Back to the Flu, Sure
December 10, 2007 | Filed Under Crisis Planning
As I was getting my flu shot last week, I realized that it’s been awhile since I deposited any bird pandemic droppings here.
Then I saw this report earlier today about a potential human infection in China. You can bet that pandemic media coverage will spool up over the next few months, even without a major outbreak.
And that leads to CEOs and board members asking “What are we doing about X?” sort of questions.
So here’s a few resources:
– NPR did an interesting interview on the subject a few months ago; they covered a Treasury Department scenario planning exercise.
– That Treasury-sponsored event has an “Untitled” web page here. There is a treasure trove of information, which is to be expected since the financial services industry is ahead of just about everyone else on crisis planning. (Note: some of the material says “not for public distribution,” so it may not be live indefinitely).
– The federal government has a general website here.
– A CDC-sponsored website is helpful as well.
Any discussion of pandemics (bird flu, SARS, or otherwise) is really about crisis planning. On steroids, if you will.
A closer look might be wise for many companies.
Crisis (Mis)management
August 8, 2007 | Filed Under Crisis Planning, In the News
Ask anyone who has trained for a crisis: it’s something you hope you never need.
So when Murray Energy first heard that its Utah coal mine had suffered a catastrophic collapse on Monday, trapping 6 miners 1500 feet under the ground, they presumably put their plan in action.
We saw the first phase, when Murray Energy founder and chairman Robert Murray followed Crisis 101 and rushed to the scene, dutifully taking center stage as the point man for the company.
And then he promptly dropped the playbook, started arguing with scientists as to the cause, and with reporters as to the type of mining methods used (see below):
(Here’s the link if you don’t see the video player).
The part about referring to certain people as “lackeys for the United Mine Workers” was particularly bizarre; he elaborated further yesterday about potential causes:
“This was caused by an earthquake, not something that Murray Energy … did or our employees did or our management did,” an irate Robert E. Murray, chairman of mine owner Murray Energy Corp. of Cleveland, said at a televised news conference. “It was a natural disaster. An earthquake. And I’m going to prove it to you.”
What?
I was always taught three main things to say in a crisis; and they go something like this:
1. We are saddened by these tragic events and our thoughts and prayers go out to the workers involved and their families.
2. We are very concerned about the safety of our fellow employees and rescue personnel and we are doing everything possible to bring everyone out safely.
3. We are cooperating fully with regulatory authorities, and will not comment on potential causes until we see the results of a complete investigation.
1, 2, 3. Rinse, lather, repeat.
I hope these workers manage to survive and admire the courage of rescue personnel and the fortitude required to be a family member of a coal miner.
My empathy goes out to those who are charged with advising Mr. Murray. What do you say to the founder of a company after a news conference like that when he asks: “Well, how do you think that went?”
Crisis and Response
March 21, 2007 | Filed Under Litigation, Crisis Planning
There are two interesting items for corporate counsel who are sometimes pressed into service as PR advisor (or worse, spokesperson).
The first is from the Center for Media and Democracy, which details a short history (with a definite slant) of corporate responses to citizen group attacks, and how some of them may have backfired when the company responded with legal action. As the authors note:
Some companies decide they want to get even, PR backlash and lawyers’ costs be damned. CEOs call in their lawyers, who may see the courts as a way to punish — or even silence — critics. Angry PR advisers might also advocate legal threats and actions. Yet, history shows that legal actions against critics often only scucceed in turning a low-level issue into a full-blown public image crisis.
On a related topic, the Legal Times has an article about how outside counsel should handle the public during a trial. Michael Levy and Richard Levick offer sage advice to lawyers who may be comfortable in the courtroom, but may turn into a fish out of water when on the courthouse steps with a microphone shoved their way. They delve a bit deeper, covering two key issues:
First, what are the risks and benefits of public outreach during litigation? It is a question that allows for a broader picture of how and why communications campaigns are developed and the fundamental choices that have to be made in each case.
