You Are Here Home Human resource management project topics A SNAPSHOT OF THE CURRENT GLOBAL RISK ENVIRONMENT

A SNAPSHOT OF THE CURRENT GLOBAL RISK ENVIRONMENT

Project topics and materials 0

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

When United Airlines had a passenger forcibly removed from an overbooked plane, a number of elements contributed to a reputation and social media nightmare. If fellow passengers had not posted video clips of the event (Zdanowicz and Grinberg, 2017), the incident would likely have been a mere blip from the perspective of the airline. Instead, it became a top trending Twitter and Facebook hashtag for several days – an eternity in social media terms.
The tone-deaf first reaction of the airline’s CEO caused an even bigger furore, thus eroding public trust even further. The company’s share price fell sharply ($1.4 billion) and thousands of regular customers switched to other airlines (Shen, 2017). Social media scandals and crises appear to be nearly as certain as death and taxes. “In principle, every individual can have a message going viral and anybody can trigger a […]storm. Social media have become triggers and accelerators of organisational crises” (Frandsen and Johansen, 2017:169). A critical contextual reality in social media crises is the fact that social media users are not limited to commenting only on corporate actions, but related social issues.
“Therefore, companies’ communication, including crisis communication, on social media with consumers and citizens as co-communicators can be said to be about risk, relationship and network management” (Frandsen and Johansen, 2017:169). This was illustrated by the global social media outcry and the involvement of politicians from both the USA and UK regarding the baby Charlie Gard saga in England. Medical and judicial experts lamented the inaccurate information on social media regarding the decision to terminate the life support for this child. This case further illustrated the lack of geographical limitations and the impact of emotion on an issue gaining traction on social media.
These realities became quite serious when threats were made against the hospital where this baby was treated (Sawer and Sabur, 2017). In addition, The Conference Board (2007:6) emphasised the fact that it may take longer than three years for an organisation to recover from a reputation failure. The decade since the publication of aforementioned research report, calls for swift action to replace corporate leadership teams and to act according to the social contract of the triple context have become louder and more intense than ever before. Depending on the strategies organisations employ, reputation damage after a crisis may be contained, repaired or beyond repair. Against this background, the overarching research question of this study is: “How do organisations manage corporate reputation risk in relation to the social media landscape?”

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION

The multi-faceted nature of this research question is best illustrated by a visual representation and a brief overview of each of its constituent parts.

A visual summary of the research phenomenon

This research question led to the conceptualisation of the research phenomenon as depicted in figure 1.1. All elements of the phenomenon are related in a dynamic manner. First, the multipolar business environment is characterised by the (i) tension between symmetry-asymmetry in organisation-stakeholder relationships, (ii) uncertainty as the only constant in organisational decision-making (Cleary and Malleret, 2007), (iii) the self-organising ability of systems in terms of issues and constituencies, (iv) disequilibrium, (v) contingency and (vi) non-linearity that reflect the brevity of periods of seemingly calm conditions (cf. Murphy, 1996 and 2000). Second, somedialisation is the pivotal outcome of the digitalisation of communication in all forms (Aula and Heinonen, 2016:202-204). It signals the divide between social and legacy media in terms of their respective power over people’s minds and interdependence. Legacy (traditional) media now feed off social media.

Chapter 1 Background and orientation :

  • 1.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 1.2 THE COMPLEXITY OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION
  • 1.2.1 A visual summary of the research phenomenon
  • 1.2.2 The complexity of Enterprise Risk Management
  • 1.2.3 The complexity of corporate reputation management and corporate reputation risk
  • 1.2.4 The complexity of social media crisis management
  • 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
  • 1.3 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
  • 1.4 SYNOPSIS OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
  • 1.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
  • 1.6 DELIMITATION OF STUDY
  • 1.7 DEMARCATION OF CHAPTERS
  • Chapter 2 Meta-theoretical and conceptual position
    • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 2.2 META-THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
    • 2.2.1 Meta-theoretical assumptions
    • 2.2.1.1 Ontological position
    • 2.2.1.2 Epistemological position
    • 2.2.1.3 Objectivity-subjectivity position
    • 2.2.1.4 Axiological position
    • 2.2.1.5 Typological classification
    • 2.2.2 Worldview
    • 2.2.3 Paradigms
    • 2.2.3.1 Affirmative postmodernism
    • 2.2.3.2 Reflective paradigm
    • 2.2.4 Grand theory
    • 2.2.5 Interdisciplinary focus
    • 2.2.6 Specific theories
    • 2.2.7 Specific models
    • 2.2.8 Key concept
    • 2.3 CONCLUSION
  • Chapter 3 Approaches to Enterprise Risk Management
    • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 3.2 A SNAPSHOT OF THE CURRENT GLOBAL RISK ENVIRONMENT
    • 3.2.1 Dynamics of the global risk arena
    • 3.2.2 Economic risks as a focus area
    • 3.2.3 Technological risks as a focus area
    • 3.3 KEY COMPLEXITIES OF THE ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE
    • 3.3.1 The concept of risk
    • 3.3.2 A brief history of risk management
    • 3.3.3 Defining Enterprise Risk Management
    • 3.3.4 Benefits of Enterprise Risk Management
    • 3.3.5 The future of Enterprise Risk Management
    • 3.4 KEY DIMENSIONS OF IMPLEMENTING ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT
    • 3.4.1 A template for Enterprise Risk Management
    • 3.4.2 Levels of risk
    • 3.4.3 Risk assessment
    • 3.4.4 Communication
    • 3.4.5 Organisational role players and responsibilities
    • 3.5 PERTINENT FRAMEWORKS/MODELS FOR ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT
    • 3.5.1 Burnaby and Hass (2009)
    • 3.5.2 Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (2017)
    • 3.6 CONCLUSION
  • Chapter 4 The nature of corporate reputation and corporate reputation risk
    • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 4.2 FOUR REPUTATION PARADIGMS
    • 4.2.1 Paradigm 1: Reputation as capital
    • 4.2.2 Paradigm 2: Reputation as interpretation
    • 4.2.3 Paradigm 3: Reputation as social capital
    • 4.2.4 Paradigm 4: Reputation as legitimisation
    • 4.3 KEY COMPLEXITIES OF CORPORATE REPUTATION
    • 4.3.1 Corporate reputation = reality and perception
    • 4.3.2 Archetypes of corporate reputation
    • 4.3.3 The dialogic nature of corporate reputation
    • 4.4 TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
    • 4.4.1 Realistic corporate expectations
    • 4.4.2 The role of Chief Reputation Officer
    • 4.4.3 A possible template for comprehensive communication strategies
    • 4.5 KEY DYNAMICS OF CORPORATE REPUTATION RISK
    • 4.5.1 Causes, categories and challenges
    • 4.5.2 Insurance as an option
    • 4.5.3 Broad management principles
    • 4.6 PERTINENT FRAMEWORKS/MODELS FOR CORPORATE
    • REPUTATION RISK MANAGEMENT
    • 4.6.1 Kucuk Yilmaz and Kucuk (2010)
    • 4.6.2 Aula and Heinonen (2016)
    • 4.6.3 Reputation Institute (2016)
    • 4.7 CONCLUSION
  • Chapter Social media variables and crisis management
    • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 5.2 A SNAPSHOT OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA LANDSCAPE
    • 5.2.1 Defining social media
    • 5.2.2 The complex scope of the social media landscape
    • 5.2.3 Emerging roles for social media specialists
    • 5.2.4 Opportunities and challenges for corporate reputation efforts
    • 5.2.5 Social media bear traps
    • 5.3 THE SOCIAL MEDIA CRISIS MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE
    • 5.3.1 Emerging crisis management terminology
    • 5.3.2 The anatomy of social media crises
    • 5.3.3 Emerging social media stakeholder labels
    • 5.3.4 Rumour management
    • 5.4 THE COMPLEX NATURE OF CRISIS RESPONSE STRATEGIES
    • 5.4.1 Strategic crisis prevention
    • 5.4.2 Crisis leadership criteria
    • 5.4.3 Social media policies as a preventative tool
    • 5.4.4 Crisis response strategies
    • 5.4.5 Some of the most common mistakes associated with poor crisis leadership
    • 5.5 PERTINENT FRAMEWORKS/MODELS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA CRISIS MANAGEMENT
    • 5.5.1 Mei, Bansal and Pang (2010)
    • 5.5.2 Thiessen and Ingenhoff (2011)
    • 5.6 CONCLUSION
