and running remains critical. GPC plays an essential role in keeping major facets of our economy and infrastructure operating, and we will continue to challenge ourselves to meet the needs of our customers” (para. 2). IPG (2020) remarked on the need for creative solutions that would allow them to serve the public while also protecting their customers. Other companies applauded their workers, who went above and beyond to make the workplace environment one that would support the country in this time of challenge while also providing customers with the services needed (e.g., WestRock, 2020).

A well-known builder of residential real estate listed its rules for those who wished to visit their model homes, while emphasizing that they would still be there for their customers, albeit with certain restrictions. Hours of operation were limited due to the need to clean, face coverings must be worn by everyone, and those who were ill must postpone their visit to the sites (PulteGroup, 2020). The key here was that they would work together with their clientele to promote the safety of everyone.

Another sub-category carried the idea that companies have been through crises before and were ready to act quickly. They were ready to address issues such as the business plan to allow employees to work remotely until the pandemic was over. This may have been more of a knee-jerk reaction to the pandemic and not the result of advanced planning in some cases, though it is hard to determine, except when a company indicated it was caught off guard by the rapidly-changing business environment (e.g., Tenet Healthcare Corporation, 2020, WestRock, 2020; Western Digital, 2020).

Unlike other companies that focused on others outside the company, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) (2020) spent its press release discussing its own loss protections. PG&E did offer grace on payments, but limited those comments to one sentence at the beginning of the press release and the rest of its efforts were turned to potential financial difficulties for the company. The release devolved into a discussion of other possible disasters, including “cyberattacks, a nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological (NBCR) terrorist attack and even climate change” (para. 11). This was in comparison to how another electric company, American Electric Power (AEP) (2020), responded to the pandemic. AEP was customer and employee focused, indicating that the power supply would not be affected, that employees could work remotely to protect themselves and their families, and that customers who were having problems paying their bills would be extended grace. This was further offered to business customers. There was no mention of AEP’s own financial position, just a desire to keep everyone safe and with power.

A supplier of fresh food and supplies in Texas wrote that it was very concerned about the health and wellness of its employees and customers, but those concerns were limited to one sentence (Core Mark Holdings, 2020). The rest of the 12-paragraph press release discussed the financial situation of the company and indicated its concern about its own financial health. The company did not indicate that it was at all ready for a disaster of this type (Core Mark Holdings).

The press release of AutoNation (2020) was focused only on changing its annual meeting to a virtual format. It did not mention anything about its customers. It took until June of 2020 for the company to reach out to first responders, offering to sanitize their cars.

Perseverance Through Strength: This category focused not only on the company’s capability and assurance that it would endure the COVID-19 crisis, but that it would see a positive outcome from the situation. At the same time, companies encouraged customers with that positive message. Underlying the primary category were three sub-categories. In the first theme, most companies discussed specific actions they were taking. Some plans included providing funds to help organizations that assisted in meeting various needs of communities (e.g., Bank of America, 2020; MetLife, 2020; Reinsurance Group of America, 2020; Western Digital, 2020) or working with its foundation (AmerisourceBergen, 2020; Reinsurance Group of America) to providing resources for people working in health (CBRE Group, 2020). Many action plans indicated the company was taking steps to deal with the crisis, such a creating or engaging a task force for the situation (e.g., Baker Hughes, 2020). Companies often tailored their actions to their industry and existing abilities, such as online connectivity services (Charter Communications, 2020, Comcast, 2020), equipment for schools (Amazon, 2020), producing respirators and other equipment for health workers (3 M, 2020; GE, 2020; Western Digital), and detailing activities associated with cleaning in food stores (Albertsons, 2020; BJ’s Wholesale Club, 2020).

A second sub-category focused on companies assuring employees, customers, and the general public that the company was actively dealing with the crisis, specifically that it was staying on top of the situation. One company noted that it was taking “aggressive steps” to ensure that workers were safe (Capital One, 2020, para. 4). Staying on top of the situation also included assessing how the company was implementing its business-related plans (Caterpillar, 2020). At the same, companies indicated they were heeding the advice of government agencies (e.g., Macy’s, 2020). One company indicated that, due to COVID-19 being a “fluid situation,” it had ongoing efforts with government agencies to remain current (American Airlines, 2020, para. 1). Another company indicated it had an ongoing review of the situation, so that it could be ready to implement new actions (Citi, 2020). In many press releases, it was important to note that the company was not simply concerned with its past actions regarding COVID-19, but that it was remaining active in assessing the issue (Dollar General, 2020, Dow, 2020, FedEx, 2020, Rite Aid, 2020). Some companies emphasized that actions were taken now (Nationwide, 2020). At least two companies used the term “leverage,” which denoted their actions were proactive and intentional (Microsoft, 2020, para. 1; US Foods, 2020, para. 2).

