Silence, chaos, and two heads without a single answer. Is this what communication at Pepco looks like?

If anyone still believed that large corporations take the media seriously, the Pepco case effectively dispels that illusion. A journalist preparing a piece on modern management models in Polish companies approached the firm with a simple, factual request for comment. No sensationalism, no thesis, no provocation. He merely wanted to clarify why two people simultaneously hold the identical position of Head of Corporate Communication within the company’s structure, how their responsibilities are divided, and whether this signals a broader organizational model that might in the future extend to other key functions, such as the CFO.

The questions were sent multiple times to the company’s official media address: media.pl@pepco.eu. And this is where a story begins that says more about the company’s communication condition than any corporate report ever could. There was no reply. There still isn’t one. Not even a brief “no comment,” no information about the time needed to prepare a statement, not even a simple acknowledgment of receipt. There is complete silence.

According to available information, the position of Head of Corporate Communication at Pepco is simultaneously held by Katarzyna Wilczewska and Carola Okhuijsen. Which one is responsible for Poland, which for international markets, which for strategy, and which for day-to-day media operations? No one knows. The company did not consider it appropriate to clarify this. It is hard to avoid the impression that the situation is almost grotesque: two people responsible for communication, yet communication with the media does not exist.

Failure to respond to journalists’ questions is not a minor slip or an “oversight in a rush of duties.” It is a fundamental failure of the communications department. In basic business standards, even refusing to comment is a form of communication. Silence, however, is a signal of disregard. And disregarding the media always turns against a company in the long run.

What is particularly striking is that we are talking about a large international retail chain which, by definition, should have well-organized procedures for media contact. If no one is responsible for the mailbox media.pl@pepco.eu, it means complete organizational disorder. If someone is responsible but deliberately ignores inquiries, the situation is even worse. In both cases, the person or persons responsible for handling that address should face serious professional consequences, because the current state of affairs discredits the company.

Let us return to the core issue. Since Pepco cannot explain why it maintains two people in the same position, it is hard to avoid the impression that this is form over substance. One competent, decisive, and accessible person would be entirely sufficient. Two heads of communication who do not communicate are not evidence of a modern management model. They are evidence of chaos.

Pepco may sell cheap products. It may build an image of a company “close to people.” But cheap and sloppy corporate communication is very expensive — above all in reputational terms. Silence in response to simple journalistic questions is a message in itself. And it is a highly unfavorable one.