403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
Lessons Learned From The Top 10 Crises Of Q2, 2026
(MENAFN- PRovoke)
Where were the reputation experts?
That's the question we found ourselves asking over and over again as we reviewed the biggest corporate crises of the second quarter of 2026, several of which felt like serious self-inflicted rules that could easily have been avoided had the individuals involved run their plans past anyone with experience in stakeholder relations or corporate affairs.
In Korea, Starbucks launched a promotion so offensive it is impossible to image a seasoned corporate affairs professional not immediately spotting the reputational risk. And the description of laid-off employees as“low value human capital” would surely have set alarm bells ringing had anyone with internal communications experience seen those words before they appeared on LinkedIn.
But just as critically, someone responsible for stakeholder relations should have been asked to review Ryanair's new pricing policy-as the case study below should remind everyone, pricing is a reputation issue as well as a commercial issue.
(It is perhaps a little less surprising that nobody at French cement company Lafarge thought to include the PR team in their plot to funnel funds to Islamic State and other jihadist groups.)
The lesson from these crises is simple: if a business decision has the potential to impact an organization's reputation-as nearly all business decisions do-then someone with a sophisticated understanding of how reputation works needs to review that decision before it is implemented.
That doesn't mean corporate affairs professionals should have the right to veto commercial decisions (though I don't think that's a bad idea, personally) but at least the ability to review such decisions gives them the ability to prepare the crisis plan before the decision blows up in the company's face.
The following article was compiled with the assistance of PRovoke Media editors Diana Marszalek, Maja Pawinska Sims and Camillia Dass.
1. Starbucks Korea: The Risks Of Automating Without Accountability
Starbucks Korea's“Tank Day” controversy earlier this year quickly became one of the region's most revealing examples of how AI-enabled content creation can amplify reputational risk when speed and efficiency outpace human judgment.
The crisis began after Starbucks Korea promoted its“Tank” tumbler range on 18 May, the anniversary of the 1980 Gwangju Uprising, when the South Korean military violently suppressed a pro-democracy movement. The campaign also reportedly included language that evoked the 1987 torture and death of student activist Park Jong-chul, linking the promotion to two deeply painful episodes in the country's democratic history.
The campaign was withdrawn within hours, followed by multiple public apologies from Starbucks Korea and parent company Shinsegae Group. The fallout also led to the dismissal of Starbucks Korea's chief executive and a nationwide shutdown of more than 2,000 stores for employee training on modern Korean history, social sensitivity and cultural awareness. Internal reviews reportedly uncovered failures in the campaign's approval process, including managers signing off on materials without reviewing them fully, while the use of AI tools during the campaign's development drew further scrutiny.
Yet the company's corrective measures prompted another reputational question: whether frontline employees were being asked to absorb the consequences of a failure that appeared to originate within management, governance and approval systems.
Social media analysis shared with PRovoke Media by CARMA at the time found that while online mentions fell after the training shutdown was announced, negative sentiment rose from 34.8% to 55.1%. The conversation shifted away from the original promotion and towards leadership responsibility, accountability and the treatment of employees, suggesting Starbucks had succeeded in changing the subject without necessarily improving public confidence.
The episode demonstrated that the communications risks surrounding AI do not stem from the technology alone, according to Kelly Kwon, General Manager of The Hoffman Agency Korea. Instead, they emerge when organisations use automation without establishing sufficient accountability around its outputs.
“I'm generally in favour of using AI because it can dramatically improve speed and productivity. However, efficiency should never be the end goal; it should enable better outcomes,” she said.“AI has lowered the barriers to creating content, but it has also raised the bar for earning trust.”
Kwon added that the central issue was whether organisations had established the necessary governance, guardrails and review processes before AI-generated or AI-assisted work reached the public.“Ultimately, the communications risk comes not from automation, but from automating without accountability,” she said.
The crisis also underlined why advances in AI should increase rather than diminish the need for meaningful human oversight. While technology can process large volumes of information and recognise patterns, Kwon said it remains unable to independently interpret the full cultural and social significance of its outputs.
“As AI becomes more capable, human oversight becomes even more important,” she said.“Cultural awareness today extends far beyond history; it includes understanding diversity, evolving social values, generational perspectives and changing consumer expectations. AI can identify patterns and process information at scale, but interpreting meaning within a specific social and cultural context still requires human judgment. AI can support decisions, but it should never replace responsible decision-making.”
Starbucks Korea's response also illustrated the difficulty of managing crises caused not by an external attack or unpredictable event, but by weaknesses inside an organisation's own systems.
Kwon said companies facing internally generated failures should avoid reducing the incident to one employee, department or technology platform. Instead, the focus should be on understanding how the wider system allowed questionable material to move through development and approval without being challenged.
“When mistakes originate internally, organisations should resist the temptation to look for someone to blame and instead examine the system that allowed the mistake to happen,” she said.“Strong organisations treat these moments as opportunities to improve governance, strengthen approval processes and clarify accountability. This wasn't simply a failure of AI; it was a reminder that human governance must evolve alongside AI. Technology moves fast, but governance needs to keep pace.”
The broader lesson for communications teams is that AI adoption cannot be treated simply as a productivity initiative. As communicators increasingly use AI for research, monitoring, translation and content development, their role is shifting from producing every element themselves to overseeing how human and machine capabilities interact.
Kwon said this would require communications leaders to develop stronger“metacognition”: the ability to interrogate AI-generated outputs, challenge assumptions and recognise where technology may lack the cultural intelligence needed to make sound decisions.
“The biggest lesson is that AI should enhance human judgment, not replace it,” she said.“The role of communications professionals is shifting from creating everything themselves to orchestrating effective collaboration between AI and people. The future belongs to organisations that combine AI's speed with human judgment, cultural intelligence and accountability.”-CD
2. Holding Companies Accountable for Human Rights Crimes
White-collar crime has become so commonplace-and punishments for the perpetrators so trivial-that it must have come as a shock to many, including the defendants, when French company Lafarge and four former executives were found guilty of financing terrorism in an attempt to keep a Syrian factory open.
As the Financial Times reported, French prosecutors began investigating Lafarge in 2016 over allegations it had paid Islamist militant groups between 2013 and 2014 to allow its workers continued access to its Syrian plant. In April, a criminal court found there was a trail of €5.6mn in“security payments” to Islamic State, the Al-Nusrah front and other jihadist groups and the company and four former executives were found guilty on charges of financing terrorism.
Nevertheless, recent history makes the Lafarge case an anomaly. Writing at Substack, founder of Better Future Media Michael Mezz notes,“We almost never see this level of accountability, where executives are directly held personally liable for corporate crimes. Usually, when corporations harm people in pursuit of profit... the typical outcome is a fine. Almost never prison sentences for the executives who made the decisions... until now.”
No wonder, then that human rights lawyer Masha Gessen, writing at The New York Times, suggested that the verdict could“rewrite the rules of corporate morality” because“for the first time in France, and possibly for the first time ever, anywhere, an entire corporation had been put on trial and found criminally liable for enabling terrorism.”
In her article, she points to two problems prosecutors face in holding companies accountable. One is resources: in complex cases, the financial resources of large corporations and their lawyers can be an overwhelming advantage.
The other is“the problem of intent, which is essential to determining guilt in a criminal trial. Does a corporation have a mind? Can it have intent? The defense in the Lafarge trial claimed that the company's and its executives' only intent was to keep the Syria plant in operation; the judge concluded that the executives' exclusive focus on this goal was itself incriminating... The court in Paris has just ruled that cynicism and an exclusive focus on profits can constitute a crime.”
Says New York crisis management expert Richard Torrenzano, chief executive, The Torrenzano Group,“Lafarge didn't just make a catastrophic business decision-it broke the law, financed terrorist organizations and endangered the lives of its own employees in pursuit of profit. Lafarge leadership crossed legal, ethical, and moral lines that no leader or board should ever cross.
“The lesson is unmistakable: the moment you have to break the law or put lives at risk to make a profit, you no longer have a business strategy-you have a leadership failure. Walk away.”
Jennifer Risi, founder and president of The Swat Effect, adds: “ I see two lessons here. First, it's important to isolate the incident to a specific time, place, and management team to protect the overall corporate brand. Also, it's important to communicate compliance by detailing the new, rigorous policies and audit structures put in place to ensure it cannot happen again."
3. Ryanair: Pricing is a Reputation Issue
For an airline that has long treated ancillary fees as both business model and brand personality, Ryanair's Q2 crisis was unlikely to shock anyone who has ever tried to book a supposedly cheap flight and watched the final price rise with every click.
But the Competition and Markets Authority's investigation into the airline's family seating policy still cut through, because it centred on a charge that many consumers would instinctively see not as an optional extra, but as a basic expectation: allowing parents to sit with young children.
On 11 June, the UK competition watchdog said it was investigating whether Ryanair's "mandatory family seat" policy was unfair under consumer law. Under the airline's terms and conditions, at least one adult travelling with children aged between two and 11 had to sit with them. Ryanair's policy meant that the adult had to pay for a reserved seat, typically around £8 each way, although seats for up to four children on the same booking could then be selected free of charge.
The CMA said it was examining whether Ryanair was effectively charging parents for the airline to meet child safety and disability-related obligations under aviation rules. It also said it understood Ryanair was the only major airline flying from the UK to impose such a charge, with other carriers either seating children next to a parent or guardian for free, or allocating seats together automatically during booking.