A third sub-theme centered on many companies noting that situations surrounding COVID-19 would provide strength through adversity. Rather than only discussing the impact of the virus on the company or industry, this approach conveyed a sense of hope through difficult circumstances. One company indicated it would not just endure the situation, but that it would result in being “stronger” (Nucor, 2020, para. 5). Another company stated that, after the crisis, the company would be stronger through its support of customers during the crisis (Progressive, 2020). A press release from Cummins (2020) noted that, even though the situation was challenging, the company would be strong. Similarly, another entity indicated it would “emerge a stronger company” (Sysco, 2020, para. 8).

We Are Here for You: The third major category conveyed the notion that the company placed its employees, customers, and community as the primary objects of its concern. This category included sub-themes that focused on supporting employees and its communities, indicating personal compassion during COVID-19, and ensuring the company’s various publics knew they could rely on the company. In many cases, efforts for employees, communities, and customers were included together in the release (e.g., Adobe, 2020; Lowe’s, 2020; Mutual of Omaha, 2020). A recurring pair of words was “health and safety” (e.g., BJ’s Wholesale Club., 2020, Core Mark Holdings, 2020, para. 2; Raytheon Technologies, 2020, para. 3).

Many press releases carried messages that centered on companies assuring their constituents that efforts by the company were made with the community in mind (e.g., Northwest Mutual, 2020). Not only were many companies concerned about their immediate responses to COVID-19, but the companies indicated that addressing effects of the virus was another aspect of providing assistance over time (e.g., Ford, 2020). Companies also stated they were doing whatever they could during that time and how that help went beyond individuals. For example, Freddie Mac (2020) noted that the support it gave to customers extended to the community. In some cases, companies referred to a worldwide community (Gilead, 2020). Other companies noted their essential position as a supply resource for their communities (Home Depot, 2020).

In addition to describing how companies were supporting communities, they also indicated how they were addressing COVID concerns with employees. Some companies indicated they were finding ways to help businesses with whom they worked to enable those businesses to provide assistance to individuals and areas they served (Goldman Sachs, 2020). One company highlighted the positive daily efforts by its employees to continue producing products for customers (Kraft Heinz, 2020). Further, companies stated that ensuring safety was a “priority” for their workers (Kroger, 2020, para. 2; Micron, 2020).

Another sub-theme involved instances in which company messages contained personal compassion. Press releases that provided those expressions noted that the company, and in some cases prominent individuals within the company, communicated camaraderie and an understanding of the reader’s circumstances. One release indicated the entire company was thinking about people who had been affected by COVID (Liberty Mutual, 2020). A senior member of administration at Southwest (2020) personally thanked customers. Another company CEO noted that the company and is customers would get through “this challenging situation together” (State Farm, 2020, para. 6). The Walmart (2020) CEO spoke in first person to highlight the efforts of its employees, also assuring customers and others working with the entity that it would be there.

The third sub-theme focused on the idea that people could rely on the company during this situation. Many statements associated with that theme attempted to reassure readers about what the company was doing for them. Several companies that manufacture various types of products noted the company was taking precautions to ensure the safety of those products (Lilly, 2020, PepsiCo, 2020). A technology company stated, “You are counting on Western Digital to deliver” (para. 1), while another organization assured clients that it would “continue to serve millions of customers” (Kohl’s, 2020, para. 8). A grocery store chain indicated it is a resource when a community needs the company (Publix, 2020). A press release from at least one company stated that people could reply on it (United Natural Foods, 2020).

Fighting for the Team: One means of expressing this category in press releases was the use of metaphors, which are popular ways of communicating the unknown in terms of the known. The notion of teams was a common element in press releases of many companies. The concept of teams and teamwork was expressed both as an aspect of a company’s employees and customers. Several releases indicated that employee teams were meeting the needs of customers (Baker Hughes, 2020; Dollar General, 2020) and assured customers the company’s team was taking necessary actions for various individuals associated with the company (CHS, 2020). One company extended its appreciation for its team’s efforts on behalf of customers (CenturyLink, 2020). Additionally, companies communicated their management team was involved in the situation (Capital One, 2020).

Some metaphors were associated with sports. That included various terms to denote the effects that COVID-19 was having around the globe, such as being “knocked back on its heels” (Capital One, 2020), which was a reference to boxing. Another type of metaphor was connected to exploration, such as the term “unchartered territory” (Cummins, 2020, para. 1) and “navigating the situation” (GM, 2020, para. 5). The navigation theme was also a part of the press release by a major builder (PulteGroup, 2020).

