Q2 Crisis Review: When Culture Is The Crisis

(MENAFN- PRovoke) If there's one thing the most damaging corporate crises in the second quarter of 2025 had in common, it's that the problem wasn't just bad luck or bad press: it was bad culture. From Moët Hennessy's alleged retaliation against a whistleblower, to BCG's ethical blind spots in Gaza, to Shein's performative ESG efforts, Q2 made clear that reputational risk is increasingly rooted in internal behaviours and organisational values.

Across the ten cases featured in this global review, the red thread is unmistakable: culture isn't just a backdrop to crisis, it's often the cause. The cost of ignoring toxic leadership, weak oversight, or tone-deaf communication was on full display, whether in the form of legal action, public backlash, or long-term brand erosion.

It was also a quarter where leadership silence spoke volumes. Absent or overly scripted responses – from Qantas' data breach to Air India's near-verbatim messaging – amplified public distrust. Meanwhile, companies that responded with clarity, empathy, and visible leadership (like M&S) fared better, even amid operational chaos.

As pressure mounts for brands to live their values, this quarter's review – with analysis by our editors and commentary from crisis and corporate communications experts – is a sharp reminder: crisis readiness is not just about response plans. It's about the culture you build long before the spotlight hits.

1. BCG's Gaza Crisis

What began as a pro bono effort to support humanitarian aid in Gaza has mushroomed into what The Wall Street Journal calls the most significant crisis in Boston Consulting Group's 60-year history, raising alarms over governance failures, ethical blind spots, and the blurred lines between private consulting and public consequence.

The firm says the trouble started in October 2024, when a team of US-based partners began advising on the creation of a new aid group meant to operate in Gaza. That effort eventually became the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US and Israeli-backed food distribution network that has since been widely condemned by international aid groups and human rights organizations. BCG now says two of its partners went on to conduct unauthorized, off-the-books work, including modeling the cost of relocating portions of Gaza's population, without the firm's knowledge or approval.

BCG has fired the two lead partners and removed its chief risk officer and head of social impact from their roles. It insists it was never paid for the work and has disavowed all ties to it.

“Even if this was not in any way, shape, or form a formal BCG project, our association with it is real - deeply troubling, and reputationally very damaging,” CEO Christoph Schweizer said in a letter.

Save the Children, one of BCG's most prominent nonprofit clients, cut ties with the firm in June, citing its reported involvement in the population displacement modeling as“utterly unacceptable.” That work, the organization said, was“devoid of humanity” and“disregards fundamental rights and dignity.”

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, meanwhile, has been accused by Amnesty International of operating in ways that endanger civilians and contribute to what it calls ongoing war crimes in the region. The controversy has raised pointed questions about how the work advanced so far without top leadership intervening. One partner reportedly defied a direct order not to proceed, and the financial modeling took place outside BCG's formal systems and oversight.

“This very well may have started off with the best of intentions,” said Elie Jacobs, founding partner of Purposeful Advisors.“But it clearly backfired in spectacular fashion.”

Naomi Naik, a crisis comms expert and former FGS leader, said BCG's most urgent need now is structural.“Publicly acknowledging governance failures and reinforcing internal controls is essential,” she said.“They need to show that this was a breakdown in oversight, not a reflection of company values.”

Jacobs added that the situation highlights the dangers of reputational and operational misalignment.“When your brand and reputation are out of sync, that's when bad things happen-internally and externally,” he said.“BCG has long positioned itself as the 'good guys' in a consulting industry full of ethically questionable players. That's what makes this sting.”

Also damaging, Jacobs said, was the firm's slow, staggered public response.“The drip-drip of revelations allowed the narrative to get away from them. Instead of immediately owning the failure and launching a credible external investigation, BCG pushed blame onto specific individuals. That rarely works in a case like this.”

In the wake of the fallout, the firm has launched an internal review of its controls and compliance systems. A new interim leadership group has been tasked with overseeing risk and ethics processes. BCG says it has already taken steps to ensure similar lapses do not happen again.

But as scrutiny grows, so do the questions. Some former BCG employees have expressed shock that the firm would wade into such a politically charged and high-risk environment at all. Others have raised concerns about the firm's lack of clearly communicated guardrails for work in conflict zones.

“Just because you have expertise in one area doesn't mean it translates to another,” Jacobs said.“And in today's environment, firms need to look not just at the work they're doing, but how it's perceived-globally, politically, and morally. Especially in a place like Gaza.”

