Lately, natural products with medicinal properties have experienced significant commercial growth and have positioned themselves advantageously within the realm of future alternative medicines. The consumption of such products offers assurance, effectiveness, safety, and low costs as long as their potential uses are appropriately specified and their quality is guaranteed (Cadar et al., 2021). Due to this comportment, various companies and entrepreneurs have identified both the need and opportunity to develop and market chemical-free alternatives to alleviate the population’s ailments. Thus, phytotherapeutic medicines present an attractive business opportunity, generally marketed under the premise of being 100% natural. In this context, public trust in these value propositions becomes a pivotal factor in ensuring their sustained presence in the market (Rico-Alba, 2020).

Consequently, when a product is promoted as ‘herbal in origin,’ ‘completely natural,’ and certified by a governmental regulatory body, gaining a foothold in the market and subsequently being found to contain undeclared synthetic chemical compounds constitutes consumer fraud and a breach of legal agreements governing production and marketing. In such a scenario, consumer trust in natural therapeutic alternatives might be compromised, questioning the reputation of a brand and a manufacturing company and the reputation of other stakeholders involved in production, distribution, prescription, and the effectiveness of healthcare entities. During such crises, regaining consumer trust (and that of the general public) becomes imperative for all parties involved.

Dololed®, a seemingly natural product (and flagship brand of the Colombian company Pronabell S.A.S.), faced a critical situation when grappling with the media controversy sparked by the public disclosure of a specific research investigation (Noticias Caracol, 2021). In this investigation, the presence of an artificial anti-inflammatory corticosteroid known as Diclofenac was identified among the ingredients of the product mentioned above (Stashenko et al., 2020b). As expected, this situation led to accusations of alleged fraudulent behavior (i.e., deceptive, unethical, or unfair actions aimed at an improper gain) on the part of the manufacturing company for endangering the health of consumers of the product.

A crisis is an unexpected event that creates uncertainty, disrupts organizational routines, and threatens business objectives (Seeger et al., 1998). This idea implies that no organization is exempt from a crisis jeopardizing its financial dynamics and reputation among stakeholders. The methods by which managers identify crises and make decisions to address them are areas where more knowledge is needed (Bundy et al., 2017). However, relevant literature has proposed theoretical-practical approaches to crisis communication (Coombs, 2007) that can guide decision-makers in anticipating potential impacts on an organization’s reputation, stakeholder relations, and perception of the organization.

This paper aims to illustrate the concept of organizational crisis response through a qualitative analysis of the Dololed® case study. It investigates messages and behaviors emitted by the involved parties, emphasizing the company owning the questioned phytotherapeutic product. The study examines the implications of these behaviors in tandem with the theoretical context of crisis communication and practical response strategies, particularly concerning disseminating questionable organizational messages. It also acknowledges reputational protection as an incentive for employing reality-diverging responses in crises. In this light, the paper asserts that Colombia offers a suitable context for analyzing such events, where fully reliable information is limited (Maldonado-Pinzón & Pérez-Acosta, 2020).

Nevertheless, audience demands remain high due to information abundance and diverse value propositions. Additionally, it suggests that this specific incident’s unfolding sequence of events holds significance within the organizational literature context and aligns with authors such as Balunas & Kinghorn (2005) and Dutra et al. (2016) for understanding the natural medicine market. This analysis delves into the assumed risks, motivations, and implications by the involved company and stakeholders under pressure, projecting potential effects on the broader market.

Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as those groups or individuals who can affect or be affected by the actions of a specific focal organization. For instance, stakeholders of a typical organization generally include customers, employees, owners or shareholders, suppliers, media, public entities, non-governmental organizations, civil collectives, and society at large. Among many tacitly performed roles, these groups often compare what they know about an organization against certain standards to verify whether it meets its expectations of operating and behaving (Coombs, 2007). In other words, stakeholders determine if the organization follows what is expected of it regarding social responsibility and ethical behavior in society.

In a different vein, the concept of reputation generally revolves around perceptions. While at the organizational level, reputation corresponds to an understanding of the organization as it exists in the minds of observers, at the level of a brand or product, reputation is defined as the set of judgments or perceptions formed by customers and consumers about its character, loyalty, position, and ability to deliver valuable outcomes (Ponzi et al., 2011). Considering this notion, the present work considers reputation as the set of judgments and recognition made by different stakeholders about an organization, brand, or product regarding its reality (of the respective organization, brand, or product), its behavior, and performance based on the degree of satisfaction of their expected interests as stakeholders.

Authors like Godfrey et al. (2009) and Sawalha (2019) suggest that organizational reputation is built through social judgments and public opinion, making it a valuable intangible asset of strategic importance for any entity. Thus, reputation also acts as a powerful mechanism to protect and preserve the trust and image of a company, brand, or individual when facing various adverse events (Contreras-Pacheco & Claasen, 2018). Disruptive events have the potential to create instability among stakeholders and the business itself through, for instance, triggering significant reputational damage. These events can be motivated by actions of the involved organization or its members, including fraudulent behavior, inappropriate conduct, or socially irresponsible acts (Iborra & Riera, 2023). In this context, these ‘events’ (from now on referred to as ‘crises’) can devastate the public perception of the company and the trust and loyalty of customers, suppliers, employees, and other key stakeholders.

Indeed, a company’s reputational capital, especially when built on its social orientation, acts as a solid protective shield, akin to an insurance policy, mitigating adverse effects in crises (Godfrey et al., 2009). When a company possesses a positive and well-established reputation, it is more likely to gain the trust of its stakeholders, leading to greater tolerance and understanding in challenging situations. Stakeholders might be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a ‘socially responsible’ company and believe in its efforts to address and resolve the crisis appropriately. In contrast, a company with a weakened or tarnished reputation would face a much more challenging situation during a crisis. The prior negative perception can exacerbate stakeholder reactions, increasing the likelihood of severe criticism, boycotts, customer losses, and brand damage. This phenomenon could result in more serious economic and legal consequences, further prolonging recovery and impacting the company’s long-term survival.