Metaphors also were used that denoted engaging against an opponent, such as using the terms “fighting” (e.g., Anthem, 2020, para. 1) and “fight” (ADM, 2020, para. 1; GE, 2020, para. 2). One company stated it was working to “combat” the virus (Abbott, 2020, para. 3), while two others similarly indicated their efforts were “combatting” COVID’s effects (American Express, 2020) and helping individuals who were “combatting” the virus (ExxonMobil, 2020, para. 5). Additionally, another company talked about its resources being “deployed” (AmerisourceBergen, 2020, para. 1). Some companies discussed how their actions were helping individuals working in the “frontlines” (AbbVie, 2020, para. 7; Cisco, 2020, para. 8). Allstate (2020) said it was involved in “both fronts” of employees and customers (para. 1).

4. Discussion

This study analyzed press releases posted by 186 of the top 300 Fortune 500 companies to provide their plans and actions in response to the pandemic crisis. Although other research articles about this topic chose various avenues for their studies, we looked at first-hand, initial responses to the virus. Corporations needed have a quick response, yet they were as much in the dark as were their stakeholders. The present study proposed three questions: (1) How did companies approach their response to the pandemic via news releases? (2) How did they communicate their concern for their internal and external stakeholders? (3) How do the company’s responses correspond to Situational Crisis Communication Theory? The way in which companies presented themselves and their positions regarding COVID-19 is interwoven between SCCT and the themes derived from this analysis.

One aspect of SCCT is an organization’s form of response. The present study revealed that the companies offered details regarding their situations, accompanied by predetermined, specific responses that were planned. The range of options in SCCT is to deny or diminish it at one end of the spectrum, but to deal with crisis at the other end. Crisis management includes considering reputation management and evidencing an understanding the crisis that is communicated transparently to constituents.

In comparison with prior research about company crisis response, the mood also was different (e.g., Shon & Edwards, 2018) from the somber attitude used during COVID-19. Whereas some companies chose to deny they had a crisis or stated that it was not their fault (e.g., Painter & Martins, 2017), the attitude during COVID-19 was more of a “we’re in this together” and “we’ll get through this” approach to the crisis.

SCCT addresses not only the situation itself, but also the response and the collateral damage that has the potential to damage the company (Coombs, 2006b, Coombs and Holladay, 2002). Three options that Coombs (2006b) suggested in his work offered denial, diminish, and deal as the means by which crises could be handled. We found the “deal” response was used in most cases, although a fourth option, that of ignoring the crisis, was how many companies reacted. The concern is that, as found in prior research, offering no response can result in lower trust of a company (Park, 2017).

Stakeholder protection and preventing future occurrence of the crisis is another element of SCCT. Instructional communication is an essential ingredient in conveying what constituents need to do in response to the crisis, including focusing on safety and avoiding physical harm. In our COVID-19 message analysis, we observed that companies responded to safety issues of both internal and external constituents via two themes: Perseverance through strength and Fight for the team.

In many cases, metaphors in press releases were used to express COVID-19 responses to companies’ external and internal publics. Externally, some companies described the virus and its effects in military or opponent-related terms, including “fight” (ADM, 2020, para. 1) and “fighting” (e.g., Anthem, 2020, para. 1), “combat” (e.g., Abbott, 2020, para. 3), and “deployed” (e.g., AmerisourceBergen, 2020, para. 1). Additionally, some press releases talked about individuals working in the “front lines” (e.g., Cisco, 2020, para. 8). The use of those terms suggests that COVID was personified as a foe that had to be defeated.

An internally focused metaphor employed by some companies was associated with sports. Primarily, that involved using the term “team” to connote how a company perceived its employees and administration working with COVID situations (e.g., Dollar General, 2020). This suggests companies that used this concept desired to communicate that all levels of employees were operating collaboratively and as one.

Company communications analyzed in this study also attempted to relieve psychological distress. That took the form of message content that assured stakeholders that the company did what was necessary during the crisis. Specifically, this was seen in the In this Together theme. Empathy is an essential component of crisis communication (Claeys & Coombs, 2020). Similarly, a number of companies communicated their compassion with messages that used “we” or “I” to convey either the company’s perspective or that of a company administrator, such as the CEO (e.g., Walmart, 2020). This suggests that companies sought to connect with the recipient’s situation on a personal level. Furthermore, companies often provided assurance that they would get the job done, thus indicating a notion of resilience in a time of uncertainty.

Similar to prior research, the present study found it is important to communicate details of a crisis and for a company to place the welfare of others above itself (Park, 2017). Current study results revealed the companies’ desire to work through the crisis by continuing to service their customers. Many companies were using their expertise and past experience to deal with COVID-19. This suggests the importance of maintaining a position of strength that portrayed a sense of endurance, longevity, and ability. Some press releases included a statement about seeing a positive outcome and future, conveying hope despite the virus (e.g., Cummins, 2020).

