Industrial action is an established feature of some sectors. Teachers, doctors and transport workers regularly use collective action to raise concerns about pay and conditions. Organisations in these sectors often have processes in place to manage employee engagement and communications during periods of disruption.
The challenge is different when an employee goes public in a sector that largely operates outside traditional union structures. Employee grievances are stakeholder management matters as much as HR issues. Handled poorly, they can quickly become significant reputational risks.
When a grievance becomes public, the natural instinct is to defend the organisation and challenge the allegations. Factual corrections may be needed, but organisations should resist entering a public argument before they understand the full picture. It can look aggressive, inflame the situation and draw further attention to the grievance itself.
The first priority is establishing the facts. Leadership teams should quickly determine:
Communications, HR and legal teams should be aligned from the outset. If the employee could be treated as a whistleblower, a combative public response can create legal exposure on top of the reputational damage.
Different stakeholders often want very different things. Employees want reassurance that concerns are being taken seriously. Managers need guidance on answering questions from their teams. Clients and partners want confidence that services will not be affected. Journalists will be looking for a story, and regulators may require information on compliance.
These audiences cannot all be treated the same way.
The principle holds in unionised settings too. During recent teacher strikes in the UK, unions focused on workload, bureaucracy and pay. Many parents focused instead on disruption to their children’s education and wellbeing. An effective response speaks to each of these perspectives. Public statements and stakeholder-specific communications must take every group into account.
Media enquiries can begin the moment an employee goes public, especially if they have gone straight to journalists. This often happens before the organisation has established the facts or spoken to key stakeholders.
Internal pressure can build quickly, and fears of front-page condemnation can spiral. A calm, measured and confident tone matters all the more in these moments.
The most effective media responses:
Employees have more ways than ever to share their experiences publicly and find others who relate to them. When former BrewDog employees published an open letter in 2021 criticising a culture of fear at the company, it showed how quickly a grievance can grow into a company-wide culture crisis if it is not handled with patience and sincerity.
Resilient organisations create accessible channels for speaking up, respond proportionately when concerns arise and show a genuine willingness to learn from difficult situations.
Your own staff and the employee concerned, before any external audience. Acknowledge the grievance and make sure the employee feels listened to. Avoid saying too much before the facts are established internally, as over-communicating can inflame the situation.
This depends on the nature of the grievance, but a common risk is an overly defensive stance. The instinct to defend your organisation and its people is natural. It should not come at the expense of compassion, meaningful engagement and nuance. Once a grievance is public, the reputational consequences of your response matter as much as the formal HR process.
Listen before you respond. Be proportionate in what you say and who you say it to. Show a genuine commitment to learning while standing by your values. Together, these help maintain stakeholder trust during and after the crisis.
For senior leaders, few issues feel more personal or harder to manage than an employee taking a workplace grievance into the public domain.
Industrial action is an established feature of some sectors. Teachers, doctors and transport workers regularly use collective action to raise concerns about pay and conditions. Organisations in these sectors often have processes in place to manage employee engagement and communications during periods of disruption.
The challenge is different when an employee goes public in a sector that largely operates outside traditional union structures. Employee grievances are stakeholder management matters as much as HR issues. Handled poorly, they can quickly become significant reputational risks.
When a grievance becomes public, the natural instinct is to defend the organisation and challenge the allegations. Factual corrections may be needed, but organisations should resist entering a public argument before they understand the full picture. It can look aggressive, inflame the situation and draw further attention to the grievance itself.
The first priority is establishing the facts. Leadership teams should quickly determine:
Communications, HR and legal teams should be aligned from the outset. If the employee could be treated as a whistleblower, a combative public response can create legal exposure on top of the reputational damage.
Different stakeholders often want very different things. Employees want reassurance that concerns are being taken seriously. Managers need guidance on answering questions from their teams. Clients and partners want confidence that services will not be affected. Journalists will be looking for a story, and regulators may require information on compliance.
These audiences cannot all be treated the same way.
The principle holds in unionised settings too. During recent teacher strikes in the UK, unions focused on workload, bureaucracy and pay. Many parents focused instead on disruption to their children’s education and wellbeing. An effective response speaks to each of these perspectives. Public statements and stakeholder-specific communications must take every group into account.
Media enquiries can begin the moment an employee goes public, especially if they have gone straight to journalists. This often happens before the organisation has established the facts or spoken to key stakeholders.
