ARTICLE VESION Cadbury Case Study Online Version 5.12.18

CASE STUDY: The Cadbury Schweppes salmonella outbreak and chocolate recall of 2006 By Rusty Cawley, APR

Executive summary

uring the summer of 2006, Britain’s top chocolate-maker Cadbury Schweppes announced that it would recall more than one million candy bars distributed in D the United Kingdom. At first, other than the scale of the recall, the announcement appeared routine. But over the next few days, the recall—or rather, Cadbury’s actions before and during the recall process as well as the subsequent government investigation and prosecution—sparked significant levels of stakeholder outrage among Britain’s regulators, customers, investors, politicians, and the news media. Two government health agencies soon revealed to the British news media how Cadbury had detected a rare strain of salmonella in the candy bars during its production process, had made a deliberate decision to put the bars on store shelves across England during the run-up to the important Easter season, and yet had failed to inform the government of its actions. Only when UK health professionals detected an outbreak of salmonella, and approached Cadbury with evidence that its products had triggered that outbreak, did the company issue a recall. Cadbury publicly declined to accept responsibility for the outbreak for more than a year, thus generating angst and anger in Britain that lasted long past the actual recall. This case study examines the story of the Cadbury chocolate scare by conducting a close reading of more than 300 contemporary news articles concerning the UK salmonella outbreak of 2006, which were identified via a LexisNexis search; by providing a summary of the case; and then by selecting and organizing the pertinent facts of the case into a timeline narrative. It then demonstrates the process of producing a set of message maps combined with a public statement that may have improved Cadbury’s position during its dispute with Britain’s food-safety regulators.

Section 1: Background Quakers to thrive. So in 1824, the 22- year-old Cadbury opened a grocery in 1-A. The company: Cadbury Birmingham. He sold tea and coffee as Schweppes plc alternatives to alcoholic beverages. He Like many Quakers living in England also sold cocoa and drinking during the early 19th century, John chocolate, which proved so popular Cadbury chose to enter the business that nine years later he decided to world. He had little choice, as British focus on manufacturing them. By universities and England’s military 1842, he was selling sixteen lines of rejected Quakers as non-conformists drinking chocolate in powder or (Dellheim, 1987). Business offered cakes. In 1847, John brought brother one of the few available paths for Benjamin into his growing firm to 1 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 create Cadbury Brothers, and create the vogue for ‘pure’ foods in constructed a large factory in the England,” Dellheim writes (1987), “a city’s center. In 1854, the brothers vogue given parliamentary sanction received a Royal Warrant as official by the passage of the Adulteration of suppliers of cocoa and drinking Food Acts in 1872 and 1875.” chocolate to Queen Victoria. In 1875, Cadbury’s launched a new Despite this royal testimonial, the product – the Cadbury Easter Egg – company fell into decline and the that would make its brand brothers dissolved their partnership synonymous with happy childhoods in 1861, leaving control of retail and and family values throughout England. manufacturing to John’s sons, 25-year- Made from dark chocolate, these first- old Richard and 21-year-old George. ever chocolate eggs featured a smooth This marked the turning point in the surface containing sugarcoated company’s fortunes. Charles Dellheim chocolate drops. By 1878, now with writes in his 1987 analysis of the 200 employees, Cadbury’s became Cadbury business culture, “Three desperate to expand its operations. main influences formed George and “The need for greater accommodation Richard Cadbury’s beliefs: the Quaker for the rapidly growing business, and ethic, which shaped their views of the a desire to secure improved nature and purpose of business; the conditions for the work-people, led to experience of turning around a failing the removal of the factory to a firm; and an exposure to the social distance of about four miles south of problems of an industrial city.” the city,” Brandon Head writes in his 1903 account of the cocoa industry. In After five years of struggle, this 1879, the Cadburys constructed a second generation of Cadburys factory on fourteen acres, four miles introduced the breakthrough that south of Birmingham, near the would eventually establish their Birmingham Canal and a recently company’s dominance in the United completed railway; this combination Kingdom. In 1866, they adopted a would give the company better access cocoa press developed in Holland that to milk and cocoa. They renamed the produced a purer form of cocoa, which estate Bournville. “The move to the the Cadburys branded as Pure Cocoa countryside was unprecedented,” Essence, the United Kingdom’s first Delheim writes (1987). “Their unadulterated cocoa. This process contemporaries generally saw it as an provided the Cadburys with the raw unwise, not to say daft, choice, given materials for manufacturing a wide the practical difficulties of providing range of chocolate confections. They transportation for workers and began to produce “fancy chocolates” goods.” to complete head to head with sweets imported from France. By featuring Before long, the Cadburys introduced paintings created by Richard Cadbury, a series of innovations and reforms the company made its product that cemented the company’s packaging more attractive, thus reputation as politically progressive. inventing the genre of chocolate-box The new factory included heated art; today, collectors prize the dressing rooms for workers. The elaborate boxes the Cadburys Cadburys negotiated special fares for distributed across England during the workers who traveled from the city to Victorian and Edwardian eras. “Their the factory by rail. George Cadbury efforts were particularly successful acquired 120 acres near the factory because they anticipated and helped and began the design and construction 2 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 of a model village with 313 cottages England’s King of Chocolate. In 1969, and houses for his workers, planning Cadbury (having dropped the “almost every aspect of the village, possessive from its company name) from houses and roads to parks and became an international behemoth trees (Dellheim, 1987).” Concerned when it merged with the beverage with the health and physical fitness of giant Schweppes. The merger their workforce, the Cadburys built effectively cut off the company from several parks, pools, and other its Quaker roots. Yet the Cadbury recreational features to encourage family retained some power within walking, swimming, and outdoor the new mega-company until 1993, sports. To discourage drunkenness when Sir Dominic Cadbury resigned among workers, George Cadbury as the group’s chief executive. prohibited pubs from his village. In By 2003, the company ranked first 1907, Cadbury donated the entire estate to the Bournville Village Trust, worldwide in sweets and fourth in chocolate. Its overall brand portfolio having “no desire to rule Bournville of confections and beverages included like a latter-day feudal magnate Cadbury, Trident, Dr Pepper, Halls, (Dellheim, 1987).” Schweppes, Dentyne, Bassett’s, The Cadburys also are credited with Snapple, Orangina, Bubblicious, significant social reforms, such half- Hawaiian Punch, and 7 Up. day holidays on Saturdays and full That same year, 51-year-old Todd holidays on bank holidays. They Stitzer became the first foreign-born opened medical and dental offices, CEO of Cadbury Schweppes. Though and established a pension fund, for he had worked his way steadily up the their workers. In 1918, the Cadburys corporate ladder for more than two established democratically elected decades, Stitzer came under close work councils – one for the men and scrutiny (and some outright distain) one for the women – to deal with from Britain’s investment elites. “He’s working conditions as well as issues of like every American businessman safety, health, education, training, and you’ve ever met or seen or heard social life. about,” Marketing Today said in a As a growing company, Cadbury’s 2004 profile, with a “meticulous proved equally aggressive in the appearance and manner and his marketplace. In 1905, the company tendency to use management speak,” challenged the Swiss dominance of but also “a relaxed charm, clarity of milk chocolate with a bar that vision and solidity. … He’s not British, included more milk than any other at he’s not a Cadbury, he’s not a Sir.” the time: The Cadbury Dairy Milk. Britain’s investment establishment, “Here too, purity was the key,” known as the City, had assumed Delheim writes (1987). “Cadbury’s Cadbury COO John Brock would used fresh milk rather than powdered succeed John Sunderland as Cadbury’s milk. There was a ‘glass and a half of milk in every half-pound bar’ of C.D.M. CEO. “Stitzer, in charge of strategy and from a legal rather than a marketing The name ‘Cadbury’ was written on background, was not at the top of the each square.” pundit’s list,” Marketing Today said. Over the coming decades, through a On the other hand, the profile said, “As combination of new products, a go-getter with a social conscience, effective advertising, and strategic (Stitzer is) really from the same mould acquisitions, Cadbury’s emerged as as the firm’s Quaker founding fathers.”

Born in New Jersey, raised in New Lord, Day & Lord served as the lead York, Stitzer enjoyed what he firm in the United States for Cadbury described as “a middle-class American Schweppes, and Stitzer frequently childhood.” His father directed a advised the company’s executives. In YMCA and encouraged his son to 1983, Cadbury offered Stitzer a follow him. “This means that at an position as assistant general counsel, a early age he was taught the move that would allow Stitzer to live importance of giving and of serious in Connecticut and spend more time thought,” Marketing Today reported. with his wife and children. “His family cared for others and had Meanwhile, his law firm informed strong Christian beliefs – not unlike Stitzer that he was only five years the founding fathers at Cadbury’s, in through an eight-to-10-year process fact.” that might eventually allow him to become a partner. He took Cadbury’s He first attended Springfield College, offer. “the training ground for future YMCA and aid workers in Massachusetts.” “I had a strong interest in the social However, Stitzer had also long helping professions, what with my admired an uncle who practiced law family background.” Stitzer told in upstate New York. “I thought the Marketing Today. “There’s a huge combination of skills required of a connection, however, with Cadbury lawyer were right for me – writing, Schweppes, which has a heritage of thinking and verbal skills – plus caring about people and of community lawyers did a lot for the community,” and of the greater good. My he told Marketing Today. He soon background and mindset fit with switched to Harvard University, everything Cadbury Schweppes where he earned a bachelor’s degree, stands for.” And yet, London’s The and then attended Columbia Law Guardian would report in 2009, School in New York, where he Stitzer’s favorite book was Ayn Rand’s received his law degree. Atlas Shrugged, a novel “which rejects religion and supports laissez-faire In 1973, Stitzer joined the Manhattan capitalism and individual rights.” law firm Lord, Day & Lord as an associate, and focused his practice on Following the advise of Development mergers and acquisitions. One of his Director Dominic Cadbury, the major projects was to advise New ambitious Stitzer soon steered his York City Mayor Ed Koch on the career away from Cadbury’s legal restructuring of the city’s $3.2 billion department and toward its marketing debt. While he enjoyed the M&A work, and sales group. He moved to London the hours were brutal, and the pay in 1991 as group development failed to match his contributions to director and returned to the United the firm. “I billed more hours than States in 1993 as vice president for anyone else at the firm for three years marketing and strategic planning. He in a row,” Stitzer said in a 2007 told Management Today (Blackhurst, interview with the Columbia Law 2009), “I adopted the fire-hose School’s press office. Lord, Day & Lord method of management. I stood with conformed to the “Marxist theory of my mouth open and they poured into surplus value,” he told Marketing it.” The Daily Telegraph in London Today. “The associates worked very describes Stitzer as a “furious note- hard, the partners made all the profits. taker; a former colleague refers to … My wife used to call them Lord, Day Stitzer’s management style as ‘leading & Night. I was there all the time.” with his head down (Sibun, 2010).’” 4 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018

Stitzer’s progress over the coming that can leave the listener cold. … In decade was sure and swift, but often America, excess verbiage may be his moves were “not for more money, acceptable and commonplace. It is not but to add to his knowledge and to in Britain. … Such language can leave further his career,” according to the the speaker open to ridicule and Marketing Today profile. He became hostility.” As a lawyer, Marketing the chief operating officer for Cadbury Today said, Stitzer “was taught that no Beverages in North America in 1995. word can go unchecked, no statement In 2000, he joined Cadbury’s main can go without being fully defined.” group board as chief strategy officer. The Daily Telegraph (Sibun, 2010) In 2003, in a move that stunned concurred: “Stitzer’s relationship with London’s financial establishment, he the City has never been easy. … (his) became CEO for Cadbury Schweppes. formal, Ivy League bearing has not That same year, Stitzer managed always sat well with hard-nosed, Cadbury’s $4.2 billion acquisition of cynical British investors and analysts.” US-based chewing gum-manufacturer Still, in January 2006, the Times of Adams from Pfizer to create the London (Jameson, 2006) portrayed world’s largest maker of chocolate Stitzer as “the real life Willie Wonka” and other confectionaries. By from Roald Dahl’s children’s story, purchasing Adams, Cadbury added Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a Trident sugar-free gum, Dentyne Ice book rooted in a teenaged Dahl’s chewing gum, and Halls cough daydreams of working at a Cadbury lozenges to its product portfolio, and factory. In that article, Angela instantly became the world’s second Jameson of The Times found a duality largest manufacturer of chewing gum in Stitzer that reflected both of the (Ball, 2002; Confectionary News, book’s central characters. She wrote, “ 2002). “Stitzer was chosen, you … chip away at the grey suit and white realize, because he has a bit of shirt exterior and there is more of the everything: the American (more than young Charlie, the boy so anxious to two-thirds of [Cadbury’s] business is please his guardians, than the in the US); the time-served employee; mercurial Wonka.” the ambitious; the humble,” Marketing 1-B. The pathogen: salmonella Today said in its profile. “Stitzer’s Montevideo style is to consult, to seek advice, then to act. He is not an autocratic leader.” A rare strain of non-typhoid salmonella bacteria, salmonella “Being a principled leader is a part of Montevideo enters the body through my life and it’s been that way ever the consumption of contaminated since I was a little kid,” Stitzer told the food or water, or of fecal material. Daily Telegraph (Sibun, 2010). Though commonly considered a “Cadbury is a principled company, it’s contaminant of food animal products, been that way since 1824. So there in recent years salmonella bacteria in was this wonderful accident of Cadbury and Todd Stitzer coming fresh produce have caused several serious US outbreaks. Food products together in 1983 and that’s been a known to trigger salmonella great thing for me.” But Marketing outbreaks include meat, poultry, eggs, Today (Blackhurst, 2010) was highly milk and dairy products, fish, shrimp, critical of Stitzer’s bearing: “It is a pity, spices, yeast, cocoanut, sauces, freshly though, that he allows this prepared salad dressings, cake mixes, straightforwardness to be clouded by cream-filled desserts, toppings, dried the sort of management gobbledygook gelatin, peanut butter, cocoa, 5 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes and refrigerating food at 40 degrees F or chocolate, according to the US Food below. and Drug Administration (2012). 1-C. The outbreak The US Centers for Disease Control Between March 1 and June 19, 2006, and Prevention estimate more than 1 the United Kingdom’s Health million cases of non-typhoid Protection Agency documented eight salmonella occur each year in the confirmed cases of salmonella United States (2013). In the England Montevideo among infants younger and Wales, the government’s than one year and twenty-two cases estimates put annual cases at around among children younger than age 8,500 (Public Health England, 2016). four, according to Scotland on Sunday Clinical features: Salmonella may (Gray, 2006). Looking for clues to the infect anyone of any age, but is cause, the agency analyzed all samples especially harsh when contracted by of the bacterium it had received those with weak immune systems: the during the previous months. very young, the elderly, people with On June 16, 2006, scientists at the HIV or a chronic illness, or who are United Kingdom’s Health Protection undergoing chemo or Agency identified salmonella immunosuppressive therapy, or other contamination in samples of chocolate medications. Exposure may cause crumb received from a private lab issues with the stomach and representing an unidentified intestines, including nausea, vomiting, confectionary firm. The agency diarrhea, cramps, and fever. approached the lab for more Symptoms generally appear between information and was told the source six and seventy-two hours after of the samples was confidential. The exposure. They usually subside in four HPA then alerted the Food Standards to seven days, with the worst Agency. Only when FSA officials symptoms lasting fewer than two approached the lab did its client, days. The disease leads to death in Cadbury Schweppes, admit to the less than 1 percent of cases in contamination. otherwise healthy adults. The percentage may climb to 3.6 percent Cadbury then actively and openly among the elderly (WHO, 2015). resisted the FSA’s insistence upon a significant recall, and rejected the Treatment: There exists no standard government’s opinion that the treatment for salmonellosis, the company should have alerted illness caused by an infection of the regulators to the contamination salmonella bacteria. In severe cases, immediately. Cadbury claimed that treatment is symptomatic, with an only 5,000 bars were made with the emphasis on rehydration and contaminated chocolate. However, the electrolyte replacement. FSA demanded a much larger recall. Antimicrobial therapy is not Cadbury’s delay in reporting the recommended for mild or moderate cases. contamination angered agency officials, who told the Telegraph, Control and prevention: Preventive “Under food hygiene law, having measures include cooking food salmonella in a ready-to-eat food such thoroughly; washing hands after as chocolate is unacceptable and can handling raw food; separating raw pose a health risk (Derbyshire, 2006).” food from cooked food; and

1-D. The recalls Court brought charges against Cadbury “related to the state of repair On June 23, 2006, Cadbury Schweppes of a drainage pipe and roof vent, the recalled seven chocolate products layout of the factory, the provision of from grocery shelves across the drainage facilities and the cleaning United Kingdom, in consultation with and disinfection of equipment, the Food Standards Agency: the including conveyors and storage silos chocolate button Easter Egg, Dairy (The Guardian, 2007, July 3).” It is Milk Turkish, Dairy Milk Caramel, possible that rats, mice, or wild birds, Dairy Milk Mint, Dairy Milk 8 Chunk, 1 any of which may carry salmonella, kg Dairy Milk, and the Freddo bar may have been watering at the leaky (AFX News). At more than one million pipe and contaminated the plant (The items, the recall represented one third Times, 2006, June 24). of Britain’s daily consumption of Cadbury chocolate. Second, Cadbury changed its food safety standards in 2003, apparently Cadbury swiftly positioned the recall under the mistaken impression that as a “precaution,” telling the Daily there are safe levels of salmonella Mirror (2006, June 24): “The levels contamination for chocolate crumb. are significantly below the standard Routine tests were taken three times a that would be a health problem. There day, every eight hours, to check for is no evidence anyone has been sick contamination of ingredients, of the through eating this chocolate.” The production line, and of finished HPA disagreed, confirming to the products. A private laboratory Sunday Times in London (2006, June handled the analysis of the tests, 25) that “molecular fingerprinting detected the salmonella tests” showed that the bacteria contamination, and alerted Cadbury. causing the outbreak were the same as those found in the Cadbury The factory set its alert system to samples. Agency statisticians had withdraw any product at ten parts per suspected that chocolate might be the million per ten grams (The Times, July vector for the disease, since so many 24, 2006). Unfortunately for Cadbury of the reported cases were found in and its consumers, chocolate is an children. The reported fifty-three ideal vehicle for salmonella because cases could have been ten times the high levels of fat and sugar higher in reality, the agency told the preserve the bacteria and carry it into Times, because most salmonella cases the intestine, according to go unreported: “We cannot be 100 microbiologists (Sunday Times, 2006, percent sure that Cadbury’s products June 25). Sir Huge Pennington, a caused the disease, but it’s a strong bacteriologist at Aberdeen University possibility.” in Scotland, told the Associated Press, “The fat in chocolate actually Over time, health officials identified preserves the salmonella from the three ways in which Cadbury’s errors normal intestinal defenses, so you led to the outbreak. don’t have to eat very many First, Cadbury apparently failed to salmonellas to get infected. It’s about repair a leaky pipe at its Marlbrook, a thousand times less than if you’re Herefordshire, plant where it eating it from traditional sources like manufactured the chocolate crumb, a meats (2006, June 25).” key ingredient for creating chocolate The Food Standards Agency said in an candy. The Hereford Magistrate’s official report that Cadbury’s food

