In "The Know": A Student's Guide To Public Relations

Reputation or Responsibility? What Brandy Melville and SeaWorld Reveal About Ethical Brand Management By: Lily Morris

The world of public relations is made up of several moving parts because the field is constantly evolving. Every brand has different goals, values, and target audiences, so as a PR professional, it is your duty to protect and strengthen the brand's reputation while also maintaining a strong, trusting relationship with the brand's audience and stakeholders. Maintaining that transparency and oath to ethical treatment, communication, and responses helps build loyalty and strengthen the brand's relationships while managing public perception and potential crises. According to an article published by Forbes titled “The Critical Role of Reputation Management (Herd, 2023),” protecting a brand's reputation is a PR priority, but maintaining your audience's trust is what makes it happen. The article says that, “A good reputation is synonymous with trust and credibility.” It goes on to say that “A well-managed reputation can foster customer loyalty.” This, in turn, means that a tarnished reputation can result in the loss of customer trust and overall revenue.

Brandy Melville: Reputation Management “One size fits most (VanSlette & Waymer, 2016).” That is the continuous motto of Brandy Melville's branding. They are known for their clothing, which tends to fit those who fit into an XXS-Small and maybe even a medium, if you are lucky, but according to the brand, their clothing is supposed to fit “most” people, which ultimately marginalizes a large group of individuals who wear a medium and above. The brand's reputation is known to not be inclusive and promotes, according to people on social media, an “eating disorder culture.” The European company built its brand around exclusive sizing and a social media-only marketing and promotion strategy. The case study showed the brand's commitment to exclusivity, with a “congratulations” mindset when a young woman fits into their clothes. This further promotes unhealthy body standards to the extreme by primarily hiring employees who match their aesthetic. These young women are white, skinny, and typically have long hair, further promoting the idea of narrow beauty standards. Some have argued that the brand uses this type of marketing as a form of “social gatekeeping,” but in today's society, this “practice” isn't easily accepted. To most of their audience, the brand is “tone deaf” and ultimately unethical in its marketing practices. The case's major themes revolve around intentional exclusivity through limited sizing, social media marketing, criticism of body image and representation, and the company's refusal to clarify its values, address the public's concerns, and weaken trust due to its controversial sizing. The key lesson/insight that highlights the balancing act between brand management and ethical practices is that a brand’s reputation is inseparable from its ethical responsibilities, and Brandy Melville shows that exclusivity is not a long-term, sustainable practice for building brand loyalty, even when a brand remains commercially successful. This all matters today because, in the world of public relations, reputation management is inseparable from ethical conduct, and public trust can only be earned from transparency and accountability, which means that a brand that is built on the idea of “exclusivity” will inevitably face public scrutiny and distrust among the brand's audience. Ultimately, for any brand to succeed, it has to recognize that ethical responsibility is not optional but a prerequisite for a strong, sustainable, and successful reputation. Black Fish and Sea World: Reputation Management Similar to the Brandy Melville case, some brands' reputations are so strong that even when unethical practices arise, they can continue operating and generate revenue. This can be seen through the SeaWorld brand and the impact of the “Blackfish (Duhon et al., 2016)” documentary, which called out the facilities' inhumane captivity and treatment of their Orca Whales while shining light on the death of one of their trainers, Dawn Brancheau. Understandably, the documentary created quite a stir, sparking severe public backlash, prompting protests, leading to declining attendance, though not completely, and several shareholders withdrew from the organization. This case raises questions about the guidelines and the importance of balancing brand protection, ethical practices, and the safety of brands, trainers, animals, and the audience. Sea World's response was anything but apologetic; it was defensive and focused primarily on brand management rather than addressing the audience's concerns. They declined to be interviewed and published a one-page document on their website dedicated to “refuting” the documentary's claims. The case's main takeaway is that a brand's reputation can be tarnished when it prioritizes its image over its audience and stakeholders. A brand needs to identify its values and stay true to them, rather than prioritize unethical practices to save its image. The instant “defensive strategy” reflects this disconnect. These main themes and strategies resulted in financial consequences, loss of partnerships and audience trust, and a decline in attendance. Next, the key lesson/ insight that highlights the balancing issue of brand management and ethical practices is that a brand’s reputation is inseparable from its ethical responsibilities, which means that a brands reputation can only be protected through transparent and meaningful responsibilities, and if the audience believes a practice is unethical, the brand has a responsibility to address the audience and figure out a solution that isnt defensive. This all matters today because public trust is everything when it comes to a brand's reputation, as that is how stakeholders judge a brand. They want to know they can trust them, so perception is everything. Balancing the brand's image and reputation while prioritizing ethical practices is how a brand builds public trust and strong relationships.

What Does This Mean? Overall, whether you are dealing with a clothing brand or a supposed “animal sanctuary,” the brand's PR team has an obligation to protect the brand's image and reputation, but the brand has an obligation to stick to its values and prioritize the well-being of its audience, stakeholders, and employees. When it comes to any crisis, responses should not be defensive but apologetic, and, in today's social climate, the brand should be known as “inclusive” rather than “exclusive.” According to an article published by PRSA called “Brand Reputation and Crisis Management: Practical Tips to Face Unexpected Issues and Crisis (Concina, 2021),” our society is constantly evolving, and attitudes are changing, so a brand's audience behaviors today are different than what they were 10 or 20 years ago, so sticking to your brand's core values and brand management is very important. The article says, “we are living on LIVE social media, so we must consider intercultural frames and scenarios, and evaluate the impact every channel (traditional, digital) could have on the public(s), being flexible to adapt strategies on a daily or hourly basis if needed, to preserve reputation and/or the arising of a new issue.” This means that protecting a brand's reputation is a priority in PR, but maintaining your audience's trust is what makes it happen. Balancing the brand's ethical obligations to its audience is the key to a brand's reputation success.