Internal pressure can build quickly, and fears of front-page condemnation can spiral. A calm, measured and confident tone matters all the more in these moments.
The most effective media responses:
Employees have more ways than ever to share their experiences publicly and find others who relate to them. When former BrewDog employees published an open letter in 2021 criticising a culture of fear at the company, it showed how quickly a grievance can grow into a company-wide culture crisis if it is not handled with patience and sincerity.
Resilient organisations create accessible channels for speaking up, respond proportionately when concerns arise and show a genuine willingness to learn from difficult situations.
Your own staff and the employee concerned, before any external audience. Acknowledge the grievance and make sure the employee feels listened to. Avoid saying too much before the facts are established internally, as over-communicating can inflame the situation.
This depends on the nature of the grievance, but a common risk is an overly defensive stance. The instinct to defend your organisation and its people is natural. It should not come at the expense of compassion, meaningful engagement and nuance. Once a grievance is public, the reputational consequences of your response matter as much as the formal HR process.
Listen before you respond. Be proportionate in what you say and who you say it to. Show a genuine commitment to learning while standing by your values. Together, these help maintain stakeholder trust during and after the crisis.
At Alder, we help boards and executive teams prepare for, manage and recover from reputational crises, including employee grievances that become public. To arrange a discreet, no-obligation conversation about your organisation’s preparedness, call us on 020 7692 5675 or email enquiries@alder-uk.com.
]]>In a world where information seemingly goes viral in a matter of minutes, a sensationalised, or altogether fictitious, narrative can quickly outpace the truth. The recent death of a man after he entered the tiger enclosure at Yorkshire Wildlife Park illustrates this challenge starkly: national media reported the incident as it unfolded, witness footage rapidly began circulating online and speculation spiralled, all while the authorities and the Park were still establishing the facts.
Navigating a crisis while social media speculation runs wild is one of the most difficult communications environments an organisation can find itself in. Knowing what to say when stakeholders are putting rumours to you before you have even begun to establish the facts, let alone fulfil your crisis response protocol, can be incredibly challenging. Responding in a timely fashion matters, but so too do accuracy and diligence. Balancing these responsibilities in the midst of a social media storm is not easy, but it is essential if your organisation is to maintain stakeholder confidence and trust.
Keep the people most affected at the heart of the response
A viral crisis can create pressure to respond at pace. Even if those on social media are making the most noise, they are rarely the most important stakeholder. Those that are most directly affected must guide your crisis response and communications. In the case of the incident at Yorkshire Wildlife Park, it was vital that the Park recognised the fact that the family of the man who died may not yet have been informed of the incident, even though videos of the incident had been uploaded to social media. Compassion, as well as your internal protocol and the guidance of the authorities, must guide your crisis response, even if this means simply acknowledging the fact that you are unable to comment for the time being.
Be transparent without creating hostages to fortune
Transparency does not mean publishing everything you know about the crisis; it means being clear about what is appropriate to share and acknowledging the limitations on what you are able to communicate.
In particular, where you are unable to communicate core information, potentially due to legal restrictions or out of respect for impacted relatives and friends, it is important you do not mistakenly create hostages to fortune. Phrases such as “we will update you over the coming days” can seem reassuring in the moment but can quickly complicate the situation at hand if they lead to stakeholder demands for information that you are not able to fulfil.
Know when to speak – and when not to fan the flames
Not every hostile or speculative post requires an answer. If an online conversation is confined to a small corner of the internet, direct engagement may simply extend its reach or legitimise its content. There should be a very high threshold for engaging with social media speculation as fanning the flames of the online rumour mill could prove upsetting to those impacted by them, drag your organisation into an unnecessary online debate and complicate ongoing internal and legal processes.
That threshold still applies when the attention comes from the very top. Three days after the incident at Yorkshire Wildlife Park, US President Donald Trump shared footage of the attack with his followers on Truth Social. No organisation can control amplification on that scale. The Park’s job is to keep its focus on the family, its staff and the investigation, and stay out of a debate that helps none of them.
Frequently asked questions
Who should I prioritise in crisis communications?
The core stakeholders are always those that are most directly or most personally affected by a crisis, such as the loved ones of anyone who was injured. Prioritising them in all your communications, even if they are not the direct recipients, will ensure you maintain an appropriately sensitive and compassionate approach throughout.
What is the biggest reputational threat in a media crisis?