BCG maintains that the project was never formally sanctioned and says it halted all work related to GHF as soon as leadership became aware of the unauthorized activity. But in the eyes of many, the damage is already done.

“This has turned into a case study in what not to do,” Jacobs said.“And then what not to do once you've been caught doing it.” - Diana Marszalek

2. Moët Hennessy's Reputation On The Rocks

In recent months, Moët Hennessy, the drinks arm of France-based luxury conglomerate LVMH, has found itself embroiled in a high-profile legal battle that reveals alleged sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and a toxic corporate culture within its ranks. The case centres on Maria Gasparovic, a former chief of staff in the company's global distribution division, who filed a lawsui t after being dismissed in June 2023. Her case, which is currently pending in a Paris employment tribunal, has sparked a broader discussion on how the company has handled sexual harassment claims, and the extent to which these allegations reflect a systemic problem at the €6 billion champagne and spirits firm.

Gasparovic's allegations are serious and multifaceted. She claims she was fired after raising concerns about misconduct by senior colleagues, including allegations of sexual harassment. According to Gasparovic, after raising concerns with the company's human resources and management, the response was not only dismissive but also retaliatory. She was allegedly told to undergo“anti-seduction” training, an offer that Moët Hennessy claimed was intended to help her develop professionally. However, for Gasparovic, this was a clear example of the systemic sexism embedded within the company's culture.

Moreover, her dismissal came shortly after her whistleblowing report, in which she detailed allegations of harassment and discrimination. Moët Hennessy cited“personal conduct” as the reason for her firing, claiming she made threatening remarks to colleagues, an accusation that Gasparovic has vehemently denied. The company's failure to conduct a formal investigation into her claims further compounds the situation, and she is now seeking €1.3 million in damages.

The company's response has been strong denial; it has even filed a retaliatory defamation suit against Gasparovic after she made her accusations public on social media. This has backfired somewhat, raising further questions not only about the specific incident but also about the wider culture at Moët Hennessy, which has been described by some as a toxic environment marked by bullying, discrimination, and a“boys club” mentality.

Gasparovic's case is not an isolated one. A dozen people familiar with Moët Hennessy's operations told the Financial Times that her dismissal was part of a broader pattern of departures linked to a toxic workplace environment. Bullying and mismanagement have been pervasive issues within the company, with many employees going on long-term sick leave due to stress and harassment. In fact, at least four other female employees have lodged complaints about harassment and bullying, and three of them took their cases to employment tribunals.

This pattern points to systemic issues that go beyond individual cases of misconduct. It suggests that Moët Hennessy, and potentially its parent company LVMH, has failed to address deep-rooted cultural problems.

Kate Hartley, co-founder of Polpeo and author of 'Communicate in a Crisis', provides sharp insight into the way Moët Hennessy has handled the Gasparovic case. In her assessment, she emphasises the importance of businesses listening to whistleblowers rather than retaliating against them.“When will businesses learn not to fire their whistleblowers but to listen to them?” she says.“If one of your employees tells you they've experienced sexual harassment at work, you need to take it seriously. What you really, really shouldn't do is refuse to investigate their claims, recommend they go on 'anti-seduction' training, fire them, and then sue them for defamation.”

As Hartley observes, this is not a case of isolated bad actors:“This is starting to look like a pattern of behaviour, enabled by a company's culture. Moët Hennessey's response has been to deny the allegations, protect its own reputation, and go after Gasparovic rather than to address the underlying issue.

“It's a depressingly familiar story. An allegation of abuse is ignored by line management and then HR. A legal team defends against the allegation and agrees to create a counter claim. All this is endorsed by leadership. Harassment and bullying can only thrive when they are enabled by a whole team of people and embedded in a company's culture.”

The Gasparovic case is emblematic of broader cultural issues at Moët Hennessy, and potentially at LVMH itself. The FT's reporting indicates that the company's leadership, including CEO Philippe Schaus, attempted to address the company's male-dominated,“nightlife-oriented” culture when he took over in 2017. Yet, despite these efforts, employees continued to face a hostile work environment marked by sexism, gossip, and bullying. One former employee likened the company to an“old-fashioned royal court,” where those who don't play the game are either pushed out or forced to leave.