7 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 safety system was unreliable, 2006 (The Mirror, 2007, July 22). Of outdated, and underestimated the the fifty-six cases, thirty-seven were level and likelihood of salmonella “possibly” caused by Cadbury contamination (The Guardian, 2006, products, while thirteen of those were July 24). The report also said “certain.,” the Mirror says (MacLean, Cadbury’s risk assessment erred when 2007). Because the illness rate fell it drew parallels between the after Cadbury withdrew seven brands threshold for salmonella infection and from the marketplace, the agency the thresholds for infection by other found that “consumption of Cadbury micro-organisms that may be found in Schweppes’s products was the most chocolate. The agency says: “We think credible explanation.” (Cadbury) made a mistake in At the urging of the Food Standards assuming there was a safe level of Agency, Cadbury agreed to a salmonella in a product like chocolate. Our view is there isn’t. (Associated comprehensive cleaning of all production lines at the Marlbrook Press, July 4, 2006)” plant (The Guardian, 2006, July 27). Third, knowing that the crumb Cadbury also agreed to destroy any contained salmonella, Cadbury chose chocolate testing positive for to distribute the contaminated salmonella, however small (Western products throughout England. Daily Press, 2006, July 27), and to Cadbury later confirmed it failed to release products only after test results approach the situation as a crisis, but returned negative (Birmingham Daily instead decided informally that the Mail, 2006, July 27). contamination levels were too low to In addition, Cadbury appeared to warrant a crisis footing, and to move become more aggressive in launching forward with production. (Leake & recalls. In February 2007, Cadbury Walsh). The Daily Telegraph reported, voluntarily recalled its chocolate “The court heard that in early 2006 Easter eggs after learning that the the problem was so endemic that product might pose a danger to Cadbury staff were dealing with ‘daily’ consumers with nut allergies, the salmonella-related problems, and Birmingham Post reports (Revill, were referring to instances of 2007). contamination by an alphabetical series of codewords rather than using 1-E. Stakeholder reaction (timeline what they referred to as the ‘s-word’ analysis) (Bitten, 2007).” Day 1: June 23, 2006—Cadbury The Birmingham Crown Court in 2007 Schweppes announces it has recalled fined Cadbury £1 million (about $2 seven chocolate products from million US) for its role in the grocery shelves across the United salmonella outbreak of 2006: Kingdom, according to AFX News. In a £500,000 for putting unsafe chocolate decision made in consultation with for sale to the public, £100,000 on the UK’s Food Standards Agency, each of two other charges, and Cadbury recalls the chocolate button £50,000 for each of six offenses at its Easter Egg, Dairy Milk Turkish, Dairy Herefordshire factory (AFX News, Mile Caramel, Dairy Milk Mint, Dairy 2007, July 16). The Health Protection Milk 8 Chunk, 1 kg Dairy Milk, and the Agency held Cadbury directly Freddo bar. The company frames the responsible for thirteen of the known recall as a precautionary measure fifty-six reported cases of the while admitting some of these Montevideo strain of salmonella in 8 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 products “may contain minute traces strain have quadrupled in recent of salmonella,” according to AFX months, the Mail says. The UK’s Health News. In a prepared statement, the Protection Agency tells the Mail if company says, “Cadbury has identified there was a decline in salmonella the source of the problem and Montevideo following the product rectified it, and is taking steps to recall, it would be "strong evidence" of ensure these particular products are a link. Each year, Cadbury’s plant in no longer available for sale.” Marlbrook generates 97,000 metric tons of chocolate crumb, which is Day 2: June 24, 2006—A dispute transported to Cadbury factories in erupts between Cadbury and the UK’s Bourneville, Birmingham, and Food Standards Agency, says the Daily Somerdale (near Bristol) to be Mirror of London (Sayid, 2006). blended with cocoa butter, and thus Cadbury waited for five months to turned into milk chocolate. Cadbury alert the agency that the company declines to discuss the cost of the distributed contaminated chocolate in recall, but sets up a helpline for more than one million candy bars. concerned customers, and provides a Cadbury claims the health risks were recall procedure to exchange products so “minimal” there was no legal need for refund vouchers. to inform the agency immediately, the Mirror said. Cadbury tells the Mirror: The Guardian in London reports that “This is a precaution. The levels are Britain’s consumers may have already significantly below the standard that eaten as many as half of the would be a health problem. There is contaminated candy bars during the no evidence anyone has been sick previous six months, which may have through eating this chocolate.” But the triggered food poisoning in more than Food Standards Agency challenges forty people. The Food Standards Cadbury’s version of events. “They Agency accuses Cadbury of failing to should have told us earlier,” the report that a leaking wastewater pipe agency says. “Cadbury is duty bound at the company’s Marlbrook plant by the Food Hygiene Act to inform us contaminated the chocolate crumb: “It straightaway of any contamination. was found in January, but they didn’t They failed to do so for almost six tell us until Monday. In the interim, months. It doesn’t matter how small products have gone out into the the risk. … Having salmonella in market. There was a window when chocolate can pose a health risk. We they knew they had a problem in their wouldn’t recall these products just for factory.” Cadbury corrected the fun.” problem sometime in March, meaning the company had produced Simon Baldry, managing director at contaminated products for about forty Cadbury, tells the Birmingham days, the Guardian says. The Health Evening Mail that there was “no need” Protection Agency discovered the to take the chocolate products off the problem while investigating an market when contamination was outbreak of salmonella Montevideo discovered in January. “Our products among more than forty people. The were perfectly safe,” Baldry says. agency found an exact match with the “We’d gone through our rigorous strain found in bacteria samples found testing process … We’d identified that in the Cadbury chocolate, but so far these were only minute traces.” The has proven no causal link. Salmonella products are contaminated with a rare bacteria affect the stomach and strain of the bacteria salmonella intestines, causing symptoms that Montevideo. Reported cases of the 9 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 include diarrhea, constipation, nausea, production line, and of finished headache, stomach cramps and fever, products. A private laboratory which generally clear up in seven days handled the analysis of the tests, without treatment. Severe cases can detected the salmonella and alerted lead to complications, such as Cadbury. The lab found 0.3 parts of a arthritis. Cadbury says: “We found the million in the contaminated chocolate. cause of the problem, fixed it, and The factory’s alert system would have subsequent tests proved we were withdrawn any product at ten parts completely clear. … We are aware they per million per ten grams, Cadbury have been looking at salmonella tells the Times. “We have followed the prevalence, and that you could say the regulations,” a Cadbury spokeswoman strain found in our product is similar says. “The (Food Standards Agency) to the one they found. The scientific will have to decide if we need a new evidence was that the level found (in regulation and we are willing to work the chocolate) was way below the with them on that (V. Elliott, 2006).” level that would cause illness The Daily Telegraph in London (Vasagar, 2006).” reports: “The contamination was The Food Standards Agency is asking made public only after the Health Cadbury to explain why it failed to Protection Agency noticed a puzzling alert the agency after discovering rise in salmonella Montevideo cases. salmonella at its Marlbrook plant in Last year, 14 cases were confirmed January, the Times of London reports. between March 1 and June 19. This Meanwhile, the Health Protection year 45 were scattered across the Agency says it has found about forty- country. More than half affected five cases of salmonella poisoning children under four.” Looking for since March, compared to fourteen clues, the agency analyzed all samples cases between March and June 2005 of the bacterium it had received “The watchdog is particularly irritated during the previous months, including that even though Cadbury disclosed those sent by Cadbury. The agency on Monday the presence of the bug in approached Cadbury’s independent chocolate, it took the company until lab, and were told the source of the Thursday evening to agree to a recall,” samples was confidential. Only when according to the Times. Cadbury sells officials from the Food Standards more than one billion pounds of Agency approached the lab did chocolate annually in the United Cadbury admit to the contamination. Kingdom. The recall was the Cadbury claimed that only 5,000 bars equivalent of a third of Britain’s daily were made with the contaminated consumption of Cadbury’s chocolate. chocolate. But the Food Standards “While the cost to the company,” the Agency demanded a much larger Times says, “which manufactures recall. Cadbury’s delay in reporting 2,500 products, is expected to be low, the contamination angered agency the damage to its reputation could be officials, who told the Telegraph, significant.” It is possible that rats, “Under food hygiene law, having mice, or wild birds, any of which may salmonella in a ready-to-eat food such carry salmonella, may have been as chocolate is unacceptable and can watering at the leaky pipe and pose a health risk (Derbyshire, 2006).” contaminated the plant. Routine tests Day 3: June 25, 2006—Lyndon Simkin, were taken three times a day every a brand-marketing scholar at Warwick eight hours to check for University, expresses surprise that contamination of ingredients, of the Cadbury made a decision to ship the 10 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 contaminated candy. “What the which was recalled from shops and company had done is strange given its warehouses, weighs about the same as Quaker background of caring for thirty-three double-decker buses, workers,” Simkin tells the Sunday according to the Daily Mail, and is Mercury. “Cadbury is much-loved equivalent to one-third of Britain’s because of very clever brand-building daily consumption of Cadbury work, like sponsoring ‘Coronation chocolate. All wrappers and packaging Street’ (a long-running British TV soap have been removed, and Cadbury is opera). It has homely connotations discouraging children from searching and people trust it and have great for the candy on a “Willie Wonka loyalty to it.” He predicts that the hunt” (Leake, 2006). salmonella controversy “… in a few The Daily Mail reveals that an weeks, it will be forgotten,” unless independent lab alerted the Health people can prove they got sick from eating the products (Allen, 2006). Protection Agency to the contamination as early as January, but Cadbury European President Matthew the information was not passed on to Shattock tells the Mercury that the the Food Standards Agency. Members traces of salmonella detected in the of Parliament call for a government chocolate crumb were “minute” and investigation into Cadbury’s delayed that candy recall is purely reports to the government. “We need precautionary. “The highest level we a proper explanation from ministers found was one-thirtieth of the level at about what went wrong,” says Liberal which we would raise an alert as to a Democrat Bob Russell. “There has food safety issue,” Shattock says been a communication breakdown (Allen, 2006). and, clearly, the current rules are not being operated properly (Leake, Between March 1 and June 19, the 2006).” Health Protection Agency documented eight confirmed cases of salmonella The Independent (Carrell, 2006) Montevideo among infants younger publishes the following timeline of than one year and twenty-two cases events: among children younger than age four, according to Scotland on Sunday • June 16: The Health (Gray, 2006). Protection Agency finds contaminated samples from Cadbury’s European president an unidentified Matthew Shattock says that only confectionary firm. fourteen samples of the chocolate • June 19: The Health crumb showed minute traces of Protection Agency alerts the contamination – out of 7,000 samples Food Standards Agency, tested – according to Wales on which approaches the Sunday. Since then, no trace has been private lab for the name of found in 17,000 samples tested, he the client. The lab alerts says: “Our products are perfectly safe Cadbury, which then calls to eat and we have no evidence that the Food Standards Agency anyone has been ill from eating them and admits contamination (Wales, 2006).” had taken place. Cadbury announces plans to bury 250 • June 21: Cadbury agrees to tons of chocolate bars and Easter eggs share additional information about affected products. in landfills across Britain. The candy,

• June 22: Cadbury denies a withdrawn its products because it has cover-up, but agrees to a been found out.” Cadbury sent nine product recall. samples of chocolate crumb to an independent lab, which detected Cadbury European President Matthew salmonella, then passed the samples Shattock tells the Independent: “Our on to the Health Protection Agency responsibility is the welfare of our without identifying the source. The consumers and I can reassure you that agency says it received the samples our products are perfectly safe to eat between early February and late May (Carrell, 2006).” (Harrison, 2006). In the Sunday Mirror (Hayward, The Health Protection Agency 2006), officials at the Food Standards confirms that “molecular Agency express surprise that Cadbury fingerprinting tests” show that the failed to report the contamination bacteria causing the outbreaks were earlier: “We will be in talks with local the same as those contaminating environmental and trading standards Cadbury products, according to the officers this week to see if any action Sunday Times in London. Agency is taken.” Massive fines are a statisticians suspected that chocolate possibility. Meanwhile, officials at the might be the vector for the disease, Herefordshire council’s health since so many of the reported cases department tell the Sunday Mirror, were in children. The reported fifty- “Cadbury’s compliance with the Food three cases could have been ten times Safety Act will be part of the ongoing higher in reality, the agency tells the investigation.” Cadbury European Times, because most salmonella cases President Matthew Shattock replies, go unreported: “We cannot be 100 “We are absolutely confident these percent sure that Cadbury’s products minute levels of salmonella would not caused the disease, but it’s a strong have made anyone ill.” possibility.” Chocolate is the ideal Journalists at the Sunday Herald vehicle for salmonella because the report buying Cadbury’s recalled high levels of fat and sugar preserve products readily in England stores. the bacteria and carry it into the Cadbury says it is “working all hands intestine, microbiologists tell the on deck” to complete the recall. Sunday Times. “This meant that Officials at the Food Standards Agency serious illness could be caused by say, “The ultimate responsibility lies what appeared to be mere trace with the manufacturer.” Meanwhile, elements of the bacterium,” the Sir Hugh Pennington, president for the Sunday Times said. Food safety Society for General Microbiology, tells consultant Michael Kane says the the Herald that DNA testing could rules for food safety are established trace the strain to Cadbury. “The only under the Global Food Standard and safe level of salmonella in chocolate is the British Retail Consortium: “They zero,” he says (J. Johnson, 2006). say that as soon as salmonella was detected the company should have Britain’s Parliament is demanding a instituted a crisis management “full and public explanation” of the procedure, including recalls of any Cadbury recall, the Sunday potentially hazardous products and Independent in Ireland reports. Dr. warning relevant authorities.” Richard North, a food safety advisor, Cadbury confirms it failed to approach tells the Independent: “Cadbury is the situation as a crisis, but instead being disingenuous. It has only decided informally that the

12 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 contamination levels were too low to sponsorship of “Coronation Street,” warrant a crisis footing, and to move one of the longest-running scripted forward with production. The television programs in the world, Herefordshire’s environmental second only to “As the World Turns,” standards department last inspected the Birmingham Post says. This marks the factory in Fall 2005 (Leake & the first time in ten years that the Walsh). program will air without Cadbury advertising, says the Western Daily Sir Huge Pennington, a bacteriologist Press (Morgan, 2006). Cadbury at Aberdeen University in Scotland, originally wanted to replace its ads, tells the Associated Press: “The fat in which promoted a wide range of chocolate actually preserves the Cadbury products, with a message salmonella from the normal intestinal designed to “reassure” customers. But defenses, so you don’t have to eat very broadcasting rules in the United many salmonellas to get infected. It’s Kingdom prohibited the plan, says the about a thousand times less than if trade publication Marketing (Bowery, you’re eating it from traditional 2006). sources like meats.” Day 8: June 30, 2006—Times Day 4: June 26, 2006—A member of columnist Mike Hume questions the the British Parliament, Liberal need for the Cadbury recall: “An Democrat Bob Russell, tells the epidemic it ain’t. In any case, the Birmingham Post: “It seems Cadbury’s chocolate produced in extraordinary than Cadbury, or January is likely to have long since whoever makes these decisions, been scoffed. So what is withdrawing decided to withdraw these products a million different bars months later so far down the line when there were supposed to be a ‘precaution’ concerns about this some months against?” He continues: “Cadbury is ago.” Meanwhile, The Straits Times big enough to defend itself. It is the reports that Cadbury is recalling its rest of us I am worried about, living in chocolate bars in Singapore. a superstitious society where it is The Birmingham Evening Mail (Authi, deemed wise to bury tonnes of 2006) reports that “thousands” have perfectly good foodstuff, and where called Cadbury’s salmonella hotline. government agencies treat us like milky children in need of protection The Bulldog Reporter, a trade from hypothetical evils, and too much publication serving the US public chocolate.” relations industry, quotes a Cadbury spokesperson: “There are minute In the same issue, the Times reports traces of salmonella, which are that a baby, a child and an adult have significantly below those (levels) been admitted to hospitals with new which scientific standards say present cases of the salmonella Monteverdi any hazard. There’s no connection strain, also known as SmvdX07. The between our product and anybody Health Protection Agency raises the becoming ill from it. … We’ve taking count of cases to thirty-one in England this precautionary step because our and Wales since March 1, with the consumers are our highest priority. most affected group being two-year- We apologize for any inconvenience olds. The agency says it first noticed caused.” an uptick in cases on May 22. Day 6: June 28, 2006—Cadbury Business columnist Sheila O’Flanagan suspends its £10 million annual of the Irish Times writes: “Purely

13 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 precautionary would have been doing which is usually found in hotter something about it back in January. regions of the world. The cases were The current recall isn’t precautionary. scattered geographically rather than It’s slamming a stable door after the clustered, as is the case with most horse has not only bolted but done a food poisonings. Half the victims were lap of the track. … What on earth were under two. Officials at Health they thinking when they allowed Protection suspected a nationally salmonella infected product onto the distributed product marketed to shelves? … The ‘we know best’ children. Their investigation focused mentality isn’t one that works when on nine samples from an anonymous you have to deal with anxious company, all of which arrived in early consumers. … An arrogant company, February. The lab refused to identify suggesting that they considered the the source, so Health Protection problem, but didn’t think it worth turned to Food Standards to use its dealing with, will not find the public powers to get the source’s name. The very sympathetic. … Nevertheless, agencies learned that Cadbury’s confidence in the brand has been Herefordshire factory sent the shaken. And it’s not because contaminated crumb to its Bourneville something bad happened – problems factory, where it was stored in a silo, always occur. It’s because the and later mixed with other batches. directors sat around and discussed it About thirty brands were made and decided that the profitability during the period that the trade off was probably worth a few contaminated crumb was in the people getting sick – and that’s always factory. Birmingham authorities are the wrong decision.” sifting through Cadbury warehouses in search of contaminated stock. The Burton Mail reports, “Tests by Herefordshire authorities are also food safety officers have found that investigating whether the half of shopkeepers visited in Burton contamination might have come from have ignored the food hazard warning a nearby dump about a half mile from for various Cadbury’s chocolate the Cadbury plant. The dump contains products.” The East Staffordshire rotting chicken feathers, animal parts, Borough Council sent another written and feces. warning to all shopkeepers after finding the initial recall had been Concerned the crumb may have found ignored in about half of local stores. its way into the full line of chocolate Rob Morgan, head of environmental products, the Food Standards Agency health, tells the Mail: “In this case after ordered testing for thirty more lines we informed the shop owners, of Cadbury products, the Guardian everybody was happy to take the reports. An agency spokesman says, products off the shelves. They all said “There may be contamination in other they weren’t aware, which is quite a Cadbury products.” A Cadbury surprise (Powles, 2006).” spokeswoman responds: “We are testing product lines four times a day, Day 9: July 1, 2006—The Guardian and environmental heath are checking reports: The Health Protection Agency so they can feel as confident as we do called the Food Standards Agency on about our testing regime. We have June 16 to express its concerns about testing all products and found no a potential salmonella outbreak. Since salmonella.” Kath Dalmeny, policy March 1, the Health Protection Agency expert for the independent watchdog has received an unusual number of group The Food Commission, says: “It samples with the Montevideo strain, 14 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 seems Cadbury has been arrogant affordable, quality food. He closed by enough to rely on its reputation to get telling his audience they would hear it through a crisis rather than taking more about food safety that afternoon. immediate action (Lawrence, 2006).” A few hours later, Cadbury announced it would recall one million candy bars The Grocer, a trade publication, (Carmichael, 2006). interviews several players within the industry to comment on Cadbury’s Day 10: July 2, 2006—Cadbury position in the wake of the recall publicly rejected suggestions that it (Carmichael, 2006): should recall more of its products due to the salmonella scare, according to Paul Osborne, a confectionary buyer AFX News. Through a spokesman, for Hancocks C&C, says: “Cadbury has Cadbury says, “We’re not recalling any been quite lucky in one way. Most of more products. Environmental health the affected products don’t have direct officers have tested a number of other rivals, so there’s no alternative for products, which is perfectly normal. people to switch to.” We’ve tested tens of thousands of David Arkwright, branding consultant products and they’ve all come up at MEAT, says: “Brands like Cadbury’s negative so we do not believe there is are like human beings and are any reason to recall any other forgivable, but they have to earn that. products.” I’m confident that Cadbury can be Day 11: July 3, 2006—Analysts forgiven, but it would have to present estimate the scare will cost Cadbury itself as penitent and this must be Schweppes £25 million, according to done purposefully. I’m not sure the Daily Mail: £5 million in recall they’ve done that as much as they costs, with the rest in lost sales during ought, should and could, but it’s a to a loss of consumer confidence brand with huge equity and public (Poulter, 2006). affection and that can outweigh any momentary negative.” Day 12: July 4, 2006—The Food Standards Agency says in an official

report that Cadbury’s food safety Paul Cousins, director of Catalyst system is unreliable, outdated, and marketing consultants, says: “In the underestimates the level and short term, the effects will be likelihood of salmonella noticeable: some people are nervous. contamination. Birmingham food There’ll be a short-term dip in sales, safety team leader Nick Lowe tells the but in the long term I don’t think it’ll Guardian, “What we and Cadbury are make much difference.” doing with testing is just at the needle-in-haystack level.” Cadbury’s On the day of the recall, Cadbury response: “At all times we have acted Schweppes chairman Sir John in good faith and we do not challenge Sunderland – though not acting quite the views of the expert committee or like himself – gave an upbeat keynote the environmental health officers. We address to the annual luncheon for the will be changing our procedures in Biscuit Cake Chocolate & light of their advice (Lawrence, Confectionary Association, according 2006).” to The Grocer. Sunderland reminded his audience of the positive role that The agency’s report also says his industry plays in the lives of Cadbury’s risk assessment erred when ordinary Britons, providing safe, it drew parallels between the

15 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 threshold for salmonella infection and Several tankers of chocolate crumb the thresholds for infection by other from the Marlbrook plant tested micro-organisms that may be found in positive for the rare strain during a chocolate, according to the Associated three-week period in 2006, the Press. The agency says: “We think Guardian reports. However, Cadbury’s (Cadbury) made a mistake in just-in-time production system assuming there was a safe level of allowed the tankers to leave and the salmonella in a product like chocolate. contents to be mixed at other factories Our view is there isn’t.” before the test results were completed. A tanker left the plant Day 13: July 5, 2006—The Daily Mail every hour, but results were not reports that Cadbury informed the available for twenty-seven to twenty- Food Standards Agency of a similar nine hours, rendering “the test contamination incident in 2002, but meaningless,” said Andrew Tector, had yet to submit paperwork with head of environmental health in details, such as the affected products Herefordshire. A Cadbury or factories. “I don’t know if it was a spokeswoman tells the Guardian: cynical move by Cadbury,” an agency “Under the legislation, it is left to the spokesman tells the Mail, “but we manufacturer to determine their would have expected to be informed testing protocols. We did this based about it as soon as it happened.” The on sound independent science. At all agency also criticized the company’s times we acted in good faith approach to detecting contamination, (Lawrence, 2006).” telling the Mail (Levy, 2006): “Cadbury’s risk assessment does not In a statement published in the address the risk of salmonella in Birmingham Evening Mail, Cadbury chocolate in a way that the (FSA’s tells the news media that it will independent Advisory Committee on continue to seek guidance from the the Microbiological Safety of Food) Food Standards Agency and would regard as a modern approach environmental health officers: to risk assessment. We can’t rule out “However, we welcome the the possibility that other products are confirmation by the FSA that they affected.” believe ‘proportional action was taken by recalling seven products.’” The 2002 incident at the Marlbrook plant involved the same rare strain of “The PR plan was too little, too late for salmonella, the food Standards Agency Cadbury. The day it discovered tells the Independent (Hickman, salmonella in its chocolate, it should 2006). The Herefordshire County have set the PR wheels in motion,” Council says it was not informed of Ruth Shearn, managing director of the incident. RMS PR, tells the trade magazine Marketing. Cadbury detected the strain in two products – Cadbury’s Dairy Milk and Day 14: July 6, 2006—The outbreak Brazil Caramel – as long ago as 2002, could be the first in a series of health but failed to notify government scares in the food industry, Marketing authorities, the Guardian reports Week speculates. An anonymous (Lawrence, 2006). Cadbury told the industry insider says, “I can’t imagine Food Standards Agency it destroyed that Cadbury is the only company that the products at the time. Cadbury tells tests for salmonella in this way.” reporters it was unable to identify the Cadbury responds that its detection source of that contamination. tests are based on “hard science.”

negative, says the Birmingham Daily Mail. Investment bankers JP Morgan speculates in a research note that the Day 16: July 8, 2006—The Times of outbreak will cost Cadbury in excess London explains to its readers the of £30 million (about $55.4 million science behind salmonella as a threat US), according to AFX News: “The to food safety and human health: recall has received a growing and Large numbers of salmonella will increasingly negative amount of interfere with the function of the media coverage damaging the brand digestive tract. The bacteria prevent image and the corporate reputation,” the body from absorbing water the note says. Morgan recommends normally, and the liquid is passed out investors avoid Cadbury until the as diarrhea. It takes roughly a million “situation is clarified.” Cadbury salmonella cells to make a person responds that it is “far too early to noticeably ill. But as few as 2,000 can tell” what the eventual costs would be, cause illness if taken in chocolate. The and adds “… you can’t estimate what fat in the chocolate protects the the sales impact might or might not bacteria from digestive acids. be.” The company says it plans to Chocolate is a perfect vehicle to carry address the issue when it publishes the cells into the small intestine. interim results for the second half. Chocolate is not submitted to high temperatures during the Day 15: July 7, 2006—At the urging of manufacturing process that would the Food Standards Agency, Cadbury normally kill salmonella. Exceptional agrees to a comprehensive cleaning of care must be taken to make sure that all production lines at the Marlbrook the raw ingredients are free of the plant, according to the Guardian. bacteria before the process begins. Third-party companies used chocolate “Salmonella infection is so common crumb from the Marlbrook plant to that we might have been unaware of manufacture chocolate products, the Cadbury’s problems,” the Times says, Guardian says (Lawrence & Meikie, “had the variety of bacterium involved 2006), but the Food Standards Agency – Montevideo – not been so rare is unable to provide a list of those (Parry, 2006).” companies. Cadbury dismisses speculation that Cadbury agrees to destroy any more companies could be drawn into chocolate testing positive for the scare, according to a story in the salmonella, however small, according Birmingham Post, which identifies to the Western Daily Press. A several third-party companies who spokesman for the Food Standards buy chocolate crumb from Cadbury, Agency says, “We are not saying the including Premier Chocolate, Premier whole plant is contaminated but Beverages, and British Sugar. None salmonella is a very difficult thing to received the contaminated crumb, get rid of and the dry powder can get Cadbury says. The Food Standards in all the cracks so the best thing to do Agency confirms Cadbury’s story: “We is have a complete overhaul, start have no reason to believe (the crumb) from scratch and clean the whole would have been contaminated.” place up (Hughes, 2006).” Day 17: July 9, 2006—The Sunday Cadbury also agrees to release Express in London (L. Johnson, 2006) products only after test results return reports that Chris Huhne, an environmental spokesman for the

Liberal Democrats, is demanding legal brand score of 44; after the outbreak, action against Cadbury: ”This looks the score fell to 22. Brand Index like a case of corporate cover-up when monitors the reputations of hundreds what was needed was an honest of organizations. The brand score is owning-up. Cadbury’s should be based upon responses to prosecuted to ensure all food questionnaires. Chief executive manufacturers know safety must Stephan Shakespeare tells the come first. Its failure to notify the FSA Telegraph: “The loss of confidence in is a clear break of its legal duty.” Jerry Cadbury is the greatest we have seen Morris, a food expert at the Chartered since we started Brand Index nine Institute of Environmental Health, months ago. The issue has gone right agrees that Cadbury should answer to into the core of the public the public: “We would want to know consciousness.” the reasons why Cadbury’s risk assessment differs from that of the Day 25: July 17, 2006—Cooking columnist Julia Watson says in a government experts.” dispatch from United Press Catherine Henderson, 62, of County International: “How appropriate that Antrim in Northern Ireland, tells the (Cadbury) are now paying a far higher Sunday Express (L. Johnson, 2006) price than they would have done had that she was in a hospital isolation they behaved as though their ward for five days after eating a customers were indeed their highest Cadbury Caramel. “I never thought priority as soon as they discovered the you could get ill like that from leaking water pipe.” chocolate,” she says. “I didn’t think I Day 29: July 21, 2006—The Health would come out alive. … I am not Protection Agency reports that looking for money. I just feel the Cadbury products were the probable company should have been more cause of a national outbreak of responsible in informing people.” salmonella Montevideo, the Guardian Solicitors at Irwin Mitchell have taken Unlimited says, with fifty-six cases her case. A Cadbury spokeswoman documented since March. The denies the company withheld agency’s outbreak control team (OCT) information about the contamination obtained detailed food histories of and says Cadbury’s had scientific fifteen victims; of them, thirteen (or evidence to show “levels of the bug 85 percent) had consumed Cadbury found were too low to pose a risk.” products. The agency says, “After Day 19: July 11, 2006—Sallie Booth, carefully considering all the available an attorney with theIrwin Mitchell law evidence the OCT concluded that firm representing salmonella victim consumption of products made by Catherine Henderson, tells the Belfast Cadbury Schweppes was the most News Letter: “As chocolate is targeted credible explanation for the outbreak mainly at children, the measures of salmonella Montevideo.” Cadbury taken by Cadbury’s should have been responds: “We are sorry to hear that ultra-rigorous.” people have been unwell. We’ve already announced that we have Day 24: July 16, 2006—The pollster changed our protocols because we Brand Index says Cadbury has lost the understand that the consumers’ desire confidence of consumers, according to for no risk at all is paramount. Any the Sunday Telegraph in London product showing any traces of (Murray-Watson, 2006). Just before salmonella will be destroyed.” the scare began, Cadbury posted a

UK government investigators Day 38: July 30, 2006—Andrew Wood, comment on the Cadbury recall in a an analyst at New York brokerage report published in the Communicable Sanford C. Bernstein, tells the Disease Report Weekly: “No other Independent: “Public recalls are not common brands, retail outlets, unusual in the food industry. So why catering chains or single food types has this one garnered so much were identified as common factors attention? For a start, salmonella in (Associated Press, 2006, July 21).” chocolate doesn’t seem to jive, and they have known about it since Day 30: July 22, 2006—The January. Its reputation has suffered.” Independent in London reports that Thayne Forbes, joint managing Cadbury says it will consider director of the brand experts compensation for outbreak victims. Intangible Business, agrees: “For The Health Protection Agency says it Cadbury, this is a really serious PR has identified forty-nine primary problem because it affects children cases of salmonella Montevideo since and it’s a health issue. They should be March 1. Of those, thirty-seven are of taking a proactive approach, be seen the same strain – SmvdX07 – found in to be giving advice and putting in the Cadbury products. The agency place quality control, and I really don’t estimates the reported cases see them doing that. … They are trying represent between 111 and 185 total to downplay the effects, while I would cases linked to Cadbury products. say they should be trying to establish Cadbury declines to say whether it a quick, concerted and extensive agrees with the HPA’s conclusions. A programme to sort it out. Otherwise, it Cadbury spokeswoman tells the looks like they don’t really care Independent: “If any people come (Townsend, 2006).” forward, we will take their situation seriously and consider their case Day 39: July 31, 2006— (Hickman, 2006).” David Standard of Stockbrokerage ABN Amro estimates the law firm Irwin Mitchell tells the a £25 million drop in sales, leading to Scotsman in Glasgow: “Confirmation a £15 million drop in profits, of the causal link between Cadbury’s according to the Western Daily Press products and this rare and serious in Bristol (Buckland, 2006). form of salmonella means the case Day 41: Aug. 2, 2006—Five of the strengthens for those willing to take seven brands that Cadbury recalled legal action (Jamieson, 2006).” are scheduled to return to store Day 37: July 29, 2006—The shelves, coinciding with the release of Birmingham Evening Mail reports that Cadbury’s 2006 interim results, Cadbury will tell investors in its half- according to a report from Agence year report that the salmonella scare France Presse. will cost the company at least £30 According to the Birmingham Evening million. Of that, £5 million is the result Mail, Cadbury Schweppes CEO Todd of the recall of one million chocolate bars. Cadbury has yet to indicate how Stitzer is telling investors that chocolate sales have plunged 14 much the scare has affected sales in percent since the scare began. He the seven weeks since the expects a total bill of at least £26 contamination became public. There is million. Half is due to the recall, the also no assessment of how much the rest to manufacturing improvements company may pay in related legal and dealing with news media. costs (Morley, 2006). Insurance will cut the total bill by

19 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 about £6 million. Despite these costs, group sales, Agence France Presse the well-diversified company posted a reports. 24 percent boost in pre-tax profits Claire Collingwood, a trader at CMC (£402 million) for the six months Markets in London, tells the leading to July 30, 2006 (Morley, Associated Press, “The main reason 2006). behind the share price jump was the Cadbury CEO Stitzer defends relief that the cost of its recall was not Cadbury’s decision not to inform the as much as the market has feared.” Food Standards Agency when the David Lang at Investec says, “The company discovered the burning question is how the consumer contaminated crumb, according to an treats Cadbury at Christmas (Stringer, AFX News report. “We felt that we 2006).” were acting in accordance with what Brand surveys indicate that consumer the law specifies so we didn’t feel that we were doing anything wrong,” confidence in Cadbury is returning to normal, says Simon Nixon at Stitzer says. “Clearly, in conversations breakingviews.com: “The company with the FSA they had a different view still shows a worrying refusal to admit and we’ve changed our processes it has done anything much wrong.” because we don’t want consumers to Cadbury stands by its original have any possible concern about our protocols, has apologized only for the processes and our products (AFX “concern” the outbreak has generated, International Focus, 2006).” and continues to cast doubt on the “We clearly caused concern to our idea that Cadbury is the source of the consumers and we are truly sorry for outbreak: “Cadbury’s stance suggests that,” Stitzer tells the Evening either complacency or confirms the Standard (Miller, 2006) in London. threat of legal action – from The company plans to spend £5 consumers and regulators – remains million in advertising and marketing real,” Nixon writes. to reassure customers. Day 42: Aug. 3, 2006—CEO Todd The overall market for candy in the Stitzer continues to defend Cadbury’s United Kingdom fell by 7 percent pre-outbreak protocols, the Times of during July because of a major heat London reports, but he admits wave, according to Market Watch. Cadbury has upgraded to a “zero Cadbury’s market share fell by 1.1 presence testing” system since the percent during the first four weeks of scare began. In addition, Cadbury has the second half, thanks to the heat modified some of its operations combined with the recall. Shares for (including transportation of chocolate Cadbury Schweppes rose 3 percent in crumb) to improve hygiene, Stitzer morning trading after the first-half says. He also says that local plant results were released (Lagorce, 2006). managers followed company procedures, and that he made no The company’s first-half profits beat changes to management at the the consensus among analysts, who Marlbrook facility. Stitzer played expected profits to come in at down the effect of the outbreak on a between £376 million and £398 slump in sales since June 23, putting million. Cadbury said the seven the blame instead on Britain’s recent product lines that were recalled heat wave. He says the company represent less than 3 percent of expects minimal damage to Cadbury’s British sales and about 0.5 percent of reputation or sales (Klinger, 2006).

