Crisis Management Communications: What Should You Actually Do? — Get the Big Picture with These 8 Checkpoints

Last time, prompted by a law set to take effect in October 2026, we discussed why crisis management communications tend not to be prioritized. This time, we’ll finally move on to the big picture: “So, what exactly do we need to put in place?”

When people hear the term “crisis management communications,” many may think of “how to conduct a press conference.” But in reality, a press conference is merely one part of the bigger picture. What’s actually more important is the series of unassuming yet indispensable internal discussions and decision-making processes that take place both before and after it.

Looking back on my experience creating a crisis management communications manual at my previous job, I’ve found that crisis management communications can be broken down into eight major decision-making points.

Crisis management communications consist of “8 decision-making points”

When it comes to public relations during a crisis, the following “8 Decision-Making Points” are important.

1. Articulating Objectives
Establish a shared understanding within the company in advance regarding the purpose of the preparations and the circumstances they are intended to address.

2. Identifying Potential Crises
Compile a list in advance of crises that could occur within your company

3. Initial Response
What to do immediately after an incident occurs—within the first few tens of minutes to a few hours—and how to share information internally, including the channels and personnel involved

4. Deciding Whether to Disclose Information to the Public
Determine whether the matter should be disclosed in the first place

5. Internal Communication
Before sharing information externally, determine who within the company to inform, what to communicate, and how to do so.

6. Implementation of External Communications
What exactly will be communicated, through which channels, and by whom?

7. Press Conference
Whether to hold a press conference, and if so, how to proceed

8. Follow-up After Disclosure
Don’t just make the announcement and call it a day; focus on how to rebuild trust afterward

Looking at this list, many people get the impression that “crisis management communications = Steps 4–7 (disclosure-related)” are the main focus, but when you actually try to prepare for a crisis, Steps 1–3 are the most challenging.It’s a challenge in itself just to align with the necessary team members on what crisis management communications should entail, including ensuring a shared understanding and unified mindset. Trying to create a “template for public announcements” without first articulating the potential crises won’t work. Be mindful that the very process of preparing for crises is, in itself, a process that strengthens the company.

Among these steps, steps 3 (Initial Response) through 6 (Public Announcement) in particular require the team handling the situation on the ground—whether it’s a technical response team for crises involving development-related technology, or teams such as legal or human resources for other types of crises—and the public relations team to work almost simultaneously, based on the same set of facts.No matter how precise the on-site response may be, trust cannot be maintained unless it is communicated effectively to the outside world; conversely, even if the public messaging is handled well, it will be quickly seen through if it is not backed by substantive action.

I’ll go into more detail on each of these—such as how to create a manual and how to specifically articulate the criteria—in future sessions. For now, it’s enough if you simply keep these eight points in mind as a “map.”

Crises can be divided into those that involve "development-related technologies" and those that do not.

When considering Step 2, “Identifying Potential Crises,” there is a major distinction to keep in mind from the outset. Broadly speaking, crises fall into the following two categories:

• Crises involving development-related technologies: system failures, service outages, security incidents, unauthorized access, data breaches, production line stoppages, and hardware malfunctions, among others

• Crises not related to development-related technologies: harassment, labor disputes, compliance violations, misconduct by executives and employees, disputes with business partners, and the impact of natural disasters on business operations, etc.

The framework of these eight decision-making points applies equally to both types of crises. There are no differences based on the type of crisis when it comes to standard preparedness measures such as “articulating objectives,” “identifying potential crises,” and “determining initial response actions.”

However, I imagine that many of you reading this content are in positions where you deal with crises involving development-related technologies on a daily basis.While the legal amendments we discussed last time are merely one of the factors encouraging “preparedness for crises involving development-related technologies”—and crisis management communications itself is not limited to technical crises—I’d like to take this opportunity to delve a little deeper into “crises involving development-related technologies,” as they are more directly relevant to your work.

Patterns in which public opinion tends to intensify during crises “involving cutting-edge technology”

Whether a press conference is necessary depends not on the technical difficulty but on “whether public opinion demands accountability.” In the case of a crisis involving cutting-edge technology, this “tendency for public opinion to intensify” can generally be understood more easily by considering the following factors:

• The number of people affected and their level of technical literacy: Issues that are resolved entirely among engineers and operators on-site receive different levels of attention than those that directly impact the general public.

• Whether the information is linked to an individual: Data breaches involving personal information tend to directly trigger anxiety among consumers, even more so than the technical severity of the incident itself.

• The perception that “someone did this maliciously ”: Even when the same problem occurs, public opinion is treated very differently depending on whether it appears to be largely beyond human control or the result of human error or fraud.

• Doubts about the organization’s conduct itself: More often than not, it is not the incident itself but rather distrust regarding the organization’s response—such as questions like “Were they trying to cover it up?” or “Was their response too slow?”—that causes the backlash to drag on.

If we apply these four categories to potential system failures, security incidents, production line stoppages, or product defects that could occur within our company, it becomes clear which risks we should prioritize in our preparedness efforts.

Self-Assessment: Identifying Your Company's Weaknesses

Please try this simple self-assessment based on the eight points. This format can be used regardless of the type of crisis.

• How many people within the company understand the “purpose of crisis management communications” for our organization and can explain it in their own words?

• Have you ever compiled a specific list of potential crises that could occur within your company, covering both technical and non-technical areas?

• In the event of a crisis, has it been determined what information is to be shared, by whom, through which channels, and how, within the first 30 minutes?

• Are there established criteria for deciding whether to release information to the public, and is it clear who has the authority to make that decision?

• Is there a system in place to ensure that information is communicated internally before it is disclosed to the public?

• Are there pre-prepared templates for press releases and announcements?

• Are there established criteria for deciding whether to hold a press conference, and is it clear who has the authority to make that decision?

• Has it been determined who will be responsible for everything from the announcement through the follow-up?

If there are any items you didn’t check off, those are the “gaps in your preparedness” for your company. You don’t need to fill them all at once; I think it’s more realistic to start by using the crisis most likely to affect your company as an example and articulating them one by one.

Looking Ahead to the Next Time

Although these eight decision-making points may seem independent, they are actually interconnected. In the next installment, I’ll discuss the practical aspects of creating manuals and designing training programs to turn these eight points into a “system” that strengthens the company. I’ll share insights that only become clear once you actually get your hands dirty.