Crisis Review 2024 Part 1: 28-22
Crisis Review 2024 Part 3: 14-8
Crisis Review 2024 Part 4: 7-1

21. Payment platform Zelle tackles bank fraud 

In late December, the Biden administration took a parting shot at three of the country’s biggest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—by filing a lawsuit against them for failing to protect customers from rampant fraud on their payment platform, Zelle.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) alleges that Early Warning Services, the consortium of seven banks that operates Zelle, “rushed” to launch the platform in 2017 without implementing adequate safeguards against fraud. The lawsuit further claims that Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—whose customers have collectively lost more than $870 million on Zelle—exacerbated the issue by failing to share critical fraud-related information with other institutions and inadequately addressing consumer complaints. Communicators see these failures as central to the institutions’ reputational challenges.

The CFPB’s lawsuit, while significant, was hardly unexpected. Zelle has been on Washington’s radar since 2022, when U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren released a report documenting widespread fraudulent activity on the app and banks’ reluctance to compensate victims.

Since then, however, Zelle has taken steps to address fraud and reduce the number of users falling victim to scams. In 2023, the platform reversed its reimbursement policy, starting to issue refunds to victims of imposter scams. It also launched its S.A.F.E. Squad (Scam and Fraud Elimination Squad) marketing campaign, aimed at educating consumers on safer app usage.

The brand got a boost last August, three months before the CFPB lawsuit, when The Financial Brand published a J.D. Power report showing that fraud on Zelle occurred less frequently than on other payment platforms. Data from Zelle says that from 2022 through 2023 there was a nearly 50% decrease in reports of scams and fraud payments processed on the network.

The fact that Zelle has made meaningful progress in reducing fraud yet remains implicated in a lawsuit targeting three of its owner banks underscores a broader challenge for the brand. As a platform co-owned by seven major banks, Zelle operates in an ecosystem where its identity is closely tied to its corporate owners, leaving it vulnerable to public misperceptions.

“Technology has brought a new level of brand confusion,” said Dan Simon, chairman of financial services agency Vested. “Technology democratizes but it also eviscerates responsibilities.”

Many users fail to distinguish between the banks’ responsibilities for fraud management and Zelle’s role as a payment system, creating reputational risks for the brand. RepTrak global executive VP Stephen Hahn said it is therefore critical for a brand like Zelle to clearly and proactively communicate with users on multiple levels.

“Transparency is critical to driving reputation. A lack of consumer understanding of what Zelle is and how it operates may have made users more susceptible to being scammed,” he said. “Going forward, the onus is on Zelle to fully educate the marketplace on its primary service offering while also building safeguards to protect end users.”

In this case, however, the legal challenges Zelle and its three co-owner banks face could, in short, dissolve. Republicans, who have historically been critical of the CFPB, may choose to drop the lawsuit entirely under Donald Trump. — Diana Marszalek

20. For Unilever and Ben& Jerry’s, a high-profile clash of values

In general, when purpose-driven businessmen sell their companies to giant multinationals, the outcome is predictable. Think the Kraft takeover of Cadbury, which saw the slow death of the UK chocolate maker’s longstanding commitment to Fair Trade. But the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to Unilever was supposed to be different: first, because the Anglo-Dutch company (as it was then) had earned a reputation for its own purpose-driven marketing; and second because the Vermont ice-cream maker secured an agreement that an independent board would control Ben & Jerry’s corporate social responsibility.

In recent years, it has become apparent that tensions between the brand and its parent company were strained. After a 2022 lawsuit led by co-founder Ben Cohen, a settlement agreement included a condition expressly requiring Unilever to respect the board’s authority over Ben & Jerry’s social mission and brand integrity. This year, another lawsuit claimed Unilever has prevented the board from voicing its pro-Palestinian opinions, supporting college campus protests and urging a halt to US military aid to Israel.

For many public relations observers, the clash seemed entirely predictable. Says Phil Riggins, founder and CEO at the Brand & Reputation Collective: “When two brands with vastly different values join forces, tensions are almost inevitable. Corporate agreements designed to protect brand autonomy may falter when deeper value conflicts arise.”

That’s the first lesson from this high-visibility divorce: “Creating contracts needs to consider more than just the day-to-day situation in good times,” says crisis communications consultant Amanda Coleman. “It must address how disagreements are going to be managed, and this includes the communication around problems. This is often overlooked when considering risk and resilience.”

But beyond that, there’s the issue of values, and how they are communicated. Values were a critical part of the initial deal—and of the ultimate divorce.

