Department of Research, Strategic Studies and International Relations 15-12-2025

In today’s interconnected and unpredictable world, no government, corporation, or public institution is immune to crisis. Natural disasters, cyber-attacks, economic shocks, public scandals, and misinformation campaigns can emerge suddenly, threatening stability, credibility, and public confidence. For leaders, particularly in the Global South, where governance systems often face chronic resource constraints, limited institutional capacity, and fragmented decision-making, the ability to manage crises decisively and communicate effectively is not just beneficial, it is essential for survival and legitimacy.

Inspired by the work of luminaries such as Olga Algayerova (former UN Under-Secretary-General), Adnan Shihab-Eldin (former OPEC Secretary-General), Ana Birchall (former Prime Minister Deputy) and Dimitris Avramopoulos (former EU Commissioner), as well as Brussels-based specialists like Anna Meusburger – to mentioned but few, the following lines examine the core principles of crisis management and crisis communication,  as outlined by the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) under the guidance of Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević and Dr. Philipe Reinisch. Their framework aims to strengthen leadership capacity and institutional resilience in these critical areas, particularly in contexts where public institutions and key private sectors are under pressure from unforeseen events, rapid socio-economic and technological change and weaker institutional infrastructures.

Understanding Crisis Management

Crisis management involves preparing for, responding to, and recovering from unexpected events that disrupt operations or threaten an organization’s reputation. It is not merely reactive; it encompasses systems and practices that allow leaders to anticipate risks, act decisively, and recover with minimal damage. In the Global South, these crises often intersect with systemic challenges, including limited technological infrastructure, uneven regulatory oversight, and vulnerabilities in public service delivery.

Crisis management typically unfolds in three stages: Preparation, Response, and Recovery. The preparation stage occurs before a crisis, encompassing risk identification, vulnerability assessment, emergency planning, and staff training. In many Global South contexts, preparation also requires prioritizing low-cost, high-impact interventions that can compensate for limited resources.

Response involves swift actions during the crisis to protect people, assets, and reputation. Recovery focuses on learning lessons, repairing relationships, and rebuilding trust after the occurrence of the crisis. In contexts where public trust may already be fragile, recovery strategies must prioritize transparent communication and visible accountability to reinforce institutional legitimacy.

A notable illustration of effective crisis management is Johnson & Johnson’s response to the 1982 Tylenol poisoning incident. The company withdrew products nationwide, communicated transparently, and prioritized public safety over profit. Although prior preparation was limited, the effectiveness of the response and recovery phases transformed a potential catastrophe into a benchmark of responsible corporate leadership.

Similarly, Iceland’s management of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption demonstrates effective governance under pressure. Rapid coordination, clear public communication, and strong international cooperation enabled Iceland to mitigate disruption while maintaining public confidence. These cases underscore the assertion that preparedness, transparent communication, and decisive action form the backbone of successful crisis management. However, the author notes that while these two cases offer universal lessons, leaders in the Global South often face additional constraints, such as fragmented governance structures and weaker emergency coordination networks, that make even straightforward interventions challenging.

Conversely, several high-profile crises illustrate the consequences of poor preparation and flawed communication. The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill was exacerbated not only by technical failures but also by slow, inconsistent messaging, which undermined public trust and escalated reputational damage. The 2015 Volkswagen “Dieselgate” scandal revealed how delayed, hesitant responses to internal ethical lapses can escalate into global reputational crises. The 2003 European heatwave, which caused over 15,000 deaths in France, highlighted the fatal consequences of inadequate preparation and weak public communication.

Effectively, these examples show that strong crisis management and communication are foundational to building resilience, especially in the Global South. Clarifying roles, improving collaboration, and accessing reliable data must be prioritized to avoid confusion, delays, and reputational damage during crises.

Understanding Crisis Communication Management

Crisis communication is the public-facing dimension of crisis management. It involves how institutions convey information to citizens, partners, investors, employees, and the media during moments of uncertainty. The tone, timing, and clarity of communication often determine whether one recovers swiftly or suffers long-term loss of public trust. In the Global South, effective communication is often complicated by limited media penetration, low public literacy rates, and rapid spread of misinformation via informal channels, making clarity and credibility even more critical.

Effective crisis communication relies on four principles:

1. Clarity – Messages must be precise, consistent, and free of technical jargon.
2. Credibility – Communication should be truthful, evidence-based, and transparent. Misleading information erodes trust.
3. Empathy – Leaders must acknowledge the human and social impact of crises.
4. Timeliness – Information should be shared early and regularly, even if all facts are not yet known. Silence fosters uncertainty, which fuels fear and rumor.

In the age of social media, where misinformation spreads rapidly, these principles are more crucial than ever. Timely, transparent communication is both an ethical imperative and a strategic necessity. For Global South leaders, these principles must be adapted to resource-constrained and socially diverse environments, where miscommunication can quickly exacerbate public fear and distrust.

The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) offers guidance for tailoring communication strategies to the type of crisis. External crises, such as natural disasters, require empathy and solidarity, whereas internal failures, such as negligence or corruption, demand accountability, apology, and corrective action. In all cases, actions and messages must align: strong communication reinforces effective decisions, but cannot compensate for poor ones. In contexts where institutional failures are magnified by systemic resource limitations, SCCT principles must be applied with pragmatic sensitivity to local capacity and public expectations.