In addition to the allegations of harassment and bullying, Gasparovic has also raised concerns about Moët Hennessy's handling of shipments to Russia. Despite LVMH's public stance on halting operations in Russia in 2022, Gasparovic claims that Moët Hennessy continued to dispatch products to Russia via intermediaries, raising questions about the company's commitment to ethical business practices.

In the aftermath of Gasparovic's allegations, Moët Hennessy's response has been defensive and dismissive. In a company-wide email, executives reassured staff that all cases had been handled“thoughtfully, fairly, and in line with a commitment to confidentiality and our values.” They also emphasized their commitment to protecting the company's reputation. However, this message did little to assuage employee concerns, and it ultimately failed to address the core issues raised by Gasparovic and other employees.

As the crisis continues to unfold, Moët Hennessy's leadership must confront the deeper cultural issues that have allowed harassment and discrimination to thrive. Failing to do so risks further damage to both the company's internal culture and its public reputation.

The case of Maria Gasparovic serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of ignoring employee complaints and failing to address systemic cultural problems within an organization. Moët Hennessy's refusal to engage with the underlying issues – from bullying to sexual harassment – has escalated the crisis, turning what could have been a manageable situation into a full-blown reputational disaster.

As Hartley says,“When businesses plan for a crisis, they often plan for things they're broadly comfortable talking about. We need to start widening the risk register to include things like harassment, discrimination and poor culture. Once you've identified the threat, then you can take steps to put right the underlying problem.”- Maja Pawinska Sims

3. Johnson & Johnson Faces Renewed Scrutiny

For generations, Johnson's No More Tears shampoo, baby powder, and pink baby lotion were staples in American households, unassuming bathtime basics that became fixtures of late-20th century Americana. But that image began to fray in the 1990s, as growing concern over toxic ingredients in the company's iconic white baby powder unleashed a wave of consumer distrust and lawsuits linking talc-based products to cancer.

Over the decades, Johnson & Johnson has faced tens of thousands of claims, billions of dollars in settlements and verdicts , and sustained public scrutiny over a range of products. Most recently, a federal bankruptcy judge in April rejected the company's proposal to pay $9 billion to settle remaining talc-related claims, a decision that came just weeks before the release of No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson by longtime health reporter Gardiner Harris.

The book, described by The New Republic as“a blistering exposé of a trusted American institution,” casts new light on J&J's decades-long pattern of alleged misconduct. Harris chronicles how the company's practices, from its handling of the talc-cancer link to the marketing of the antipsychotic Risperdal and its role in the opioid epidemic , undermined its longstanding image as a health care brand synonymous with safety and trust.

The book's publication has reignited scrutiny of J&J at a time when the company had appeared to distance itself from its most damaging legal entanglements. No More Tears has received coverage in outlets including The New Republic, NPR, and The Washington Post, with journalists highlighting the breadth of Harris' reporting and the cumulative reputational damage.

While few of the allegations are new to regulators or legal observers, the book packages them for a mainstream audience, potentially reaching a generation of consumers unfamiliar with the company's legal history.

“This story is fascinating because it reveals how hard-earned trust can become a liability when it masks internal issues,” said Cyndee Harrison, founder of Detroit-based agency Synaptic, which specializes in helping companies manage reputational challenges.

“I believe that what's happening with J&J right now isn't just about talc or opioids - it's about the collapse of a brand that symbolized safety for generations,” she said.“When a company builds its reputation on emotional trust - especially in health and caregiving - the fallout cuts deeper. And it all gets pretty personal when most of us recall their products on our childhood homes' shelves or bathtubs.”

Stephen Hahn, RepTrak's chief reputation and strategy officer, said J&J's slew of problems has taken a toll on the company's reputation, which has“significantly declined” since 2014, when it was“on the verge of being excellent.”

“To reclaim the position of a strong reputation in the future, J&J needs to literally be squeaky clean in managing its business affairs and to operate with high integrity,” Hahn said.“What has happened to J&J's reputation could have larger ramifications for the overall healthcare industry - the jury is out in the court of public opinion when it comes to the reputation of healthcare and pharma-related companies.”

Yet Gil Bashe, Finn Partners' chair of global health and purpose, stressed the importance of consumer due diligence when it comes to drawing conclusions about a company's record.

“The book 'No More Tears' and its surrounding media coverage raise serious misconduct allegations. These stories deserve our attention, but they also require scrutiny. They blur the line between correlation and causation, substituting personal tragedy for scientific rigor.

“Transparency, accountability and humility must always be the standard for every health enterprise. But critique without context serves no one: not patients, not policymakers, and not the public,” he said. - Diana Marszalek

4. From Percy Pigs to Panic: M&S's Cyber Challenge

In late April, one of the UK's biggest retailers, Marks & Spencer (M&S), experienced severe IT disruption across its operations. Online clothing and homeware orders, contactless payments, and click‐and‐collect systems were disabled following what now is believed to have been a ransomware attack linked to cybercriminal groups Scattered Spider and DragonForce. CEO Stuart Machin confirmed the business was“managing a cyber incident” and publicly apologised, acknowledging the distress to customers and staff. Initial customer reactions ranged from confusion to frustration, especially as essential online and in‐store services were disrupted.

Internally, M&S immediately took systems offline, engaged cybersecurity specialists, and worked with law enforcement and regulators, including the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the Information Commissioner's Office. It confirmed that some customer data, such as contact details and order history, had been accessed but not payment or password data. The company reset customer passwords and warned of possible phishing attempts.

M&S's early response drew widespread praise from comms industry commentators. Alan Morrison, founder of ASM Media & PR said in our analysis at the time :“M&S has been exemplary in following some of the basic rules for reputational crisis management. Firstly, acknowledging the issue proactively – rather than responding to social or media reports – and contacting customers directly first.” He noted the company's regular updates reassured stakeholders that“the 'best experts' are working on the problem and, importantly, apologised in advance for any inconvenience and kept customers updated on developments.”

Despite this strong start, by early May, M&S had gone quiet as recovery efforts became more complex. By July, more clarity emerged. M&S chair Archie Norman told MPs the cyberattack was“traumatic” and confirmed the FBI had been involved. He linked the attack to DragonForce and Scattered Spider and advocated mandatory reporting laws for major breaches. Though M&S has not confirmed if a ransom was paid, the scale of disruption – estimated to have cost over £300 million in lost operating profit – was becoming clear.

M&S had resumed online clothing sales by mid-June, thanking customers and offering staff and contractors discounts of up to 30% as gestures to rebuild trust following weeks of disruption.

On 10 July, the UK's National Crime Agency arrested four people aged 17–20 in connection with the attacks on M&S, as well as similar attacks on Co-op and Harrods in May. Charges included blackmail and computer misuse. M&S issued a public thank you to law enforcement, calling the arrests a“significant milestone” in the investigation.

Analysts have pointed to M&S's experience as a warning to the retail sector. Overreliance on third-party systems and legacy tech infrastructure was exposed, alongside the urgent need for board-level cyber resilience. As Spencer Starkey, EMEA vice president of cyber security firm SonicWall, wrote in TechRadar recently:“What happened to M&S isn't an exception – it's a warning.”

M&S has not yet recovered. Food sales growth slowed from 9% to 4.3% year-on-year in Q2, and the company's market value dropped more than £1 billion. Yet it has maintained a relatively strong reputation thanks to its early, human-centric communications and visible leadership.

Tamara Littleton, co-founder of crisis simulation company Polpeo, said:“In the immediate aftermath of the cyberattack, M&S managed to keep its reputation high on the street. Execution is everything in a crisis, and M&S gave it its all. The brands responded to the cyberattack with proactivity and speed, acting fast to take its systems offline to contain the breach and limit disruption. It kept customers updated across all touchpoints - from the website to email to social media. Critically, the early communications, including a much-needed apology, came from the CEO.

“However, the sheer scale of the attack means M&S hasn't been able to get back up and running fully, and more than three months on, systems are still affected and the media coverage has started to change. Machin's £7.1m pay package that rose 40% in the year to 30 March (before the attack) is under scrutiny, and that's likely to cause him a few headaches. He's trying to downplay the attack, calling it an 'incident, a setback, a bump in the road, a disruption', rather than a crisis. This risks undermining the impact it has had on customers whose data has been taken.

“But ultimately, this is M&S - one of the most trusted high street brands - and if it can overcome the operational problems from the attack, it will likely recover.”

As M&S pushes toward full operational recovery in August, its cyberattack response offers both caution and inspiration. Strong values, transparent communication, and human leadership helped M&S weather one of the most serious cyber incidents to hit UK retail in recent years. Whether this becomes a benchmark or a footnote in crisis management history will depend on the months ahead.-Maja Pawinska Sims

5. Fast-Fashion Giant Shein Under Fire

Known for churning out on-trend, inexpensive clothing, Shein has built a loyal following among young consumers, fueled by the likes of viral TikTok influencers. But with sweeping allegations of environmental waste, overproduction, and labor abuse, the Chinese fast-fashion giant is seeing an uptick in customers bailing on the brand .

“Shein's reputational crisis is rooted in its inability to adjust its business model to the growing global demand for ethical, transparent, and environmentally responsible fashion,” said Alison Lowe, an expert in managing fashion brands at the University of East London.“The company has successfully leveraged social media to dominate the fast-fashion space, but it has consistently failed to address the deeper concerns that matter to increasingly conscious consumers.”

Now, make no mistake. Shein, which sells items for as low as $3, is starting from a very good place. In 2023, the platform was named the world's largest apparel retailer, besting the likes of H&M and Zara. The Financial Times reported that in 2024, Shein's sales rose by 19% to $38 billion.

But that also means that the retailer has a lot to lose, which it already is starting to feel. Despite the 19% sales increase, Shein's profit last year was down nearly 40%, and net income fell to $1 billion, according to the FT's report. In 2023, the company forecasted a $4.8 billion profit and $45 billion sales in 2024.

The company is also taking heat from regulators and NGOs. France fined Shein more than $40 million for misleading discounts and environmental claims in July, less than two months after the EU warned the company about complying with consumer protection laws. Last year, Italy opened a probe into Shein over greenwashing .

While Shein has taken some steps to mitigate concerns, like creating a no-tolerance policy around child labor and pledging to cut emissions by 2050, the company is by no means ingratiating itself to critics. In January, UK lawmakers blasted a company lawyer for evading the question of whether Shein uses cotton from China , a concern related to labor practices. Critics didn't buy strategic and corporate affairs head Peter Pernot-Day contention in May that Shein actually reduces waste by producing styles in small batches.

“There has been a total lack of authenticity and genuine accountability in its communications which has led to criticism and a lack of credibility,” Lowe said.“This has included flying influencers out on trips to visit 'model' factories which rather than satisfy consumer need of clarity in its production methods instead backfired and coming across as overly staged, fake and tone-deaf.”

Shelly Rogers, who heads Earthday's Fashion for the Earth campaign, meanwhile, said she doesn't see Shein salvaging its reputation unless it overhauls the very nature of its business.

“It could raise its prices to reflect the true cost to their workers and to the planet. But unfortunately, they are not capable of changing their existing business model which is premised on two things: growth and profits, as is true of all fast-fashion companies,” Rogers said.

“Fast-fashion relies on manufacturing for as little as possible and as fast as possible which is why it's called the 'race to the bottom,” she said.“In short, there is no way for them to change their business model without changing their vast overproduction of clothes which is what this company's profits are premised on.” - Diana Marszalek

6. Qantas Flies Headfirst Into Data Trouble

In June this year, Qantas reported a significant data breach affecting up to six million customers. The breach targeted a third-party customer service platform, exposing personal information such as names, email addresses, phone numbers, and frequent flyer numbers. While the breach was deemed serious, Qantas did assure customers that sensitive financial details were not compromised.

The airline quickly took measures to contain the breach and notify authorities. However, concerns arose due to the absence of CEO Vanessa Hudson, who was on leave during the incident.

Following the breach, Hudson sent personalized emails to customers apologizing and outlining the situation. Unfortunatly, the damage was done and her absence from the public eye and lack of immediate media engagement raised concerns about the airline's handling of the crisis.

“One of the most significant takeaways is the critical need for transparent, timely, and empathetic communication. In the wake of the breach, Qantas faced public scrutiny not just for the incident itself, but for how it managed the flow of information to its customers and stakeholders,” said Pamela Tor Das, VP of Singapore and emerging markets at Team Lewis.

“The case underscores that, and while we are in the digital age, humanising and personalising responses have actually become even more critical to maintaining trust. In serious situations, consumers and stakeholders don't want CEOs to hide behind a written response but to be visible so that they can put a trusted human face to it. And in the situation where the CEO is unable, the deputy or another senior leadership team member needs to come forth,” she said, adding that potentially at times, organisations might reach out for standard 'drawer statements' and approaches without analysing the emotional status of the situation.

Das went on to say that this perhaps reinforces the importance of having a robust crisis communications plan in place and a well-planned out crisis management team with roles and responsibilities spelled out.

“It's not fun to be put in the media hot seat in such situations. So, it's important to ensure all senior leaders have undergone communications training for trust to ensure an equipped bench of suitable spokesperson to support, rather than heavy reliance on the CEO,” she said. - Camillia Dass

7. Energy Australia Fails To Offset Consumer Pushback

In May this year, one of Australia's largest energy firms, Energy Australia, apologised to customers after admitting that carbon offsets“do not prevent or undo harms” caused by burning fossil fuels. This came after advocacy organisation Parents for Climate launched legal action against EnergyAustralia in the Federal Court of Australia alleging that EnergyAustralia's marketing of its Go Neutral carbon offset product amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to the Australian Consumer Law, according to Energy Australia in a statement at the time.

Go Neutral was a product launched in 2016 to provide customers with a way to offset emissions generated by their electricity or gas consumption. However, where a residential customer opted in to the Go Neutral product, their electricity or gas use was still sourced predominantly from fossil fuels.

“Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets. This could have been made clearer to customers,” said Energy Australia in its statement. It added that it accepts the scientific consensus that these“offsets” do not indefinitely remove greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, because carbon is stored in plants for a substantially shorter time than those emissions remain in the atmosphere.

“Storing carbon in plants is not equivalent to keeping it stored in fossil fuels (by not burning those fossil fuels in the first place),” it said.

According to Hannah Moreno, founder and CEO of PR and marketing agency, Third Hemisphere, the truth is that every organisation on the planet is actually on a pathway to net-zero, whether they know it or not. This is because increasingly emerging regulations, capital markets pressure, and consumer demand will eventually make environmentally unsustainable business models unfeasible.

“So the question is, will you be in control of this transition and be a leader who generates goodwill for your business in the process? Or will you be dragged along for the ride unwillingly, kicking and screaming?” said Moreno.

She added that companies that resist or exaggerate their progress could see themselves subject to fines, plummeting revenue, activist takeovers, or even lawsuits, as is the case with Energy Australia.“In Australian newspapers where Energy Australia operates, the number of times the term 'greenwashing' appeared over the past ten years skyrocketed from around 100 times in 2013 to over 10,000 times in 2023,” she said.

“Despite this, Energy Australia still (very wrongly) assumed that performative environmentalism would be enough to satiate the public's growing demand for companies to act in ways that benefit the planet. However, every strategic communications expert knows that engaging in social justice issues inauthentically will make both sides of the issue angry,” said Moreno.

In response to the firm's apology, Moreno noted that people who don't believe in climate change would have been alienated by Energy Australia's perceived attempt at being 'woke' with its greenwashing.“But people who do believe in climate change were also alienated by Energy Australia's false pretences when it came to providing a truly sustainable option. So everybody loses in this situation - including Energy Australia, and including the planet,” she said. - Camillia Dass

8. Home Depot and Others Stay Silent on ICE

The corporate silence regarding the wave of ICE raids that has swept up immigrants legal and illegal-and not a few American citizens -has been deafening. Companies that were happy to speak out against insurrectionists and police violence against African-Americans have said nothing as heavily armed police in masks have terrorized Latin American communities across the country.

Given the political context, it's no surprise that the majority of companies are opting not to speak out about the racial profiling and violent tactics that have characterized the ICE raids. But some companies have found themselves involved in the discussion anyway, as the Immigration & Customs Enforcement agents and counter-protests have targeted their stores.

ICE agents have frequently targeted Home Depot in particular, presumably because the retailer's stores have become popular places for hard-working and law-abiding immigrants to plu their labor. Home Depot's response was to direct all media inquiries to ICE, and to decline further comment when asked what the company was doing to protect workers and customers.

As Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communications at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, told Axios : "If you think about it conceptually, what is in it for a company to go up against Donald Trump? Zero, nothing.... unless it's an issue connected to you directly or there is a strategic need to comment."

But for a company at the center of the storm, like Home Deport,“ the raids and protests happened right in front" of their store, Argenti said. "How did they not comment on it? Customers, employees and community members will expect to hear from them. There's just no way [they] can get away without saying anything."

Walmart, meanwhile, has suggested that multiple reports of ICE actions at its stores-including claims that a company employee was abducted -may be untrue or exaggerated, and was even quick to distance itself after Walton family heiress Christy Walton took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging people to“defend against aggression by dictators.”

Former communications executive and current executive coach Marie Gettel-Gilmartin makes the point in a LinkedIn post that many smaller companies have found the courage that larger corporations lack:“With closer ties to their communities and employees, they feel the impact directly. Their voices can be personal and powerful. In contrast, larger corporations frequently rely on legal advice and PR teams, losing sight of the human cost of staying silent.”

While these are difficult times, it's important to know that stakeholders will remember what companies did-and did not do-to stand against authoritarianism in all its forms.- Paul Holmes

9. Did Air India Plagiarize Its Post-Crash Statement?

Air India CEO Campbell Wilson came under fire recently for allegedly plagiarizing a speech made by American Airlines CEO Robert Isom in the wake of a devastating plane crash that killed 241 people in Ahmedabad.

Wilson's statement, issued two days after the tragedy, bore striking similarities to Isom's speech following a separate accident in January when a commercial American Airlines plane collided with a military helicopter.

Social media users were up in arms and highlighted identical phrases about the situation's seriousness and emergency response efforts. This sparked a backlash online, with many accusing Wilson of failing to craft an original message during a very sensitive time.

The controversy also raised questions about the use of standard operating procedures (SOPs) in crisis communication, as some users speculated whether both CEOs had relied on similar templates or consultants.

Despite the criticisms, others argued that the language used in such situations is often formulaic and that the focus should remain on the tragedy itself rather than on the wording of the statements.

“Crisis communication is about presence. It means showing up quickly, speaking plainly, and staying real. Every move in the first 24 hours sets the tone,” advised Neha Mehrotra, managing director at Avian We.

“Air India followed the crisis playbook well: they put their CEO forward, shared regular updates, and maintained on-ground presence. They did everything expected of a responsible organisation, and on that front, the response was well-managed,” she said.

However, Mehrotra noted that every crisis still brings its own lessons.“This one reminds us that it's not just about what you say or who says it; it's also about how you show up. People want to see a leader who speaks with empathy and is willing to be vulnerable when the moment calls for it. That's where the gap was – not in execution, but in tone,” she said.

Mehrotra added that in the agency's 2025 We. 'Brands in Motion' study, which explored the role of communications in an increasingly complex world, it found that 44% of audiences trust leaders more when they sound unscripted.

“In moments like these, people don't expect perfect answers. They want clarity, honesty, and a sense that someone truly understands what they're going through. Say what you know. Say what you don't. But say it like a person. Adding humanity to crisis communication isn't soft. It's strategic, especially in tough times,” she said. - Camillia Dass

10. Xiaomi Dials Into A Smear Campaign

Earlier this year, Xiaomi revealed that it was the target of a smear campaign orchestrated by a criminal gang, just days before the launch of its new YU7 electric SUV.

The company claimed that this group utilized approximately 10,000 fake social media accounts to disseminate negative content aimed at damaging Xiaomi's reputation. This incident followed backlash from customers regarding the SU7 Ultra sports sedan, particularly complaints about cosmetic features and a software update that reduced its horsepower significantly.

The implications of the smear campaign were substantial and emphasized the vulnerability of brands to misinformation in a highly competitive automotive market.

“What Xiaomi's experience shows is that commercial success doesn't shield brands from reputational risk. It attracts it. The YU7's record-breaking 300,000+ paid pre-orders and lock-in orders within just two minutes of launch signalled a win for innovation and market appetite, but it also made the brand a very visible target,” said Meilin Wong, partner and CEO, Singapore and Southeast Asia at Milk & Honey PR.

She added that the smear campaign, timed just ahead of launch, was a calculated attempt to undermine credibility at the precise moment Xiaomi was stepping into a higher-stakes category.

“Their response was firm and coordinated, blending legal action with public disclosure. That set the tone and reclaimed control of the story,” said Wong.“For brands generating millions in revenue, especially those shifting into new verticals or introducing high-value products, the lesson is clear: reputational risk is no longer just a communications problem. It's a business continuity issue.“

Wong went on to explain that brands can't afford to be caught off guard by coordinated disinformation, nor can they rely solely on post-crisis cleanup.

“Real-time intelligence and preparedness must be treated as strategic assets. That's why building a tight ecosystem - linking data intelligence, a trusted PR partner, and legal - is imperative. It's how you ensure early detection, fast action, and credible messaging when it counts. The stakes are higher now: perception impacts valuation, trust drives conversion, and delay costs market share. Reputation management today needs to move at the speed of influence,” she said. - Camillia Dass

MENAFN31072025000219011063ID1109870098