Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Science at the Turning Point of History‖ (May 25-27, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Lviv, Ukraine, 2026. - 362 p.

32 the company‘s immediate jurisdiction — such as natural disasters, regulatory changes, or disruptions to its supply chain as a result of armed conflict. Timothy Coombs, a prominent researcher on crisis communication, goes on to differentiate between the victim crisis (the perception of the company as a victim, i.e., natural disasters), accidental crises (unintentional behaviour that negatively affects the brand), and preventable crises (meaning a deliberate act or extreme negligence) [4, p. 103]. This classification provides a direct basis for determining the proportionate PR response strategy, since the attribution of responsibility by stakeholders decisively determines the reputational threat level. 2. Theoretical frameworks for crisis communication There are generally two major theories of crisis communication, Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) and Image Restoration Theory (IRT) that guide present-day crisis PR practices by global corporations. W. Timothy Coombs developed SCCT, which argues that when developing crisis response strategies, the emphasis needed to be on the crises, but the organization must account for the level of responsibility that public members attach [4, p.106]. The theory proposes three types of response clusters: denial strategies (e.g., attacking the accuser, denial), diminishment strategies (e.g., minimization, justification), and rebuild strategies (e.g., compensation, full apology). In SCCT, preventable crises with a high attributed responsibility can require rebuilding strategies; victim crises can lead to denial or informational responses (Table 1).