New Norms in Crisis Management: Why Does a Situation Escalate Even After an Apology? A New Study Reveals Six Principles of "Sincere Explanation"

"Saying 'I Didn't Lie' Won't Restore Trust"—What "Honesty" Means in Corporate Crisis Management

Services suddenly become unavailable. Ordered products don't arrive. Registered personal information might have been leaked.

In such situations, companies often send out notifications saying, "We are currently investigating the details." While there may be no lies in what's written, it doesn't necessarily alleviate anxiety.

Am I affected? Do I need to take immediate action? When will the next update be?

What users want to know goes beyond the facts disclosed by the company.

A study introduced by Phys.org on November 6, 2026, views "honesty" during a crisis from a broader perspective than merely not telling falsehoods. It emphasizes the need to consider not only conveying facts but also the timing, engagement with the audience, and actions to resolve the issue.

This isn't just about crafting a well-written apology. It's about how companies treat those caught up in trouble.

Six Principles Supporting Honest Explanations Highlighted by the Study

The study was conducted by Guido Dal Pozzo, Jason Sit, and Ilke Cicekli from the University of Portsmouth, among others. The paper was published in the academic journal "Cogent Business & Management."

The research team organized six principles related to sincere communication during crises from interviews with 20 marketing practitioners in the retail sector. In summary, they are as follows in Japanese:

• Communicate proactively with an open stance
• Explain based on evidence
• Maintain consistency and face the issue without embellishment
• Fulfill accountability and respond to the audience's voice
• Engage with respect and empathy
• Focus on resolution

The study particularly emphasizes proactive engagement, respect, and resolution-oriented explanations. It underscores the importance of not solely focusing on protecting the company's reputation but engaging with affected individuals, listening to their concerns, and aiming for constructive solutions.

Below, let's consider how this framework can be applied to service usage scenarios in Japan. The specific examples and practical suggestions are applications of the study's findings in this article.

Even the Fact of "Under Investigation" Has a Way to Be Communicated

In crisis management, speed and accuracy often clash.

Explaining before all information is gathered might require later corrections. On the other hand, waiting until everything is confirmed leaves users without any basis for judgment in the meantime.

What is needed here is not to assert unverified information but to distinguish between what is known and what is not and communicate that.

For example, even with the same system failure, the amount of information users receive differs between the following two notices.

"We are currently investigating the issue."

"We have identified an issue where purchase procedures cannot be completed. We are investigating the cause and scope of the impact. We are also checking for any duplicate payments. The next update will be posted at 6 PM today."

The latter does not provide definitive information about the cause, but it clarifies where the problem is occurring, what is being investigated, and when further updates can be expected.

Of course, it is necessary to adhere to the indicated update time. If the investigation hasn't progressed, explain the situation. For users, knowing that "no new conclusions have been reached" is also meaningful.

The aim is to ensure that the period of silence does not feel like being left behind. This is the purpose of providing information.

"No Damage Confirmed" and "No Damage" Are Different

In corporate explanations, careful wording is crucial.

The phrase "not confirmed at this time" indicates the current stage of the investigation. However, if readers interpret it as "no problem has occurred," a gap arises between the communicator's and the recipient's understanding.

For example, when explaining "no unauthorized use has been confirmed," the meaning changes depending on how thoroughly the investigation has been conducted.

Is the investigation complete? Is it still ongoing? Are there limitations to the records that can be checked?

Even if it's not necessary to disclose all the details of a professional investigation, there is room to accompany reassuring expressions with their basis and limitations.

Saying "it's safe" isn't always sincere. Conversely, conveying uncertainty doesn't immediately equate to irresponsibility.

It's important to reread the text from the perspective of whether the person receiving the explanation can assess their own situation.

Distrust and Understanding Seen on Social Media—The M&S Case

A concrete example to consider this issue is the discussion surrounding the cyber incident involving the UK retail giant Marks & Spencer (M&S).

The discussion introduced here is not a direct response to the paper in question but rather opinions about a related corporate crisis posted on Reddit in May 2025. These are anonymous posts, and the attributes and experiences of the posters have not been independently verified. They do not represent the opinions of all users.

One discussion was about how to interpret explanations that "customers don't need to do anything."

One poster expressed dissatisfaction, feeling that the expression implied "everything is fine, and the information is safe." Meanwhile, another poster suggested that it is necessary to confirm what the company actually stated, seeking evidence for the view that customer information was unaffected.

This illustrates the possibility that the guidance of "you don't need to do anything" and the perception of "nothing is happening" may converge in the recipient's mind.

There was also an understanding of the time required for investigations. While there is a need to disclose information, the content must be accurate, and repeated reversals in explanations can undermine trust.

Furthermore, there were opinions that the future response would be the real test and suggestions that companies should explain how customers can prepare for fraud.

It wasn't just anger or corporate defense. The demand for quick information and the desire to avoid incorrect explanations coexisted in the same discussion.

Reading Corporate Official Explanations and Recipient Impressions Separately

When dealing with social media reactions, it's essential not to spread the poster's interpretations as factual evidence of harm.