Ryanair's response was characteristically combative. The airline called the CMA investigation "bogus", insisted its family seating policy complied with all relevant laws, and accused the Starmer government of using the probe as cover for its failure to abolish Air Passenger Duty. It argued that adults travelling with children paid for only one reserved adult seat and could then select reserved seats beside them for up to four children free of charge.
The dispute quickly became about more than whether the fee was lawful. It raised a broader question about whether an airline should monetise something many parents regard as a basic duty of care.
Crisis and issues expert Rod Cartwright says: "At its core, Ryanair's entire brand is based on a bold, provocative and unapologetic form of expectation management: an almost 'Faustian Pact' trade-off, where consumers aren't really expecting much and are, therefore, unsurprised when Ryanair pulls – well – another Ryanair.
"Indeed, the airline was ranked last among the UK short-haul carriers in Which?'s February customer satisfaction survey – with a score of 55%, one star for seat comfort and criticism of its hidden fees. And yet, the airline posted record June 2026 traffic, with 21.2 million passengers flown – up 7 percentage points, year-on-year.
"However, could this issue test the limits of even that implicit deal between the airline and its customers? Honestly, only time will tell."
Consumer group Which? welcomed the investigation, saying it had repeatedly highlighted what it called Ryanair's "harsh approach" to separating families and making parents pay to sit next to children as young as three. The CMA also said it would examine whether the charge was being "dripped" during the booking process, rather than being presented clearly as part of the total price.
The case also landed in the wider context of growing regulatory scrutiny of drip pricing and hidden charges. For a low-cost airline whose commercial model depends heavily on unbundling, the investigation went straight to the heart of how the Ryanair proposition is experienced by customers.
Two weeks later, Ryanair changed course. On 25 June, the airline said it would allow parents travelling with children aged two to 11 to be seated together free of charge if they opted for random allocation, although seats would typically be allocated towards the back of the aircraft after check-in. Families would still be able to pay if they wanted to reserve specific seats or sit nearer the front.
Even the climbdown came with a side order of Ryanair defiance. The airline described the change as a "revenue neutral... minor policy tweak" and said it would "reluctantly" adjust to what it called the industry standard. Michael O'Leary accused regulators of misunderstanding what was in consumers' interests.
As crisis responses go, it was classic Ryanair: concede the practical point, but refuse the moral one. The company removed the charge under regulatory pressure while making clear it did not accept the criticism that had prompted the change. For many customers, that remains entirely on-brand. Ryanair has never pretended to be warm and fuzzy, and low fares have long outweighed irritation with its approach.
But the episode showed the limits of that bargain. There is a difference between charging for luggage, priority boarding or a preferred seat, and charging a parent to sit next to a small child when the airline's own terms require them to do so. The first can be framed as consumer choice. The second looks much more like exploiting a captive need.
Cartwright says: "While share price is only one indicator of how an issue or crisis has (potentially) impacted on a brand or corporation, the airline's share price movements since 11th June may be instructive as to the extent of the bargain being strained."
Ryanair's shares initially fell by almost 1% following news of the CMA investigation, suggesting investors viewed it as a policy risk rather than a material earnings threat. Since then, the stock has recovered, rising around 8% by 20 July, although remaining below its early July peak.
The CMA said it had reached no conclusion on whether Ryanair had broken the law, and its investigation was continuing even after the policy change. With the regulator able to levy fines of up to 10% of global turnover or mandate refunds, the airline's financial risk may not yet have been fully realised.
Reputationally, however, the episode reinforced one of the most persistent perceptions about the Ryanair brand: that the low-cost promise comes with a willingness to monetise almost any point of passenger discomfort.
Cartwright concludes: "Few brands or corporations can permanently defy the laws of reputational gravity, though Ryanair has proved more durable than many in pulling off that trick. This could just be the point when the apple finally falls from the tree."-MPS
4. Capgemini Daycare Abuse: Welfare Must Be the Priority
A child abuse investigation at a daycare centre operating inside Capgemini's Bengaluru campus triggered widespread outrage in India earlier this year, raising difficult questions about corporate oversight, third-party vendor governance and the duty of care employers owe to working parents.
The controversy erupted after videos allegedly showing toddlers being physically abused by daycare staff circulated online. Police subsequently registered cases against five childcare workers following allegations that children had been assaulted, locked in bathrooms and subjected to other forms of mistreatment while in their care. The daycare facility, operated by external provider Little Scholars, was immediately shut down as investigations began.
Capgemini said it had suspended the daycare's operations, was cooperating with authorities and was providing support to affected employees and their families. India's National Commission for Protection of Child Rights also launched its own inquiry, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations and broader concerns about childcare standards at corporate campuses.
The case later took another turn when the daycare operator claimed some of the videos had been orchestrated by former employees as part of an alleged extortion attempt following their dismissal. Police investigations remain ongoing, with authorities examining both the abuse allegations and the competing claims surrounding how the footage emerged.
Regardless of the investigation's eventual findings, the incident has sparked a broader debate about governance, vendor oversight and crisis accountability. For employers increasingly offering on-site childcare as part of their employee value proposition, the episode illustrates how reputational responsibility extends beyond direct operations to encompass the conduct and oversight of third-party partners.
For Arpana Kumar Ahuja, EVP and head of corporate brand and communications at Jindal Steel, the case demonstrates why safeguarding crises should never be viewed primarily through the lens of reputation.
"Crises involving employee welfare or safeguarding are fundamentally about people, not reputation," she said. "The first responsibility of any organisation is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those affected, act swiftly on the facts available, and communicate the actions being taken."
She added that while organisations have a responsibility to be transparent, they must also balance that with legal obligations and the privacy of those involved. "Communicating what you know, what you are doing, and what will happen next is often more important than trying to provide every answer immediately."
Ahuja also stressed that internal communications become just as critical during incidents affecting employee welfare.
"Employees need timely, factual updates and reassurance that leadership is treating the matter with the seriousness it deserves," she said. "Silence or delayed communication can create uncertainty and erode trust far more quickly than acknowledging that an investigation is underway."
Ultimately, she argued, organisations are judged more by what they do than what they say. "In crises of this nature, communications should reinforce accountability, empathy and a clear commitment to learning from the incident and strengthening safeguards for the future."
Girish Balachandran, founder and managing director of On Purpose, agreed that safeguarding incidents ultimately test organisational culture rather than communications capability.
"People don't expect every answer immediately, but they do expect empathy, accountability and visible action," he said. "Communicating early, acknowledging uncertainty where it exists, and keeping people informed as the picture becomes clearer is often more credible than waiting for a perfectly complete narrative."
Balachandran said internal communication deserves equal weight because employees are looking beyond the immediate incident to understand whether the organisation is addressing the underlying systems that allowed it to happen.
"Employees want to know that their concerns are being heard, that their wellbeing is being prioritised, and that the organisation is examining not just the incident but the systems around it," he said. "For communications leaders, that's the enduring lesson. In moments like these, trust is shaped by what people see the organisation doing over time, not by a single statement on day one." -CD
5. Chipotle Makes Itself an“Affordability” Target
On the surface, Chipotle CEO Scott Boatwright's advice seems perfectly reasonable: If you think your portion is skimpy, ask for more food.
But the advice addressed what customers should do after receiving an undersized portion-not the question many were asking in the first place: Why should they have to ask at all?
Boatwright made the comments during a May Yahoo! Finance interview after years of complaints about inconsistent serving sizes, many fueled by viral social media posts showing burrito bowls that appeared smaller than expected.
Defending the chain's serving practices, he said it has "always been our brand ethos...we serve big, beautiful bowls and burritos. Full stop, no questions asked." He added that customers who want more food should simply ask, promising, "There's never a team member on that line that's going to say no."
The company acknowledged last year that it had identified "about 10% or more" of its restaurants as outliers requiring additional training and coaching on portion standards.
Still, months of complaints weren't driven by uncertainty over whether customers could ask for more food. A Wells Fargo analysis of 75 identical burrito bowls ordered from eight New York City Chipotle locations found weights ranging from 13.8 ounces to 26.8 ounces, suggesting the inconsistency customers were complaining about was real, even if it wasn't universal.
The company's response focused on what customers could do if they received an undersized portion. The complaints, however, centered on whether those inconsistencies should exist in the first place.
Nick Cowling, CEO of Citizen Relations, said Chipotle attempted to address an operational issue with a customer-facing response.
"When a brand relies on customer confrontation as an operational strategy, the battle is already lost," he said. "Chipotle is attempting to solve a systemic brand problem with a defensive retail Band-Aid."
Cowling said the company should instead focus on eliminating the inconsistency through training and operational discipline.
"The real fix belongs in the kitchen, not the communications office," he said. "Fast-casual dining thrives on predictability. When you promise a premium experience but deliver something that depends entirely on a customer's willingness to argue at the counter, you break the core brand promise. Telling your customers to fight for their food is not a solution. It is an admission that your internal operations cannot reliably deliver on your external reputation."
Catherine Merritt, CEO of Spool, said her concern centered on the expectations the response created for restaurant employees.
"Restaurant chains are built on tight operational and financial controls," she said. "Portion sizes aren't just about the customer experience. They're fundamental to profitability, forecasting, inventory and consistency."