Cadbury says it will resume Day 96: Sept. 26, 2006—Staff sponsorship of “Coronation Street” in members at the Food Standards the fall with a £5 million deal, Agency are annoyed by the lack of according to the Birmingham Mail cooperation from Cadbury, according (Morley, 2006). to documents acquired under the UK’s Freedom of Information law, the Cadbury Schweppes Chair John Belfast Telegraph reports (Hickman, Sunderland says he and the board 2006). The agency staff privately learned about the salmonella issue considered that Cadbury has posed an just two days before the recall, the unacceptable risk to the public. Mail reports (Morley, 2006). The Meeting minutes show that staff Times says that CEO Todd Stitzer did members were unhappy with a lack of not know about the salmonella response for requests for information problem until “some time after its that would have helped the discovery (Klinger, 2006).” government better deal with the CEO Todd Stitzer tells the Mail outbreak. Also, a request for (Morley, 2006): “Although we have Cadbury’s risk assessment went always acted in good faith throughout, unfulfilled. “All requests for we have caused concerns and for that information have to be reinforced,” I am extremely sorry.” the document said. In an opinion piece for the Guardian, Day 99: Sept. 29, 2006—The Food journalist Nils Pratley writes, “It Standards Agency’s Advisory would be different if Cadbury screwed Committee on Microbiological Safety up again, but British consumers, by of Food (ACMSF) is calling for and large, are forgiving.” Cadbury to implement a “robust” Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Day 44: Aug. 5, 2006—Cadbury has system at its manufacturing plants, sent letters of apology to 28,000 according to the trade publication convenience stores in its distribution Process Engineering. But Cadbury channel, the Grocer reports. The claims it already has such a system at letters thank the stores for their all factories. The article says that support and for helping to execute the Cadbury relied on end-product testing recall “as quickly and efficiently as that ACMSF found unsuitable for possible.” The letter adds: “… we are testing for food safety. “The company taking all the necessary steps to put wrongly drew parallels between the this right at both our manufacturing threshold for salmonella infection and sites and in the eyes of the public.” the threshold for infection by other Day 66: Aug. 27, 2006—The Food micro-organisms found in chocolate,” Standards Agency will bankroll an the article says. ”(but) there is no investigation of the Cadbury chocolate minimum infection dose for factory by the Herefordshire council, salmonella.” the Sunday Telegraph reports. The Day 116: Oct. 16, 2006—Stockbrokers money will come from a £200,000 in England are turning negative on fighting fund and “will help expedite a Cadbury as the share price slips by 6p prosecution of Cadbury,” according to to 551.5p, the Guardian Unlimited the Telegraph. “Prosecution will mean reports. Merrill Lynch goes from buy that the company receives further to neutral; JP Morgan drops its rating negative publicity, possible just as it as well, and tells its clients: “Cadbury enters the key Christmas sales period has been struggling to regain positive (Northedge, 2006).” sales momentum in UK chocolate 21 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 since the announcement of its product annual sales in the United Kingdom recall (over salmonella) on 23 June. … (Armitage, 2006). If the authorities were to take legal Day 127: Oct. 27, 2006—“Cadbury is action, Cadbury could face another PR not the only one suffering; the whole nightmare and we believe serious bad UK confectionery market has been press could result in further pressure down 5 (percent) since the beginning on sales – with serious financial of July,” the Daily Mail reports (Brown, consequences if that were to happen 2006). The Birmingham Post quotes during the Christmas season.” Cadbury CEO Todd Stitzer: “Had it not Day 126: Oct. 26, 2006—Cadbury’s been for the continued long, warm chocolate sales have dropped by 5 spell, the group would have met its percent since the beginning of July targets for revenue and margin grown. 2006, as compared to same period in … The UK confectionary market, 2005, the Evening Standard in London which accounts for 15 percent of our reports. Cadbury has blamed a recent group sales, has been weak, but we heat wave for slow sales, but both think the weather had a greater effect summers were unusually hot for than the recall difficulties.” Around 70 Britain. Meanwhile, consumer percent of Cadbury’s sales come from confidence in the brand has returned, the Americas and the Asian Pacific. Cadbury claims, citing rising sales for Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat who a new product called Flakes. Cadbury served as the Department for CEO Todd Stitzer “stressed the Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s importance of the returning “shadow secretary,” tells the Post: confidence in the Cadbury name “Cadbury has paid the price for its among British consumers in the run failure to quickly tackle contamination up to the crucial Christmas season,” in its plants, and then for failing to the Evening Standard says (Armitage, own up quickly and put things right. … 2006). It is another object lesson that in areas concerning public health, companies

cannot be too careful with their A new ACNielsen research report says reputation, and also that regulators Mars – the manufacturer of Snickers, need to be tough and vigilant (Pain, Twix, and Milky Way – has overtaken 2006).” Cadbury as the market leader in Day 130: Oct. 30, 2006—Cadbury tells British chocolate, with a 33.7 percent analysts that the company will no share vs. Cadbury’s 31.3 percent longer forecast profitability growth, share, according to the Evening saying it will increase operating Standard. Cadbury CEO Todd Stitzer margins “over time” while avoiding disputes the report, claiming Cadbury specifics, the Associated Press reports. owns a 3 percentage-point lead over Mars in 2006 year-to-date sales of Day 135: Nov. 4, 2006—ACNielsen chocolate. He accused the Financial now says that Mars usurping Times, which broke the story, of a Cadburys for dominance of the British “totally overzealous interpretation” of chocolate market “was a blip,” a single month’s figures, and says according to The Grocer. The value of public confidence in Cadbury products Cadbury’s top-seven chocolate lines is has returned to pre-contamination significantly higher than the top-seven levels. The coming Christmas season lines of Masterfoods (owner of Mars): accounts for 35 percent of Cadbury’s £670 million to £560 million. In related news, a survey by YouGov says

22 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 consumer confidence in Cadbury is contains nuts,” a Cadbury spokesman also recovering. “Trust in the tells the International Herald Tribune. (Cadbury) brand plummeted directly The products are “perfectly safe” for after the salmonella scare but has consumers without nut allergies, steadily risen since, although it is still Cadbury says (Nayeri, 2006). Dr. Phil not up to pre-salmonella levels,” The Stern, a consumer behavior scholar at Grocer says. Warwick Business School, tells the Post: “As an alternative to Day 136: Nov. 5, 2006—CEO Todd withdrawing the products, they could Stitzer spent the previous week have asked the retailers to put making presentations to investors and stickers on the eggs, saying they may analysts in London and New York, the contain nuts. But they chose not to do Sunday Times reports. The result? The that. They did not consider that to be share price fell 3.7 percent. Stitzer reliable enough, and decided to recall says the response was predictable, the the products. That is the most result of a lot of information in a short responsible decision they could have time. “Stitzer is confident that in taken.” The Post says, “Cadbury’s Britain, Cadbury’s chocolate can promptly action was a textbook action recover from the trauma of the in dealing with the crisis, added Dr. salmonella episode,” the Sunday Stern. The key, apparently, is to Times says. “A raft of new products is acknowledge the issues, and point out to be launched between now and if possible that it is not the result of Christmas. … Stitzer predicts that in some systematic failure, but rather a Britain there will be big increases in one-off (Revill, 2006).” sales of dark and premium chocolate (Laurence, 2006).” Day 243: Feb. 20, 2007—Cadbury announces a major investment Day 173: Dec. 12, 2006—Cadbury has program in the United Kingdom raised its estimate of the costs it following “2006 results which were incurred during the salmonella below market expectations,” AFX outbreak to £30 million ($59 million News reports, by launching Trident US), according to Agence France Press. gum in Britain. Cadbury’s share of the The change reflects “higher UK market has recovered to 34 manufacturing and facility percent by the end of 2006, about rectification and remediation costs,” where it stood before the salmonella the company said in a statement. scare. “Our market share has Day 177: Dec. 16, 2006—“The award recovered in the fourth quarter and, in for cock-up of the year,” The Grocer particular, over the Christmas season,” says, “could go to no one else but CEO Todd Stitzer says. “(The Cadbury for its management of the salmonella outbreak) is not something salmonella scare.” you’ll hear us talking about again.” He added that February’s nut-allergy Day 235: Feb. 12, 2007—Cadbury is recall had been “immaterial” to sales recalling its chocolate Easter eggs and profits, but declined to discuss after learning that the product might pending legal actions under the UK’s post a danger to consumers with nut environmental health laws. Cadbury allergies, the Birmingham Post reports has learned important lessons from its (Revill, 2006). Liquid chocolate used problems in 2006, Stitzer says. “We’re in the eggs were mistakenly profiting from those learnings, taking “manufactured on a line that has also them and applying them to our been producing chocolate which business going forward so that we can

23 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 be a bigger, stronger business,” he future strategy from today’s deal. We says. “Our record stands for itself.” have done this because it is the right thing for our beverage business and Credit Suisse reiterates its will help it continue to grow. (English, “underweight” rating on Cadbury, 2006).” with a target of 520 pence, citing future pressure on earnings based on Day 269: March 18, 2007—Critics of the company’s investment plans, AFX the decision to split Cadbury News reports. Citigroup rates Cadbury Schweppes into two companies say a buy at 620 pence, and considers the the move could make Cadbury salmonella scare to be a short-term vulnerable to a hostile takeover. CEO problem. Todd Stitzer disagrees, telling the Sunday Times: “We would expect to Day 265: March 14, 2007—US be the transformer rather than the corporate raider Nelson Peltz reveals transformed (Laurence & Rushe, he owns a 3 percent stake in Cadbury, 2007).” making him the company’s fourth- largest investor, the Guardian reports. Day 306: April 24, 2007—The On that news, market value for Birmingham City Council levies three Cadbury climbs by more than £1 charges against Cadbury, each billion. Rumors say Peltz plans to punishable by unlimited fines, or up to break up Cadbury. England’s unions two years in prison, or both, according express outrage; about 2,000 of to the Western Main: putting unsafe Cadbury’s UK workforce (3,500) contaminated chocolate on the market belong to the Transport and General between Jan. 19 and March 10, 2006; Workers Union (Finch, 2006). failing to inform relevant authorities about the dangers; and, failing to Day 267: March 16, 2007—Following identify the hazards posed by the pressure from shareholders, the New contamination. Cadbury is summoned York Times says, Cadbury announced to appear before the Birmingham plans to separate its beverage unit Magistrates’ Court on June 15, 2007. from its candy unit. The beverage unit Cadbury responds with a written includes Dr Pepper, 7 Up, Canada Dry, statement: “We have fully co-operated all Schweppes brands, all Mott’s juices, with the authorities throughout their and Hawaiian Punch (Werdigier, inquiries and we will examine the 2006). “Once separated, both charges that have been brought. As businesses could fall prey to bids from there is now legal action pending, it rivals or private equity companies,” would be inappropriate for us to says the Times. The Daily Telegraph comment further (Barnett, 2007).” says, “It’s the biggest strategic move since its merger with Schweppes in Day 358: June 15, 2007—In a ten- 1969.” CEO Todd Stitzer insists the de- minute hearing, Cadbury’s attorney merger is the “culmination of a two- entered guilty pleas to the three or three-year process (Wallop, 2006).” charges brought before the This contrasts with Stitzer’s statement Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, the less than a year before, just after Associated Press reports. In a Cadbury purchased the Dr statement of the hearing, Cadbury Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Co. for said: “Mistakenly, we did not believe £198 million, as the investment that there was a threat to health and community anticipated a potential thus any requirement to report the demerger of Cadbury and Schweppes: incident to authorities. We accept that “There is nothing to read into our this approach was incorrect.”

Day 376: July 3, 2007—Cadbury Cadbury “sought to save money from attorneys appear in Hereford wastage by allowing a tolerance for Magistrates’ Court to face charges salmonella in their food,” Berlin told under UK food and hygiene the court, according to the Press regulations, according to the Association. Berlin presented the Associated Press. “The company did court with research literature about not enter a formal plea,” the salmonella. “Cadbury knew perfectly Associated Press says, “but its lawyers well, we submit, that outbreaks of said that the chocolate-maker salmonella had been associated with intended to plead guilty to six counts very low levels in chocolate,” the of contravening food hygiene prosecutor said. The Local regulations.” The charges “related to Government Chronicle quotes Berlin the state of repair of a drainage pipe as telling the court: “There is no and roof vent, the layout of the dispute that there is a linkage factory, the provision of drainage between the chocolate that was facilities and the cleaning and distributed by Cadbury and the disinfection of equipment, including poisoning that took place later on.” conveyors and storage silos,” the Anthony Scrivener, QC, defense Guardian reports. The hearing was attorney for Cadbury, describes adjourned until July 13 and moved to Cadbury as a reputable company that the Birmingham Crown Court. made an error, according to the Derby Day 386: July 13, 2007—A prosecutor Evening Telegraph. “At no time did it for the Birmingham City Council told close eyes to the risks or choose to the Birmingham Crown Court that a accept any risk,” he tells the court. change in Cadbury’s testing systems “Nothing was destroyed or hidden – led to the outbreak of salmonella Cadbury believed it had nothing to poisoning, the Guardian says hide.” He points out that Cadbury’s (Smithers, 2007). Cadbury entered tests for salmonella detected (at its guild pleas to all six charges. highest point) a level that is still 100 times less than the level that Cadbury Prosecutor Barry Berlin told the court believed to be dangerous to human that Cadbury altered its system in health. “Negligence we admit,” 2003 to allow “safe levels” of Scrivener says, “but we certainly do salmonella to enter their chocolate- not admit that this was done making processes, according to the deliberately to save money and nor is Birmingham Evening Mail. Cadbury there any evidence to support that allowed the changes to its system to conclusion.” save money and cut back on waste, the prosecutor said. Cadbury detected The Daily Telegraph (Bitten, 2007) the presence of salmonella in its reports, “The court heard that in early products in January 2006, but failed to 2006 the problem was so endemic report it until June despite regularly that Cadbury staff were dealing with scheduled visits from local authorities ‘daily’ salmonella-related problems, to the chocolate plant in and were referring to instances of Herefordshire every two months, he contamination by an alphabetical said. Berlin “insisted there should be series of codewords rather than using no salmonella in ready-to-eat what they referred to as the ‘s-word.’” products at all,” the Mail reported. “He The Western Daily Press says, “It also said the problem with chocolate and emerged in court that some of those salmonella was that the fat in who were taken ill after eating the chocolate preserved the organism.” 25 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 chocolate needed hospital treatment. potentially dangerous situation and One person began to vomit blood, a cannot take a risk with the public’s 61-year-old woman lost 10lb in health.” In the day’s trading, Cadbury weight and another woman was so ill shares fall 0.2 percent on the London she could not attend her sister-in- Stock Exchange. law’s funeral.” The Western Daily Press quotes After the hearing, Cadbury issues a Recorder Guthrie as saying to the statement: “Quality has always been at courtroom: “The victims varied from the heart of our business, but the the elderly to the very young and their process we followed in the UK in this symptoms varied in severity. Three instance has been shown to be people needed treatment in hospital unacceptable. We have apologized for and all of them suffered extremely this and do so again today. In distressing symptoms.” Andy Tector, particular, we offer our sincere head of environmental health and regrets and apologies to anyone who trading standards service for the was made ill as a result of this failure Herfordshire Council, says, “We are (Western Daily Press, 2007).” now confident the factory at Marlbrook is operating within food Day 387: July 14, 2007—The Derby and hygiene regulations and will Evening Telegraph reports, “A continue to work with Cadbury to Derbyshire child will be awarded a ensure this remains the case and payout after eating Cadbury chocolate consumers can be confident the firm’s and falling ill with salmonella.” products are safe to eat (Denby, Cadbury agreed to the compensation, 2007).” but did not admit responsibility. A judge will decide on the exact sum Law firm Irwin Mitchell confirms to after consulting a medical expert. The Grocer that it is pursuing civil cases against Cadbury on behalf of Day 389: July 16, 2007—AFX News twelve individuals who claim to be reports that the Birmingham Crown affected by the contaminated Court has fined Cadbury £1 million chocolate (C. Williams, 2007). (about $2 million US) for its role in the salmonella outbreak of 2006: Cadbury’s chocolate tests positive for £500,000 for putting unsafe chocolate salmonella thirty-six times between for sale to the public, £100,000 on January and February 2006, says The each of two other charges, and Guardian: “… it was not until the £50,000 for each of six offenses at its suffering of several victims several Marlbrook factory. Recorder James months later was linked to Cadbury Guthrie says in his ruling, “I regard that the products were pulled from this as a serious case of negligence. It the shelves (R. Williams, 2007).” therefore needs to be marked as such Day 395: July 22, 2007—The Mirror to emphasize the responsibility and reports that a Health Protection care which the law requires of a Agency investigation holds Cadbury company in Cadbury’s position.” Sallie Booth, a lawyer who is representing directly responsible for thirteen of the known fifty-six reported cases of the twelve persons affected by the Montevideo strain of salmonella in contamination, says: “The 1 million 2006. Of the fifty-six cases, thirty- pound fine sends a clear message that seven were “possibly” caused by companies who have a great deal of Cadbury products, while thirteen of responsibility for protecting public those were “certain.,” the Mirror says health cannot afford to ignore a

(MacLean, 2007). Because the illness group to vigorously defend the rate fell after Cadbury withdrew seven brand.” Rumbol says. “I’ve never seen brands from the marketplace, the that before. … I would hypothesize agency found that “consumption of that level of trust comes from lots of Cadbury Schweppes’s products was small things that Cadbury has done the most credible explanation.” that we have all experienced; maybe Cadbury issues a statement: “We are nothing in particular sticks in your sorry for all those who suffered.” mind but you have the overall sense of fairness and decency.” It takes “a long,

long time for that kind of reputation to 1-F. The aftermath build up,” Rumbol says (Jack, 2009). March 26, 2009—Marketing Week November 30, 2009—The UK trade reports that the Cadbury’s brand is magazine Management Today ranks “the most trusted chocolate producer” Cadbury as Britain’s fourth most- in the UK, according to a public option admired company. survey published by Reader’s Digest: January 18, 2010—When asked to “… no other chocolate comes close to describe his legacy as Cadbury’s first the parent Cadbury brand in terms of foreign-born CEO, Todd Stitzer tells trust.” Cadbury chocolate enjoys a the Daily Telegraph, “I would like to winning margin of 53 percent over the think that when my time is done here, nearest brand. “Even a widely people will say there was a sea-change publicized salmonella scare in 2006 in commercial and financial capability. appears to have had no impact on the And that we did it in line with our level of trust people have in Cadbury,” values. If I get some modicum of credit the magazine says. for delivering on both sides of that Cadbury’s UK marketing director Phil equation, that would be a great legacy Rumbol tells Marketing Week, “As a (Sibun, 2010).” company, Cadbury has really clear January 19, 2010—After a hostile values that drive how it behaves. In negotiation that consumed five many respects, you cannot separate months, US food conglomerate Kraft the company from the brand. Those Foods agrees to buy Cadbury for £11 values of integrity, honesty and billion UK (840p per share), about striving to do the right thing govern $19.5 billion US, according to the the way Cadbury does business.” He Evening Standard. The combined says that Cadbury was involved in companies create the world leader in corporate responsibility “decades chocolate and sweets, and the before the phrase was coined.” How number-two company in the chewing did Cadbury’s reputation survive the gum market. “The agreed price is 13 salmonella scare? Rumbol credits times Cadbury’s earnings. Cadbury have plenty in “the bank of goodwill.” had argued that similar recent Rumbol says he signed on as takeovers in the sector had been for Cadbury’s marketing director just six 14 times earnings or more,” the weeks before news broke of the Standard says. CEO Todd Stitzer salmonella outbreak. “He described a walks away with a payout worth £7 consumer focus group held at the million (which comes to a little more time,” Marketing Week reports, than two years of compensation): £4 “where one member of the group cast million in cash; £3 million in stock. aspersions on Cadbury’s handling of The Standard says, “He has been the issue, prompting the rest of the highly critical of Kraft throughout the

27 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 course of the bid, dismissing the descendants of Cadbury’s founders American company as an unsuitable were, too. They claimed that hedge partner with low growth prospects.” funds and other short-term investors Stitzer and Chairman Roger Carr are – which owned close to one-third of likely to be pushed out of the the company’s stock as the bid battle company, the Standard says. Jeremy drew to a close, up from just 5 per Batstone-Carr at stockbrokerage cent before Kraft went public with its Charles Stanley says, “We have to offer in September 2009 – had sold admit surprise at how meekly Cadbury out. … Institutional investors, Cadbury has acquiesced.” Andrew meanwhile, were concerned that Wood at stockbrokerage Sanford Cadbury had given in too easily. Bernstein in New York says, “A year Cadbury’s second-largest shareholder, from now, Kraft will be singing the Legal & General, issued a statement praises of what a great deal they got saying the final price did not ‘fully (English, 2010).” reflect the long-term value of the company’ and that it was February 2, 2010—Seventy-two ‘disappointed’ management had percent of Cadbury shareholders vote recommended the offer for an ‘iconic to approve the takeover bid. US and unique British company’.” billionaire investor Warren Buffett criticizes the deal, saying Kraft was May 18, 2011—Springfield College “overpaying by using undervalued announces it will dedicate the new shares to complete the deal. Buffett’s Stitzer YMCA Center on May 19. company Berkshire Hathaway is Established through lead gifts from Kraft’s largest shareholder.“ Kraft the Stitzer family, the Stitzer YMCA sidestepped a vote among its own Center “is a destination site for YMCA stockholders by reducing the number professionals and groups from around of shares to be issued for the deal,” the the world. It includes the national New Zealand Herald reports. YMCA Hall of Fame, offices of the Association of YMCA Professionals February 3, 2010—The Evening (AYP), the Springfield College Office of Standard in London reports that YMCA Relations and facilities for Stitzer will leave Cadbury after YMCA meetings and other programs,” twenty-seven years with the company. the college says in a news release. The The newspaper estimates that Stitzer college quotes family spokesman will exit with about £20 million in Todd Stitzer: “The defining values of compensation that includes shares the YMCA, and of Springfield College and long-term bonuses. Stitzer tells as a premier educator of YMCA the media that he will take “some time leaders, have profoundly influenced out” to spend with his family, but: our family. It is our hope that this new “You can be sure my heart will always center will help empower present and be a deep Cadbury purple.” future YMCA professionals to March 12, 2010—FT Magazine (a maximize their potential in service to publication of Financial Times) all members of our society. And, in reports in an extensive, behind-the- honoring the visionaries who shaped scenes story on the Kraft acquisition: the YMCA movement, it will “When Cadbury employees woke that perpetuate their principles.” morning (January 19) to newspaper headlines announcing the impending sale of their employer, many were Section 2: Mapping the messages surprised and angry. Some

