When a company goes through a social crisis, whether it’s a strike, an internal conflict, or a broader mobilization on social networks, its reputation is immediately fragile. In an environment where expectations regarding social responsibility, managerial ethics, and transparency are constantly growing, communication can no longer be limited to a defensive posture or mere talking points. It becomes a strategic lever for management, but above all for repair and restoration of trust.
The work of W. Timothy Coombs, through the Situational Crisis Communication Theory, provides a valuable reading of these situations. According to this approach, the way a company should communicate depends on the level of responsibility stakeholders attribute to it, the organization’s history of crises, and its prior reputation. When the company is held responsible for a dysfunction, as is often the case in social conflicts related to working conditions or a lack of internal dialogue, the most appropriate strategy relies on acknowledging the facts, committing to a logic of repair, and demonstrating tangible changes. This type of strategy requires clear and measurable actions and sincere messages, capable of responding to the emotional and rational expectations of both internal and external audiences.
Employees must be considered the company’s primary ambassadors, on the front lines and often the first relay of the company’s message in a crisis situation.
From this perspective, active listening is an essential condition. It cannot be reduced to a procedural formality or a post-conflict satisfaction survey. It is truly a posture of humility and attention, where the organization accepts to confront the reality on the ground, the feelings of its collaborators, and their demands, sometimes long ignored. This listening, if well conducted, allows for the revelation of structural tensions, the identification of the deep causes of social crises, and above all, the construction of solutions in co-responsibility with the stakeholders concerned.
On this basis, the company can build a narrative of repair. This storytelling, far from being an opportunistic staging, must express a will for transformation. It relies on the recognition of errors, the implementation of concrete measures, and the capacity to sustainably evolve practices. It is written over time, through visible actions, measurable commitments, and shared feedback. It is all the more powerful when carried by legitimate internal voices, starting with local managers and the collaborators themselves, when they are part of the dynamic of change.
The communication of social crisis cannot be dissociated from the human management of the company. It does not solely fall under public relations or institutional discourse, but rather under the capacity to acknowledge tensions, recognize errors, and make words a tool for repair and projection. Active listening and storytelling are not techniques, but approaches that commit the organization over the long term.
Rebuilding trust after a social crisis means accepting that it reveals a strong expectation of recognition, justice, and dialogue. It also means admitting that employees no longer believe in disembodied discourses, but that they react to the coherence between what is said and what is done.
A crisis arises from the dissonance between the company’s discourse and the reality of its actions.
In this, communication becomes an exercise in truth, a process of legitimation, and an opportunity to redefine the social contract between the company and those who make it live.