In M&S's official notice, they acknowledged that some customer personal data had been taken, listing contact details, birth dates, and online order histories as potentially included information. However, they explained that available card/payment information and account passwords were not included.

They also warned against emails, phone calls, and SMS impersonating the company and advised resetting passwords during the next login to their website or app.

What becomes apparent from this example is the need for explanations that connect "what happened," "how it relates to me," and "what to be cautious about."

Corporate announcements may not always be read in full. It's important to anticipate that only the beginning of an email or a single sentence clipped on social media might be read.

Even if cautionary notes are written in the body, only the reassuring words in prominent positions might be remembered. Therefore, in addition to the accuracy of the text, the arrangement of important information is also questioned.

Adding "Impact on Daily Life" to Japanese Apology Statements

When translating this to Japanese corporate responses, it's helpful to consider what follows the standard apology.

"We apologize for the significant inconvenience and concern."

This sentence expresses gratitude, but it doesn't reveal the actual difficulties users are experiencing.

For example, in the case of a ticket sales service disruption, there might be people who can't purchase tickets and those who can't display their tickets despite having paid. In online lessons, the reservation time might pass while users can't connect. In e-commerce, some people might be waiting for products needed on specific days.

While the company may see it as a single "issue," users experience different problems.

Therefore, it's more helpful to organize guidance according to the user's situation.

• Where should those who have already paid check?
• Where should those whose scheduled usage time is approaching contact?
• Is there a possibility of duplicate orders if re-operating?
• What is decided regarding alternative measures or refunds?

Even if there are undecided matters, it can be explicitly stated that they are undecided. The important thing is to recognize the problems and indicate the outlook for responses as much as possible.

Respect and empathy are reflected not only in polite language but also in how one handles the time and burden of others.

"Consistent Explanation" Does Not Mean Not Correcting

As a crisis unfolds, new facts emerge. There may be times when the initial report needs to be corrected.

If one clings to old explanations to maintain consistency, it may lead to a loss of sincerity.

What's needed is not to hide changes in facts but to connect the reasons for changes in explanations.

For example, "Initially, we could not confirm the impact, but subsequent investigations revealed the data involved," showing the progression of judgment. Ensure that changes reach those who saw previous notices and leave a clear record of what has been updated.

What should be consistent is not the initial conclusion but the accurate presentation of known facts and the updating of newly discovered information.

If this attitude is visible, users can evaluate not only the fact that "the explanation has changed" but also "why it changed."

However, the "Six Principles" Do Not Guarantee Trust Recovery

It's important to be cautious about interpreting this study as a universal crisis response manual.

The research is a qualitative study based on interviews with 20 practitioners in the retail sector. It is not an experiment that surveyed a large number of customers to verify what percentage of trust is restored by the six principles.

The researchers themselves acknowledge the need for additional verification, considering the scale and scope of the subjects. The required explanations may vary depending on the industry and type of crisis.

Furthermore, even if the words are appropriate, if actual remedies and improvements do not progress, it will be difficult to regain trust.

Providing a contact point but being unreachable, promising action but not showing progress, repeatedly asking users for the same explanation.

If such experiences accumulate, the gap with the polite announcement text may create another layer of distrust.

The six principles should be viewed not as a formula guaranteeing trust recovery but as a perspective for checking what might be lacking in one's explanations and actions.

Sincerity Is Questioned Even After the Announcement

If crisis management is seen as the job of issuing the correct statement, the moment of announcement becomes an endpoint.

However, for users, a long time remains afterward. The time waiting for the product to arrive, the time waiting for the service to be restored, the time worrying about whether their information is being misused.

What was communicated during that time, which voices were responded to, and how much of the problem was resolved? A company's sincerity is confirmed in those aspects.

Not lying is the starting point. Beyond that, clarifying uncertainties, focusing on the problems faced by others, and specifically indicating the next actions are crucial.

In times of crisis, what's questioned is not just the skillfulness of explanations but whether the company can continue to provide information and support so that affected individuals can make judgments and take action.

Sources

1. Phys.org:Published on November 6, 2026. Explains honesty in crisis management, including information provision, respect, and actions towards resolution.
   https://phys.org/news/2026-11-redefining-honesty-crisis-truth.html
   *This article also referred to the full text of the article provided at the time of request.phys.org

2. University of Portsmouth Research Information: Six principles, research methods, and limitations of the study.
   Confirmed that it is based on interviews with 20 practitioners, the formal structure of the six principles, and the need for additional verification.
   https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/honest-brand-messaging-during-crises-communication-principles-fro/
   Paper DOI:
   https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2747479University of Portsmouth

3. Marks & Spencer Official "Cyber Update": Explanation of the damage by the company and guidance to customers.
   Referred to explanations of the information taken, warnings against impersonation, and guidance on password resets.
   https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/cyber-updateMarks & Spencer

4. Reddit "Cyber attack": Reactions on social media to related cases.
   Public thread from May 2025. Summarized opinions on distrust towards corporate explanations, the necessity of time for accurate investigations, and the importance of future responses. Not a direct reaction to the