Over the past year, crisis management in France has expanded beyond criminal and tax issues to include human rights, driven by heightened public awareness and regulatory focus on CSR and ethics.

The authors have notably observed the following key trends.

• Reputational risk awareness – companies are increasingly proactively addressing ethical concerns to protect public perception.
• Human rights and environmental focus – companies are increasingly taking into account and prioritising social and environmental concerns.
• Integrated communication strategies – legal and communication efforts are now more aligned for greater transparency towards all stakeholders, as well as heightened efficiency.

These evolutions highlight the need for a holistic and preventive approach, combining compliance, governance, and strategic communication.

Several sectors in France have faced heightened vulnerabilities due to regulatory scrutiny, reputational risks, and compliance challenges in recent months.

• Energy – geopolitical tensions and regulatory oversight have intensified risks related to supply chains, notably regarding the enforcement of the duty of vigilance.
• Textile – human rights concerns in supply chains have led to legal and reputational challenges under due diligence and vigilance laws.
• Elder care & childcare – scandals in elder care facilities (EPHADs) and childcare facilities have exposed issues of negligence, fraud, and governance failures, which are triggering responses from the government and lawmakers.
• Water – scandals regarding water pollution leading to environmental and public health concerns have led to stricter regulations and reputational risks.
• Public sector & corruption – scandals involving officials have driven demand for stronger governance and compliance.

Furthermore, past crises have led to a reinforcement of governance and compliance measures:

• stricter environmental and anti-corruption rules;
• enhanced supply chain transparency;
• regulatory reforms;
• sustainability investments; and
• stronger whistle-blower protections.

To mitigate similar future risks, the authors expect key measures to be implemented which could include the following.

• Enhanced compliance & due diligence – stricter supply chain monitoring in energy and textiles.
• Regulatory reforms & governance – tighter oversight and monitoring from regulatory authorities.
• Crisis communication strategies – proactive reputation management.
• Whistle-blower protections & anti-corruption policies – stronger internal controls and reporting mechanisms.

Over the past few years, several strategic acquisitions have taken place in the context of crises.

• A leading telecommunications company – it has historically leveraged crisis periods to expand its portfolio through opportunistic acquisitions. Despite financial challenges, it has pursued strategic deals to consolidate its presence in key markets.
• A leading French shipping company – it capitalised on disruptions in global supply chains, acquiring logistics firms to diversify its operations and reduce dependence on volatile freight markets.
• A leading company in the elder care sector – it has been involved in acquisitions, even amidst governance and financial scandals. These transactions reflect broader restructuring efforts aimed at restoring financial stability and operational trust.

Post-crisis M&A remains a crucial strategy for businesses seeking resilience, on both the sellers’ and buyers’ sides, but it necessitates heightened compliance, risk management, and long-term value-creation considerations.

Crisis management in France is not governed by a unified legal regime. French subjects are not bound by specific regulations providing for how they should handle potential crises that may arise. French regulations typically provide for obligations to prevent and account for risks in order to avoid any subsequent crises.

In this regard, several compliance and corporate governance laws provide for emphasised risk prevention and accountability.

• Loi Sapin II (2016) requires anti-corruption programmes, risk mapping, and whistle-blower protections to prevent the occurrence of corruption and related offences.
• The Duty of Vigilance Law (2017) imposes supply chain oversight for human rights and environmental risks.
• Grenelle II (2010) and the NRE Law (2001) mandate extra-financial reporting for corporate transparency.
• The 2022 Whistleblower Protection Law strengthens internal reporting mechanisms as well as whistle-blowers’ protection.

France has reinforced corporate compliance laws to address financial, governance, and reputational crises. The CSRD (2024) expands ESG reporting requirements, increasing transparency in crisis situations. Whistle-blower protection (2022 Waserman law amendments to the Sapin II Law) now covers more violations and enhance confidentiality, requiring stronger internal reporting mechanisms. A proposed expansion of the Duty of Vigilance Law through European regulations (CS3D) could also extend due diligence obligations to medium-sized enterprises, increasing corporate liability for supply chain risks.

These updates will require companies to enhance ESG risk assessments, strengthen supply chain oversight, and improve compliance frameworks. Stricter transparency rules will heighten regulatory scrutiny, demanding proactive governance. Expanded whistle-blower protections and due diligence obligations will also necessitate stronger internal controls and crisis response strategies. Businesses must integrate compliance, ESG, and ethical governance into their crisis management approach to mitigate legal and reputational risks.

There is no specific government entity responsible for co-ordinating crisis management.

As a matter of fact, depending on the level of the crisis as well as the topic, different governmental bodies such as dedicated ministers, public agencies or even local territorial administrations may intervene to solve the crisis and implement remediation measures (for instance, French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF), DGCCRF, tax authorities, competition authorities, and environmental authorities).

Crisis management in France is overseen by independent bodies ensuring corporate compliance, transparency, and risk mitigation.

