CEO, PR, legal or marketing? In crisis, is India Inc. still asking, ‘Who’s handling this?’

New Delhi: Let’s rewind to the unforgettable Maggi meltdown of 2015, when India’s favourite 2-minute snack was hit with a full-blown regulatory cyclone. Reports of excessive lead levels sent shockwaves across every kirana shelf and kitchen. Stores pulled stock. Memes popped up. The nation panicked. 

Or roll further back to 2003, when Cadbury, the gold standard of chocolate in India, was ambushed by accusations of worm infestations. The crisis didn’t just eat into the brand’s image; it forced a complete overhaul of packaging, quality control, and public messaging. 

In 2017, Snapchat’s CEO allegedly dismissed India as “too poor,” but it was Snapdeal, the homegrown e-commerce platform with an entirely different logo and business, that faced uninstallations, one-star reviews, and public fury. A case of mistaken identity fuelled by algorithmic rage.

And just recently, a tragedy involving an Air India flight shook the country. The aftermath wasn’t just about operational accountability; it was about how the brand communicated (or didn’t). 

If there’s one thing India Inc. has learnt the hard way, it's that a crisis does not arrive with a warning label. It explodes on a Monday, goes viral by Tuesday, and by Wednesday, the damage is already measurable.

These crises,  regulatory, reputational, operational, or just plain absurd, played out in different decades, under different circumstances. But they all circle back to the same burning question: When the brand is on fire, who grabs the mic, and who ducks?

Is it the marketing team drafting a statement? Corporate Communications writing talking points? Legal weighing every word? PR calling journalists? Or the CEO’s office whispering, “Let’s ride this out?”  Or, as is far too often the case, no one at all, until it’s trending and it’s too late?

But before that, it is important to understand…

What even qualifies as a crisis?

According to Amith Prabhu, Founding Dean, School of Communications and Reputation (SCoRe), there are four levels to a crisis journey. The first is risk, which every brand is prone to. If the risks are managed well, brands can prevent risks from becoming issues. If not managed well, risks become issues, issues become crises, and crises can lead to a disaster. 

Prabhu further elaborated on the types of crises a brand or an organisation typically faces. “Most of these directly impact a company’s operations, reputation, or financial standing,” he noted. 

At the top of the list sits what we call a people crisis, which includes abuse, violence, ethics violations, and their ilk. 

Then comes the environmental crisis, which can stem from emission breaches, regulatory violations, and sustainability malpractices. 

A financial crisis may arise from bankruptcy, severe losses, corruption, bribery, or investor fallout. 

On the operational front, companies may face technological crises that include product recalls, system faults, service breakdowns, or software glitches. 

In industries such as food, pharmaceuticals, or consumer goods, contamination crises pose major threats. Examples include drug poisoning, food adulteration, or the sale of unsafe products. 

Another critical category is geopolitical or government-linked crises, which may involve sanctions, abrupt policy changes, or cross-border regulatory challenges. 

Then there are disasters, which can be natural, such as earthquakes or floods, or man-made, like fires, explosions, or transportation crashes.

“Take the example of a plane crash. When a plane crashes and lives are lost, it's immediately classified as a disaster. There's no space for reputational ‘issue management.’ It becomes a full-blown, uncontrollable crisis,” Prabhu said. 

With so many types of crises that brands may fall into, one would expect that the corporations have their shoelaces tied. Right? 

Wrong. According to Harish Bijoor, Business & Brand-strategy expert and Founder, Harish Bijoor Consults, crisis communication is still not part of the grand strategy of Indian companies. “Crisis communication today is still not an integral part of a company's grand strategy. Crisis is considered to be an aberration and aberrations occur rarely,” Bijoor said. 

He added, “Most brands tend to think that a crisis will not hit them and if it does hit them, it is always, you know, pushed upwards for the ‘brains trust’ of the organisation to actually decide how the crisis can be addressed.” 

Who are the first responders when the mess begins? 

The first hour of the crisis is critical, and so are the first responders. But in Indian companies, the first hour is spent deciding who the first responders are going to be. 