A question directly related to SCCT was whether an organization took the victimage stance or not. We found that the crisis, in relationship to SCCT, on the continuum of victim versus “it’s our fault” scenarios, leaned toward the victim end of the spectrum. There was an unspoken implication via their concern over the “health and safety” of the community, their employees, and their stakeholders that this was how they viewed themselves. They had to respond eventually and be proactive in their responses, lest they be viewed as uncaring and garner an undesirable reputation as a result. Some companies, as we have seen, jumped into the fray immediately and offered grace on payments for services rendered, equipment for health workers and hospitals, and computers for schools.

Many companies in this analysis indicated they provided tangible support, such as financial, for their constituents during the crisis. That often was seen in the We are Here for You theme. There were several things that impacted the way a company dealt with the crisis, so that the response could have been based on the type of company. Health-related industries used a certain type of message, such as offering medical devices for use by health professionals and hospitals (e.g., 3 M, 2020; GE, 2020; Western Digital). Tech companies provided supplies, such as equipment for schools (e.g., Amazon, 2020). Online service companies helped people have more and better access (e.g., Charter Communications, 2020; Comcast, 2020). Some companies (e.g., AEP, 2020) extended the time required for paying bills.

4.1. Organizational implications

Several implications from this study are important for public relations practitioners. One is that companies should make connections with audiences early in a crisis by providing information that is a priority to them. That involves regular communication and trust building, even before a company encounters a crisis. Another implication is that a company must be prepared to address a crisis that is not specifically associated with it, but that might have far-reaching effects for the entity. Part of that preparation is developing creative approaches based on the company’s strengths, such as assisting customers (Coombs, 2006b). Companies also should consider crisis response plans for various types of publics by providing action steps for employees as well as customers.

Findings of the present study also demonstrate the need for transparency. It includes how a situation is communicated and managed in the short term, as well as what the company envisions are the best proactive steps for a long-term response (Coombs, 2007). During a crisis, an organization should incorporate positive messages that assure their publics it is taking carefully designed steps with the publics’ welfare in mind to address the issue. Finally, communication should support the company’s ability to weather the crisis. Messages also can explain how action plans are beneficial to employees and to external constituents.

By studying the COVID-19 crisis through the lens of SCCT, it becomes possible to understand how organizations can approach future crises by examining SCCT. It focuses on the importance of connection with stakeholders and should affect how companies chose to label and respond to crises. This is another crucial element of SCCT, since company responses can have long-term effects on corporate reputation and future business. Although, with the current study, companies still had to rebuild their reputations, the fact that they were victims as much as the general public meant that their empathetic responses set them up to be viewed favorably by stakeholders.

4.2. Limitations and future research

Several limitations should be noted regarding this study. The researchers only had access to public press releases for the companies studied. They did not study companies that required membership or payment to get access to their information. The companies could have communicated privately behind the scenes with their employees and stakeholders, while maintaining a public image that seemed as if the response was little to none. Also, this study examined the content of messages, rather than their impact on recipients. Future research could consider how receivers interpreted company messages about COVID-19, and whether the way in which those messages are framed correspond with public perception and attitudes about the issue (e.g., Mason, 2019).

It is also possible that the companies responded to the COVID crisis much later than their first post-COVID press release. We only studied their reactions out of the COVID gate, so it is plausible they waited to give their attention to the virus until they could get a better handle on the situation. Also, much like weather forecasters who predict a huge storm that fizzles out, they might have been waiting to see if this was going to be a big problem or a minor disturbance. It can be recalled that, initially, we were told that the lockdown of the country would only be two weeks. Instead, it turned into more than a year and a half. Whatever the reason for their delay in discussing the issues or ignoring the situation completely, it could have affected them in the long run.

The question can be asked: “How will companies deal with such crises in the future?” Having had the experience of the outbreak of this virus, it would be beneficial to see if they are better prepared for a repeat of worldwide illness and death. What kind of communication will they use in the future? Will the lines of communication that they have opened in this crisis have taught them the best responses for such a situation or will they once again stumble through, learning as they go? A future study could involve the use of surveys that reveal strategies by the companies’ corporate communication people.

Another issue to consider would be the states’ responses to a health crisis. Some states were locked down more than a year after the initial crisis, while other states like Florida and Texas opened up much faster. What was the effect of the virus on the population in these varying state responses? Further, did the type of company influence how its bottom line was affected by the crisis response. A future study could address types or industries and how they dealt with this medical emergency. Whatever they discovered, this worldwide pandemic has had long-reaching effects for the nation and the world.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest with regard to the research done for this article.

Biographies

Sheri Dean Parmelee, Ph.D. had dual undergraduate degrees in English and Communication from the University of Maryland, College Park. She has an MBA from Liberty University and a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from Regent University. Her research interests include Public Relations, social media, strategic communication, and indirect communication.

Clark F. Greer (Ph.D., 2000, Bowling Green State University) is a retired Liberty University online adjunct professor. His research interests include television news, radio, communication technologies, and social media.

Data Availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.