Jack in the Box is an American fast food restaurant that first opened in San Diego, California in 1951. It’s owner, Robert Peterson, was a businessman who already operated other restaurants as well as a food-manufacturing facility that later became Foodmaker Inc., the parent company of Jack in the Box. An investment group converted Jack in the Box into a privately owned company in 1988, but it went public again in 1992 (JackInTheBoxInc.com, 2013). One year later, a devastating incident occurred that shook the entire company.On January 13, 1993, there were a unusual amount of children being treated for the E. coli infection in the Seattle area. Jack in the Box was soon found responsible by the Washington State Health Department for the illnesses, as well as the deaths of three children. As soon as CEO Robert Nungent was made aware of the crisis, he took a number of steps to properly assess and manage the situation. His actions were a detrimental aspect of how Jack in the Box recovered from such a damaging experience. There was a number of communication strategies used to turn the crisis into a resolved conflict. The company also evaluated the needs of each stakeholder and took responsibility in satisfying them. Jack in the Box had a very proactive approach on handling the issues at hand.In the following analysis, I will be focusing on the problems that occurred, how it was/could’ve been resolved, stakeholders that were involved and how crises can affect
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a when a firm goes beyond compliance and engages in “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” (McWilliams, Siegel & Wright, 2006)…
…ng and rebuilding trust with those involved in the crisis. Another piece of advice I would give is to actually have a plan as to how the situation will be fixed. Also, taking steps to appease those who lost something during the disaster is important.If the seven questions that are part of Texas Instruments framework were utilized in the decision making process, I believe the actual decisions would’ve generally been made the same. When Nungent decided to pay the hospital costs for the ill, the action was legal, and it definitely complied with the company’s values. It wasn’t an action that would make him feel bad and if in the newspaper, it would’ve made him look genuine in his concern for the victims. It wasn’t a wrong decision to make, and the fact that they offered to pay for those seeking legal action as well as those who weren’t was a very strong thing to do.