Crisis communications: Role of centres of government and ministries of health
Public communication is a critical government function that enables coherent messaging both within the administration and externally, and serves as a key tool for effective policy design and implementation. Public communication also allows governments to listen to and understand their citizens. It is key to supporting the open government principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation, ultimately serving to enhance good governance and build citizen trust.
Effective communication during a crisis is essential to the timely and beneficial dissemination of critical information to the public. Governments undertake crisis communication in response to unexpected events that could negatively affect their reputation or endanger citizens. It takes diverse forms, including media briefings, press releases and conferences as well as information campaigns about the facts and measures taken, and explaining the government’s crisis response to citizens. In the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, communication from centres of government (CoGs) and ministries of health (MHs) played a key role in fostering knowledge of and compliance with measures adopted to ensure people’s health and safety.
In 2019, 18 out of 27 CoGs in OECD countries (67%) had defined crisis communication procedures, as did 13 out of 17 MHs (76%) (Figure 4.5). CoGs’ specific manuals or procedures include crisis communication frameworks (e.g. the United Kingdom’s emergency planning framework), dedicated factsheets (the Netherlands), or sections on communication in wider crisis response plans (France) and frameworks (Australia and Belgium), acts (Switzerland and Luxembourg) and policies (Canada). In countries with no specific written criteria, some rely on adapting existing procedures to the nature of the incident, as in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Mexico. In Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Germany, it is a shared responsibility between national and sub-national governments and is often – though not always – guided by CoG protocols or procedures.
Public communicators consider crisis communication one of their three most challenging competences in 15 out 27 CoGs (56%) and 9 out of 18 MHs (50%) in OECD countries (Figure 4.6). Co-ordination and human resources are the key challenges to implementing crisis communications: 12 CoGs and 6 MHs cited co-ordination as a reason why communicating during a crisis is demanding, 11 CoGs and 4 MHs cited human resources, and 10 CoGs and 3 MHs a combination of both (Figure 4.7).
Data were collected from centres of government in 27 OECD countries, plus Brazil, Costa Rica and Romania, and from ministries of health in 18 OECD countries, plus Romania, through the OECD 2020 survey on Understanding Public Communication in Centres of Government, which covered the year 2019. The responses of four CoGs (Belgium, Estonia, Korea and Poland) and two MHs (Greece and Ireland) also included COVID-19 related measures adopted in 2020. Respondents were senior officials in charge of communication at the centre of government, i.e. the bodies that provide direct support and advice to heads of government and councils of ministers, and in ministries of health.
Public communication is understood as any communication activity led by public institutions for the public good. It is distinct from political communication, which refers to political parties, debates or elections.
A crisis is a threat to operations or reputations that can have negative consequences if not handled properly. Crises can create three related threats: to public safety, financial loss and reputation loss. Crisis communications are undertaken by governments with the public and stakeholders when an unexpected event occurs.
Further reading
OECD (2020), “Transparency, communication and trust: The role of public communication in responding to the wave of disinformation about the new Coronavirus”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bef7ad6e-en.
OECD (2020), “Building resilience to the Covid-19 pandemic: The role of centres of government”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/883d2961-en.
OECD (2016), Trends in Risk Communication Policies and Practices, OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264260467-en.
Figure notes
Finland, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain provided data for MHs but not CoGs. Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom provided data for CoGs but not MHs.
4.5. Data for Lithuania’s Ministry of Health are not available. The outer ring shows the data for CoGs, and the inner ring the data for MHs.
4.6. The three alternatives presented are the top recurring challenges selected by respondents from 27 CoGs and 18 MHs out of all the options provided.
4.7. Data refer to the 15 CoGs and 8 MHs that indicated crisis communication is a challenge in 4.6. and chose human resources and/or co-ordination as the reason. Greece’s MH did not answer.
Source: OECD (2020), Survey on Understanding Public Communication in Centres of Government.
Source: OECD (2020), Survey on Understanding Public Communication in Centres of Government.
Source: OECD (2020), Survey on Understanding Public Communication in Centres of Government.