TL;DR
A corporate crisis rarely starts as a communications crisis, but how leadership responds can determine how quickly reputational damage escalates. Recent South African trust research shows that audiences are increasingly sceptical of the information they receive. Transparency, speed and credibility carry more weight when an organisation is under pressure. Effective crisis communications requires more than issuing a statement. It involves executive counsel, stakeholder communication, media management and careful decision-making while facts are still developing. The organisations best equipped to manage a crisis are usually those that have prepared long before they need to respond.
It’s 7:30 on a Tuesday morning. A journalist has emailed your CEO about an allegation involving the business. A screenshot is circulating internally, someone has posted about the issue on LinkedIn and the leadership WhatsApp group is filling up before anyone has established the complete picture.
This is where the pressure starts. Should the organisation respond immediately? Should the CEO speak? Does the business acknowledge the issue before all the facts are available, or wait until an investigation has taken place?
There is rarely one answer that applies to every situation. The priority is that these decisions are made deliberately and with a clear understanding of their reputational consequences.
This is where crisis communications becomes an executive function rather than simply a PR function. Leadership needs to establish what is known and understand who needs to hear from the organisation. Then, a quick decision needs to be made on how to respond. Communications specialists help turn those decisions into credible messaging while managing media, employees and other stakeholders as the situation develops.
Why Trust Matters when a Crisis Hits
Corporate crises now unfold in an environment where trust is already under significant pressure. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer found that 68% of South Africans are unwilling or hesitant to trust someone whose values, information sources, approach to societal problems or background differs from their own.
The previous year’s findings provide another warning for corporate leadership. Edelman’s 2025 South African research found that between 74% and 78% of respondents worried that business leaders, journalists and government officials deliberately mislead people by saying things they know are false or exaggerated.
For organisations managing a crisis, these figures have a practical consequence. Stakeholders are not necessarily beginning from a position of unquestioning trust. Statements will be scrutinised and inconsistencies identified. Corporate language will be challenged, particularly when information is also circulating through journalists, employees and social media.
Credibility cannot suddenly be manufactured when a crisis begins. It needs to exist beforehand and must be protected throughout the response.
Is It a Crisis or Simply a Bad News Day?
Not every negative headline, unhappy customer or critical social media post constitutes a crisis. The difference has consequences because an excessive corporate response can amplify an issue that may otherwise have remained contained, while underreacting to a genuine reputational threat can allow others to establish the narrative first.
An issue begins moving into crisis territory when it creates a material threat to the organisation’s reputation, people, operations or stakeholder trust.
A negative product review, for example, can usually be managed through normal customer service processes. Hundreds of customers reporting the same product failure is different. A challenging media enquiry may fall within normal media relations, while allegations involving senior leadership, a cyberattack affecting customer information or regulatory action against the business may require immediate escalation.
The more useful question for leadership is whether the issue could materially affect trust in the organisation if it escalates. If the answer is yes, the crisis communications process should begin early enough for leadership to make considered decisions rather than attempting to regain control after the situation has accelerated.
The First 24 Hours of a Crisis: Why Accuracy Comes First
The concept of a “golden hour” is frequently discussed in crisis management, creating the impression that organisations need to respond publicly almost immediately. In reality, the right response depends on the circumstances and the quality of the information available.
South Africa’s news environment moves quickly. An allegation can move from one social media post into WhatsApp groups, online publications, radio discussions and mainstream media within hours. Organisations therefore cannot afford to spend days deciding whether an issue warrants attention.
At the same time, speed should never come at the expense of accuracy. One of the most damaging mistakes a company can make is issuing a definitive statement that subsequently proves incorrect. The organisation then has to manage both the original problem and a credibility issue created by its own response.
The first hours should be used to establish what happened, who is affected, which information can be verified and what remains unknown. Depending on the issue, legal advisers, HR teams, technical specialists or operational leadership may need to contribute before communications decisions are made.
While this happens internally, the communications team should assess what is happening externally. Leadership needs to know whether media enquiries are increasing, what is being said online, whether inaccurate information is spreading and which stakeholders are likely to require communication.
In some situations, a detailed public statement may be appropriate. In others, a short holding statement acknowledging the issue and confirming that further information will follow may provide the organisation with time to establish the facts.
