Crisis Communication in the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal

What is it?

This article explains the crisis communication strategy used by Volkswagen during the Dieselgate scandal, analyzing both official press releases and media coverage. According to Romero-Rodríguez, Torres-Toukoumidis, and Pérez-Rodríguez, the company’s approach reflected more reaction to media framing than adherence to an internal ethical code.

Why is it important?

The main findings indicate that media framing played a dominant role in shaping public opinion, with a strong focus on volitional responsibility. In contrast, Volkswagen’s official communications prioritized damage control and forward-looking narratives rather than moral accountability.

How is it applied?

Understanding this case helps communication professionals plan strategic responses during crises. It also reveals the importance of monitoring public framing and balancing reputation management with ethical responsibility.

The Dieselgate Timeline

The scandal broke on September 18, 2015, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that Volkswagen had installed software to cheat emissions tests in over 11 million diesel vehicles. The news triggered global investigations, massive recalls, executive resignations, and a wave of negative media attention under the hashtag #dieselgate.

Key Strategies in Crisis Framing

The study compares 173 units of information:

• 109 from media outlets in UK, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, and Portugal

• 64 from Volkswagen’s official statements

Using Bowen & Zheng’s (2015) crisis communication model and Semetko & Valkenburg’s (2000) framing analysis, the content was coded into five frames:

1. Responsibility attribution

2. Human interest

3. Conflict

4. Moral/ethical framing

5. Economic impact

Key Findings

Responsibility Attribution

• Media: 35% of content focused on volitional responsibility, blaming Volkswagen and specific executives.

• Volkswagen: Focused entirely on solutions and rebranding efforts, avoiding direct responsibility.

Human Interest

• Media highlighted job losses, emotional narratives, and even movie adaptations.

• Volkswagen used positive messaging and PR collaborations to humanize the brand.

Conflict

• Media emphasized global scope and implicated other automakers.

• Volkswagen statements minimized conflict, spotlighting local executives and community investments.

Moral and Ethical Framing

• Media questioned German manufacturing ethics and corporate integrity.

• Volkswagen barely addressed moral issues, referring to the scandal as “a political and moral disaster” without deeper reflection.

Economic Impact

• Both media and Volkswagen discussed the financial damage.

• Volkswagen downplayed losses, highlighting ongoing sales and market stability.

FAQs

What was Volkswagen’s main communication focus?
Damage control and brand repositioning, not moral responsibility.

How did media shape public perception?
By emphasizing corporate guilt, executive culpability, and broader industry implications.

Was the crisis communication effective?
Only partially. Lack of early accountability prolonged negative media cycles.

Final Thoughts

The Volkswagen Dieselgate case shows that effective crisis communication must go beyond strategic PR. As the authors argue, aligning ethical responsibility with public messaging is essential to maintain brand trust. Media framing can escalate or de-escalate a crisis—so monitoring narrative construction is key for any institution under scrutiny.