  • Chapter 6 Research methodology
    • 6.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 6.2 THE INTERPRETIVE QUALITATIVE ORIENTATION
    • 6.3 THE MULTIPLE CASE STUDY DESIGN
    • 6.4 SOURCES OF EVIDENCE WITHIN EACH CASE STUDY
    • 6.4.1 Semi-structured interviews
    • 6.4.2 Interview schedules
    • 6.4.3 Organisational documents
    • 6.4.3.1 Corporate websites
    • 6.4.3.2 Social media policies
    • 6.4.4 Recent social media reputation incidents
    • 6.5 DATA ANALYSIS STRATEGY
    • 6.5.1 Semi-structured interviews
    • 6.5.2 Organisational documents
    • 6.5.2.1 Corporate websites
    • 6.5.2.2 Social media policies
    • 6.5.3 Recent social media reputation incidents
    • 6.6 CASE STUDY REALISATION
    • 6.6.1 Inviting organisations to participate in the project
    • 6.6.2 Interviews
    • 6.6.3 Websites
    • 6.6.4 Social media policies
    • 6.6.5 Recent social media reputation incidents
    • 6.7 PILOT STUDY
    • 6.7.1 Research design
    • 6.7.2 Data collection instruments
    • 6.7.3 Data analysis
    • 6.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • 6.9 LIMITATIONS
    • 6.10 EVALUATING THIS STUDY
    • 6.10.1 Criteria for qualitative research
    • 6.10.2 Measures for scientific soundness
    • 6.11 CONCLUSION
  • Chapter 7 Results, interpretations and propositions
    • 7.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 7.2 INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDY REPORTS
    • 7.2.1 Case study A
    • 7.2.1.1 Corporate profile
    • 7.2.1.2 Research setting
    • 7.2.1.3 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 7.2.1.4 Objective 2: Approach to risk management
    • 7.2.1.5 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to
    • social media
    • 7.2.1.6 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 7.2.1.7 Interpretation of case study A
    • 7.2.2 Case study B
    • 7.2.2.1 Corporate profile
    • 7.2.2.2 Research setting
    • 7.2.2.3 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 7.2.2.4 Objective 2: Approach to risk management
    • 7.2.2.5 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to
    • social media
    • 7.2.2.6 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 7.2.2.7 Interpretation of case study B
    • 7.2.3 Case study C
    • 7.2.3.1 Corporate profile
    • 7.2.3.2 Research setting
    • 7.2.3.3 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 7.2.3.4 Objective 2: Approach to risk management
    • 7.2.3.5 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to social media
    • 7.2.3.6 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 7.2.3.7 Interpretation of case study C
    • 7.3 HOLISTIC CASE STUDY COMPARISON
    • 7.3.1 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 7.3.2 Objective 2: Approach to risk management
    • 7.3.3 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to social
    • media
    • 7.3.4 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 7.4 OBJECTIVE 5: PROPOSITIONS
    • 7.4.1 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 7.4.2 Objective 2: Approach to risk management
    • 7.4.3 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to social
    • media
    • 7.4.4 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 7.5 OBJECTIVE 6: A SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK
    • 7.6 CONCLUSION
  • Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations
    • 8.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 8.2 CONCLUSIONS
    • 8.2.1 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 8.2.2 Objective 2: Approach to the risk management
    • 8.2.3 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to social media
    • 8.2.4 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 8.2.5 Objective 5: Propositions
    • 8.2.6 Objective 6: A suggested framework
    • 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 8.3.1 Managerial implications
    • 8.3.1.1 Objective 1: Approach to corporate reputation management
    • 8.3.1.2 Objective 2: Approach to the risk management
    • 8.3.1.3 Objective 3: Approach to corporate reputation risk in relation to
    • social media
    • 8.3.1.4 Objective 4: Elements of a management framework
    • 8.3.2 Further research
    • 8.4 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS REFERENCES
    • SOURCES CONSULTED ANNEXURES
    • Annexure A: Ethical permission for research
    • Annexure B: Letter of introduction and informed consent
    • Annexure C: Interview schedule: Communication specialist
    • Annexure D: Interview schedule: Social media specialist
    • Annexure E: Interview schedule: Risk specialist
READ  Work-Family Conflict

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

 

Related Posts

Young Millennials News Consumption

Recursive feature elimination with random forest regression

The Language of Portfolio

Identifying residents at risk of malnutrition 

HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURES

Electroweak precision observables fit of the Higgs mass