It is often not the original incident but the perception that the organisation is not responding to the crisis appropriately that causes the biggest reputational issues. A response that is considerate, clear and candid can preserve trust even if difficult questions remain unanswered.
How do I balance transparency with privacy?
Be transparent about the limits on what you can say. Acknowledging that an incident is subject to an ongoing investigation or that you are simply not in a position to provide further information at this stage can alleviate pressure on your organisation to disclose core facts and prevent you from creating hostages to fortune.
At Alder, we help organisations prepare for, manage and recover from reputational crises, including those that go viral before the facts are known. To arrange a discreet, no-obligation conversation about your organisation’s preparedness, call us on 020 7692 5675 or email enquiries@alder-uk.com.
]]>Overseeing all the back-end tasks that make the client work we do possible, Susan’s diligence, attention to detail, and her wealth of knowledge from her impressive and varied previous experiences has made her a highly valued member of the Alder team. She has been a generous colleague and a real support to colleagues, and we will miss her greatly. We wish her every success with her exciting new slow fashion and craft business and look forward to seeing it grow.
You’ve worn a number of hats throughout the course of your career. How have you navigated this?
I subscribe to the Darwinian notion that it’s not the strongest or cleverest that are most likely to survive, but those who are best able to adapt to change. I seem to be naturally attuned to societal shifts and finding ways to adapt my skills to the corresponding needs. I have transitioned from fashion marketing to FMCG and then again to various roles in leadership comms / DEI, each time learning something that helped to open another door. The key for me has been to make incremental, and at times sideways, moves to ensure I kept the ultimate employability goal in mind while never straying too far from my core competencies. If you know what you are good at and what you can uniquely bring, you know how to sell yourself, regardless of the role.
Your day-to-day work at Alder involved staying on top of large amounts of data and constant new deadlines. What tips do you have for those who may struggle to stay as organised as you?
Lists, lists and more lists! I had action lists for each different facet of the role and logged even the smallest tasks as that way nothing gets forgotten and there’s nothing more satisfying than deleting completed line items at the end of the day. Also, don’t put off the more daunting tasks on your list, tackle those first (with the help of an AI if you have to), then you can get to the smaller, more mindless admin tasks as a brief mental break after.
What is your favourite memory from your time at Alder?
We are so lucky to be treated to truly brilliant annual off-site planning sessions and I think this year’s 48 hours in Amsterdam was my favourite. Great hotel, food and business-focused sessions that had everyone participating. I came away feeling that I had made a valuable contribution to the business plan, all while feeling closer to, and grateful for, my super smart Alder colleagues.
Now that you are moving on from Alder, what upcoming milestones are you most excited for?
During the interview process with Tim I remember us discussing the possibility of ageism in PR and the evident lack of 50+ women. I have since realised through personal experience that this has much to do with caring for an aging parent and mustering the energy to come out of Menopause unscathed. While I want a slower pace of life as I work through these two things, I’m not ready for a typical retirement yet and I am embracing a new start at 60 with the launch of my slow fashion / craft business. In November, I’ll be at a local gallery demonstrating the processes that I use to make my products while 2027 will be punctuated by a series of craft and fashion fairs. With these selling opportunities across the year, I will have plenty of deadlines to keep me focused!
]]>Receiving an adverse Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating can be one of the most challenging moments a healthcare organisation faces.
A rating of ‘Requires Improvement’ or ‘Inadequate’ can affect staff morale, stakeholder confidence, recruitment, referrals and reputation. For many boards and executive teams, the instinctive response is to focus on what needs to be fixed.
That is often the right approach.
However, there is another question that receives far less attention: What should providers do when they believe the CQC has got it wrong?
Many organisations assume they have only one option: accept the findings, apologise and move on.
In our experience advising healthcare organisations on crisis communications and reputation management, the reality is more nuanced.
Can you challenge a CQC rating?
Yes: a CQC report is not necessarily the end of the story.
Providers who believe findings are inaccurate, incomplete or procedurally flawed have options available to challenge aspects of a report, seek corrections to factual inaccuracies or pursue formal complaints. These channels include the factual accuracy check which the CQC offers providers, the rating process review, once a report has been published, or other legal action.
That does not mean every poor rating should be contested, but neither should providers assume that disagreement is futile simply because the conclusion has come from a regulator.
The first question should always be: is the rating fair and supported by the evidence?
Should we simply accept the findings?
Not necessarily.
