On the use of transcendence as an apologia strategy: The case of Johnson controls and its fetal protection policy

Abstract

Abstract When charged with wrongdoing, most organizations rely on differientation strategies to extracate themselves from the crises that follow. Conversely, this essay focuses on the organizational use of transcendent appeals to redefine “sin” into a “virtue.” This study analyzes Johnson Controls' apologia after critics charged that its “fetal protection policy” was discriminatory, examining the redefinitions and ultimate terms invoked by the company to justify its choice of policy. This article completes a trilogy of monographs published in Public Relations Review that has attempted to distinguish the generic parameters that inhere in corporate apologetic discourse. The first essay, “Apologies and Public Relations Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo,” describes the communicative choices made by most corporations in apologetic crises and was published in the Summer 1994 issue. The second essay, “The Use of Counter-Attack in Apologetic Public Relations Crises: The Case of General Motors vs. Dateline NBC,” which was published in the Fall 1996 issue, analyzes those instances in which companies deny charges and directly challenge their accusers. This article was recently named the recipient of the 1996 PRIDE Award, which recognizes the top published essay in the previous year, by the Public Relations Division of the National Communication Association. The author is an assistant professor of public relations in the Department of Communication at Western Michigan University.