Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

In their attempt to restore their image and prove legitimate after harsh criticisms are leveled against them, organizations seek to engage in ritualistic forms of communication through which they enter a public confessional dominated by themes of guilt and restoration.
At times, the corporate discourse tends to benefit rhetorically from the ambiguity of the terms apologia and apology. Etymologically, the word apologia comes from the Greek terms “apo” (away, absolve) and “logia” (speech) therefore apologia stands for a speech in defense. Conversely, apology, a much newer term means the offering of mea culpa or the acceptance of guilt. Hearit (2006) considers that it is precisely because of this ambiguity of terms that audiences may perceive an organization as contrite while the latter only engages in a discourse of apologia aimed at evading future litigation.
Moreover, although an apologia may contain an apology, it is merely “a defense that seeks to present a compelling, counter description of organizational action” (Hearit, 1994). Therefore, apologiae are good stories that audiences may find credible based on the plausible accounting of facts presented by rhetors.

Studies of apologia and apology fall under the umbrella of crisis management and explore the attempt of corporations to extricate themselves from blame and restore/renew their tarnished image.

For Hearit (2006) the corporate discourse is a source that has both a communicative and a managerial dimension. More specifically, from a communicative perspective, discourses can frame or shape the perceptions of a crisis through the way in which the crisis is defined (e.g., accident vs human/technological error). In other words, the corporate discourse can create meaning and exert influence on how a crisis is perceived and judged by various stakeholders. Additionally, discourses have a managerial dimension in the sense that they can be put to use similarly to corporate resources such as money, employees, or technology. Regarded through this lens, the public relation function should become part of the dominant coalition, a component of the organization’s strategic mix with the purpose of “bringing about strategic, political, or marketplace advantage.”
Playing a paramount role in the corporate discourse, apologiae and apologies seek to reestablish the image-based social relationships by rendering them legitimate (useful and socially responsible). The image that stakeholders have of an organization stems from direct and indirect interactions with the latter. It is rather an interpretation of the way in which corporations communicate about themselves as well as of the intermittent past experiences that individuals have had with an organization.
The prototypical apologia according to Hearit (2006) entails five strategies: denial (we didn’t do it), counterattack (denial combined with pointing the finger at the accuser), differentiation (we are to some degree responsible but it was an accident/an anomaly,nothing representative of who we are), apology (engaging in corrective action), and legal (no comments-talk to our lawyers!).
Regardless of which of these strategies an organization chooses to combine and employ in its attempts of image restoration, the performance of an apologia is but a public performance of a ritual that aims at propitiating the guilt through confession, the reacceptance of the societal values, and of the current order. More precisely, the organization affirms its adherence to the values it broke and hence apologia is a confirmation of the norms and the societal values by which organizations need to abide. Apologia completes a cycle of order, guilt, and redemption and the community can move forward with the recognition that the values are vital and valid.
Apologia as a ritual implies not only delivering the right content that would extricate organizations from their guilt, but also making use of aesthetical modes of communication, demonstrating communication competence and meeting generic expectations:did the performer really mean he was sorry? Was that a bona fide concern? Additionally, apologia needs to be delivered at the right time. Regrets that are displayed too early could lead to the conclusion that the corporation did not ponder enough on its wrongdoing, whereas regrets expressed too late might show that the apologist is condescending and not caring. In crisis management, time does not heal wounds but rather, it makes new ones (Tavuchis, 1991). Further on, apologia as a ritual also implies that it needs to be delivered voluntarily while at the same time it should be socially constructed and reproduce the prevailing social structure. Lastly, apologia has to be characterized by gravity and sincerity; it is a serious ritual that lacks levity and its sincerity and seriousness lend it a sacred dimension.

With regard to the public relations ethics that should determine the decision-making process in crisis management, Hearit (2006) proposes that casuistry be more in depth dealt with in developing paradigms of judging apologetic communication. Further on, he suggests an ideal paradigm that would help determine the morality of the apologia that corporations delivered. By comparing crisis management responses to the ideal paradigm and empirical data regarding the (in)effectiveness of the response in the media coverage that followed, researchers are able to determine the tactics and strategies to be shunned in the future.
Unlike other models of crisis communication, casuistry lays a primary emphasis on the victims of the crisis and, similarly, on stakeholders who have been the least willing to consent to the injury risk. The paradigm consists of two elements: the manner and the content of communication. However,it acknowledges that there could complicating circumstances (catastrophic financial losses, grave liability concerns, a moral learning curve, the problem of full disclosure, and discretion) that avert an organization from coming close to the ideal and that, such situations should be taken into account when analyzing apologetic discourse.
Hearit’s (2006) paradigm entails means of communication such as truthfulness and sincerity and seeks to determine whether the corporate response was delivered in a timely fashion, voluntarily and whether it addressed all the stakeholders. Equally important is that apologia be performed in the appropriate context (site, location, medium). Additionally, apologia should acknowledge the wrongdoing, accept responsibility, express regret and ask for forgiveness. An apologetic discourse is effective if it accomplishes to create a bond between the corporation and the injured and help the former identify with the stakeholders affected by the crisis. For this purpose, the content of apologia should be comprised of a full disclosure of the information related to the tragic event, and it should explain and inform on compensation and corrective action.
From the perspective of this paradigm, apologetic discourses of individuals (Bill Clinton), institutions (The Catholic Church), non-profit organizations (The Red Cross), as well as corporations (Toyota) can be analyzed to determine the extent to which their response was (un)ethical for the final purpose of statistically evaluating how aplogia affected its performance to follow.
The importance of further studies on apologia lies in the fact that, by aiming at restoring their image,their relationships with stakeholders, and their social legitimacy, corporations also reestablish the legitimacy of the capitalism as an economic order.