Communication During Disasters: Lessons from SCCT (Situational Crisis Communication Theory)

When an incident or scandal occurs, is “just apologizing” the right response? In fact, there are certain types of crises where an apology can actually backfire. In this article, we’ll explain “SCCT”—one of the most extensively researched theories in the field of crisis communications—from the perspective of Japanese corporate practice.

Introduction — Why Is a "One-Sided Apology" Not Enough?

System failures, data breaches, product recalls, and employee misconduct. While the types of incidents companies face are diverse, in Japan, when a crisis occurs, the reflexive response tends to be “apologize first.”

However, research on crisis communications has repeatedly shown that “the most effective response varies depending on the type of crisis.” In crises for which the company bears no responsibility whatsoever (such as external attacks or natural disasters), bowing deeply can actually give the public the mistaken impression that “the company must have been at fault after all.”

The theory discussed in this article, SCCT (Situational Crisis Communication Theory), systematizes this approach of “selecting the most appropriate response based on the situation.”

What is SCCT?

SCCT is a theory proposed in 2007 by crisis communication researcher W. Timothy Coombs. Its central argument is simple.

Crisis response strategies should be selected based on the extent to which the crisis is attributed to the organization and the level of threat it poses to its reputation.

The key point is that SCCT is built on evidence derived from experiments (empirical research). Rather than relying on the "instincts of experienced PR professionals," SCCT predicts "how stakeholders will perceive a crisis and whom they will hold responsible," and designs responses accordingly—this is the core concept of SCCT.

The theoretical basis for this lies in attribution theory, which examines who or what people attribute the causes of events to. If the public perceives that “this is the company’s fault,” responsibility is attributed to the company, creating a threat to its reputation. Conversely, if the public perceives that “the company is also a victim,” the attribution of responsibility weakens.

Step 1: Assessing Threats to Reputation — Three Key Factors

In SCCT, we first assess the extent to which a crisis could damage our company’s reputation (i.e., the threat to our reputation). The magnitude of this threat is determined by the following three factors:

1. Initial Crisis Responsibility: This refers to the extent to which stakeholders believe that "the company is to blame for this crisis." We can predict the general level of this perception based on the "type" of crisis, which will be discussed later.

2. Crisis History: Has the company experienced similar crises in the past? For companies that have a history of repeating such incidents, accountability becomes more pronounced and the threat is amplified.

3. Prior Relational Reputation: How has the company treated its stakeholders in the past? Companies that have consistently acted dishonestly will be viewed with a critical eye when the going gets tough.

In other words, even if the crisis is exactly the same, the impact it has on you depends on your past actions. The trust you build up day by day becomes your "reserve" in times of crisis.

Step 2: Classify Crises — 3 Clusters

Coombs classified crises into three "clusters" based on the degree of accountability. By determining which cluster your company's crisis falls into, you can assess the level of threat to your reputation.

To put it in terms of Japanese companies,

• Victim Cluster: Examples include cyberattacks in which attackers impersonate business partners to steal customer data, and e-commerce sites falling victim to identity theft by third parties.

• Incidental clusters: Examples include large-scale service outages caused by vendor system failures, or product issues arising from unexpected usage scenarios despite the product being designed correctly.

• Intentional clusters: tampering with inspection data, improper accounting practices, continuing to ship products despite being aware of safety standards, etc.

The key point here is that the closer a group is to the "intentional" cluster, the more likely the public is to feel "anger," while the closer it is to the "victim" cluster, the more likely it is to elicit "sympathy. " These emotions, in turn, lead to concrete actions such as boycotts, contract cancellations, and social media backlashes.

Step 3: Choose a Coping Strategy — Denial, Minimization, or Reconstruction

Once the assessment is complete, it’s time to develop a response strategy. The SCCT categorizes primary strategies into three groups. The more clearly defined the accountability is in a crisis, the more necessary it becomes to adopt a strategy that “takes responsibility.”

① Denial Strategy — Shifting Blame

This strategy aims to sever the link between the organization and the crisis. It is effective against rumors, false information, and baseless accusations.

• Rebuttal to the Accuser: Challenging the Claims of an Individual or Group

• Denial: Stating that the crisis does not exist

• Shifting blame (scapegoating): Attributing the cause to someone outside the organization

* This will only work if you can prove that your company is truly not at fault. If you deny liability when you are actually responsible, it will come back to haunt you later.