By telling customers they could receive more food if they asked, and assuring them employees would always accommodate those requests, Merritt said the company risked putting frontline workers in the difficult position of balancing a public promise against the operational standards they're expected to follow.
"That puts frontline employees in an impossible position," she said. "If the company has changed portions, be transparent. If it hasn't, fix the inconsistency. Consumers can handle honest communication, but the approach Chipotle is taking erodes trust."
In addition, Boatwright's response is not in synch with the tech-enabled way food service now works, when customers and employees may never set eyes on each other let alone speak.
“Their response had the unhelpful feature of denying the customer's grievance while also shifting the blame back to the person who just wants the burritos of the 2000s. Boatwright's response ignores the modern ecosystem of food ordering: there's no one to 'just ask' when ordering online,” said Precision Strategies senior VP Luke Jackson.
“Chipotle could have responded in a more sympathetic manner and taken the opportunity to stand out as a company willing to acknowledge what consumers are seeing with their own eyes and experiencing every day. If we accept what the CEO said, it's okay to just ask for more, there was an opportunity to acknowledge the customer's perspective and appeal to nostalgia by going on offense with a cheeky marketing campaign about going back to the early 2000s, burritos and all,” he said.-DM
6. Jaguar Land Rover: A whistleblower Raises Safety Issues
For Jaguar Land Rover, a long-running whistleblower dispute moved into more damaging reputational territory in Q2, as an employment tribunal brought fresh allegations about how the carmaker handled safety concerns.
The case centres on Hazar Denli, a former engineer who is seeking £3.7 million in compensation from JLR, alleging he was unfairly dismissed and“blacklisted” after raising concerns about electric vehicles he had worked on before joining the company. But in June, the dispute widened beyond the original allegations around VinFast, the Vietnamese EV maker whose cars were engineered in part by Tata Technologies, part of the wider Tata Group that owns JLR.
According to a witness statement submitted to the tribunal, Denli alleged that while working at JLR in 2018, he received an email showing a crash test video of the Range Rover Evoque that appeared to show“a rear subframe violently protruding into the fuel tank”, which he believed represented a serious fire risk. Denli claimed that when he raised the issue verbally with a senior manager, he was instructed not to respond to the email or create a written record.
JLR has denied the claims. At the tribunal, the company's lawyer described the Evoque allegation as serious but unrelated to the case, arguing that JLR could not fully respond because of the lack of detail provided. Denli's lawyer argued that the claim was relevant because it went to the company's culture in relation to whistleblowing. The judge said he would make no finding on the truth or relevance of the Evoque allegation until all the evidence had been reviewed.
For JLR, the reputational risk is not limited to the tribunal outcome. The wider issue is that the case touches on three highly sensitive areas for any automotive brand: safety, transparency and the treatment of employees who raise concerns.
Kate Hartley, co-founder of crisis simulation company Polpeo, says those issues go to the heart of the company's licence to operate.
“If you make cars, you don't have a viable business if they're unsafe. So why would you fire a whistleblower who's raised concerns about safety – and tried to go through official channels – rather than work with them to fix the problem?” she says.“Even if Denli broke confidentiality agreements, the first priority for JLR should be safety of its cars, not going after the person who raised the alarm.”
The case had already attracted scrutiny in December 2024, when a BBC investigation reported that internal documents appeared to show Tata Technologies executives had contacted JLR after identifying Denli as the author of anonymous Reddit posts about alleged safety issues in VinFast vehicles. Denli had previously worked for Tata Technologies on VinFast prototypes and claimed he had raised concerns internally about components in the cars' chassis and suspension systems, including parts that he said had failed at unusually low mileages.
Those Reddit posts were published after reports of safety incidents involving VinFast vehicles, including a fatal crash in California in April 2024 in which a family of four died after a VinFast VF8 left the road, hit a pole and caught fire. US safety regulator the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration later opened investigations into VinFast vehicles after reports of unexpected lane departures and steering issues. VinFast has said it takes safety concerns seriously and places the highest priority on quality, safety and customer experience.
Denli's contract at JLR was terminated in July 2024. The BBC reported that, on the same day, he was "red-flagged" on an industry recruitment platform, meaning applications for other work via the platform would automatically be declined. JLR has denied that it was instructed or pressured by Tata Technologies to terminate his role, and a JLR corporate investigator said in a witness statement that the company conducted its own investigation and concluded Denli was probably behind the Reddit posts.
JLR's position is that Denli shared sensitive information on a social media platform, creating concerns that he would not protect the company's confidential information and could damage customer relationships and trust in the brand. The company has also argued that there were more appropriate routes for him to raise safety concerns. Denli has said he acted because he believed there was a serious risk to public safety.
That distinction is at the heart of the reputational challenge. To JLR, the issue is framed as a matter of confidentiality and trust. To Denli, it is a whistleblowing case about public safety and retaliation. For external audiences, especially in a sector where safety is fundamental to corporate licence to operate, the whistleblower framing is likely to carry emotional and reputational weight.
The matter is further complicated by JLR's ownership structure. Although VinFast, Tata Technologies and JLR are separate entities, the BBC and tribunal reporting have created a narrative around the wider Tata ecosystem, raising questions about how concerns move through complex corporate structures and how independent decision-making is perceived when employment, clients and commercial relationships overlap.
The June tribunal evidence also turned the story from a dispute about a former employee's conduct into a broader question about organisational culture. The allegation that an engineer was told not to create a paper trail of a potential safety issue has not been tested or proven, but it is precisely the kind of claim that can lodge in the public mind because it appears to speak to systems and behaviours, not just a single HR decision.
Hartley says the company's handling of the dispute risks compounding the original issue:“Ethics aside, firing a whistleblower and then blacklisting them for future employers effectively cuts off their ability to earn, which means the only option open to them is an employment tribunal and a ton of media coverage.”
For JLR, the immediate task is legal, but the longer-term issue is reputational. The company has denied the allegations and the tribunal has not yet made findings on the central claims. But the case shows how quickly a whistleblowing dispute can evolve into a broader crisis of confidence, particularly when it raises questions about whether a company's internal culture encourages or discourages employees from escalating safety concerns.
Hartley believes that culture, rather than the tribunal itself, is now the bigger reputational question.“It absolutely comes down to culture. If your business relies on a safe product (and surely every car business should have safety at its centre) you have to have a safe culture, too. That means people can speak out without fear of retribution. Now, JLR is not only facing questions about its cars, but about its culture. That's a reputational problem that won't go away overnight.” -MPS
7. Mondelez: When 'Neutrality' Became The Crisis
For Mondelez International, the reputational issue in Q2 was not that it was caught doing something new, but that its chief executive defended an old decision in terms that underlined exactly why it remains so difficult to justify.
In June, Dirk Van de Put, chief executive of the Cadbury, Oreo, Ritz and Toblerone owner, told the BBC it had been the“right decision” for Mondelez to continue operating in Russia after the country's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. His argument was pragmatic: leaving could put thousands of jobs at risk and leave the company vulnerable to having its Russian operations confiscated by the Kremlin. But the same interview also produced the line that gave the story its reputational force.“We pay taxes in Russia that helps the war. I'm not pleased about that,” Van de Put said.
That is a difficult sentence for any consumer brand to carry, particularly one whose best-known products are household treats rather than strategic essentials. Mondelez has continued to generate between $1bn and $1.4bn a year in sales from Russia since the invasion, while saying it has stopped new investment and suspended advertising spend in the country. The company's position is that pulling out would not necessarily deprive Russia of assets or income, because its plants could be seized and operated by others.
The problem is that, three years into the war,“we are not pleased about it” is a weak shield against accusations of moral compromise. Van de Put also told the BBC that the company tried to be“neutral” in the conflict and was“not trying to take any side”. For critics, that is precisely the issue. In a war of aggression in which civilian deaths, occupation and attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure are central to the public understanding of the conflict, neutrality can sound less like careful corporate positioning than ethical evasion.
Mondelez has been under pressure over Russia for years. Ukraine's National Agency on Corruption Prevention named the company an“international sponsor of war” in 2023, triggering a backlash that included corporate boycotts in Sweden and Norway, according to Reuters. The company has also faced pressure from civil society groups and investors to provide greater transparency over the risks of continuing to operate in Russia, while Yale School of Management's tracker has continued to monitor the companies that curtailed or remained in Russia after the invasion.
Mondelez has tried to narrow the reputational exposure by arguing that its Russian operation has been scaled back. In a 2024 response to the B4Ukraine Coalition, the company said it had halted investment and advertising media spend in Russia, that the country accounted for 2.8% of consolidated net revenue in 2023, down from 4.0% in 2022, and that it was making the business more standalone and self-sufficient. It also said it was supporting around 3,000 employees and 10,000 farmers.
But even that distinction has proved difficult to sustain cleanly. In 2024, Reuters reported that foreign-made Toblerone bars were still being sold in Russia, despite Mondelez's commitment to separate the Russian business from its wider global operations. Mondelez said branded products could be entering Russia through third-party distributors or brokers, but the report showed the practical and reputational difficulty of trying to wall off a Russian business while global brands remain visible on Russian shelves.
The reputational challenge is sharpened by Mondelez's continued operations in Ukraine. Van de Put told the BBC the company had rebuilt one Ukrainian plant twice after it was hit during the war, doubled salaries when the conflict started and not fired any employees in the country. That gives Mondelez a more complicated story than a simple“Russia profiteering” narrative. It can point to meaningful commitment to Ukraine, including manufacturing operations that have continued despite direct danger to employees.
