Managing corporate reputation in the face of a public relations crisis is akin to waging a war without gunfire. Even with a full roster of in-house legal, public relations, branding and marketing teams, a company can find itself on the back-foot if it fails to promptly establish a clear strategy ensuring seamless interdepartmental co-ordination.

Leveraging experience from a decade in journalism and two decades as a practising lawyer to help clients across industries navigate major reputation crises, the author sheds light on core issues hindering effective collaboration, offering practical insights.

Crisis response

Consider the recent case of a manufacturing company facing a crisis involving product safety concerns. Within just 48 hours, online discussions of the issue had amassed more than 100 million views.

The company moved quickly to respond: The legal department rushed to determine whether the incident constituted legal liability; the PR team tried to counter negative posts; and the after-sales team issued urgent instructions to chain stores, cautioning them against answering media or customer inquiries without prior approval.

Yet, despite these efforts, the company failed to address the public’s most pressing concerns: Was the product defective and was it safe under normal usage? Lacking a unified external perspective, the piecemeal responses left critical questions unresolved, resulting in significant damage to its brand image and customer trust.

In contrast, when dozens of car owners accused a car manufacturer of misrepresenting premium features and engaged in a collective legal action, alleging consumer fraud and demanding triple compensation, this company chose a markedly different approach.

It quickly assembled a cross-functional command team including external lawyers and media experts familiar with the dynamics of public opinion.

The team conducted a swift and thorough analysis of the situation, addressing the root causes, media narratives, consumer grievances, and potential legal infringements.

They quickly devised a clear communication strategy, facilitated the car owners’ legal representatives in issuing a clarification statement, and followed up with a carefully worded and logically robust corporate statement. Together, these actions successfully turned the tide of public opinion.

The stark contrast between these two cases underscores the critical role of external expertise in managing public reputation crises.

External professionals bring an objective, rational perspective that helps companies quickly identify and address the core issues shaping public opinion. They can also craft precise, targeted responses to the concerns that matter most to stakeholders.

By comparison, without a centralised strategy and co-ordination, departments risk operating in their own silos, wasting resources and exacerbating the crisis.

Barriers to collaboration

Information silos and poor co-ordination. In managing reputation crises, weak communication and unclear accountability among departments often create friction and inefficiency.

Even if frontline teams gather essential details of customer complaints and demands, this information seldom reaches legal or PR teams in time. As a result, lawyers craft statements with incomplete data, and PR professionals focus on calming public sentiment without tackling root issues.

Since the public perceives a corporation as a single entity, internal misalignment can greatly reduce the effectiveness of crisis management. Unless companies close these information gaps and align their teams, they will struggle to deliver a credible response under scrutiny.

Limitations of professional specialisation. Reputational crises are inherently a hybrid challenge, blending legal risks with public opinion dynamics.

Yet the expertise of individual internal departments often fails to meet the multidimensional demands of such situations. Legal teams, for instance, are well-versed in laws and regulations but often lack experience in managing public sentiment.

Consider the case of a commercial vehicle manufacturer that issued multiple large-scale recalls in response to product quality issues, requiring customers to take their vehicles to service centres every one or two months.

The company’s legal department framed this as a demonstration of “corporate responsibility”, yet their explanation ignored the inconvenience and dissatisfaction of vehicle owners. This failure only amplified external criticism.

Legal professionals, trained to adopt a defensive mindset and inherently aligned with the company’s interests, often lack sensitivity to the perspectives and frustrations of end users.

Conversely, public relations teams excel at narrative control and managing emotions, but may underestimate the importance of assessing legal risks.

In one product-related crisis, a PR team issued a public statement – without consulting the legal department – that offered service measures far exceeding the company’s actual obligations.

Although this temporarily appeased public sentiment, the company’s inability to fulfil these promises later triggered further controversy and risk of collective litigation.

These limitations of professional silos not only highlight the gaps in expertise but also expose a lack of co-ordination and strategic oversight during crisis management.

Absence of objective perspective. Being deeply tied to corporate interests, internal teams often struggle to maintain objectivity when responding to public crises.

For example, when addressing allegations of overstated battery performance – while concerned about the potential impact on sales and market reputation – a carmaker’s internal team insisted that the discrepancy stemmed from “user habits” rather than acknowledging inconsistencies in the company’s product specifications.

Focused on deflecting blame rather than solving the problem, this approach failed to reassure consumers. As more cases of the issue emerged, public distrust deepened; a reminder that a narrow, self‑serving mindset not only hinders effective crisis resolution but also amplifies reputational damage.

Takeaway

External counsel, especially those with a background in media, can help offset the limitations of in-house teams when managing media relations in crisis.

Being less entangled with the company’s internal interests, they are better positioned to maintain objectivity when addressing legal risks, offering advice that aligns with both the company’s legal needs and public sentiment.

Additionally, they are better equipped to build connections with media outlets, industry experts and regulatory authorities, providing companies with a broader range of communication channels.

As consumers themselves, external lawyers are also more in tune with identifying gaps between consumer expectations and the company’s technical or business rationale.