“For Unilever, owning an activist brand like Ben & Jerry’s undoubtedly bolstered its image as a forward-thinking, socially conscious corporation<” says Riggins. “However, this alignment came at a cost and the partnership's limits were exposed when Ben & Jerry’s values—rooted in social and environmental advocacy—compelled it to act in ways that clashed with Unilever’s priorities, including shareholder interests and corporate reputation.

“For Ben & Jerry’s, living its values is non-negotiable—it’s the essence of their brand identity. In contrast, Unilever, while embracing social responsibility, demonstrated that it has clear limits, particularly when weighed against financial and reputational stakes.”

To avoid such conflicts, he says, companies must be clear about their values. “Define the causes and issues your organization is willing to stand behind.” They also need to vet potential partners thoroughly. “Beyond financial and operational assessments, delve deeply into their values, particularly around potentially controversial topics.

“Companies are run by people, and people often underestimate the significance of value alignment or overlook red flags for the sake of short-term gains. Without a deliberate shift in how partnerships are assessed and managed, the business world may see similar conflicts arise.”

And yet… this is a rare crisis that might work out okay for both parties.

Says Kate Hartley, co-founder of Polpeo, and author of “Communicate in a Crisis”: “What better way to prove you’re still a maverick brand than to threaten to sue your parent company? Ben and Jerry’s is showing its customers it will stand up for what it believes in.

“But I don’t think it’s a huge issue for Unilever. Being sued by a company you own might be irritating, but it won’t do it any long-term damage.” The larger company probably did what it need to do to send the right signals to its stakeholders, many of whom do not embrance the ice-cream companies commitment to purpose ahead of profit.—Paul Holmes

19. Chiquita haunted by paramilitary ties 

Regardless of whether the company acted under duress, Chiquita Brands’ payments of $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group came back to haunt the banana giant in 2024. A U.S. jury in West Palm Beach, Florida, found the company liable for funding the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group designated as a terrorist organization. The jury ordered Chiquita to pay $38.3 million in damages to the families of eight Colombian men killed by the AUC during the country’s civil war, linking the company’s financial ties to the group to their deaths. CNN reported the case marked "the first time an American jury has held a major US corporation accountable for complicity in serious human rights abuses in another country."

Chiquita has argued that its Colombian subsidiary was coerced into making the payments between 1997 and 2004 after the AUC allegedly threatened its employees and operations. Despite this defense, a court rejected the company’s appeal in October.

This case is only the latest chapter in Chiquita's years-long legal and reputational struggles. In 2007, the company paid a $25 million fine for engaging in transactions with a terrorist group. Last year, it also reached a $12.8 million settlement with the families of 2,572 other AUC victims. However, the June verdict is particularly significant, not just as a landmark human rights ruling but also as a signal to US companies operating in conflict zones that accountability for complicity in atrocities could becoming unavoidable.

“This case underscores how operating in conflict zones blurs the lines between survival and moral responsibility,” said Richard Torrenzano, CEO of reputation and issues management firm The Torrenzano Group. “Beyond financial implications, it raises questions about ethical governance in global business. Companies are under growing pressure to adopt transparency and ethical frameworks to prevent profit-driven decisions from perpetuating violence.”

Patrick O’Neal, managing partner of Sherlock Communications, emphasized the importance of cultural and legal sensitivity when operating abroad. “This case highlights the critical importance of a robust communications strategy, aligned with the laws and nuances of the country in which a company operates. Local teams provide invaluable insight into navigating national media and public perception,” O’Neal said.

Chiquita’s legal battles are far from over. Several lawsuits related to its dealings with the AUC are still pending, prolonging the company's reputational challenges. RepTrak executive VP Stephen Hahn summarized the dilemma: “Chiquita is caught in the reputational crosshairs of an issue that lies at the intersection of harsh realities and moral obligations. Given the loss of innocent lives, Chiquita’s best path forward is to prioritize morality and ensure that the victims’ families are appropriately compensated.” — Diana Marszalek

18. PwC Australia: The cover up is always worse than the crisis

Big professional service firms find their way on to this list with alarming frequency, usually because of dubious ethical decision making, In recent years, McKinsey has been featured due to its role in the opioid crisis, but last year it was PwC that stood out, as a tax leak scandal in Australia escalated into a global crisis.

The scandal started small and local, in 2015, when Peter Collins, PwC Australia’s former international tax chief. breached confidentiality agreements by sharing insider intelligence on upcoming multinational tax laws proposed by his client—the Australian government—with PwC colleagues.

Then senior leaders at PwC in the US formed a global team to take advantage of their inside information, and the company advised 14 US companies on how to navigate the new tax laws before they were enacted, generating approximately $2.5 million in revenue, for the firm.

“PwC’s crisis stemmed from a blatant breach of client confidentiality when someone decided it would be lucrative to quietly sell advice on how to avoid the very anti-avoidance tax scheme PwC was being paid to develop to the firm’s large American technology clients doing business in Australia,” says Robyn Sefiani, founder of Australian corporate affairs firm Sefiani, part of Clarity Global..

But the real issue was cultural: “Because PwC’s partnership model is incentivised by fees earned, when some other partners became aware of the breach, no one spoke up. A stronger ‘speak-up’ culture would have encouraged partners and employees to report concerns as soon as they became aware of the breach, not wait to be spectacularly found out by an investigative journalist.”

Things took an even uglier turn when one of the partners involved in the scandal sued, and PwC in a countersuit, appearing to pin the blame on a single individual. Paul McNabb made his case on LinkedIn:“PwC’s remarkable position is that I, a single partner in the Australian firm operating under direct instruction from senior PwC partners in Australia and internationally, am solely responsible for the significant reputational damage caused by the ‘PwC tax scandal’ over the past two years.”

“As soon as details of the scandal were revealed in the Australian Financial Review, PwC Australia should have responded quickly and decisively, with public acknowledgment of the breach and its severity, an apology to the Australian government and Australian taxpayers, and commitment to full cooperation with the authorities,” says Sefiani.

Instead, she said: “The firm’s leadership hunkered down to protect the CEO and other senior partners who had been aware of the breach and did nothing.” It was only through a Parliamentary Senate Enquiry and further investigative reports by the AFR, helped by whistleblowers, that the full extent of the scandal eventually came to light.

“The prolonged reputational crisis over two years has had a devastating impact on the firm’s reputation and business with collateral damage for the entire government consulting sector in Australia. Good talent has drained from the firm and big corporate clients have left in droves, not wishing to be associated with an organisation with such poor ethics and culture.”

When the Australian government announced PwC was banned from any future government contracts, the firm sold its large public sector consulting business for a mere A$1 to Allegro; the business was restructured and renamed Scyne Advisory, generating $200 million in public sector revenue for its new owner in 2024.

Meanwhile, PwC fell from being the largest of the Big Four accounting and consulting firms, to now being the smallest in the Australian market.—Paul Holmes

17. Petrobras faces cascade of operation crises and human tragedy

In 2024, Petrobras, Brazil's state-controlled oil giant, faced a cascade of crises that tested its resilience on multiple fronts. The year was marked by significant leadership upheavals, financial turbulence, operational disruptions, and tragic safety incidents.

The leadership saga began with the resignation of board member Efrain Pereira da Cruz in January, fuelling speculation about internal tensions. The biggest shock came in May when CEO Jean Paul Prates was ousted after clashing with government officials over strategic priorities. In his place, president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva appointed Magda Chambriard, a former head of Brazil's oil regulator ANP. This appointment signalled Lula’s intent to steer Petrobras towards aggressive investments in refining and natural gas sectors, aligning with his broader economic agenda.

Chambriard’s arrival sparked market jitters, with investors recalling the notorious ‘Car Wash’ corruption scandal of 2014 and fearing potential government overreach. Under her leadership, Petrobras announced an ambitious $111 billion five-year capital expenditure plan, focusing on offshore drilling, biofuels, and fertilizers. Yet, this strategic pivot came amidst growing concerns about the company becoming a political tool at the expense of shareholder value.

Petrobras was then rocked by a $470 million net loss in the second quarter, attributed to shrinking diesel and gasoline margins and rising import costs. In response, the company slashed its 2024 investment projections significantly. Adding to its woes, a strike by environmental regulators slashed oil production by 200,000 barrels per day, further denting its operational stability.

On top of all these operational twists and turns, there was human tragedy: in October a young and promising engineer, Rafaela Martins de Araujo, was fatally injured in a catastrophic equipment malfunction at a construction site in Rio de Janeiro. The tragedy not only shocked the nation but also drew intense scrutiny over Petrobras’s safety protocols and operational oversight.

Petrobras moved swiftly to issue public statements expressing sorrow and condolences to Rafaela’s family, promising full cooperation with the authorities to investigate the incident. The company launched an internal investigation and pledged to review all safety measures at their sites to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. CEO Magda Chambriard personally addressed the media, committing to transparency throughout the investigation process and ensuring that the company would take responsibility for any failures in safety standards.

In addition to its public statements, Petrobras announced that it would cover the funeral expenses and provide financial support to Rafaela’s family. The company also promised to enhance safety training for all employees and contractors, as well as to conduct a thorough audit of equipment and procedures across all sites.

Despite these efforts, the public outcry was significant, with media outlets and safety advocates accusing Petrobras of neglecting worker safety in pursuit of profit margins. The incident became a rallying point for labour unions, which called for stricter enforcement of safety regulations in Brazil’s energy sector. For Petrobras, the crisis was not just about managing public perception but about rebuilding trust within its workforce and the broader community.

At Latin American PR specialist LatAm Intersect PR, partner and director Claudia Daré says the combined events of 2024 “underscored the complexities of operating a national oil company in a dynamic and turbulent political and economic environment.”

Her assessment is that Petrobras “demonstrated remarkable resilience, navigating leadership transitions, addressing safety concerns, and maintaining its strategic focus amid a challenging climate of ideological polarization.”

These challenges also presented opportunities for Petrobras to further enhance its crisis management framework, strengthen safety protocols, and deepen engagement with stakeholders. Nevertheless, Petrobras has solidified its position as a leader in Brazil’s energy sector and stands out among other state-owned companies, presenting a robust financial performance in the end of 2024.

The company posted a profit of 32.6 billion reais in the third quarter of the year—22% higher than the same period in 2023—reversing a second-quarter loss of 2.6 billion reais caused primarily by accounting effects and marking one of the best quarterly performances in its history. Says Daré: “These figures reaffirm Petrobras’ role as a cornerstone of Brazil’s economy.” —Maja Pawinska Sims

16. Jaguar’s rebrand shows marketers have to prepare for hate

At first, it didn’t really look like a crisis. At first, it looked like an edgy marketing campaign that got people talking about a moribund car brand for the first time in decades. According to Matthias Schmidt, founder of industry intelligence firm Schmidt Automotive Research.

"The traditional Jaguar demographic was slowly being diluted through natural attrition and customers jumping ship to other brands." The company was “on a road to nowhere.”

“On the one hand, Jaguar had little to lose and has thrown the dice on a new take in hope it might stick,” says Tamara Littleton, co-founder of Polpeo. “What’s more, it got the nation talking about a car brand I haven’t heard mentioned by my non-marketing peers in about a decade. The new brand is all about modernity, freshness, originality and modernity. It’s bold and kudos to them for taking the marketing adage ‘Be Brave’ and actually doing it.”

So the ad got a reaction. It was not universally popular, but the people who were outraged were precisely the kind of people you would want to be outraged if you were trying to modernize the brand. They thought the ad was “woke,” which—since it espoused on causes and made no political claims—was apparently the only word they could think of to mean “there were young Black people in it.”

“Any press is good press,” says Alex Dudley, EVP and head of crisis communications at Mike Worldwide. “Like it or not, no one was talking about Jaguar before their rebrand. Whether they can use that momentum to sell any cars is an open question, but it is a harsh reminder that being forgotten is the worst thing that can happen to a brand.”

But then came the hate. Not “hate” for the ad, which would be a strange thing to lose your mind over, but not especially objectionable, but hate for the people behind it, with the Daily Mail spotlighting a Jaguar marketing executive with his ‘husband and cockapoo,’ unleashing what Jaguar managing directior Rawdon Glover described as “a blaze of intolerance”,

Says Littleton, “There is one thing we can already take away from the significant crisis the brand faced: ‘go woke, go broke’ backlash must be planned for in any brand refresh, campaign or announcement that references or recognises young people, diverse groups, or any type of difference.

“Jaguar faced all the usual brand recrimination for doing something different, but the rabid anti-woke crowd took it further. This means that not only does the PR plan need to include expected backlash, but diverse—in this case, LGBTQIA+—employees need to be warned and protected.

Crisis communications consultant Amanda Coleman says the outcome might not be clear for a while: “Brands can be a reassuring presence: something that is constant in a time of fluctuation and something that should be valued in this challenging world. There is a long history of rebrands that have failed, often because the business hadn’t recognised the value of consistency.

“Those who are likely to buy Jaguars are unlikely to be ready for the shocking change. Whether it will stop them buying a car is yet to be seen; we may need to wait until the vivid yellow cars are available and may be the only option.”—Paul Holmes

15. Fire and pipeline protests put TotalEnergies under environmental scrutiny 

In 2024, TotalEnergies, the French multinational energy giant, found itself embroiled in one of its most severe series of crises in recent history, a multi-faceted ordeal that shook its reputation and raised critical questions about its environmental and social responsibilities.

The year began with mounting criticism over TotalEnergies’ involvement in the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a project that environmental activists and local communities claimed would displace thousands and threaten sensitive ecosystems across Uganda and Tanzania.

Despite intense protests and calls for the company to pull out, TotalEnergies defended its position, frequently issuing press releases to defend the project. The company underscored its commitment to adhering to environmental and social standards, highlighting that it had taken steps to mitigate the project’s impact on local communities and ecosystems. TotalEnergies claimed that 98% of those affected had been compensated and that the project would bring significant economic benefits to the region.

Despite these assurances, the backlash continued to grow. Environmental organisations dismissed TotalEnergies’ statements as mere public relations manoeuvres. The company's efforts to portray the project as beneficial were overshadowed by high-profile protests, both locally and internationally, which amplified criticisms of environmental harm and displacement of communities.

In May, a groundbreaking legal action was initiated against TotalEnergies' CEO, board of directors, and major shareholders. Three environmental organizations, along with eight individuals who identified as victims of climate-related extreme weather events, filed a criminal complaint in Paris. The plaintiffs alleged that TotalEnergies' continued investment in fossil fuels, despite clear evidence of their contribution to climate change, amounted to offenses including involuntary manslaughter and the deliberate endangerment of life. This unprecedented move sought to hold corporate leaders personally accountable for environmental and human harm linked to climate change.

When the criminal complaint was filed in May 2024, TotalEnergies initially responded with a carefully crafted statement, expressing disappointment over what it described as an "unfounded legal action." The company emphasised its commitment to transitioning towards renewable energy and highlighted its ongoing investments in green technologies. CEO Patrick Pouyanné reiterated that TotalEnergies was "fully aligned" with the Paris Agreement goals, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050.

However, this response was widely criticised by environmental groups and activists, who accused TotalEnergies of greenwashing. Media coverage of the lawsuit was extensive, framing the case as a landmark in corporate accountability for climate change. The public reaction was largely negative, with many perceiving TotalEnergies’ statements as defensive and insufficient in addressing the core allegations of the complaint.

The situation worsened in June when a devastating fire broke out at TotalEnergies' Donges refinery in western France, resulting in significant environmental damage and the evacuation of nearby communities. The fire, which burned for several days, was traced back to ageing infrastructure that had not been properly maintained, despite repeated warnings from internal audits. The incident led to widespread condemnation, not only from environmental groups but also from government officials who demanded a thorough investigation into the company's safety protocols.

TotalEnergies’ initial response to the refinery disaster was perceived as slow and inadequate. The company issued a carefully worded statement expressing regret and promising to investigate the cause of the fire, but it failed to immediately address the concerns of the affected communities. It wasn’t until several days later that CEO Patrick Pouyanné held a press conference, where he pledged to invest in modernising the refinery’s infrastructure and to compensate those impacted by the disaster. By then, however, the damage to the company's public image was done.

To make matters worse, in the wake of the fire, a whistleblower revealed that TotalEnergies had been aware of potential safety issues at the Donges refinery for years but had allegedly prioritised profit over necessary upgrades. This revelation sparked outrage and led to calls for greater corporate accountability. In response, the company launched an internal review and promised to implement more rigorous safety measures across all its facilities.

TotalEnergies’ initial statement after the fire expressed regret and promised a thorough investigation, but it lacked immediate concrete actions to reassure the public. The company’s delay in addressing the affected communities directly led to frustration and accusations of negligence.

Following the oil spill, TotalEnergies issued another statement detailing the containment efforts and vowing to prevent future incidents by investing in infrastructure upgrades. CEO Patrick Pouyanné held a press conference several days later, where he apologised for the environmental damage and outlined plans to modernise the refinery.

These communications were criticised for being reactive rather than proactive. The public and media were sceptical of TotalEnergies’ promises, especially after a whistleblower revealed that the company had been aware of potential safety issues at the Donges refinery for years. This revelation intensified scrutiny and further eroded trust in TotalEnergies’ commitment to safety and transparency.

The combination of environmental controversies and the refinery disaster painted TotalEnergies as a company out of touch with modern expectations for corporate responsibility. The crisis management efforts, though eventually comprehensive, were criticised for being reactive rather than proactive, leaving many to question the company's commitment to genuine reform.

At Boldt BPI, partner Steve Earl says TotalEnergies had “little room for manoeuvre” in its response to these issues. But even so, he says, “it has been buffeted by external factors frequently and sometimes what it has said has stirred things further, such as its comments on future US foreign policy that it later clarified."

Earl added: “These are tough times for many communicators, but firms most in the firing line need to both think hard about critical issues and political environments before they act, and also be confident enough to sustain a cohesive corporate voice that makes them less of a target. That voice is a crucial part of navigating change, let alone putting out reputational fires along the way.” — Maja Pawinska Sims