But it also creates a stark contrast: Mondelez is investing in rebuilding in Ukraine while still operating in Russia and paying taxes there. That may be commercially and legally defensible, but it is emotionally and politically hard to explain. For a global consumer goods company, the test is not only whether an action is sanctioned, legal or operationally rational. It is whether the public can reconcile the company's behaviour with the values its brands depend on.
Andy Barr, head of brand communications at Season One Communications, says the controversy illustrates how a defensible business decision can quickly become a communications problem if leaders fail to land the rationale.
“This was a classic example of a very valid operational decision being completely drowned out by the media training either not kicking in, or the chief exec doing what chief execs often do and completely ignoring the comms team's advice and strategy,” he says.
“When Mondelez agreed to the interview, they knew they were going to face some tough questions around Russia and Ukraine but clearly felt that their brand strength and consumer affection would get them through. The net result, a comms disaster and consumer love that has now started to wane.”
Barr argues that while Mondelez may have had sound operational reasons for remaining in Russia, the interview shifted attention away from that rationale and towards the moral implications of the company's continued presence in the country.
The case also highlights the limits of corporate pragmatism as a communications strategy. Mondelez's argument is not irrational: Russia has seized or pressured foreign assets, and leaving can be operationally complex. But reputationally,“if we leave, the Kremlin might take it anyway” is a defensive case, not a purpose-led one. It asks stakeholders to accept a lesser-of-two-evils calculation while the company continues to benefit from a market linked to an ongoing war.
For crisis advisers, Mondelez is a reminder that some issues cannot be neutralised through explanation alone. The longer a company remains exposed to a morally charged geopolitical crisis, the more its rationale becomes part of the crisis itself. Van de Put's BBC interview was intended to defend the decision to stay. Instead, by acknowledging that Mondelez's Russian taxes help fund the war, it gave critics a line that was blunt, memorable and difficult to walk back.
The company may believe it has chosen the least damaging option available. But the Q2 backlash showed that, in reputation terms, the least bad answer can still be bad enough to keep the crisis alive. In highly charged geopolitical crises, operational logic alone is rarely enough; companies also need a narrative that stakeholders are prepared to accept.-MPS
8. Standard Chartered Learns That Words Matter
Nobody wants to hear they have been downsized, rightsized, let go or whatever the latest euphemism for losing their job and income might be, but there are ways to soften the blow. And then there's what Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters did when he referred to the 8,000 or so employees the company was laying off as“lower-value human capital.”
In explaining that a large number of back-office employees at the bank would lose their jobs as a result of the company's investment in AI-already a sensitive topic-he posted to LinkedIn,“It's not cost-cutting. It's replacing in some cases lower-value human capital with the financial capital and the investment capital we're putting in.”
"Winters' comments sit at the intersection between operational efficiency and public perception, where his language became part of the story,” says Jennifer Risi, founder and president of New York corporate communications speciaist The Sway Effect.“Lower-value human capital is not a good soundbite outside the boardroom.
“It's important to always prioritize empathy as employees are the ultimate stakeholder. Everything a brand does needs to consider remaining employees and the possible impact to overall reputation."
Those thoughts are echoed by Jesse Dungan, executive vice president at crisis and risk communications specialist Infinite:“Every word matters, and there is no easy way to communicate mass layoffs.”
Still, Dungan cuts the Standard Chartered CEO some slack:“Winters' instinct to be candid about the transformative impact of AI while acknowledging the business realities facing the organization was understandable and, in principle, the right approach. However, the key lesson for executives and communications professionals lies in the execution and ultimately what's expressed.
“Describing certain employees as 'lower value human capital' in the context of workforce reductions was almost certain to alienate both employees and the broader public, as the social media reaction made clear. While Winters ultimately apologized for his choice of words and was quick to release an internal memo, more thorough scenario planning and a swifter apology would likely have helped Standard Chartered regain control of the narrative sooner, rather than extending the negative coverage.
“The takeaway for business leaders is that transparency and a clear strategic rationale should underpin communications around significant organizational change, but delivery is equally critical.”
9. Leadership Turmoil at BP
In May, BP's board made the unanimous decision to remove the company's chair Albert Manifold in response to“serious concerns” over his behavior, including allegations of bullying. The announcement, which cited issues with“governance standards, oversight and conduct” sent the co. company's shares tumbling by 4%.
An FT report said the company had received“a number” of whistleblower complaints against Manifold through its internal helpline and that there was evidence of“a pattern of behavior that was unacceptable” and violations of the company's code of conduct.
Within days, Manifold hit back, disputing the allegations of bullying and insisting that“at no point in my tenure as chairman of BP has anyone raised with me any issue about my conduct or my relationship with my colleagues.... What I do not accept is that lies can be told about me, nor that anyone should be allowed to hide behind anonymity when commenting on my time at BP.”
That response lent the story a“he-said, she-said” quality and made any definitive judgment on the narrative more complicated.
Says Verity Barr, head of brand communications at Cavendish,“From the BP perspective, this is a perfect example of how you can control your messaging, but you can't control anybody else's. And in a scenario like this, remember that you're managing a corporate reputation but they're managing their personal reputation so the stakes will feel even higher for them.
“The lesson here is that when you're prepping a such a high-profile announcement, you have to review your comms content through a 360-degree lens. Don't just focus on what you want to say; also consider how it could be interpreted, or misinterpreted, by anyone and everyone else, and anticipate the counter-narrative.
“Choose your words carefully, be considered and factual, but don't leave any space for interpretation-or misinterpretation.”
At the same time, experts say that BP had little option but to take a strong stand on a crisis that raised serious questions about the company's culture.
The abrupt removal of Manifold, less than eight months after he took the role,“demonstrated how quickly questions of leadership behaviour can become institutional reputation crises,” says Jon Rhodes, partner in the London office of Bully Pulpit International, noting that the episode came at a critical time for the company, as it continues to navigate a strategic pivot, sustained investor pressure and a separate CEO transition.
“The case illustrates how leadership conduct has become inseparable from institutional trust. Investors, employees and regulators increasingly judge organizations not simply by financial performance or strategic direction, but by whether senior leaders embody the values their organizations publicly promote. Allegations of bullying create reputational damage because they call into question the integrity of the culture itself.”
The board's response is critical in such situations, because stakeholders will judge a company by whether it cares about its culture.“In this instance, the board should be praised for acting decisively and framing the decision around governance standards rather than attempting to minimise the allegations,” says Rhodes.
10. KPMG Australia and the Perils of Defensive Reaction
KPMG Australia is facing renewed reputational pressure after a series of governance failures reignited questions about the firm's culture, leadership and commitment to accountability.
The latest scrutiny follows reporting by The Guardian alleging that KPMG mishandled multiple whistleblower complaints over several years, with claims that concerns about misconduct were inadequately investigated and that some whistleblowers faced retaliation after speaking up. The reporting also questioned the independence of external legal reviews commissioned by the firm and whether the board received complete information about the allegations.
The controversy has unfolded against the backdrop of a broader crisis at the firm. Earlier this year, KPMG Australia's chairman and two senior audit partners resigned after an internal investigation found the partners had altered audit working papers for telecommunications clients Telstra and Optus after audit procedures had already been completed. Australia's corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), later imposed financial penalties of up to A$180,000 on the partners involved, while KPMG accepted the findings and said it had strengthened its audit quality and governance processes.
Although the audit misconduct and whistleblower allegations relate to separate matters, together they have fuelled broader concerns about whether the firm's governance systems encourage transparency or prioritise institutional self-protection. The cumulative effect has been to shift attention away from isolated incidents towards deeper questions about leadership, culture and organisational integrity.
Craig Badings, partner at SenateSHJ, said the crisis became damaging not because allegations were raised, but because of how the organisation responded once concerns emerged.
"The KPMG case was not a reputation crisis because someone spoke up, but because leadership responded defensively. From the outset, KPMG appeared more focused on assessing the credibility and motivation of the whistleblower than rigorously testing the evidence. Once an organisation starts protecting reputations rather than investigating allegations, it enters a 'management trap', where the objective shifts from discovering the truth to managing the consequences. That strategy almost always fails because the facts have a habit of emerging anyway through regulators, parliamentary inquiries or the media."
Badings argued that the firm's response reflected several recurring governance failures that continue to undermine stakeholder confidence.
"KPMG fell into five recurring mistakes that organisations continue to make: treating whistleblowers as adversaries rather than early-warning systems; mistaking the appointment of external lawyers for genuine independence; providing boards with sanitised summaries rather than the evidence needed for informed oversight; prioritising legal defensibility over ethical judgement; and failing to learn from previous governance failures. Collectively, these behaviours create the perception that protecting influential individuals has become more important than protecting institutional integrity."
He added that modern stakeholders increasingly judge organisations by whether leaders are prepared to confront uncomfortable truths rather than simply manage the communications fallout.
"Today, stakeholders judge organisations less on whether misconduct occurs than on whether leaders are prepared to confront uncomfortable truths, even when they threaten senior people or commercial interests. Ultimately, KPMG's leadership failed the integrity test, not because the allegations emerged, but because of how they pursued the truth. It reinforces one of the central conclusions from our Future of Reputation 2030 report: you behave yourself into the reputation you want, not communicate yourself there." -CD
That's the question we found ourselves asking over and over again as we reviewed the biggest corporate crises of the second quarter of 2026, several of which felt like serious self-inflicted rules that could easily have been avoided had the individuals involved run their plans past anyone with experience in stakeholder relations or corporate affairs.
In Korea, Starbucks launched a promotion so offensive it is impossible to image a seasoned corporate affairs professional not immediately spotting the reputational risk. And the description of laid-off employees as“low value human capital” would surely have set alarm bells ringing had anyone with internal communications experience seen those words before they appeared on LinkedIn.
But just as critically, someone responsible for stakeholder relations should have been asked to review Ryanair's new pricing policy-as the case study below should remind everyone, pricing is a reputation issue as well as a commercial issue.
(It is perhaps a little less surprising that nobody at French cement company Lafarge thought to include the PR team in their plot to funnel funds to Islamic State and other jihadist groups.)
The lesson from these crises is simple: if a business decision has the potential to impact an organization's reputation-as nearly all business decisions do-then someone with a sophisticated understanding of how reputation works needs to review that decision before it is implemented.
That doesn't mean corporate affairs professionals should have the right to veto commercial decisions (though I don't think that's a bad idea, personally) but at least the ability to review such decisions gives them the ability to prepare the crisis plan before the decision blows up in the company's face.
The following article was compiled with the assistance of PRovoke Media editors Diana Marszalek, Maja Pawinska Sims and Camillia Dass.
1. Starbucks Korea: The Risks Of Automating Without Accountability
Starbucks Korea's“Tank Day” controversy earlier this year quickly became one of the region's most revealing examples of how AI-enabled content creation can amplify reputational risk when speed and efficiency outpace human judgment.
The crisis began after Starbucks Korea promoted its“Tank” tumbler range on 18 May, the anniversary of the 1980 Gwangju Uprising, when the South Korean military violently suppressed a pro-democracy movement. The campaign also reportedly included language that evoked the 1987 torture and death of student activist Park Jong-chul, linking the promotion to two deeply painful episodes in the country's democratic history.
The campaign was withdrawn within hours, followed by multiple public apologies from Starbucks Korea and parent company Shinsegae Group. The fallout also led to the dismissal of Starbucks Korea's chief executive and a nationwide shutdown of more than 2,000 stores for employee training on modern Korean history, social sensitivity and cultural awareness. Internal reviews reportedly uncovered failures in the campaign's approval process, including managers signing off on materials without reviewing them fully, while the use of AI tools during the campaign's development drew further scrutiny.
Yet the company's corrective measures prompted another reputational question: whether frontline employees were being asked to absorb the consequences of a failure that appeared to originate within management, governance and approval systems.
Social media analysis shared with PRovoke Media by CARMA at the time found that while online mentions fell after the training shutdown was announced, negative sentiment rose from 34.8% to 55.1%. The conversation shifted away from the original promotion and towards leadership responsibility, accountability and the treatment of employees, suggesting Starbucks had succeeded in changing the subject without necessarily improving public confidence.
The episode demonstrated that the communications risks surrounding AI do not stem from the technology alone, according to Kelly Kwon, General Manager of The Hoffman Agency Korea. Instead, they emerge when organisations use automation without establishing sufficient accountability around its outputs.
“I'm generally in favour of using AI because it can dramatically improve speed and productivity. However, efficiency should never be the end goal; it should enable better outcomes,” she said.“AI has lowered the barriers to creating content, but it has also raised the bar for earning trust.”
Kwon added that the central issue was whether organisations had established the necessary governance, guardrails and review processes before AI-generated or AI-assisted work reached the public.“Ultimately, the communications risk comes not from automation, but from automating without accountability,” she said.
The crisis also underlined why advances in AI should increase rather than diminish the need for meaningful human oversight. While technology can process large volumes of information and recognise patterns, Kwon said it remains unable to independently interpret the full cultural and social significance of its outputs.
“As AI becomes more capable, human oversight becomes even more important,” she said.“Cultural awareness today extends far beyond history; it includes understanding diversity, evolving social values, generational perspectives and changing consumer expectations. AI can identify patterns and process information at scale, but interpreting meaning within a specific social and cultural context still requires human judgment. AI can support decisions, but it should never replace responsible decision-making.”
Starbucks Korea's response also illustrated the difficulty of managing crises caused not by an external attack or unpredictable event, but by weaknesses inside an organisation's own systems.
Kwon said companies facing internally generated failures should avoid reducing the incident to one employee, department or technology platform. Instead, the focus should be on understanding how the wider system allowed questionable material to move through development and approval without being challenged.
“When mistakes originate internally, organisations should resist the temptation to look for someone to blame and instead examine the system that allowed the mistake to happen,” she said.“Strong organisations treat these moments as opportunities to improve governance, strengthen approval processes and clarify accountability. This wasn't simply a failure of AI; it was a reminder that human governance must evolve alongside AI. Technology moves fast, but governance needs to keep pace.”
The broader lesson for communications teams is that AI adoption cannot be treated simply as a productivity initiative. As communicators increasingly use AI for research, monitoring, translation and content development, their role is shifting from producing every element themselves to overseeing how human and machine capabilities interact.
Kwon said this would require communications leaders to develop stronger“metacognition”: the ability to interrogate AI-generated outputs, challenge assumptions and recognise where technology may lack the cultural intelligence needed to make sound decisions.
“The biggest lesson is that AI should enhance human judgment, not replace it,” she said.“The role of communications professionals is shifting from creating everything themselves to orchestrating effective collaboration between AI and people. The future belongs to organisations that combine AI's speed with human judgment, cultural intelligence and accountability.”-CD
2. Holding Companies Accountable for Human Rights Crimes
White-collar crime has become so commonplace-and punishments for the perpetrators so trivial-that it must have come as a shock to many, including the defendants, when French company Lafarge and four former executives were found guilty of financing terrorism in an attempt to keep a Syrian factory open.
As the Financial Times reported, French prosecutors began investigating Lafarge in 2016 over allegations it had paid Islamist militant groups between 2013 and 2014 to allow its workers continued access to its Syrian plant. In April, a criminal court found there was a trail of €5.6mn in“security payments” to Islamic State, the Al-Nusrah front and other jihadist groups and the company and four former executives were found guilty on charges of financing terrorism.
Nevertheless, recent history makes the Lafarge case an anomaly. Writing at Substack, founder of Better Future Media Michael Mezz notes,“We almost never see this level of accountability, where executives are directly held personally liable for corporate crimes. Usually, when corporations harm people in pursuit of profit... the typical outcome is a fine. Almost never prison sentences for the executives who made the decisions... until now.”
No wonder, then that human rights lawyer Masha Gessen, writing at The New York Times, suggested that the verdict could“rewrite the rules of corporate morality” because“for the first time in France, and possibly for the first time ever, anywhere, an entire corporation had been put on trial and found criminally liable for enabling terrorism.”
In her article, she points to two problems prosecutors face in holding companies accountable. One is resources: in complex cases, the financial resources of large corporations and their lawyers can be an overwhelming advantage.
The other is“the problem of intent, which is essential to determining guilt in a criminal trial. Does a corporation have a mind? Can it have intent? The defense in the Lafarge trial claimed that the company's and its executives' only intent was to keep the Syria plant in operation; the judge concluded that the executives' exclusive focus on this goal was itself incriminating... The court in Paris has just ruled that cynicism and an exclusive focus on profits can constitute a crime.”
Says New York crisis management expert Richard Torrenzano, chief executive, The Torrenzano Group,“Lafarge didn't just make a catastrophic business decision-it broke the law, financed terrorist organizations and endangered the lives of its own employees in pursuit of profit. Lafarge leadership crossed legal, ethical, and moral lines that no leader or board should ever cross.
“The lesson is unmistakable: the moment you have to break the law or put lives at risk to make a profit, you no longer have a business strategy-you have a leadership failure. Walk away.”
Jennifer Risi, founder and president of The Swat Effect, adds: “ I see two lessons here. First, it's important to isolate the incident to a specific time, place, and management team to protect the overall corporate brand. Also, it's important to communicate compliance by detailing the new, rigorous policies and audit structures put in place to ensure it cannot happen again."
3. Ryanair: Pricing is a Reputation Issue
For an airline that has long treated ancillary fees as both business model and brand personality, Ryanair's Q2 crisis was unlikely to shock anyone who has ever tried to book a supposedly cheap flight and watched the final price rise with every click.
But the Competition and Markets Authority's investigation into the airline's family seating policy still cut through, because it centred on a charge that many consumers would instinctively see not as an optional extra, but as a basic expectation: allowing parents to sit with young children.
On 11 June, the UK competition watchdog said it was investigating whether Ryanair's "mandatory family seat" policy was unfair under consumer law. Under the airline's terms and conditions, at least one adult travelling with children aged between two and 11 had to sit with them. Ryanair's policy meant that the adult had to pay for a reserved seat, typically around £8 each way, although seats for up to four children on the same booking could then be selected free of charge.
The CMA said it was examining whether Ryanair was effectively charging parents for the airline to meet child safety and disability-related obligations under aviation rules. It also said it understood Ryanair was the only major airline flying from the UK to impose such a charge, with other carriers either seating children next to a parent or guardian for free, or allocating seats together automatically during booking.