Sources

Herd, J. (2023, October 9). Council post: The critical role of reputation management. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2023/10/09/the-critical-role-of-reputation-management/  VanSlette, S., & Waymer, D. (2016). Case Studies In Strategic Communication. Exclusive and Aspirational: Teen Retailer Brandy Melville Uses the Country Club Approach to Brand Promotion, Volume 5(ISSN 2167-1974).  Duhon, S., Ellison, K., & Ragas, M. W. (2016). Case Studies In Strategic Communication. A Whale of a Problem: A Strategic Communication Analysis of SeaWorld Entertainment’s Multi-Year Blackfish Crisis, Volume 5(ISSN 2167-1974).  Concina, F. (2021, October 5). Brand reputation and crisis management: Practical tips to face unexpected issues and crisis. PRSA. https://www.prsa.org/event/2099/12/30/default-calendar/brand-reputation-and-crisis-management-practical-tips-to-face-unexpected-issues-and-crisis-odwb2122 

The Importance of Communication In Public Relations, Especially in Crises By: Lily Morris

Everyone knows that communication is the foundation of every relationship in our lives, whether with friends, family, partners, or even organizations. Those relationships only thrive when active and transparent communication is exchanged, especially in times of trouble. Obviously, these crises can be categorized by their magnitude, which means the way you handle or rectify the situation differs depending on the situation. For example, a crisis stemming from verbal or physical harm, like the Ye and Adidas collab crisis or the Flint, Michigan water crisis, is different from a financial miscalculation crisis that happened at a school in Colorado, and even from a crisis created by conflicting values between an organization and its audience, like the Susan G. Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood. All of these situations are valid and important, but causing bodily harm to someone requires an entirely different response and involves many moving parts to not only regain the public’s trust but also support the individuals who were personally affected by the incident. These cases are just a few examples of how transparent communication is vital for any brand, especially in a crisis. The Flint, Michigan Water Crisis One of the most notable scandals, crises, and wrongdoings in the world of Public Relations was the water crisis in Flint, Michigan (Nowling & Seeger, 2020), which led to permanent and fatal consequences not only for the community of Flint but also for residents who trusted the town and water company to prioritize their health. This case perfectly shows how poor communication between an organization and its public will lead to a crisis and a potential public health disaster. In this case, the water company focused on cutting costs, which, in turn, led to the crisis in the first place, and they prioritized their reputation over transparent communication with Flint residents during and after the crisis. They ultimately cared more about controlling the narrative than about telling the truth and owning up to their mistakes. An article published by the National Library of Medicine called “Informational Sources, Social Media Use, and Race in Flint, Michigan’s Water Crisis” talks about the long-term health risks and how the lack of communication and urgency around the issue could lead to even more health risks, especially among marginalized and low-income areas. The article says, “Health effects arising from Flint’s water contamination crisis have been significant. Failure to treat the city’s new water supply from the Flint River appropriately may have allowed microbial contamination into the municipal water system (Day et al., 2019).” This reiterates themes of power imbalances, denial, message control, and silencing marginalized communities. The challenges of the case are evident in the failed communication with the public, the lack of transparency and accountability, and the residents' struggles with being silenced, especially low-income families within the community. Strategies in this case included the institution's defensive messaging, which downplayed the risks and lasting impact on public health while withholding vital data. The residents used strategies of activism by mobilizing the power of social media, running health tests on themselves and the water, and highlighting the underlying racism of the entire crisis. This ultimately led to national recognition and support, reforms within the water system in Flint, public health communication, but also led to long-lasting and severe public distrust and criticism. Related Cases That Complete The Communication Puzzle The other crisis cases we discussed this week were about Kanye and Adidas, the Susan G. Koman foundation, and a multimillion dollar error, and the lesson all of these cases teach us is how important, and vital, transparent communication is for a brand to ensure the safety of their audience, maintain brand loyalty, and safe guard their future reputation in a media heavy society. The crisis regarding Kanye and his collab with Adidas (Adidas, 2022) stems from his antisemitic remarks on social media, which led Adidas to end its partnership with him. This occurred because of the conflicting values at hand, but it was interesting that the company even started this collab in the first place because of Kanye's controversial reputation. This left the public and the companies' stakeholders uncertain of the brand's future, due to their lack of communication and awareness during the crisis. Next, the crisis regarding the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (Susan G. Komen, 2020) started because of the organization's abrupt ending of its long-term “partnership” with Planned Parenthood. This decision caused an uproar among the women they are helping and stakeholders because the company claimed to be supporting and prioritizing women's wellness, yet ended a partnership with an organization that also aims to protect women. This decision triggered national backlash, and the organization was slammed with claims of political motives. Ultimately, these women felt betrayed, and many believed the organization violated its oath to advocate for women's health. The foundation handled this with poor communication, a lack of transparency, and a lot of defensive messaging, which led to long-term public distrust. Lastly, the crisis regarding a Colorado school districts mmultimillion dollar budgeting error (Tracy, 2007) connects to all of these cases because it also shows how a lack of transparency and communication can lead to public distrust. This case became a crisis when school officials denied the actual situation and branded it a “technical oversight,” rather than owning up to the mistake, apologizing to the public, and taking accountability for it. Officials used language in their messaging that was defensive, ultimately minimized the situation, and lacked accountability, which showed residents how committed the school was to the public and the value of their trust. This, again, caused a lot of anger and long-term distrust within the community. Ultimately, all of these cases are great examples of how important transparent communication is to a brand's success and the public's well-being. When any organization lacks transparency, it loses control of the narrative, which damages its reputation and erodes public trust. Themes shown include the reflex to control the narrative in a crisis, the conflict between public trust and accountability, protecting your brand's reputation, and the importance of ethical decisions, staying true to your values, and upholding promises. All of these cases faced the same challenge: how to communicate clearly and honestly, even when the truth hurts. To do this, your strategies should not reflect these cases. In any crisis, you should not minimize the situation, as you are ultimately minimizing the public's concerns. Don't use defensive messaging, own up to your mistakes and be transparent immediately, don't wait. These cases didn't follow these strategies, leading to long-term loss of public trust, severe criticism, and a damaged reputation that is hard to recover from.

