In any form of written or spoken communication, effective delivery of information to key audiences is a central goal. In a crisis, the need for clear, concise and effective communication is essential.
As crisis communications across industries evolves to encompass issues and audiences likely unheard of in years past, it is important to continually reassess our language as much as it is to adapt to new channels and techniques.
Well within living memory, wording used in crisis communications was still largely dictated by the language of risk mitigation. “Just the facts” statements limited to the barest detail and avoiding further context was thought to limit overall liability and reduce overall exposure to negative publicity and perhaps negative consequences stemming from an incident. However, our industry has recognised the importance of expressions of sympathy especially when these incidents involve a loss of life, and that details can create important context around major events.
Just as our discipline made an evolution to embrace the humanity of those involved in serious events and that in many cases expressions of sympathy, empathy – and even apology – were not only appropriate but required by circumstances, the next evolution of language is surely inclusion.
In the United States efforts are underway to ensure the language used as part of the crisis response and formal ICS system is properly inclusive and respectful of all interested parties involved. One of the biggest changes being sought is the phasing out of the term “stakeholder” when describing all parties concerned or affected by a serious incident. A term rooted in Western concepts of property rights might set the wrong tone with First Nations tribes with a different cultural tradition of land ownership, for example. Where we might previously have used terms like “citizens”, we now will use ones like “the community” and “the public” to better describe the totality of the audience that might be engaged in communications in a disaster or emergency.
California and several other West Coast states in the U.S are leading the way to evolve the language used in the ICS system and when it comes to public communication. Numerous other states will likely follow, and it is reasonable to believe that regulators like the U.S. Coast Guard will issue formal guidance on this subject.
Corporate policies regarding inclusion and diversity are naturally controversial and involve many difficult conversations and debates. Phrases like “decolonisation of language” are bound to be viewed with suspicion, especially in traditionally conservative industries. It is easy to dismiss such efforts as a waste of time and effort, and that a business should be primarily focused on business first.
But effective crisis response to a serious incident, whether an oil spill, wildfire or shipping accident largely depends on an intense degree of collaboration between all parties involved. An effective communicator should always strive to find new and deeper ways to engage their entire audience and be open to new ways of reaching them.
Language that is more inclusive can only help to meaningfully engage increasingly diverse and numerous audiences and not only reflect well on the organisation as a whole, but have a positive impact on the overall response effort.