Silence During a Crisis: What 58% of South Africans Assume
The decision not to communicate also carries reputational implications.
Edelman’s 2025 South African brand research found that 58% of respondents would assume a brand was doing nothing or hiding something if it remained silent on pressing societal issues.
The research does not mean every developing corporate issue requires an immediate public statement. It does, however, demonstrate that silence can itself influence how an organisation is perceived.
This is why the decision to speak, wait or issue a holding statement should be made strategically. Executives should weigh what may happen if the organisation comments against what customers, employees and other stakeholders could conclude if it does not.
What Should Executives Do when All the Facts Are Not Yet Available?
One of the most difficult aspects of crisis communications in South Africa is that leadership may need to communicate before an investigation is complete.
Executives understandably want certainty before making public statements. A crisis rarely provides that luxury. Waiting until every detail has been established can create an information vacuum in which employees speculate, journalists find alternative sources and social media constructs its own explanation.
Communicating early means being honest about the limits of what the organisation knows. A credible response can explain what has been confirmed, acknowledge what remains unknown and outline what the business is doing to establish further information.
A recent South African example demonstrates this approach. When Pick n Pay disclosed a data breach involving historical customer information in May 2026, its initial communication explained what it knew at the time, identified what remained under investigation, clarified which current systems were unaffected and provided practical guidance to customers while its forensic investigation continued.
An organisation does not necessarily need every answer before it communicates, but it needs to be transparent about which answers it has.
Your Crisis Communications Plan Should Exist Before Your Crisis Does
Many organisations have sophisticated operational risk frameworks but considerably less developed communications plans for what happens when an operational problem becomes public.
A strong crisis communications plan does not need to predict every possible scenario. Its purpose is to establish how the organisation will make decisions when normal communications processes are no longer sufficient.
Leadership should know who has the authority to activate the crisis team, which executives need to be involved and who will approve external communication. The business should also establish escalation procedures, identify potential spokespeople and determine how verified information will move between operational teams and communications.
Likely scenarios should be considered in advance. Technology businesses may need to prepare for cyber incidents or major service outages, while consumer-facing companies may need plans for product issues or customer safety concerns. Regulated industries will have additional reporting and stakeholder requirements that need to form part of the response.
The circumstances will differ between organisations, but the objective remains the same: establish the decision-making structure before urgency and pressure enter the room.
Has your crisis communications plan been tested under pressure? Hook, Line & Sinker helps leadership teams build crisis plans and rehearse them through scenario exercises before they are needed.
Review your crisis plan with HLS
Who Should Speak During a Corporate Crisis?
There is a common assumption that the CEO should automatically become the public face of any serious corporate crisis. That is not always the best communications decision. The appropriate spokesperson depends on the nature and severity of the issue. There are situations where CEO visibility is essential because employees, customers or investors need to see accountability from the organisation’s most senior leader. In other cases, a technical expert or business unit executive may have greater credibility.
Spokespeople also need preparation. Executives should be comfortable handling difficult questions without becoming defensive, speculating or inadvertently introducing new information into the story. This is why crisis media training should ideally happen before an organisation faces public scrutiny. Preparing a senior executive for their first difficult interview while journalists are already requesting comment introduces unnecessary risk into an already challenging situation.
Media Crisis Management: Working with Journalists
Journalists should not be treated as the enemy during a corporate crisis. They have a responsibility to investigate stories and ask questions, while the organisation has a responsibility to communicate accurately and protect confidential or unverified information.
Effective media crisis management requires enquiries to be centralised so that different parts of the business are not providing contradictory responses. Statements should be factual, and journalists should receive responses within reasonable deadlines wherever possible.
If an answer is not yet available, the organisation should say so rather than speculate. A response explaining that an investigation is underway and verified information will be shared when available is generally more useful than a blanket “no comment”, which can easily be interpreted as evasive.
Existing media relationships also count for more during difficult periods. Organisations that communicate openly and professionally with journalists during normal business operations are better positioned to engage constructively when circumstances become challenging.
Managing Social Media During a Crisis
Social media has fundamentally changed brand reputation management in South Africa. A customer or employee can publish information before an organisation has established that an incident has occurred, while screenshots and commentary can quickly move between platforms and private messaging groups.
Corporate social media accounts do not need to respond to every criticism. In fact, arguing with individual users can amplify the issue and create additional content for others to share.
