How to manage reputational risk in a digital era

Emma Yates, a senior associate in Irwin Mitchell's reputation management team and Peter Devenport, a strategic consultant at Definition, talk about how charities can manage reputational risk in a digital era
_____________________________________________________________

Social media channels have been a boon for fundraising, enabling charities to communicate their objectives and support cost-effective fundraising initiatives. However, they also give donors, volunteers, beneficiaries and other members of the public the opportunity to send highly critical messages to charities, as a direct way to vocalise their frustrations and share their opinions.

Often these messages and opinions can be misleading or completely false, can cause real upset to staff and leaders who are simply trying to do their best and/or discourage donations at a time when they’re most needed.

It can cause real and damaging reputational risk, and is one of the potential challenges identified in the inaugural report by the Charity Risk Barometer as far back at 2019 with some 25% of senior charity leaders surveyed saying that reputational risk was a medium and long term risk to the sector.

Indeed, we’ve seen an increasing number of queries from charity leaders who want to know what their options are when faced with this damaging material.

The legal position

Although potentially damaging, not all negative statements or misinformation made about a charitable organisation are defamatory. In order for a statement to be considered defamatory, it must:
• Be in writing and published to a third party (such as Twitter or Facebook); and
• Lower the subject in the estimation of right-thinking members of society (in other words, would a reasonable person reading the statement think less of the subject because of it?).

However, a published statement will not be defamatory unless the subject can demonstrate as a fact that it has suffered or is likely to suffer serious harm because of it. This means that published statements which may be offensive, hurtful, embarrassing and/or simply wrong, but don’t cause serious harm, are not legally actionable.

Plus, there are a number of defences to a defamation claim. Most relevant are the defences of:
• Truth: There is a legal presumption that defamatory words are false, so the evidential burden is on the person who made the statement (the “publisher”) to prove truth, rather than on the organisation to prove otherwise.

• Honest opinion: The publisher must show that the statement is one of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement indicates the basis of the opinion, and the opinion is one that an honest person could have held on the basis of any fact which existed at the time of publication.

• Public interest: The publisher must show that the statements complained of were made regarding a matter which is of public interest. The publisher must have reasonably believed that publishing the comments were in the public interest.

What are your options?

Even if a published statement does meet the threshold of being defamatory, litigation shouldn’t be your first consideration. Not only will it be costly and time consuming, it can often make a bad situation worse by inflaming the publisher and making them more vocal against the organisation. Your main priority will be to contain the publication and limit the potential harm done.

In furtherance of this objective, it is important to recognise the symbiotic relationship that exists between social media and the mainstream media. They feed off each other; social media ‘warriors’ are often inspired by stories reported legitimately by newspapers, TV and radio. Conversely, the traditional media, particularly the so-called ‘red top’ newspapers will trawl social media sites for items of potential interest. In both cases, this just serves to widen the audience for published material.

When these incidents happen, those on the receiving end tend to have one of two reactions: to be so aggrieved and offended at the allegations that they want to rebut them line-by-line in a public statement or they bury their head in the sand, issue a ‘no comment’ and hope it will all go away. Almost invariably, both courses are inadvisable.

Responding in detail only serves to breathe longer life into the issue when the objective is to deny it the oxygen of further exposure. Alternatively, saying ‘ no comment’ doesn’t mean ‘no story’; it can create the perception that there is something to hide which only encourages the persistent journalist to, legitimately, seek information elsewhere, often from sources that are less informed than the official ones.

So, when commenting on matters on social media or in more mainstream outlets, statements should be short and factual, acknowledging the ‘bones’ of the situation, explaining what is being done to remedy the matter (if that is indeed the case), state the organisation’s relevant policy and say there will be no further comment. Staff should be informed that any external media inquiry should be directed to the relevant official spokesperson and not be drawn into comment.

It may also be necessary to take legal action against the publisher. The first step would be to prepare a legal letter which sets out why the comment is defamatory, what the true position is and then invite the publisher to remove the published statement in order to avoid any further action being taken against them. This could be a light touch ‘warning’ letter or a full pre-action letter of claim. More often than not, instructing a solicitor to prepare such a letter can help to resolve matters quickly as it shows the publisher that you are taking the issue seriously. Most publishers would rein themselves in at this stage.

Should the matter still not be resolved, legal proceedings in the High Court may be necessary. This is an unattractive prospect for any publisher: if they fail to discharge their burden of successfully arguing their defence to the claim, they face being ordered to pay damages to compensate you.

Top five tips:

1. Always do your research – it’s essential to be fully aware of all of the facts before you start writing legal letters.
2. Always know your audience – is engaging with the individual going to make things worse? If it is, then choose another way of dealing with the problem.
3. Always assume that whatever you write will end up on social media/in the mainstream media – this comes back to our first top tip: make sure that you know all of the facts and make sure that you are happy with the tone and content of your communications.
4. Always be prepared – whilst the timing and precise nature of a crisis incident cannot, by their very nature, be accurately predicted, there are fundamental actions to be taken irrespective of the specific incident. They should be detailed in a crisis communications response plan which sets out how it will be dealt with, i.e. who is authorised to speak/issue statements, what audiences and stakeholders needs to know, how information will be cascaded through the organisation, who will monitor social media etc.
5. Always be factual, empathetic and truthful in whatever you say – cover-ups are always exposed and the subsequent reputational damage can be more harmful than the incident itself.

    Share Story:

Recent Stories


How is the food and agricultural crisis affecting charity investment portfolios?
Charity Times editor, Lauren Weymouth, is joined by Jeneiv Shah, portfolio manager at Sarasin & Partners to discuss how the current pressures placed on agriculture and the wider food system is affecting charity investment portfolios.

Better Society