There is an important distinction between accepting accountability and accepting every conclusion.
If genuine failings have been identified, organisations should acknowledge them and explain the action they are taking. But being committed to improvement does not require a provider to agree with findings it believes are inaccurate.
Too often, organisations assume there are only two positions available: accept everything, or fight everything.
In reality, many responses sit somewhere in the middle.
It is perfectly possible to acknowledge shortcomings while also challenging findings that are unfair, unsupported or factually incorrect.
What if the problem is the inspection process itself?
This is often where the strongest challenges arise.
Many boards focus exclusively on the conclusions, but the more important question can be whether the process was conducted properly.
For example:
In our experience, concerns about process are often more compelling than simply arguing that inspectors reached the wrong judgement.
Regulators rightly expect providers to follow robust procedures. It is reasonable for providers to expect the same standard in return.
Should we issue a public statement?
Not necessarily.
This is one of the biggest communications mistakes organisations make after receiving an adverse CQC rating.
Many assume that publication of a poor rating automatically requires a media-facing public response, but stakeholder management is often more important.
Some CQC reports attract significant attention from local media, commissioners, politicians or campaign groups. In those circumstances, a public position may be necessary.
Others generate relatively little interest outside the organisation and its immediate stakeholders.
In those cases, issuing statements, conducting media interviews or actively publicising the situation can be counterproductive. Organisations should be careful not to create a communications issue where one does not already exist. The more useful question is: Who actually needs to hear from us?
The answer may be staff, commissioners, patients, families, referrers or care partners.
It may not be the wider public.
Communications should be proportionate to the level of scrutiny the organisation is facing.
What communications should we prioritise?
Almost always, internal stakeholder communications are more important than media relations.
The individuals most affected by a poor rating are often the staff whose work has been publicly scrutinised.
If employees feel unfairly criticised, unsupported or left in the dark, the organisation can quickly develop a morale and retention problem alongside a regulatory one.
Staff need clarity on:
Commissioners, partners and patients may also need reassurance.
These conversations often have a greater impact on confidence in the organisation than any news coverage.
What are the reputation management implications of challenging the CQC?
Much depends on how the challenge is handled. Aggressive attacks on inspectors rarely help.
Equally, organisations that immediately endorse conclusions they do not believe to be fair can create long-term reputational and operational difficulties for themselves.
The strongest responses tend to be calm, evidence-based and focused on facts rather than emotion.
Confidence is not the same as defensiveness.
When should legal and communications advice be sought?
As soon as possible.
One of the most common mistakes is treating regulatory, legal and communications considerations as separate workstreams.
A public statement can affect a legal strategy, while a legal challenge can influence stakeholder confidence. Internal communications can shape how staff respond to the report.
The most effective organisations develop all three in parallel rather than sequentially.
What is the biggest mistake providers make after receiving a poor rating?
Assuming they have only one option.
Some reports should be accepted and acted upon, while some findings should be challenged.
Many situations involve a combination of both.
Boards and executive teams should assess the evidence carefully, understand the options available to them and decide on a course of action based on fact rather than instinct.
The strongest organisations are neither reflexively defensive nor unquestioningly deferential. They take concerns seriously, respond constructively and improve where necessary, but they also have the confidence to challenge findings they believe are wrong.
If you’re preparing for a CQC inspection, you should also read another recent blog – How to Manage Reputational Risk During a CQC Inspection
If your organisation has received an adverse CQC rating, or is preparing for an upcoming inspection, contact Alder to discuss your options. Call us on 020 7692 5675 or email enquiries@alder-uk.com.
]]>Schools, colleges and universities hold some of the most sensitive personal information of any institution in the country: safeguarding files, medical and special educational needs records, families’ financial details, staff employment records and the digital footprint of every pupil and student. Protecting trust after a cyber attack comes down to three things: responding fast, communicating with care, and having a plan ready before the crisis hits.
Parents, students and staff hand over this information trusting it will be treated with care and kept secure. When that trust is breached and personal data is exposed, the technical recovery plan is only part of the story. The more significant and enduring damage is to the school, college or university’s reputation, with core stakeholders no longer confident in its operational practices, diligence and reliability.
According to the Government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2025/26, published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office in April 2026, 73% of secondary schools, 88% of further education colleges and almost every higher education institution (98%) identified a breach or attack in the previous twelve months. For secondary schools, that figure is up 13 percentage points from 60% a year earlier – a sharp rise in a single year. By comparison, only 43% of businesses and 28% of charities reported the same.