Social media should function as an intelligence source during a crisis. Communications teams need to monitor what is being said, identify misinformation and understand whether the conversation is growing or beginning to stabilise.
Materially incorrect information may need to be corrected, while legitimate customer questions should be answered where possible. However, strategic decisions about crisis messaging should remain with senior leadership and communications counsel rather than being made reactively in a social media feed.
Internal Crisis Communication: Why Employees Need to Hear First
Employees can be one of the organisation’s most important audiences during a crisis, yet internal communication is frequently overshadowed by the urgency of responding to journalists and customers.
According to Edelman’s 2025 South African research, 78% of respondents trusted their employer to do what is right. The level of trust is a reputational asset when uncertainty is high.
Employees speak to customers and suppliers, interact with professional networks and have their own social media presence. If they do not understand what is happening, they cannot confidently answer even basic questions about the organisation they represent.
Internal communication should therefore form part of the crisis response from the beginning. Employees do not need access to confidential information, but they should receive appropriate information before, or at least alongside, significant external announcements wherever possible.
They should also understand what to do if contacted by journalists and where media enquiries should be directed. Crucially, internal and external messaging need to align. Employees being told one version of events while customers or journalists hear another can quickly undermine trust.
More than 1,000 Cases, 216 Deaths and Consequences Years Later
The 2017–2018 listeriosis outbreak remains one of South Africa’s most sobering examples of how the consequences of a corporate crisis can extend far beyond the initial media cycle.
More than 1,000 confirmed cases of listeriosis were recorded and 216 people died, with the outbreak traced to processed meat produced by Enterprise Foods, which was owned by Tiger Brands at the time.
The human consequences make this far more significant than a corporate reputation case study. However, it also shows leadership teams how long a serious crisis can last.
Years after the outbreak disappeared from daily headlines, the consequences remained. In 2025, Tiger Brands was still dealing with the resulting class action and announced a proposed settlement for qualifying claimants.
A serious crisis can therefore continue through legal processes, search results, stakeholder conversations and future media coverage long after daily public attention has moved elsewhere. For executives, the lesson is that the public lifespan of a crisis and its organisational lifespan are rarely the same.
Reputation Recovery Begins after the Headlines Disappear
The period following a crisis is when reputation management moves from immediate response to longer-term recovery.
Leadership should assess what changed as a result of the incident. Customer confidence may have declined, employees may still have concerns or important stakeholder relationships may require additional attention. Search results and media coverage may also continue connecting the organisation with the original issue.
Recovery should be based on demonstrable action rather than cosmetic reputation repair. If mistakes were made, the organisation needs to show what changed. If processes have been strengthened, those improvements can be communicated where appropriate. Commitments made publicly during the crisis also need to be honoured afterwards.
There is no standard recovery timeline. A contained reputational issue may subside relatively quickly, while an incident involving safety, ethics, leadership or regulatory scrutiny can affect an organisation for years.
When Should You Bring in an External Crisis Communications Agency?
Not every difficult situation requires external crisis PR support. Experienced in-house communications teams can manage many issues effectively, particularly where an organisation already has clear escalation processes and senior communications expertise.
External counsel becomes particularly valuable when an issue is escalating quickly, involves senior leadership, generates significant media interest or places unusual pressure on the internal team.
There is also a strong case for engaging crisis communications specialists before a problem occurs. An external agency can review existing plans, pressure-test likely scenarios, prepare holding statements, train executives and run simulations to identify weaknesses before the organisation is operating under pressure.
During an active crisis, support may include executive counsel, message development, stakeholder communications, media handling, monitoring and spokesperson preparation.
Beyond writing the statement, a crisis communications adviser helps leadership understand how decisions are likely to be interpreted and reduce the risk of communications decisions creating a second problem on top of the first.
Crisis Preparedness Is a Leadership Responsibility
Communications teams can develop frameworks; PR agencies can provide counsel and specialist advisers can assess legal or operational implications. Ultimately, however, leadership owns the organisation’s response. This is why communications needs to be included in the decision-making process early rather than brought in once major decisions have already been made.
Operational decisions themselves communicate something. Closing a facility, removing an executive, compensating customers or changing a policy can all influence how stakeholders understand an organisation’s response. Effective crisis communications helps an organisation make decisions it can credibly explain to the people whose trust it relies on most.
