A study co-authored by Professor Dorota Dobija of Kozminski University shows how groups of critics, supporters and observers form online – and why rebuilding reputation requires companies to track shifting public expectations.
Illustration generated using AI tools.
An online reputational crisis rapidly draws in groups that begin to assess a company’s actions and formulate expectations of it. A study based on the case of LPP shows that groups of critics, supporters and neutral participants change in composition and influence as events unfold. For managers, this means monitoring the content of the debate, its influential participants and expectations that can redirect the entire conversation within hours.
Five hours to respond
On 22 March 2020, Newsweek published an article about LPP’s purchase of protective masks on the Polish market and their shipment to China. According to the magazine, a substantial share of the masks went to factories producing clothing for the company. The report appeared at a time when Polish medical facilities were struggling with shortages of protective equipment.
The article quickly drew criticism in the media and on social platforms. Researchers estimated that the first wave of content generated more than one million audience contacts. Content with a negative tone accounted for 78.5% of this estimated reach, neutral content for 16.3%, and positive content for 5.2%.
LPP responded around five hours later. The company presented its account of events, explained the reasoning behind its decision and rejected some of the allegations. Its CEO also joined the debate. The following day, the company announced that it had filed a lawsuit against the magazine’s publisher.
The study shows that these responses gradually changed the course of the discussion. Among content related to the announcement of the lawsuit, 58.4% of the estimated reach was already positive, while 28.8% was negative. Criticism nevertheless continued. Some participants expected the company to take concrete action to support hospitals and people exposed to the effects of the pandemic.
The clearest shift came when LPP expanded its #LPPpomaga programme. The company allocated nearly PLN 5.7 million to relief efforts, donated one million protective masks to more than 300 medical facilities, and its employees sewed masks and protective coveralls. Content about these efforts generated a combined estimated reach of more than 1.3 million audience contacts. Positive content accounted for 92.8% of this reach, with the remaining 7.2% attributed to neutral content.
The study therefore makes it possible to trace the crisis almost hour by hour: from the rapid wave of allegations, through the company’s response and a shift in the narrative, to action addressing needs voiced in the public debate.
A crisis creates its own map of influence
The authors identify three types of ‘responsibility networks’: critics, supporters and participants taking a neutral position. These groups form around a specific issue and may include journalists, politicians, civil-society organisations, public institutions and individual internet users.
Their composition changes quickly. Participants join the debate, withdraw from it or move into another group in response to new information and company decisions. Media outlets that initially rank among the main critics may later become neutral observers or begin presenting arguments that support the organisation.
A participant’s importance in the debate depends on their visibility: their reach, activity and ability to elicit responses. A traditional stakeholder map can therefore become outdated very quickly. An influential voice may emerge outside the groups that the organisation usually considers in its communication planning.
In an online crisis, the groups evaluating a company form very quickly, shift in composition and articulate different expectations. Management needs to keep track of who is shaping the conversation, what they expect from the organisation and whether the steps being taken address the source of the dispute” , explains Professor Dorota Dobija.
Communication changed the course of the debate. Concrete action marked the turning point
The LPP case shows that the company’s rapid response mattered. Its explanations, statements by the CEO and decision to pursue legal action affected the balance of positive, neutral and negative content. They also redirected some of the audience’s attention from the original allegations to the dispute between the company and the magazine.
The greatest positive reach, however, surrounded measures that directly addressed the issue at the heart of the crisis. Participants in the discussion were calling for support for the healthcare system, and the company committed resources to producing and distributing protective equipment.
These measures became part of a public process of holding the company accountable. Audiences could assess their scale, cost and alignment with expectations voiced earlier. Medical facilities, public institutions and civil-society organisations played an important role by reporting on the support they had received. Because these voices came from outside the company, they lent greater credibility to the message.
The internet preserves a company’s reputational history
During the controversy over the masks, earlier issues associated with LPP resurfaced in the debate, including tax matters and the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh. The new event therefore reactivated a reservoir of earlier judgements about the company.
This is an important lesson for boards and communication teams. A company’s reputational history remains accessible and may be revived by participants in a future dispute. Crisis preparedness should therefore include knowledge of earlier allegations, the company’s previous responses and issues that were never convincingly resolved.
How a company communicates its position also matters. In the case analysed, the CEO’s personal voice complemented the company’s official statements and influenced how its decisions were interpreted. A leader who speaks publicly becomes part of the process of restoring credibility. Their statements will be judged against the organisation’s subsequent actions.
How was the study conducted?
The researchers analysed 3,443 publicly available posts, articles, statements and comments published between 22 March and 30 June 2020. More than 82% of the material came from Facebook and Twitter. The dataset also included content from news websites, online forums and organisations’ websites.
The team selected 350 items with the greatest estimated reach for in-depth coding. It combined content analysis with online discussion monitoring and sentiment analysis. Authors were classified, among other categories, as representatives of the media, politics, civil-society organisations and public institutions, or as individual internet users.
The audience-contact figures cited in this article are estimates based on the reach of the account or author and the number of reactions to a piece of content. They do not represent the number of unique recipients or the results of a public opinion survey.
It is worth noting that the study examines a single crisis and focuses on the most visible text-based content. It provides a detailed account of the mechanism and sequence of events, but does not establish that a similar response would produce the same result in every organisation. The observed changes in the sentiment of online content occurred alongside the company’s successive decisions; the analysis itself does not demonstrate a simple causal relationship.
***
About the publication
The article „Critical dialogic accountability online: responsibility networks and the dynamics of legitimacy repair” was written by:
-
Joanna Krasodomska, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor – Department of Financial Accounting, Krakow University of Economics;
Ewelina Zarzycka, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor – Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management, University of Lodz;
Professor Dorota Dobija, PhD, DSc – Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Kozminski University;
Professor John Dumay – Macquarie University, Nyenrode Business Universiteit and the University of Gothenburg.
The study was published in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. The project received funding from the National Science Centre, Poland, under grant no. 2023/49/B/HS4/00507.