Ryanair's response was characteristically combative. The airline called the CMA investigation "bogus", insisted its family seating policy complied with all relevant laws, and accused the Starmer government of using the probe as cover for its failure to abolish Air Passenger Duty. It argued that adults travelling with children paid for only one reserved adult seat and could then select reserved seats beside them for up to four children free of charge.
The dispute quickly became about more than whether the fee was lawful. It raised a broader question about whether an airline should monetise something many parents regard as a basic duty of care.
Crisis and issues expert Rod Cartwright says: "At its core, Ryanair's entire brand is based on a bold, provocative and unapologetic form of expectation management: an almost 'Faustian Pact' trade-off, where consumers aren't really expecting much and are, therefore, unsurprised when Ryanair pulls – well – another Ryanair.
"Indeed, the airline was ranked last among the UK short-haul carriers in Which?'s February customer satisfaction survey – with a score of 55%, one star for seat comfort and criticism of its hidden fees. And yet, the airline posted record June 2026 traffic, with 21.2 million passengers flown – up 7 percentage points, year-on-year.
"However, could this issue test the limits of even that implicit deal between the airline and its customers? Honestly, only time will tell."
Consumer group Which? welcomed the investigation, saying it had repeatedly highlighted what it called Ryanair's "harsh approach" to separating families and making parents pay to sit next to children as young as three. The CMA also said it would examine whether the charge was being "dripped" during the booking process, rather than being presented clearly as part of the total price.
The case also landed in the wider context of growing regulatory scrutiny of drip pricing and hidden charges. For a low-cost airline whose commercial model depends heavily on unbundling, the investigation went straight to the heart of how the Ryanair proposition is experienced by customers.
Two weeks later, Ryanair changed course. On 25 June, the airline said it would allow parents travelling with children aged two to 11 to be seated together free of charge if they opted for random allocation, although seats would typically be allocated towards the back of the aircraft after check-in. Families would still be able to pay if they wanted to reserve specific seats or sit nearer the front.
Even the climbdown came with a side order of Ryanair defiance. The airline described the change as a "revenue neutral... minor policy tweak" and said it would "reluctantly" adjust to what it called the industry standard. Michael O'Leary accused regulators of misunderstanding what was in consumers' interests.
As crisis responses go, it was classic Ryanair: concede the practical point, but refuse the moral one. The company removed the charge under regulatory pressure while making clear it did not accept the criticism that had prompted the change. For many customers, that remains entirely on-brand. Ryanair has never pretended to be warm and fuzzy, and low fares have long outweighed irritation with its approach.
But the episode showed the limits of that bargain. There is a difference between charging for luggage, priority boarding or a preferred seat, and charging a parent to sit next to a small child when the airline's own terms require them to do so. The first can be framed as consumer choice. The second looks much more like exploiting a captive need.
Cartwright says: "While share price is only one indicator of how an issue or crisis has (potentially) impacted on a brand or corporation, the airline's share price movements since 11th June may be instructive as to the extent of the bargain being strained."
Ryanair's shares initially fell by almost 1% following news of the CMA investigation, suggesting investors viewed it as a policy risk rather than a material earnings threat. Since then, the stock has recovered, rising around 8% by 20 July, although remaining below its early July peak.
The CMA said it had reached no conclusion on whether Ryanair had broken the law, and its investigation was continuing even after the policy change. With the regulator able to levy fines of up to 10% of global turnover or mandate refunds, the airline's financial risk may not yet have been fully realised.
Reputationally, however, the episode reinforced one of the most persistent perceptions about the Ryanair brand: that the low-cost promise comes with a willingness to monetise almost any point of passenger discomfort.
Cartwright concludes: "Few brands or corporations can permanently defy the laws of reputational gravity, though Ryanair has proved more durable than many in pulling off that trick. This could just be the point when the apple finally falls from the tree."-MPS
4. Capgemini Daycare Abuse: Welfare Must Be the Priority
A child abuse investigation at a daycare centre operating inside Capgemini's Bengaluru campus triggered widespread outrage in India earlier this year, raising difficult questions about corporate oversight, third-party vendor governance and the duty of care employers owe to working parents.
The controversy erupted after videos allegedly showing toddlers being physically abused by daycare staff circulated online. Police subsequently registered cases against five childcare workers following allegations that children had been assaulted, locked in bathrooms and subjected to other forms of mistreatment while in their care. The daycare facility, operated by external provider Little Scholars, was immediately shut down as investigations began.
Capgemini said it had suspended the daycare's operations, was cooperating with authorities and was providing support to affected employees and their families. India's National Commission for Protection of Child Rights also launched its own inquiry, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations and broader concerns about childcare standards at corporate campuses.
The case later took another turn when the daycare operator claimed some of the videos had been orchestrated by former employees as part of an alleged extortion attempt following their dismissal. Police investigations remain ongoing, with authorities examining both the abuse allegations and the competing claims surrounding how the footage emerged.
Regardless of the investigation's eventual findings, the incident has sparked a broader debate about governance, vendor oversight and crisis accountability. For employers increasingly offering on-site childcare as part of their employee value proposition, the episode illustrates how reputational responsibility extends beyond direct operations to encompass the conduct and oversight of third-party partners.
For Arpana Kumar Ahuja, EVP and head of corporate brand and communications at Jindal Steel, the case demonstrates why safeguarding crises should never be viewed primarily through the lens of reputation.
"Crises involving employee welfare or safeguarding are fundamentally about people, not reputation," she said. "The first responsibility of any organisation is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those affected, act swiftly on the facts available, and communicate the actions being taken."
She added that while organisations have a responsibility to be transparent, they must also balance that with legal obligations and the privacy of those involved. "Communicating what you know, what you are doing, and what will happen next is often more important than trying to provide every answer immediately."
Ahuja also stressed that internal communications become just as critical during incidents affecting employee welfare.
"Employees need timely, factual updates and reassurance that leadership is treating the matter with the seriousness it deserves," she said. "Silence or delayed communication can create uncertainty and erode trust far more quickly than acknowledging that an investigation is underway."
Ultimately, she argued, organisations are judged more by what they do than what they say. "In crises of this nature, communications should reinforce accountability, empathy and a clear commitment to learning from the incident and strengthening safeguards for the future."
Girish Balachandran, founder and managing director of On Purpose, agreed that safeguarding incidents ultimately test organisational culture rather than communications capability.
"People don't expect every answer immediately, but they do expect empathy, accountability and visible action," he said. "Communicating early, acknowledging uncertainty where it exists, and keeping people informed as the picture becomes clearer is often more credible than waiting for a perfectly complete narrative."
Balachandran said internal communication deserves equal weight because employees are looking beyond the immediate incident to understand whether the organisation is addressing the underlying systems that allowed it to happen.
"Employees want to know that their concerns are being heard, that their wellbeing is being prioritised, and that the organisation is examining not just the incident but the systems around it," he said. "For communications leaders, that's the enduring lesson. In moments like these, trust is shaped by what people see the organisation doing over time, not by a single statement on day one." -CD
5. Chipotle Makes Itself an“Affordability” Target
On the surface, Chipotle CEO Scott Boatwright's advice seems perfectly reasonable: If you think your portion is skimpy, ask for more food.
But the advice addressed what customers should do after receiving an undersized portion-not the question many were asking in the first place: Why should they have to ask at all?
Boatwright made the comments during a May Yahoo! Finance interview after years of complaints about inconsistent serving sizes, many fueled by viral social media posts showing burrito bowls that appeared smaller than expected.
Defending the chain's serving practices, he said it has "always been our brand ethos...we serve big, beautiful bowls and burritos. Full stop, no questions asked." He added that customers who want more food should simply ask, promising, "There's never a team member on that line that's going to say no."
The company acknowledged last year that it had identified "about 10% or more" of its restaurants as outliers requiring additional training and coaching on portion standards.
Still, months of complaints weren't driven by uncertainty over whether customers could ask for more food. A Wells Fargo analysis of 75 identical burrito bowls ordered from eight New York City Chipotle locations found weights ranging from 13.8 ounces to 26.8 ounces, suggesting the inconsistency customers were complaining about was real, even if it wasn't universal.
The company's response focused on what customers could do if they received an undersized portion. The complaints, however, centered on whether those inconsistencies should exist in the first place.
Nick Cowling, CEO of Citizen Relations, said Chipotle attempted to address an operational issue with a customer-facing response.
"When a brand relies on customer confrontation as an operational strategy, the battle is already lost," he said. "Chipotle is attempting to solve a systemic brand problem with a defensive retail Band-Aid."
Cowling said the company should instead focus on eliminating the inconsistency through training and operational discipline.
"The real fix belongs in the kitchen, not the communications office," he said. "Fast-casual dining thrives on predictability. When you promise a premium experience but deliver something that depends entirely on a customer's willingness to argue at the counter, you break the core brand promise. Telling your customers to fight for their food is not a solution. It is an admission that your internal operations cannot reliably deliver on your external reputation."
Catherine Merritt, CEO of Spool, said her concern centered on the expectations the response created for restaurant employees.
"Restaurant chains are built on tight operational and financial controls," she said. "Portion sizes aren't just about the customer experience. They're fundamental to profitability, forecasting, inventory and consistency."
By telling customers they could receive more food if they asked, and assuring them employees would always accommodate those requests, Merritt said the company risked putting frontline workers in the difficult position of balancing a public promise against the operational standards they're expected to follow.
