Putting honesty into crisis communication

Seven years ago the possibility of a ‘Hillsborough law’ was first outlined. It was aimed at ensuring nobody would be in the same position of spending decades trying to get to understand what had happened during disasters. In the time since it was first considered there have been a series of other situations that have added to concerns.  

The Horizon IT inquiry, the infected blood scandal, the Covid Inquiry and there have been others that have highlighted not just the failure of organisations to be open and honest but also that have put the needs of those affected or victims at the bottom of the list of priorities. As someone who puts honesty at the top of the list on crisis communication principles and mentions it in every training session I do, this is a welcome development. But as always the devil will be in the detail. 

The law builds on the duty of candour that has existed in the NHS for some time. Given there have been a number of NHS scandals it feels as though more is going to be required. There needs to be clarity about what it means, who it applies to and what penalties are going to be in place. 

Defensive communications 

Most of all the new duty of candour needs a mindset shift and in some cases cultural change within public sector organisations. (It still seems as though central government and others are not going to be covered by the same duty.) On a regular basis I see organisations leaping to be defensive, to ignore the problem in front of them, to dismiss complaints or issues, and to be more focused on protecting their reputation than dealing with issues. There is a long road ahead. 

The first thing is to be clear that this is about those in charge of organisations recognising they need to put accurate information out no matter how unpalatable. They need to avoid what Professor Lucy Easthope calls the ‘good lie’ where they try to do what they think is for the good of those caught up in emergencies. Bosses are going to have to be clear that they have to share or have a very good reason why it hasn’t happened. 

• Are you forgetting this hidden element of crisis communication? 

Ready to challenge? 

Add to this the challenge for PR and communication teams. They are going to have to be comfortable to challenge those in senior positions when they ask them to do something that is against the new law. It also means being aware of the requirements to ensure they are not breaching it without realising. Despite the fact there are ethical codes for communication it can often be put under pressure when a crisis happens. It is worth remembering there has been a code of ethics in policing for 10 years and there are still problems that develop.  

I have another concern which is that PR and communication professionals may become the target when a breach is identified. In every review or debrief of a crisis situation communication in some form is criticised whether it is not being able to reach other agencies or a lack of transparency about the details of what has happened. This could put PR and communication in the hotseat and as a way of avoiding wider organisational or management responsibility. It is going to be vital to understand the detail and be ready to respond in line with it when a disaster or emergency happens. And as I say a lot when training or discussing crisis communication, log everything that happens, why you release information, why you don’t and what advice you have given even if it is not taken.  

The duty of candour is an opportunity to really put the needs of those affected by crises at the heart of the response and to focus on what their requirements are rather than what the organisation’s requirements are. But it is going to need a change in approach and attitude at all levels, and this is not just the responsibility of communication teams. 

Amanda Coleman is a crisis communication expert and consultant, founder of Amanda Coleman Communication and the author of Crisis Communication Strategies. Read the original post.