PR News
<span id="hs_cos_wrapper_name" class="hs_cos_wrapper hs_cos_wrapper_meta_field hs_cos_wrapper_type_text" style="" data-hs-cos-general-type="meta_field" data-hs-cos-type="text" >Research Wrap: Senate SHJ Crisis Index 300</span>

Research Wrap: Senate SHJ Crisis Index 300

Senate has released its 2025 Crisis Index 300 research, revealing the financial impact of some 300 crises impacting listed firms across 32 industry sectors over the past 40 years. The study revealed the average resulting drop in share prices was 35.2 per cent, and the companies involved took an average of 427 days to recover from a crisis, while nearly a third of the companies' share prices have yet to recover. Telum spoke with Craig Badings, Partner and Head of Reputation at SenateSHJ, to understand some of the detail behind the research, and the lessons listed companies and other firms can take from the study.

Are the scenarios and the crises that are detailed in the index across the different industries worst case scenarios, or are there lessons in here for a typical listed entity?
There are always lessons for listed entities or any company for that matter. It often depends on what the crisis is and how they react to that crisis.

We've seen in the past, companies that deal with crises will typically recover quicker. And there are some great examples where companies have done it well. Johnson and Johnson. Whole Foods. KFC.

But those who deal with it badly can create a secondary crisis for themselves based on the way they react or don't react.

The Index is based on crises befalling listed companies globally, but they can impact any firm. Is the impact on listed firms exacerbated because of the attention they get from analysts and investors?
It depends what that focus from the shareholders or the investors is like. If the shareholders or investors view the company as handling the crisis well - they're doing everything they can to rectify it, they've been transparent, they have apologized, they have laid out what they're going to do to make the reforms required – then typically that results in less of the blowtorch being applied by those stakeholders.

However, analysts and shareholders in particular, if they view the company as being remiss in their response, not transparent, hiding behind too much legalese, or slow to react and not being authentic, the punishment can be quite harsh.

A lot of these crises were either “self-inflicted” or at least preventable. Are there any common lessons we can learn from these?
Typically, when we look back at a crisis, including many of those that are listed on the Crisis Index, it's often a result of culture, or behaviour, and typically that behaviour occurs across seven categories:
  • Taking a shareholder primacy over the stakeholder primacy view
  • Not taking a stand on an issue
  • A lack of governance
  • Gaps in supervision, monitoring or reporting
  • Taking shortcuts
  • Blame culture - them versus us, like a union stoush
  • Training and staff, such as security guards put at the doors of hotels during the pandemic with no training in how to deal with COVID
The report talks about the importance of preparedness and scenario planning and testing, but some things are unforeseeable, and can't be prevented, like natural disasters or pandemics. How far should a company go in anticipating and planning for events that are out of their control?
Planning is everything. Everything.

If you don't plan and run crisis simulations, I can guarantee your response is going to fall over, or your team is not going to be up to it.

Those simulations very often need to take into account things that are outside your control, but also things that typically could happen in your environment.

But if you're not going to be running simulations, and you're not going to test your people and your processes, I guarantee you're going to have a problem.

I can't begin to tell you how many companies don't run simulations. And they find out when the proverbial hits the fan that they're just not prepared.

I think it was a Prussian Field Marshal who said no battle plan survives its first encounter with the enemy. How much of a difference can preparation make - what advantages does it give you when the proverbial does hit the fan?
There are three advantages. The first is teamwork. If you run a simulation, the team starts knowing who's doing what, and you can start relying on people and trusting people. And you can only do that when you're under the pump.

The second advantage is when you're under the pump, you discover where the gaps are. Running a simulation will highlight the gaps both in your crisis response, and also your operational response internally.

And that leads to the third thing: typically in a crisis, the management within the crisis management team doesn't have time to run the business.

And so when you run a simulation, they quickly realize they may be taken out for a week, a day, two weeks, or more. Who runs the business when they're running the crisis?
 
You’ve opened up the information behind the Crisis Index providing free access to firms to analyse and draw information from. How can they use it?
There are a lot of ways. If you're an analyst in the banking and financial services and insurance sector, you can have a look at it to understand what the biggest threat is in that sector.  What are they most likely to suffer in terms of a crisis? We know from the Crisis index 300 that it's actually mismanagement and white collar crime.

So an analyst could say to the bank that they invested in, what are your plans for managing a crisis that involves mismanagement of white collar crime?

Another example would be a crisis manager handling an issue at an automobile manufacturer, and they can go into the Crisis Index and find out what typically is the length of time to recovery for EPS or share price in that sector. They can look at what they need to do to mitigate that and bring that back a bit. At what they need to put in place that can help this company or brand recover quicker.

