Anthonissen Р.F. Crisis communication: practical public relations strategies for reputation management and company survival

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

But industry’s zeal to equate scientific probability with everyday

experiences, while well-intentioned, ultimately proved to be ineffec-

tive. A one in a million risk might seem to be a practical impossibility,

but what if that one in a million cancer risk was my child or me?

Suddenly one in a million didn’t seem like a risk worth taking.

People in the 21st century are not technically illiterate. Children

under the age of 10 all over the world own cell phones, iPods, laptop

computers and other forms of technology – and they know how to use

them. So when it comes to communicating the environmental risks of

industrial operations, people of all ages, incomes and education levels

have come to expect truth, candour, honesty and, at the same time,

clarity. Communicating risk is itself a risky business. So understanding

the proper way to explain those risks to those most affected is essential

in maintaining constructive relationships and partnerships built on

trust, respect and shared interests.

Planning… and being prepared

It’s the oldest piece of advice in business: if you fail to plan you’re

planning to fail. You would think that more business leaders would

have got the message by now.

Being in an industry where an environmental crisis is even a remote

possibility requires that you plan for such a contingency. It’s not altru-

istic or a luxury; it’s simply a responsible business practice. And if

you’re in an industry where such a crisis is not so remote a possibility,

such as electric power, chemical manufacturing or processing, pulp

and paper, or other types of heavy manufacturing, failure to develop

and maintain a crisis communication plan is tantamount to corporate

negligence, just as an airline would be negligent if it failed to have a

crisis plan for the possibility of an air disaster.

However, it’s not enough to simply develop such a crisis plan. A plan

needs regular testing, training, maintenance and revision. It requires

a thorough analysis of all the various crisis scenarios that could occur,

not just those that seem most probable. And it requires the active par-

ticipation of the crisis response team and management personnel who

will inevitably be charged with managing the crisis.

A key distinction should be made between crisis management and

crisis communication. They are separate, but interrelated functions.

Crisis managers are responsible for stabilizing an unpredictable situa-

tion. It’s a lot to also ask them to assume the full burden of communi-

cation while they’re immersed in the operational management of the

crisis. But failure to effectively communicate during times of an envi-

ronmental crisis can compound an already complex and dangerous

116622

Crisis Communication

situation. Hence the need for a separate, but interrelated crisis com-

munications function.

When a crisis hits

Not surprisingly, most managers and executives dread crisis situa-

tions, and for good reason. A crisis is, by definition, any event or situa-

tion that, if left unmanaged, has a high probability of damaging the

reputation or welfare of the organization.

But there is a rare breed of executives who take a different view.

They see a crisis as an extraordinary opportunity. They believe that

every problem is an opportunity to demonstrate just what kind of

people and what kind of organization they really are. It’s true that

crises bring out the character in people and they have a habit of

enabling great leaders to reveal themselves to the rest of us. Moreover,

society judges the character and integrity of an organization by the

way it rises to a challenge. In that respect, a crisis can be a make-or-

break proposition.

Proper planning and preparation for a crisis enable an organization

to seize control of media coverage and better manage the impact on its

brand or reputation. Additionally, planning and skill at managing the

crisis help to manage the financial impact on the organization.

However, the ability to manage a crisis and bring it to a conclusion in a

way that results in a positive impact on the organization’s reputation

hinges on its ability to communicate well. Put another way, it’s seldom

enough to simply manage the crisis. To truly succeed, you have to

manage and communicate equally well. And the lessons from environ-

mental crises over the past few decades have produced a roadmap

from which to develop effective communication strategies.

Take control immediately

The nature of a crisis is such that by the time you first learn about it,

you’re already behind and in a reactive position. It’s critical to respond

immediately and gain control as quickly as possible in the earliest

hours of the crisis. And that certainly includes communication.

The days are long gone when a next-day response in the midst of a

crisis would suffice. We live in an age of instant and constant media.

News breaks within seconds of an incident and is global within a

matter of minutes. Within a couple of hours, wire services will have

filed multiple stories, local media will have picked up the wire service

Environmental Crisis Communications

116633

feeds, filed stories on their websites and local television will be cutting

into regular programming to report breaking news. With that kind of

speed, it’s imperative to be able to begin communicating early so that

you are an integral part of the story and the best source of news and

information for the media, emergency responders, local government,

neighbours and the community, employees and others. The last thing

you want is for all these primary target audiences to be getting their

information from other sources. The only way to control rumour, fear,

panic or the spread of inaccurate or misleading information is for you

to be the declarative source of news and to firmly establish yourself in

that role as soon as possible.

Once you are in a position to begin public communication, don’t

hesitate or delay. Begin the flow of accurate and timely information.