"That puts frontline employees in an impossible position," she said. "If the company has changed portions, be transparent. If it hasn't, fix the inconsistency. Consumers can handle honest communication, but the approach Chipotle is taking erodes trust."
In addition, Boatwright's response is not in synch with the tech-enabled way food service now works, when customers and employees may never set eyes on each other let alone speak.
“Their response had the unhelpful feature of denying the customer's grievance while also shifting the blame back to the person who just wants the burritos of the 2000s. Boatwright's response ignores the modern ecosystem of food ordering: there's no one to 'just ask' when ordering online,” said Precision Strategies senior VP Luke Jackson.
“Chipotle could have responded in a more sympathetic manner and taken the opportunity to stand out as a company willing to acknowledge what consumers are seeing with their own eyes and experiencing every day. If we accept what the CEO said, it's okay to just ask for more, there was an opportunity to acknowledge the customer's perspective and appeal to nostalgia by going on offense with a cheeky marketing campaign about going back to the early 2000s, burritos and all,” he said.-DM
6. Jaguar Land Rover: A whistleblower Raises Safety Issues
For Jaguar Land Rover, a long-running whistleblower dispute moved into more damaging reputational territory in Q2, as an employment tribunal brought fresh allegations about how the carmaker handled safety concerns.
The case centres on Hazar Denli, a former engineer who is seeking £3.7 million in compensation from JLR, alleging he was unfairly dismissed and“blacklisted” after raising concerns about electric vehicles he had worked on before joining the company. But in June, the dispute widened beyond the original allegations around VinFast, the Vietnamese EV maker whose cars were engineered in part by Tata Technologies, part of the wider Tata Group that owns JLR.
According to a witness statement submitted to the tribunal, Denli alleged that while working at JLR in 2018, he received an email showing a crash test video of the Range Rover Evoque that appeared to show“a rear subframe violently protruding into the fuel tank”, which he believed represented a serious fire risk. Denli claimed that when he raised the issue verbally with a senior manager, he was instructed not to respond to the email or create a written record.
JLR has denied the claims. At the tribunal, the company's lawyer described the Evoque allegation as serious but unrelated to the case, arguing that JLR could not fully respond because of the lack of detail provided. Denli's lawyer argued that the claim was relevant because it went to the company's culture in relation to whistleblowing. The judge said he would make no finding on the truth or relevance of the Evoque allegation until all the evidence had been reviewed.
For JLR, the reputational risk is not limited to the tribunal outcome. The wider issue is that the case touches on three highly sensitive areas for any automotive brand: safety, transparency and the treatment of employees who raise concerns.
Kate Hartley, co-founder of crisis simulation company Polpeo, says those issues go to the heart of the company's licence to operate.
“If you make cars, you don't have a viable business if they're unsafe. So why would you fire a whistleblower who's raised concerns about safety – and tried to go through official channels – rather than work with them to fix the problem?” she says.“Even if Denli broke confidentiality agreements, the first priority for JLR should be safety of its cars, not going after the person who raised the alarm.”
The case had already attracted scrutiny in December 2024, when a BBC investigation reported that internal documents appeared to show Tata Technologies executives had contacted JLR after identifying Denli as the author of anonymous Reddit posts about alleged safety issues in VinFast vehicles. Denli had previously worked for Tata Technologies on VinFast prototypes and claimed he had raised concerns internally about components in the cars' chassis and suspension systems, including parts that he said had failed at unusually low mileages.
Those Reddit posts were published after reports of safety incidents involving VinFast vehicles, including a fatal crash in California in April 2024 in which a family of four died after a VinFast VF8 left the road, hit a pole and caught fire. US safety regulator the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration later opened investigations into VinFast vehicles after reports of unexpected lane departures and steering issues. VinFast has said it takes safety concerns seriously and places the highest priority on quality, safety and customer experience.
Denli's contract at JLR was terminated in July 2024. The BBC reported that, on the same day, he was "red-flagged" on an industry recruitment platform, meaning applications for other work via the platform would automatically be declined. JLR has denied that it was instructed or pressured by Tata Technologies to terminate his role, and a JLR corporate investigator said in a witness statement that the company conducted its own investigation and concluded Denli was probably behind the Reddit posts.
JLR's position is that Denli shared sensitive information on a social media platform, creating concerns that he would not protect the company's confidential information and could damage customer relationships and trust in the brand. The company has also argued that there were more appropriate routes for him to raise safety concerns. Denli has said he acted because he believed there was a serious risk to public safety.
That distinction is at the heart of the reputational challenge. To JLR, the issue is framed as a matter of confidentiality and trust. To Denli, it is a whistleblowing case about public safety and retaliation. For external audiences, especially in a sector where safety is fundamental to corporate licence to operate, the whistleblower framing is likely to carry emotional and reputational weight.
The matter is further complicated by JLR's ownership structure. Although VinFast, Tata Technologies and JLR are separate entities, the BBC and tribunal reporting have created a narrative around the wider Tata ecosystem, raising questions about how concerns move through complex corporate structures and how independent decision-making is perceived when employment, clients and commercial relationships overlap.
The June tribunal evidence also turned the story from a dispute about a former employee's conduct into a broader question about organisational culture. The allegation that an engineer was told not to create a paper trail of a potential safety issue has not been tested or proven, but it is precisely the kind of claim that can lodge in the public mind because it appears to speak to systems and behaviours, not just a single HR decision.
Hartley says the company's handling of the dispute risks compounding the original issue:“Ethics aside, firing a whistleblower and then blacklisting them for future employers effectively cuts off their ability to earn, which means the only option open to them is an employment tribunal and a ton of media coverage.”
For JLR, the immediate task is legal, but the longer-term issue is reputational. The company has denied the allegations and the tribunal has not yet made findings on the central claims. But the case shows how quickly a whistleblowing dispute can evolve into a broader crisis of confidence, particularly when it raises questions about whether a company's internal culture encourages or discourages employees from escalating safety concerns.
Hartley believes that culture, rather than the tribunal itself, is now the bigger reputational question.“It absolutely comes down to culture. If your business relies on a safe product (and surely every car business should have safety at its centre) you have to have a safe culture, too. That means people can speak out without fear of retribution. Now, JLR is not only facing questions about its cars, but about its culture. That's a reputational problem that won't go away overnight.” -MPS
7. Mondelez: When 'Neutrality' Became The Crisis
For Mondelez International, the reputational issue in Q2 was not that it was caught doing something new, but that its chief executive defended an old decision in terms that underlined exactly why it remains so difficult to justify.
In June, Dirk Van de Put, chief executive of the Cadbury, Oreo, Ritz and Toblerone owner, told the BBC it had been the“right decision” for Mondelez to continue operating in Russia after the country's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. His argument was pragmatic: leaving could put thousands of jobs at risk and leave the company vulnerable to having its Russian operations confiscated by the Kremlin. But the same interview also produced the line that gave the story its reputational force.“We pay taxes in Russia that helps the war. I'm not pleased about that,” Van de Put said.
That is a difficult sentence for any consumer brand to carry, particularly one whose best-known products are household treats rather than strategic essentials. Mondelez has continued to generate between $1bn and $1.4bn a year in sales from Russia since the invasion, while saying it has stopped new investment and suspended advertising spend in the country. The company's position is that pulling out would not necessarily deprive Russia of assets or income, because its plants could be seized and operated by others.
The problem is that, three years into the war,“we are not pleased about it” is a weak shield against accusations of moral compromise. Van de Put also told the BBC that the company tried to be“neutral” in the conflict and was“not trying to take any side”. For critics, that is precisely the issue. In a war of aggression in which civilian deaths, occupation and attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure are central to the public understanding of the conflict, neutrality can sound less like careful corporate positioning than ethical evasion.
Mondelez has been under pressure over Russia for years. Ukraine's National Agency on Corruption Prevention named the company an“international sponsor of war” in 2023, triggering a backlash that included corporate boycotts in Sweden and Norway, according to Reuters. The company has also faced pressure from civil society groups and investors to provide greater transparency over the risks of continuing to operate in Russia, while Yale School of Management's tracker has continued to monitor the companies that curtailed or remained in Russia after the invasion.
Mondelez has tried to narrow the reputational exposure by arguing that its Russian operation has been scaled back. In a 2024 response to the B4Ukraine Coalition, the company said it had halted investment and advertising media spend in Russia, that the country accounted for 2.8% of consolidated net revenue in 2023, down from 4.0% in 2022, and that it was making the business more standalone and self-sufficient. It also said it was supporting around 3,000 employees and 10,000 farmers.
But even that distinction has proved difficult to sustain cleanly. In 2024, Reuters reported that foreign-made Toblerone bars were still being sold in Russia, despite Mondelez's commitment to separate the Russian business from its wider global operations. Mondelez said branded products could be entering Russia through third-party distributors or brokers, but the report showed the practical and reputational difficulty of trying to wall off a Russian business while global brands remain visible on Russian shelves.
The reputational challenge is sharpened by Mondelez's continued operations in Ukraine. Van de Put told the BBC the company had rebuilt one Ukrainian plant twice after it was hit during the war, doubled salaries when the conflict started and not fired any employees in the country. That gives Mondelez a more complicated story than a simple“Russia profiteering” narrative. It can point to meaningful commitment to Ukraine, including manufacturing operations that have continued despite direct danger to employees.
