This study utilizes the hegemonic model of crisis communication to
critically analyze the ideological implications of Nike's sweatshop
labor crisis that culminated in the Kasky v. Nike court case. This
groundbreaking case merits further examination and, informed by
Gramsci's notion of hegemony, reveals the underlying ideological
struggle present in the Nike crisis: a struggle for voice, power, and
free corporate speech. Activist voices opposing sweatshops, Nike's
defenses, and eventually, the legal decisions of the U.S. court system
constituted competing voices in these ideological struggles over what is
acceptable or right corporate behavior. This hegemonic struggle
influenced standards for international labor, public relations efforts
that misrepresent facts, and consideration of corporate public relations
as free or commercial speech. This hegemonic model of crisis
communication, unlike previous theories, recognizes the dynamic struggle
between voices with various levels of power and the important
ideological implications resulting from competing voices in crisis
communication.
Keywords: crisis communication; hegemony; Gramsci; Nike; sweatshop;
image restoration; Kasky v. Nike; freedom of speech; commercial speech
**********
In 2003, a negotiation between competing corporate and legal sides
of the Nike crisis over standards of corporate honesty ended (for the
short term) when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the principle that, at
least in California, public relations practitioners must be truthful in
their communication with the public. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to
review an earlier California decision that held Nike broke the law when
Nike public relations personnel misrepresented the truth in their
denials that Nike employees in developing nations were mistreated. This
was an important landmark decision and seminal event in business
communication crisis management.
This study proposes a hegemonic model of crisis communication that
offers important implications for business communication because the
Nike case represents a major shift in the legal protection extended to
corporate speech: Responses to accusations concerning business practices
are not protected by the First Amendment (in California), and
misrepresentation of the facts in such cases is a violation of
California law. The crisis also has other important ideological
implications: Some standards of right action by corporations were
reified, and some standards were redefined (such as what labor practices
are acceptable). It is also one of the first organizational crises in
which Web sites and the Internet played a determining role. More
important, an analysis of the competing voices in the Nike crisis
presents an opportunity to use the hegemonic model of crisis
communication, to understand how competing voices struggle in the
dynamic process, and to establish and maintain dominant ideology (i.e.,
what is right, just, or acceptable).
Analysis of the controversy surrounding Nike's business
practices is not new. A long line of research and publications by the
mainstream media and by the academic community about Nike as a
multinational corporation establishes the importance of Nike as a
seminal, landmark case study of business communication. As a case in
point, a few years ago, the Association for Business
Communication's annual student writing contest developed a case
around Nike. Study of Nike's past and current problems deserves
continued attention and merits reflective consideration because Nike
stands as one of the most controversial and crisis-ridden corporations
from which much can be learned.
Our purpose here is to add to extensive research on the Nike case
by developing the hegemonic model of crisis communication and offering
it as a critical theoretical lens to explain crisis communication.
Concepts taken from Antonio Gramsci's work on hegemony and
ideological struggle--such as the social negotiation of reality (public
debates over the facts) and hegemonic struggle for dominant ideology
(public debate about what is right or acceptable by voices with varying
degrees of power)--inform our development of this theoretical model.
This study proposes a conceptual critical framework, which we call
the hegemonic model of crisis communication, that helps explain the
process of how various voices speak to these concerns--the activist
voices speaking out against sweatshops, the responses of Nike as the
accused organization, and eventually, the legal decisions of the court
system. Use of the hegemonic model of crisis communication can help
explain how organizational crises erupt, how they are facilitated in the
press, how they are answered by corporations, and how they are fought
out in the courts. The negotiation of acceptable standards of corporate
image restoration discourse in the Nike case (an ideological struggle)
is the case study for this research, but we hope that an understanding
of Nike's sweatshop and free speech crisis can lead to the
identification of general patterns of crisis communication that can be
applied to other organizations as well.