Second, how can companies and their lawyers work with communications professionals without exposing highly confidential and sensitive client information to discovery? It is a specific concern that relates directly to the larger, evolving role of the public relations adviser.
With all the access to media that people have, and all the outlets that never existed before (like blogs!), companies need to take a much more long-term view of their PR strategy. As tempting as it may be to try to commence legal action against a wayward citizens group, or stonewall the press during high-profile litigation, in most cases adopting a more even-keeled response (with a trained human face out front) is about the best you can do.
It’s getting harder and harder to have the last word.
Code Red for jetBlue
February 21, 2007 | Filed Under Crisis Planning, In the News
Sometimes it seems like you can’t catch a break.
So it seems for jetBlue, an airline finally returning to a normal schedule after sending a different Valentine to some customers in the form of 10-hour waits on the JFK airport tarmac.
CEO David Neeleman has been a fixture on all news channels. The poor man looks like he could use a getaway to Aruba.
Mr. Neeleman dutifully followed crisis communications 101, and was out front stating that jetBlue was aware of the situation, heard the (irate) customers, acknowledged that jetBlue’s performance was intolerable, and was focused on making it right. Unfortunately for jetBlue and Mr. Neeleman, a combination of continued bad weather, communications and logisitical snafus, and FAA duty regulations all conspired to turn a bad day into a worse week.
Once you’ve said “I’m sorry” it’s hard to come up with something more for the next day (or news cycle).
So, in an attempt to shift the focus of the debate, jetBlue has offered up its own customer “Bill of Rights,” which includes a video on YouTube.
Former law review members can catch a footnote at the bottom of the BOR, probably courtesy of jetBlue Legal:
*These Rights are subject to JetBlue’s Contract of Carriage and, as applicable, the operational control of the flight crew.
Delays are defined in terms of a “Controllable Irregularity” which I will resist commenting on.
This approach may help, but it may appear a bit hollow right now, given their own shortcomings (when measured against the BOR) over the past six days. In addition, while compensating for delays is better than nothing, most people I talk to cringe at the notion of anything more than an hour’s wait on the ground. When you approach 10 hours, many passengers are thinking less about rights and more about self help.
(To be fair to jetBlue, part of the impetus for their BOR is the cacophony in Congress on the subject; if only that body would read the original BOR from time-to-time).
In the end, jetBlue will regain terminal velocity with great service for fair value (safety being a given).
And I’d advise against serving this:
James Baker and the BP Safety Review
January 16, 2007 | Filed Under Investigations, Crisis Planning, Compliance, Governance
Fresh off chairing the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker has delivered a report to BP regarding the March 2005 accident at its Texas City refinery. Fifteen people died, 170 were injured.
The complete report is here (374 pages…). BP has committed to follow its 10 recommendations (summarized here by the Wall Street Journal).
The first one is rather stark from a compliance and governance perspective:
1: The Board of Directors of BP, BP’s executive management (including its Group Chief Executive), and other members of BP’s corporate management must provide effective leadership on process safety. Those individuals must demonstrate their commitment to process safety by articulating a clear message on the importance of process safety and matching that message both with the policies they adopt and the actions they take.
And this item will haunt BP’s board and senior management for at least five more years:
9: BP’s Board should monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the panel (including the related commentary) and the ongoing process safety performance of BP’s U.S. refineries. The Board should, for a period of at least five calendar years, engage an independent monitor to report annually to the Board on BP’s progress in implementing the panel’s recommendations (including the related commentary). The Board should also report publicly on the progress of such implementation and on BP’s ongoing process safety performance.
I wrote about the BP legal response previously.
The recent announcement that BP CEO John Browne would be stepping down later this year doesn’t seem entirely unrelated. Further management changes are ruled out for the time being.
The energy business is ferociously intolerant of operating mistakes, given the volatile nature of the materials being handled. This reality drives most industry companies to obsess about safety. Better having engineers on the site sooner rather than lawyers drafting a report later.
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
