For many years, PRovoke Media has been producing an annual review of the biggest corporate crises from around the world, providing analysis from corporate reputation and crisis communications experts, and focusing on the lessons public relations professionals should learn.

But in an age of permacrisis, perhaps even permanent poly-crisis, we’ve decided the crisis review needs to be quarterly, and so this report will focus on 14 of the most significant crises we witnessed during the first three months of 2025.

One of the trends is obvious: several of these crises relate directly to the political turmoil unleashed in recent months, from the backlash against Elon Musk’s attacks of the federal government, to Target’s betrayal of its corporate values to big law firms bowing to political pressure, to Heinz finding itself caught up in the trade wars.

In among all of this were some more “traditional crises”, from the downing of an American Airlines flight in Washington, DC, to the death of a CEO in Asia, to yet another example of inappropriate behaviour by a CEO, and yet another instance of a major company failing to understand the “Streisand effect.”

Beyond the individual crises, though, Washington-based crisis expert Doug Poretz says “there is a new type of crisis that is emerging,” something he calls “chaos-driven crises,” which may require a new approach.

He explains, “The people who have expertise in what we call ‘crisis communications’ are really good: they have combined research, experience and their own community to create approaches that work—sort of like opening moves in chess.  But chaos-driven crises are different. Unlike event-driven crises, they can just arise, sort of like spontaneous combustion. And once they arise, we do not know what will work or how long it will take to extinguish—if ever.”

The permacrisis is born out of permachaos—and there’s no reason to believe that the permachaos is going to abate any time soon.

1. Musk’s Political Positions Plunge Tesla Into Crisis

It wasn’t long ago that a Tesla was the ultimate status symbol for the progressive set—sleek, high-end cars powered by clean energy and cutting-edge tech, made in that hotbed of innovation, Silicon Valley. What more could anyone with an eco-conscious mindset and a hefty income want?

Fast forward to today, and Tesla is down in the dumps—an automotive pariah whose reputation, and profits, have cratered since CEO Elon Musk volunteered to help dismantle the federal government at Donald Trump’s invitation. After reporting Tesla’s net income dropped 71% in Q1, Musk said he would be spending less time in Washington, focusing instead on reviving Tesla’s flagging fortunes.

But it’s not like Musk couldn’t see this coming, with the precipitous decline in Tesla’s image over the last year or so accelerated by him slashing thousands of federal jobs as head of the custom-created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

The backlash has been extraordinarily public. The Tesla Takedown movement has targeted Tesla dealerships around the country and in Europe with protests in opposition to Musk’s DOGE role in hopes of sinking sales. The movement also has called on Tesla owners to sell their cars. Singer Sheryl Crow made a high-profile move doing just that while donating the proceeds to NPR, one of Musk’s  targets.  “Tesla Regret Syndrome” has made its way into our vocabulary.

“Elon Musk’s decision to politicize his personal brand is unsurprisingly having an enormous impact on Tesla,” said Andrew Jarrell, Group Gordon’s chief strategy officer. “For many customers who bought Teslas, part of the appeal was signaling their support for a brand they perceived as associated with liberal causes. Musk’s relationship with the administration undercuts that core brand identity for many.”

Tesla’s reputational downfall is being documented. “Tesla is experiencing a reputation freefall in the US and across other leading markets in the world. Its RepTrak reputation score has precipitously dropped from a position of strength to a current state of being weak,” said Stephen Hahn, RepTrak’s chief reputation & strategy officer. “Tesla is caught in the crosshairs of a geo-political, trade policy, and brand identity crisis.”

Hahn believes the moment calls for strategic restraint. “Perhaps given that Tesla has so much been in the public eye and Elon Musk has been caught up in the news headlines in a less than positive light, that maybe now is the time for the company to go into radio silence mode, regroup, and to take the time to redefine what it stands for.”

Data from reputation management firm Caliber backs up that assessment. “The company’s Trust & Like score has dropped a staggering 22 points since 2022, an unusually steep decline for a brand that once enjoyed cult-like loyalty,” said CEO Shahar Silbershatz. (The average Trust & Like score for automakers in the US is 59, significantly higher than Tesla’s current score of 47.)

“The protests against Tesla will likely further polarize its reputation along political lines even more,” he said, adding that research shows current and would-be Tesla buyers are predominately Democrats. He also noted deeper market shifts: “The combination of product recalls and CEO Elon Musk’s erratic public persona have no doubt contributed to this erosion of public trust, but there are other factors at play as well. Cost, safety, and quality have overtaken environmental concerns as drivers of purchase behavior in the automotive space. Combine EV hesitancy with Tesla’s negative media coverage and customer attrition, and it’s clear the company’s once-unassailable brand narrative is unraveling fast.”

Still, not everyone is convinced the Tesla protests are strategically sound.

“Protesting at a Tesla dealership over DOGE is like canceling your Amazon Prime membership because you’re mad at the Washington Post’s editorial policy. It might feel like a statement, but it’s aimed in the wrong direction,” said Careen Winters,  president of reputation at MikeWorldWide. “Tesla dealers have no influence over Elon Musk’s political views — or any of his views, really. And if there’s one thing Musk has shown us, it’s that he’s not particularly responsive to public pressure.

“‘Tesla Regret Syndrome' is a clever hook — it trends, it sparks conversation, and it gives people a way to signal disapproval. But it’s more cathartic than constructive. This is a case study in performative activism: a visible, emotionally satisfying act that generates media attention but doesn’t move the needle on the underlying issue,” she said.

“That doesn’t mean it’s meaningless—performative actions can raise awareness, shape narratives, and build momentum. But if the goal is policy change or corporate accountability, the tactics have to be more targeted and strategic. That said, a few of these protestors might just have a future in creative strategy—they’ve nailed the headline.” — Diana Marszalek

2. Empathy Guides American Airlines Through DC Crash Fallout

On January 29, an American Eagle flight from Wichita, Kansas, collided with a Black Hawk helicopter during its approach to Washington’s National Airport. Both aircraft crashed into the Potomac, and it quickly became apparent that there would be no survivors.

At a time when so many of the crises we cover are the result of bad behavior or bad decision-making, it might be tempting to suggest that a crisis like this—when there is no suggestion that American Airlines bore any blame—presents less of a communications challenge, especially given the fact that the aviation industry has some of the best-laid crisis preparation plans in the world.

But the loss of life in incidents such of this is clearly tragic, and requires empathy and sensitivity on the past of the companies involved. And this crisis triggered some extraordinary political fallout, with some blaming the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to air traffic control and others convinced that DEI—whether in air traffic control or the airline industry—must be somehow to blame.

Under those circumstances, the response from American Airlines and its CEO Robert Isom was sober, dignified, and sympathetic. Ison quickly released a video statement emphasizing the company’s commitment to investigating the cause of the crash and to supporting the families of the victims. The next morning, he appeared alongside first responders at a press conference.

Carreen Winters, president of reputation at Mike Worldwide, drew a sharp contrast between the political response and the company’s tone: “The immediate leap to use the tragic loss of human life for political purposes is a sad statement of just how wrong a crisis response can be,” she wrote in a blog post.

“I am glad to see that companies, brands and the communicators guiding them have stuck to a higher standard, putting empathy and compassion above any perceived opportunity to “win” an argument or gain a market advantage… Today’s lesson is very simple: In the effort to be swift, comprehensive and effective we must always remember to lead with compassion and empathy.”

Similarly, Jane Dvorak of JKD & Company, had similar praise for Isom, writing: “I’ve been impressed with the Robert Isom, American Airlines CEO, for his compassion, very visible empathy for the families and those charged with responding to this catastrophic crash and for immediately making his way to DC.

“That says more about his leadership to me than anything – he cares and recognizes the importance of being present – for his company, his employees, his passengers, his partners and communities.”

And while most of America has moved on from this particular tragedy, it was reported just this week that American Airlines still speaks to the families every day through its care, continuity and global outreach team.—Paul Holmes

3. Heathrow Airport Power Outage: Crisis Or Catastrophe?

On March 21, Heathrow Airport, Europe’s busiest, was forced into an unprecedented full-day shutdown following a catastrophic fire at the North Hyde electrical substation in Hayes. The blaze disabled both of the airport's primary power feeds, plunging Terminals 2 and 3 into darkness and grounding over 1,300 flights. Approximately 290,000 passengers were affected, with many stranded or rerouted to other airports.

In the immediate aftermath, Heathrow's communications team acted swiftly, using social media platforms to inform passengers of the closure and advise them not to travel to the airport. The airport’s website provided regular updates, and a spokesperson confirmed that the first flights to resume operations would be repatriation flights and relocating aircraft, with hopes to run a full operation the following day.

However, the crisis management response was met with mixed reviews. While the initial communication was timely, subsequent actions have raised questions. Despite prior warnings from airline representatives about potential power supply issues, Heathrow's leadership—including in response to the House of Commons transport select committee—maintained that the event was an unlikely scenario requiring serious safety decisions.

Critics argue that the airport's reliance on a single power source and inadequate backup systems contributed to the severity of the disruption; the UK government has ordered an investigation into the country’s “energy resilience” as a direct result of the outage. Much was also written about CEO Thomas Woldbye’s decision to go to bed in the middle of the unfolding crisis.

In response to criticism, Heathrow’s management team announced a five-point plan to address the incident's shortcomings and improve future resilience. This plan includes enhancing communication protocols, upgrading infrastructure, and conducting a comprehensive review of crisis management procedures.

The outage has so far not affected the airport in bottom line terms—last week it reported a rise in profits for Q1—but it’s too early to say whether the event will have any lasting impact on the financials.

At crisis management simulation consultancy Polpeo, co-founder Tamara Littleton points out that travel disruption can cause huge emotional tolls—from the holiday of the year being cancelled to missing a relative's wedding, or even more serious issues around health appointments.

“While flight routines are meticulously planned, this response seemed a far cry from the standards of air traffic control. Heathrow's crisis response execution faltered. Announcements lacked real-time information that could have avoided traveller confusion and frustration. Heathrow certainly should look at operational resilience, and the fact that one substation brought British aviation to a halt, but as a crisis person, I look at leadership response.

“Generally, I’m not one to question someone’s bedtime routine, but the CEO heading to bed before a closure decision was made does not send the right message and could have been handled differently. Not because it was inherently wrong, but because it doesn't show solidarity to those sleeping on the airport floor. Admittedly though, Heathrow faced a remarkably difficult situation - I admire the team for putting safety ahead over any other concern.”

Crisis expert Rod Cartwright, principal of Rod Cartwright Consulting, said describing the incident only as a PR or reputational crisis “somewhat misses the point”: “Firstly, in my experience at least, there is rarely – if ever – such a thing as a PR crisis. Rather most incidents or events that attract that term stem from a combination of operational, structural, leadership, governance, behavioural and cultural factors. To my mind, the temporary closure of one the world’s busiest airports exemplifies perfectly the multi-causal origins of true crises.”

As David Denyer at the Cranfield School of Management said in a piece on LinkedIn, the shutdown was not an unpredictable black-swan event, but rather “a foreseeable scenario rooted in fragile infrastructure, siloed contingency planning, and an absence of integrated operational resilience… The Heathrow fire offers more than just a case of disruption—it is a system-wide signal failure in resilience thinking”.

Cartwright said: “A huge amen to that forensic analysis, which is markedly more important than simply whether the CEO should have gone to bed while key decisions were being made (he shouldn’t) or whether the early-stage communication was sufficient (it sadly wasn’t).”

Secondly, said Cartwright, as important as reputational damage can be, it is arguably less impactful than the relationship risk which accompanies it: “With the Heathrow Airline Operators' Committee threatening legal action against Heathrow over its member airlines’ contingent financial losses and the UK Government potentially pausing for thought about further expansion of the west London airfield, the relational jeopardy facing Heathrow is every bit as crucial as any reputational risk.”

At SEC Newgate, MD of crisis and special situations Tali Robinson said the most interesting element of the incident is that while airports and airlines are known for their rigorous crisis management protocols, Heathrow was seemingly caught off guard, as was its major stakeholder, British Airways.

“The substation incident highlights a critical and damaging lesson: that a lack of crisis preparedness, even for rare and unpredictable events, can lead to severe consequences. It is a stark reminder for organisations to reassess how they plan, coordinate, and communicate within complex, interconnected systems.

“Heathrow’s response to the incident also revealed the need for integrated resilience strategies with external as well as internal stakeholders. Every player – airports, airlines, air traffic control and regulators – likely had their own business continuity plans, but, from the outside at least, it appeared they weren’t aligned or even shared, let alone stress-tested. Siloes are the adversary of effective crisis management.”

Littleton concludes: “The key to making it through to the other side is to be honest, be human and be fast. People don’t want to be met with the corporate logo, they want the people on the other side of it who recognise their concerns and make it clear how they will work to resolve them.” —Maja Pawinska Sims

4. Samsung Deals with the Death of a CEO

In March this year, Han Jong-hee, the co-CEO of Samsung Electronics, sadly passed away due to cardiac arrest while receiving treatment in a hospital. He was 63 years old and had been leading the company in the role since 2022, also overseeing its consumer electronics and mobile devices divisions.

Han had a long history with Samsung, having joined the company nearly 40 years ago and played a pivotal role in establishing its television business as a global leader. His passing comes amid a broader context of trade uncertainties and challenges in maintaining market leadership. Following his death, Samsung shares were reportedly down 0.5 per cent in line with the broader South Korean market.

Han’s death highlighted the need to be respectful and sensitive when dealing with unprecedented leadership deaths such as this, as well as the importance of having a plan already in place.

Betsy Tan, communications consultant, explained that there should be a crisis communication plan that serves as a "single source of truth". This needs to be prepared beforehand, with holding statements.

She also added that the first thing communications teams need to do, should something like this happen is to notify key stakeholders sequentially, starting with the board of directors, executive team, and employees, followed by external stakeholders such as investors and the media.

"Employees must hear the news directly from the company before it becomes public," she said. "The message must acknowledge the emotional impact of the situation while providing clear information about the circumstances of the leader’s passing and the succession plans."

She added that it is also important that companies appoint a single spokesperson or a crisis communication team to handle media inquiries and public statements. "This minimizes the risk of mixed messages and ensures accountability," she said. Tan added that spokespersons must be media trained and familiarised with the approved messages.—Camillia Dass

5. Target Betrays Its Values and Its Stakeholders

The Trump administration’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives—a thinly-veiled attempt to turn back the clock to a time when discriminating against people of color was commonplace and largely uncontroversial—has persuaded many companies to abandon what they once described as “core values.”

But while major consumer brands such as McDonald’s and Walmart were among those rolling back their DEI initiatives, no other company has suffered the kind of backlash that Target has experienced over the past few months—because people of color, and the LGBTQ population apparently believed that Target had been sincere in its promotion of diversity,

In 2020, Target CEO Brian Cornell had discussed the murder of George Floyd, which took place just 10 minutes from Target’s headquarters and was a catalyst for the Black Lives Matter movement. Cornell talked about the “personal impact” of the killing and later said that Floyd “could have been one of my Target team members.”

The company was honored for its “outstanding commitment to equal opportunity by the Executive Leadership Council, a prominent organization of Black CEOs. Cornell accepted the award.

And as recently as 2023 Cornell was still expressing support for diversity initiatives: “I know that focus on diversity and inclusion and equity has fueled much of our growth over the last nine years,” he said. “The things we’ve done from a DE&I standpoint—it’s adding value, it’s helping us drive sales, it’s building greater engagement with both our teams and our guests.”

Cornell appeared sincere in his belief that the company he led might make a positive contribution to making the world a better place. Which is perhaps why the backlash against the retail giant has been so pronounced.

In a column for MarTech, author and academic Jay Mandel wrote of the retailer’s “performative allyship—superficial commitments to diversity and social issues lacking genuine intent… The backlash underscores a growing skepticism toward brands that fail to uphold their commitments.”

The backlash came immediately, with civil rights activists and people across social media calling for a boycott. Black church leaders urged their congregations to participate in a “40-day fast from Target.” And on February 28, during a "24-Hour Economic Blackout," Target saw its website visits fall from 5.2 million to 4.7 million, and its app traffic plummet by 14%.

Target recently suffered its 11th consecutive week of declining foot-traffic, a trend that began the week after it announce the termination of its DEI initiatives.

Washington, DC, crisis consultant Doug Poretz says the company deserves “an F-" for the way it handled the announcement of the policy shift and says that the ensuring “can’t be blamed on anything other than downright stupidity—probably collective stupidity by a group of people who guided this, but ultimately (as with anything else) the fault of the CEO.

“The announcement, the reversal, the defense, the excuse about ‘the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape’ — come on!  The lesson: identify the stupid people in your organization and do not let them within 200 light years of any discussion about how to handle a crisis.”—Paul Holmes

6. Paul Weiss Sacrifices Principle to Avoid Political Persecution

Regardless of whatever backroom wrangling went on, white-shoe law firm Paul Weiss—whose Democratic ties stretch back more than 70 years—appeared to cave to the Trump administration’s retributive demands so swiftly, you have to wonder whether soul-searching was even on the agenda.

“In moments like this, firms don’t just need a strategy, they need a spine,” said Bully Pulpit International partner Bradley Akubuiro. “Clarity, conviction and the courage not just to make tough choices, but to fully own them — whatever they may be — are what earns leaders trust. Without that, even the best tactical move can ultimately be a loss.”

One of the country’s largest and most prestigious law firms, Paul Weiss (formally Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison) put its credibility on the line — and sent its reputation spiraling — in March when it became the first firm to cede to a Trump executive order that would have effectively barred it from handling cases involving the federal government.

Paul Weiss agreed to do $40 million of pro bono work on Trump-supported causes, and halt DEI hiring practices, in exchange for the White House dropping the order — part of Trump’s larger retribution campaign against big law firms who have worked for Trump-opposing clients or causes. A total of nine firms struck deals with the administration, pledging $940 million in free services. Four firms bucked the trend by fighting the orders in court, arguing that they are patently unconstitutional.

Paul Weiss has hardly emerged unscathed in the wake of its decision, which sparked high-profile criticism from across the legal profession (including employees), among Democrats and in the press. 

Yet, crisis counselors are giving the firm some leeway, noting that the stakes for Paul Weiss were greater than public image. In March, Paul Weiss partners said they had to cut the deal to keep the firm afloat.

“Paul Weiss’ decision to make a deal with the administration was a business one,” said Group Gordon chief strategy officer Andrew Jarrell.

“The long-term reputational risks are hard to fully assess given the chaos of the moment. Certainly, there are many employees and others who are deeply disappointed by what they see as Paul Weiss’ decision to capitulate. There is also some empathy for the very difficult position the firm was put in and the legitimate concern it faced about the ability to conduct business if it didn’t come to a deal,” Jarrell said.

In addition, the fact that other law firms followed Paul Weiss’ lead “helps from a reputational cover standpoint,” he said.

Careen Winters, president of reputation at MikeWorldWide, noted that Paul Weiss was operating with its back against the wall.

“It’s a tough time to be in Big Law. It would be easy to reduce this situation to a question of courage under crisis and reputation as a leader — does it look bad to back down under political pressure? But a closer examination reminds us that it’s something much more fundamental: an existential question of whether a firm can continue to function at all,” Winters said.  “For law firms like Paul Weiss, these aren’t just image considerations. Losing access to courtrooms, government buildings, or the ability to serve clients in critical matters isn’t a PR problem — it’s a license to operate problem.

“These are incredibly high-stakes decisions, made under enormous pressure. And while it’s easy to call it ‘caving in,’ the reality is often a brutal calculation about how to protect the firm’s people, clients, and its business long-term,” she said. “At the heart of this decision is something more enduring: a recognition that the legal profession plays a vital role in a functioning democracy.

"Ensuring that a firm can continue to serve its clients, meet its obligations, and protect the livelihoods of its employees isn’t just a business decision—it’s a commitment to preserving the infrastructure of justice itself. In times of extraordinary pressure, protecting the viability of legal practice is, in many ways, protecting democracy."

It's also worth noting that, at least in terms of the pro bono work, the causes Trump asked Paul Weiss to support, like veterans’ welfare, are largely low risk— and therefore presumably palatable.

But it surely can’t come as a surprise that the terms of the deals Trump struck with firms could be changing. The New York Times reports that having the targeted law firms help with trade negotiations or support Elon Musk’s DOGE efforts could become part of the equation, which begs the question: how far would a law firm with a legacy of liberalism be willing to go?

Said Akubuiro, “Every organization has to assess its unique vulnerabilities, stakeholders and long-term risks. It’s possible Paul Weiss leadership did exactly that and concluded this was the best path forward under extraordinary pressure. But even so, values aren’t situational.” — Diana Marszalek

7. For Fuji, the Cover Up Compounds the Crime

In January this year, dozens of major Japanese companies such as Nissan Motor, Toyota Motor, Shiseido, Seven & I Holding, and life insurer Meiji Yasuda reportedly pulled their ads from Fuji TV after allegations arose that the network tried to cover up a sex scandal involving one of its TV hosts, Masahiro Nakai.

One of Japan's best-known personalities, Nakai is a former member of the boy band SMAP and a host at Fuji TV and other Japanese networks. Local media linked Nakai to an alleged sexual assault at a party that was reportedly arranged by one of Fuji TV’s staff, according to AP News. Reportedly, Nakai was to have dinner with a Fuji TV executive and a woman, but the executive backed out, leaving him alone with her.

Local publication Shukan Bunshun reported in December that a $578,000 settlement between Nakai and the victim was made following the claims.  Nakai also made a statement on the settlement and reportedly called it “a trouble” while denying that he was violent in any way.

The scandal did not immediately cause concern until Fuji TV held a press conference at which Koichi Minato, Fuji TV’s president, apologized for the incident and for not disclosing the problem despite knowing of it six months prior. However, he defended his employees, saying that they had not done anything wrong. Minato added that the company would be launching an investigation but did not detail how that would take place.

In fact, Fuji TV reportedly only decided to acknowledge the incident after one of its shareholders, Rising Sun Management, publicly demanded a full investigation and appropriate action.

At the time, after the press conference, sentiments of conversations about Fuji TV plummeted from 17.6% positive and 28.2% negative to 6.5% positive and 40.1% negative, according to media intelligence firm CARMA.

Nitin Mantri, regional executive managing director for Asia-Pacific, WE and group CEO, Avian WE, said that when allegations like these arise, the biggest mistake is avoiding or downplaying them.

“People see through that, and it erodes trust. The right approach is to acknowledge the issue openly, show empathy for those affected, and commit to finding out what went wrong. Transparency and accountability backed by clear, visible actions are key,” he said.

He added that to rebuild trust, companies need to move beyond words and show real change, such as stricter policies, safer environments, and accountability at all levels.

“Trust takes time, but consistent actions rooted in integrity will ultimately make a difference. People don’t expect perfection; they expect honesty and a genuine effort to do better,” he said.—Camillia Dass

8. Primark CEO Resignation: When Will Leaders Learn Appropriate Behaviour?

Another day, another male leader who has managed to rise to the top of an organisation seemingly without any awareness of or care for demonstrating appropriate behaviour towards women. On March 31, Paul Marchant stepped down from his role as CEO of British high street fashion retailer Primark after allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards a woman during a social event.

The news hit the headlines quickly, as the high-profile resignation was another notch in the growing scrutiny of corporate leaders’ disappointing conduct. The allegations were investigated by external lawyers at Herbert Smith Freehills, who found that Marchant’s actions had fallen far below the standards expected by Associated British Foods (ABF), Primark’s parent company.

Marchant was quick to apologise, not only to the individual involved but also to the ABF board and his colleagues. In a statement about his “error of judgement”, he said, “I deeply regret my actions and take full responsibility. I am truly sorry for the hurt I have caused, and I understand that this behaviour is not acceptable under any circumstances.”

But it wasn’t the first time Marchant had faced scrutiny for his behaviour. A previous incident involving “inappropriate communication” had been addressed internally by ABF. While that incident had been dealt with, it appeared to have set a worrying precedent. This time, the allegations were more serious, and the company wasted no time in taking action.

George Weston, CEO of ABF, expressed his disappointment in a statement, underlining the importance of integrity in leadership. “The standards we expect of our leaders must be beyond reproach. Our culture has to be, and is, bigger than any one individual,” Weston said, clearly signalling that the company was committed to upholding high standards, no matter the cost.

In response to the crisis, ABF wasted no time in appointing Eoin Tonge, the group’s finance director, as the interim CEO of Primark, with Joana Edwards stepping in as interim finance director. The quick succession of leadership changes seemed designed to reassure the public and the market that the company was taking decisive action. But despite these swift measures, the resignation had an immediate impact: ABF’s share price dropped by 2%, reflecting investor concern about how the scandal might tarnish Primark’s brand image and disrupt its operations.

From a PR standpoint, the resignation was both a necessary move and a tough one. Marchant’s swift apology and the company’s quick action in appointing interim leadership were crucial in showing the world that ABF was handling the situation responsibly. However, there are glaring questions about the company’s leadership culture. The fact that Marchant’s previous behaviour had already been flagged internally but still led to further issues highlights a potential gap in how leadership conduct is managed within the company.

In many ways, this incident feels like the kind of PR crisis that could have been avoided with better internal checks. If ABF had acted more proactively earlier, it might have spared itself the public embarrassment and the hit to its stock price. At the very least, the company should have reviewed its internal processes for handling complaints and misconduct more seriously, especially when a pattern seemed to be emerging.

ASM Media & PR owner Alan Morrison said three things stand out from ABF’s handling of this situation: timing, succession and values. “Rather than announce the external investigation into Marchant’s conduct when it was launched, ABF waited until it had delivered its findings and Marchant had responded by acknowledging his actions and resigned before proactively announcing his departure and who would succeed him.

“This set the narrative on the events and avoided a period of uncertainty for key stakeholders of unknown length, particularly investors and the victim, and giving clarity on the future immediately. Allowing him to resign, rather than be sacked, allowed him to salvage something reputationally from the situation and avoid potential costly litigation with him over it.

“Having him depart after recent poor results also creates hope the new CEO can do better, potentially helping the share price recover over time from the hit it took from this unexpected news. By its actions in this situation, ABF also showed its stated values around behaviour, which its chief executive restated in its response, aren’t just words on a piece of paper for them – they are ones they act on regardless of who the person involved is.”

While Primark’s PR team did what they had to in handling the immediate fallout, with clear statements, leadership changes, and an apology, the company’s challenge now is ensuring that the internal culture lives up to the values it espouses publicly. Only time will tell whether this crisis is truly behind them or if there are deeper issues at play that will continue to haunt the brand.—Maja Pawinska-Sims

9. The Zuckerberg Effect?

Maybe it’s time to stop calling it “the Streisand effect.” After all, the lawsuit that earned the phenomenon that soubriquet was relatively low stakes, and came at a time when people could be excused for not understanding the internet’s ability to turn ill thought-out actions into enduring memes.

So maybe “the Zuckerberg effect” is more apropos, since the lawsuit that lands Meta and its CEO on this list was filed by lawyers and senior executives who should surely have known—given that Meta is supposedly in the social media business—what the impact on book sales and public perceptions would be.

Meta’s efforts to prevent whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Willliams, the company’s former director of global public policy, from promoting her book “Careless People “ in the United States was, on one level, understandable: the books allegations—including accusations of sexual harassment and claims that the company worked with the Chinese Communist Party to censor content—were both credible and potentially damaging.

But the company’s lawyers and communications specialists must have known that even if Meta “won” in court (and it did when an arbitrator ruled that Wynn-Williams was prohibited from promoting the book) the publicity surrounding the lawsuit could only increase sales of the book and reinforce its allegations of bullying.

As Vulture reported,  “Careless People hit the top of the Times best-seller list and sold 60,000 copies. It’s selling out in New York bookstores and prominently displayed in the ones that still have it.”

Meta attempted to spin the verdict as an indication that its allegations were false, although social media users were quick to point out that the ruling focused on the breach of an NDA rather than on the veracity of the claims. And the publisher said it would stand behind the book: ““To be clear, the arbitrator’s order makes no reference to the claims within Careless People.”

Moreover, another former Facebook policy executive reviewed the book and said she had “witnessed some of the leadership practices that Wynn-Williams describes” and added: “What struck me is that what isn’t included in Careless People is more telling than what is.” While the central allegations were credible, she questioned why Wynn-Williams had remained with the company—and participated in some of the events she described—for so long.

Matt Jancer, writing for Vice, made the company’s contribution to the book’s success clear: “More people have heard of Careless People than ever. It was likely always going to become at least a minor media fixture, given the status of both its author and the company. Would it have gotten the traction it’s gotten had Meta just kept its mouth shut? No way.

“If Meta’s executives are clenching their teeth at night knowing that copies of Careless People are flying off the shelves, they have themselves to blame.”

Crisis counselor Doug Poretz suggests that Meta executives were running a “let’s-make-the-Company-and-its-executives-as-unappealing-as-possible” campaign.”

He concedes that “as far, their image hasn’t been a major hindrance to them — they keep on plugging along, growing, making their execs super wealthy.  But I think it is inevitable that somewhere along the line they are going to be in crisis much worse than the self-inflicted wound of this and other crises—and when that happens, I think the company is going to wish it had invested more in its reputation.”

It’s possible that some Meta executives already feel that way: the Senate judiciary committee has been listening to Wynn-Williams’ testimony this week, and seems to have questions of its own for Meta management.—Paul Holmes

10. Ketchup Caught Up in Canada Trade War

There are few foods more quintessentially American than ketchup — but in targeting Heinz as part of the US trade war, former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau picked the wrong bottle to mess with.

In January, Trudeau, discussing potential retaliatory tariffs against the US, pointed to Heinz ketchup as an example of American products that could be swapped for Canadian alternatives. He cited a trade spat during Donald Trump’s first term that resulted in "Heinz's ketchup being replaced by French's ketchup because French's was still using Canadian tomatoes in its ketchup"—implying, incorrectly, that Heinz ketchup sold in Canada still wasn’t fully Canadian.

At most other times, Trudeau’s gaffe would likely have been little more than a blurt in the daily news cycle—or not happened at all, since most other times don’t involve world leaders squabbling over condiments.

But with anti-US sentiment rising and the “Buy Canadian” movement gaining steam, Trudeau’s comments resonated with consumers, causing a hefty dose of unexpected angst for Kraft Heinz — which data from reputational management company Caliber shows is the most trusted food brand in the US.

According to Canadian firm ChangeMakers’ tracking tool, Heinz’s reputation score in Canada fell 20% from 53.1 (50 being roughly average on the 1-100 scale) before the Trudeau flap to 42.2 last week. “Trudeau’s comments, although factually incorrect, created a strong emotional imprint that Heinz’s corrective actions alone have not erased. Once a brand’s authenticity is questioned, rebuilding trust takes longer and is harder than anticipated,” an agency analysis said.

Which is not to say Kraft Heinz didn’t try, having gone all-in on clarifying its ketchup’s Canadian roots, garnering widespread attention in the press and beyond.

In a statement, Kraft Heinz Canada said it was “deeply disappointed” with Trudeau’s “misleading statements,” noting that Heinz ketchup sold in Canada is made in Canada, using Canadian tomatoes and Canadian labor. “With the exception of the five years from 2015 to 2020, we have made Heinz Ketchup in Canada for more than 100 years,” it said. Kraft Heinz took out a full-page newspaper ad reinforcing its “grown and made in Canada” message.

“Such a comment made years or even months ago would likely have necessitated a quiet acknowledgement or correction, nothing close to the opportunity for media coverage and the strengthening of brand affinity that it did at the time,” said Citizen Relations senior VP Alexandra Peckosie Carson.

“Such an opportunity stems from the Canadian spirit that has revealed a unique patriotism in the face of threatening tariffs from the US. Canadians have showcased an uncharacteristically loud and steely resolve to support our own. This patriotism has revealed a deeply ingrained sentiment that ‘Made in Canada’ isn’t just a label, it’s a testament to our resilience as a nation and to our collective identity,” Peckosie said.

Careen Winters, MikeWorldWide’s president of reputation, called Kraft Heinz’s response “a textbook case of preemptive brand protection: fast, factual, and direct.

“While the moment faded quickly—barely a blip in the fast-moving world of policy news—it offered a clear reminder of how easily brands can be pulled into the political spotlight, even when they’ve done nothing to invite it,” she said. “In today’s climate, companies need to operate in a constant state of readiness. Issues move fast, misinformation spreads faster, and the first few hours often define the narrative. Kraft Heinz didn’t just correct the record—they reinforced their connection to Canadian identity at exactly the right time.”

But Winters also raised the question of whether Kraft Heinz would have been better off letting the incident fade on its own, treating it as a non-issue.

“A straw poll around the MikeWorldWide office indicates that this ‘crisis’ didn’t hit the radar or permeate the consciousness of any of my news junkie colleagues. This raises a different question: did Heinz need to respond at all?” Winters said.

“With the speed, volume and chaos of news today, wait and see has become a more viable and prudent strategy than previously considered. Heinz was listed among a string of brands, and by jumping in could have made themselves a larger focal point, at least for the moment. So did this ‘crisis’ fade due to their swift response? Or did it fade because it wasn’t all that relevant or sustainable an issue?” — Diana Marszalek

11. A Family Feud Sparks Reputational Trouble

Earlier this year, Singaporean multinational real estate operator City Developments Limited (CDL) was in the headlines as a result of a leadership tussle.

The conflict at CDL arose when chairman Kwek Leng Beng – Singapore's fourth-richest billionaire– accused his son of attempting to appoint new independent directors without proper board approval, which he described as an "attempted coup."

Tensions peaked when Kwek Leng Beng sought his son's removal, citing a series of poor business decisions that he believed had jeopardized the company, including a substantial loss from an investment in a Chinese developer.

As the feud unfolded, CDL's governance came under scrutiny, leading to a trading halt on the stock market due to the internal discord. Kwek Leng Beng expressed concerns about the integrity of the board and the need to restore strong governance practices. He also emphasized that bypassing corporate governance protocols was a serious violation that could harm the company’s reputation and stability.

Meanwhile, Sherman Kwek defended his actions, claiming they were aimed at improving governance and were not intended to undermine his father’s position.

The situation was further complicated when Sherman Kwek pointed to Dr. Catherine Wu, a former personal assistant to Kwek Leng Beng, as a source of influence and conflict within the board.

City Developments Limited saw its online sentiments dip to 36.7% negative and 3.6% positive at the time. This was down 3.3% negative and 65.4% positive before the tussle began, according to media intelligence firm CARMA.

According to Oliver Ellerton, director at Ellerton & Co Public Relations, disputes are an inevitable part of doing business. "While the CDL situation has drawn comparisons to [HBO drama] Succession, the reality is that every entrepreneur, startup founder, business owner, or multinational CEO will, at some point, face major conflicts. But disputes don’t define a company – how leadership responds to them does," he said.

He added that as a large, publicly listed company, CDL must prioritise transparency and consistent disclosures as nothing kills trust quicker than silence. "Maintaining control of the narrative is equally crucial and decisive actions, such as the trading suspension, can be viewed as part of this strategy," he said.

"For close partners and shareholders, reassurance is key. They need to know that the issue is being taken seriously at the highest levels," said Ellerton. "Engaging stakeholders through closed-door dialogues, town halls, and direct communication channels can help demonstrate that concerns are being heard and addressed where necessary."

He added that beyond immediate stakeholders, the wider public and regulators will be watching closely and that restoring trust requires clear, honest, and proactive communication.

"In the short term, CDL must focus on open and honest communication – no spin, no gaslighting. In the longer term, it’s about demonstrating business stability, showcasing future successes, and articulating a clear path forward – regardless of who ultimately comes out on top," said Ellerton.

Kwek Leng Beng has since dropped the lawsuit against his son for the “greater good” of CDL and its stakeholders.—Camillia Dass

12. Disinformation Sparks a Coca-Cola Boycott

As social media platforms have increasingly welcomed mis- and disinformation, and given up on the idea of brand safety, more and more companies have become victims of dishonest and misleading information (last year there were claims that Mattel was introducing a pregnant Ken doll and McDonald’s was celebrating Satanism with its new Happy Meal).

Earlier this year, when the Trump administration started rounding up people of Hispanic descent and trafficking them to foreign prisons, it was Coca-Cola’s turn to be targeted—although the claims that the company had called ICE to arrest some of its own employees were more damaging than those obviously-untrue stories, prompting boycotts in the US and Latin American markets.

The fake video, originally posted on TikTok, wasn’t even particularly sophisticated or convincing, but people were still fooled. Speaking at our PRovoke EMEA Summit last month, Jack Stubbs, chief intelligence officer, Graphika, told the audience: “This Coca-Cola example is upsettingly familiar. We see things like this all the time—fake content that would fall apart under basic scrutiny but still spreads.

“Take a moment to look closely: the uniforms don’t match real ICE attire, the truck is being loaded incorrectly, and the factory setting is off. Yet it went viral. Why? Because people don’t stop to think. In today’s attention-deficit environment, people respond based on gut feeling and emotional resonance, not logic. It’s a perfect storm for disinformation.”

The company was either caught flat-footed or did not wish to anger the Trump administration by issuing a statement—and so the story expanded from social media to mainstream outlets (most of which noted that there was no evidence to support the claims).

“In today's world, misinformation spreads rapidly, and Coca-Cola's recent experience highlights this danger for all businesses,” wrote Cameron Craig, CEO of A Signature Story. “This false information harmed their reputation and affected sales in Latin America.

”This incident emphasizes the need for businesses to create strong strategies for managing their public image in a challenging information environment. If a major brand can struggle with misinformation, smaller companies need to think about how to protect themselves through proactive reputation management and transparency.”

Dylan Jones, managing partner at Boldsquare, adds: “It’s not just that misinformation moves faster than ever. It’s that no brand, even one of the biggest in the world, is immune to the prospect of losing control of its own voice.”

Says crisis consultant Doug Poretz: “If you are as big a global brand as Coca-Cola, frequent crises are part of your harsh reality.  This wasn’t good, but it could have been much worse.”

Without addressing the specifics of the charges, and running the risk of fueling the online discussion, he adds: “maybe they should assert their values clearly and make that one of their key messages. They have the muscle to do that.”—Paul Holmes

13. Pemex: Deepening Debt and Reputational Damage

Pemex was founded nearly 90 years ago to give Mexico control over its oil—freeing the country from foreign dependence and using the profits to fuel the national economy

Recently, though, Pemex has become more a drain than a booster of Mexico’s economy. The state-owned giant is one of the world’s most indebted oil companies, having closed out 2024 $97.6 billion in  debt, about where it’s hovered since 2018, after its annual loss topped $30 billion.

The company owes suppliers billions and has implemented austerity measures so extreme that, in some locations, employees have to request permission to use the bathroom. In March, Bloomberg reported that Pemex’s “deepening financial crisis is visible in every corner of seaside Ciudad del Carmen,” citing ferry service to oil rigs stoppages; hotels that house oil workers sitting empty; and offshore employees working 14-day shifts rationing tortillas as suppliers wait to get paid.

Under President Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s government has taken steps to aid Pemex’s turnaround including simplifying its tax structure.  In February, Sheinbaum unveiled a new strategy to lure foreign investment, calling for a new plan under which Pemex will share profits with private partners in joint ventures, which could account for up to 10% of the company’s production.

While global ratings agencies and investors have flagged concerns about Pemex’s business dealings, crisis counselors say the reputational damage Pemex has incurred is just as acute — largely due the company’s chronic mishandling of communications.

“Since the crisis began, there has been a widespread perception among both the Mexican public and the communications industry that Pemex’s image has suffered due to reactive communication and a lack of transparency with employees, investors, suppliers and the public,” said Carlos Maya Benassini, head of client services and network at Sherlock Communications.

“Many communications specialists feel that Pemex has failed to address its challenges proactively, missing an opportunity to rebuild trust with the general public, but also, that whenever it has communicated, the messages are not aligned with the reality, losing credibility and trust from all its key audiences. During a crisis, it’s crucial for a company to prioritize and convey a clear message and develop a narrative that aligns with transformation, efficiency, and technological renewal,” he said.

The company’s comms failures have hurt its reputation internationally, too.

“The Pemex crisis isn’t just financial — it’s a credibility crisis,” said Careen Winters, president of reputation at MikeWorldWide. “Years of structural and operational challenges has eroded trust, but it’s the company’s communication that’s really shaken international confidence.

“Delayed earnings, limited media engagement, and a reluctance to confront bad news head-on have created a vacuum—and in crisis communications, a vacuum gets filled by critics. The lesson here is clear: trust isn’t built by avoiding hard truths. It’s built by owning them,” she said.

And the fallout goes beyond Pemex itself.

“Pemex’s current crisis is a reputational red flag — not just for the company, but for Mexico’s broader economic messaging,” said Shahar Silbershatz, CEO of reputation management company Caliber. “Pemex’s reliance on government bailouts has the potential to make it that much harder for the company to attract investment and talent, while Mexico’s apparent willingness to continue to bail Pemex out could damage its perceived trustworthiness.”—Diana Marszalek

14. DJs’ Racial Mockery Lands Malaysian Era FM in Hot Water

In March this year, Malaysian Communications Minister, Fahmi Fadzil, called for an immediate investigation into the country's leading Malay-language radio station, Era FM after a video went viral showing its DJs mocking the sacred Hindu "kavadi" dance. The video, shared on the station's social media on 4 March, featured the DJs chanting "vel vel" while imitating the dance, which sparked outrage among viewers.

In response to numerous complaints, the Minister reportedly directed the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to look into the incident.

As part of the investigation, the management of era FM and it's owner, Astro Radio, were also summoned to provide explanations regarding the content of the video. Fahmi reportedly emphasized at the time that this inquiry aims to ensure compliance with existing regulations and to determine appropriate actions based on the findings.

The backlash from the public included severe criticism from various figures such as Malaysian Indian Congress deputy president M. Saravanan and National Unity Minister Aaron Ago Dagang, who deemed the DJs' behavior as disrespectful to the Hindu community.

Social media conversations around Era FM at the time dipped to 3.2% positive and 71.6% negative, according to media intelligence firm CARMA.

Stefanie Braukmann, general manager of SPRG Malaysia, said the incident highlights a clear lapse in internal quality control when it comes to content creation and approval.

"DJs are not just entertainers; they are public figures and the voices of the station, carrying significant influence," she said.

Braukmann added that in a multicultural and multi-religious society such as Malaysia, DJs must be better coached and prepared to act with integrity and sensitivity.

"This is especially crucial given the heightened awareness around religious and racial sensitivities, with multiple recent incidents leading to public outrage, legal action, and reputational damage for individuals and businesses," she said.

She added that it is true that Era FM acted swiftly by issuing a public apology, which was the right first step. "The apology was direct and acknowledged the mistake, which is crucial in crisis management. However, to fully address the backlash and rebuild trust, they need to go beyond just apologising. The next step should involve clear, proactive measures to ensure such incidents do not happen again," she said.

Braukmann explained that to rebuild trust and credibility, Era FM should take concrete actions that reinforce their commitment to inclusivity and respect for all cultures and religions. These could include things like mandatory cultural sensitivity training for all on-air personalities and content teams or by conducting an internal review to strengthen content oversight.

"Taking these steps will help Era FM demonstrate that they are not just reacting to the backlash but actively working towards long-term improvement in cultural awareness and responsibility," she said.—Camillia Dass

Story image by Paul Goyette, published under a creative commons license.