USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Eric Wachter, Jeff McAndrews, Kelly Kimberly and Nedra Pickler, FGS Global
risk, and the tactic has already been deployed in attacks against several major businesses. The increasing scale of attacks and the emergence of new threat actors are making it increasingly difficult to predict future behaviour. On the other hand, companies and their information security teams are also harnessing the benefits of AI- enabled threat detection and response to better protect their organisations and data. These pro- cesses can include AI tools to measure public sentiment regarding an attack and leveraging these insights to inform the organisation’s com- munications response to a cybersecurity crisis. Managing Crises and Reputational Risk in Today’s Environment As has been seen, reputational and operational risks are everywhere, emerging from disrup- tive and ever-shifting politics, public policy and economic conditions, as well as growing anxi- ety around contentious issues like geopolitics, immigration, war, and diversity and inclusion. We are living in a polarised society where trust has eroded in government, media and other social institutions that previously have been among the most respected and influential – even revered. Companies are increasingly being called on to speak to – or even to lead on – issues and events that may or may not directly impact them or their operations, but could affect their stakeholders, whether they want to or not. This is all in addition to the traditional operational incidents; health, safety, environmental, customer relations or labour issues; litigation; government investiga- tions; regulatory actions; or business conflicts that have the potential to knock an organisation off course. Crises come in all shapes and sizes and can stem from any one or a combination of these factors.
Whether public or private, companies and other organisations are entrenched in the fabric of society. Each of their decisions and actions will affect the people who invest in, buy from, work for, are served by, or essentially license their operations – in other words, nearly everyone. When an incident happens or an issue arises, all of these stakeholders look to the organisa- tion for the “right” response. They want prompt reassurance that the organisation recognises the issue, is truthful, is competently managing it, and will solve the problem. They also want to know that the brand they patronise shares their values. The conclusions that stakeholders draw from an organisation’s response to a crisis will directly impact the organisation’s reputation, oftentimes even more so than the nature or details of the crisis itself. In this time of uncertainty and polarisation, the best defences are preparation and co-ordination. Some types of crises are foreseeable, based on the nature of an organisation’s operations and where and how they operate, even if the likeli- hood may be low or the timing unclear. Others are a true surprise – or “black swan” event. The key for organisations is not to try to predict the future with specificity, but to prepare by con- sidering in a systematic way all relevant fac- tors, variables and potential scenarios. It is also important for companies and organisations to recognise when a matter appears to be a crisis but, in fact, is not a crisis. In this instance it is important not to “pour fuel on one’s own fire” and over-respond when a situation feels dire, ultimately, and inadvertently, causing more harm than good. Given the numerous evolving factors that must be considered when determining a crisis response strategy, it is important for organisa- tions to prepare detailed communications plans
169 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook