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

Interview:
Feature

Interview: Jackie Hanafie from Humankind Advisory

 Storytelling has long been central to NGO communications, but its role is evolving. It's no longer only about raising awareness or driving donations, but translating complex issues into human narratives that audiences can grasp and act on.

Telum Media spoke with Jackie Hanafie, Founder and Principal Consultant of Humankind Advisory, about how NGOs can rethink storytelling to influence policy and behaviour, embed ethics and lived experience into communications, balance impact with nuance and accountability, and adopt a more hopeful, human-centred approach.

Storytelling has traditionally helped NGOs drive awareness and donations. As it becomes a more strategic tool to shape public opinion and policy, how should organisations rethink its role in influencing narratives, behaviours, and systemic change?
In today’s crowded, fast-moving information landscape, storytelling should be treated as a strategic asset - shaping how issues are understood, who is seen as responsible, and what solutions feel possible.

That means rethinking storytelling as narrative infrastructure, not just content. Individual stories are powerful, but when they are connected to structural issues - policy gaps, market failures, social norms - they help audiences understand both the what and why. This shifts the focus from charity to justice, from sympathy to shared responsibility. A well-told story can humanise data, but it can also frame policy conversations and influence how decision-makers define the problem.

Storytelling should also shift away from victimhood. Traditional NGO communications often portray communities as passive recipients of aid, but effective storytelling highlights local leadership, resilience, and partnership. This reframes beneficiaries as changemakers rather than dependants. When audiences see dignity and capability, they are more likely to support long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes.

Storytelling should also be aligned with clear behavioural and policy objectives. Whether the goal is shifting public attitudes, influencing a legislative debate, or changing consumer behaviour, narratives should be designed with measurable outcomes in mind. This requires collaboration across communications, policy, and program teams.

When storytelling is strategic, ethical, and systems-focused, it becomes more than awareness-raising; it acts as a catalyst for lasting change.

NGOs often tell stories about underrepresented communities and issues with less power or visibility. How do you ensure these stories are told ethically and respectfully, and that the people involved have a say in how they are represented?
This is a big responsibility for NGOs and ethics must be embedded in the process rather than as a final sign-off before publication.

It starts with informed, ongoing consent - people understanding their story will be shared, where, how, why, and they can withdraw at any time. In a digital world where content can travel far beyond its original context, transparency is essential.

Participation should go beyond consent to collaboration, with communities having a say in story framing, details, and visual representation. This might mean sharing drafts, inviting feedback, co-creating content, or supporting people to tell their own stories. Ethical storytelling shifts from “about them” to “with them”.

Stories should highlight dignity, agency, and context - acknowledging structural barriers without reducing individuals to them, which can unintentionally strip away complexity, humanity, and agency. Safeguarding is also critical, particularly for people in fragile or politically sensitive environments. This includes assessing risks around visibility, privacy, cultural sensitivity, and potential backlash. Sometimes the most ethical choice is to anonymise or not tell a story at all.

Organisations should also create clear internal guidelines and accountability mechanisms around storytelling ethics. When communities are respected as collaborators of their narratives, storytelling becomes more authentic, credible, and powerful in driving meaningful change.

NGOs face pressure to demonstrate impact, but storytelling can risk oversimplifying complex outcomes. How do you use narrative to communicate impact and accountability, while preserving nuance and long-term context?
Demonstrating impact is essential, but social change is rarely linear or attributable to a single intervention. The challenge is to use storytelling not to simplify reality, but to make complexity understandable.

  • Anchor stories in evidence: Personal narratives are powerful entry points, but they should sit alongside data and context. A story can illustrate change in someone’s life, while reporting explains broader trends, limitations, and lessons learned. This balance helps audiences connect emotionally without losing sight of rigour.
  • Be honest about timeframes: Systemic change often unfolds over years. Rather than presenting impact as a “before and after” transformation, NGOs can tell stories of progress, iteration, and adaptation. Sharing setbacks and course corrections builds trust and signals that accountability includes learning, not just success.
  • Clarify contribution rather than claiming sole causation: Most development outcomes result from partnerships - governments, communities, private sector actors, and other civil society organisations. Storytelling that acknowledges this ecosystem avoids overstating impact and reinforces the collaborative nature of change.
  • Preserve nuance through format: Long-form content, case studies, impact reports, and multimedia storytelling allow space for complexity. Even in shorter formats, careful framing - explaining structural barriers, policy contexts, and ongoing challenges - can prevent oversimplification.