Is Your Organisation Crisis-Ready?
Download the Hook, Line & Sinker Crisis Communications Readiness Checklist, a practical guide to help leadership teams assess whether the right people, processes and communications protocols are in place before an issue escalates.
The most effective time to determine how your organisation will communicate during a crisis is before it faces one.
Frequently Asked Questions
How quickly should a South African company respond to a PR crisis?
There is no universal response time because the seriousness of the issue and availability of verified information will determine the appropriate approach. The internal crisis process should begin immediately, however. Where public attention is increasing before all the facts have been established, an organisation may issue a holding statement acknowledging the situation and confirming that more information will follow. Speed matters, but an inaccurate response can create additional reputational damage.
What should a crisis communications plan include?
A crisis communications plan should establish escalation procedures, decision-making responsibilities, spokesperson protocols and processes for communicating with employees and external stakeholders. It should also identify likely scenarios, establish media and social media procedures and contain current contact information for the people who may need to respond. Importantly, the plan should be tested periodically rather than simply developed and stored.
How much does crisis communications support cost in South Africa?
In South Africa, corporate crisis communications planning and support can start at R80,000, depending on the severity of the situation, the amount of senior counsel required and whether support is needed outside normal working hours. Complex or prolonged crises may cost considerably more.
The appropriate pricing model should be based on the organisation’s risk profile and the level of support required rather than a standard package.
Should we hire an external PR agency or manage a crisis internally?
This depends on the scale of the issue and the experience available inside the organisation. A strong internal communications team may be perfectly capable of managing a contained situation. External support can be particularly useful when the crisis involves senior executives, attracts significant media attention, or places unusual pressure on internal resources. An independent adviser can also provide valuable perspective when leadership teams are very close to the issue.
Should the CEO always respond during a corporate crisis?
No. The most appropriate spokesperson depends on the nature of the issue and the audience that needs reassurance or information. CEO visibility can be important when accountability from senior leadership is expected, while a technical or operational executive may be better suited to detailed questions. The decision should be based on credibility and expertise rather than seniority alone.
How do you rebuild a brand’s reputation after a crisis?
Reputation recovery starts with addressing the reason trust was damaged. Communications can explain what has changed, but it cannot replace meaningful action. Depending on the nature of the crisis, recovery may involve operational changes, leadership communication, employee engagement and sustained media relations. More serious incidents can require a long-term reputation strategy rather than a short campaign designed to generate positive coverage.
Can a crisis communications agency stop negative media coverage?
No credible crisis communications agency can guarantee that negative coverage will stop. Journalists and other stakeholders make independent decisions about what they publish or discuss. The role of crisis communications is to ensure the organisation responds strategically, provides accurate information, manages media engagement professionally and avoids preventable communications mistakes that could further escalate the situation.
Crisis Communications Support in South Africa: Preparing Before the Worst Happens
A serious reputational crisis places leadership in an uncomfortable position. Decisions need to be made quickly, facts may still be emerging, and every statement, delay or leadership action can be interpreted by employees, customers, journalists and other stakeholders.
The statistics throughout this article point to the challenge facing South African organisations. When 68% of people are hesitant to trust those outside their familiar circles, up to 78% worry about being deliberately misled and 58% may interpret silence as inaction or concealment, organisations cannot assume stakeholder trust will survive a crisis automatically.
The difference is often what happens before the first journalist calls. Does leadership know who needs to be in the room? Is there an agreed escalation process? Has the organisation identified who should speak? Can the communications team issue an accurate holding statement quickly? Do employees know where to direct questions? Has anyone tested how the crisis plan works under real pressure?
These are decisions that are considerably easier to make on an ordinary Tuesday than at 7:30 on the Tuesday morning when the crisis arrives.
At HLS, we work alongside leadership teams to prepare for these moments and provide senior crisis communications counsel when they happen. Our work covers crisis planning and scenario preparation, executive counsel, media management and reputation recovery, and our role is to help organisations communicate with clarity when the stakes are at their highest.
A crisis may be impossible to predict. Being unprepared for how you communicate through it is not. If your organisation does not know exactly what would happen if the first crisis call came tomorrow morning, now is the time to find out.
Share to socials:
