Review article
https://doi.org/10.47960/2712-0457.2026.S2.8.128
CRISIS COMMUNICATION IN PR 4.0: NEW CHALLENGES OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL SOCIETY
Ivan Tomić
; University North, Varaždin, Croatia
Luka Martin Tomažič
; Alma Mater Europea University, Maribor, Slovenia
Vladimir Vegar
; University of Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abstract
This paper develops an interpretive model of crisis management within the Public Relations 4.0 (PR 4.0) paradigm. It starts from the proposition that an organizational crisis is not merely an extraordinary event that threatens operations and reputation, but also a disruption of public meanings: it unsettles established explanations of what an organization is, what it is responsible for, and whether it can be trusted. The paper connects established crisis communication theories, particularly Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) and Image Repair Theory, with Meaning Management Theory in public relations. It employs an integrative literature review and a conceptual synthesis of research on crisis communication, digital platforms, algorithmic mediation, artificial intelligence, and organizational sensemaking. The analysis indicates that the digital environment changes the speed, actors, and structure of crises: publics are no longer merely recipients of organizational responses but active interpreters and distributors of crisis narratives; media and platforms determine their visibility; and generative artificial intelligence simultaneously expands monitoring and response capabilities while increasing the risks of automated error, synthetic content, and diluted accountability. The proposed model connects a crisis trigger, interpretive risk, a multivocal arena, Meaning Management Capability, interpretive practices, and ethically valid meaning stabilization. Trust, legitimacy, and reputational resilience are defined as distal outcomes, while truthfulness, transparency, inclusiveness, and corrective action constitute the model’s ethical boundary. The paper contributes by explaining crisis as a conflict of interpretations and by defining stabilization of meaning as a legitimate goal only when it remains open to verification, contestation, and learning.
Keywords
crisis communication; Public Relations 4.0 (PR 4.0); meaning management; artificial intelligence; interpretive stabilization
Hrčak ID:
353042
URI
Publication date:
1.11.2026.
Visits: 0 *