By Ray Hennessey

Salad has never been my jam, but, like everyone else, I’ve been watching the national cyclospora outbreak closely and using it to justify not eating healthy (after all, truffle fries never hurt anyone, right?)

But, in addition to personal fascination, the whole incident was for me a timely reminder of a fundamental truth about crisis communications: stakeholders pay far more attention to what people or companies do than to what they say.

As the outbreak unfolded, public health investigators linked illnesses in five states to shredded iceberg lettuce served at Taco Bell locations. Federal officials and public-health agencies traced the issue to lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms de Mexico, leading to recalls and widespread media coverage (including the expected social media snark).

What makes this episode particularly interesting from a reputation-management perspective is that it highlights two very different communications approaches.

Taco Bell moved quickly. The company announced it had removed the implicated lettuce from its restaurants and replaced the product. It framed the issue as a shared public-health responsibility and focused on the actions it was taking to protect customers.

Taylor Farms, meanwhile, found itself reacting to a narrative that was being driven largely by regulators and the media. Later, the company received welcome news when the FDA acknowledged that a laboratory test that had initially indicated contamination was, in fact, a false positive. Taylor Farms understandably highlighted that development. Yet regulators simultaneously emphasized that the overall epidemiological evidence supporting the recall remained unchanged.

That creates an important crisis-management lesson for all types of companies. Many organizations instinctively view a crisis as a fact problem. If the facts can be clarified, corrected or defended, the problem is solved.

Truth is, though crises are rarely about facts alone. They mostly are about trust.

Customers, employees, investors and the public typically ask three questions:

1. Are you taking this seriously?
2. Are you protecting people?
3. What happens next?

Notice that none of those questions begins with, “Whose fault was it?”

That question matters eventually. But it’s never the first question stakeholders ask.

The organizations that emerge strongest from crises are often the ones that recognize this distinction early. They understand that empathy, transparency and visible action create confidence while the investigations are still going on.

Too many companies make the opposite mistake. They become consumed with defending themselves before demonstrating concern for those affected. They focus on proving they’re right rather than proving they’re responsible.

That’s a losing strategy. In today’s information environment, stakeholders rarely reward organizations for winning technical arguments. They reward organizations that reduce uncertainty and put people first.

The larger lesson from the lettuce outbreak is one that applies far beyond food safety.

Whether the issue involves a product recall, cybersecurity incident, executive controversy or regulatory action, reputation is shaped less by the crisis itself than by the response. The companies that move decisively earn the benefit of the doubt. The companies that begin by arguing often spend years trying to win it back.

We are a nation of second chances, and audiences, investors, and consumers will come back to a brand once they re-establish trust. But Trust is built through action. Communication simply makes that action visible.