This product has already been purchased.
- Crisis communication may begin with management, but when value, trust and organisational integrity are on the line, visible board leadership is essential.
- Early intervention, grounded in rigorous scenario stress testing, limits escalation and strengthens customer engagement.
- Accountability is non-negotiable. When errors occur, prompt, transparent disclosure followed by a clear apology is imperative.
Boards are meant to protect a company’s long-term value, but when a reputational crisis hits, the stakes rise sharply. Decisions made behind the scenes can make all the difference.
In 2023, as the FIFA Women’s World Cup captured global attention and Australians rallied behind the Matildas, a reputational test was unfolding behind the scenes.
A proposed $15 million Visit Saudi sponsorship, put forward by FIFA, triggered immediate backlash from fans, players and governing bodies in co-host nations Australia and New Zealand.
“The tournament significantly increased scrutiny on Football Australia and the proposed sponsorship intensified that pressure,” says Catriona Noble GAICD, non-executive director at Football Australia. “The public questioned why a women’s event would align with a regime criticised for gender discrimination.”
FIFA ultimately withdrew the proposal. But the episode underscores a broader governance reality – in a crisis, the narrative forms quickly and an organisation needs to be ready.
“There is a danger period between an issue becoming known and an organisation responding clearly,” says Noble. “The narrative can be filled quickly by the media and stakeholders drawing their own conclusions.”
John Connolly FAICD, a global specialist in corporate reputation, says boards must now operate at a different tempo.
“With social media, 24/7 news cycles and activist investors, the window for getting the response right has compressed dramatically,” he says. “Boards need to be comfortable authorising communication under uncertainty, anchored in values rather than waiting for complete information.”
For Football Australia, early engagement proved critical. The then CEO, James Johnson, who had previously worked within FIFA, was able to escalate concerns with the association directly.
“Crisis communication starts with management,” says Noble. “Boards shouldn’t default to a public-facing role. But where value, trust and organisational integrity are at stake, board visibility matters.
“Our CEO was an excellent communicator, skilled in balancing the needs of different stakeholders. Rather than be prescriptive with him, we aligned with him around a shared goal – ensuring the sponsorship did not proceed.”
Connolly frames the board’s role in structural terms.
“The boards that protect long-term value in a crisis are those that have done the thinking in advance,” he says. “You need two teams – one managing the crisis and one focused on the organisation’s future position.
“The board sits above both. It’s not running the response, it’s ensuring the right frameworks, people and principles are in place – and exercising judgement about when to step in.
Governance under pressure
Karina Keisler GAICD, former Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at NBN and currently a non-executive director at the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, recalls how the NBN board identified emerging reputational risk in 2017.
“Reported metrics were positive, but customer sentiment told a different story,” she says.
“The ‘BBQ test’ wasn’t holding up and social media channels saw a sharp increase in customer service complaints.”
A cross-functional response was initiated. Marketing activity was paused and key social channels taken offline while underlying service issues were addressed.
“Early intervention prevented escalation into a full crisis and improved customer engagement,” says Keisler.
“In times such as these, boards need to ask the right questions, but should avoid stepping in to solve the problem themselves. It’s important to let management – or external experts – do their job.”
Preparedness, adds Keisler, begins early and is rooted in fundamentals – CEO selection, capability in key roles and organisational culture.
Beyond that, boards should regularly stress test crisis protocols, advises Connolly.
“Ask who has the authority to make what decisions, and at what speed? And make sure the board has access to independent advice, not just management’s interpretation.”
Post-crisis, a review of frameworks is mandatory.
Broadening risk
Connolly says the crisis pattern across companies such as Kohl’s, Primark, Super Retail and BP demonstrates the same failures. “The board found out too late or didn’t act on early warnings.”
After 16 months of defending their CEO Anthony Heraghty against allegations of an affair with a staff member, the Super Retail Group board finally terminated him in 2024, when new information revealed his previous disclosures were “not satisfactory”, reports news.com.
The board’s own investigation in April 2023 claimed allegations were “not substantiated”, yet ASIC interviews as part of their investigation into whistleblower complaints suggested a different reality.
In 2023, BP CEO Bernard Looney was dismissed and denied more than £32 million ($40m) in pay and share awards over “serious misconduct”.
An investigation by the board and its advisers found Looney had knowingly misled his fellow directors regarding his disclosure of past relationships and assurances of future behaviour.
While executive conduct has historically been a persistent source of crisis risk, boards are now also grappling with AI governance, disinformation and cybercrime, says Connolly.
“Whatever the issue, boards must ask, do we have policies in place that require disclosure and mechanisms to detect conflicts before they become public.”
Disclosure discipline
Also shifting is the accountability dynamic.
“Directors themselves are now in the line of fire,” says Connolly.
He points to PwC’s 2025 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, which found 55 per cent of directors believe at least one board colleague should be replaced – the highest level recorded.
“Investors are increasingly willing to attribute responsibility to individuals,” he says. “The expectation now is that a company’s narrative must hold together across all its disclosures over time and, when that coherence breaks, consequences increasingly fall on directors personally.”
Finally, when a crisis hits, speed matters, but so does substance.
“No amount of communication will protect your organisation if the root cause has not been addressed,” says Keisler.
“If an error has been made, early and full disclosure followed by an apology is mandatory, and in the absence of all information, an apology for the current situation will go a long way in maintaining trust.”
Connolly’s advice: “Stakeholders forgive mistakes faster than they forgive evasion.”
Latest news
Already a member?
Login to view this content