For instance, the Agence Française Anticorruption (AFA) monitors anti-corruption compliance under the Sapin II Law, assessing compliance with the requirements of the Law and of the AFA in terms of corruption prevention, internal controls and whistle-blower protections. The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) supervises financial market compliance, ensuring listed companies disclose crisis-related risks. The Haute Autorité pour la Transparence de la Vie Publique (HATVP) monitors conflicts of interest and governance integrity. The Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR) ensures banks and insurers implement crisis response measures to maintain financial stability. The Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) oversees data protection compliance, integrating cybersecurity into crisis management. Typically, in case of cyber-attacks, the victim entity would have to report the situation to the CNIL which would be entirely part of the crisis management.

These bodies conduct audits, enforce reporting obligations, and impose sanctions for non-compliance. Companies must align crisis preparedness with regulatory standards, submit risk reports, and implement corrective actions when required. This oversight strengthens corporate accountability and reinforces best practices in governance and risk management.

Transparency is a key aspect of corporate compliance in France, particularly in crisis management. Some companies are subject to mandatory public reporting to ensure regulatory oversight and stakeholder accountability.

For instance, the Grenelle II and NRE Laws require large companies to disclose ESG risks and integrate stakeholders in some decision-making processes, integrating compliance and crisis preparedness into corporate strategies. The Duty of Vigilance Law (2017) mandates vigilance plans identifying human rights, environmental, and governance risks, including crisis management protocols. Sapin II Law and its 2022 amendments require companies to establish secure whistle-blower reporting channels, reinforcing transparency in crisis detection and response.

In financial, environmental, and governance crises, listed companies must disclose material risks and mitigation strategies in regulatory filings. Non-compliance can lead to sanctions from the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF and ACPR). Executives directors are responsible for ensuring crisis-related transparency, demonstrating proactive risk management and corporate integrity.

Crisis management in France is regulated by sector-specific compliance requirements to ensure proactive risk mitigation in high-risk industries.

In finance and banking, the Monetary and Financial Code and ACPR regulations mandate risk management frameworks, stress tests, and AML controls. The Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR) monitors financial stability and crisis response compliance.

In healthcare and pharmaceuticals, the Public Health Code and ANSM guidelines require crisis prevention measures, drug supply chain monitoring, and pandemic response plans. The Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (ANSM) ensures compliance with risk assessment and emergency preparedness protocols.

In critical infrastructure, companies in energy, transport, and telecommunications must comply with cybersecurity and environmental risk prevention rules. The Agence Nationale de la Sécurité des Systèmes d’Information (ANSSI) and the CNIL oversees cybersecurity standards to ensure crisis resilience.

Regulatory audits and inspections by the ACPR, ANSM, and ANSSI assess compliance, and applies sanctions in case of violations. Companies must submit sector-specific risk reports, and notably under the Grenelle II Law, disclose environmental risk mitigation strategies. Corporate leaders in these sectors are responsible for integrating compliance-based crisis management, including whistle-blower protections and internal audits. These requirements strengthen governance to ensure effective crisis response.

There is no specific public-private structured co-operation frameworks for crisis prevention. Depending on the type of crisis, different types of public entities may get involved before, during or after the crisis to enhance corporate compliance, risk management, and crisis response.

For instance, under the Loi Sapin II and AFA guidelines, businesses must implement anti-corruption programmes, co-operate with authorities in investigations, and enforce whistle-blower protections. The Duty of Vigilance Law mandates collaboration with stakeholders, including NGOs and regulators, to assess human rights and environmental risks, and prevent the occurrence of crises. Cybersecurity regulations by the ANSSI require critical-sector companies (finance, healthcare, and energy) to implement risk management plans and report cyber-incidents.

Compliance is monitored through regulatory audits, crisis simulations, and mandatory reporting on anti-corruption, cybersecurity, and ESG risks. Companies must integrate compliance principles into board-level crisis decisions to align with governance standards. These frameworks reinforce corporate accountability and crisis resilience through regulatory co-operation.

France does not have a unified structured general national crisis management framework, even though publicly accessible information show that France can structure a crisis management response when necessary (for instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic). However, several crisis management frameworks aim at preventing the occurrence of crises within entities or entire industries, notably by integrating compliance, corporate governance, and risk prevention.

Sector-specific regulations apply to high-risk industries, with for instance the ANSSI enforcing cybersecurity resilience. Companies must conduct mandatory risk assessments, comply with regulatory monitoring, and integrate crisis planning into board-level decision-making. This compliance-driven approach ensures businesses align crisis response with governance, transparency, and regulatory obligations.

In France, crisis management relies on structured inter-agency co-ordination to enforce compliance, corporate accountability, and risk mitigation. For instance, the AFA, the PNF and the AMF collaborate to ensure businesses comply with anti-corruption, financial transparency, and governance obligations. The ANSSI and the CNIL also collaborate on cybersecurity topics notably in crisis situations.

Furthermore, all government bodies co-operate activity with the Public Prosecutor Office. Pursuant to Article 40 of the French Criminal Procedure Code, all State authorities and employees have a legal obligation to report any suspicion of any criminal offence they have gained knowledge of in the course of their duties to the Public Prosecutor. For instance, tax authorities and Tracfin (French intelligence service responsible for combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, as well as tax, social security and customs fraud) and tax authorities have reported many facts which may constitute criminal offences, such as money laundering or tax fraud. Such reports can lead to the opening of criminal or judicial investigations.

