“A
company must not only deal with the emergency but also do so with the
entire nation, if not the entire world, looking on." John
Holusha, NY Times
THE
EXXON CRISIS, 1989
What
happened?
On March 24, 1989, Exxon
was faced with a crisis when it spilled 11 million gallons of oil into
Alaska’s Prince William Sound with the Exxon Valdez oil tanker.
Some species were slightly affected by the oil spill like the brown bear,
but others like the harbor seals, sea otters and cormorants suffered a
great loss in their population. Furthermore, Alaska’s fisheries,
national parks, beaches and forests were greatly affected, which in turn
affected tourism (Fritz-Gerald
Piquion)
How
did it happen?
One
of the crew members was unable to properly maneuver the ship due to tiredness
from work overload. Also, the crew master was under the influence of alcohol
and could not give the proper directions to his crew. Although the errors
occurred once on board, one of the mistakes was Exxon’s insufficient
supply of trained crew members and the availability of inadequate equipment
on the ship.(Fritz-Gerald Piquion)
Reaction: Exxon
vs. Tylenol
One of Johnson and Johnson’s crisis management techniques with the
tampering of Tylenol capsules, that was very
effective was its quick response to the product tamper. Exxon on the other
hand, waited a long time before responding to the oil spill and sending
aid to Alaska. For example, an advertisement ran in the newspapers 10
days after the spill, and Exxon’s chairman, Lawrence G. Rawl, did
not fly to Alaska until two weeks after the spill. Instead, he sent a
team of individuals who were not trained in crisis management. This showed
the public that Exxon didn't consider the spill a truly environmental
problem.
Furthermore, the communication between management and
its publics was inefficient. Exxon chose to communicate only to the people
of the town of Valdez and not to the rest of the world. This made the
dissemination of information difficult. Unlike Johnson & Johnson,
who immediately recalled its product and made public announcements about
the suspension of its usage through various media outlets.
It is the duty of the company to report to its publics and the reporter’s
responsibility to obtain information about the matter to distribute it
to the population. When Exxon’s spokesman first answered the press
with “no comment” after the spill, it took credibility away
from the company and made the public feel like top management was either
hiding something or had not yet gathered all of the information. 
Finally,
Exxon never took responsibility for what happened. On the other hand,
it was proven
that Tylenol was not associated with the tampering, yet it still immediately
assumed responsibility. This in turn restored the confidence in the consumer
about the safety of its product. Exxon completely failed at this task
since it took a few days to send individuals to help clean up the oil
spill in Alaska. It proved to the people of Alaska and the world that
it did not care about the environment or the damage to the tourism and
fishery industries in Alaska, which the country greatly depends on. (source:
John Holusha, NY Times).
Picture
provided by the Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Back
to Top
Introduction| Research|
Handling a Crisis| Tylenol
Scandal| Exxon Scandal| Sources