A Framing Analysis of Dangote Group’s Press Releases Deployed During the 2020–2025 Organisational Crises

Abstract

Crisis texts do more than report events. They tell publics what the problem is, who caused it, how to judge it and what should happen next. This article applies Entman’s framing theory to one question: what framing types and patterns characterise the press releases Dangote Group issued during its 2020 to 2025 organisational crises? The Group is Africa’s largest industrial conglomerate. Its crises spanned a pandemic, regulatory disputes, rival attacks and a labour confrontation. Critical case sampling produced ten press releases from a population of twelve. This study identified six frame types and traced Entman’s four framing functions through ten excerpts. Three clear patterns emerged. First, no release carried an apologetic frame, because no causal interpretation ever located the cause of a crisis in the Group’s own conduct. Second, frame intensity tracked the identity of the accuser rather than the seriousness of the charge. Unattributed reports drew plain denial and state agencies drew defensive frames with procedural victimhood. Named individuals and rival associations drew personal moral accusation, and organised labour drew national interest frames couched in the language of national security. This paper calls this pattern adversary-contingent framing. Third, the national interest frame worked as a master frame across all four crisis categories, and the treatment recommendations repeatedly placed the remedy with the state or the public. The study shows how a market-dominant firm uses all four framing functions to keep responsibility away from itself.