Make sure that you are part of the solution to the crisis and that your

communication reflects that commitment.

A very human tendency is to engage in denial. A crisis is often some-

thing that we’re not prepared for and, when it strikes, it can be too

overwhelming to accept. Hence, we engage in denial or disbelief.

Accept only the facts as you know them, for what they are, and present

them in a business-like and professional manner.

At the same time, however, it’s important to put a human face and

human emotion into public communication. A corporation is an imper-

sonal thing and people are, by nature, mistrustful of the motives and

priorities of businesses, particularly when an environmental crisis is

involved. Regrettably, businesses today are still paying a heavy price for

the legacy left them by the environmental crises of the 1970s and 1980s

in terms of the level of distrust and scepticism in the media and society.

Those affected want to be reassured that there are people on the front

lines of the crisis who care about them, who understand their fears and

concerns, and who will safeguard their interests with great care.

Apologies and the role of senior leadership

The human response should sometimes include an apology – which is

where the tension with attorneys usually begins. Legal counsel will

often argue, and rightly so, that public pronouncements during a crisis

are subject to discovery in litigation and could be very damaging evi-

dence before a jury. Specifically, the concern is that an apology from an

executive could be interpreted as an admission of guilt or responsi-

bility. But this isn’t necessarily so.

A reasonable person could conclude that when the Exxon Valdez ran

aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, some kind of apology

would have been appropriate. After all, here was a 1,000-foot super-

116644

Crisis Communication

tanker with the Exxon corporate logo emblazoned on its hull sitting in

the midst of 10 million gallons of spilled crude oil. At a minimum,

some public measure of remorse for the fishermen whose livelihoods

were most definitely going to be affected would have been viewed as a

common courtesy. Yet there was no public response from Exxon for

nearly a week after the incident.

Ashland Oil Company

In contrast to the Exxon Valdez, an Ashland Oil Company

storage tank on the banks of the Monongahela River near

Pittsburgh suddenly and without warning failed on a January

night in 1988. Immediate speculation centred on the structural

integrity of substandard welds and rivets that might have given

way and caused the accident, sending 4 million gallons of oil

flowing towards Pittsburgh. One effect of this spill was that the

public water supply for the city was cut off for nearly a week.

Ashland chief executive officer John Hall flew to Pittsburgh,

ignored the advice of his legal team who warned against

accepting any liability for what might prove to be a subcon-

tractor’s faulty work, marched up to a group of reporters gath-

ered at the airport and apologized to the people of Pittsburgh for

the environmental impact this accident was going to have on

their lives in the days ahead. The net result was nominal legal

claims and fines levied against the company. But equally impor-

tant is the fact that to this day, John Hall is revered as a hero in

Pittsburgh for his leadership and courage in facing the commu-

nity, accepting responsibility for his company’s operations, and

demonstrating his commitment to ‘do the right thing’.

It’s perfectly reasonable to be mindful of the legal concern that an

apology could be interpreted as an admission of liability. But corpora-

tions that depend on the reputation of their brand for survival must be

concerned not only with a court of law, but the court of public opinion.

Legal liability certainly does matter, but so does the company’s image,

the perceptions of its customers and shareholders, the opinion of regu-

lators and elected officials, the value of the company’s brand, and its rep-

utation as a responsible steward of the environment. For these reasons,

senior management must play an active role in decision making in an

environmental crisis, because it’s senior management who will have to

deal with the residual consequences of a failed crisis response.

Environmental Crisis Communications

116655

There is no culpability in apologizing for the inconvenience, the dis-

ruption to daily life, the perceived threat to the environment, or other

similar aspects of a crisis in cases like this. We’d expect nothing less

from our neighbour if his or her tree fell on our property. An apology

doesn’t excuse legal or moral responsibility, but it demonstrates a

human quality and a commitment to ‘do the right thing’ that will help

preserve the value of the brand long after the crisis has passed.

There is evidence that demonstrating concern from the highest

levels of the organization isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also good

business. On average, public companies with a reputation for being

‘ethical’ or that are known for their corporate social responsibility out-

perform the Dow Jones Industrial Average five to one over a 30-year

period. The business case doesn’t get much more compelling than that.

Set communication priorities

As important as it is to disseminate information to the news media,

there are other target audiences whose need to know should prevail

and take higher priority. In an environmental crisis, those people

directly affected or impacted have the greatest need to receive infor-

mation first. These are often victims whose health, safety, personal

property or livelihoods are potentially at risk. They are most often the

people who live closest to the facility, employees, or those who have

close contact with your operations. Along with them are local emer-

gency responders and other public authorities who are responsible for

public safety and who rely on you for information.