This study employs a close textual analysis of the media texts,
legal texts, and commercial texts in order to identify how each of these
sets of texts, or voices, constructed their own social reality and how
the voices competed with each other. Bound up in this process of reality
construction are Gramsci's concepts of hegemony (the struggle to
establish and maintain a dominant ideology), the subaltern or
subpolitics (those with little power), consent (when subaltern yield
power to those above them), common sense (that which is collectively
deemed right and which is also termed false consciousness), and ideology
(truth).
NIKE. HONESTY. AND CRISIS COMMUNICATION
Significant research into various business transactions of Nike has
already positioned Nike as a seminal case study of U.S. business tactics
here and in developing nations. Stabile (2000) examines the
"sneaker wars" and the gang violence controversy surrounding
the wearing of Nike shoes and reviews the PUSH crisis when Nike came
under criticism for targeting certain audiences by race, age, and
socioeconomic level. Knight and Greenberg (2002) note Nike's
efforts to present itself as a socially responsible organization but
also highlight its inability
to answer its critics on sweatshop allegations; in fact, they argue
that the very prominence of the Nike organization makes it a target of
activist groups, whom they term subpolitics. Sellnow and Brand (2001)
present a more theoretical analysis of campaign communication--in their
case study of Nike CEO Phil Knight's May 12, 1998, speech about
Nike's efforts at globalizing its products. In their analysis,
Sellnow and Brand apply Benoit's image restoration model to examine
model and antimodel rhetorical strategies, which shift blame away from
the organization and onto the industry.
Another line of research has yielded business insights and business
lessons by focusing on the Kasky v. Nike (2000) and the Nike v. Kasky
(2003) lawsuits. E. L. Collins, Zoch, and McDonald (2004) detail the
allegations that led to the lawsuits, review the Kasky v. Nike lawsuit,
and note the significance of this case for defining corporate commercial
versus free speech. Ki (2004) examines the Nike v. Kasky lawsuit and
concludes that Nike's responses should be considered free speech
and should not have been sanctioned. Business Ethics: Corporate Social
Responsibility Report magazine explains why the Nike v. Kasky suit could
undermine the accurate reporting of corporate crisis situations
(www.business-ethics.com/nike_vs_kasky).
This continued attention to Nike by both the mainstream press and
academics demonstrates the continued interest in understanding
organizational crises and in developing good crisis communication
strategies to respond to them. This study focuses on models of crises in
order to understand organizational crisis situations and further explore
the struggle over what corporate behavior is ideologically acceptable.
A review of some crisis communication theories and models reveals
the need for a more descriptive, culturally based model of corporate
crisis to complement the current, mostly prescriptive linear models of
corporate crisis. Two seminal crisis models often referenced in the
literature and in textbooks are Fink's (1986)
precrisis/crisis/postcrisis model and Barton's (1993)
detection/prevention/containment/recovery/learning model. Both are
mostly linear models that prescribe the steps an organization should
follow to manage a crisis situation.
More recent work in crisis theory also maintains this focus on
linear, prescriptive models of crisis management. Not surprising, most
of this established and more recent crisis research also shares the
perspective that the organization has the primary power to control its
crisis management strategies and its communication. For example, Coombs
(2004) uses attribution theory, the categorization of kinds of crises,
history of the organization, and factors that cause crises in order to
demonstrate how the organization can manage and control a crisis; in the
end, the focus is on a prescriptive, linear model of crisis and the role
of the organization. Stephens, Malone, and Bailey (2005) replicate and
extend Coombs's prescriptive stages-of-a-crisis model to suggest
how message strategies developed by the organization can effectively
reach their intended stakeholders.
Dean's (2004) experimental design study measures the
public's opinions toward the organization's response to a
crisis, its social responsibility, and its blaming strategy; once again,
emphasis is on how the organization can follow certain linear steps in
alleviating its crisis. Finally, Hale, Dulek, and Hale (2005) look at
numerous case studies of corporate crises and extend Fink's (1986)
model to four substages of the Fink's recovery stage; however, they
do propose, as a response to a linear model, a spiral model of crisis,
where "progress [can cease] and the crisis teams retrace the
communication activities by moving backward" (p. 122).