As Rajat Mathur, co-founder and managing partner, Strategic Caravan, said, “It is certainly a grey area, as it represents a rare and extraordinary situation in the life of a brand. It's not something that brands and businesses face every day. 

Typically, most organisations respond in a knee-jerk manner by setting up a task force or war room to monitor developments in real time.” 

Mathur elaborated that reputation management is usually seen as a cross-functional responsibility with the CMO taking charge. “Typically, the marketing team led by the CMO is in charge. They, in turn, often take expert advice and guidance from external agencies who are specialists in this space,” he said. 

Adding to the conversation, Vishesh Sharma, BFSI Marketing leader & former CMO, Bajaj Broking, said that in most organisations, public relations is an integral part of the marketing functions.

“When a crisis occurs, a well-prepared communications function activates a predefined Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). This ensures that all necessary actions, internal coordination, media responses, stakeholder communication, and narrative control are triggered seamlessly and in real time,” Sharma said. 

According to Sharma, “in today’s digital-first world, where negative news spreads like wildfire, it's usually the media team and the ORM (Online Reputation Management) team that jump in first. 

Their job is to control the fire and prevent further damage. Once things calm down a bit, the brand team is brought in to do the heavier lifting, running campaigns that aim to repair the brand’s perception and improve sentiment. 

From narrative reset to trust-building, this part is crucial. What really matters is how tightly these functions are aligned.” 

Zameer Nathani, Global General Counsel at DNEG, brought in a more nuanced approach to the subject matter. In his view, the best crisis response is led by legal but coordinated across marketing, PR, compliance, and leadership. 

“Legal ensures factual accuracy, regulatory alignment, and liability control, while marketing maintains tone and empathy. In India, many companies still respond reactively, lacking formal structures. This results in reputational damage and compliance exposure,” Natahani noted. 

He added that the ideal response during a brand crisis should begin with swift internal escalation to key functions that are legal, compliant, communicative, and marketing-related, and to the CEO. 

“Legal must conduct immediate fact-checking, assess regulatory and civil exposure, and map stakeholder impact. A joint holding statement is then developed to be factual, empathetic, and compliant. Regulatory bodies are informed where necessary, and internal instructions are circulated to prevent leakage,” he explained. 

Nathani further stated, “Unfortunately, this structured protocol is seldom followed in Indian organisations. Many companies act reactively, with founders or PR issuing statements without legal vetting, leading to escalated liabilities or loss of credibility.” 

Fighting battles inside before the war outside

On being asked about possible conflicts, Nathani pointed out statistics from McKinsey’s 2024 State of the CMO survey, which highlighted that 72% of marketing heads reported delays in crisis communication due to legal intervention. 

“This conflict is frequent and natural. Legal tends to focus on protecting the organisation from future liability, while marketing prioritises speed and public reassurance. Both are right in their approach, but uncoordinated action can damage brand equity or trigger legal consequences,” he said. 

Nathani added that a Harvard Business Review article, “When Marketing and Legal Conflict,” stresses that this tension can be productive if mediated through shared playbooks and AI-based scenario planning. 

AI tools like NLP-based contract risk scorers and dynamic PR-response optimisers can bridge the gap between legal caution and marketing speed. 

“A BCG study on enterprise trust found that companies using real-time sentiment analysis and legal-AI tools reduced the average conflict resolution time between Legal and PR by 35%. In practice, this means using AI platforms that simulate possible legal outcomes from various public statements, helping teams agree on the safest path,” said Nathani. 

Summarising, Sharma said, “Yes. There are times when creative marketing responses don’t always sit comfortably with legal or compliance teams. But here’s the thing. We're all working toward the same objective: to build trust, grow the business, and protect the brand. And once you truly align everyone to that shared purpose, things start to flow more smoothly.”

He added, “The magic doesn’t lie in avoiding friction. It lies in managing it with mutual respect and shared intent.” 

‘The buck stops at CEO’

Despite the chaos, debates, and shifting responsibilities across the chain of command, Prabhu is quite clear that the “buck stops at the CEO.” 

“A CEO may not always be the central figure in a crisis, but they are unquestionably the person in charge when it unfolds. 

Regardless of who caused it or how it started, the responsibility ultimately rests with the CEO. The buck stops there. It is the CEO’s duty to front the situation, handle the fallout, take accountability, and, if needed, offer an apology. 