2-A. Assessing the outrage required to relentlessly pursue shareholder value. “Today, most Of the twelve primary factors corporate law scholars embrace some identified by risk communication variant of shareholder primacy,” legal consultant Peter Sandman (1993), scholar Stephen M. Bainbridge (2002) Cadbury managed to violate at least says. A leading critic of corporations, eleven during the chocolate scare, former Harvard professor David virtually guaranteeing the company Korten (2010), agrees. “Any chief would provoke outrage among its executive officer of a Wall Street- customers, its regulators, London’s traded corporation that puts social or investment community, the British environmental considerations ahead government, and the news media. of financial return will soon find Let’s now examine these factors one himself cast out in disgrace through a by one: revolt of institutional shareholders or Voluntary or coerced?—We tend to hostile takeover.” think of coercion as the result of force, In 2006, Cadbury was a British-owned and might at first glance dismiss company, but its stock traded on Wall coercion as a factor in the Cadbury Street and its management was clearly case. After all, no one forces concerned with impressing investors customers to purchase Cadbury in the United States. Moreover, Stitzer chocolate or to consume it. But is an American lawyer trained in New coercion may also result from fraud. If York City and acclimated to working I tell you that something is “perfectly with (and thinking like) the corporate safe,” while my in-house data is telling behemoths of the New York Stock me that the risk involves at least some Exchange. Also, following its merger hazard, and you find out that I with Schweppes, Cadbury (which had deceived you, then you are likely to long behaved aggressively in the feel you have been coerced through marketplace, often growing more fraud, and thus are likely to become from acquisition than from outraged. marketing) stopped being the quaint, One could make the case that family-operated, Quaker-influenced Cadbury’s first mistake – before company of British lore, and became choosing to distribute contaminated instead an international corporate chocolate or resisting the player. Such companies do not thrive government’s attempts to recall its on the world markets without product – was the much earlier adapting the American notion of decision to alter its detection shareholder primacy. protocols (based on a shockingly This doesn’t make Stitzer or most flimsy understanding of salmonella other CEOs “evil,” but it does point to a contamination) so the company could reality of modern business: Every cut costs on wasted product corporation is designed to behave as a (Birmingham Evening Mail, 2007, July sociopath, to pursue its advantages, to 13). However, this decision is not at all “externalize” any cost it can, and to surprising. resist attempts by anyone – even Corporations are designed to pursue government regulators – to rein in the one end, and that is shareholder value. corporation’s desire to expand its CEOs like Todd Stitzer (for all his power, grow its market, pocket higher expressed admiration of public profits, and increase shareholder service) are trained and indeed value (Bakan, 2012). This is not a political opinion. It is a legal fact. 29 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018

To recognize this reality is not to US Centers for Disease Control and brand the corporation as “evil,” but Prevention (2015) rank salmonella as rather to fathom that Big Business a frequent contributor to foodborne considers the marketplace to be a illness in humans worldwide. In the battlefield, corporations to be armies, United Kingdom, “salmonella is the and government to be a nuisance that pathogen that causes the most must be usurped or circumvented hospital admissions – about 2,500 whenever possible. This is just how each year” says the UK’s Food the game is played, not just by custom, Standards Agency (2014). but also by law. The shareholder is However, in the Cadbury case, the first in all things. If there is a legal culprit turned out to be an extremely corner to be cut, then it should be cut. rare (at least, in the United Kingdom) The onus is always on government to strain, salmonella Montevideo. Indeed, write the rules that protect the public, enforce them, and punish offenders. it was the rareness of this strain that pointed the finger at Cadbury as the This is how a large organization of source of the contamination intelligent, decent, law-abiding people (Birmingham Evening Mail, 2006, June makes the decision to distribute 24) chocolate that it knows is contaminated, and why those same Did the exoticness of this specific people will later defend their strain actually trigger outrage among organization’s decision with righteous the non-experts? That seems unlikely. indignation and more than a little While the strain is unusual, the hubris. symptoms and the prognosis are the same for more common strains: Natural or industrial?—Salmonella diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps are bacteria and thus are found in for twelve to seventy-two hours after nature. Natural things rarely trigger infection, lasting from four to seven outrage. While people will tend to days, with more severe issues for tolerate cruelty from Mother Nature, infants, the elderly, and those with they are generally unwilling to accept weakened immune systems (Centers the same trait in their fellow humans for Disease Control and Prevention, or their organizations. The presence 2013). of salmonella or any contaminant in a manufactured food like chocolate is What is exotic about the Cadbury case purely industrial, and thus tends to is the transmission of salmonella trigger outrage. poisoning through chocolate. The public is at least somewhat familiar This is especially true when an with the presence of salmonella organization chooses to cut costs by bacteria in meat, poultry, eggs, and ignoring the science behind food raw milk. Food safety advocates in the safety, which explicitly says that no United States and Western Europe level of salmonella is safe in chocolate, have enjoyed significant success in and then attempts to foster the blame on government regulations. “We communicating a simple technique to prevent the bacteria from making us followed the rules” will not fly as an ill: cooking food thoroughly before excuse for skirting the hard science serving it. This solution does not work that is supposed to guide your for chocolate. Chocolate becomes manufacturing process. inedible when raised to the Familiar or exotic?—Both the World temperatures required to kill Health Organization (2014) and the salmonella bacteria. Worse yet,

30 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 salmonella actually thrives in of truck after truck dumping millions chocolate. of Cadbury bars – weighing about the same as thirty-three double-decker Not memorable or memorable?— buses – into landfills, followed by dire Sandman (1993) refers to the warnings to the nation’s children not memorable as the flipside of the to explore the landfills on Willie familiar; that is, the more memorable Wonka-style treasure hunts (Leake, a risk, the more easily one can imagine 2006). Such should be expected. what can go wrong. Whether a “Reporters deal in extremes in particular risk is memorable depends stories,” crisis consultant James E. less on events, and more on the Lukaszewski says (2013), “telling symbols that act upon the public’s stories that have bright, attractive mind, both consciously and beginnings, very little in the middle, unconsciously. The best source is and devastating or climatic endings.” personal experience, Sandman says; the second best is what we learn All of this negative imagery directly through news media. conflicts with England’s long-held image of Cadbury (the company) as a For example, the headlines in the beacon of social justice and Cadbury British press during 2006-07 served (the chocolate) as a beloved childhood to frame the situation for England’s memory that connects deeply with reading public: England’s observances of Christmas • The Guardian (London) – and Easter. This incongruity reveals Salmonella scare: Chocolate itself in the scene described by may have poisoned more Cadbury’s UK marketing director, in than 40 which a consumer focus group shouts • The Times (London) – A down a member who dares to million ‘food bug’ chocolate question Cadbury’s integrity, even as bars taken off shelves the salmonella scare makes headlines • The Daily Telegraph across Britain (Jack, 2007). (London) – Cadbury’s Not dreaded or dreaded?—When we deliberately let salmonella talk about dread, we generally mean into bars apprehension. We dread the things • The Sunday Independent that make us ill or uncomfortable. We (Dublin) – Cadbury hid dread cancer. We dread hazardous salmonellas for months waste and contaminated water. When • Sunday Express (London) – we perceive that a company is doing I’m lucky to be alive, says something that may cause us to get victim of the chocolate bug cancer, or may contaminate our • The Guardian (London) – drinking water, we tend to become Poisoned patients and outraged. mystery samples – how food detectives traced Cadbury’s A very close cousin of dread, bug according to Sandman (1993), is “disgust.” Consider the following: The stories tend to characterize Cattle and chickens are common (mostly through implication) Cadbury reservoirs of salmonella Montevideo, and its executive team as greedy at according to Cornell University best and evil at worst. Upon this are (2013), and outbreaks are generally heaped descriptions of empty shelves associated with imported spices and in grocery stores (V. Elliott, 2006), and live poultry. “Salmonella live in the

31 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 intestinal tracts of humans and other “Salmonellosis is one of the most animals, including birds,” the US common and widely distributed Centers for Disease Control says foodborne diseases, with tens of (2013). “Salmonella are usually millions of human cases occurring transmitted to humans by eating worldwide every year,” according to foods contaminated with animal feces. the World Health Organization Contaminated foods usually look and (2013). In the United States and smell normal. Contaminated foods are Western Europe, salmonella is less often of animal origin, such as beef, common but still chronic; we are poultry, milk, or eggs, but any food, unlikely to eliminate a bacterium such including vegetables, may become as salmonella as we have a virus such contaminated.” as smallpox. Now consider this quote from a Americans do a good job generally of Cadbury executive: “The highest level keeping salmonella contamination out we found was one-thirtieth of the of pre-packaged foods. In 2014, the level at which we would raise an alert Centers for Disease Control recorded as to a food safety issue (Allen, 2006).” ten outbreaks involving products as Cadbury hoped this and similar diverse as poultry, cucumbers, nut technical information would butter, spices, cheese, and frozen demonstrate its mastery of the subject feeder rodents. However, much risk matter and thus would calm the remains in restaurants and situation. But when faced with this households that fail to adhere to the sort of information, non-experts are common standards of food safety. far more likely to respond: “What the All that aside, should we consider hell? Cadbury thinks it’s OK to put salmonella particularly catastrophic? animal crap in my chocolate?!!!” This Even in an epidemic, the symptoms results from what Sandman (2012) for salmonella remain typically mild calls the Yuck Factor; our instinctive and, while decidedly uncomfortable, aversion to consuming animal feces usually last for only two to ten days completely overrides any explanation without treatment. Strictly speaking, of just how little feces is in the salmonella would seem an improbable chocolate. This aversion tends to candidate to punch the catastrophic drive outrage upward. button of community outrage. Chronic or catastrophic?—Non- However, one may argue that the experts tend to become more Cadbury case simulated a catastrophe, concerned about risks that are (or as could any food-poisoning case that have the potential to become) involves pre-packaged food. catastrophic than those that are Remember, the case came to the chronic (Sandman, 1993). In other attention of UK health authorities only words, communities are more likely to because the Health Protection Agency become upset about things that kill detected a significant uptick – about people in large clumps in a short time (like jumbo jets) than about things forty cases of salmonella Montevideo – across Britain, and asked the Food that kill more people in much smaller Standards Agency to investigate. We clumps over a longer period of time could reasonably consider this clump (like family automobiles). With this in of morbidity as a contributing factor mind, where do we place a foodborne in the community outrage that pathogen like salmonella on the followed Cadbury during and after the chronic/catastrophic scale? recall. This may stretch the logic to the

32 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 point of breaking, but is worth making, such as Cadbury European considering nonetheless. President Matthew Shattock’s early statement that, “We are absolutely Knowable or unknowable?—The confident these minute levels of unknowable factor covers at least salmonella would not have made three components: uncertainty, expert anyone ill (Hayward, 2006).” disagreement, and detectability (Sandman, 1993): Second, there was the expert disagreement between Cadbury Uncertainty refers to the margin of (whom one would expect to be an error: How much do we actually know authority on food safety for chocolate) about the risk, and how much do we and its government regulators. From know about the worst-case scenario? the beginning, these experts disagreed In general, the non-experts are far on the basic facts of the situation, the more comfortable with a dangerous proper size of the recall, the degree of but fairly certain risk than with a safer Cadbury’s culpability, and even the but less certain risk. fundamental science behind salmonella poisoning in chocolate. Cadbury’s experts insisted that the Expert disagreement refers to a risk to the health of its consumers was common situation in public disputes “minimal,” that the recall was only “a where each side trots out its subject- precaution” (Sayid, 2006), that there matter experts. These experts, of was “no evidence anyone has been ill course, disagree on whether a specific from eating this chocolate,” and that hazard is dangerous or safe. The non- the contaminated chocolate was experts are generally more “perfectly safe to eat” (Wales, 2006). comfortable with expert consensus Meanwhile, experts at the government than with expert disparity. agencies condemned Cadbury’s Detectability refers to whether a testing protocols as outdated and specific risk may be perceived with unreliable (Lawrence, 2006 July 4), one or more of the five human senses. declared that no level of salmonella is If we can see it, hear it, smell it, touch safe when found in chocolate (J. it, or taste it, we are less likely to Johnson, 2006), and said Cadbury become outraged by a potential should have approached the situation hazard. This is one reason why a as a crisis by warning the authorities radiation leak is far more likely to and issuing an immediate recall of outrage us than a gas leak. suspected products (Leake, 2006). All three components came into play Third, there was the lack of during the Cadbury controversy. First, detectability, as foods that are there was the uncertainty of whether contaminated with salmonella the Cadbury recall had successfully “usually look and smell normal. (CDC, removed all or even most of the 2013).” It was impossible for anyone contaminated candy from store to examine any Cadbury product with shelves, especially given news reports only the five human senses and tell that many shopkeepers were whether it contained any trace of oblivious to the recall notice (J. salmonella contamination. Johnson, 2006; Powles, 2006), as well Controlled by me or controlled by as Cadbury’s steadfast refusal to others?—Control is all about who acknowledge any uncertainty about implements any given action its testing procedures or its decision- (Sandman, 1993). Most people feel

33 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 much safer if they are driving a car cutting back on wasted crumb rather than simply riding in a car. One (Birmingham Evening Mail, 2007 July of the reasons many people fear air 31). Second, Cadbury allowed its travel is that they must relinquish tankers to leave the Marlbrook plant, control to the pilot. In a situation that and allowed its other factories to mix involves risk, organizations are rarely the crumb into Cadbury products, willing to cede control to a before the company’s lab had community, preferring that the delivered results from the diagnostic organizations’ experts exert their tests, which required up to 29 hours control. For the experts, this makes for completion (Lawrence, 2006 July sense; for the non-experts, it’s often 5). Third, Cadbury had allowed its an outrage. food safety system to become outdated, and thus unreliable, During the first year of the salmonella according to the Food Standards controversy, Cadbury did its best to Agency (Lawrence, 2006 July 4). By maintain control of the situation. It default, these practices shifted the risk controlled the original distribution of for salmonella contamination onto the the contaminated product, and largely unsuspecting consumer while offering controlled its recall. It kept control of clear benefits to Cadbury’s bottom the incriminating test results until the line. Such practices, once revealed to government all but demanded that the non-expert public, tend to increase Cadbury’s private lab identify the community outrage. source of the contaminated sample. It tried to control the decision on how Morally irrelevant or morally much chocolate to recall and how well relevant?—If anyone pushed morality to clean its contaminated factory in to center stage during the salmonella Marlbrook. It sought control over the scare, it was Cadbury, which had long direction of the government’s wrapped itself in its Quaker heritage, investigation. It even attempted to even well after the Quaker influence maintain control of the public had ebbed from its leadership. discourse through its rhetoric, such as Moreover, CEO Todd Stitzer had citied the company’s early assertion that, Cadbury’s Quaker culture as one of the “We found the cause of the problem, reasons he had left the New York law fixed it, and subsequent tests proved firm Lord, Day & Lord to work for the we were completely clear (Vasagar, British chocolate-maker (Marketing 2006).” At every turn, Cadbury’s Today, 2006). attempts to control the situation Yet, when it came time for that culture served only to increase the outrage to step forward and take moral that fueled the controversy. responsibility for a situation its Fair or unfair?—Fairness addresses processes had created, Cadbury the balance between the distribution shirked. At first, Cadbury executives of risk and the distribution of benefit simply denied the possibility that (Sandman 1993). In the Cadbury case, their candy had anything to do with the most glaring lack of fairness is the the outbreak, while knowing full well way Cadbury attempted to externalize that Cadbury’s own diagnostics had its costs to its customers by altering detected the contamination (Sayid, its protocols for managing salmonella 2006). Next, they publicly parried contamination in its chocolate crumb. with regulators over the size of the First, Cadbury chose to save money by recall as well as the details of lowering its testing standards for England’s food standards laws salmonella contamination, thus (Vasagar, 2006; V. Elliot, 2006). Long 34 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 after the Health Protection Agency the government issued public found a “molecular fingerprint” that messages along these lines: directly linked Cadbury to the outbreak (Leake & Walsh, 2006), CEO • “Cadbury’s risk assessment Stitzer dodged responsibility, does not address the risk of apologized only for causing concern, salmonella in chocolate in a and insisted that the company had way that the committee followed UK’s food standards laws in would regard as a modern good faith when Cadbury decided to approach to risk assessment. accept a level of salmonella We can’t rule out the contamination that exceeded zero possibility that other (Daily Mail, 2006 August 3). As products are affected (Levy, Sandman (1993) says, “What makes 2006).” people angry is not the failure to • “There may be achieve zero: It is the casualness with contamination in other which some companies accept that Cadbury products failure.” Worse yet, Cadbury didn’t (Lawrence, 2006 July 1).” simply fail to achieve zero; it very • “We think (Cadbury) made a deliberately chose to accept a level of mistake in assuming there risk higher than zero to save money was a safe level of salmonella on wasted product. in a product like chocolate. Our view is there isn’t Trustworthy or untrustworthy?— (Associated Press, 2006 July From the first day of the crisis, 4).” Cadbury attempted to manage the • “We would want to know the situation by reassuring the British reasons why Cadbury’s risk public through the nation’s mass assessment differs from that media. The company repeatedly cited of the government experts (J. its “rigorous testing process” Johnson, 2006 July 9).” (Birmingham Evening Mail, 2006 June • “No other common brands, 24) based on “sound independent retail outlets, catering chains science” (Lawrence, 2006 July 26). A or single food types were Cadbury spokesperson went as far as identified as common factors to deny any possible connection (Associated Press, 2006 July between the outbreak and the 21).” chocolate (Bulldog Reporter’s Daily • This dynamic points to a Dog, 2006). Moreover, Cadbury recurring theme in suspended its long-standing Sandman’s research: When it sponsorship of a popular television comes to managing outrage, program because the network not all sources of declined to allow the company to information are treated as replace its standard product equal. The playing field in advertisements with reassuring any crisis is asymmetrical, messages about the outbreak and the Sandman says, and tilts recall (Bowery, 2006). toward those who claim that Unfortunately for Cadbury, the the hazard in question is government agencies that police food real, imminent, and safety and public health in the United dangerous. Kingdom refused to co-operate with • “People know the activists’ the company’s reassurances. Instead, warnings are probably exaggerated; they generally

approve of the open and honest regarding the nature exaggeration,” Sandman says of the risk.” “People also know the Responsive or unresponsive?— company’s reassurances are Cadbury CEO Todd Stitzer is probably exaggerated, and conspicuously absent from the public consider that a much more discourse until August 2, forty days serious problem. The after the controversy began, and only asymmetry is built in: then to explain to Cadbury investors Exaggerated warnings are a what effects the chocolate scare might public service, while have on company earnings (Morley, exaggerated reassurances 2006). Instead of assuming are a public disservice leadership for the crisis, he sends a (2010).” succession of relatively minor In Cadbury’s case, the company wasn’t functionaries to deal with the competing for the public’s trust with controversy. This is odd behavior for hyperbolic activists, but rather with someone who claims to put public generally methodical, understated service at the forefront of his thinking, government regulators. In any and who claims to value the concerns situation where the source of a risk is of his customers above all. a huge corporation that is attempting When he finally does take center to defend its brand and its stage, Stitzer often resorts to a series shareholder value, and its opponents of non-denial denials: are underpaid government officials who are charged with looking out for • “… we’ve changed our the public’s welfare, the non-expert processes because we don’t community is far more likely to want consumers to have any believe the government’s experts than possible concern about our the corporation’s spokespeople. The processes and our products result? Every time that Cadbury said (AFX International Focus, “minute traces” and the government 2006).” Translation: The said, “no amount is safe,” Cadbury lost processes have changed to a little more of the public’s trust (The alleviate concern, but not to Grocer, 2006 November 4), thus address any particular inflaming the community outrage it hazard caused by those was attempting to calm. processes. “Even lay persons recognize that overly-certain projections of risks that fail to acknowledge the inherent • “We clearly caused concern uncertainty are simply unrealistic,” to our consumers and we are according to risk communication truly sorry for that (Miller, researchers Timothy L. Sellnow, 2006).” Translation: Cadbury Robert R. Ullmer, Matthew W. Seeger, takes responsibility for and Robert S. Littlefield (2009). “They causing concern, but not for beg the question, how can anyone causing illness among its know for complete certainty how a customers. risk might develop in the future? • “Although we have always These overly certain and reassuring acted in good faith messages also imply that the throughout, we have caused communicator is not being entirely concerns and for that I am extremely sorry (Morley, 36 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018