Overall, Communication is the foundation of any relationship, and this process has to be honest and transparent for it to be successful. An article published by PRSA called “Trust and Transparency in Times of Crisis” talks about how a crisis is inevitable; it will happen to an organization at some point, because we are all human and make mistakes, but being honest and transparent with the public by communicating the issues at hand will help maintain that public trust and protect your brand's reputation. It says, “Providing transparent, timely information helps companies establish trust with interested parties so they can make decisions in their own best interests (Bermudez & Izquierdo, 2020).” The lessons we can take away from all of these cases are that not acknowledging an issue will only cause more harm, defensive messaging will lose public trust, and not being transparent will cause long-term harm to your organization, and potentially your public, which is why communication is vital to the success of a company, the audience, and all stakeholders. Ultimately, all of these cases, the themes, lessons learned, and strategies used and discarded are important to study because they matter in the real world. Transparency and communication aren't an “optional” thing; they are the foundation of any relationship, brand, and organization. Without it, you lose all trust, which, in turn, will lead to more crises and further reputational damage and harm to the public. References Key Words/ Tags: Communication Foundation Transparent Public Trust Accountability Nowling, W. D., & Seeger, M. W. (2020). Sensemaking and crisis revisited: the failure of sensemaking during the Flint water crisis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, VOL. 48(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1734224  Day, A. M., O’Shay-Wallace, S., Seeger, M. W., & McElmurry, S. P. (2019). Informational sources, social media use, and race in the Flint, Michigan, water crisis. Communication Studies, 70(3), 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1567566  Tracy, K. (2007). The discourse of crisis in public meetings: Case study of a school district’s multimillion dollar error. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(4), 418–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880701617133  Tsai, Jenny. (2025). Adidas Says Bye: [Class handout]. University of Oklahoma, JMC 4423-001. Tsai, Jenny. (2025). Politics in Pink: Susan G. Komen for the Cure Steps Into Partisan Minefield [Class handout]. University of Oklahoma, JMC 4423-001. Bermudez, H., & Izquierdo, A. (2020a, July). Trust and transparency in times of crisis. PRSA. https://www.prsa.org/article/trust-and-transparency-in-times-of-crisis 

The Importance of Values in PR: The Impact Advocating and Activism Can Have On Our Society, Individuals, and Brands By: Lily Morris