We cite this representative line of research into crisis management
not to take issue with it but to contrast the model of crisis management
that we propose. That is, we suggest as a complementary and additional
model of crisis management a model that does not locate all power to
respond and to manage a crisis in the organization but also locates it
in the audiences and all kinds of institutions that relate to it. The
instigation and progression of a crisis do not always fit into a neat
linear model composed of sequential stages and respective strategies.
Furthermore, much theory on crisis communication focuses exclusively on
organization strategies, the responses from attacked entities, and
possibly the discourse of organizational attacks, rather than on the
larger environment in which crisis communication occurs. Previous crisis
communication researchers seem to underestimate the importance of the
complex interplay of institutional players during crisis situations,
often deemphasizing the conditions that allow power and influence to
converge in favor of particular players over others at a particular
time. Previous research has also often neglected to identify the
importance of the struggles that often arise from multiple players in
the dynamic reconstruction of the dominant ideology. In some crises,
there may be few, if any, ideological implications and traditional
linear models may still have utility. However, in cases with ideological
implications, or cases in which what is fight (ideology) is part of the
crisis discourse, we advocate use of the hegemonic model rather than
traditional models. The Nike case is one such crisis that can be
illuminated by using the hegemonic model.
A Hegemonic Model of Crisis Communication: Negotiation of Reality
in the Public Sphere
The explanation of the hegemonic model as a critical framework for
analyzing crisis communication begins with a review of Gramsci's
concept of hegemony and the related terms that are bound up in his
understanding of hegemony: ideology, common sense, subaltern, historical
blocs, and consent. This examination of Gramsci's ideas on hegemony
cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the interplay of
these terms to hegemony. Applying Gramsci's notions of common
sense, consent, and historical blocs to the Nike crisis helps us
identify how certain loci of power wield their own construction of
reality, primarily for the sustenance of their own power. In the end,
this look at hegemony and its related concepts frames what we propose as
the hegemonic model of crisis, a crisis model that resists a linear,
organization-centered representation of a corporate crisis. Because this
model is not linear, the discussion of key terms is necessarily
recursive.
Hegemony refers to the struggle over dominant ideology (public
debate over what is acceptable between voices with differential levels
of power), to a truth as advocated by a cultural structure (such as a
government, corporation, or agency) or, as in this study, by the process
of gaining the consent of the "governed" (Gramsci, 1947, p.
137). The concept of hegemony can inform or be utilized to critically
evaluate the negotiation of reality in the public sphere about corporate
behavior and ethics in public relations. Thus, Nike's public
relations messages represented their efforts to reinforce their
hegemonic position.
In this case study, hegemony relies on consent and "common
sense"--essentially, Gramsci's version of false consciousness,
which dupes individuals into consenting to hegemonic domination
(Zompetti, 1997). During the process in which common sense is
established, people come to understand and believe in ideologies because
that is what they are taught, that is what they model, and ultimately,
they are distracted or concerned about other things so they simply come
to expect and "know" and believe to be true the particular
ideology. A good example is credit cards (or credit in general).
Teenagers see their friends, their family, and television commercials
use them. They want credit cards so they can "maximize their
purchasing power." As they get older, they are also told that use
of credit cards is necessary for acquiring "good credit,"
which of course is necessary for more credit (car notes, mortgages,
etc.). At no point in time do young adults (and older adults as they
age) see their friends, family, or commercials question whether credit
is even necessary to begin with or if it is a positive thing to embrace
culturally. Instead, they learn to accept credit as common sense and
believe in it, thereby reproducing the consumer ideology of credit.