Schools appear particularly prone to cyber crises. Understanding the reputational risks, and the steps that reduce them, should be a priority as the new academic year begins.
For a commercial organisation, a data breach is a serious operational and reputational problem. For a school or college it often carries extra emotional weight, because the data concerns children and young people, and because the relationship with their families rests almost entirely on trust. Trust that their child will be properly educated. Trust that their child will be supported. And, potentially most crucially, trust that their child will be kept safe while at school. A cyber breach can undermine all of this if not addressed appropriately.
The government survey exposed a number of gaps that, should they result in a cyber crisis, would come at a significant reputational cost.
More than a quarter of further education colleges (27%) and almost half of higher education institutions (49%) said they held personal data on staff or students that was not protected. At the same time, further education colleges have become less disciplined about testing their own defences: the proportion carrying out a cyber security vulnerability audit fell from 75% in 2024/25 to 55% in 2025/26. Further and higher education institutions were also more likely than businesses to suffer a negative impact on their systems, staff time and operations. Allowing cyber safeguards to slip while attacks grow more sophisticated and more frequent is a trend educational institutions cannot afford to carry into 2026/27.
Regular cyber security training, a culture of online vigilance and frequent system audits are essential. But preparedness doesn’t stop there.
When a cyber crisis occurs, responding quickly and reassuringly keeps key stakeholders feeling respected, safe and confident despite the breach. Identify your stakeholders in advance. Set out escalation and communication protocols. Prepare calm, clear and helpful holding statements before a crisis strikes. Together, these steps put your school, college or university in the best position to protect its stakeholders and its reputation when pressure is at its most acute.
Pointing blame at one individual to distance your educational institution from a cyber attack will likely only worsen the reputational fallout. A confident and reassuring message is needed to maintain stakeholder trust during a cyber crisis. A divisive message of blame will look like an attempt to shirk responsibility, and will leave your community feeling tense with its questions unanswered.
Yes, but with caution. You do not need every detail to issue a holding statement confirming that you are aware of the incident, that you are investigating and any tangible advice you can offer at that stage. A prepared holding line buys you time and signals control. A vacuum invites speculation, anxiety and mistrust.
Beyond having the core cyber security protocols in place and properly enforced – often easier to achieve in a smaller school – your focus should be on clear escalation protocols. That way, if a cyber crisis hits, you can respond quickly and with confidence to maintain stakeholder trust.
At Alder, we help schools, colleges and universities prepare for, manage and recover from reputational crises, including data breaches. To arrange a discreet, no-obligation conversation about your institution’s preparedness, call us on 020 7692 5675 or email enquiries@alder-uk.com.
]]>Most international firms entering the UK market prepare thoroughly for the legal, tax and regulatory requirements. Far fewer prepare for the reputational ones.
That gap matters. The UK has one of the most active media environments in the world and a dense network of regulators, many of which publish their findings. A firm can meet every legal requirement of market entry and still find its UK launch defined by a story it did not see coming.
Here are the questions international firms should be asking.
Not automatically.
A strong brand at home may carry little weight with UK journalists, regulators, customers or potential employees. In some cases, the country of origin is itself the reputational issue. Firms from certain markets face heightened scrutiny on ownership, data practices or labour standards before they have done anything at all. That scrutiny may be unfair. It is still real, and it should be anticipated rather than discovered.
Most new entrants map their regulators. Far fewer map their scrutineers: trade and national media, unions, local politicians and communities near new sites, campaign groups, competitors briefing against them, and analysts.
None of these groups needs permission to form a view, and many will do so within weeks of launch. Mapping them in advance, and understanding what each will care about, is one of the most useful exercises a firm can undertake before entering the market.
Depending on the sector, relevant bodies may range from the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Competition and Markets Authority and sector-specific inspectorates.
Two features of the UK system catch international firms out. Several regulators publish ratings, findings or notices as a matter of course, so enforcement becomes public without any journalist needing to ask. And employment tribunals are public, with judgments searchable online.
The principle for any sector: know which bodies can put your name in a published finding, and understand their processes before you need to.
It is faster, more adversarial and more persistent than many home markets. The UK has a competitive national press, well-resourced trade media and a strong tradition of investigative journalism. Freedom of Information requests, routine court reporting and social media accelerate all of it.
