How do you manage a corporate scandal?

Where to start in crisis?

I tend to start these newsletters with an overview of how the markets reacted to global current affairs over the past month, but with the more scandal-ridden few weeks we've had, a change of tack seemed appropriate.

Here's the gist: KPMG Australia continues to garner headlines for a whistleblower scandal, Manchester City's breach of Premier League financial rules has now blown up into a wider corporate-international governance dispute, and perhaps worst of all, the Turkish capital markets continue to ripple from the collapse of investment funds caught in an alleged $18bn Ponzi-style fraud scheme. It's been busy to say the least…

Of course, these are just the latest quote-un-quote "scandals" to hit the papers over the past few months. But while we could analyse these, break them down, and meditate over their causes many times over, it's this question that I thought would be most valuable to answer:

For executives and organisations worldwide, how do you actually manage a corporate scandal?

While every crisis is unique – and distilling one blueprint would be incredibly difficult, nay impractical for every situation – there are a few qualities executives and organisations must keep top of mind to ensure they manage their output, and their reputations, as effectively as possible.

Don't faff or underestimate speed.

A few years ago, in the wake of the CrowdStrike outage, I wrote a piece for Profile about where their CEO's crisis response left a bit to be desired. One of those points centred on the criticism they received about the speed of their communication – and that still stands today.

While it's important that your message is considered and human-led, organisations cannot underestimate the importance of speed in crisis. Any period you may spend in PR will teach you that speed is key to control a narrative. Without a response, rumour spreads, and you risk the headlines or public discourse dictating your next move or action as an organisation.

In short: don't faff, ensure you address whatever happened, no matter how briefly, with speed, and don't allow the public to criticise you for a vacuum of information. If not, you may just lose grip on the direction of your company as a whole.

Tailor your messaging to the platforms that matter.

The media is as fragmented as it ever has been. Beyond the myriad of news publications, social media has become incredibly diverse, and the number of channels that cater to very niche audience needs are only expanding. In this piecemeal landscape, addressing the scandal on one platform alone just doesn't cut the mustard.

For example, let's take one of the investment funds caught in the alleged Ponzi scheme in Turkey.

To address any institutional participants, an interview on Bloomberg or CNBC and a series of posts over LinkedIn would be appropriate to ensure they reach the eyes of businesses. For the retail market, rolling posts over Instagram, X, Facebook would also be necessary. Coverage among these more consumer-geared platforms prevents any aforementioned "vacuum" from creeping in.

In a similar vein, blanket messaging, while it may resonate with one audience, could risk even more criticism from another. For instance, if the messaging was more retail-oriented – an absolutely awful (!) response might look something like, "we will guarantee the safe return of your capital within 30 days and here's a free cinema ticket to make up for your troubles" – you can almost guarantee an institutional stakeholder would view that as incredibly inappropriate, nay a violation of your fiduciary duty.

It's a simple point, but don't be lazy. Ensure you write several statements for all the platforms you think your audiences read, and while they should all broadly communicate a consistent "front", make sure each of those messages concretely answers the unique questions those different audiences will have. Otherwise, you may just put your reputation on the line for longer.

Put a face to the organisation.

In today's digital age, where consumers and businesses are inundated with the same recognisable AI-written content online, putting an identifiable human voice behind your organisation's response is key to maintain trust. Take the example of Toronto's Metrolinx in 2025, as an example: following a complaint by a frustrated Coldplay fan (and customer), the well-known transit company used AI to generate a response to much public backlash.

The point is this: no matter how efficient or wondrous the technology is, using the human hand always demonstrates care.

The great catalyst behind many crises is a lack of transparency – and not showing visible leadership can be a very significant driver of that. Sure, go through the corporate processes and appoint a spokesperson, but above all else, ensure that your stakeholders know there's a human voice actively addressing the issue and working to solve it for their benefit. When audiences feel they "know you", they may be more inclined to take a sympathetic view.

But more importantly – unlike Metrolinx – please do not by any means write your responses, or script your responses, wholly with AI. As impressive as it may be, the ubiquity of its writing online means users can sniff its presence all too easily. Don't let a technological interest give your audiences a reason to state you don't care.

Wrapping up.

Of course, there are plenty of other qualities I could have mentioned – but the three above are absolutely essential, no matter the crisis or scandal at hand. They are the must-dos, the key points, that if you ever happen to find yourself or your organisation in the throes of a crisis, have to be actioned to manage your reputation with tact and precision.

Be quick, be considered, and be human. Without those, you may just exacerbate the harm.