| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 大眾傳播學研究所 === 98 === The presence of globalization is enhancing the occurrence of worldwide social enterprise cooperation and trade events, especially in the current decade with full of crisis and risks. The cultural differences show a direct relation in the public’s perception and reaction whenever a risky event happens. Therefore, when a social enterprise tries to manage an international crisis event, the application of crisis communication strategies should compromise with the public’s expectation as well as to actually solve the problems.
The main objective of the research is to study, from a cross-culture perspective, on the crisis communication strategies that was mentioned in Coombs (2006) but also the cultural dimension that was mentioned in Hofstede (2001). Meanwhile, the research is carried out by content analysis with the case events that happened in Taiwan, the United States, and Malaysia, where King Car Food Industrial Co. Ltd., Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., and Khong Guan Biscuit Factory Pte. Ltd. (the three representing enterprises in each country) were facing the crisis events in connection with the melamine found in dairy products. During the period of time, different cultural background has set out different crisis communication strategies; the source of reference and news presented by the media as well as the how the media values/judges the event are all important references to be reviewed.
Research shows that King Car Food Industrial Co. Ltd., Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., and Khong Guan Biscuit Factory Pte. Ltd. enhance the crisis communication strategies by using the emphasis and reminder strategies: King Car Food Industrial Co. Ltd. proactively deliver its products for testing, apologizing to the public consumers and then recalling the defected products. By doing so, the enterprise has won some positive recognition in the media. On the other hand, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. repetitively denies the testing results by FDA and guarantees the safety of its products according to their internal testing procedures. Although at the end the enterprise admit the omission of the melamine testing and apologize in public, the media have already given the enterprise too many negative feedbacks. Finally, Khong Guan Biscuit Factory Pte. Ltd. receives some positive feedback from the media by following the Malaysian government’s regulation and recalling its products. However, there is some negative vibe within the media when the management class refuses to make any public claims. From the examples one can clearly see the correlation between the media’s evaluation of the enterprises and how the enterprises deal with crisis.
In terms of individualism and collectivism when analyzing different cultural backgrounds, USA values individualism while Malaysia values collectivism. Taiwan is biased towards collectivism. According to the source, the general public and professional scholars are more in favor of individualism, which is evaluated negatively by the media. Politicians and foreign reporters set the trend to favor collectivism, which has received more positive evaluation. Individualism emphasizes on the apology strategies and collectivism emphasizes on ingratiation, reminders and attacking the accuser.
In terms of uncertainty evasion, both Taiwan and Malaysia are at the higher end of evasion since the news sources mainly come from the government and business owners who emphasize on ingratiation and reminders; thus the positive feedback from the media. USA is at the lower end of uncertainty evasion while the news sources mainly come from public organizations and the general public, which have brought more negative evaluation from the media. Their strategies with crisis communication focus on attacking accuser and firm denials.
For the power distance, either Taiwan or Malaysia is an example of a high power distance culture, so the news sources are mainly quoted based on the government agencies, news industries and the reports from the foreign new agencies, and so either of them enjoys a higher media credibility. Usually, such a power distance culture tends to use the ingratiation, reminder and attack to the accuser strategies to deal with crisis communication. On the other hand, U.S. is a representative of a low power distance culture, so the news sources are mainly quoted based on the new industries, journalist and media, as well as the experts and professionals, and so the media credibility is more negative. The power distance culture usually develops crisis communication by adopting the reminding- and attacking to the accuser strategies.
Finally, speaking of long-term and short-term guidance; Taiwan and Malaysia both belong to the former where the government and business owners, whose crisis communication strategies include ingratiation, reminders and attacking to the accuser, are most often the news sources which receive more positive feedbacks from the media. USA, on the other hand, belongs to the latter where the news sources are primarily journalists, media and professional scholars whose crisis communication is mainly based on the principle of denial and scapegoat strategies which have received mostly negative evaluation from the media.
|
|---|
