In the field of crisis management, there is some talk of risk communication and some of crisis communication. In some documents or reports, the terms are used as synonyms for each other or are not clearly differentiated. But is this actually the case?
The extent to which the term risk communication needs to be distinguished from the term crisis communication depends on the model being considered. Depending on the model, a clear differentiation may not be possible, but it must be said in advance that risk communication and crisis communication are not the same thing, so using the terms as synonyms is not correct.
First of all, it should be clarified what the respective terms are:
Risk communication is understood as a general warning that the occurrence of an event is basically possible. Risk communication takes place regardless of the occasion and is intended to prepare people for what may occur and what effects these events may have. This type of communication is modeled on government risk assessment as part of the risk management process. The intent is to ensure that individuals are made aware and know how to respond if an event occurs and, ideally, how to prepare and how to prevent it from occurring. An example of this is the annual briefings in companies regarding hazards in the workplace, but fire alarm and evacuation drills also represent a type of risk communication, as they are intended to achieve a type of awareness.
Crisis communication, on the other hand, is oriented toward a concrete danger or a specific event which has occurred. Crisis communication is all communication that takes place when an actual event has occurred. It is the communication of the company that takes place internally and externally and is intended to inform about the event as well as give instructions for actions. Crisis reporting should also be mentioned in this context, because it is not necessarily crisis communication. Crisis communication is the purely informative, factual processing of the event, while crisis reporting can include personal stories as well as emotions. Crisis reporting can be done by anyone and is often found in tabloid magazines, particularly known here for misleading, attention-seeking headlines designed to encourage people to read the article and purchase the newspaper. Crisis communication, on the other hand, is intended to convey feelings of safety and activate coordinated self-help. However, crisis communication can also take place through the media, provided that purely factual and informative reporting takes place. An example of crisis communication is the communication from authorities and emergency forces in the event of a fire in a factory, with instructions to close the windows and not to leave the house. Crisis communication also includes the instructions given in a building during an evacuation or the statements made by official bodies at press conferences after a disaster or event.
Two different models exist for the correlation between risk communication and crisis communication, which are decisive for the extent to which the two terms must be distinguished from one another.
Model 1, is the one operated by the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK). This states that risk communication takes place before an event occurs and crisis communication after one has occurred. Risk communication thus prepares for crisis communication, is to be understood as preventive and does not take place after the event has occurred and while it is taking place. In model 1, therefore, a clear demarcation and separation of risk communication from crisis communication is possible.
Fig. 1: Model of crisis and risk communication according to the BBK
This is not the case with Model 2. It looks at communication from a psychological point of view and states that risk communication is included in every type of crisis communication. Put simply, while a crisis is taking place, preparations are already being made for the next event. Crisis communication includes risk communication, but not the other way around. This can be explained by the fact that awareness is already being raised for the next time, on how to behave or even how to prevent an occurrence. If an industrial fire is reported on television and people are instructed to close the doors and windows, even people who are not affected by the fire will be aware of this and will know for themselves how to proceed in the event of such an incident. The same applies to traffic jams on the highways. If an ambulance cannot get through because no emergency lane was formed and this is reported, this means on the one hand that it was not possible to get through in this accident and at the same time it is communicated that an emergency lane must be formed if there is a traffic jam so that an ambulance can get through if necessary.
Fig. 2: Model of crisis and risk communication from a psychological perspective.
So, in general, risk communication can also be spoken of during an event. However, in both models, awareness-raising or training is regarded as pure risk communication and not as crisis communication.
It is important to raise the awareness of employees through risk communication so that it is possible to intervene as early as possible and so that there is confidence in taking action. However, it is also possible to prepare for crisis communication and this should also be done so that a smooth communication process can take place both internally and externally and the crisis can be managed. Within crisis communication, for example, the flow of information should be continuous, free of contradictions and precise. The crisis team should be informed about the information needs of the public and the media in order to be able to act adequately and not lose the trust of the stakeholders by providing too little or inaccurate information. Especially the first hours after the event are crucial to prove one’s sovereignty and thus to convey a feeling of safety and control. For this purpose, citizen telephones, crisis hotlines or user-friendly Internet sites (dark sites) can already be prepared. Approximately 90% of an event is generic and can be covered in advance. This saves important time in an emergency, which can be used to deal with the event and have more available capacity. Empathy and trustworthiness of the parties involved is also important. Crisis management recommendations should also always be explained and background information should be provided to target groups. The public should be involved in creating protective measures and resource allocations. Each measure should also be explained so that there is no appearance of randomness. This is especially important in light of the fact that every employee is a potential communicator. Neither should employees be told by outsiders what is going on in their company, nor should outsiders get information from employees that they perhaps should not have yet because it is still incomplete or puts you in a reactive position.
Do you want to stay ahead of the situation in a crisis through good communication? Contact us.