Finally, Criag, aside from “be prepared” are there sort of fundamental principles underpinning effective crisis response?  
We know from decades of dealing with crises that ultimately, your guiding light, or your North Star, should be your values or vision statement - that should guide your decisions.

Too often we see decisions made in the heat of the moment that are ego-driven, or outrage-driven, and by that I mean companies are outraged at the regulator or they're outraged at the consumer, the way they're getting stuck into the company. That never leads to a good decision.

Always stick to your values when you're making a decision. And don't let fear or confusion interfere with that moral compass or cloud your decision making.

And finally, an apology doesn't make you legally liable. If you apologize, you can do it in a way that doesn't admit fault, but actually does show genuine concern for those who are impacted.

I can't tell you how many times lawyers get in the way of apologizing, and the company comes across as cold-hearted, uncaring, and their stakeholders turn around and say, you guys actually don't give a damn.

Empathy is absolutely key to the way you respond and it's always got to be a people-led response, a human-led response, because otherwise you run the risk of being called callous and uncaring.
Previous story

Perspectives: Doing the write thing with AI

Next story

Study Highlight: The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer for Australia

You might also enjoy

Greer
Moves

Greer Quinn steps into sustainability sector as Head of Community and Reputation

Greer Quinn has commenced at recycling and energy precinct, ARRC Gold Coast, as Head of Community and Reputation. She was previously Communications Manager - Health Infrastructure at Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service for two and a half years. 

Greer also holds in-house experience within the mining and education sector and is also the Managing Director and founder of her own agency, Forward Communications. 

 
 

Omnicom
Industry update

Omnicom completes acquisition of Interpublic

Omnicom has announced the completion of its acquisition of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., after receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and satisfaction of the other closing conditions. The combined company, with a pro forma combined revenue of more than US$25 billion, will trade under the OMC ticker symbol on the New York Stock Exchange.

In the new Omnicom, John Wren remains Chairman & CEO, Phil Angelastro remains EVP & CFO, and Philippe Krakowsky and Daryl Simm serve as Co-Presidents and COOs. Philippe Krakowsky, Patrick Moore and E. Lee Wyatt Jr. have also joined the Omnicom Board of Directors.

More information on the new company's full leadership team will be announced on 1st December 2025.  

"This is a defining moment for our company and our industry," said John Wren, Chairman and CEO of Omnicom. "With the completion of the deal, Omnicom is setting a new standard for modern marketing and sales leadership - creating stronger brands, delivering superior business outcomes, and driving sustainable growth. We’re excited about this next chapter. I want to thank our people, clients, and shareholders for the trust they have placed in us."

Under the terms of the agreement, Interpublic shareholders received 0.344 Omnicom shares for each share of Interpublic common stock they owned. Legacy Omnicom shareholders own approximately 60.6 per cent of the combined company, while legacy Interpublic shareholders own approximately 39.4 per cent, on a fully diluted basis.

Study
Research

Study Highlight: Future of Reputation 2030

Strategic communication consultancy, SenateSHJ, has just released its Future of Reputation 2030 global report. The report indicated that a surge in reputation risks will force boards and executives to shape new systems of resilience across their organisations.

Based on 44 in-depth interviews with global experts in corporate reputation, communications, public affairs, and risk management, the report reveals how the foundations of reputation are shifting - what builds it, what breaks it and what will define credibility as we approach 2030.

Craig Badings, Partner and Co-lead, Reputation Practice at SenateSHJ, who conducted the interviews, said: "Boards, senior executives and corporate affairs leaders need to prepare for unprecedented levels of scrutiny, complexity and stakeholder expectations, with reputation increasingly determined by how organisations and their leadership behave - not by what they say."

Eight themes emerged from the interviews which are reshaping reputation:

Global reputation risk landscape: Navigating an age of uncertainty
The report found that reputation risk is becoming borderless and harder to control. This is driven by factors such as geopolitics, cultural asymmetry, AI disruption, shareholder pressure, and a surge in mis- and disinformation. What builds trust in one market can damage it in another, and neutrality is increasingly seen as complicity.

Leaders have to balance divergent expectations, act faster than misinformation spreads, and build credibility ahead of crises. In a multi-reality environment, proactive "fact-fighting" and cross-functional coordination are now essential.

Trust and accountability: The currency of credible reputation
There was a consensus that trust and reputation are inseparable. "Trust drives reputation. It’s the micro to reputation’s macro," said Alan Chumley, Senior Vice President at SignalAI. Trust is earned through values lived consistently, transparent decision-making and credible behaviour, not messaging.