Crisis management largely focuses on defending the factors that influence judgments toward the organization amidst disruptive events that affect the total or partial continuity of the business (Contreras-Pacheco & Claasen, 2018). Thus, within relevant literature, it has been suggested that crisis management involves 70% or more emphasis on communication (Coombs et al., 2021). Evidence indicates that crisis management practice communication should be proactive, empathetic, and goal-oriented, as this translates into better perceptions of organizational reputation by stakeholders (Sawalha, 2019; Schoofs et al., 2022). Additionally, it underscores the importance of considering message timing (Claeys et al., 2016; Contreras-Pacheco et al., 2022) and carefully selecting communication sources to build credibility with audiences, particularly in a context dominated by social media (van Zoonen & van der Meer, 2015).

3. Situational Crisis Communication Theory

In general terms, the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT; Coombs, 2007) guides the responsible party in facing an organizational crisis, assessing the threat to the organization’s reputation in the crisis at hand. According to this theory, the respective crisis is modeled, and a set of evidence-based guidelines are provided to facilitate selecting response strategies. Moreover, valuable communicative resources are acquired and employed to safeguard an organizations reputation amidst the events shaping the crisis. In its broadest sense, SCCT formulates two types of crisis responses. It presents how a company involved in a crisis scenario can communicate to its stakeholders from an instrumental or normative perspective. See Table 1.

In either of the cases previously presented, in order to safeguard the image of both a brand and a company immersed in a crisis, the works of Claeys et al. (2016) and Coombs et al. (2021) recommend initially employing a normative/ethical response, followed by an evaluation of applying a convenient response (i.e., instrumental/strategic). Additionally, these authors propose response recommendations for preventable/avoidable crises attributed to human errors, product damage, and accidents involving the implicated company or its members. Generally, these recommendations include: (1) Being the first source of information to disclose the crisis (i.e., ‘stealing thunder’); (2) Including an ethical foundation in the content of the initial message; (3) Expressing support, potentially adding a small component of responsibility to the message narrative; (4) Sometimes considering compensation to address crisis costs for victims (refunds or damages compensation); (5) Always incorporating an apology into the response. If the crisis was not accidental but a result of internal misconduct, further steps should be taken: (6) Acknowledging the moral violation that occurred and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence.

Within the framework of SCCT, it is recognized that every organization has the right (and the duty) to defend its strategic interests in a crisis scenario. However, evidence indicates that an organization with a questionable reputation is inclined to provide falsehoods to its stakeholders through its communication process (Contreras-Pacheco et al., 2021). Relevant literature suggests that this ‘decoupling’ phenomenon between narrative and fact can be considered a mechanism (either neglected or deliberate) resulting from institutional pressures (Crilly et al., 2012). In this spirit, Contreras-Pacheco and Claasen (2018) define a series of potential consequences for any company that does not respond honestly through truthful messages and completely disregards established crisis management parameters. The potential consequences include public exposure, misdirection, arming the adversary, a slippery slope, setting a false example, and loss of trust. These consequences involve the company and its stakeholders, as described in Table 2.

When considering the potential implications of manipulating the truth through a false crisis response (or even the mere suspicion of doing so), it becomes clear that the involved company must fully embrace its role in handling the situation appropriately to protect its reputation. While its focus should be on minimizing the negative impact of the crisis on the organization and safeguarding stakeholders’ interests, maintaining trust and credibility internally and externally is equally vital (Bundy et al., 2017; Schoofs et al., 2022). However, it is no less important to understand that the exhaustive pursuit of truth should take priority, and transparency with stakeholders is essential for any crisis manager. If the company is responsible for the crisis, the management’s response should be normative, compassionate, and ethical (Contreras-Pacheco & Claasen, 2018).

4. Methodology

Relying on Yin (2017) and following the recommendations of Gibbert et al. (2008) and Tsang (2014) , this work employs a case study approach, as it offers depth and detail of a specific theoretical-practical phenomenon within a real-world context. In the relevant literature, this approach is considered a valuable and versatile tool for obtaining a comprehensive and detailed understanding of complex situations across various disciplines, from social sciences to business and medicine. In this regard, a case study is defined as an empirical inquiry that examines a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context where boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly delineated (Yin, 2017).

The study conducted a thorough information review from various public domain sources, including corporate and institutional websites, press releases, interviews, and media statements by representatives of the involved entities. The consulted journalistic sources hold recognized prestige in Colombia, and the obtained information is publicly accessible, eliminating the need for permissions for academic use. This review was conducted within the relevant timeframe for the case (i.e., between 2018 and 2020). Following Schreier’s guidelines (2012) , data processing encompassed a detailed analysis of collected textual content to understand the presentation of events, message narratives, variations in versions among involved parties, the evolution of outcomes, and the inclusion of diverse perspectives. Subsequently, a qualitative content analysis of messages emitted by key entities in the case (the producing company, the Colombian pharmaceutical sector’s governmental control body, and the research group that discovered the irregularity in the product) was conducted. These data were used to construct a timeline and contextualize the results concerning existing knowledge, connecting crisis events and response messages with crisis management and communication literature.

5. Results

Considering the methodological nature of this study, its outcome focuses on the reconstruction of the respective case and its interpretation in light of the relevant literature. In that vein, the case will address the different episodes surrounding the Dololed® crisis. Thus, the various components of the particular case are unfolded, from the description of the study’s context to the chronological narration of the most significant events.