Government entities co-ordinate through sectoral crisis management frameworks. Government entities’ partnerships involve compliance audits, regulatory stress tests, and joint crisis simulations, particularly in high-risk sectors.

Inter-agency collaboration is reinforced through centralised compliance monitoring, corporate governance oversight, and sanctions for non-compliance.

In France, corporate crisis management plans focus on legal compliance, risk mitigation, governance and accountability.

Companies establish risk committees to oversee potential crises and prepare for them, with special crisis committees handling sector-specific risks (eg, financial compliance, cybersecurity, and environmental incidents). Plans integrate codes of conduct, public communication programmes, crisis committees emergency meetings, etc, ensuring regulatory compliance and an effective response in case a crisis emerges. Crisis plans include escalation protocols, ensuring co-ordination between legal, strategic and communication teams, and executives.

Corporate boards oversee crisis compliance, with crisis simulations testing response effectiveness. A structured plan ensures proactive risk management and regulatory alignment.

Most companies have risk and crisis committees overseeing crisis prevention and reaction. High-risk industries often establish special crisis committees for financial, environmental, or supply chain risks. Chief Compliance Officers, General counsels, communication teams and strategic teams typically attend crisis committees and internal control functions to manage risks and prevent crises. Company boards usually oversee crisis governance.

In France, crisis committees play a key role in crisis prevention and management, with their structure and independence varying by sector and governance model.

Permanent committees exist in highly regulated industries (finance, healthcare, and infrastructure), while ad hoc committees are formed in response to specific incidents like regulatory investigations or cybersecurity breaches.

While many crisis committees include senior executives, compliance officers, and legal counsel, companies increasingly appoint independent members – such as ethics experts or external board directors – to ensure impartiality and regulatory oversight.

Crisis committees typically combine multi-disciplinary expertise (compliance, legal, finance, risk management, cybersecurity, and PR). They can oversee crisis simulations, risk assessments, and regulatory reporting to align their responses and strategies.

The level of independence from senior management varies. Some companies establish board-level crisis oversight committees separate from operational management.

Crisis management teams in France usually combine expertise from multiple fields such as legal, financial, strategic or communication departments.

The Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) ensures crisis response aligns with compliance regulations such as the Sapin II Law, the Duty of Vigilance Law, and ESG obligations, overseeing regulatory risks and compliance audits. The General Counsel advises on corporate liability and regulatory reporting, while the Chief Risk Officer (CRO) manages risk assessments, crisis simulations, and enterprise-wide risk mitigation. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) evaluates financial exposure, regulatory disclosures, and reporting risks. The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) handles cybersecurity incidents, GDPR compliance, and IT risk response. The Public Relations Director co-ordinates external communication and crisis messaging to protect corporate reputation, while the Human Resources Director manages employee-related crisis responses, labour law compliance, and internal ethics investigations.

The CCO or General Counsel often leads the crisis team, ensuring compliance-driven responses. In high-impact crises, the CEO or a Board-appointed executive may take charge, and independent board members or external compliance experts are sometimes consulted for governance oversight. Crisis management teams typically meet quarterly under normal conditions for compliance reviews, crisis simulations, and risk assessments. In an active crisis, meetings occur daily or in real time to adapt response strategies and ensure regulatory compliance.

The Crisis Management Team can report directly to the Board, ensuring executive oversight. Audit and risk committees receive regular updates for transparency, while whistle-blower hotlines and compliance dashboards facilitate internal reporting. This compliance-driven structure ensures legal, ethical, and regulatory adherence, mitigating risks while maintaining stakeholder trust.

Companies in France increasingly rely on external experts to strengthen crisis prevention and response. Lawyers are frequently involved to assist companies in managing crisis, prevent legal proceedings and represent companies during investigations by authorities in criminal or civil disputes.

Forensic and financial auditors are often needed to provide independent oversight in fraud and criminal cases, ensuring accurate risk assessment and disclosure where appropriate. Public relations firms manage crisis communication, aligning strategies with CSR commitments to mitigate reputational risks. Cybersecurity consultants assist regulated industries in preventing data breaches, conducting security audits, and enhancing digital resilience.

Selection criteria prioritise regulatory expertise, independence, proven crisis resolution experience, and integration with internal compliance frameworks. Companies seek experts with a strong track record in risk management and sector-specific regulations while ensuring impartiality and ethical standards.

Successful collaborations include legal experts assisting multinational firms in anti-corruption investigations, cybersecurity specialists helping financial institutions contain ransomware attacks, and PR consultants guiding companies through ESG controversies to rebuild trust.

Companies in France assess crisis management effectiveness using compliance-driven metrics focused on legal, financial, and reputational risk mitigation. Financial impact is evaluated through crisis-related costs, legal fees, and business continuity indicators such as supply chain recovery speed and operational downtime. Impact can also be evaluated on the basis of indemnification paid to customers, competitors or business partners. Reputational risks are tracked through public perception analyses, media sentiment, shareholder confidence, and employee engagement trends, including whistle-blower reporting activity.