In a hyper-scrutinised world, trust is fragile yet recoverable when leaders show competence and accountability. Reputation resilience comes from functional integrity rather than perception management. Elliot Schreiber, Consultant Board of Directors and Leaders and Author of The Yin and Yang of Reputation Management, summed it up: "Trust is not a value - it's a verdict. It's the judgement stakeholders make when they see consistency over time," and experts agreed that trustworthy behaviours are the true currency of reputation.

Leadership, culture and behaviour: The human architecture of trust
Across the respondents' answers, one message stayed consistent: reputation begins within and is determined by how leaders think, decide and act. Trustworthiness is built - or broken - by how leaders behave, reinforce values and shape everyday decisions. Culture emerged as the strongest driver of reputation: employees echo what leaders model, and inconsistency becomes visible fast.

It was also revealed that reputation resilience begins with leadership conduct, cultural alignment and accountability at the top, and that reputation strength depends on whether leaders can connect strategy, behaviour and communication coherently across the organisation.

A point was also raised from a crisis perspective - corporate crises often stem from internal culture and behaviour, not external shocks, with leadership at the centre of risk. Reputation is safeguarded not by process, but by ethically and emotionally prepared people who act with accountability under pressure.

Stakeholder complexity and polarisation: Coherence as the new leadership currency
Global experts who were interviewed agree that the era of one-size-fits-all communication is over. Reputation now sits in a fractured stakeholder ecosystem shaped by divergent expectations, ideological polarisation and competing truths.

Paul Stamsnijder, Founding Partner at Reputatiegroep, described the shift as a complete inversion of the traditional model: "The orientation in building reputation has shifted from inside-out to outside-in. Where organisations once sought to control their message, they now must earn consent through dialogue."

Coherence, empathy and consistency are seen as a core to leaders and matter more than consensus, as silence is increasingly seen as a stance. With misinformation rising and geopolitical pressures intensifying, organisations must read the room, adapt to diverse expectations, and engage stakeholders with credibility.

Technology and AI: Sentinel and saboteur
Technology and AI are accelerating reputational risk, amplifying crises and reshaping how opinions form. Experts warned that while AI offers real-time insight, prediction and scale, it also mirrors organisational bias, spreads misinformation faster than truth, and erodes editorial safeguards. Automation without accountability creates new integrity risks, making ethical governance essential.

The consensus is that AI can inform, but only humans can judge. In an AI-saturated landscape, humanity, authenticity, and moral clarity matter more than ever.

Measurement, data and governance: The metrics of modern reputation management
Reputation measurement is shifting from instinct to evidence, but experts warn that numbers mean little without clarity, governance and context. Reputation lives in stakeholder perception, not dashboards, and single metrics risk oversimplifying complex human judgement.

Effective measurement links drivers to outcomes, guides decisions, and reveals behaviour. As data gains predictive power, governance becomes the architecture of trust, shifting measurement from compliance to conscience.

Crisis, recovery and humility: The hard road back
Across the interviews, experts consistently agreed that crises expose culture more than they damage it. Reputation fails not from the incident itself but from denial, delay and defensive messaging.

When talking about the actions to take in a crisis, Alan Chumley and Scott Sayres used almost the same words: "Own it, respond quickly even if partially, acknowledge, fix it, show empathy and humility." Effective crisis response requires speed, humility, accountability, and alignment of words with actions - regret, responsibility, and remedial action.

Trust is rebuilt through empathy and moral courage, while preparedness, strong governance, and pre-existing trust equity determine the pace and success of recovery.

Purpose and values alignment: Reputation's moral compass
Experts agree that values - rather than campaigns - are the differentiator of reputation.

As Patricia Santa Marina, Founder at MINERBA Corporate Communication, said: "Reputation over everything. Even if you temporarily lose money, reputation is more important."

Purpose only creates trust when it is lived consistently through behaviour, culture and governance. Misalignment between stated values and real decisions is said to be the root of many reputational failures, while predictability and accountability form the "DNA of trust".

With public cynicism rising, interviewees warned against corporate virtue signalling, with multiple respondents claiming that purpose - which was once a differentiator - has now become an overused and unconvincing corporate trope. Organisations must behave their way into credibility, embedding purpose as a governance system rather than a slogan.

The Future of Reputation 2030 report also contains SenateSHJ's 5SL Framework for building reputation resilience, which the agency describes as "...a practical architecture, outlining six disciplines that can turn integrity into a measurable, repeatable and resilient organisational capability."

The full report, which includes predictions and tips for leaders for each theme, can be found here.