In the case of Nike, when Nike responded to critics, it established
a Code of Conduct, which codified labor standards for Nike's
employees outside the United States. Critics were duped into accepting
these standards because they felt they had been an important voice in
the debate that resulted in the establishment of common sense in the
code. In another example, when the courts ultimately adjudicated against
Nike on the issue of whether Nike could lie in their public relations
communication, critics were potentially duped into believing that the
U.S. court system checks corporate power, rather than believing that the
court system, with few exceptions, supports corporate power. Critics
were duped into accepting the ultimate authority of the state because
they felt Kasky v. Nike showed that the U.S. court system was not
pro-corporation.
Hegemony is a relationship between the dominant center of power and
its subaltern (those with little power) periphery (Germino, 1990; Laclau
& Mouffe, 1993). Gramsci, by reworking Marxist concepts, developed a
criticism of the State, which he saw as a hegemonic superstructure of
power. According to Gramsci (1947), it is through hegemony that the
State can control not only the economy but also the political and
cultural elements of a society. Thus, the superstructure could align
itself with other groups to establish a unified and subtle hegemony of
cultural thought, which is "exercised through so-called private
organizations, such as the Church, trade unions, schools" (p. 137).
While some groups benefit and are empowered by the superstructure,
others--the subaltern--are rendered relatively powerless and voiceless.
Because Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony focuses on the power
of the State, his criticism of subtle hegemony through proxy
institutions was undoubtedly geared toward an explanation of the broad
terrain of the dominant order. Gramsci refers to government policy
(usually corporate priorities codified in law) and politics, but
analogies (especially in the legal context) are possible to
profit-oriented corporations. Thus, Nike, as a profit-oriented,
capitalistic institution, also functions as a hegemonic force or as a
negotiator within the superstructure.
Persons along the periphery tend to understand their relationship
with the hegemony based upon common sense (Gramsci, 1971). Through the
use of articulating practices, the hegemony is able to construct
cultural perceptions (such as what is acceptable corporate behavior) so
the subaltern feel they are included in the superstructure (i.e.,
critics of Nike feel they were included in the superstructure because
they won the lawsuit). Conceptions that justify the existing order and
the subaltern's location within the discourse are products of
common sense. Gramsci characterized common sense as a "conception
which, even in the brain of one individual, is fragmentary, incoherent
and inconsequential, in conformity with the social and cultural position
of those masses whose philosophy it is" (p. 419). Thus, through the
establishment of cultural norms, rituals, and traditions, the hegemony
(such as the court through its legal decisions) is able to perpetuate
beliefs justifying its continued dominance. In the crisis that Nike
faced--the allegations of abuse of their workers--Nike's response
was messages to coaches, employees, and consumers or, in other words,
their subaltern groups within the U.S. political system who wanted to
believe the "truth" espoused by Nike. (The factory workers
could also be considered the subaltern, although not in our analysis,
which focuses on the struggle that occurred within the U.S. political
system.) As we will discuss later, the position of subaltern can shift
during a crisis. That is, some subaltern positions are more entrenched
and intractable than other subaltern positions. Nike was compelled by
the courts to pay damages for misrepresenting the truth. At the same
time, this court decision satiated critics by conveying the appearance
that the government was placing limits on corporate action.
Following Gramsci, the hegemonic model of crisis communication
implies that hegemonic power does not develop overnight, nor does it do
so through coercive means. The strength of the hegemony is not only its
acceptance by the subaltern but also the subaltern's desire of it.
By creating and maintaining a culture with illusory benefits and
superficial ideals, the hegemony is able to co-opt any resistance or
incorporate the resistance into part of the overarching hegemonic
philosophy through the use of common sense. Court decisions, for
example, as an arm of the State, illustrate how the hegemony can use
legal dictum and precedent to require citizens and corporations alike to
align into the larger superstructure, all under the guise of democracy.
In the hegemonic model of crisis communication, the
superstructure--for this study, the court system (an arm of the
government, which generally protects ideology that is favorable to
corporations)--achieves and perpetuates its dominance in certain
historical moments. When the subaltern succumbs to common-sensical
understandings, they become positioned as ensembles within a historical
bloc. In their discussion of the historical bloc, Laclau and Mouffe
(1993) note that it consis