Continuous improvement relies on post-crisis audits and forensic reviews to identify governance failures, integrate lessons learned, and update compliance frameworks. Companies conduct crisis simulations and stress tests to refine response protocols and align strategies with evolving regulations. Stakeholder feedback, whistle-blower protections, and strengthened internal controls contribute to governance enhancements. External compliance experts are often engaged to reinforce ethical crisis management and regulatory alignment. By using compliance-based metrics and iterative improvements, companies enhance resilience, mitigate risks, and maintain corporate integrity.

In France, companies identify crises quickly through proactive risk monitoring and compliance-driven processes. They use internal audits, whistle-blower hotlines, and AI-driven risk detection tools to spot potential issues before they escalate. These tools help monitor regulatory changes, supply chain vulnerabilities, and financial anomalies, ensuring early detection of crises. Compliance officers work closely with legal teams to assess potential liabilities, breaches, and regulatory exposure including through the public media.

Once a crisis is identified, companies activate crisis response protocols, bringing together legal, compliance, communication, and operational teams. Crisis committees assess regulatory risks, litigation exposure, and governance responsibilities to determine appropriate response strategies. If necessary, companies notify regulators (eg, AMF, CNIL, and ACPR) and key stakeholders to ensure transparency and compliance, while internal reporting mechanisms ensure real-time communication.

To assist with crisis identification and communication, companies rely on regulatory compliance and risk management platforms, such as AI-powered compliance dashboards and risk mapping, which monitor financial transactions, regulatory alerts, and ESG risks. Encrypted messaging platforms ensure secure communication within leadership, legal teams, and external advisers, while media monitoring tools track public perception and reputational threats. By integrating these tools with governance best practices, companies ensure rapid response and effective legal risk mitigation.

In France, companies typically adopt structured crisis management frameworks that align with regulatory compliance and corporate governance principles. These frameworks help with risk anticipation, response co-ordination, and post-crisis remediation, ensuring legal and reputational risk mitigation.

Additionally, many industries adopt bespoke frameworks, such as the ACPR guidelines for financial stability and ANSM regulations for healthcare product recalls.

Key elements of a crisis response plan typically include governance structures, such as crisis management committees with legal, compliance, and communication experts, and clear escalation protocols for rapid decision-making at the board level. Companies define regulatory reporting obligations and implement whistle-blowing mechanisms for early detection of compliance risks. A communication and reputation management strategy is also critical, including pre-approved protocols for internal and external stakeholders and crisis PR strategies. After a crisis, companies conduct post-crisis evaluations and compliance audits to refine risk strategies and integrate findings into their ESG and RSE frameworks, ensuring continuous improvement and reinforcing ethical governance.

Companies in France identify and assess potential risks through structured risk assessment frameworks. These frameworks aim to anticipate crises and proactively mitigate their impact.

To identify risks, companies use Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Systems, which include risk mapping to spot financial, legal, reputational, and operational vulnerabilities. They track key risk indicators (KRIs) to detect early warning signs of potential crises. Regulatory compliance frameworks, such as the Sapin II Law regarding anti-corruption, the Duty of Vigilance Law for supply chain risks, and GDPR for data protection, require regular risk assessments. Companies in specific sectors also conduct sector-specific risk analyses, such as stress testing and AML compliance in the financial sector, pharmacovigilance in healthcare, and environmental and regulatory risk assessments in infrastructure and energy.

Preventive measures commonly implemented to mitigate risks include corporate compliance programmes like codes of conduct, whistle-blowing mechanisms, and training programmes. Regular internal audits and risk reviews ensure alignment with regulatory obligations. Dedicated risk committees assess emerging threats and escalate issues to the board, with compliance officers, legal advisers, and ESG specialists integrated into risk management processes. Crisis simulation exercises and business continuity planning ensure organisational resilience, and supply chain risk assessments protect against disruptions. Companies also implement crisis communication protocols and transparent ESG reporting to manage reputational risks and maintain investor confidence.

Companies in France use crisis simulation exercises as part of their compliance and risk management frameworks, with the frequency depending on the industry, company size, and risk exposure. Highly regulated sectors like finance, healthcare, energy, and critical infrastructure conduct simulations annually or semi-annually to meet compliance obligations. Large multinational corporations typically organise quarterly tabletop exercises to refine response protocols, while mid-sized companies and those in low-risk sectors conduct crisis drills on an ad-hoc basis, often triggered by regulatory updates or past incidents.

Crisis simulations typically cover a range of scenarios:

• Cybersecurity breaches, including data breaches, ransomware attacks, and regulatory investigations (eg, GDPR and NIS2 Directive).
• Regulatory and compliance failures, such as anti-corruption violations (Sapin II Law), financial fraud, and ESG non-compliance.
• Supply chain disruptions, assessing resilience to geopolitical risks, environmental disasters, and sanctions-related constraints.
• Reputational crises, like handling whistle-blower allegations, social media backlashes, and ESG controversies.
• Operational and safety crises, including workplace accidents, environmental incidents, and health crises (eg, pandemics and chemical leaks).

External experts, including legal advisers, crisis communications specialists, and forensic investigators, are often involved to ensure realistic simulations and compliance-driven responses. By conducting these exercises, companies improve regulatory preparedness, corporate governance, and operational resilience, effectively mitigating legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Companies in France increasingly integrate crisis management training within their compliance and corporate governance frameworks to mitigate legal, financial, and reputational risks. Companies conduct scenario-based crisis simulations to address operational risks, cybersecurity threats, regulatory investigations, and reputational crises, ensuring that employees are prepared for various crisis scenarios and able to quickly escalate issues.

To ensure effectiveness, companies provide regular training sessions and e-learning modules accessible to all employees, often with mandatory assessments and certifications. They also distribute crisis handbooks and set up internal communication protocols with clear incident escalation procedures. Engagement from leadership and compliance officers is essential to promote a culture of transparency and accountability with good reflexes when facing situations.

To track participation and effectiveness, companies use compliance monitoring tools to ensure that all employees, including remote and third-party workers, receive appropriate training.

Typically, compliance and legal teams lead the training to ensure alignment with governance and regulatory frameworks, while human resources and risk management departments oversee operational and reputational risk training. In some cases, external crisis management consultants provide specialised expertise in areas such as cybersecurity, ESG compliance, and crisis communication strategies.

Companies integrate crisis prevention policies within their compliance, risk management, and corporate governance frameworks to mitigate financial, legal, and reputational risks. These typically include Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) frameworks, code of conduct and ethics policies, regulatory compliance policies and crisis communication protocols.

To implement and enforce these policies, companies establish crisis committees, provide training and internal awareness programmes, conduct periodic audits and stress tests, and use digital compliance tools and risk monitoring systems to detect risks early. This approach reinforces regulatory resilience, operational continuity, and stakeholder confidence in crisis situations.

Companies facing legal scrutiny during a crisis must manage their communications to avoid self-incrimination. This includes ensuring internal investigations are conducted under legal privilege, implementing strict communication protocols to prevent premature statements, and training executives and employees on their rights, especially when interacting with enforcement authorities.

Regulatory bodies and prosecutors may initiate investigations, requiring a co-ordinated legal response. Companies must reserve statements to authorities, navigate multi-jurisdictional investigations, and balance co-operation with legal risk to protect corporate interests.

In managing legal challenges, companies must leverage legal privilege to protect internal reports, establish clear procedures for employee co-operation, and engage external legal experts to navigate complex enforcement. A structured legal crisis response, based on compliance and governance, is crucial to mitigate financial, reputational, and regulatory risks.

Companies face legal exposure from various enforcement authorities, depending on the crisis type.

Key agencies include:

• Criminal authorities – prosecutors and financial crime agencies notably investigate fraud, corruption, money laundering, and insider trading. Co-operation must be managed to preserve legal privilege.
• Environmental regulators – agencies enforce sanctions for pollution, hazardous waste, and industrial accidents. Companies must adhere to due diligence and reporting obligations.
• Financial and market regulators – securities commissions monitor market abuse, misleading disclosures, and anti-money laundering violations. Accurate reporting is crucial.
• Competition authorities – antitrust regulators investigate anti-competitive practices and market dominance abuses. Companies must be cautious during dawn raids.
• Data protection regulators – supervisory bodies enforce compliance with data protection laws, especially during cyber-incidents or data breaches.
• Tax authorities – responsible for ensuring compliance with tax laws, including income, corporate, VAT, and other forms of taxation. They investigate potential tax evasion, fraudulent claims, and financial misreporting. Businesses are required to maintain accurate records and submit timely tax returns.

To minimise exposure, companies should:

• centralise crisis response to co-ordinate communications with regulators;
• engage external counsel early, particularly in cross-border investigations;
• train executives and employees on handling enforcement inquiries; and
• conduct internal investigations.

Depending on the topics at stake, companies can be encouraged to co-operate with enforcement authorities and regulators during a crisis to mitigate legal risks and reduce potential sanctions. However, co-operation must be structured and legally controlled to protect the company’s interests.

To address legal violations, companies typically implement measures as follows.

• Internal investigations – conduct independent and confidential audits to assess potential violations before engaging with regulators.
• Negotiated resolutions – consider agreements like the Convention Judiciaire d’Intérêt Public (CJIP) or deferred prosecution to resolve liability without admitting guilt.
• Legal counsel co-ordination – appoint external counsel to oversee communications with regulators and avoid self-incrimination.
• Compliance remediation plans – develop corrective action plans to present to regulators, including enhanced compliance and governance improvements.

To manage co-operation without over-exposure, companies ensure controlled disclosure of information, protect internal documents, and engage with multiple authorities under a harmonised legal strategy for cross-border investigations.

Companies assess potential legal risks and liabilities through a structured approach that integrates legal and financial exposure, prevention of regulatory violations, and ensuring business continuity.

For strategic implementation and prevention, companies use risk mapping tools to quantify liabilities, ensure board oversight, and conduct scenario testing and crisis simulations to refine strategies.

Key factors considered to assess legal risks include:

• Internal audits and compliance reviews – regular audits to detect non-compliance with regulations and internal policies.
• Internal investigations – internal analysis to identify misconduct before regulatory intervention.
• Regulatory landscape analysis – reviewing local and international legal frameworks to anticipate liabilities, including where applicable environmental, anti-corruption, and financial reporting risks.
• Third-party risk evaluations – assessing business partners and suppliers for adherence to ethical and compliance standards.
• Crisis response preparation – establishing committees and task forces to manage emerging risks proactively.

Legal teams are involved early in the crisis management process to ensure regulatory compliance and mitigate legal exposure. Their role includes conducting immediate risk assessments, co-ordinating with enforcement authorities, protecting privileged communications, and overseeing crisis communication to align public statements with legal strategy.

The legal crisis management team is typically structured as follows.

• General counsel – oversees legal strategy and liaises with regulators.
• Compliance and regulatory experts – ensure adherence to laws and internal compliance frameworks.
• Litigation specialists – co-ordinate legal defence strategies.
• Data protection officers – manage privacy concerns, especially in cyber-incidents.

External legal counsel is often engaged, preferably very early in the process, notably to ensure legal privilege, particularly for:

• prosecution authorities cross-border investigations;
• white-collar crime allegations and internal investigations;
• investigations by the authorities (criminal, civil, tax, antitrust, environmental, AML/CFT, labour, etc); and
• high-risk litigation (eg, class actions, and shareholder disputes).

Selection criteria for external counsel include the following.

• Expertise in crisis management and regulatory defence.
• Experience in high-profile investigations and litigation.
• Ability to co-ordinate with enforcement agencies while protecting company interests.
• Alignment with internal compliance policies and corporate governance principles.

Companies implement structured protocols to collect and preserve evidence during a crisis, balancing corporate liability risks and defence necessities. Key processes include the following.

• IT charters – providing access to corporate electronic documents and data, consultation of professional electronic devices, professional messaging systems, etc.
• Legal hold notices – suspend routine document destruction and preserve all relevant materials immediately.
• Centralised data management – use secure repositories for both digital and physical records to ensure traceability and confidentiality.
• Forensic investigations – engage internal or external forensic teams to collect and analyse digital evidence while maintaining chain of custody.
• Whistle-blower and reporting mechanisms – implement dedicated channels to gather information from employees and third parties.

To ensure compliance with legal requirements for evidence preservation, companies:

• adhere to sector-specific regulatory standards (eg, financial, environmental, and data protection laws);
• implement data protection measures in line with GDPR or equivalent regulations;
• maintain audit trails and document integrity to prevent tampering or unauthorised access; and
• provide training to employees on proper recordkeeping and reporting.

Companies facing litigation deriving from a crisis often seek consensual resolution mechanisms to reduce financial, legal, and reputational risks. Settlement options include the following.

• Judicial and extrajudicial settlements – agreements between parties to resolve disputes outside of court.
• Mediation and arbitration – alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for mutually beneficial outcomes.
• Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) – available in some jurisdictions and before certain authorities (such as the “composition administrative” before the AMF, settlement with the competition or tax authorities) allowing companies to avoid prosecution in exchange for compliance commitments.

In France, the Convention Judiciaire d’Intérêt Public (CJIP) offers a settlement mechanism for corporate criminal matters, such as corruption, money laundering, environmental violations, and tax fraud. A CJIP allows companies to avoid criminal conviction by:

• paying a negotiated financial penalty;
• strengthening their compliance programme, often with a monitoring by the AFA; and
• compensating victims, if applicable.

Before entering into a settlement, companies assess factors such as reputational impact, regulatory compliance, and long-term legal risks. A well-negotiated settlement can limit exposure, demonstrate proactive compliance, and support business continuity while aligning with corporate governance and RSE commitments.

Companies rely on specialised insurance policies to mitigate financial exposure from crises and litigation. Common policies include Directors & Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance, which covers legal costs and liabilities from regulatory and authorities investigations, and Professional Indemnity Insurance to protect against claims related to professional errors or negligence. Cyber Liability Insurance covers losses from data breaches and cyber-attacks, while General Liability and Business Interruption Insurance addresses operational disruptions and third-party claims. Environmental Liability Insurance covers pollution-related liabilities, especially in regulated industries.

Companies integrate risk management and compliance frameworks to ensure transparent reporting, disclosing incidents early to avoid coverage disputes. Some companies also engage insurers in crisis planning, with insurers offering risk assessment services. Large corporations often negotiate tailored policies to cover sector-specific risks, ensuring alignment with crisis response strategies.

Companies measure reputational damage using both qualitative and quantitative indicators, usually provided by external experts. These include media sentiment analysis, monitoring press, social media, and online discussions to gauge public perception, and stakeholder surveys and feedback to assess confidence levels among employees, customers, and investors. Financial performance and market reaction are tracked through share price fluctuations, investor sentiment, and revenue impact, while regulatory and compliance implications are considered by evaluating whether the crisis has led to regulatory scrutiny or legal actions.

To rebuild reputation post-crisis and ensure business continuity, companies typically take the following steps.

• Strengthening governance and compliance through enhanced measures, internal audits, and ethics programmes.
• Engaging with stakeholders to rebuild relationships with customers, regulators, investors, and employees.
• Transparent communication, providing clear, factual messages and outlining corrective actions.
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, investing in sustainable and socially responsible programmes to demonstrate accountability.
• Independent monitoring and reporting by engaging third-party experts to validate reforms and restore credibility.