A second tier of priority audiences are those indirectly affected by

the crisis. These include other members of the community or neigh-

bourhood, employees who might not have been onsite, customers,

regulators, elected officials and local government departments.

Within this hierarchy, the news media is last. The public’s need to

know takes a back seat to public safety in this regard and while swift

and timely communication to the news media is certainly critical, it is

subordinate to those who you will depend on for help in times of crisis.

Managing a crisis and communicating within this framework of pri-

orities illustrates once again the essential need for planning, prepara-

tion and training well in advance of a crisis.

Adopt an open, responsible public position

There’s an old saying among real estate professionals that the three

most important considerations in buying or selling a home are ‘loca-

tion, location and location’. The same idea applies to environmental

116666

Crisis Communication

crisis communications, but here the three most important considera-

tions are ‘concern, concern and concern’. Communicating your orga-

nization’s genuine concern for public safety, environmental quality

and the needs of those impacted by a crisis is essential to being viewed

as a legitimate part of the solution, a true community partner, and an

organization with real value associated with its brand.

Cooperate fully with local emergency responders, law enforcement

and environmental regulators. Provide full round-the-clock assistance

and support whenever and wherever it is needed. Update the news

media on a regular basis. In fact, it’s often helpful if you establish a

regular interval for media briefings. Then stick to that schedule so that

the media can easily predict when to expect new information from you.

Disclose new information promptly as it becomes available – but a

cardinal rule is to only disclose the facts, without interpretation or

speculation. Facts have a way of revealing themselves in bits and

pieces, and what may look like the possible cause of an environmental

accident on the basis of one set of facts may easily prove false hours

later with the disclosure of additional facts. Meanwhile, you will have

lost at least some of your credibility as a source of reliable information

for the media.

If there’s bad news, make sure it comes from you

Although there are exceptions to this, the experience in most environ-

mental crises has been that if there’s bad news to tell, it’s most often

better for that news to come from your organization rather than from

another source, or worse, to withhold such information in the hope

that it won’t ever be disclosed.

You will always have greater control over the public disclosure of

bad news if it comes from you. To be placed in a reactive position with

bad news undermines your credibility and shifts the benefit of the

doubt away from you because it will appear that you are attempting to

conceal negative information. As recent examples, such as the

Merck/Vioxx case in 2004 illustrate, the ethical and responsible course

of action is to reveal to the public that which the public should know,

even if nobody asks and even if you’re not legally obliged.

Little things can kill you

Environmental crises are breeding grounds for communication prob-

lems and even the smallest and most trivial misstep can result in an

unwanted turning point in the management of news coverage of the

crisis. As in almost any crisis, it’s important to keep the number of

Environmental Crisis Communications

116677

spokespeople to a minimum. Having too many voices speaking on

behalf of the organization inevitably results in errors or omissions of

fact, differences in judgement or understanding, or communication

styles.

Confusion within the organization, usually caused by a breakdown

or disruption in internal communication or lack of a clearly-defined

chain of command, wreaks havoc with the efficient flow of accurate

information through the organization and out to those who need to

know. This can include the power struggle between communicators

and legal counsel over what information can or should be disclosed,

illustrating once again the need for effective planning and preparation

well in advance.

Never, under any circumstance, accept rumoured or unconfirmed

information as a premise of fact. As the old adage goes, ‘garbage in,

garbage out’, and responding to a reporter’s question based on

rumour or a misleading premise is sure to contribute to the level of

confusion or proliferation of inaccurate information.

Conclusion

Industry has made great strides in voluntarily adopting environ-

mental stewardship as a way of doing business, and experience has

shown that this new era of stewardship has been good for business and

for the environment. The challenge going forward is to encourage all

businesses – including those that are small, privately-held or are family

businesses, or which don’t have significant brand value, and even

those which are not historically considered vulnerable to environ-

mental crises – to follow a similar management model. The economics

of compliance and the impact on corporate reputation can often be a

very different equation in such cases, but the impact of an environ-

mental crisis involving such companies looms just as large.

It’s up to a new generation of managers, executives and owners to

embrace environmental stewardship and crisis management in every

corner of the business world. In that same way, it’s up to communica-

tion professionals to help these organizations adapt to the way people

in a 21st century society receive and interpret information about their

local environment.

116688

Crisis Communication

Crisis

communication

and the net

Is it just about responding

faster… or do we need to

learn a new game?

Roger Bridgeman (United States)

Introduction

The internet is accelerating the pace and scope of crises faster than

ever before. A story, a rumour, a piece of information posted by a dis-

gruntled employee becomes a ‘fact’ as fast as someone hits the ‘send’

button.