When NGOs use storytelling to illuminate both human experience and systemic context, they strengthen public understanding and trust. Impact communication then becomes not just a showcase of results, but an honest reflection of progress, partnership, and purpose.

How are NGOs incorporating lived experience and community voices into storytelling, and what impact has this had on audience engagement and trust?
NGOs are recognising that credibility comes from creating space for communities to speak for themselves. Incorporating lived experience into storytelling is no longer a token gesture; it's becoming central to how organisations design campaigns, shape policy advocacy, and communicate impact.

Practically, this means moving from extractive storytelling to co-creation. Many NGOs now involve community members in identifying which stories are told, the framing, and the platforms used. Some are investing in training, equipment, and digital access so people can produce their own content, such as video diaries, social media takeovers, blogs, or community-led podcasts. Others are establishing advisory groups made up of people with lived experience to guide messaging and narrative strategy.

This shift also influences whose expertise is recognised. Lived experience is increasingly positioned alongside technical and policy expertise, particularly in advocacy campaigns. When people directly affected by an issue contribute to messaging or speak publicly about solutions, it strengthens authenticity and grounds policy debates in real-world realities.

These days, audiences are more discerning than ever and can sense when stories feel staged or overly curated. Community-led narratives tend to resonate more deeply and often generate higher engagement across digital platforms, fostering stronger emotional connection.

Incorporating lived experience also builds trust internally. When communities see their perspectives accurately reflected - and when they have agency in how they are represented - it reinforces partnership rather than hierarchy.

In a time of misinformation and declining trust in institutions, NGOs that centre lived experience are not just improving their communications; they are strengthening legitimacy. Storytelling grounded in authentic community voices signals transparency, respect, and shared ownership of change - qualities that are essential for sustained engagement and public confidence.

Emotional storytelling has long been used to build public support, but there are signs of audience fatigue and desensitisation to emotive appeals. How is storytelling strategy evolving in the NGO sector in response to this?
One shift is from crisis-driven narratives to solutions-focused storytelling. Instead of focusing solely on need, organisations are highlighting progress, innovation, and collective action. This doesn’t minimise the scale of challenges, but it offers audiences a sense of efficacy - showing that change is possible and that their support contributes to tangible outcomes.

There is also a move towards depth and authenticity, as audiences increasingly value transparency, nuance, and honesty over highly polished emotional appeals. NGOs are sharing more behind-the-scenes insights, lessons learned, and even setbacks, which helps build trust and long-term engagement rather than short-term reactions.

Another evolution is audience segmentation and platform sensitivity, with digital analytics helping organisations understand how communities respond to different tones and formats. Storytelling is becoming more tailored - interactive content, short-form video, long-form journalism, community takeovers - rather than relying on a single emotive formula.

Importantly, the sector is also interrogating power and representation. Stories that centre dignity, agency, and partnership tend to resonate more sustainably than those that rely on portraying people at their most vulnerable. Positive, human-centred narratives can inspire solidarity rather than pity.

Storytelling strategy is shifting from eliciting sympathy to building sustained relationships. Organisations that stand out combine emotional resonance with credibility, agency, and hope - engaging audiences as informed partners in long-term change, not just donors. 

Amnesty
Moves

Amnesty International Australia welcomes back a familiar face

Amnesty International Australia has appointed Andrew Beswick as Strategic Communications Manager. After a long previous stint at Amnesty managing campaigns and communications up until 2016, he has returned to lead media strategy and digital comms for its human rights campaigns.

Following his earlier tenure, Andrew went on to work in senior roles across the not-for-profit and government sectors, including at Oxfam Australia, Wyndham City Council and National Disability Services.

Polestar
Moves

Polestar Australia appoints Head of PR Communications

Polestar has appointed Kelly King as Head of PR and Communications, where she will be responsible for stakeholder relations, strategic planning, media campaign direction and reputation management APAC-wide. She was previously in wellness and health tech, including as Director Public Relations & Communications at hypergrowth healthtech group, Montu.

Kelly's in-house experience includes roles across the finance, health and government sectors.