2006).” Translation: admit (Cadbury) has done anything Whatever Cadbury did, the much wrong (Nixon, 2006).” Indeed, company did with the best of Stitzer’s emotions seem to engage intentions, but it will admit with the crisis only when it threatens to nothing. (This “good faith” Cadbury’s standing within the market, defense gradually such as his response to a Financial supplanted the “hard Times article about an A.C. Nielsen science” defense as it research report that indicated became more and more archrival Mars had surpassed Cadbury evident to all that Cadbury as Britain’s market leader, which had embraced defective Stitzer characterizes as a “totally practices for food safety.) overzealous interpretation (Armitage, • “We’re profiting from those 2006).” learnings, taking them and In addition, there is Cadbury’s oft- applying them to our repeated insistence that the crisis was business going forward so over before it began, such as the early that we can be a bigger, statement by Cadbury’s European stronger business. Our president Matthew Shattock – “We are record stands for itself.” absolutely confident these minute (AFX News, 2007) levels of salmonella would not have Translation: The lessons of made anyone ill (Hayward, 2006)” – the salmonella scare add or its attempts to evade culpability by nothing to Cadbury’s ability blaming regulators for its dilemma, to protect its customers, but such Cadbury’s June 24 statement, rather contribute to future “We have followed the regulations. earnings and shareholder The FSA will have to decide if we need value. a new regulation and we are willing to Again and again, Stitzer turns down work with them on that (V. Elliott, obvious opportunities to provide 2006).” In early 2007, CEO Stitzer leadership, choosing instead to concurred by telling journalists, “Our respond to questions and challenges market share has recovered in the in an unresponsive fashion, fourth quarter and, in particular, over sidestepping meaningful apology, and the Christmas season. (The salmonella inadvertently driving up the outrage outbreak) is not something you’ll hear at every stage. Indeed, the one direct us talking about again (AFX News, apology the company made was to its 2007).” About two months after distributors, not its customers (The Stitzer’s statement, the Birmingham Grocer, 2006 August 5). City Council levied three criminal charges against Cadbury for its role in Stitzer’s measured comments reflect a the salmonella outbreak, thus forcing preoccupation with the investment Cadbury to continue a conversation community, such as his Oct. 26 that Stitzer had unilaterally declared statement that “stressed the to be closed. important of returning confidence in the Cadbury name among British Finally, there is Cadbury’s reluctance consumers in the run up to the crucial to take even the most sensible actions Christmas season (Armitage, 2006).” to protect the public it claimed to care The company’s overall reticence so much about: became so evident that one pundit Cadbury received a lab report referred to it as “a worrying refusal to indicating that it had distributed

37 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 chocolate contaminated with nuts (Revill, 2007). The 2007 recall salmonella, yet waited for five months quickly dropped out of the news cycle before sharing this information with and registered little effect on the the Food Standards Agency (Sayid, company’s share price (AFX News, 2006), and did so only because the 2007 February 20). agency had tracked the source of the Secondary factors—In addition to the outbreak to Cadbury’s doorstep twelve primary factors, Sandman (Derbyshire, 2006). (1993) identifies eight secondary When the agency insisted that factors. These are factors that may Cadbury recall the products, the contribute to community outrage, but company resisted, declaring the candy not as often as the primary factors. Of bars to be “perfectly safe” these eight secondary factors, five (Birmingham Evening Mail, 2006 June appear to apply to the Cadbury case: 24). Vulnerable populations: The public is When health authorities warned the more likely to become outraged if a public about the seriousness of the risk affects the elderly, the very young, contamination, and alerted Britons to the sick, the poor, and the otherwise the growing number of reported cases helpless. During the height of the of salmonella poisoning, Cadbury outbreak, the Health Protection countered by telling the news media: Agency documented twenty-two “Our products are perfectly safe to eat confirmed cases of salmonella and we have no evidence that anyone Montevideo among children younger has been ill from eating them (Wales, than age four, including eight among 2006).” infants (Gray, 2006). Indeed, the agency’s statisticians suspected By any standard, Cadbury was chocolate as the vector because so unresponsive to the demands of its many of the fifty-three documented public. Thus, Cadbury so angered its cases involved children (Leake and regulators that the Foods Standards Walsh, 2006). Moreover, salmonella is Agency dipped into its “fighting fund” known to present a higher threat to to pay for Herefordshire’s local the elderly and to those whose investigation of Cadbury’s criminal immune systems are damaged or culpability (Northedge, 2006). This suppressed (WHO, 2013). extended the controversy well into the next year, produced a public trial that Delayed vs. immediate effects: A risk excoriated Cadbury and its food safety that lies in wait to strike is more likely practices, played havoc with investor to trigger outrage than will an confidence (Guardian Unlimited, immediate threat. By allowing any 2006), and generated a court fine of level of salmonella contamination into £1 million pounds (AFX News, 2007 its chocolate crumb, Cadbury created July 16). a perverse version of the Golden Ticket hunt made famous by the 1971 Cadbury could have avoided all of this motion picture “Willie Wonka and the by simply cooperating with its Chocolate Factory,” with this regulators from the start. As evidence, underlying-if-unintended message: consider how Cadbury responded in “Here are a million chocolate bars, but early 2007, when the company quickly only a select few are contaminated and voluntarily removed from store with a bacteria that will ruin your shelves a large shipment of candy bars fortnight and perhaps send you to an that may have come in contact with emergency room. Have fun, kids!” Is it

38 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 any wonder that outrage soared 2006 and July 24, 2007, according to a among consumers, regulators, Lexis-Nexis search conducted on politicians, and journalists? March 6, 2015, using the search terms “Cadbury and salmonella.” Identifiability of the victim: Statistical victims will trigger less outrage than 2-B. Identifying the stakeholders will a single, easily recognizable Clearly, from the beginning of the victim. On Day 16 of the Cadbury 2006 chocolate scare, Cadbury crisis, a 62-year-old woman from Schweppes took a hardline, winner- Northern Ireland named Catherine take-all approach to managing its Henderson put a human face on the messages to the government, the salmonella outbreak when she began investment community, the talking to the London news media. “I marketplace, the news media, never thought you could get ill like company critics, consumers, and the that from chocolate,” she said. “I didn’t think I would come out alive general British public. In this section, we will consider options that Cadbury (Johnston, 2006).” Schweppes could have explored to Reduction of risk: The public wants to better manage the British public’s eliminate the risk, not merely reduce outrage and avert damage to its it, whenever possible. Throughout the reputation. early stages of the controversy, For example, before the chocolate Cadbury put much effort into scare began, the company could have attempting to reassure the public that avoided the crisis almost entirely its chocolate could not have caused simply by: the outbreak because the amount of detected contamination was “minute” • Maintaining a zero-tolerance (Allen, 2006) The company sent its protocol for salmonella European vice president to deliver contamination in its “reassuring” sound bites, such as: “We chocolate crumb. are absolutely confident these minute • Reporting contamination of levels of salmonella would not have the chocolate crumb at made anyone ill (Hayward, 2006).” Marlbrook immediately to Even if Cadbury had been correct with regulators and seeking its interpretation of food safety guidance from agency science (which is wasn’t), this was the microbiologists. wrong strategy. Non-experts are • Responding promptly and happiest when the experts set their openly to the government’s goal for acceptable risk at zero; requests for information or anything that registers greater than action. zero then tends to trigger outrage. • Recalling any questionable “Reduction might be wiser and more products from store shelves cost-effective,” Sandman says (1994), rapidly, efficiently and “but elimination speaks to the voluntarily. outrage.” However, for the purposes of this Media attention: The media cannot section, let’s begin our analysis on cause community outrage, but it can June 19, 2006, the day on which the amplify existing outrage. The Cadbury Food Standards Agency first case generated 265 non-duplicative approached Cadbury’s private lab for newspaper articles, primarily in the information about a rare strain of United Kingdom, between June 23, salmonella the agency had found in a 39 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 sample that came from the company’s narrowed the field to a Marlbrook plant. At this point in the specific manufacturer. controversy we can make the • The Food Standards Agency following assumptions: is aware of a similar contamination at Marlbrook • Cadbury has altered its in 2002, but has yet to protocols to tolerate what receive formal paperwork the company’s experts about the incident from consider to be “safe levels” of Cadbury (Levy, 2006). salmonella contamination in • The agencies are apparently its chocolate crumb (The unaware of Cadbury’s Press Association, 2007). current protocols for • Cadbury’s Marlbrook salmonella contamination employees are generally (Associated Press, 2006 July aware that salmonella 4; Levy, 2006) or of the contamination has become decision-making process endemic at the plant that led to the distribution of (Britten, 2007). contaminated products • At some level within (Lawrence, 2006 July 5). Cadbury, administrators know that the company has All considered, these points are clearly shipped chocolate candy that pushing Cadbury toward the precipice is contaminated with of a significant public controversy. It is salmonella (V. Elliott, 2006). almost inevitable that the news will • These administrators have create headlines across England. decided that the levels of OK, so it’s June 19, 2006. We are the contamination are in line top executives at Cadbury Schweppes with food safety regulations and we’ve just learned from our and thus pose no threat to private lab that the Food Standards human health (Lawrence, Agency is asking about a sample from 2006 July 5). our Marlbrook plant. The sample has • These administrators believe tested positive for a rare strain, there is no reason to alert salmonella Montevideo. We also know public health authorities that the government is investigating (Sayid, 2006). an outbreak of the illness caused by • Neither Cadbury CEO Todd this pathogen. Obviously, Cadbury is Switzer (Klinger, 2006) nor going to get pulled into a national Chairman Sir John debate on food safety, whether we are Sunderland (Moreley, 2006) guilty or innocent. It’s time to get appears at this point to be moving. With any luck, we have a day aware of these specific or so before the story becomes public. administrative decisions. Our first step is to identify our • Authorities at the Health stakeholders for this dispute. More Protection Agency (Leake specifically, in Peter Sandman’s and Walsh, 2006) and the terminology (2003), who are the Food Standards Agency attentives and who are the fanatics? (Derbyshire, 2006) suspect that a chocolate product is Clearly, the immediate need is to the source of the outbreak, address the stakeholders who are but have not completely most likely to be affected by the outbreak: consumers who may have

40 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 purchased and eaten the they learn that Cadbury made a contaminated chocolate, including deliberate decision to sell the those who have become ill (though contaminated chocolate to the public). not necessarily from having eaten For the purpose of this exercise, we Cadbury products). They will become will focus on messages aimed the primary audiences for our primarily at Cadbury customers, with messages in the days to come, and – the assumption that many of these because our customers are spread messages will also inform other across the width and breadth of significant groups of stakeholders. United Kingdom – our best choice is to These include internal stakeholders, reach them through mass media, with such as employees and managers, as an emphasis on the nation’s well as stakeholders who are vital to newspapers, television and radio. the health of our company, such as Ideally, we would address stakeholders directly and let the news distributors and investors. This also includes external stakeholders, such media report on what we say and do. as the regulators with whom we must However, in the case of a foodborne collaborate over the coming weeks outbreak, we must hope to enlist the and months, as well as food-safety news media as allies in getting crucial experts who not directly connected to information to our customers. For the situation, and policymakers in the immediacy and outreach, there’s no government, especially members of other good choice. Parliament and their advisors. Thus, our initial set of message maps We know from experience that will target customers as our primary Cadbury is held in high regard stakeholders and journalists as our throughout England. Our goal is to primary medium. Customers who leverage that goodwill without frequently or occasionally purchase abusing it. To accomplish this, we Cadbury products are likely to become should follow the example of our attentive to these messages. company’s founders, and work Customers who have consumed diligently through this process in the Cadbury chocolate within the last few best interests of our customers. weeks, or who have also become ill Clearly, the best way to protect with symptoms such as fever, nausea, Cadbury’s shareholders in this and diarrhea – though not necessarily situation is to protect our customers. because of the chocolate – are also This is a rare instance when our likely to become attentive, and corporate responsibility aligns with perhaps fanatical (especially when our social duty.

2-C. Building the message maps Next, we will work through the message-map process using Cadbury’s salmonella outbreak for our source material. Once again, we will assume that today is June 19, 2006, the day when the Food Standards Agency first contacted Cadbury’s private lab for information about the salmonella Montevideo contamination found in a sample from Cadbury’s Marlbrook plant. Time is short. It is clear that this news will break soon across the nation and will affect Cadbury’s reputation, sales revenues, and share prices. However, the company’s first priority should be to assist regulators in containing the outbreak and to help consumers avoid the pathogen or manage the illness, even if the company is certain their products are innocent. In the long run, this is the communications strategy that will best serve the company, its share price, its reputation, and thus its stakeholders. Map 1. The overarching map: What does the public need to know most about this outbreak and recall? The first map puts the focus on the information that stakeholders—specifically British consumers and the public at-large—most need to know about the situation. This is our opportunity to frame the story for the news media. However, we should frame the story from a risk communication perspective (how to help the most people avoid the hazard and to manage their outrage) rather than from a traditional public relations perspective (how to minimize the damage to the company). The good news is that a solid risk communications strategy is almost always our best public relations strategy because it will minimize our unforced errors while mitigating stakeholder outrage toward our company and our brand. The first key message and its supporting messages alert the public to the recall. The second set explains what’s wrong with the candy. The third set gives stakeholders a group of actions to take. The ability to take effective action tends to lower outrage among stakeholders. Map 1. Overarching map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and the British public Question or concern: What does the public need to know most? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 Cadbury is recalling seven The candy may be Please avoid eating any of chocolate products. contaminated with these products. salmonella bacteria. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 They are the chocolate It’s a rare strain known as Return them to your store button Easter Egg and the salmonella Montevideo. for a full refund. Freddo Bar; Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 Dairy Milk bars in caramel, It can cause nausea, For details, please visit our mint, and Turkish delight diarrhea, and other website: Cadbury.co.uk. flavor; digestive problems. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 Dairy Milk 8 Chunk and the Health officials believe our Or call us toll-free at 0-800- 1 kilogram Dairy Milk. candy has caused an 818181 any time. outbreak.

Map 2. The Recall Map: Why are you recalling the product? This map provides an efficient explanation of the circumstances that led to Cadbury’s recall. The first key message and its supporting messages focus on the pathogen. The second set connects the pathogen to the outbreak. The third set is designed to calm stakeholder outrage by detailing how we are cooperating with authorities to end the outbreak. Overall, this map addresses Cadbury’s uncertainty at this point over its culpability while making it clear the company intends to act responsibly by putting public health first. Map 2: The Recall Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: Why are you recalling the product? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 Tests found salmonella in Our chocolate may have We are cooperating fully our chocolate samples. caused an outbreak in with government health England. officials. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 This strain of salmonella There are fifty-three We are recalling seven bacteria is very rare. confirmed cases across Cadbury chocolate products. Britain. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 We are unsure how it There are no reported We are searching for the contaminated our deaths. source of the chocolate. contamination. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 Salmonella endangers Twenty-two cases are with We have suspended children, seniors, and children younger than four. chocolate production. people with low immunity.

Map 3. The Situation Map: How did this happen? In addressing this question, Cadbury should have pleaded stupidity (Sandman, 2001, January 29). How else to explain how one of the world’s leading chocolate-makers failed to understand basic food safety? There is no level of salmonella bacteria that is safe in chocolate. Experts in Britain were dumfounded to learn that Cadbury believed otherwise. So now Cadbury has only two options: It can let the public believe the company is evil and deliberately put the bacteria in its chocolate, or it can admit that it made a serious error in judgment. The first key message and its supporting messages give a brief explanation of events. The second set explains Cadbury’s error. The third set makes it clear that Cadbury understands the error and is working to correct it. Map 3: The Situation Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: How did this happen? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 Health officials believe our We knew some of our We thought the crumb was chocolate crumb started the crumb contained safe to consume. outbreak. salmonella. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 Our Marlbrook plant made We changed our food safety Experts tell us we were the crumb in January. protocols in 2003. wrong to think this. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 We are searching for the These changes allowed for Zero is the only safe level cause of the contamination. minimal contamination. for salmonella in chocolate. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 We are also disinfecting the We thought these changes Experts are helping us Marlbrook plant. followed current food update our protocols. science.

Map 4. The Contamination Map: How did you discover the contamination? This set of messages is designed to unravel a complex situation. The truth is that Cadbury knew the crumb was contaminated when it shipped out the candy. The company had recently revised its food-safety protocols to accept low levels of salmonella contamination on the assumption that the cooking process would deactivate the bacteria. What the company learned from HPA and FSA—and summarily dismissed—was that the bacteria had indeed triggered an outbreak. Rather than fight the obvious, Cadbury would have served itself better by admitting its error and expressing its dismay at learning it had shipped a hazardous product. Map 4: The Contamination Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: How did you discover the contamination? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 We knew some of our We thought the levels were We are horrified to learn chocolate contained safe for consumption. that we were wrong. salmonella bacteria. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 HPA found bacteria in Our private lab told us about We are recalling seven samples from our the government’s concern. chocolate products. Marlbrook plant. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 They were seeking the We have suspended We are reviewing our source of the outbreak. production at our Marlbook protocols with government plant. experts. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 HPA asked FSA to contact We will reopen it when FSA We are thoroughly Cadbury’s private lab. is satisfied. disinfecting our Marlbrook plant.