A story that would stay quiet in another jurisdiction will often surface here. Firms should assume that anything on the record, in a filing or in a public register can and will be found.
The firms that handle their first UK reputational test well are almost always the ones that prepared before it arrived. That preparation typically includes:
None of this is complicated. All of it is difficult to build at speed once a situation is live.
Running UK communications from head office, in head office style, on head office time zones.
When a journalist calls at 7am UK time with a deadline of noon, an answer that has to travel through another jurisdiction and another approval chain will not arrive in time. “We are awaiting a response from headquarters” then becomes part of the story.
Local authority to respond, within a framework agreed with headquarters, is the single most valuable communications asset a new entrant can have.
Before launch.
Reputation risk advice is most valuable when it shapes decisions rather than reacting to them. Firms that build reputation into market entry planning, alongside legal and tax, enter with their defences already in place.
Alder advises organisations on reputation risk and crisis communications. We help international firms entering the UK market to assess their reputational exposure, prepare for scrutiny and respond when situations arise. For preparedness work, contact enquiries@alder-uk.com. For live situations, contact urgent@alder-uk.com.
]]>UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) has raised the bar for every education provider that sponsors international students. Universities, colleges and residential schools all hold sponsor licences. All face reputational risk. A compliance visit can arrive unannounced, and the consequences of failure are public and potentially highly damaging.
A UKVI investigation is a legal process. It is also a reputational event. Suspension or revocation stops recruitment overnight, alarms current students and parents, unsettles staff and hands the media a ready-made story. In our experience, a UKVI issue is a confidence issue before it becomes a media issue. Students, parents, agents and staff want reassurance that the institution can still deliver on its commitments. Protecting that confidence is the real task.
Most institutions prepare for the regulatory process but not the communications challenge. They have legal advice and compliance plans, but no agreed messages, no holding statements and no plan for who tells students, parents and agents what, and when. That gap is where reputational damage takes hold.
International agents deserve particular attention. Agents check sponsor registers and talk to each other. A loss of confidence among agents can damage future recruitment pipelines even if the underlying compliance issue is eventually resolved. Any communications plan that overlooks them is incomplete.
List everyone who needs to hear from you if UKVI takes action: current international students, parents and guardians, agents, staff, governors, alumni, partner institutions and regulators. Decide who says what, in what order.
While heads are clear, prepare holding statements, reactive lines and internal Q&As for the most likely scenarios, including licence suspension. Agreeing these in advance saves days when it matters.
News rarely stays private for long. Information can reach students, parents, agents or journalists through many routes. Social and digital media monitoring gives you early warning of where a story is building, so you can respond before speculation sets the narrative.
Knowing when to communicate matters as much as knowing what to say. Saying too little creates uncertainty and speculation. Saying too much can heighten anxiety and draw attention to issues that may never escalate. Getting this judgement right is where experienced counsel earns its keep.
Run a desktop exercise that simulates an unannounced UKVI visit or a suspension announcement. Test responsibilities, who decides, who signs off and how fast a statement can be issued. Our education sector team runs these exercises for schools, colleges and universities.
International recruitment depends on trust. Agents check sponsor registers. Parents search your name before they commit fees. A headline about suspension will reach them first unless you are ready to tell your own story. If a live issue is already unfolding, our 24/7 crisis support can be engaged at any stage of a UKVI process.
You cannot issue new Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies while suspended. You will have a set period to respond to UKVI’s findings. Suspension is not always public at first, but it rarely stays private. Prepare communications in parallel with your legal response.
Yes. Independent and residential schools sponsoring international pupils hold Child Student sponsor licences and carry the same reporting and record-keeping duties, plus additional safeguarding responsibilities. The reputational stakes with fee-paying parents are at least as high.
Before they hear it elsewhere. Take legal advice on timing, but plan on the basis that news will emerge. A clear, factual message from you is better than speculation from others.
About the author
Lottie Newell helps schools, colleges and universities prepare and respond with confidence when questions arise from UKVI, the media, parents, students or agents.
How Alder can help
Alder advises schools, colleges and universities on the reputational side of regulatory scrutiny: stakeholder management, media strategy, social and digital media monitoring, preparedness planning, desktop exercises and live crisis support. For a confidential conversation, email enquiries@alder-uk.com or call 020 7692 5675.
