Governments and regulators should be engaged in a crisis response as soon as an incident touches on laws and regulations, permits, public safety, or reporting obligations. For most organisations, this is not an optional step, but an obligation with both legal and reputational consequences. The questions below help you determine when, how, and by whom this contact is organised.
When should governments and regulators be actively involved in a crisis?
Governments and regulators should be actively involved as soon as a crisis touches on public safety, statutory reporting obligations, permits, or sector-specific regulations. In many cases, a legal deadline applies within which notification is mandatory, such as for data breaches under the GDPR or for serious workplace accidents. Waiting until the situation is fully clear is not an option in such cases.
In addition to statutory obligations, there are also situations where proactive contact is strategically advisable, even when no explicit reporting obligation exists. Think of serious operational incidents affecting local communities, product issues with potential risk to consumers, or restructurings with a significant impact on the regional labour market. In such cases, early contact with the relevant government authority can help build trust and prevent the government from being caught off guard through the media or other channels.
A practical rule of thumb: if you are unsure whether a government or regulator should be involved, the answer is yes in most cases. Failing to involve them when expected is rarely forgiven. Informing them too early, if done carefully, is rarely penalised.
Which governments and regulators are relevant for which type of crisis?
The relevant government authorities in a crisis depend strongly on the type of incident and the sector in which the organisation operates. In Belgium, institutional complexity also plays a role: powers are divided across federal, regional, and local levels, which requires extra attention during stakeholder mapping in a crisis.
An overview of common connections:
- Cybersecurity and data breaches: Data Protection Authority (GBA), CERT.be, and potentially sector-specific supervisors such as the FSMA or FANC
- Workplace accidents and safety crises: Supervision of Well-being at Work, local police and emergency services, labour inspectorate
- Product safety and recalls: FAVV (food), FAMHP (medicines), FPS Economy
- Environmental and operational incidents: Regional environmental inspection (OVAM, Leefmilieu Brussel or SPW), municipal and provincial authorities
- Restructurings and collective redundancies: FPS WASO, RVA, regional employment agencies (VDAB, Actiris, FOREM)
- Financial crises and listed companies: FSMA, NBB
- Nuclear or chemical incidents: FANC, civil protection, federal government crisis centre
In addition to these sector-specific bodies, local governments, mayors, and provincial governors are often underestimated stakeholders. In incidents with an impact on residents or local infrastructure, they can play a crucial role in the public perception of the crisis.
How does the approach to regulators differ from that of other stakeholders?
The approach to regulators differs fundamentally from that of other stakeholders because the relationship is not voluntary. Regulators have formal powers: they can impose sanctions, revoke permits, launch investigations, or impose enforceable measures. Communication with them is therefore never purely relational, but always has a legal and procedural dimension.
In concrete terms, this means that Legal and Risk are always involved in regulatory communication, and that the content of what is communicated is carefully aligned. At the same time, legal caution must not lead to a communication style that is perceived as evasive or arrogant. Regulators value transparency, factual completeness, and a cooperative attitude, even when the situation is not yet fully clear.
Some important differences from other stakeholders:
- Timing is formal: Regulators often have statutory deadlines. With other stakeholders, timing is a strategic choice.
- Content must be factual and complete: Regulators expect full information, not curated messages.
- The channel is formal: Communication takes place through official channels, not via press releases or social media.
- The relationship is structural: Regulators remain involved after the acute phase, during investigations, audits, or recovery plans.
- Trust is built over time: Organisations that maintain a good relationship with regulators outside of crisis periods are in a stronger position when an incident occurs.
What are the pitfalls in communicating with governments during a crisis?
The biggest pitfall in communicating with governments and regulators during a crisis is that organisations inform them too late, too little, or incompletely, sometimes out of fear of sanctions or negative publicity. This undermines the regulator’s trust and typically makes the situation more serious, not less.
Other common mistakes include:
- Inconsistency between channels: What a spokesperson tells the media differs from what was reported to the regulator. This is a serious problem that is avoided by coordinating communication internally before it goes public.
- Too many legal filters: Communication that is so heavily screened by Legal that it becomes meaningless raises suspicion among regulators and authorities.
- Forgetting local government: Mayors or aldermen are not informed, while they are the first to be approached by the media or residents.
- Lack of a single point of contact: Multiple people within the organisation communicate in an uncoordinated way with the same authority, sending contradictory signals.
- Overestimating informal contacts: An existing relationship with a civil servant is no substitute for a formal notification or structured consultation.
How do you prepare the organisation for regulatory involvement before a crisis?
Preparation for regulatory involvement begins long before a crisis emerges. Organisations that know which authorities are relevant, what the reporting obligations are, and who is internally responsible for that contact respond faster and more credibly when it is needed.
Concrete steps in preparation include:
- Map reporting obligations: Which statutory obligations apply to your sector and type of incident? What are the deadlines? Who is the competent authority?
- Draw up a stakeholder map: Identify per crisis scenario which governments and regulators are relevant, including contact persons and escalation paths.
- Define internal responsibilities: Who contacts which authority? Who bears final responsibility? How does internal alignment with Legal, Risk, and Communications take place?
- Develop templates and holding statements: Prepare standard forms, notification templates, and initial statements that can be quickly adapted.
- Build relationships in calm times: Regular contact with regulators outside of crisis periods lowers the threshold and increases mutual understanding.
- Practise through simulations: Include regulatory communication in crisis exercises so the team knows how to act when it matters.
Who within the organisation is responsible for contact with governments during a crisis?
