Examples of a reputational crisis: The Government of Lebanon (through its Ministry of Education and Higher Education) claims that the UN is not paying the entitlements of the UN-contracted teachers and that the UN is being biased toward refugees versus vulnerable Lebanese (aid bias perceptions); Cases of sexual exploitation and abuse reported in settlements; etc. 

Differences and Similarities: Both emergency situations and reputational crises require the UN’s swift response and fact-based, clear, and accurate information to refute any allegations that would harm the UN’s reputation on the one hand and prevent any misperceptions vis-à-vis the UN in emergency crises on the other hand. I believe these situations present a great opportunity to show the UN’s agility, flexibility, timeliness, and efficiency without sacrificing the needs and the protection of the people we serve. While an emergency crisis may not necessarily imply or result in a UN reputational crisis, it is important to ensure that the UN is responding swiftly, proactively, and efficiently to any emergency in order to prevent any misperceptions and/or misinformation that would harm the UN’s reputation. 

A reputational risk in CAR: The widespread belief that the UN peacekeeping mission is laying mines. 

Difference: The reputational risk implies a far more difficult communications exercise as the rumor has been spread and flourishes on pre-existing mistrust against a peacekeeping mission that has had limited success in securing the country. In the absence of proof and information on who lays the mines, people fill the information gap, based on rumors and disinformation (strategically placed by those who have an interest in damaging the UN’s reputation). Statements and messaging from the UN probably have little impact but action needs to be taken to rebuild trust and confidence – a very lengthy process. In the emergency situation, messaging as part of risk education could already have a significant impact on people’s behavior and save lives. 

Similarities: Both have a devastating impact on the population – this is obvious for the emergency situation; consequences of the reputational risk are that local authorities, for example, block access for UN peacekeepers to certain areas and those can then not secure these areas; people lose confidence in peacekeepers as they don’t see them as the ones providing security, but rather as the source of danger, and, for example, IDPs don’t return to their villages, despite peacekeepers’ presence. Both crises require immediate reaction to save people’s lives. 

Example of emergency risk: The earthquake in Haiti where both the UN staff as well as the people they are serving were victims.

Similarities: Both came or "erupted" by surprise; both went under an enormous media and public spotlight and comments and diverse attitudes; in both the UN was victim.

Differences :
The first one was a serious human error or misconduct that amounted for the public to an organizational mismanagement but the organization had a certain margin  to distance itself and the official responsible; give the right information to people and try to correct and rebuild harmed confidence on it.
For the second , the UN had to reassure the victims, as well as its staff, help them manage the situation and regain confidence in themselves and the ability of the organization to mobilize and help the country get out of the crisis and rebuild.

 

Reputational risks are more related to allegations of wrongdoing by the UN staff. 

 

What is common to both situations is the way of managing the crisis communication which has to be timeliness, accurate and focused on the people. 

 

Reputational risks, e.g allegation of misappropriation of funds or unclear use of funds provided.

 

They differ in a few ways, for emergency situations they can be mapped, with constant monitoring and evaluation to ensure people are well provided for in terms of food and medical support, to avert loss of life. Although natural, a drought can be mapped using rainfall and other weather tools to predict reduced harvests over time. While reputation risks come after lack of proper support being felt on the ground, this sometimes can be due to lack of funding needed to sustain drought efforts.

 

In both cases, the best approach would be to have credible information and experts present the facts in an easy-to-understand way. Specific messaging on the event and what are the challenges plus actions. Always updating the facts in a timely manner, in this case drought estimates and numbers of those impacted and those currently receiving support. Repeated messaging focusing on drought and actions on the field to encourage more funding from donors. 

Reputational risk: My agency being accused on social media for being partial or favouring one ethnic group because it started its response work in one particular area associated with one ethnic group.

Both are similar because they require immediate and measured attention.

They are different because an emergency as it unfolds is beyond our control or purvey, and we can be proactive to ameliorate the damage caused by the reputational risk.

Reputational Risk: Diplomatic staff of a prominent country gives his/her opinion on social media without prior consent about the coupe with negative messaging.

Difference: An emergency is out of our control and cannot be managed to the fullest due to unexpected outcomes and continuous shifts in strategy to account per presented scenario but also with an immediate response if allowed to do so. Reputational risk is an issue that can have impact.

Similarities: Reputational risk and emergency can have a span of weeks, months and even years and have a start and end. Management of both scenarios involves a sustained effort of activity monitoring.

Differences in communications context and actions:
- In a natural disaster situation, a focus will be on speed of UN response to support affected populations
- In a natural disaster the UN will be looked up to for leadership of information on the situation. In case of mis-behavior of staff, UN may be looked down upon and manage accusations.
- For reputational risk - it may be preferable to have one UN spokesperson, rather than multiple voices, to ensure clear control of the message. In a natural disaster situation it may be appropriate for multiple UN agencies to speak about their work.

Similarities in communications context and actions:
- Require rapid communications
- Communications should be clear, sincere, fact based, and focus on the beneficiaries/people who the UN supports
- Each situation reflects on the reputation of the entire UN and requires communications coordination 
- Communications crisis team may be established

Reputational risk: The UN mechanisms and capacities are perceived as irrelevant or useless to stop the war and/or the UN staff is accused of inefficacy or wrongdoing.  

Differences:

In the first example, the factor triggering the emergency is not directly related to the Organization, while the relevance of its mechanisms and the behavior of its staff members is strictly linked to the UN. 

Furthermore, in the first example the UN is one of the multiple actors who intervene in the situation, and its outcome cannot be directly attributed to the Organization. Meanwhile, in the reputational risk scenario, the UN is solely responsible for the situation and is the key actor involved. 

Similarities:

Both scenarios ask for a crisis communications approach, i.e. they both need for timely, accurate and relevant information from a credible source. 

- Fast respond

- Communications crisis team and a designated spoken person

- Communications coordination 

- Communications should be clear, fact-based, 

- Both situations affect the reputation of the entire UN 

Similarities - they both require immediate action from the agency, they both pose expectations from the public eye, they both require a spokesperson to represent the agency.

Differences - reputational risk is more within the agency’s control to avoid/prevent it when signs and reporting (if any) are taken seriously compared to emergency situations, the public eye is more likely to look with hope and anticipation at organizations to find information and solutions about/for the emergency situation and with less trust when it comes to reputational risks.