When organisations think about crisis management, their instinct is normally to focus on media handling, social media monitoring and avoiding reputational damage. There then follows a period where efforts are made to repair the damage to their reputation. These are, of course, all essential steps. But they are not sufficient. One of the most damaging, and overlooked, consequences of a crisis is the political response it can provoke.
In my training, I often argue that the worst outcome of a crisis is not negative headlines, but poorly designed policy or legislation rushed through in response to public outrage – the government response to ‘something must be done’. Once government intent starts crystallising into action, normally laws or regulations, the impact is long-lasting, costly, and often extremely difficult to unwind. Politicians have the power to make decisions that have a real, potentially damaging, impact on organisations. Such moves may be a clear demonstration to the public that action is being taken but organisations are impacted and the public is not always better off either.
We have seen this dynamic repeatedly played out. The fallout from P&O Ferries is a clear example. The company’s actions triggered public anger, intense media coverage and political pressure, resulting in government interventions. Such swift interventions can bypass many of the usual processes of consultation and scrutiny – the usual steps of policy development. From the government’s perspective, it showed the outraged public how decisive they were being. But will the resulting legislation really stop anything similar from happening again?
We are seeing similar pressures emerge today in debates around AI and content generation, including recent controversies involving X’s AI Grok and the generation of indecent images. Governments are moving quickly, sometimes urgently, to be seen to “do something”. Inevitably this means circumventing normal policymaking processes leading to limited engagement, compressed timelines, and reactive regulatory frameworks.
This phenomenon was discussed on the When It Hits the Fan podcast in relation to weight-loss injections. The hosts explored emerging evidence about challenges people face when coming off these drugs, and the likelihood of growing public concern. Their conclusion in such scenarios was blunt: once public anxiety builds, “in the end you get bad policy… bad regulation… because that is what happens all the time.”
As co-host David Yelland put it on the same podcast: “When you get anger, you then get media. Media creates more anger, and that results in political policy which is sometimes not all that well thought through.” The current debate around social media bans, already implemented in some countries and actively considered in others, is a textbook illustration of this type of cycle. That is alongside investigations by regulators such as Ofcom in the UK.
The critical question, then, is how organisations can reduce the risk of government making these mistakes in response to a crisis related to them?
The answer lies in early, sustained political engagement. Well before anything goes wrong, a network and understanding needs to be built. Organisations that invest in public affairs are not seeking special treatment; they are effectively managing their risks. They are educating policymakers about how their sector works, the trade-offs involved, the quality of their approach and the unintended consequences that poorly designed interventions can create.
During a crisis itself, political audiences must not be treated as an afterthought to media and social media responses. Ministers, officials, regulators and advisers are key stakeholders in their own right. If they only hear about an issue through headlines, viral posts or campaign pressure, their room for manoeuvre narrows dramatically. Outraged comments, often amplified across the media, will be allowed to flourish.
Another vital element is the cultivation of trusted champions. Organisations that already have respected third-party voices, industry figures, experts, local leaders, or parliamentarians, are far better placed to counter misinformation and provide balance at moments of peak emotion. These voices often carry more weight than corporate statements ever can.
Finally, public affairs brings discipline to crisis thinking. It forces leaders to ask not just “how does this play in the media today?”, but “what does government do next week, next month, next year?” That forward-looking approach can change decisions made in the heat of the moment and manages the risk in a more holistic manner.
Crises will always generate pressure for action, especially by government. That is unavoidable. But without strong political engagement, organisations risk becoming the trigger for bad policy and bad regulation that outlasts the crisis itself.
In today’s environment, public affairs is not a bolt-on to crisis management, it is one of its most essential components.