Integrating Management and Communication

Crisis management and communication are inseparable: management determines what an organization does, while communication shapes how it explains and justifies those actions. When the two are disconnected, confusion spreads, and public trust erodes. This dynamic is especially pronounced in the Global South, where multiple ministries, local governments, and private actors must coordinate within often fragmented systems. Here, communication acts as the critical connective tissue, ensuring coherence in both action and messaging.

An example illustrating this principle is the BP oil spill. The technical teams worked diligently, but insensitive leadership statements exacerbated public outrage. In contrast, New Zealand’s response to the 2019 Christchurch shootings showed how empathetic, transparent communication can strengthen societal cohesion and earn international respect.

The stakes are particularly high in the Global South. Effective crisis response depends on coordination among ministries, public agencies, private actors, and communities. Communication is essential not only for conveying decisions but also for aligning diverse actors and scarce resources, while maintaining credibility under intense public scrutiny. The author argues that crisis preparedness should be viewed as a strategic investment rather than a cost, as it prevents far greater losses associated with delayed or uncoordinated responses.

The Role of GAFG

The Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) provides tailored support to governments, institutions, and corporations. Through capacity-building, advisory services, and leadership development, GAFG strengthens your crisis management and communication capabilities.

GAFG’s mission is to build better governance systems for the future, helping leaders anticipate challenges, respond effectively, and maintain credibility during turbulent times. This is realized through training, leadership development, advisory services, and international networking.

a. Capacity Building and Training

GAFG’s executive programs integrate academic insights with practical simulations to enable leaders to:

• Build crisis response systems within ministries, agencies, or companies.
• Develop crisis communication protocols and leadership messaging.
• Coordinate responses across multiple stakeholders.
• Communicate calmly, credibly, and compassionately during emergencies.

b. Advisory and Strategic Support

GAFG provides direct advisory services, helping organizations:

• Design crisis management frameworks tailored to local realities.
• Establish crisis communication offices or spokesperson systems.
• Create early-warning and response mechanisms linking operational, reputational, and communication responses.
• Review and improve governance structures post-crisis to rebuild trust and resilience.

In many parts of the Global South, where responsiveness is low and institutional coordination is often fragmented, these advisory services provide the clarity and structure necessary to act effectively under pressure.

c. Leadership Development and Global Networking

Through programs like the Future Governance Leadership Programme, GAFG connects leaders across the Global South. These programs foster peer learning, expert mentorship, and international cooperation. This network helps leaders gain context-specific strategies for both crisis management and communication.

d. Cost-Saving and Value Creation

Crisis preparedness is not an expense but an investment. Political fallout, social disruption, environmental damage, and reputational loss are far more costly than prevention. Capacity building and credible communication reduce long-term risks while enhancing resilience. In Global South contexts, early preparedness prevents disproportionately high political, social, and financial costs due to weak institutional barriers.

Building a Culture of Preparedness – Reputational Crisis Resilience

Investing in crisis management and communication is not optional but necessary. For governments and corporations in the Global South, where institutional fragility can amplify the impact of crises, embedding a culture of readiness is critical for legitimacy and social stability.

With support from the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG), leaders gain the knowledge, frameworks, and networks required to anticipate, manage, and communicate effectively in moments of uncertainty. Such preparation is not a cost but an investment that reduces the political, social, financial, and ethical consequences of poor decisions, delays, or miscommunication. Importantly, it also strengthens resilience against reputational crises, which can be severe, persistent, and deeply damaging to long-term public trust. This proactive approach is particularly vital in resource-constrained environments, where delayed responses can rapidly escalate into political, social, or reputational crises.

Embedding preparedness into governance and corporate culture enables institutions to enhance responsiveness, safeguard legitimacy, and ensure continuity even in the face of unexpected challenges. Organisations that cultivate a culture of readiness do not merely survive crises; they learn from them, adapt, and emerge stronger, transforming potential threats into opportunities for resilience and sustainable value creation.

Conclusion

Crisis management concerns what an organisation does. Crisis communication concerns how the organisation explains what it does. Together, they form the foundation of credible and competent leadership.

In regions where governance systems may lack responsiveness and resources can be limited, effective crisis leadership depends on preparation, knowledge, and moral authority. Through training, advisory support, and international networking, GAFG equips decision-makers with the tools required to lead responsibly under pressure.

Engaging with GAFG is not an expenditure — it is an investment in institutional resilience. Crises are inherently costly: financially, socially, politically, environmentally, and ethically. Poor crisis handling often leads to reputational crises, whose consequences can be long-lasting and damaging to public confidence and stakeholder relationships. Preparedness reduces risks, preserves trust, and prevents avoidable losses.

By supporting leaders in contexts with systemic governance challenges, GAFG transforms reactive crisis handling into proactive resilience, turning potential threats into opportunities for strengthened institutions and sustainable governance.

About the author

Silvie Drahošová is a Vienna-based, Central European University fellow (CEU Culture, Politics, and Society) with experience in research, strategy, communications, and project coordination across international organizations. She recently joined the GAFG as a Project and Information Officer, where she supports research activities, conference development, and stakeholder engagement. Silvie is fluent in Czech, English, German, and proficient in French. Her work is driven by a strong interest in sustainability, youth engagement, and fostering initiatives that strengthen dialogue across cultures and institutions.