The author of this paper has chosen to analyse two topics: 1) corporate social responsibility, 2) crisis communication. These two topics were chosen because of the reason that crisis communication and corporate social responsibility have a positive effect on brand reputation.
These two topics are analyzed and compared on two companies: Ryanair and EasyJet in the industry of low-cost airlines. The author has chosen these two companies because of three reasons. First, Ryanair and EasyJet are both are European low cost airlines, therefore this is a study of two “most-similar’ cases. Ryanair was chosen as it was the first low-fare airline in Europe, is now the second-largest low fare airline in Europe after easyJet based on revenue, but the largest when considering its value by market capitalisation. Second, there are available materials on Ryanair’s and EasyJet’s corporate social responsibility and criss communication both on their website, as well as in academic papers. Third, chosen companies for analysis are interesting in that they both are large airline companies - competitors and both have been highly visible in media.
The corporate social responsibility and crisis communication may be seen in several dimensions, either environmental, social etc. In this case study research is concentrated on CSR goals and practices of both of companies. Besides, In the face of crisis communication issues associated with Ryanair as well as EasyJet the importance of right corporate social responsibility management needs to be questioned.
In the further part of this paper the author will compare Ryanair and EasyJet in general by providing firm characteristics. Irish low-cost airline Ryanair Holdings PLC (Ryanair), based in Dublin, has long had an image as a maverick. Ryanair is known as the Europe’s biggest discount carrier. The Dublin-based airline, is also known for its low-fare policy and business model based on flying to cheaper, smaller airports rather than the more expensive hubs used by national carriers.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Literature review
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility
2.1.1. Dimensions of CSR
2.1.2. Responsive vs. Strategic CSR
2.1.3. Categorization of CSR
3. Case study
3.1. Corporate Social Responsibility
3.1.1. Easyjet
3.1.2. Ryanair
3.1.3. Comparison
3.2. Crisis Communication (CC)
3.2.1. EasyJet: Twitter Crisis
3.2.2. Ryanair: Volcano Crisis
3.2.3. Comparison of EasyJet vs. Ryanair
4. Conclusion
4.1. Key Findings
4.2. Generalization of findings
5. Discussion
5.1. Managerial implications
5.2. Limitations
5.3. Contribution to the development of communication theory
Objectives and Core Themes
This study aims to explore the dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the effectiveness of crisis communication by comparing the practices of two European low-cost airlines, Ryanair and EasyJet. The research evaluates how both companies align with existing models of CSR and crisis management, particularly in the face of reputational challenges.
- Comparative analysis of CSR goals and practices in the low-cost airline sector.
- Evaluation of crisis communication strategies during specific high-profile incidents.
- Assessment of the importance of timely response and transparency in reputation management.
- Investigation into the impact of social media and traditional media on corporate reputation.
- Development of metrics for measuring the strength of CSR dimensions within an organization.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.1. EasyJet: Twitter Crisis
In this part there will be provided analysis of crisis communication strategy during case of blind passenger Joanna.
Case study:
“After the UK airline refused to allow her to board a flight from Gatwick to Belfast with her guide dog, she did what many people in this modern world would do. She tweeted about it, asking for assistance. Her tweet: “They won’t let me on this Easyjet flight with my guide dog! Please help us find numbers and emails for papers and tv! #guidedogs.” This generated mass outrage by hoards of Twitterers.
Hundreds of messages and re-tweets flooded Twitter in a matter of hours. What was Easyjet’s response? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Eventually, Easyjet’s PR team responded hours later with “Pleased to report @joannajones1 is rebooked unfortunately she did not have correct paperwork earlier.” But by then, the damage had been done.
“Although Easyjet is required to follow procedure, a simple tweet response apologising for the inconvenience and distress caused to Joanna, would have quickly assured those following the situation that Easyjet were in fact, concerned about the welfare of the passenger in question and seeking further clarification,” wrote Steve Richards, MD of social media agency Yomego.
The lesson: A swift response and sincere apology is the best response, while no response is the worst possible response.” (Diaz, 2011)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the research objectives, focusing on the comparative analysis of CSR and crisis communication strategies within the European low-cost airline industry.
2. Literature review: This section establishes the theoretical framework for CSR dimensions, the distinction between responsive and strategic CSR, and the essential components of a robust crisis communication strategy.
3. Case study: The case study provides a detailed analysis of Ryanair and EasyJet, comparing their CSR commitments and examining their specific responses to public relations crises.
4. Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the key findings, confirming that while both airlines have distinct CSR focuses, both struggle with effective and timely crisis communication in high-pressure situations.
5. Discussion: The discussion addresses the managerial implications of the findings, acknowledges the limitations of the study, and suggests directions for future research in communication theory.
Keywords
Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, Crisis Communication, Ryanair, EasyJet, Low-cost airlines, Reputation Management, Stakeholder Engagement, Social Media, Public Relations, Environmental Impact, Business Ethics, Transparency, Comparative Study, Sustainability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the intersection of corporate social responsibility and crisis communication by comparing the operations and public responses of Ryanair and EasyJet.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in this work?
The work explores CSR dimensions, the strategic versus responsive nature of CSR activities, and the mechanics of crisis communication within the aviation industry.
What is the central research question?
The research asks how well Ryanair and EasyJet correspond to existing models of CSR and reputation management in practice.
Which scientific methods were employed for this study?
The author conducted a comparative case study analysis, utilizing existing academic literature, company annual reports, and media coverage of specific crisis events.
What does the main body of the paper address?
The main body details the theoretical foundations of CSR, presents specific case studies (such as the Twitter crisis for EasyJet and the Volcano crisis for Ryanair), and provides a critical evaluation of their communication strategies.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
The study is best characterized by terms such as Corporate Social Responsibility, Crisis Communication, Reputation Management, and Airline Industry Analysis.
How did EasyJet handle their disability rights crisis according to the text?
The text suggests that EasyJet failed to respond effectively in the early stages, opting for a delayed response that was widely criticized for lacking empathy and transparency.
What was the outcome of the Ryanair volcano crisis communication?
Ryanair was heavily criticized for failing to inform passengers during the disruption and was eventually compelled by court rulings to provide compensation, damaging its brand reputation in the process.
- Quote paper
- Karina Oborune (Author), 2014, Corporate Social Responsibility. A Comparative Study of Ryannair and EasyJet, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/316785