Values are fundamental to each of our lives; they are the beliefs and guiding principles that shape our everyday behaviors, the decisions we make, how we treat others, and how we respond to incidents in our lives and in the world. Ultimately, they are your guiding compass, determining what's right and what's wrong. Values not only apply to individuals but also to businesses and organizations, because without them, a company won't be able to make ethical decisions that affect not only its image but also its audience. According to Ethics Unwrapped, values are “individual beliefs that motivate people to act one way or another. They serve as a guide for human behavior (Values 2022).” Examples of these values that are vital for personal success and business success include courage, compassion, honesty, respect, and integrity. Because this is a vital component to our prosperity, defending your values and staying true to them is the key to success. For major brands, holding morally ethical and “right” values means standing up for others, advocating for those who can’t speak up for themselves, joining important conversations about what's happening in the world, owning up to mistakes, and being an activist during these crazy times. Ultimately, advocating and being an activist help you stay true to your values and show your audience and stakeholders that you care. After analysing several case studies that each discuss these important factors, we gain vital insight into the minds of different brands and see how companies stay true to or stray from their values. ​ ALS Ice Bucket Challenge ​ When I think of the summer of 2014, my mind immediately goes to the iconic ALS Ice Bucket Challenge (Hobbs, 2014)that had everyone going to the store to buy a big bucket and a bag of ice to dump on themselves and then nominate their friends to do the same. I was hooked, and so was the rest of the world. We were all watching and participating alongside celebrities, political leaders, and everyone on social media. That summer I was 10 years old, so I didnt really understand the reason for this challenge, I just thought it was a fun trend, but years later I learned that this “challenge” was more meaningful than I could understand with a mission of educating the public about the severity of ALS, advocate for those who are struggling with the illness, raise awareness and money to fund more research and maybe even one day find a cure, or even just support for all those affected, patients, family members and friends. That summer, we were all a part of a mission to raise awareness for ALS, whether we knew it or not. This case study was so interesting to read because it was an unexpected approach to raise awareness of a disease, and sometimes taking an out-of-the-box approach makes the greatest impact. I mean, when I think of raising awareness for an illness, the last thing that would come to my mind was pouring a giant bucket filled with water and ice on my head, recording it, nominated my friends to do the same, then posting it on social media, but I did it and so did so many other people, so it worked! After analysing the case, we can see many themes, challenges, and unique strategies that lead to successful, impactful outcomes. This Ice Bucket Challenge turned out to be one of the most successful non-profit fundraising campaigns to date.  The challenge generated over $115 million in the first eight weeks that summer and educated millions of people about the challenges that accompany the ALS journey. The case showed how brands can use the power of social media to run a campaign, and sometimes letting the public take over yields better results than what a brand can make for itself. The organization also used this strategy by letting the public share their personal stories and experiences with the disease, releasing press releases, conducting some interviews, and being transparent about where the donations are going and the impact they will have. The ALS website discussed the challenge and its major impact on our society. It said, “In the summer of 2014, three young men living with ALS, Anthony Senerchia, Pete Frates, and Pat Quinn, took the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and launched a global phenomenon that changed the fight against ALS forever (The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge | The ALS Association).” They inspired over 17 million people worldwide to dump ice water on their heads and donate to an ALS organization. The Challenge raised awareness of the disease worldwide and raised $115 million to support our mission, funds that were invested in ALS research and care for people living with the disease. “This led to very positive and impactful outcomes, including a historic fundraising total, more clinical trials, new research opportunities, and a long-term increase in overall awareness. The case highlighted a main theme: how a brand can convert attention into long-term impact, and that social media has more power than a campaign alone. Even with these positives, some challenges arose from this approach. One of them is that it is hard to control a campaign like this when you are relying on the public to carry on the challenge, and directing a large sum of donations is very difficult. Overall, the ALS organization is driven by values of activism, awareness, philanthropy, and a collective and urgent call to action. The mission is to make scientific breakthroughs, identify new treatments, foster community engagement, raise global awareness, build community, and raise money for something bigger. So this case shows that an organization's values should be the driving force for any mission and campaign, and Advocating and Activism can have a major impact on our society and individual lives. This challenge brought lasting change by creating a space for deeper, more meaningful engagement. They were able to turn “attention” into action, which isn't easy, but the organization made it happen. ​ A Corporation's Authentic Values and Their Impact ​ The other cases discussed this week concern Dick's Sporting Goods, Disney, and Ben & Jerry’s. The Dick's Sporting Goods case discussed corporate activism in a polarized environment over gun control. The organization decided to halt all gun sales in 125 stores, which was very controversial since the discussion on gun control is a hot topic. The company has a reputation for selling athletic wear, sports equipment, and vibes surrounding hunting and fishing, so when the CEO released a letter announcing this and calling for further gun law reform after the Parkland School Shooting, the public was split on their responses towards the corporation. The case showed themes of corporate responsibility and political division, as well as stakeholder consideration and moral decision-making versus public demand. Challenges at play included severe public backlash and difficulty balancing the company's values with stakeholders' and the public's needs. The strategies used in the message delivery and letter release are transparency, moral framing, and direct and proactive communication. All of this led to a short-term sales decline but ultimately to a stronger, more positive reputation in the long run, especially among younger audiences. Ultimately, Dicks showed that taking a stand, holding true to company values, making those difficult decisions, and standing up for what's right helps position your brand and redefine your future success. The next case concerns Disney (Djibo & Fisher, 2023) and its stance and reaction to the new Florida House “Don't Say Gay” Bill. When this new bill was announced, public opinion was sharply divided. Because Florida is a Republican-majority state, many politicians, businesses, and the public supported the bill, but others protested it, including Disney. The Walt Disney Company publicly opposed the law, criticising the hatred surrounding it, and accepted the potential backlash and repercussions from politicians, stakeholders, and the public because of their strong desire to stay true to their fundamental values, stand up for what's right, and advocate for those who can't advocate for themselves. They did this knowing it could impact their brand and financial standing. Their stance did cost them because of their severely delayed and indecisive response to the issue. The case highlighted the main themes of political consequences of corporate speech, the importance of advocacy, and the cost of delayed or inconsistent communication. The delayed response led to many challenges, including internal revolt among LGBTQ+ employees, public backlash, and some stakeholder backlash. The strategies used after the response included internal company memos, policy changes, a public apology, and increased LGBTQ+ representation. All of these choices lead to lost employee and public trust, national controversy, and a major leadership turnover. Overall, this case, even with all of the mistakes, showed how staying true to company values during any sort of issue is the only way to maintain public trust, and advocating for human rights is essential when you are a family-based and “inclusive” organization that is supposed to care about others, no matter who they are or how they identify. The last case discussed was about Ben and Jerry’s (Epstein, 2018) and how an ice cream company advocated for climate change. To put it simply, the company launched a campaign called “Save Our Swirled,” created to urge world leaders and consumers to take action on rising global temperatures and acknowledge the major effects they have on our world. The issue that rose was the ice cream companies, like Ben and Jerrys, cause climate issue of their own because of the process to make the ice cream which creates a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, so the public viewed this act as hypocritical, tone deaf, and “unaware” because the company was fighting for climate justice while simultaneously contributing to the problem it was trying to fight. The case highlighted the theme of integrating activism into brand identity and acknowledged that authentic activism requires operational alignment, not just messaging. Challenges centered on maintaining clear, transparent messaging and avoiding hypocrisy in both messaging and the company's actions. The case also used partnership strategies and launched new flavors, which fed into the hypocrisy. All of this led to increased consumer engagement with climate issues and a stronger global brand identity. Overall, despite the criticism and potential mixed messaging, Ben & Jerry's tried to stay true to its values and advocate for a larger cause. They tried to be authentic in their messaging and actions, aligning themselves with a bigger issue that needed more awareness, which is something the company is known for.

Overall, for major brands, holding morally ethical and “right” values means you stand up for others, advocate for those who can’t speak up for themselves, join in on important dialogues for things happening in the world, own up to mistakes, and be an activist during these crazy times in our world. This is shown through the cases involving Disney, Ben & Jerry's, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, and Dick's Sporting Goods. Ultimately, all of these cases showed that brands are not judged solely by their statements after an incident, but by how true they remain to their values, their transparency, and even their long-term commitment to the public and a larger cause.

References

Key Words/ Tags: Values Prosperity Advocating Activist Guiding Compass Djibo, Estrada, Fisher, Weinstock. Trouble in Paradise: The Walt Disney Company’s Response to Florida HB 1557. 2023, LINK IT (1).pdf. Epstein, Carly, et al. “An Analysis of Ben & Jerry’s Global Climate Activism.” Case Studies in Strategic Communication Journal, vol. 7, 2018. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. Hobbs, Gabrielle. When Every Drop Counts: ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. 2014, LINK IT Values. Ethics Unwrapped. (2022, November 5). https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/values  The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge | The ALS Association. (n.d.). https://www.als.org/ibc  Gaither, T. K., Austin, L., & Collins, M. (2019). Dick’s Sporting Goods enters the gun debate: Revising the playbook [Case study]. Newsweek.

What  “Responsibilities” do corporations have in 2026, and how does CSR fit into the corporate world? By: Lily Morris

All of us have a role in this world; we all have jobs to do, people to please, and responsibilities to uphold. Whether we are individuals or corporate brands, we all hold responsibilities that are bigger than ourselves; they affect others, and for businesses, your decisions affect the masses. The term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) refers to this sense of responsibility to others, but it goes beyond just companies doing “good.” It is the corporation's understanding and responsibility to prioritize and defend the well-being of its audience and stakeholders. The brand has an obligation to make ethical decisions, communicate honestly and transparently, maintain the public's trust, and use strategies that aren't just for their own gain, but for the greater good. The CSR process comprises four sections to ensure this “greater good.” In this process, companies must ensure they take ethical responsibility and do the right thing, even when no one is watching or it isn't expected. They must assume legal responsibility and comply with all applicable laws and regulations in their company's field. Next, you must take responsibility for the environment and work to reduce emissions and other harmful substances that impact our world. Lastly, you have to take social responsibility and show up for others, support your community, stakeholders, and your audience. An article published by UNESCO titled “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)” talks about the impact and importance of CSR in PR and at the foundation of every company. The article says, “In practice, CSR initiatives often involve environmental sustainability efforts, ethical labor practices, philanthropy, responsible sourcing, transparency, supply chain sustainability, and workplace diversity (UNESCO).” This confirms that CSR has its own responsibility to make an impact on society and keep companies accountable and aware. Ultimately, CSR is the acknowledgement that companies have obligations that go beyond potential profit; they have responsibilities within human connections and the components of their operations. Every business, no matter how big or small, has a responsibility to different people and communities, so making sure your company's operations, communication, values, and strategies are aligned helps ensure your business understands the “societal expectations” and the social responsibilities at stake. Once you have alignment within your organization, you can carry out your corporate social responsibility. To put it plainly, all corporations should operate with good intentions and fulfill their corporate social responsibilities. With each action the company takes, they need to ask themselves different questions and answer honestly: is it preventing harm, or is it contributing positively to society? ​ CSR Within Patagonia: ​ As we established, fulfilling these corporate social responsibilities is vital to a brand's success and its audience, but it can go too far and become “activism.” In 2014, the brand Patagonia launched a documentary campaign called “DamNation (Moscato, n.d.-b)” at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas. The case study says that the film was positioned as an “odyssey across America that explores the sea change in our national attitude from pride in big dams as engineering wonders to the growing awareness that our own future is bound to the life and health of our rivers.” This process ultimately pushed the CSR into a territory that resembled grassroots environmental advocacy rather than mere responsibility. The case study highlights and illustrates the shift in how companies engage with and respond to social and environmental issues. For Patagonia, they blurred the line between CSR and social activism, a common theme for the brand. Patagonia is known for its commitment to good within every avenue of their corporation, especially today, so they are no longer settling for just doing the right thing or speaking up when needed; they are highlighting how a major corporation can join social movements, integrate activism in their everyday operations, mobilize their publics, and accept potential and inevitable risks. This case shows how corporate responsibility needs to expand and shift in many ways, as Patagonia did, moving its CSR closer to everyday activism. The case also shows themes such as using media as a tool for “mobilization,” using everyday content and film to educate others, and inspiring movement. It also shows how stakeholder alignment is important because the brand's audience values must align with the product they are buying. Patagonia's outdoor enthusiast clients, who prioritize environmental health, want to support a company that values it too. Some challenges in the case study and the documentary discussed center around potential risks of controversy arising from corporate activism, as well as biased messaging and a call to action. Some strategies shown in the case study included leveraging the company's existing credibility as a sustainable company, localizing the issue to make specific communities feel more affected and more inclined to help, and using marketing activism in stores through messages on digital screens and conversations with customers. The case study led to different outcomes: strong support for the “anti-dam” messaging, “Grassroot” activism, and efforts like “Rethink Dams” groups run by students, but overall, limited action. This case study reiterated the importance of CSR but highlighted how activism can be more effective when the company aligns with the cause. Patagonia's documentary and campaign all align with each other's values and intentions, so it isn't a weird pairing; it will create an impact, even if that is just awareness. Ultimately, this case shows that activism is also very important in the CSR process, as a “long game” strategy that can drive immediate action and reinforce your brand's image and positive impact. A study by the National Library of Medicine examines the effects of CSR on customer loyalty and satisfaction, and how social media influences them. The study says, “social media plays a crucial role in engaging customers with a brand, especially from the perspective of CSR (Li et al., 2023).” This talks about how when an audience sees a company advocating for a cause they believe in and implementing actions that align with that cause and their values, they are more likely to also advocate for that cause and to support that brand because of it. Overall, this is relevant because it shows that a corporation blurring the line between CSR and activism doesn't have to be scary; that is what helps create authenticity and an emotional bond between the brand and customer. ​ CSR In Other Corporations: ​ Another case we discussed was CVS's 2014 decision to ban all tobacco products. This decision was somewhat shocking because, at the time, CVS was the first national retail pharmacy chain to stop selling tobacco products in all its stores (Ward et al., 2016). They ultimately did this because selling the product didn't align with the company's values. The CEO, Larry Merlo, talked about how the company was created to help everyday people and their health, and tobacco hurts people. This decision reduced annual revenue by billions of dollars, but it also showed the public that the company is loyal to its mission and to its customers' well-being, which is more beneficial in the long term. The case study highlighted themes of CSR by choosing the “right” thing to do rather than what would just get the most money. It also signaled a new “era” or “norms,” with a wave of encouragement to be tobacco-free and shift to the new brand, “CVS Health.”  This, of course, led to challenges, including a huge financial loss in the billions, competitors like Walgreens still selling tobacco, and poor messaging that could have been stronger. The case used two important strategies: social media content posted on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and a youth anti-smoking campaign, both of which are great long-term investments. All of this led to short-term sales losses and mixed reactions, but to long-term improvement in customer health and the “CVS Health” image. Ultimately, the main lesson I learned from this case is that making decisions based on your company's values is important, but backing them up with clear communication is what makes it succeed. Overall, all of these insights matter because fulfilling and upholding Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is very important in our world today, but making these ethical decisions only works when you communicate honestly and clearly with your public. The next case examines how Capital One embeds its CSR into its everyday company culture, operations, and communication strategies. The case (Making Plastic Green CSR) shows that CSR should not be treated merely as a marketing strategy, but rather as a pillar of the company's reputation. Capital One understands that a lack of CSR weakens public trust, so it extends its CSR into its products and services. Some themes the case talks about include the importance of transparent reporting, because that is what creates credibility. It also talks about using the company's employees to promote the corporation's CSRs in everyday actions and to ensure sustainable, ethical company practices. The challenges that accompany this include costs: it takes a lot of money to be sustainable and properly implement these CSR practices, as well as to maintain that credibility. Capital One almost lost this because it ended its CSR report in 2015.  The case illustrated strategies for implementing sustainability practices in everyday operations and for both external and internal communication. All of this led to reduced waste, long-term cost savings, and greater employee empowerment through these new practices. Ultimately, the main lesson I learned from this is that a brand's CSR only succeeds when everything is aligned, including the company's communication, values, stakeholders, and culture with its long-term goals. This means that a company's CSR is more than just doing the right thing; it's about showing up. In this case study, we saw how implementing sustainability can increase credibility, as the public sees your commitment in real-life action. The last case we discussed was about Nike and the severe backlash and scrutiny it received for its overseas labor practices, which were seen as unethical but ultimately helped the company reshape its values and its understanding of CSR. This case (Nike CSR) shows the direct impact CSR can have on a company and the well-being of all its stakeholders. The abusive working conditions reported at Nike's overseas facilities were unacceptable, and they reiterated the ethical and legal responsibilities companies have, not just optional marketing tools. The truth always finds a way out, and when a company falsely claims to have clean working conditions, the public backlash and fallout will be brutal, especially in today's world, when the internet and social media amplify these claims. Some of the themes shown in this case involve the battle between ethics and profit and the importance of transparency, because hidden problems always find a way to the surface. The challenges of this include potential public distrust and legal risk, especially when dealing with working conditions across the country.  The strategies involved in the case include public messaging and labor reforms, driven by the discovery and ethical decision-making. All of this led to a damaged reputation with Nike becoming linked to sweatshop labor because of the abusive environment, severe public scrutiny, and the media and activist groups. The improvements are shown in Nike's reaction to the backlash and in improved work conditions, and they are ultimately taking accountability for their wrongdoing. The main lesson from this case is that CSR requires consistency and only works when it reflects the company's ethical behavior. Nike faced public scrutiny because they claimed their working conditions were good and ethical, but the truth came out that the conditions were actually abusive and caused many health issues for the workers, so they lied about their CSR and lost credibility as a result. Overall, it is important for a company to be transparent, authentic, and ethical with all of its actions and messaging. Their CSR must be backed by these actions to be authentic and aligned with the company's values, goals, and stakeholders.

Overall, the term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) refers to this sense of responsibility to others, but it goes beyond just companies doing “good.” The CSR must align with your audience and organization, must be verifiable, authentic, and consistent, not just empty promises. CSR means a company has a responsibility to prioritize and stand up for its audience's well-being, make authentic and ethical decisions, communicate transparently, and prioritize the greater good. All of this is how you maintain the public's trust and successfully carry out your Corporate Social Responsibility. Overall, CSR matters more today than ever before because every audience wants transparency from companies, customers want to see corporations making ethical decisions, and employees want to work for a company that prioritizes their well-being and aligns with their values. Ultimately, CSR is more than just a marketing tool for your public image; it is about making ethical decisions for the greater good of your community, employees, and all customers, no matter who they are. Sources Key Words/ Tags:

• Corporate
• Greater good
• Responsibility
• Ethical
• Decisions

Li, Z., Sial, M. S., Wu, H., Căpușneanu, S., & Barbu, C.-M. (2023, February 2). The role of CSR information on social media to promote the communicative behavior of customers: An emotional framework enriching behavioral sciences literature. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9952597/  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). UNESCO.org. (n.d.). https://www.unesco.org/en/dtc-finance-toolkit-factsheets/corporate-social-responsibility-csr  Moscato, D. (n.d.-b). The Brand Behind the Activism: Patagonia’s DamNation Campaign and the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility. http://cssc.uscannenberg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/v5art6.pdf Ward, C., Roy, D., & Edmondson, D. (2016). Is CVS Just “Blowing Smoke?”: Evaluating the CVS Decision to Ban Tobacco Products. Case Studies in Strategic Communication. https://cssc.uscannenberg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/v5art14.pdf CSR, Nike. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics: Nike’s Labor Practices under Scrutiny. file:///Users/norbneville/Downloads/Nike_CSR.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026. Moscato, Derek. The Brand behind the Activism: Patagonia’s DamNation Campaign and the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.NW, 1615 L. St, et al. “The Future of Corporate Responsibility.” Making Plastic Green: Capital One’s Commitment to Sustainability. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829199?module_item_id=8378882 CSR, Nike. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics: Nike’s Labor Practices under Scrutiny. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829204?module_item_id=8378883  

The Importance of Making Ethical Decisions for the Protection of Your Brand, Audience, and Stakeholders. By: Lily Morris

Every day, we make decisions about what to do, where to go, how to act, and how to treat others. We are constantly faced with moral and ethical decisions, especially when dealing with others. For brands and corporations, you are responsible for yourself, your stakeholders, and your audience, so making decisions shouldn't be taken lightly since it isn't just about you anymore. The first step to making these decisions successfully is understanding that, as a brand and corporation, you have an ethical responsibility to prioritize the well-being of others. Since we're all human, we make mistakes and sometimes can’t see the full picture before it’s too late. As a CEO, your first instinct is to protect your own and your brand's reputation, which is important, but you will ultimately cause more harm if you aren't thinking about what the morally correct and ethical decision would be in that crisis or situation. As we know, making that ethical decision is crucial for building public trust, maintaining brand loyalty, avoiding potential reputational damage, and fostering authentic, transparent communication. All of this ensures the well-being of the brand, stakeholders, and the audience. According to an article in ScienceDirect titled “The effect of corporate ethical responsibility on social and environmental performance: An empirical study,” ethics is more than just doing the right thing; it's about upholding authentic, transparent communication with all those involved in the corporation. It says, “Business organizations function under social norms, and to establish an ethical identity, they must show corporate ethical responsibility, embrace ethical standards, and maintain open communication with suppliers (Bag et al., 2024).” When talking about an organization's “ethical identity,” ethical standards, and ethical responsibility, we are referring to the humanization of an organization's actions and impact. All of us automatically, and instinctively, integrate our own values and moral principles/ compass into all of our relationships and responsibilities, because we are humans, and that's just in our nature, so when running a corporation, we tend to make decisions that prioritize and protect ourselves before thinking of the bigger picture. Ultimately, this is a dilemma of institutional self‑protection over ethical responsibility, because institutional power, when unchecked, can create environments where harm is minimized, the truth is delayed, and accountability emerges only through external pressure, making ethical decisions critical for a brand's long-term survival. The 9/11 Memorial ​ The first case we discussed this week is about the September 11th memorial, and how making ethical decisions doesn't have to be about doing the right or wrong thing, but, instead, about making a decision with conflicting opinions in mind (Karolak & Mancino, 2021). This 9/11 case talks about the conflict that surrounded the rebuilding of “Ground Zero” after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001. This case isn't about a failure that occurred; it is about the clash of values, jurisdictions, authority, and opinions, which can lead to ethical tensions and disputes. This case shows how your job, as a PR professional, in a situation like this means having to navigate around ethics to decide what is best for not only the people working on this structure, but also all of the people affected by the events on 9/11 and all of the citizens of New York City as well. The main themes it discussed were the role of PR as ethical mediation and competing ethical commitments. In this situation, the PR professional is supposed to help navigate all the options, and in this case, you have to navigate the ethical options as well, understanding that there are many different “competing” stakeholders with different opinions on what should matter in this rebuild. Some challenges shown included intense emotion and trauma, as well as the pressure that came with the job. The events of 9/11 were, and still are, horrific for everyone involved and who were alive to see it, so when trying to complete this rebuild, it was very emotional, and there was a lot of pressure for it to be perfect. Some strategies that have been used and could be used to succeed are consistent transparency in messaging across various reports, engaging stakeholders, and being clear about authority in a project of this size. The outcomes of a case like this are inevitable; there will be some sort of conflict in the process, but it all led to the completion of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum and the Freedom Tower in NYC. When reflecting on the key lessons and insights gained from analysing this particular case, it is clear that we learn how conflicting ethical perspectives and values can create a conflict that may be as detrimental as a “traditional” crisis within a brand, and that's when the PR professional is supposed to act as a mediator and not just an “informant.”

According to an APA PsycNet article titled “Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation (Plowman, 2007),” mediation is a two-way communication process, with an “advisor” serving as the mediator. In the PR realm, it's all about finding common ground, compromising, and prioritizing the overall well-being of the brand and all stakeholders. All of this matters because, in the real world, when dealing with an intense situation, like building the 9/11 memorial, as the PR person, you have to be able to consider the ethical obligations, ballance all opinions and views, prioritze the well beilg of all stakeholders, and understand that Trust is built through clarity, transparency, and accountability, and that transparent communication is essential to any brands long term success and reputation. ​ Other Three Cases (Catholic Crises, Penn State & Concussions) The three other cases we analyzed this week involved Trouble in the Pews: Ethics, Penn State Fumbles Ethics, and Concussions Ethics. When it comes to the history of ongoing crises in the Catholic church, the case discusses how the church confronted the discovery of decades' worth of sexual abuse by priests, which was exposed through investigative journalism (Fearn-Banks, 2017). The overall takeaway of the case was that a crisis rooted in unethical behaviors and moral harm cannot be managed with traditional PR tactics, no matter the brand. The main themes of the case concern the dilemma and battle between institutional protection and public accountability, as well as the effort to combat a historical reputation for moral wrongdoing revealed by investigative journalism. The key challenges were internal conflicts between perpetrators and victims, loss of trust, and moral outrage. The strategies best used in this situation are transparency, authentic messaging, and direct communication. As a result, outcomes include a shift in public expectations and long-term reputational damage. The key insights from the case are that institutions, especially historic ones, must prioritize victims in this type of situation over their reputations. Lastly, this matters because this is a real-life event, and this sadly happens, so we have to know how to and how not to handle it. This means that, in the real world, understanding organizational ethics is vital. The next case is about a child sexual abuse scandal involving a former Penn State assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, and how the university responded to it (Day, 2019). The case highlights moral and ethical dilemmas in the severe incidents and histories of severe victimization. It also shows failures in leadership, systemic failures, the importance of transparency, the need to believe victims, and that you can't just “sweep” things under the rug. The university's response shows ethical failures and severe oversights. The main themes of the case are leadership failure, institutional reform, and, again, the importance of trust and transparency. Some key challenges included unclear reporting of certain protocols, inconsistent communication, and fear of reputational harm. Some strategies for this case are to demonstrate clear leadership and take action. All of this results in significant reputational and legal consequences, as well as the creation of new institutional safeguards. This also means that, even though one person created this harm, ethical failures are never caused solely by one person; it takes a village. All of this matters in the real world because leadership accountability, transparent communication, strong messaging, and maintaining trust are how you protect individuals and maintain public trust. The last case we discussed was about concussion ethics in the NFL (Day, 2019). The case discussed how a major corporation, like the NFL, can lose sight of moral grounds and respond to new scientific research about the long-term implications of concussions on the human body, and the NFL's response wasn't quite up to par. The case shows the implications of corporate denial of major health issues and how pressure from the media can lead to forced transparency and change, which plagues the battle of institutional self‑protection vs. human well‑being (Day, 2019). The main themes are institutional denial, selective science, and conflicts of interest. The challenges include legal issues, long-term player injuries, and the lack of standardized concussion protocols. Strategies involve delayed and denial messaging and reputation management in major crises. The outcomes of this include scientific and health consequences, policy reforms, and more research, all of which help ensure that denial of health concerns is impossible. Ultimately, all of this matters in the real world because of the significance of these particular health issues, the importance of ethics in corporations, crisis communication, and maintaining public trust.

Overall, we are always making decisions, and making ethical ones is crucial for building public trust, maintaining brand loyalty, avoiding potential reputational damage, and fostering authentic, transparent communication. All of this ensures the well-being of the brand, its reputation, all stakeholders, and the well-being of the audience, and as the PR person, you have to be able to consider the ethical obligations, ballance all opinions and views, prioritze the well beilg of all stakeholders, and understand that Trust is built through clarity, transparency, and accountability, and that transparent communication is essential to any brands long term success and reputation. Ultimately, making ethical decisions is vital for protecting your brand, audience, and stakeholders. 

Sources

Key Words/ Tags:

• Decisions
• Reputation
• Ethical Identity
• Ethical Responsibility
• External Pressure

Day, L. A. (2019). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (8th ed.). Routledge. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829096?module_item_id=8378885 Day, L. A. (2019). Concussions: A yellow flag on the NFL. In Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (8th ed., pp. 382–401). Routledge. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829185?module_item_id=8378886 Fearn-Banks, K. (2017). Trouble in the pews: The Catholic Church and child molestation. In Crisis communications: A casebook approach (5th ed., pp. 294–300). Routledge. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829174?module_item_id=8378887 Karolak, H., & Mancino, S. (2021). The September 11 memorial. In K. A. Johnston & M. Taylor (Eds.), Public relations functions: Conflict and crisis management (pp. 35–41). Oxford University Press. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829188?module_item_id=8378888 Plowman, K. D. (2007). Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 67–102). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11874-005 Bag, S., Srivastava, G., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U., & Wilmot, N. V. (2024). The effect of corporate ethical responsibility on social and environmental performance: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing Management, 117(2), 356–370. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.01.016