In recent days, a storm surrounding polyvinyl chloride (PVC) food wrap has swept across the country, fueled by media sensationalism. For a brief period, PVC cling film became a symbol of public distrust, often referred to as "the street rat" of the food packaging industry. However, the author noticed that the companies at the center of this controversy remained strangely silent. This lack of communication not only deepened consumer skepticism but also highlighted a critical issue: China's PVC cling film manufacturers were unprepared to handle a crisis of public perception and corporate responsibility. As a result, many suffered significant losses.
Reports indicate that after the scandal, two-thirds of China’s PVC fresh-keeping film production lines were shut down, and the once-dominant PVC film—once holding 90% of the market—was now viewed with suspicion. The market share was lost, and the brand reputation was severely damaged. This outcome is both alarming and thought-provoking.
It is important to note that PVC itself is not inherently harmful, nor are plasticizers necessarily dangerous. The real problem lies in outdated national standards and the use of plasticizers that have long been banned in other countries. If companies had taken the initiative to clarify the facts and communicate transparently from the start, such a heavy price might have been avoided.
So why did manufacturers remain silent during this crisis? The author believes there are several key reasons.
First, many companies hesitated to take the lead, believing the issue was more about regulatory standards than their own production practices. They assumed the problem would pass on its own, hoping to avoid being the first to speak out. But in the end, it was the companies that bore the brunt of the blame.
Second, some companies had legitimate issues with their products. There was confusion over the correct terminology—such as mistakenly referring to DEHA as ethylhexylamine or misclassifying DOA as either toxic or safe. These errors led to further public backlash. It turned out that some companies may have even used incorrect materials, which made it harder for them to defend themselves. Once the public learned the truth through expert guidance, they became even more disgusted with the companies, leading to lasting damage to brand trust.
Third, many companies lacked the necessary crisis management skills. When the storm hit, they were unprepared and could only watch helplessly as the situation spiraled out of control.
In the aftermath of this incident, the author believes it is crucial for companies to establish a proper mechanism for handling social credibility crises. Here are four essential steps:
First, companies must respond quickly. Delaying action only increases public distrust and worsens the situation. Second, they need to be courageous and take responsibility. Honesty with consumers and victims is vital to gaining understanding and sympathy. Taking responsibility is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Third, companies should promptly identify the root causes of the crisis, develop countermeasures, and implement corrective actions. Transparency in communicating these efforts helps rebuild public confidence. Finally, emotional intelligence is key. Companies must acknowledge the feelings of those affected, express empathy, and work together to find solutions that benefit all parties involved.
This experience serves as a valuable lesson for businesses: in times of crisis, silence is not an option. Proactive communication, accountability, and swift action are essential to preserving trust and reputation.
Howo Oil Truck,Fuel Tanker Trucks,Oil Tanker Truck
Hubei Chenglongwei Special Purpose Vehicle Co., Ltd. , https://www.clw-automobile.com