Responsibility for contact with governments and regulators during a crisis typically does not rest with one person alone, but requires a clear division of tasks between Legal, Communications, Risk, and senior management. Who the primary contact person is depends on the type of crisis and the nature of the authority involved.
As a rule of thumb: Legal safeguards the legal accuracy of what is communicated, while Communications is responsible for the tone, timing, and consistency of the messages. Senior management, often the CEO or COO, bears final responsibility and co-determines the position the organisation takes towards the government.
In practice, this means the crisis cell must have a clear mandate regarding who speaks on behalf of the organisation with which authority. One point of contact per government authority prevents confusion and contradictory signals. In prolonged crises, such as an extensive regulatory investigation, it is advisable to formally assign responsibility rather than making it dependent on the availability of one person.
In complex situations, such as restructurings involving multiple regional authorities or a cyber incident involving both the GBA and sector-specific supervisors, coordination between internal functions and external advisors is essential to ensure consistency.
How Whyte helps with government and regulator involvement in your crisis response
In a crisis where governments and regulators play a role, coordinated communication is not a side issue, but a core component of the response. Whyte guides organisations through the full crisis cycle and helps specifically with:
- mapping relevant governments and regulators per crisis scenario, including reporting obligations and contact persons;
- developing a stakeholder map and communication strategy that addresses governments, regulators, media, employees, and other stakeholders in an integrated way;
- alignment between Communications, Legal, Risk, and senior management on what, when, and how to communicate;
- preparing templates, holding statements, and Q&As for regulatory contacts;
- incorporating regulatory communication into crisis communication training and simulations;
- acute guidance during a crisis, including support during initial contact with governments and regulators.
Want to know how your organisation currently stands? Get in touch for a conversation about crisis preparedness and regulatory stakeholder communication.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if we miss a reporting obligation or report too late?
If a statutory reporting deadline is exceeded, this can lead to sanctions, fines, or an intensified investigation by the competent authority. Moreover, a late notification undermines the regulator’s trust, which complicates cooperation during and after the crisis. Report as soon as possible, even if you do not yet have all the information, and communicate transparently about what you know at that moment and what you are still investigating. Many regulators value an honest ‘interim notification’ over a complete but late report.
How do we deal with conflicting requirements from different regulators at the same time?
In complex crises, such as a cyber incident involving both the GBA and a sector-specific supervisor, the expectations and deadlines of different authorities can conflict with each other. In that case, appoint one internal coordinator who maintains an overview and synchronises all regulatory communication. Document all contact moments carefully and be transparent with each authority about the fact that multiple supervisors are involved. External legal and communications advisors with experience in multi-regulatory situations are a valuable addition in such cases.
Are we allowed to communicate proactively with regulators when there are no definitive conclusions yet about the cause or extent of the incident?
Yes, and in many cases this is even the recommended approach. Regulators understand that a crisis is unfolding and do not expect ready-made answers at the first contact. What they do expect is that you inform them in a timely manner about what you know, what you are still investigating, and what steps you are taking. Communicate on the basis of facts you can confirm at that moment, clearly indicate what is still uncertain, and agree on when you will provide an update.
How do we keep communication to regulators consistent with what we communicate to the media and employees?
Consistency starts internally: ensure that all outgoing communication, regardless of the channel or target audience, is approved from a single central point before it goes public. Establish a crisis cell with representatives from Legal, Communications, and senior management who jointly determine the key messages. Regulators typically receive more detailed and technical information than media or employees, but the factual core must be consistent across all communication. Discrepancies between what was reported to the regulator and what is communicated publicly are considered a serious problem.
What is the role of external advisors, such as lawyers or communications agencies, in contact with regulators?
External advisors can play a valuable role, but their involvement must be clearly defined. Lawyers help assess legal obligations, formulate formal notifications, and monitor what you can and cannot say without jeopardising your position. Communications advisors support the tone, timing, and consistency of messages towards regulators and other stakeholders. It is important that external advisors are always embedded in the internal crisis structure and do not operate in parallel or in an uncoordinated manner, as this increases the risk of contradictory signals.
How do you build a good relationship with regulators outside of crisis periods, and why does it pay off?
Organisations that only have contact with regulators during a crisis start that relationship at the worst possible moment. Proactive contact in calm times, such as participation in sector consultation bodies, periodic briefings, or informal introductions with supervisors, creates mutual understanding and lowers the threshold during an incident. When a regulator already knows your organisation as transparent and cooperative, a crisis is more quickly regarded as an incident that you are taking seriously, rather than as evidence of structural mismanagement. This has a direct impact on the tone and intensity of regulatory action.
How do we incorporate regulatory communication into our crisis exercises?
Start by integrating realistic regulatory scenarios into your crisis exercises: simulate time pressure with a statutory reporting deadline approaching, or recreate a situation where a regulator requests additional information. Practise not only the content of the communication, but also the internal decision-making: who gives the green light, who addresses the regulator, and how is the message aligned internally? After each exercise, evaluate whether the division of roles was clear and whether the templates and procedures proved workable in practice. Where possible, bring in an external facilitator who can realistically simulate the regulatory dynamic.
Related Articles
- How Does a Crisis Team Work Within a Large Organization?
- Who Decides on Communication During an Organizational Crisis?
- What Is the Difference Between Crisis Management and Crisis Communication?
- What Is a Crisis Communication Plan and What Does It Include?
- What Is Issue Management and How Does It Differ From Crisis Communication?
This content was generated with the help of AI and it may contain mistakes