Map 5. The Pathogen Map: What are the effects of the pathogen and its disease? This map is designed to be purely informational. There are no attempts at self-efficacy or apology. The first set describes the pathogen, the second outlines its effects on people, and the third provides some context on which populations are most at risk. Map 5: The Pathogen Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: What are the effects of the pathogen and its disease? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 The pathogen is called It infects people who England and Wales report salmonella Montevideo. consume contaminated about 12,000 cases of food products. salmonellosis annually. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 HSA says it is a rare strain of Symptoms appear within six Less than 1% lead to death bacteria. to 72 hours. in healthy adults. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 The bacteria contaminate Symptoms generally subside However, children and the food animal products. in fewer than seven days. elderly are at high risk. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 These include dairy-based Symptoms include fever, So are people with products, like chocolate. nausea, diarrhea, cramps, weakened immune and vomiting. systems.

Map 6. The Avoidance Map: What can people do to avoid the pathogen? This map is focused on self-efficacy. That is, giving stakeholders their best available options for avoiding the pathogen and thus the infection. In the case of foodborne illness, the primary option is almost always to avoid consuming the contaminated products. This is handled in the first set of messages. The second set answers the question, “What do I do with the products I’ve purchased?” If we want to manage outrage, we need to provide a simple method for returning purchases and receiving refunds. A contaminated product is a defective product. Consumers deserve to get their money back with minimal hassles. The third set answers the question, “What if I’ve already consumed the product?” These messages provide useful information for those who may be ill. They also help to manage outrage among what hospitals call “the worried well,” those folks who may not have the infection but are highly concerned about the outbreak. Map 6: The Avoidance Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: What can people do to avoid the pathogen? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 For now, avoid eating any Return purchased products If you have eaten the Cadbury chocolate. to your store or contact candy, watch for Cadbury. symptoms. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 We have recalled seven Do this even if you have These include fever, chocolate products. eaten part of the product. nausea, cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 You can find a complete list Look for any products Symptoms usually appear online at Cadbury.co.uk stored at home or your in 12 to 72 hours. office. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 Or call us anytime at 0-800- Please alert your family, If you have symptoms, 818181. friends, co-workers, or please see your doctor. neighbors.

Map 7. The Disease Management Map: What can people do to manage the disease and its symptoms? A companion map to Map 6, this one also focused on giving stakeholders some power over the situation. It’s important to be honest. If the disease is deadly, say so. If it’s not, avoid being overly reassuring. It’s usually wise to attribute this information to food safety experts or public health officials, based on readily available literature. The first set is focused on the relative hazard of the disease. The second set outlines some potential treatments for mild cases. The third set provides details on which populations are most at risk and how they should respond. Map 7: The Disease Management Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: What can people do to manage the disease and its symptoms? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 Salmonellosis rarely leads to Most healthy people Children, seniors, and hospitalization or death. recover without treatment, people with low immunity experts tell us. are at high risk. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 Symptoms of salmonellosis Antibiotics are ineffective High-risk individuals should include fever, cramps, and for typical cases. see a doctor if they suspect nausea. they are ill. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 These usually start within 12 Drink fluids and Hospitalization is likely in to 72 hours after exposure. electrolytes to avoid high-risk cases. dehydration. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 They usually end within four Anti-diarrheals may ease Death occurs in about 3% of to seven days. cramping, but may prolong high-risk cases. the diarrhea.

Map 8. The Future Map: What are you doing to avoid future contamination in your products? This map sets the stage for our next actions as we attempt to remedy the problem and to compensate for our mistake. This is also the map that the lawyers will try most to suppress. Attorneys frequently underestimate the need to win in the court of public opinion, and thus the need to mitigate stakeholder outrage. Cadbury attempted to ignore health officials at the national and local levels. It dismissed media coverage. The company disregarded the concerns of Parliament. In the end, Cadbury was forced to acknowledge its mistakes and to seek forgiveness. The brand would have been better served if Cadbury executives had acted with far less hubris and far more remorse. The first set deals with what we are doing now. The second set is focused on what we are doing in the near term. The third set is a list of specific actions we plan to take. In the end, there is no substitute for effective action if we want to reduce outrage and end the controversy. Map 8: The Future Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: What are you doing to avoid future contamination in your products? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 We are working with We are reviewing our food- We will improve to meet or experts to find the cause. safety protocols. exceed government standards. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 3-1 Supporting information 2-1 The suspected source came We believed the bacteria We will find and fix the from our Marlbrook plant. level in the samples was problem. safe. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 3-2 Supporting information 2-2 Health officials are combing Experts are telling us we We will thoroughly clean the plant to find the were mistaken. our plant under official problem. supervision. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 3-3 Supporting information 2-3 We are shutting down We pledge to follow all We will resume production production at the government protocols from when health officials Marlbrook plant. today onward. approve it.

Map 9. The Make It Right Map: What are you doing to make things right? This final map lets stakeholders know our plan for assisting health officials in their efforts to end the outbreak and for fairly compensating injured stakeholders for any harm we have caused. That’s the easy part. For many executives, the hard part is publicly admitting fault, accepting blame, and apologizing for our role in the outbreak. Yet the process of mitigating outrage among stakeholders is never complete without penance (Sandman, 2001, May 4). Making things right requires that we do more than just sign checks. The first set of messages explains our refund process. The second makes it clear that we are working with health officials to end the outbreak. The third set lets the public know we take responsibility, we are sorry, and we are actively seeking to identify any consumers who were harmed so we work out fair settlements. The emphasis here is to acknowledge our mistakes and to take actions that significantly improve the situation for our stakeholders. Map 9: The Make It Right Map Category of stakeholder: Cadbury customers and British public Question or concern: What are you doing to make thing right? Key message 1 Key message 2 Key message 3 We’re offering a refund for We are working with health We are seeking consumers all returned chocolate officials to end this who were harmed. products. outbreak. Supporting information 1-1 Supporting information 2-1 Supporting information 3-1 This includes partially We are recalling seven We apologize to anyone who consumed products. chocolate products. was made ill. Supporting information 1-2 Supporting information 2-2 Supporting information 3-2 Return the product to the We will safely destroy all We will offer fair and quick store where you bought it. returned products. compensation. Supporting information 1-3 Supporting information 2-3 Supporting information 3-3 Or call us at 0-800-818181 We are working with If you were made ill, please for help. retailers to remove contact us at 0-800-818181. products from shelves.

Section 3: Crafting the preamble The preamble helps us to set the stage for our message maps. We use the Our choice of messenger is crucial to preamble to open either a news successfully delivering our message to conference or a town meeting in our stakeholders. Cadbury chose to which we will discuss the outbreak use lower-level executives to bring and the recall. Such public events are their messages to the news media and crucial to managing stakeholder to the British public. This was a outrage. We must have the courage to massive error in judgment. It answer questions directly from suggested that the company’s top journalists or stakeholders. executives were too busy or too insensible to discuss the situation In addition, a well-crafted preamble with Cadbury’s customers. provides our communications teams with pre-vetted language that that can Selecting the actual spokesperson use in other communications, such as should depend upon his or her ability news releases, backgrounders, open to convey caring and empathy, and letters, advertisements, web sites and not necessarily on expertise and videos. status. We should keep Covello’s research in mind during the selection As an illustration, let’s compose a process: Stakeholders under stress preamble for Cadbury on the day the are far more concerned with issues of company announced its product listening, caring, empathy, honesty recall. We will assume this is for a and openness than they are in news conference. competence and expertise (Covello, To start, let’s consider who should 2003). deliver this preamble and the key For the sake of credibility, the best messages, and then field questions choice would have been a joint news from stakeholders and journalists? In conference featuring top leadership a perfect world, it would be the CEO, from Cadbury Schweppes, the Health Todd Stitzer. However, for the many Protection Agency, and the Food reasons cited earlier, Stitzer clearly is Standards Agency. This would have neither emotionally nor professionally allowed the three organizations to prepared to handle this duty well. The speak from a common set of messages, best available choice is likely the and would have led to far less board chair, Sir John Sunderland, who confusion and consternation in the is more experienced in public news media. It would also have speaking, and has the added quality of signaled to Parliament and to food- actually being British. safety experts that Cadbury was So here’s the preamble that Sir John working with, and not against, its might deliver after he is introduced. regulators. Part 1: The statement of concern We want to deliver the initial information in three stages (Covello, Good morning. As chairman of Cadbury Minamyer & Clayton, 2007): a Schweppes, I want to apologize on statement of concern, followed by a behalf of the entire Cadbury Schweppes statement of intent, followed by a family, and express our deep concern statement of purpose for the event or for the situation we are about to meeting at which we have chosen to describe and any harm it may have deliver our messages. caused.

Our company has a long tradition of detected an outbreak of salmonella in championing food quality in Britain. Britain. We take that tradition seriously. The experts tell us that our chocolate is Unfortunately, if the government’s the source. As a result, we feel it is our experts are right, we have failed moral duty to follow their advice and Cadbury’s tradition, our customers, our recall our chocolate products from employees, and our nation. British stores shelves. You will have every right to be angry Over the next few minutes, I will with us. We should have known better. provide you with the details, as we We should have served you better. understand them. I will then answer We are deeply sorry for any anger you your questions. To assist me, we have may feel toward the Cadbury name. We with us today representatives from the have a duty to live up to that name, and Health Protection Agency and the Food it appears we have failed that duty. Standards Agency. We are saddened and we are humbled Here is what we know right now: by the situation that warrants it. The Cadbury is recalling seven chocolate very idea that we may have allowed the products. The candy may be sale of contaminated chocolate to any contaminated with salmonella customer sickens us to the core. bacteria. Please avoid eating any of these products. The seven products are Part 2: The statement of intent the chocolate button Easter Egg and You have our pledge today that we will the Freddo Bar; Dairy Milk bars in make this right. We will act honestly caramel, mint, and Turkish delight and transparently as we work with the flavor; Dairy Milk 8 Chunk and the 1 government to resolve this situation. kilogram Dairy Milk. The candy may be contaminated with a rare strain known If we are indeed proven to be the actual as salmonella Montevideo. It can cause source of this outbreak, we will nausea, diarrhea, and other digestive establish a fair and just process to problems. Health officials believe our compensate those harmed by it. Even if candy has caused an outbreak. Please we are not proven to be the source, we avoid eating any of these products. pledge to work with government Return them to your store for a full experts to upgrade our food-safety refund. For details, please visit our standards to meet their expectations. website: Cadbury.co.uk. Or call us toll- We will also work closely with national free at 0-800-818181 any time. To and local authorities to follow a repeat our key messages for today: process that allows them to Cadbury is recalling seven chocolate independently measure and monitor products. The candy may be the safety of Cadbury products on contaminated with salmonella behalf of you, the British public. bacteria. Please avoid eating any of these products. It is what you deserve. We are now ready to answer your Part 3: The statement of purpose questions. I am here today to announce that we are recalling seven of our chocolate Note how the preamble flows from the products from across Britain. We do statement of concern, to the statement this at the request of government of intent, to the statement of purpose. experts in food safety, who have Also note how the language allows the

52 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018 speaker to express contrition without actions that would have cut the legally binding Cadbury this early in dispute short and spared the the investigation. Given that Cadbury company’s reputation. already knew that its safety standards Did Cadbury infuse risk would allow some contaminated communication into policy chocolate to enter the British food decisions? system, the smart play is to announce its failure at the same time as its No. The company made a significant recall, instead of letting the bad news change to its food safety protocols dribble out over the coming days, when it decided to accept "minimum weeks, and months. levels" of salmonella bacteria in its chocolate. There is no evidence that Cadbury considered how this change Section 4: Conclusion—An analysis might affect its reputation among based on best practices British consumers or its relationship In this final section, we will analyze with government regulators. Cadbury’s messages and actions Did Cadbury treat risk during the outbreak and recall by communication as a process? using nine best practices for risk communication, as No. From the moment the company outlined in the 2009 book Effective learned that health officials suspected Risk Communication: A Message- its chocolate as the source, Cadbury's Centered Approach, written by approach was to reassure the British four communication scholars: public that its products had played no Timothy Sellnow of the University of role in the outbreak. Oddly, the Kentucky, Robert Ulmer of the company did this while knowing that University of Arkansas, Matthew it had distributed candy products Seeger of Wayne State University, and made from chocolate contaminated Richard Littlefield of North Dakota with the same rare strain of State University. These best practices salmonella as detected in government are based on extensive research and tests. Again and again, Cadbury are designed to lead a risk attempted to end its conversation controversy toward mitigation and with stakeholders by declaring its eventual resolution. products to be "perfectly safe." Again and again, this tactic not only failed For Cadbury, the goal should have but also made the situation worse for been to use a combination of Cadbury. messages and actions to cause their harshest critics to say, “Cadbury has Did Cadbury account for the finally accepted our position and is uncertainty inherent in risk? now on the right path.” Since this No. Indeed, Cadbury acted as if its largely involved raising the company’s products posed zero risk to food-safety standards for salmonella consumers. The company treated its while compensating those who were recall as merely precautionary and injured by the outbreak, while also dismissed the concerns of health expressing the company’s contrition officials and safety experts. From the for having caused the problem, this beginning, Cadbury acted as if knew would have been a relatively small all the answers as well as all the price for Cadbury to pay. questions. Unfortunately, the company’s leadership allowed its ego to avoid the 53 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018

Did Cadbury design messages to be No. Cadbury concealed the fact that culturally sensitive? the company knew it had distributed products made from chocolate crumb No. For almost a year, Cadbury issued contaminated with the same rare messages that served only to infuriate strain of salmonella found by health officials at the national and government testing. local levels and to anger members of the British Parliament. It was as if Did Cadbury meet risk perception Cadbury were a stranger in its own needs by remaining open and land. accessible to the public? Did Cadbury acknowledge diverse No. Cadbury made no attempt to make levels of risk tolerance? itself accessible to anyone other than the investment community. It all but No. Many times over, the company ignored health officials, government insisted that its interpretation of representatives, the news media, events was the correct one, and that injured consumers, outraged anyone who disagreed was either customers, or tort attorneys. misinformed or malicious. It failed to demonstrate any understanding of Did Cadbury collaborate and how non-experts view risk. coordinate about risk with credible information sources? Did Cadbury involve the public in dialogues about risk? No. Cadbury resisted investigation, ignored advice, and fought bitterly No. Cadbury made no effort to with the food-safety officials establish an ongoing dialogue with representing the British public. If concerned stakeholders, other than there was a wrong move to be made, investors and retailers. Cadbury made it. Did Cadbury present risk messages with honesty?

Section 5: Sources $2 million fine for Cadbury. (2007, July 16, 2007). AFX News. 21.7 million pounds of beef recalled. (2007, September 30). CNN.com Retrieved 24 April 2015 from http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/29/meat.recall/ Allen, P. (2006, June 25). Bosses knew Easter eggs could be contaminated; expert attacks Cadbury’s salmonella alert delay. Sunday Mercury (Birmingham). Armitage, J. (2006, Oct. 26). Cadbury hits back at Mars top choc claim. Evening Standard (London), p. 41. Armitage, J. (2006, Oct. 26). UK chocolate lovers regain their taste for Cadbury. Evening Standard (London), p. 31. Authi, J. (2005, June 25). Callers flood choc helpline; Cadbury: Concern grows as agency orders salmonella probe. Birmingham Evening Mail, p. 2. Bainbridge, S. M. (2002). Director primacy: The means and ends of corporate governance. Nw. UL Rev., 97, 547.

Bakan, J. (2012). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Hachette UK. Ball, D. (2002, December 18). Cadbury Deal to Acquire Adams Bolsters Revenue; Pact for Pfizer Candy Unit Leaves Confectioner With Heavy Debt Load. The Wall Street Journal. Barnett, L. (2007, April 24) Cadbury faces salmonella contamination charges. Western Mail, first edition, p. 8. Belson, K. (2007) After Extensive Beef Recall, Topps Goes Out of Business. The New York Times. Birmingham to prosecute Cadbury over salmonella outbreak. (2007, July 13). Local Government Chronicle. Bosses defend reporting delay. (2005, June 26). Birmingham Post, p. 3. Bowery, Joanna. (2006, June 28). Cadbury freezes all ads amid salmonella scare. Marketing, p. 1. Blackhurst, C. (2004). THE MT INTERVIEW: TODD STITZER-The CEO of Cadbury Schweppes may be an American in charge of a British corporation, but he's from a New York family with a social conscience quite in line with the firm's founding Quakers. And he knows how to market, as the author discovers in conversation with him. Management Today, 42. Britain’s Most Admired No. 4: Cadbury, Todd Stitzer. (2009, November 30) Management Today. British Food Safety Agency criticizes Cadbury for salmonella contamination. (2006, July 4), Associated Press Britten, N. (2007, July 14). Cadbury’s deliberately let salmonella into bars. Daily Telegraph (London), p. 9. Brown, T. (2006, Oct. 27). Cadbury sees sales of chocolate melt away. Daily Mail (London), p. 90. Buckland, R. (2006, July 31). Cadbury faces 20 million pound clean-up. Western Daily Press (Bristol), p. 33. Cadbury allowed salmonella in its chocolate bars. (2007, July 14) Western Daily Press (Bristol), p. 4. Cadbury becomes world leader with Adams acquisition. (2002, December 17). ConfectionaryNews.com. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.confectionerynews.com/Manufacturers/Cadbury-becomes-world-leader- with-Adams-acquisition. Cadbury bosses Todd Stitzer and Roger Carr leave after Kraft takeover. (2010, February 3). Evening Standard (London). Cadbury CEO admits unable yet to assess full impact of salmonella scare. (2006, Aug. 2), AFX International Focus. Cadbury chocolate’s PR meltdown. (2006, Dec. 16). The Grocer, p. 34.

Cadbury dismisses talk that more products will need to be recalled. (2006, July 2). AFX News. Cadbury ‘failed to assess’ risk. (2006, July 5). Birmingham Evening Mail, p. 3. Cadbury hikes cost of salmonella food scare to 30 million pounds. (2006, Dec. 12) Agence France Press. Cadbury in court on hygiene charges. (2007, July 3). The Guardian (London). Cadbury named over salmonella outbreak. (2006, July 21). Guardian Unlimited Cadbury pleads guilty to 3 offenses in salmonella contamination. (2007, June 15) Associated Press. Cadbury Schweppes appears in court on food hygiene charges (2007, July 3). Associated Press. Cadbury Schweppes scraps its forecast for profitability. (2006, October 30). The Associated Press. Cadbury Schweppes slips as FTSE hits another high. (2006, Oct. 16). Guardian Unlimited. Cadbury Schweppes withdraws seven chocolate products in salmonella scare. (2006, June 23). AFX News. Cadbury shareholders approve Kraft deal. (2010, February 2) New Zealand Herald. Cadbury talk down salmonella whispers (2006, July 8). Birmingham Post, p. 5 Cadbury to pay out on kid’s salmonella case. (2007, July 14). Derby Evening Telegraph, p. 3. Cadbury warns over salmonella scare as first-half profits jump. (2006, Aug. 2). Agence France Presse. Cadbury writes sweet letters in charm offense on c-stores. (2006, Aug. 5). The Grocer, p. 6. Cadbury’s pulls Coronation St ads. (2006, June 28). Birmingham Post, p. 1. Carmichael, M. (2006, July 1) Cadbury faces meltdown in million-bar product recall. The Grocer, p. 30. Carrell, S. (2005, June 25). Unwrapped; How a leaking pipe poisoned Britain’s favourite chocolate Cadbury denies a cover-up, as millions of chocolate bars are removed from the shelves six months after contamination was detected. Independent on Sunday (London), p. 11. CDC Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html Changes ‘led to Cadbury scare’. (2007, July 13). Birmingham Evening Mail. City Centre Edition, p. 8. Chocolatier faces serious PR crisis in U.K.: Cadbury recalls a million candy bars because of possible salmonella risk. (2005, June 26). Bulldog Reporter’s Daily Dog. Cordes, R. (2006, April 26). Cadbury takes Dr Pepper. Daily Deal/The Deal. 56 www.MessageMaps.org | Copyright 2018

Cost-cutting led to salmonella outbreak, court told. (2007, July 13). The Press Association. Covello, V. (2002). Message Mapping, Risk and Crisis Communication: Invited Paper Presented at the World Health Organization Conference on Bio-terrorism and Risk Communication, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://rcfp.pbworks.com/f/MessageMapping.pdf Covello, V. (2003). Risk and Media Communication (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved April 25, 2016 from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/tools/risk_communication.pdf Covello, V., Minamyer S. & Clayton K. (2007). Effective Risk and Crisis Communication during Water Security Emergencies: Summary Report of EPA Sponsored Message Mapping Workshop. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://www.slideshare.net/patricecloutier/messagemapping-7092499 Covello, V., & Sandman, P. (2001). Risk communication: Evolution and Revolution. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://www.psandman.com/articles/covello.htm Covello, V. (2003). The 33 Most Frequently Used Bridging Statements Employed by Communications Professionals in Media Interviews. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from https://www.adph.org/ALPHTN/assets/322BridgingStatements.pdf Dellheim, C. (1987). The creation of a company culture: Cadburys, 1861-1931.The American historical review, 13-44. Denby, M. (2007, July 17) Cadbury’s hands out. Western Daily Press, p. 4. Derbyshire, D. (2006, June 24). Salmonella scare hits Cadbury’s chocolate; A million bars withdrawn from sale. The Daily Telegraph (London), p. 1. Dezenhall, E. (2014). Glass Jaw: A Manifesto for Defending Fragile Reputations in an Age of Instant Scandal. New York City: Twelve. Dorsey, P. (2006, July 21) Stock Strategist: Ten Stocks for the Next Ten Years. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Elliott, G. (2006, May 20). Master of sorry management. The Australian. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/articles/ausoil12.htm. Elliott, V. (2006, June 24). A million ‘food bug’ chocolate bars taken off shelves. The Times (London), p. 1. Elliott, V. (2006, June 30). Three in hospital after being hit by chocolate bar salmonella bug. The Times (London), p. 19. English, S. (2010, January 19). Boss gets a sweet send-off after chocolate deal goes through. The Evening Standard (London). English, S. (2006, April 26). Cadbury’s pounds 198m bottling deal sparks talk of spin- off. The Independent (London), p. 50. Firm failed to tell authorities about presence of salmonella. (2007, July 17). Derby Evening Telegraph, first edition, p. 2. Finch, J. (2007, March 14) Union anger as American corporate raider takes a bit out of Cadbury Schweppes. The Guardian (London), FINANCIAL section, p. 27.

Finch, J. (2009, November 12) Cadbury’s Todd Stitzer does not believe in sweet surrender. The Guardian (London). FOCUS: Cadbury’s Salmonella scare could cost company over 30 mln stg. (2006, July 6). AFX International Focus. Food safety. (2014, November). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs399/en/ Forsythe, S. (2010). The Microbiology of Safe Food, Second Edition. Chelsea, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. FSA rebuke to Cadbury sparks food sector scare. (2006, July 6). Marketing Week, p. 3. Gray, R. (2006, June 25). Cadbury reputation under threat. Scotland on Sunday (Edinburgh). Harrison, D. (2005, June 25). Cadbury hid salmonellas for months. Sunday Independent (Dublin). Head, B. (1903). The Food of the Gods: A Popular Account of Cocoa. RB Johnson. Hickman, M. (2006, July 22) Cadbury to consider payouts for victims of salmonella outbreak. The Independent (London), p. 6. Hickman, M. (2006, July 5). Cadbury’s plant had suffered salmonella outbreak in 2002 (July 5, 2006), The Independent (London), p. 15. Hickman, M. (2006, Sept. 26) Reveals: watchdog’s poor verdict on Cadbury. Belfast Telegraph. The History of Chocolate. Cadbury UK. https://www.cadbury.co.uk/the-story Retrieved February 18, 2015. Hughes, J. (2006, July 7) Chocolate factory gets deep clean. Western Daily Press (Bristol), p. 2. Hume, M. (2006, June 30). Why Willy Wonka would have been in terror of the Food Standards Agency. The Times (London), p. 25. Jack, L. (2007, March 26) Trusted brands survey; case study – Cadbury. Marketing Week, p. 19. Jameson, A. (2006, January 16). The real-life Willy Wonka savours sweet success at Cadbury Schweppes. The Times (London), p. 46. Jamieson, A. (2006, July 22). Cadbury’s blamed for salmonella outbreak. The Scotsman (Glasgow), p. 20. Jivkov, M. (2006, May 20) Not much fizz in Sch … you know who. The Independent (London), p. 12. Johnson, J. (2005, June 25). Food safety: Recall; Cadbury’s reputation is on the line as it comes under fire for dragging its heels over a hug discovered months ago. The Sunday Herald (Glasgow), p. 14. Johnston, L. (2006, July 9) I’m lucky to be alive, says victim of the chocolate bug. Sunday Express (London), p. 10.

Johnston, L. (2006, July 9) The secrecy that left a bad taste in the mouth and spoilt a reputation. Sunday Express, p 10. Klein, P. (2012, December 28). Three Ways to Secure Your Social License to Operate in 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites /csr/ 2012/12/28/three-ways-to-secure-your-social-license-to-operate-in-2013/. Klinger, P. (2006, February 22). Investors relish profit leap as Cadbury overtakes Mars. The Times (London) p. 44. Klinger, P. (2006, Aug. 3). Cadbury estimates cost of salmonella scare at £20m. The Times (London), p. 45. Korten, D. C. (2010). Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, Inc. Lagorce, A. (2006, Aug. 2). Cadbury takes salmonella hit, but profit triples on disposals. Market Watch. Lampel, K., ed. (2012). Big Bug Book: Handbook of Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins. Washington, D.C.: US Food and Drug Administration. Laurence, B. (2006, Nov. 5) Cadbury makes future sweeter. The Sunday Times (London), p, 17. Laurence, B. and D. Rushe. (2007, March 18) Cadbury. The Sunday Times (London), Business section, p. 5. Lawless, J. (2005, June 25). Cadbury bracing for possible backlash after recalling chocolate over salmonella fears. Associated Press. Lawrence, F. (2006, July 1) Cadbury’s bug may be in 30 more products: Food watchdog testing all sweets containing contaminated ingredient The Guardian (London), p. 1. Lawrence, F. (2006, July 4) Cadbury’s safety checks ‘unreliable’. The Guardian (London), p. 5 Lawrence, F., J. Meikle, J. Vidal and S. Henderson. (2006, July 1) Salmonella outbreak: Poisoned patients and mystery samples – how food detectives traced Cadbury’s bug: Experts still testing more than 30 different products: Poultry dump investigated as possible source. The Guardian (London), p. 7 Lawrence, F. (2006, July 5). Salmonella outbreaks kept secret by Cadbury in 2002. The Guardian (London), p. 3 Lawrence, F. and J. Meikle. (2006, July 7) Scare over salmonella in chocolate widens: Other food firms bought Cadbury’s base ingredient: Company now agrees to clean all production lines. The Guardian (London), p. 5. Leach, A. (2006, July 30). So sorry, says Cadbury chief. Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News. Leake, C. (2005, June 25). Cadbury’s will bury 250 tons of chocolate. The Daily Mail (London), p. 13. Leake, J. and G. Walsh. (2005, June 25). Chocolate bug cases spread. The Sunday Times (London), p. 8.

Levy, Andy. (2006, July 5) Out-of-date salmonella test could extend alert on Cadbury chocolate. Daily Mail (London), p. 2 Lukaszewski, J. (2013). Lukaszewski on Crisis Communication. Brookfield, Conn.: Rothstein Associates Inc. Lukaszewski, J. (July/August/September 1996). Selective Engagement: Powerful Principles for Surviving Corporate Crises. Retrieved April 2, 2015 at http://e911.com/exec/selective_engagement_surviving_corporate_crises.pdf. Lundgren, R. E., & McMakin, A. H. (2013). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. John Wiley & Sons. MacLean, S. (2006, July 22). Cadbury’s bug blame. The Mirror (London), 1 Star Edition, p. 15. Marks, S. (2006, May 10). Cadbury gets in its $50m Stride as talk of a Buffett bid fades. London Evening Standard, p 31. Miller, Robert. (2006, Aug. 2). Salmonella scare to cost Cadbury’s Pounds 20 million. The Evening Standard (London), p. 10. Morgan, Tom. (2006, June 28). Coronation Street deal hit by bug. Western Daily Press (Bristol), p. 2. Morley, C. (2006, Aug. 3). Cadbury in a Rovers return; INDUSTRY: Link with Corrie resumed after salmonella scandal. Birmingham Evening Mail, p. 6. Morley, C. (2006, July 29) Cadbury’s pounds 30 m blow; Huge cost of salmonella crisis is revealed. Birmingham Evening Mail, p. 1. Morley, Chris. (2006, Aug. 2) Cadbury: We are suffering; SALMONELLA: Choc sales plummeting, boss admits. Birmingham Evening Mail, page 6. Murray-Watson, A. (2006, July 16). Salmonella scare diminishes confidence in Cadbury Brand. Sunday Telegraph (London), p. 2. Nayeri, F. (2007, Feb. 12). Cadbury recalls some Easter eggs. International Herald Tribune, p. 14. NCFPD: National Center for Food Protection and Defense (2007; revised 2016). Risk Communicator Training for Food Defense Preparedness, Response & Recovery. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from http://www.foodinsight.org/Risk_Communicator_Training_for_Food_Defense_Prepare dness_Response_Recovery New UK food poisoning figures published. (2014, June 26). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2014/6097/foodpoisoning News Analysis: Recall bites at Cadbury. (2006, Sept. 29). Process Engineering, p. 10. Nixon, Simon. (2006, Aug. 2) A question of trust. Breakingviews.com. Northedge, R. (2006, Aug. 27). Watchdog to fund Cadbury case. Sunday Telegraph (London), p. 2. O’Flanagan, S. (2006, June 30). Sweet PR talk fails to disguise Cadbury fiasco. The Irish Times (Dublin), p. 4.

Pain, S. (2006, Oct. 27) Sales down for Cadbury. Birmingham Post, p. 17. Parry, V. (2006, July 8) Sweet mystery. The Times (London), p. 2. Poison choc firm defiant; Cadbury: Salmonella in January – revealed in June. (2006, June 24). Birmingham Evening Mail, p. 6. Poulter, Sean. (2006, July 3). Cadbury salmonella alert has spread to 30 products. Daily Mail (London), p. 20 Powles, D. (2006, June 30). Danger chocs still on sale. Burton Mail. Pratley, N. (2006, Aug. 3) Viewpoint: Cadbury suffers barely a nibble from salmonella. The Guardian (London), p. 26. Public Health England, "Salmonella Data 2006 to 2015 November 2016." Gov.uk. January 2017. Accessed May 12, 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac hment_data/file/598401/Salmonella_2016_Data.pdf.

Reports of Selected Salmonella Outbreak Investigations. (2014). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks.html Revill, J. (2006, Feb. 12). Protect the brand – and don’t get egg on your face. Birmingham Post, p. 31. Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1997). Marketing Warfare. New York City: McGraw-Hill. Rodgers, S. (2007). Todd Stitzer’s Golden Ticket. Columbia Law School web site. Retrieved February 21, 2015. Roundup: Cadbury launches UK marketing offensive to offset salmonella impact. (2007, Feb. 20). AFX News. Salmonella-scare chocolate to return to British stores. (2006, Aug. 1) Agence France Presse. Salmonella. (2013, May 13). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/general/diagnosis.html. Salmonella Montevideo. (2013, October 20). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/FOODSAFETY/Salmonella Montevideo. Salmonella (non-typhoidal). (2013, August). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs139/en/. Samuel, B. (2000, March 1). The Cadburys: Quaker Social Reformers. Quakerinfo.com. Retrieved Feb 18, 2015. http://www.quakerinfo.com/ quak_cad.shtml. Sandman, P. (2002, October 2002). Accountability. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/account.htm. Sandman, P. (2001, July 14). Advice for President Bartlet: Riding the Seesaw. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/westwing.htm. Sandman, P. (2011, January 2). Components of Outrage and a Sample Outrage Assessment. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from https://vimeo.com/18367074.

Sandman, P. (2004, April 15). Crisis Communication: A Very Quick Introduction. Retrieved June 9, 2016, from http://www.psandman.com/col/crisis.htm. Sandman, P. (2010, June 8). Empathetic Communication in High-Stress Situations. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/ empathy2.htm#no11. Sandman, P. (2011, January 2). First Outrage Management Strategy: Stake out the Middle. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from https://vimeo.com/18373982. Sandman, P. (2013, December 9), Fracking Risk Communications, Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http://www.psandman.com/col/fracking.htm#add-8. Sandman, P. (2005, December 13). Games Risk Communicators Play: Follow-the- Leader, Echo, Donkey, and Seesaw. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/games.htm. Sandman, P. (2006, December 12). Giving Away the Credit: Managing Risk Controversies by Claiming You're Responsive (though maybe not responsible). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/credit.htm. Sandman, P. (2006, April 20). How Safe is Safe Enough: Sharing the Dilemma. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/enough.htm. Sandman, P. (2005, February 21). Laundry List of 50 Outrage Reducers. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/laundry.htm#collaborate. Sandman, P. (1998). Reducing Outrage: Six Principal Strategies. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand42.pdf. Sandman, P. (1993). Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. Fairfax, Va.: American Industrial Hygiene Association. Sandman, P. (2001, May 4). Saying You’re Sorry. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/col/sorry.htm. Sandman, P. (2003, June 12). Stakeholders. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from http://www.psandman.com/col/stakeh.htm. Sandman, P. (2001, January 29). The Stupidity Defense. Retrieved March 26, 2015 from http://www.psandman.com/col/stupid.htm. Sandman, Peter. "Talking about “What Happened”: Post-Event Risk Communication (Part 2)." Industrial Safety and Hygiene News: 26 May 2005. Print. Sandman, P. (2010, December 31). Third Outrage Management Strategy: Acknowledge Current Problems. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from https://vimeo.com/18326386. Sandman, P. (1991), Twelve Principal Outrage Components. Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand58.pdf. Sandman, P. (2012, April 17). Why do so many people still refuse to eat seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/articles/seafood.htm. Sandman, P., and V. Burrow. (2005, June 28). "The Role of Apologizing in Crisis Situations, Organizational Preparedness for Reputational Crises, and How an Apology

Might Have Affected Australia’s AWB Controversy." The Role of Apologizing in Crisis Situations. Accessed June 08, 2016. http://www.psandman.com/articles/busters.htm. Sandman, P. & Vigileos, G. (2010, December 10). Prospects for persuading activists and public health officials to be more honest. Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.psandman.com/gst2010.htm. Sayid, R. (2006, June 24). Why the Delay? Storm Over Five-Month Wait for Chocolates Health Alert. The Daily Mirror (London), p. 10. Sellnow, T. L., R. R. Ulmer, M. W. Seeger, & R. S. Littlefield (2009). Effective risk communication: A message-centered approach. Springer Science & Business Media. Sibun, J. (2010, January 18). Cadbury's Todd Stitzer, the confectioner who dislikes sweet talk. The Daily Telegraph (London). Slovic, P. E. (2000). The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications. Smithers, R. (2007, July 14). Cadbury allowed salmonella in chocolate to save cash, court told. The Guardian (London), Home Pages, p. 4. Springfield College will dedicate new Stitzer YMCA Center. (2011, May 18) Springfield College website. Retrieved February 21, 2015. Stockwatch: Cadbury Schweppes lower, FY pretax before consensus, opinions mixed. (2007, Feb. 20). AFX News. The Story of Cadbury. Cadbury Australia. Retrieved February 21, 2015. https://www.cadbury.com.au/About-Cadbury/The-Story-of-Cadbury.aspx. Stringer, David. (2006, August 2). Cadbury Schweppes says first-half earnings rises despite costs of British product recall. Associated Press. Sun Tzu and S.B. Griffith. (1971). The Art of War. Oxford University Press. Susskind, L. and P. Field (1996). Dealing with an angry public: The mutual gains approach to resolving disputes. Simon and Schuster. Testing increased at salmonella plant. (2006, July 7). Birmingham Evening Mail, p. 3. The truth about the Mars bar statistics (2006, November 4). The Grocer, p. 34. Topps Meat to close down after meat recall (2007, October 5) Associated Press Townsend, A. (2006, July 30). It never rains but it pours; Two corporate giants, two public relations nightmares. But while BA shares rise above the turbulence, Cadbury will need more than sugar to sweeten the City. Independent on Sunday (London), p. 6. U.K. investigators link Cadbury products to 13 salmonella cases. (2006, July 21). The Associated Press Vasagar, J. (2006, June 24). Salmonella scare: Chocolate may have poisoned more than 40: Watchdog says Cadbury’s should have acted earlier: Contamination cause by leak of waste water. The Guardian (London), p. 3. Walaski, P. (2011). Risk and Crisis Communication: Methods and Messages. Wiley. Wales, J. (2006, June 25). Chocs bosses defend bug scare delay. Wales on Sunday (Cardiff), p. 9.

Wallop, H. (2007, March 16). Cadbury seeks sweet success with plans to split. Daily Telegraph (London), City Section, p. 5. Watson, J. (2006, July 17). Eat to Live: Cadbury under microscope. United Press International. Werdigier, J. (2007, March 16) Cadbury plans to separate its drinks and candy units. New York Times, Late Edition Final, Business/Financial section, p. 3. When can food be deemed safe? (2006, July 5). Marketing magazine, p. 15. Wiggens, J. (2010, March 12). The inside story of the Cadbury takeover. FT Magazine. Williams, C. (2007, July 14). After its trial and punishment, Cadbury now faces civil cases. The Grocer, p. 8. Williams, R. (2007, July 27) Cadbury fined £1m for salmonella offenses. The Guardian (London), home pages, p. 5. Woman may sue chocolate maker. (2006, July 11). Belfast News Letter (Northern Ireland), p. 6. END