② Diminish Strategy — Downplaying the Connection or Severity

This strategy aims to help people understand that "it's not as bad as it looks" and "it wasn't intentional." The prerequisite is to back this up with credible evidence.

• Defense: Demonstrating a lack of intent or control to minimize the organization’s liability

• Rationalization: Downplaying the severity of the harm

③ Rebuild Strategy — Restoring Reputation

This is the most far-reaching strategy required in crises where accountability is paramount. It involves rebuilding one’s reputation through tangible and symbolic support for the victims and by demonstrating a willingness to seek forgiveness.

• Compensation: Providing financial or other forms of restitution to victims

• Apology: A statement in which an organization takes full responsibility

Support Strategy: Bolstering

This is a supplementary strategy designed to reinforce the above. It is not intended to replace the main strategy (it is merely supplementary).

• Reminder: Reminding stakeholders of past good deeds

• Appreciation: Praising Stakeholders

• Emphasizing the victim role: Conveying that the organization itself is a victim of the crisis

Quick Reference Guide for Strategic Choices (SCCT Guidelines)

And maintain consistency. Mixing denial strategies with downplay and reframing strategies will create contradictions in your message and undermine trust.

Three Key Considerations for Japanese Companies Using SCCT

Rather than simply importing theories as they are, it is important to adapt them to Japanese business practices.

1. Rethinking the "apology just for the sake of it"

In Japan, offering an apology early on is often seen as a sign of sincerity; however, from an SCCT perspective, an apology (i.e., accepting full responsibility) is a reconstruction strategy and a measure best suited for crises involving strong attribution of blame. If you offer a full apology during a crisis involving a victim cluster, you risk giving the impression that you are admitting to responsibility that does not actually exist. Be mindful that “regret,” “sympathy,” and “apology” are qualitatively different, and choose your words carefully.

2. However, we must not disregard public sentiment.

On the other hand, Japanese public opinion and the media strongly demand a “commitment to accountability.” Even in situations where there is no legal liability, expressing empathy and offering condolences to those affected (a strategy of damage control combined with support) is effective in mitigating public backlash. The key lies in striking a balance between a “legally correct response” and a “response that satisfies public sentiment.”

3. Everyday trust builds up like savings

The threat to a company’s reputation fluctuates depending on its history of crises and past relationships. Companies that consistently engage with stakeholders in a sincere manner are more likely to garner sympathy during a crisis and recover more quickly. Crisis communications do not begin “after a crisis occurs,” but rather “in normal times.”

Practice at Incident Lake: Bridging Theory and the Field

While SCCT is an abstract framework, applying it to the practical work of incident management can significantly improve the quality of the initial response. Here are some key points to consider when utilizing Incident Lake.

• Structuring Incident "Classifications"

  When creating an incident report, recording tags or attributes that indicate whether the incident falls under the "victim," "accidental," or "intentional" categories can help public relations, legal, and management teams make decisions more quickly. Determining whether the cause is human error, a technical failure, or an external factor is a critical factor in determining liability.

• Centralize timelines and facts

  Both downsizing and restructuring strategies rely on "reliable evidence." Maintaining an accurate timeline of what happened, when it happened, and how it was addressed ensures the persuasiveness of future external communications.

• Leveraging Past Incidents

  A history of crises serves to amplify the threat to a company’s reputation. By ensuring that past similar incidents and the responses to them are readily searchable and accessible, you can use this information to demonstrate that you have systems in place to prevent recurrence. Accumulating this knowledge acts as a “reserve” for the next crisis.

• Ensure consistency in our response

  To prevent the “mixing of strategies” warned against by the SCCT, it is essential that relevant departments share the same understanding of the facts and the same policies. Synchronizing incident information among all parties involved helps prevent the dissemination of conflicting messages.

Summary

• SCCT is a theory supported by empirical research that demonstrates that "the correct response to a crisis varies depending on the situation."

• First, assess the threats to reputation (initial responsibility, crisis history, and past relationships), and classify crises into three clusters (victim-related, accidental, and intentional).

• Based on that, select a strategy—from denial, downplaying, or reframing (with supplementary support)—that matches the level of accountability, and maintain consistency.

• Japanese companies need to rethink their tendency to focus solely on apologies and instead strike a balance that also takes public sentiment into account.

• And crisis response starts in peacetime. Accurately recording, classifying, and storing incident information is the best way to prepare for an emergency.

Related Materials

• Situational Crisis Communication Theory

• Coombs, W. (2007). Protecting Organizational Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 163–176. 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049.