Companies are subject to various mandatory reporting requirements depending on the crisis, including financial regulations, environmental standards, and data protection laws. These include the following.

• Financial and compliance reporting – regulated entities in the financial sector must report material events to their regulation authority, notably to the ACPR. Companies may also have to make declarations to tax authorities or regarding AML/CFT regulations.
• Extra-financial reporting on ESG matters – large corporations must adhere to transparency obligations through their extra financial reporting which may include material events such as crises.
• Listed companies may have to communicate through press releases in case they are the subject matter of a crisis if it may impact the trading price of their securities.
• Environmental and safety incidents – major environmental incidents must be reported to regulatory bodies, such as environmental agencies or labour authorities.

To ensure timely and accurate reporting, companies can establish robust frameworks, including the following.

• Automated reporting systems – using tools to track obligations and deadlines.
• Crisis response protocols – defining clear reporting lines within the crisis management team.
• Internal investigations – conducting prompt reviews to ensure accuracy before disclosures.

Companies can also engage with regulators proactively to ensure transparency and smooth relationships while mitigating legal risks through structured legal and compliance oversight.

Companies co-ordinate crisis communication through structured plans that ensure consistency across all stakeholder interactions. These plans typically include:

• dedicated crisis communication teams, involving compliance officers, legal counsel, and public relations specialists;
• pre-defined protocols for internal and external messaging, aligning with regulatory and ethical standards; and
• centralised communication hubs, like a crisis response office or digital platforms, to streamline information dissemination.

Effective co-ordination with key stakeholders includes the following.

• Government authorities – engaging regulators, law enforcement, and oversight bodies to ensure compliance with legal obligations and mandatory reporting.
• Private sector partners – maintaining trust and continuity by providing proactive updates to suppliers, clients, and investors, where appropriate.
• Public and media – managing reputational impact with controlled disclosures, such as press releases and official statements.

Common triggers for crisis communication include:

• legal obligations, such as mandatory reporting of financial misconduct or data breaches, and, in case of listed companies, stock exchange regulations which force them to communicate through press releases in case they have information that may affect the trading price of theirs securities;
• operational disruptions, like supply chain failures or cybersecurity incidents; and
• reputational concerns, stemming from regulatory investigations or whistle-blower disclosures.

Crisis communication is usually overseen by the crisis committee to ensure regulatory and ethical adherence, with input from the legal and risks departments, the Board of Directors, the public relations or strategy departments.

Effective internal communication during a crisis is crucial for co-ordinated action. Companies implement structured communication protocols to prioritise rapid, controlled information flow, define crisis escalation levels, and ensure compliance with legal obligations.

Key internal stakeholders that need to be informed first include the following.

• Crisis management committee – senior executives who oversee the response.
• Legal and compliance teams – ensure all communications meet regulatory obligations and sector-specific reporting rules.
• Board of Directors and risk committees – provide strategic oversight and governance accountability.
• Operational leaders and business units – ensure business continuity while implementing crisis response measures.

To maintain confidentiality and operational control, companies use secure internal platforms (eg, encrypted systems, crisis dashboards), pre-defined reporting mechanisms (crisis hotlines), and regular briefings to ensure alignment across departments. By integrating compliance and RSE principles, companies safeguard corporate integrity, compliance with laws and mitigate reputational damage.

Companies must adopt a proactive approach to crisis communication while protecting legal and reputational interests. Effective strategies include having pre-established crisis communication plans to ensure a structured response that aligns with transparency and RSE commitments. Designated spokespersons, often from legal, operations, investors relation or corporate affairs, ensure controlled messaging. Communication should focus on accountability, corrective actions, and stakeholder engagement, avoiding speculation or legal exposure. Information is disseminated through press releases, official statements, and digital platforms for consistent, and where appropriate real-time updates.

To maintain consistency and accuracy, companies establish centralised approval processes where all statements are validated by legal and PR teams. They can use pre-determined messaging frameworks to structure responses, adapting as circumstances evolve. Internal co-ordination ensures alignment across legal, operational, and crisis management teams before external disclosures.

Key challenges include ensuring regulatory and legal compliance with disclosure obligations (such as financial markets and data protection), managing misinformation and speculation fuelled by media pressure and social media, addressing reputational risks from poorly managed communication, and ensuring timely responsiveness to avoid damaging credibility and attracting regulatory scrutiny.

Under stock exchange regulations, companies must communicate to the public transparently, timely, and in compliance with regulations when addressing crises and potential litigation. Best practices include addressing crises issues in roadshows as well as through dialogue with main investors. Regular updates through earnings calls, shareholder meetings, and investor bulletins help maintain confidence. A dedicated investor relations team ensures alignment between legal, financial, and corporate messaging, balancing transparency with the need to avoid statements that could expose the company to legal risks or volatility.

To maintain investor confidence, companies demonstrate a robust crisis management strategy through structured response plans, strong internal governance, involvement of the board and leadership accountability. They engage proactively with institutional investors via direct meetings and Q&A sessions to show commitment to transparency. Companies also reassure stakeholders by disclosing litigation risks, insurance coverage, and financial contingency plans. A strong ESG strategy further reinforces long-term investor confidence, showing resilience beyond the immediate crisis.

