INTRODUCTION Jack in the Box is an American fast food restaurant first opened in San Diego, California, in 1951. Its owner, Robert Peterson, was a businessman who already operated other restaurants as well as a food manufacturing plant that later became Foodmaker Inc., the parent company of Jack in the Box. An investment group converted Jack in the Box into a private company in 1988, but it went public again in 1992 (JackInTheBoxInc.com, 2013). A year later, a devastating incident occurred that shook the entire company. On January 13, 1993, there were an unusual number of children being treated for E. coli infection in the Seattle area. Jack in the Box was soon held responsible by the Washington State Department of Health for the illnesses and deaths of three children. As soon as CEO Robert Nungent was made aware of the crisis, he took a number of steps to appropriately assess and manage the situation. His actions were a damaging aspect of how Jack in the Box recovered from such a damaging experience. Numerous communication strategies were used to transform the crisis into a resolved conflict. The company also assessed the needs of each stakeholder and took responsibility for meeting them. Jack in the Box has taken a very proactive approach in handling the issues at hand. In the following analysis, I will focus on the problems that occurred, how they were/could have been resolved, the stakeholders involved and how crises can affect ANALYSIS Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) is a situation where a company goes beyond compliance and engages in “actions that appear to advance social good, beyond the interests of the company and what is required by law” (McWilliams, Siegel & Wright, 2006). ..... middle of paper ...... and rebuild trust with those involved in the crisis. Another piece of advice I would give is to actually have a plan on how to resolve the situation. Additionally, it is important to take steps to appease those who lost something during the disaster. If the seven questions that are part of the Texas Instruments framework were used in the decision making process, I believe the actual decisions would generally have been made the same. When Nungent decided to pay patients' hospital bills, the action was legal and very much in line with the company's values. It was not an action that would make him feel guilty and, had it appeared in the newspaper, it would have made him appear sincere in his concern for the victims. It wasn't a bad decision to make, and the fact that they offered to pay for those who sought legal action as well as those who didn't was a very strong thing to do..