Defense against the Dark Arts<\/p>\n
Ong Hock Chuan, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Just suppose, for a moment, that you are the management of
\nNewmont. And suppose that you have operated your mine in Minahasa
\nin accordance with the strictest of environmental standards.<\/p>\n
Then, out of the blue, an environmental group and some
\nvillagers file a police report and call in the media to accuse
\nyou of dumping highly toxic mercury into Buyat Bay, not only
\nruining the livelihoods of the fishermen and their families but
\ncausing a stranger disease. They ratchet up the emotional stakes
\nby calling it Minamata disease, after the infamous mercury
\npoisoning scandal of the 1950s in Japan.<\/p>\n
Being media savvy activists they have leveled their
\naccusations in the media, replete with graphic \"results\" of your
\nirresponsible actions. As a result the media is now hounding you.<\/p>\n
What would you do?<\/p>\n
The knee-jerk reaction for most managers would be to hunker
\ndown and try to work things out with the authorities and all
\nparties concerned away from the glare of publicity. This course
\nof action would, however, invite an escalation of the crisis
\nbecause you would have failed to grasp a basic fact of managing a
\ncrisis-like situation: Perception is as important, if not more
\nso, than reality.<\/p>\n
Manage the perception well and mitigating the crisis is
\neasier. Manage it badly and you have a bigger crisis to handle
\nthan what you began with. At stake is the reputation of your
\ncompany. If it takes a beating it will never be fully restored
\neven years after the crisis. Freeport is a case in point.<\/p>\n
To manage perception during a crisis like that of Newmont's a
\ncompany needs to demonstrate several attributes if it hopes to
\nemerge from this crisis with its reputation intact: A willingness
\nto accept responsibility, empathy and openness.<\/p>\n
A willingness to accept responsibility does not mean the
\ncompany should admit to and apologize for anything and
\neverything. Rather, it means that the company should communicate
\nand act in such a way that demonstrates that it is not in denial,
\nnor is it defensive.<\/p>\n
To demonstrate that it is not in denial the company should
\nconvey the message that it is cooperating fully with the
\nauthorities to help uncover the truth behind the allegations. To
\navoid sounding defensive the company should never point the
\nfinger at other parties, especially if it cannot prove its
\nallegations conclusively. Hence Newmont's claim that individual
\nminers were responsible for the toxic waste only made things
\nworse when it could not be proven.<\/p>\n
The company has also to demonstrate openness. Like it or not,
\nthe world is skeptical toward corporations. It is not fair but it
\nis a fact of life. Corporations have to try that much harder to
\ndiffuse this skepticism in moments of crises, when they become
\nthe center of attention.<\/p>\n
It is also a good idea to rely on independent credible third-
\nparty individuals or institutions to provide evidence or
\ninformation that supports the company's case to diffuse the
\nskepticism of the media and public.<\/p>\n
It is by demonstrating such attributes that companies can hope
\nto manage perceptions and defend themselves against accusations
\nassuming, of course, that they aren't guilty of the alleged
\nwrongdoing.<\/p>\n
If they are guilty, then the best option is to fess up,
\napologize and announce measures taken to ensure such incidents do
\nnot happen again.<\/p>\n
Whatever the scenario, however, companies must realize that if
\nthey do not manage perceptions well they can easily lose control
\nof the situation as the media and public turns against them.
\nManaging perceptions therefore is a mandatory skill for companies
\nto acquire.<\/p>\n
This is especially so because companies are extremely
\nvulnerable to a crisis in Indonesia. At anytime a disgruntled
\nemployee, institution or NGO can precipitate a crisis by leveling
\nan accusation, whether justified or unfounded, against a company.
\nThe onus then is on the company to exonerate itself.<\/p>\n
For proof of how vulnerable corporations are, you need only to
\nread today's newspapers. The Bekasi environmental management
\nagency is accusing two hospitals and 12 companies operating along
\nthe Kalimalang River of dumping toxic substances into the river.
\nSome of the companies have denied the charges but the rest have
\nkept silent.<\/p>\n
If the media increases its interest in the story, or if other
\nenvironmental groups take up the allegations of the Bekasi
\nenvironmental management agency the issue may escalate to crisis
\nlevels for the companies involved.<\/p>\n
In such situations truth is elusive, even to the journalists
\nwhose job it is to cover these issues closely. There will be
\nclaims and counter claims but the public will believe the party
\nthat is most adept at managing perceptions.<\/p>\n
Environmental groups and NGOs have demonstrated time and again
\nthat they are media savvy. They call press conferences, stage
\ndemonstrations, parade witnesses and victims in photo opportunity
\nsessions and stage iconic moments (remember the David-and-Goliath
\nimage of Shell using a water cannon to get rid of Greenpeace
\nactivists atop Brent Spar?).<\/p>\n
The question is whether the corporate sector in Indonesia is
\nany match for these groups?<\/p>\n
The writer is Partner of PT Maverick Solusi Komunikasi, a PR
\nconsultancy specializing in crisis\/issues management as well as
\nbrand communications.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/defense-against-the-dark-arts-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}