Climate change: practise the crisis plan
Scheduling regular reviews and rehearsals that stress-test a climate crisis communications plan can help organisations reduce the risk of coming unstuck and making errors in a real-life situation. Yet the daily pace and pressures of running a business all too often displace time allocated to practice and preparation.
At a series of Chapter Zero workshops during the past year, directors and managers acknowledged the importance of holding an annual scenario-based crisis exercise. However, many conceded that rehearsals were conducted infrequently,
if at all.
When asked how often their organisations reviewed crisis plans, updated climate considerations and refreshed templates with a business continuity team, responses were varied. Engaging in these hygiene disciplines was viewed as important, but finding the time was a challenge.
These anecdotal responses mirror international and local studies, which reinforce that a lack of preparation is one of the common challenges facing organisations trying to anticipate and plan for a climate-related or any other crisis.
According to PR News and CS&A International Research, “62 per cent of companies have crisis plans, though it is uncertain how many regularly update them”.
That finding aligns with results from the Institute of Directors' 2024 Director Sentiment Survey. When asked to discuss their crisis management plans, the 1,240 respondents demonstrated that New Zealand organisations’ readiness tends to ebb and flow with the nation’s most recent exposure to calamitous events.
Climate events trigger crisis planning
Looking across eight years of data on crisis planning, activity reached a peak in 2020 (78 per cent), corresponding with the onset of Covid-19. It tapered off in 2021 (73 per cent) and 2022 (64.5 per cent) but regained some ground in 2023 (69.1 per cent), possibly on the back of heightened awareness of cyberattacks and climate-related events in Auckland, Hawke’s Bay and Nelson over that period. This year, the commitment to crisis planning fell back to 64.3 per cent.
Directors of publicly listed companies and local authorities (both on 84 per cent) were more likely to say their board had discussed crisis management plans. Directors of not-for-profit organisations (52 per cent) and Māori organisations (60 per cent) were least likely.
Among the potential disasters rated by international business leaders in this year’s World Economic Forum Global Risks Report, two-thirds of respondents selected extreme weather (66 per cent) as the top risk faced in 2024.
When flood waters breach stopbanks, fires devastate swathes of forest, or the national grid fails in the middle of a record-breaking heatwave,
stakeholders expect an organisation’s board of directors and management to communicate information with care, concern and clarity.
Stress-test and learn
An effective board will hold management to account with a set of expectations which provide confidence that the organisation has a comprehensive communications plan in place before a crisis hits.
That plan will have been thoroughly and regularly tested, ensuring that everyone knows what to do and with whom to communicate during a crisis. Directors, managers and staff must be crystal clear about:
-
- Who will be responsible for communicating during the crisis?
- What channels will be used to communicate, such as email, text, social media?
- What information must be communicated?
- When information needs to be communicated?
- How often are updates to be provided?
- Where are templated media and social media releases for the most common crises the organisation is likely to face?
Failure to practise the plan by conducting regular simulation exercises can be a fatal mistake, putting lives, assets, business continuity and reputation at risk. Simulation exercises are a smart way of identifying gaps in planning and response, testing the effectiveness of plans and procedures, and making sure teams and front-line individuals are prepared.
Rehearsing spokespeople is vital. A realistic simulation will sometimes demonstrate that just because someone is a chief executive does not necessarily mean they are the right person to front a crisis communications response.
What if the CEO is persuasive in front of a live audience, but becomes stiff and defensive in an on-camera media interview? Or do they struggle under pressure or challenge to stick to key messages? Testing a spokesperson in a rehearsal that includes a simulated media conference might reveal the need for presentation training or delegating the role to another senior person, such as the board chair.
Getting these decisions right by practising a crisis communication plan, putting people under pressure through simulation of a likely crisis scenario, and then evaluating what works and what doesn’t will make or break an organisation’s reputation for years to come.