]]>One key theme we see repeatedly is that the organisations which emerge strongest from a crisis are rarely those that avoid mistakes altogether. They are the ones that understand their risks in advance, know who owns decisions and can explain them confidently when challenged. AI is no different.It is already embedded across most organisations. The challenge is not simply using it responsibly, but being prepared to explain and defend that use if something goes wrong.
Where reputational risks emerge
Reputational damage from AI misuse can arise through a number of channels, including legal or regulatory oversights, operational failure, external scrutiny, and breakdowns in trust. No organisation, not even leading industry firms, can afford not to consider how it would engage with these risks should they escalate from a seemingly improbable concern to a pressing live issue. This was no more apparent than in May 2026, when EY was forced to withdraw a paper on consumer confidence after it was found to include AI hallucinations in both the main body of the text and the footnotes.
Other risks that must be considered by any organisation integrating AI into its workflows include:
What questions should my board be asking now?
Five key questions your organisation should be asking to interrogate board understanding and direction in relation to your company’s use of AI are:
Questions organisations are asking about AI
The question is no longer whether your organisation uses AI. It almost certainly does. The question is whether your board could confidently explain that use if challenged tomorrow morning.
About Alder’s use of AI
We believe organisations should be open about how they use AI, particularly where it supports professional advice. That’s why we’ve published our AI Use Policy, setting out how we use AI tools, where we don’t use them, and the safeguards we apply to protect confidentiality, quality and judgement. In short, AI has its uses but is never a substitute for professional human judgement or advice.
Read our AI Use Policy here.
About the author
Lottie Newell advises senior leaders on reputational risk arising from emerging technologies, including the use of AI. She helps organisations identify where AI risks sit, prepare crisis plans that account for them, and respond with confidence when questions arise from regulators, media or stakeholders.
How Alder can help
Alder helps organisations prepare for AI-related crises before they happen and respond when an AI issue breaks. Contact us for a confidential conversation.
]]>About Alder
Alder is an award-winning reputation, risk and crisis advisory firm, providing strategic consultancy to clients on critical situations, organisational change, reputational risk and preparedness. Over 15 years, the firm has built deep expertise through involvement in complex situations including multi-fatality events, criminal proceedings, and regulatory scrutiny.
Our team works across a number of sectors including education, finance, charities & faith institutions as well as the public sector.
The role
Alder is looking for an Account Director to join its growing team. This client-facing role will suit someone with several years’ experience in an agency managing reputation, risk or crisis issues.
The account director will work closely with senior colleagues to identify solutions to complex reputational issues while taking ownership of the day‑to‑day client delivery and developing trusted client relationships.
In addition to the client-facing work, the AD will contribute to the identification and development of new services and take a key role in promoting them to prospective clients and partners to secure new projects.
Specific Responsibilities
Client work
Collaborating with others
Client management
Business development
Experience required
Desirable
Our Values:
What matters at Alder
Our work is unusual. We support organisations and individuals through sensitive, high-stakes situations where judgement, trust and relationships matter. As a result, who you are matters as much as what you’ve done.
We look for people who are:
How to apply
Please send your CV and a short covering letter to: jobs@alder-uk.com
]]>About Alder
Alder has built a strong reputation in crisis communications and is now growing as a Reputation Risk and Crisis Advisory, covering strategic and management consultancy as well as reactive communications advice.
The role
To ensure that the business can scale effectively, we are looking for a highly capable and proactive Practice Manager to join our entrepreneurial team.
This is a hands-on, delivery-focused role. While the role sits at the centre of the business and carries significant responsibility, it is not a strategic or business development role. Instead, the focus is on ensuring that the operational, financial and administrative aspects of the business run smoothly and reliably day-to-day.
The ideal candidate will be able to operate with a high degree of autonomy, proactively identify workstream priorities, manage their own workload and ensure that key processes are well maintained and deadlines are met.
A core aspect of the role will be coordinating and managing external providers across finance, HR and IT. The successful candidate will be comfortable acting as the conduit between internal stakeholders and these suppliers, as well as providing regular operational updates to the MD.
This role will suit someone who enjoys taking a pro-active, solutions-oriented approach, and who takes pride in enabling a business to operate efficiently and effectively.
Success in the role will look like:
Mandatory requirements
What matters at Alder
Our work is unusual. We support organisations and individuals through sensitive, high-stakes situations where judgement, trust and relationships matter. As a result, who you are matters as much as what you’ve done. We look for people who are:
How to apply
Please send your CV and a short covering letter to: jobs@alder-uk.com
]]>