What steps are taken afterwards, delegation, damage control, or restructuring, is their prerogative. But in every crisis, the buck stops with the CEO,” Prabhu noted. 

Nathani concurred, saying, “The final public stance should always be owned by the CEO, who has the enterprise-wide visibility and accountability to take a calibrated call. Legal should define the legal boundaries, Marketing must guide the tone and audience messaging, and both inputs should be synthesised. The CEO must evaluate risks, stakeholder impact, and long-term brand consequences.” 

Leadership alignment is essential, Nathani added. According to McKinsey’s 2023 Crisis Response Framework, in high-stakes brand crises, the CEO made the final decision 93% of the time but based heavily on Legal and Marketing inputs, quoted Nathani. 

Where’s the playbook at?

Bijoor did not mince words. He stated that organisations need to be ready to face a crisis. 

“Organisations need to have drills on crisis communication management internally, and that is the need of the moment today. More often than not, brands do not invest enough in crisis rehearsal,” he pointed out. 

Taking over the baton from Bijoor, Prabhu chimed in, saying, “Every company should ideally have a crisis playbook or manual, whatever they choose to call it. It serves as a guiding document to navigate the organisation through the chaos when a crisis strikes. Yet, the reality is that most companies don’t have one in place.” 

The primary reason? These things cost money, and crisis preparedness often takes a back seat until it’s too late. According to Prabhu, 90% of crises can be expected, envisaged and planned for. It’s only the remaining 10% that truly catches organisations off guard. 

Do Indian companies need to have a Chief Reputation Officer?

Globally, the Chief Reputation Officer (CRO) is emerging as a trust custodian, especially in industries where ESG, compliance and brand image overlap. But do Indian companies need one? 

According to Nathani, it’s about time that Indian companies adopt a CRO, “particularly in sectors where legal, brand, and ESG risks intersect.” 

“In my view, the CRO is not just a crisis manager but a trust architect. AI can empower this role with real-time dashboards on legal exposure, sentiment trends, and regulatory alerts. As Indian firms globalise, this function will become indispensable,” Nathani said. 

Nathani referred to Harvard Business Review’s “Reputation Is the Company,” noting that organisations with a central accountability role for reputation are three times more likely to maintain stakeholder trust during crises. 

“In India, this is emerging, particularly in tech and consumer-facing sectors where ESG, compliance, and brand converge.” 

Mathur, however, offered a different view. “I don’t believe a separate unified command within internal teams is always necessary. With the support of external experts, most crises can be managed effectively. That said, there may be certain industries where having a dedicated internal crisis team would be a prudent approach,” he said. 

According to Prabhu, the CEO is the chief reputation officer, since the buck stops with them. Having said that, Prabhu also mentioned that India might still be far from incorporating such a role.

“In India, I don’t think more than a handful, maybe 10 or 12 companies, will reach that level of allowing their corporate communications heads to be called the CRO.  

That’s because, culturally, reputation is still seen as the CEO’s direct responsibility. For a non-CEO executive to be designated Chief Reputation Officer, it would require a highly secure CEO, someone comfortable sharing symbolic control of the brand's public image,” he commented. 

In theory, every crisis should make companies wiser. In practice, most are just hoping they won’t be next. The “brains trust,” as Bijoor referred, may differ in form, but the lack of preparedness is consistent.  

Crises today are no longer rare, one-off PR disasters. They’re constant risks coming from customer behaviour, internal leaks, cultural backlash, or unpredictable digital triggers.

What Bijoor highlighted needs to be central to the idea of crises that companies today have: 

“A crisis cannot be something that only the CEO or PR team addresses. Communication must first drill down into the internal management team and reach the front line of sales. Every salesperson within the organisation, and even many outsourced sales entities hired temporarily, are also communicators. 

In that sense, communication is like a virus: it must seep into every part of the organisation's network, both internal and external.” 

So the question for India Inc. isn’t just who owns crisis communication. It’s: Are you ready before it hits?

Because if the first internal WhatsApp message during a brand crisis is “Who’s handling this?” the answer might already be too late.