Yet, more than just a faster channel for information, the internet is a

different kind of medium that is realigning the role and influence of

the media, institutions and corporations, while empowering new

activists and even the average citizen sitting in front of their personal

computer. Today’s Web 2.0 is connecting people and ideas in new

ways. It’s shutting down printing presses and making anyone with a

Blackberry or video cell phone a new citizen journalist. It empowers

even the smallest interest group to take on a global corporation.

The pace and reach of the media have always set the scope and

severity of the crises that face organizations and corporations.

Companies used to have a day, sometimes even a week, to respond to

what the public were reading in their morning papers. Even then, the

story might be restricted to the paper’s circulation. Television acceler-

116699

117700

Crisis Communication

ated that pace, bringing news and events into millions of homes with

stark and often emotion-laden images.

So today, with the pervasiveness of the internet, with people

accessing information 24/7, and with the web as a global source of news

and information, is crisis communication facing a new set of chal-

lenges? Or are these just the same crisis management issues we’ve

always faced, just moving faster?

Well, certainly the internet accelerates the pace and scope of crises

faster than ever before. Yet, the internet is more than just a faster

channel for information. It’s a different kind of medium that is

realigning the role and influence of the media, institutions and corpo-

rations, while empowering the average citizen with a computer. The

internet is the first medium that promotes a new kind of interactive

communication, sharing and collaboration. While the web of 15 years

ago was all about sending and accessing vast amounts of information,

today’s Web 2.0 is about collaboration. It’s about connecting people

and ideas in new ways. While experienced crisis communication pro-

fessionals can still apply their well-learnt principles of quick response

and corporate transparency, the internet is changing the game. It’s

creating risk, challenges and opportunities for the public relations

counsellor.

The nature of the net… fast, expansive,

inclusive and a great leveller

There are certainly aspects of the web that challenge traditional crisis

communication models for the public relations professional. The

internet is an instant information medium that cuts both ways. A

rumour, news story, changing stock price or new research all hit the

web instantly, fuelling an immediate crisis with little time to respond.

Or the net can be a real-time conduit for a corporate response.

The net is also a content- and media-rich channel. We get informa-

tion from pictures, YouTube-posted videos, satellite images of our

homes and friends’ postings on MySpace. These new media have the

power to convey stories in more engaging ways than printed pages.

Public relations professionals are learning that responding on the web

with just a press release and fact sheet doesn’t work anymore. Savvy

companies are responding with web-rich content such as blogs, pod-

casts, RSS feeds, video and links to meaningful resources.

The internet also connects people and ideas in new ways. It creates

relationships and interdependencies between people and organiza-

tions that didn’t exist before. Perhaps most important, the internet

empowers and enlarges a company’s stakeholder base, including

interest and activist groups.

The internet is also a great ‘information and authority leveller’. On

the net everyone is an expert, their credibility isn’t scrutinized and

their resources are ‘virtually’ unlimited. While this may empower a

host of new ‘authorities’, it creates a challenge for PR people as the

sources of facts or rumours are anonymous and people’s identities are

easily cloaked. There’s a caption to a New Yorker Magazine cartoon

showing a dog sitting in front of a computer: ‘On the internet, no one

knows you’re a dog.’

New medium, new risks

Our networked society, where our personal lives and business enter-

prises depend on being ‘connected’, is creating a new generation of

risks that public affairs people couldn’t imagine until very recently.

Terms like ‘hacking’ and ‘denial of service attacks’ didn’t exist a decade

ago. Yet hackers who can shut down not just a website but a company’s

entire business enterprise represent a major new risk for today’s cor-

poration. Ask consumers what their major fear or concern about tech-

nology and big business is, and chances are they’ll answer ‘privacy’ or

‘identity theft’.

Internal e-mail and company data, usually innocuous, create new

challenges. The old adage that ‘anything on paper is public informa-

tion’ is amplified when employees are connected on the web eight

hours a day. What we assumed was ‘company-only’ is now fodder for

public debate. Even the company Christmas party innocently posted

on YouTube might raise the ire of stakeholders vital to a company’s

business interest.

Companies are also vulnerable to copycat sites that mimic customer-

facing corporate websites, posted by hackers or rouge stakeholder

groups who use this technique to discredit corporations or disrupt

their business. The ease with which outside groups can post and

promote disinformation, and the inability of companies to locate and

repudiate that information, create new challenges for PR managers in

the new web-enabled society.

Today bloggers are the new investigative reporters. Companies

don’t fear the camera crew at the front gate as much as a blogger

posting insider information, a whistle-blower’s allegations, non-attrib-

uted accusations, or the unleashing of unsubstantiated rumours.

Bloggers don’t operate under the same standards as print journalists

Crisis Communication and the Net

117711