To maintain customer trust during a crisis, companies should aim at being transparent, proactive, and ethical. This involves promptly acknowledging the issue and communicating the initial steps taken. Clear and consistent messaging is essential to ensure all customer-facing teams provide aligned information. Where appropriate, companies can demonstrate accountability through public commitments to corrective measures, in line with CSR policies, and offer customer-centric remedies such as compensation or support. Monitoring sentiment and feedback through digital platforms and customer service channels helps address concerns promptly.

Companies use a multi-channel approach to keep customers informed, including dedicated crisis hotlines, website updates, email and SMS alerts, social media responses, and customer support teams equipped with compliance-approved scripts for consistency.

By integrating compliance, transparency, and responsible business conduct, companies can strengthen customer loyalty and protect long-term brand integrity during a crisis.

Effective internal communication during a crisis can be vital for maintaining trust with employees, ensuring business continuity and avoid leakages of rumours. Companies typically use centralised communication through official channels like memos, emails, or intranet pages. Regular updates from leadership keep employees informed, also ensuring consistency with external messaging. Two-way communication mechanisms such as virtual town halls, Q&A sessions, and anonymous feedback channels allow employees to express concerns, while role-specific information ensures alignment with the crisis response plan.

To maintain morale and productivity, companies adopt proactive support measures such as direct communication of executives with employees to reinforce stability.

Depending on the type of crisis they are facing can also provide mental health and well-being support through counselling services or stress management resources for instance. Flexible work arrangements, like remote work or adjusted schedules, accommodate employee needs, and recognising employee contributions fosters resilience and motivation, and can avoid further liability from the company and prevent leaks.

Companies are usually not legally required to establish dedicated communication channels for stakeholders affected by a crisis. However, in regulated industries like financial services, healthcare, and environmental sectors, it can be recommended. Even when not legally mandated, proactive engagement is a best practice to mitigate reputational and legal risks notably in anticipation of legal actions against the company, to demonstrate corporate responsibility, and to align with RSE principles.

Common communication channels used depend on the crisis’s nature and severity.

• Dedicated hotlines and email support for direct interaction with concerned parties.
• Company websites and crisis portals to provide real-time updates, FAQs, and official statements.
• Social media and digital platforms to manage public perception and address misinformation.
• Public statements and press releases for transparency and compliance with disclosure obligations.
• Community meetings and stakeholder briefings to engage local communities and key groups.

After a crisis, companies can conduct post-crisis reviews to evaluate their response to the crisis, identify areas for improvement, and reinforce governance mechanisms that led to the crisis. This typically involves internal audits and debriefings to assess operational, legal, and reputational impacts, gathering stakeholder feedback where appropriate (from employees, clients, regulators, and investors), and benchmarking against industry best practices and regulatory expectations. The goal is to identify weaknesses and refine crisis response protocols.

The review process involves a multidisciplinary team, including the Crisis Management Team (legal, compliance, internal audit, risk management, operations, and communications), Board of Directors & Executive Leadership for strategic oversight, internal and external auditors for compliance checks, and potentially the HR & employee representatives to assess the internal impact.

Lessons learned may be documented in reports that detail the crisis chronology and response and remediation effectiveness. Internal training sessions and workshops help teams understand key takeaways, which are then integrated into corporate policies (eg, compliance programmes, and crisis management frameworks).

After a crisis, companies conduct a structured review of their policies and procedures to align with regulatory requirements, compliance standards and RSE commitments. This includes internal audits to identify compliance gaps, risk reassessment through updated risk mapping, and stakeholder consultations (legal, compliance, and operational teams) to integrate insights, ensuring actionable updates to policies.

Policy updates can be overseen by the Board and Internal Audit and Compliance Committees for validation, legal and regulatory teams for compliance, and operational departments for practical adjustments. This ensures policies are effective and actionable.

Post-crisis updates typically focus on:

• strengthening incident reporting mechanisms;
• updating data protection and cybersecurity protocols;
• improving supply chain oversight with stronger due diligence; and
• refining crisis communication strategies to ensure transparency with regulators, investors, and the public.

For continuous improvement, companies implement regular compliance training, conduct periodic crisis simulations, and integrate updated policies into internal governance frameworks to align with international best practices and ESG commitments.

Companies measure the effectiveness of their crisis management strategies using key performance indicators (KPIs) such as response time, regulatory compliance, reputational impact, financial impact, and employee and stakeholder feedback. Internal assessments, including crisis simulations and stress tests, provide additional insights into the adaptability of the response strategy.

To benchmark crisis management practices, companies align with regulatory guidance from bodies like the AMF, ACPR, and CNIL in France, as well as ISO standards (eg, ISO 22301, ISO 31000, and ISO 37002). Sector-specific best practices can be found in industry reports from organisations like OECD and the World Economic Forum.

For continuous improvement, companies also rely on legal and regulatory updates from government agencies, industry associations (eg, MEDEF, ICC, and AFEP), and specialised media and reports from organisations such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

Monitoring these sources helps companies refine their crisis management frameworks, ensuring resilience and alignment with regulatory and industry standards.