In a Crisis, Silence Is the Worst Option

To address a corporate reputation crisis, the first step is to respect the "back-of-the-envelope rule:" launch a communication plan that expresses clarity in a timely manner, contextualizing the crisis and even anticipating any admissions of responsibility. But the important thing is that messages be precise, understandable by everyone and short enough to be summarized, at least metaphorically, on the back of an envelope. "Failing to speak, to provide explanations, or offering them in a standardized or limited way, is not forward-looking," warns Giovanni Sanfelice di Monteforte, co-founder and CEO of Tancredi Group, an international advisory firm specializing in corporate communications and institutional affairs in the financial sector, supporting listed companies, institutional funds and even high-profile individuals. "The role of communication is to provide clarity, to avoid conflicting interpretations or distorted reconstructions. Therefore, it's important to understand who to start engaging with. How clear one is in the early stages will ultimately determine how much one can reduce their media exposure," adds the Bocconi alumnus, who holds a degree in Economics of Public Administration and International Institutions (CLAPI).

This approach to corporate reputational crises highlights the importance of being prepared ahead of time and keeping in mind, if necessary, all the steps to follow, given that timing is crucial...

Institutional investors now react in microseconds. However, it's true that individual savers behave less quickly, but they usually require responses on multiple fronts. If the reputational crisis is significant, it's best for a company's CEO to speak publicly. They are the one dictating the company's direction. Additionally, other corporate figures can contribute to communications, each with their own relevant stakeholders.

But how long can such a crisis last, in the quick-churn age of digital and social media?

We can't make a priori estimates, but we can understand how a crisis is progressing through careful, comprehensive monitoring of both economic and psychological indicators at the level of public sentiment, considering the overall response and behavior of institutions, individuals, the markets, and traditional and digital media. Moreover, it's another rule of the communicator's profession: the more thorough and more timely a company is in providing explanations, the less room the media will have to go beyond the official version and chase after an alternative version of the facts.

What is the long-term vision then?

If anything, I'd say that rather than wondering how long a reputational crisis can last these days, I should point out that the real goal is to ensure that the case at hand doesn't become synonymous with a crisis. It's a multi-step process, where you might have to say, "we're committed to providing further explanations" to dispel all doubts, even those of unconvinced interlocutors. My advice is also to never forget the importance of explaining how you intend to pay remedy to the crisis, allocating dedicated budgets and setting clear goals that need to be achieved.

Don’t you ever have the right to be forgotten?

Everyone has the right not to be stigmatized because of a crisis. Especially if measures have been implemented to combat and resolve the problem, which may also involve employees, suppliers, investors and other stakeholders. A crisis should never become the cause of everything, so it's important to open discussions with all stakeholders, from internal communications to institutional relations, from suppliers to customers. Dealing with everyone on the same level. This not only helps a company emerge from the crisis, but it also provides an opportunity to strengthen its overall reputation and positioning.