But it also creates a stark contrast: Mondelez is investing in rebuilding in Ukraine while still operating in Russia and paying taxes there. That may be commercially and legally defensible, but it is emotionally and politically hard to explain. For a global consumer goods company, the test is not only whether an action is sanctioned, legal or operationally rational. It is whether the public can reconcile the company's behaviour with the values its brands depend on.
Andy Barr, head of brand communications at Season One Communications, says the controversy illustrates how a defensible business decision can quickly become a communications problem if leaders fail to land the rationale.
“This was a classic example of a very valid operational decision being completely drowned out by the media training either not kicking in, or the chief exec doing what chief execs often do and completely ignoring the comms team's advice and strategy,” he says.
“When Mondelez agreed to the interview, they knew they were going to face some tough questions around Russia and Ukraine but clearly felt that their brand strength and consumer affection would get them through. The net result, a comms disaster and consumer love that has now started to wane.”
Barr argues that while Mondelez may have had sound operational reasons for remaining in Russia, the interview shifted attention away from that rationale and towards the moral implications of the company's continued presence in the country.
The case also highlights the limits of corporate pragmatism as a communications strategy. Mondelez's argument is not irrational: Russia has seized or pressured foreign assets, and leaving can be operationally complex. But reputationally,“if we leave, the Kremlin might take it anyway” is a defensive case, not a purpose-led one. It asks stakeholders to accept a lesser-of-two-evils calculation while the company continues to benefit from a market linked to an ongoing war.
For crisis advisers, Mondelez is a reminder that some issues cannot be neutralised through explanation alone. The longer a company remains exposed to a morally charged geopolitical crisis, the more its rationale becomes part of the crisis itself. Van de Put's BBC interview was intended to defend the decision to stay. Instead, by acknowledging that Mondelez's Russian taxes help fund the war, it gave critics a line that was blunt, memorable and difficult to walk back.
The company may believe it has chosen the least damaging option available. But the Q2 backlash showed that, in reputation terms, the least bad answer can still be bad enough to keep the crisis alive. In highly charged geopolitical crises, operational logic alone is rarely enough; companies also need a narrative that stakeholders are prepared to accept.-MPS
8. Standard Chartered Learns That Words Matter
Nobody wants to hear they have been downsized, rightsized, let go or whatever the latest euphemism for losing their job and income might be, but there are ways to soften the blow. And then there's what Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters did when he referred to the 8,000 or so employees the company was laying off as“lower-value human capital.”
In explaining that a large number of back-office employees at the bank would lose their jobs as a result of the company's investment in AI-already a sensitive topic-he posted to LinkedIn,“It's not cost-cutting. It's replacing in some cases lower-value human capital with the financial capital and the investment capital we're putting in.”
"Winters' comments sit at the intersection between operational efficiency and public perception, where his language became part of the story,” says Jennifer Risi, founder and president of New York corporate communications speciaist The Sway Effect.“Lower-value human capital is not a good soundbite outside the boardroom.
“It's important to always prioritize empathy as employees are the ultimate stakeholder. Everything a brand does needs to consider remaining employees and the possible impact to overall reputation."
Those thoughts are echoed by Jesse Dungan, executive vice president at crisis and risk communications specialist Infinite:“Every word matters, and there is no easy way to communicate mass layoffs.”
Still, Dungan cuts the Standard Chartered CEO some slack:“Winters' instinct to be candid about the transformative impact of AI while acknowledging the business realities facing the organization was understandable and, in principle, the right approach. However, the key lesson for executives and communications professionals lies in the execution and ultimately what's expressed.
“Describing certain employees as 'lower value human capital' in the context of workforce reductions was almost certain to alienate both employees and the broader public, as the social media reaction made clear. While Winters ultimately apologized for his choice of words and was quick to release an internal memo, more thorough scenario planning and a swifter apology would likely have helped Standard Chartered regain control of the narrative sooner, rather than extending the negative coverage.
“The takeaway for business leaders is that transparency and a clear strategic rationale should underpin communications around significant organizational change, but delivery is equally critical.”
9. Leadership Turmoil at BP
In May, BP's board made the unanimous decision to remove the company's chair Albert Manifold in response to“serious concerns” over his behavior, including allegations of bullying. The announcement, which cited issues with“governance standards, oversight and conduct” sent the co. company's shares tumbling by 4%.
An FT report said the company had received“a number” of whistleblower complaints against Manifold through its internal helpline and that there was evidence of“a pattern of behavior that was unacceptable” and violations of the company's code of conduct.
Within days, Manifold hit back, disputing the allegations of bullying and insisting that“at no point in my tenure as chairman of BP has anyone raised with me any issue about my conduct or my relationship with my colleagues.... What I do not accept is that lies can be told about me, nor that anyone should be allowed to hide behind anonymity when commenting on my time at BP.”
That response lent the story a“he-said, she-said” quality and made any definitive judgment on the narrative more complicated.
Says Verity Barr, head of brand communications at Cavendish,“From the BP perspective, this is a perfect example of how you can control your messaging, but you can't control anybody else's. And in a scenario like this, remember that you're managing a corporate reputation but they're managing their personal reputation so the stakes will feel even higher for them.
“The lesson here is that when you're prepping a such a high-profile announcement, you have to review your comms content through a 360-degree lens. Don't just focus on what you want to say; also consider how it could be interpreted, or misinterpreted, by anyone and everyone else, and anticipate the counter-narrative.
“Choose your words carefully, be considered and factual, but don't leave any space for interpretation-or misinterpretation.”
At the same time, experts say that BP had little option but to take a strong stand on a crisis that raised serious questions about the company's culture.
The abrupt removal of Manifold, less than eight months after he took the role,“demonstrated how quickly questions of leadership behaviour can become institutional reputation crises,” says Jon Rhodes, partner in the London office of Bully Pulpit International, noting that the episode came at a critical time for the company, as it continues to navigate a strategic pivot, sustained investor pressure and a separate CEO transition.
“The case illustrates how leadership conduct has become inseparable from institutional trust. Investors, employees and regulators increasingly judge organizations not simply by financial performance or strategic direction, but by whether senior leaders embody the values their organizations publicly promote. Allegations of bullying create reputational damage because they call into question the integrity of the culture itself.”
The board's response is critical in such situations, because stakeholders will judge a company by whether it cares about its culture.“In this instance, the board should be praised for acting decisively and framing the decision around governance standards rather than attempting to minimise the allegations,” says Rhodes.
10. KPMG Australia and the Perils of Defensive Reaction
KPMG Australia is facing renewed reputational pressure after a series of governance failures reignited questions about the firm's culture, leadership and commitment to accountability.
The latest scrutiny follows reporting by The Guardian alleging that KPMG mishandled multiple whistleblower complaints over several years, with claims that concerns about misconduct were inadequately investigated and that some whistleblowers faced retaliation after speaking up. The reporting also questioned the independence of external legal reviews commissioned by the firm and whether the board received complete information about the allegations.
The controversy has unfolded against the backdrop of a broader crisis at the firm. Earlier this year, KPMG Australia's chairman and two senior audit partners resigned after an internal investigation found the partners had altered audit working papers for telecommunications clients Telstra and Optus after audit procedures had already been completed. Australia's corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), later imposed financial penalties of up to A$180,000 on the partners involved, while KPMG accepted the findings and said it had strengthened its audit quality and governance processes.
Although the audit misconduct and whistleblower allegations relate to separate matters, together they have fuelled broader concerns about whether the firm's governance systems encourage transparency or prioritise institutional self-protection. The cumulative effect has been to shift attention away from isolated incidents towards deeper questions about leadership, culture and organisational integrity.
Craig Badings, partner at SenateSHJ, said the crisis became damaging not because allegations were raised, but because of how the organisation responded once concerns emerged.
"The KPMG case was not a reputation crisis because someone spoke up, but because leadership responded defensively. From the outset, KPMG appeared more focused on assessing the credibility and motivation of the whistleblower than rigorously testing the evidence. Once an organisation starts protecting reputations rather than investigating allegations, it enters a 'management trap', where the objective shifts from discovering the truth to managing the consequences. That strategy almost always fails because the facts have a habit of emerging anyway through regulators, parliamentary inquiries or the media."
Badings argued that the firm's response reflected several recurring governance failures that continue to undermine stakeholder confidence.
"KPMG fell into five recurring mistakes that organisations continue to make: treating whistleblowers as adversaries rather than early-warning systems; mistaking the appointment of external lawyers for genuine independence; providing boards with sanitised summaries rather than the evidence needed for informed oversight; prioritising legal defensibility over ethical judgement; and failing to learn from previous governance failures. Collectively, these behaviours create the perception that protecting influential individuals has become more important than protecting institutional integrity."
He added that modern stakeholders increasingly judge organisations by whether leaders are prepared to confront uncomfortable truths rather than simply manage the communications fallout.
"Today, stakeholders judge organisations less on whether misconduct occurs than on whether leaders are prepared to confront uncomfortable truths, even when they threaten senior people or commercial interests. Ultimately, KPMG's leadership failed the integrity test, not because the allegations emerged, but because of how they pursued the truth. It reinforces one of the central conclusions from our Future of Reputation 2030 report: you behave yourself into the reputation you want, not communicate yourself there." -CD
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any
responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos,
licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues
related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Comments
No comment