Winning in the Court of Public Opinion 取信於「輿論法庭」

Corporate Governance

1 HKIoD: THE 21ST CENTURY DIRECTOR

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-A

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

ND:

CT:

CT:

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

ND:

CT:

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

ND:

ND:

CT:

ND:

ND:

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

ND:

CT:

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。

Cora Wan 溫旭兒

企業管治

2香港董事學會: 廿一世紀董事

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

ND:

CT:

CT:

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

ND:

CT:

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

ND:

ND:

CT:

ND:

ND:

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

ND:

CT:

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。

http://www.hkiod.com

Corporate Governance

3 HKIoD: THE 21ST CENTURY DIRECTOR

http://www.hkiod.com/document/21century/issue_2019_Mar/2019Mar.pdfhttp://www.hkiod.com/document/21century/issue_2019_Mar/2019Mar.pdf

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

ND:

CT:

CT:

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

ND:

CT:

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

ND:

ND:

CT:

ND:

ND:

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

ND:

CT:

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。

企業管治

4香港董事學會: 廿一世紀董事

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

ND:

CT:

CT:

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

ND:

CT:

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

ND:

ND:

CT:

ND:

ND:

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

ND:

CT:

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。

Source: Oxford Metrica

Chart 1圖表一

HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To FHKIoD is an independent mediator, adjudicator and arbitrator who is on the panels of various leading global alternative dispute resolution bodies.

Ms Nan Dong MHKIoD is the Hong Kong Head and Greater China Financial Communication Head of Hill & Knowlton Strategies.

Corporate Governance

5 HKIoD: THE 21ST CENTURY DIRECTOR

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

ND:

CT:

CT:

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

ND:

CT:

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

ND:

ND:

CT:

ND:

ND:

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

ND:

CT:

董：

陶：

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

陶：

董：

陶：

董：

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。

最

企業管治

6香港董事學會: 廿一世紀董事

http://www.hkiod.com/document/21century/issue_2019_Mar/2019Mar.pdfhttp://www.hkiod.com/document/21century/issue_2019_Mar/2019Mar.pdf

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

董：

陶：

董：

董：

董：

陶：

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。

香港董事學會副主席陶榮博士FHKIoD為一位獨立調解員、審

裁人和仲裁員，亦是多個國際庭外排解程序組織的委員會成

員。

董雪南女士MHKIoD是偉達公關顧問公司的董事總經理，為

香港區主管及大中華區財經傳播主管。

Publisher 出版機構The Hong Kong Institute of Directors 香港董事學會

Sponsor 贊助機構Corporate Governance Development Foundation Fund 企業管治發展基金

Publishing Board 出版委員會Mr Stanley Mok (Chairman) 莫兆光先生（主席）Ms Bonnie S Y Chan 陳心愉女士Mrs Margaret S Leung 梁甘秀玲女士Mr Richard Tsang 曾立基先生Dr Carlye Tsui 徐尉玲博士

Project Management 項目統籌Executive Office, The Hong Kong Institute of Directors香港董事學會行政處

For enquiries about circulation and advertisement, please contact:有關發行及廣告查詢，請聯絡：Chief Business Officer: Ms Miriam Yee業務總監：余海恩小姐

For editorial enquiries, please contact:有關編輯上的查詢，請聯絡：Associate Manager, Communication & Projects: Ms Moni Ching傳訊及項目副經理：程穎姍小姐

Tel 電話： +852 2889 1414Fax 傳真： +852 2889 9982Email 電郵： magazine@hkiod.com

Editor 編輯Ms Cora Wan 溫旭兒小姐

The Hong Kong Institute of Directors 香港董事學會

Patron 贊助人The Hon Mrs Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor GBM GBS 林鄭月娥行政長官

Hon President & Founding Chairman 榮譽會長兼創會主席Dr the Hon Moses Cheng GBM GBS OBE JP 鄭慕智博士

Past Chairmen 前任主席Dr Herbert H M Hui JP 許浩明博士 (Deceased) (已故)Mr Peter S H Wong MBA 黃紹開先生Dr Kelvin Wong JP DBA 黃天祐博士

Council 理事會 (2018-2019)

Chairman 主席: Mr Henry Lai 賴顯榮律師

Deputy Chairmen 副主席:Mr George Magnus BBS OBE MA(Cantab) 麥理思先生 Ir Edmund K H Leung SBS OBE JP 梁廣灝工程師Dr David Wong GBS JP 黃友嘉博士Dr Christopher To 陶榮博士

Mr Liu Tingan 劉廷安先生

Treasurer 司庫: Mr Man Mo Leung 文暮良先生

Immediate Past Chairman 卸任主席: Dr Kelvin Wong JP DBA 黃天祐博士

Chief Executive Officer 行政總裁:Dr Carlye Tsui BBS MBE JP 徐尉玲博士

Council Members 理事會成員:Ms Bonnie S Y Chan 陳心愉女士Dr Leonard S K Chan 陳新國博士

Dr Charles Cheung JP MBA DBA (Hon) 張惠彬博士Dr Justin K H Chiu 趙國雄博士

Mr Vincent Chan 陳永誠先生Mr Hamilton Cheng 鄭炳熙先生

Mr George Hongchoy 王國龍先生Mr Randy Hung 孔敬權先生Mr Ip Shing Hing JP 葉成慶律師Mr Carmelo Lee JP 李嘉士律師Mrs Margaret S Leung 梁甘秀玲女士Mr Ka-Yin Li 李家彥先生

Mr William Lo 羅志聰先生Ir Prof John Mok 莫建鄰教授Mr Stanley Mok 莫兆光先生Ms Cynthia Y S Tang 鄧宛舜女士Mr Richard Tsang 曾立基先生Mr Jim Wardell 詹華達先生Mrs Alison F Y Wong 黃李鳳英女士Mr Huen Wong BBS JP 王桂壎律師Dr Anthony Yeung 楊俊偉博士Dr Linda Y W Yung 翁月華女士

The Hong Kong Institute of Directors is Hong Kong’s premier body representing directors to foster the long-term success of companies through advocacy and standards-setting in corporate governance and professional development for directors.

香港董事學會為香港代表專業董事的首要組織，其宗旨是促進所有公司的持久成就；為達成使命，

學會致力提倡優秀企業管治與釐訂相關標準，以及協助董事的專業發展。

2104 Shanghai Industrial Investment Building, 48 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong 香港灣仔軒尼詩道48號上海實業大廈2104

http://www.hkiod.com/21century.html

The Hong Kong Institute of Directors 香港董事學會 The Hong Kong Institute of Directors

Corporate Governance Development Foundation Fund 企業管治發展基金

Sponsored by 贊助機構：

The 21st Century

D I R E C T O R廿 一 世 紀

董事

recent global research shows that 73% of companies admitted they are not prepared for a crisis. This staring peril is just exacer-

bated with the frequency of natural catastrophes ascending under global warming and the macro-economic and geopolitical environment getting increasingly complex in all major continents today. In this Q&A, Ms Nan Dong (“ND”) and HKIoD Deputy Chairman Dr Christopher To (“CT”), part of the Faculty of HKIoD Global Directorship Programme 2019, shared their respective insights on the commu-nication and dispute resolution aspects in a crisis. Together, their perspectives provide an elaborated view to help a company or an organization under-stand how they may proactively prepare for the rainy days.

1. Can you share with us your most unforgettable crisis management experience?

The most unforgettable case in my career is a cyber leak that happened around 2015. There used to be a theory that this type of crisis has no actual impact on a company’s valuation. However, this case has shown that a cyber crisis can take a significant toll on the company’s market value. The company involved saw its stock price slump by 30% immediately following the first media report and faced the dilemma of whether to call a trading halt.

My team was only given full mandate to steer the crisis communication strategy after some damage had already

been done. Before we were brought in, the Company was passive and tried to let the “one-day news” die down in one day. The news ended up going viral, which wasn’t a big surprise in the 24/7 digital era, and was rather out of control in terms of the amount of speculation and unfair accusations covered by the media. In the end, the PR crisis was successfully put out as we took over and shifted to a proactive strategy of transparency and addressing stakeholder expectations.

This incident always reminds me that in a high-stake event like this, taking the chance to see how a problem may play out, instead of proactively managing reputation, may flash over some internal stakeholders’ mind. In the early stage of a proliferating issue, one may not be able to estimate the magnitude, impact and reach of the issue. As an external consultant, our role is help clients make sound judgements and, more importantly, provide ample preparation. While no one should over-react, one must fully understand the potential risks involved and know how to cope with them readily, so it does not get into a reputational crisis amid a crisis.

More sudden changes of senior management, such as the departure of a CEO, go without comprehensive communication with key stakeholders, in recent years. This has stunned me quite a bit. I feel that these compa-nies may have overlooked the emotional impact on stake-holders, be they employees, investors or customers, when they suddenly "find out” the leadership of a company has quietly departed.

I will always recommend a company to issue a joint statement with the departing senior management member, proactively rationalising the departure, show-ing appreciation (if appropriate) and explaining all sound arrangements the company has made to maintain corpo-rate governance and operational excellence.

2. A lot of companies take the approach of “no comment” and let “one-day news” die in one day. Has it ever worked? Is it different in the digital age?

When someone has “no comments” and remains silent, often it only expedites vivid speculations and makes a saga more controversial than it needs to be. Some companies think it is fine to let people speculate, with today’s news being tomorrow’s history. But this mindset

always leads to a snowball effect that comes back to haunt the development of the actual dispute.

When a company always has “no comment” on matters that it holds a clear duty to explain to stakeholders, it projects a negative, mysterious and non-transparent image, which can hurt the trust of important stakehold-ers - customers, investors and employees - who have direct bearing on the company’s wellbeing and bottom line.

Even in case of litigations, companies can manage stake-holders’ expectations by telling them they will be given more background information once key decisions or milestones become clear. A professional PR consultancy will also have a role in helping the media report any public disclosure precisely, reflective of the legal position disclosed in the public domain.

I completely agree with Dr To. To add just a little more, in the data breach example, you can see that the approach of “no comments” and tolerance of “one-day news” clearly does not work. Many people such as analysts, field experts and key opinion leaders can fill in the media stories even without the company’s participa-tion, and the stories never actually die in one day.

3. What kind of companies do you think have better risk/crisis comms preparedness overall? Do you think listed companies have better crisis preparedness overall?

In terms of the dispute resolution aspects, I would like to highlight the cosmetic industry as a role model. The formulas of cosmetic products under different brands are quite similar to each other. However, industry disputes associated with proprietary formula are few. From my observations, it is a highly collaborative and united industry focused on promoting the growth of the total market share such that every brand can benefit from it. As a stark contrast, the construction industry is exposed to frequent disputes, with a comparatively more adversarial norm. This is particularly exhibited in the aspect of contract terms and the difference in the defini-tion and interpretation of these terms in the eyes of different parties as well as pushing the risk down to the bottom of the supply chain to absorb.

ND:

CT:

CT:

Before answering this question, I would like to remind you that not only bad companies have crises. In fact, a reputable company also has its rainy days. Companies operating in industries that are prone to crisis should always stay prepared and they are usually the ones that are doing better. For example, consumer brands and retailers – issues big or small happen to them daily, from supply chain management problems to customer complaints/ personal injuries. Theoretically, all airlines should be prepared for plane accidents – this is an obvious risk that everyone can envisage. Although it does not occur frequently, the actual impact (on the directly affected) and the emotional impact (on the public) is deep and wide when it does. Oil and gas companies and their crises share attributes of both the mentioned industries and beyond.

4. How would you suggest a company making its first step in crisis communication preparedness?

They should have a long-term and comprehensive plan. One-off planning never works and will not work in today’s fast changing world. Crisis preparedness is a continuous effort. Some of the personnel you trained before could leave the company and new employees joining the business should be sync-ed with the approach as soon as possible.

The emphasis should be put on whether all that you do or invest in crisis preparedness is effective or not. A company should not stop at developing a crisis manage-ment manual and protocols. In most cases, crisis prepar-edness success stems from a company’s highest organ, relying heavily on the commitment of the management team and the board. Naturally, thought-through imple-

mentation at each level down to the front line is equally important. In a recent HKIoD article, Baker McKenzie’s Dispute Resolution Partner Mr. Gary Seib has creatively quantified how to identify the most lethal potential crises specific to a company’s business through a simple formula by factoring both the crisis “likelihood” and “graveness”. This approach is applicable to any company. In addition, with the macro environment radically and rapidly changing, evidenced in the dramatic proliferation of Brexit, trade tensions, US-China relations, etc., companies today must be more robust with their crisis strategy review now than ever.

5. In a striking crisis, why is it common/essential for companies to hire a third-party advisor?

Every company should hire an independent professional advisor to support the management of crises that have significant legal or reputation implications for the business. Also, companies should enlist independent support early, since containing a proliferating issue when it is small is the most ideal scenario. As a third-party advisor, we have wide and deep exposure and experience servicing different organisations and undergoing tricky scenarios.

In addition, an international consultancy with a local team on the ground in the major markets your company operates in adds an extra layer of value. Understanding the local culture, practice and norm is vital to optimised stakeholder communication and engagement results, especially in a crisis.

6. Nan, you mentioned that the external environment continues to change and internally there are inevitably personnel moves from time to time. How can a company make sure that its crisis communication tools stay relevant?

A regular refresher is crucial. For example, a Swiss banking giant I serviced before hosts a structured and ongoing training plan that is designed to equip members at different business units and levels. New joiners are arranged to attend a designed series of training courses suited to their capacities. As for existing staff, they are given an annual curriculum that include refreshers and new training courses, should there be major policy changes/updates on the firm level.

ND:

CT:

7.　可否從公司價值最大化的角度來說明為何危機傳訊是值

得的投資？

從投資回報角度，未能準備危機的代價遠較事先投入高昂。圖表一（第四頁）顯示出全球危機管理勝利者和失敗者蒙受的公司價值損失有著大比數的差距。危機勝利者自然還是招致損失，因而止蝕：把損失降至最低正是每個危機中的重點，歷史告訴我們勝利者的損失遠遠低於失敗者（平均為10%市值！）。

我承認由專業顧問帶領的危機準備（事前）和危機管理（期間）並非微不足道的投資，但對比起市值10%這個平均回報，這項投資絶對有著超高回報率！

許多企業認為商業糾紛/訴訟是一大頭號危機，特別對於上市公司而言，因此我希望從這個角度回應以上問題。從長期利潤的考慮，公司顯然應建立一個具一致性且深思熟慮的方針以排解商業糾紛。

基本的原則是，公司的存在並非為排解商業糾紛，他們的工作是營造生產力、造福整體社會。如果行政總裁需要將大量時間花在排解商業糾紛，如何能為公司帶來收益呢？

有些公司非常重視公司聲譽，以致當有人利用其商譽謀利，公司會為了以儆效尤而不惜一切對付該等人士或實體，結果難免採用敵對方式來排解商業糾紛。

然而，當公司經常就簡單的事件跟不同的訴訟方對簿公 堂 ， 其 業 務 夥 伴 難 免 會 擔 心 自 己 有 朝 一 日 淪 為 被告。訴訟期間，公眾只能觀望事態發展，有時更包括股價大幅波動（如果涉及的是上市公司）。最終，兩家公司往往都蒙受損失，公司的投資者、客戶及僱員亦然，長遠來說根本無人受惠。精明的公司會在爭議甫 開 始 及 展 開 法 律 程 序 期 間 ， 在 關 係 （ 長 遠 財 務 得益）和賠償（短期財務得益）之間取得平衡，並尋求庭 外 協 商 及 ／ 或 調 解 等 敵 對 性 較 輕 的 方 式 來 解 決 分歧，力求以明智的解決方案減低訴訟風險，而最重要更是維護長遠關係。

ND:

ND:

CT:

ND:

ND:

Some companies treasure their reputation to an extent that when one has taken advantage of its good will, they will go that extra mile to make an example of this person/entity, adversarial form of dispute resolution is inevitable.

Nevertheless, we should all be aware that when a company frequently takes different parties to court, its business partners cannot help but worry, would they be next, if the matter is relatively straight forward. From the public’s perspective, they can do nothing but sit back and witness all the dramas, sometimes including drastic stock price fluctuations of the two companies (if they are both listed). At the end of the day, both companies suffer, as do investors, customers, employers and no-one really benefits in the long run.

Good companies strike a balance between relationship (long-term financial gain) and monetary damage (short-term) and seek less adversarial out-of-court settlement methods of resolving one’s differences such as negotiation and/or mediation, not only at the start of a dispute but throughout the proliferation of legal proceedings, where possible so as to come to a sensible solution, at minimum risk and above all maintain on-going relationships as far as possible.

ND:

CT:

7. From a maximisation of company value perspective, can you tell us why crisis communication is a worthy investment?

From a return on investment point perspective, dealing with crises unprepared is much more expensive than establishing structured crisis strategy beforehand. Chart 1 shows you the winners and losers’ loss in company value as a result of a crisis. For winners, they still incur a loss in a crisis, naturally because during a crisis the focus is on minimsing loss, but the loss is significantly lower (10% of company value lower!) than the losers who have not handled a crisis well.

I admit that a professional consultancy-led crisis prepar-edness (prior to crisis) and crisis management (at crisis) is not a nominal investment, but it is an investment with ultra-high return when you look at this average number: 10% of company value!

Drilling down to dispute resolution/litigation that many consider a key crisis, especially for listed companies – from a long-term profit consideration, it becomes clear that companies should invest in preparing a consistent and thought-through dispute resolution approach.

As a basic principle, companies exist to generate produc-tivity for the common good of the society, rather than resolving differences. How can a company generate revenue if a CEO spends most of his/her time resolving disputes?

近 一 項 全 球 調 查 顯 示 ， 7 3 % 的 公 司 承 認 未 為 危

機 準 備 就 緒 。 今 時 今 日 ， 全 球 暖 化 導 致 自 然 災

難 頻 繁 ， 全 球 各 洲 宏 觀 經 濟 、 地 緣 政 治 環 境 日

趨複雜，缺乏危機準備可令公司岌岌可危。作

為「香港董事學會環球董事大師班2019」的講員之一，董

雪 南 女 士 （ 「 董 」 ） 及 香 港 董 事 學 會 副 主 席 陶 榮 博 士

（「陶」）在這期會刊分享他們對危機溝通和排解商業糾

紛的看法，對公司或機構了解如何未雨綢繆具參考價值。

1. 可否跟我們分享您最難忘的危機？

在我的職業生涯中，發生於2015年左右的一宗企業網絡資料外洩事件，可算是最難忘之一。根據當時的理論，網絡資料外洩對企業價值並無實際影響，但該事件卻嚴重損害了公司的市值。在媒體揭發事件後，涉事公司的股價即時暴跌了30%，陷入了應否停板的局面。

我的團隊在這些損害發生後才受命全面接管危機傳訊策略。此前，公司並未積極處理內外溝通，期望新聞壽命只有一天及人們的善忘。可是，在24小時7 天不斷運作的電子年代，負面新聞瞬即變本加厲，失實揣測和指控達到失控程度。我們接手處理後改用積極策略、保持透明度和迎合持份者期望，最終解決了一度失控的公關危機。

這 宗 事 件 常 常 提 醒 我 ， 在 這 種 潛 在 影 響 深 遠 的 事 件中，一些內部持份者最初可能會抱持僥倖心態，不願積極維護聲譽。在調查有結果前，沒有人能夠估計得到事態可以發展至什麼程度、產生什麼影響和涉及多大範圍。無疑反應過早或過大均無補於事，作為外部顧問，我們的工作是協助客戶準確判斷，更重要的是作出充分準備，全面了解潛在風險並準備就緒即時應對，防止危機變成聲譽或公關危機。

近 年 來 ， 我 留 意 到 高 管 人 事 變 動 （ 例 如 行 政 總 裁 離職）時，越來越多公司沒有主動跟持份者溝通，這個趨勢令人憂慮。這些公司完全忽略了僱員、投資者或客戶等持份者的心理，當他們突然「發現」公司主要人員悄悄離去時的錯愕及揣測。

我的建議是，公司跟將離職的高管人員應共同向持分者作出溝通，積極解釋有關的離職理由、公司可對有關人員表達謝意（若適用）及說明日後的人員安排以展示如何保持管治和營運質素。

2. 很多公司都採取無可奉告及假設新聞壽命只有一天故不

必 多 慮 的 做 法 。 這 類 做 法 有 效 嗎 ？ 在 電 子 時 代 會 有 分 別

嗎？

以「無可奉告」來回應或保持緘默往往只會帶來無限的揣測，不必要地引發更大的爭議。有些公司認為任人 揣 測 並 無 不 可 ， 深 信 今 天 的 新 聞 明 天 便 會 成 為 歷史。這種心態往往會誘發雪球效應，倒過來窒礙公司排解危機、糾紛的實際發展。

對有責任向持份者解釋的事情，如果公司經常以「無可奉告」來回應，只會帶來負面、故弄玄虛及欠缺透明度的形象，很可能會損害客戶、投資者及僱員等重要 持 份 者 對 公 司 的 信 任 ， 直 接 影 響 公 司 的 商 譽 和 利潤。

即使在訴訟間期，公司仍可合理地滿足他們的期望，披露重大決定或里程的時間表，令他們可預期在這些時 間 點 得 到 更 多 資 訊 。 而 專 業 公 關 顧 問 可 擔 當 的 角色，是協助媒體準確無誤地報導公開資料中的法律要點。

我完全同意陶博士的見解。在剛才提到的網路資料外洩事件中，無可奉告和假設新聞只有一日壽命已證實不可為。根本無需等待公司參與，分析師、業內專家和關鍵輿論領袖便可在媒體發表看法，而且這些新聞故事從來沒有在一日內劃上句號。

3. 您認為哪類公司整體上對風險／危機傳訊有較周全的準

備？整體上上市公司是否有較周全的危機準備？

在排解商業糾紛的層面而言，我認為化妝品行業是一個不錯的示範。雖然不同品牌的產品配方往往大同小異 ， 但 有 關 專 利 配 方 的 糾 紛 並 不 常 見 。 根 據 我 的 觀察，化妝品行業是一個高度協作和團結的行業，各品牌 更 專 注 於 擴 大 整 體 市 場 的 分 額 ， 最 終 惠 及 所 有 業者。相反，建造業則較多採取敵對（adversarial）態度，不時發生糾紛，特別是針對合約條款及各自對這些條款的不同定義和理解。其中的一大趨勢是，業者試圖將風險推給供應鏈的最下層承受。

回答這個問題之前，我希望提醒各位，危機並非只發生於不良企業。事實上，信譽良好的公司亦會面對困境。從事業務容易出現危機的公司固然應時刻作好準備，他們往往在危機管理上較為成熟。以消費品牌和零售商為例，他們每天都要面對大小問題，涉及層面由供應鏈管理以至客戶投訴／意外受傷。另外，理論上所有航空公司都應為飛機失事作好準備，因為這是

顯然易見的風險：雖然飛機失事並非經常發生，但實際影響（對直接受影響人士）和情緒影響（對公眾人士）深遠。能源公司所面對的潛在危機更多樣化，與上述兩者所面對風險的特點有相同之處，更有過之而無不及。

4. 您建議公司如何就準備危機傳訊踏出第一步？

公司應該制定長遠而全面的計劃。一次性計劃並不足以應付今天瞬息萬變的世界。為危機作準備是持續的工作。例如，曾受培訓的人員可能會離職，而新員工亦需盡快掌握公司的危機應對策略。

我們要留心的重點是，公司為危機應對作出的投入是否有效。公司不應止於制定危機管理手冊和計劃。首先，危機準備的成功繫於公司最高決策單位：管理團隊和董事會。當然，各業務單位至前線人員的妥善執行同樣重要。Baker McKenzie律師事務所的合夥人Gary Seib先生最近為香港董事學會撰文，提出以一個簡單方程式找出一間公司最需要準備的危機，該方程式適用於任何企業，透過分析業務相關危機的「可能 性 」 和 「 嚴 重 性 」 ， 找 出 最 致 命 的 頭 號 危 機 。 現時，宏觀環境正值多變，見諸脫歐、環球貿易緊張和中 美 關 係 的 廣 泛 牽 連 ， 今 天 的 公 司 相 比 以 往 任 何 時候，都更加需要積極調整危機管理策略。

5. 為什麼公司通常／建議聘請第三方顧問協助應付危機？

管理對業務有重大法律或聲譽影響的危機時，企業應該聘請獨立專業顧問。公司更應該盡早為之，在影響尚淺時讓危機受到控制絶對是最理想的結果。第三方顧問曾服務不同機構、處理各種棘手情況，處理危機的經驗往往更廣泛而深入。

另外，在公司所營運的海外市場，國際顧問旗下的當地團隊更可提供重要價值。了解當地文化、慣例和規範對取信於持份者、與其進行溝通均至關重要 ，特別是發生危機的時候。

6. 董女士，您剛才說外圍環境多變且內部人事難免不時變

動，公司可以如何確保本身的危機傳訊工具一直適用？

定期培訓及複習非常重要。我服務過的一所瑞士主要銀行在這方面表現得十分出色，他們每年都會制定有系統的培訓計劃，讓不同業務單位和級別的人員作好準 備 ， 包 括 安 排 新 入 職 人 員 參 加 一 套 全 面 的 訓 練 課程，及安排現職人員參加個別複習培訓及在新政策推出後盡快接受培訓。