Coffee Break Chat: Building Calm in the Crisis

Plans exist. Procedures are documented. However, in the confusion of a live event, messages are missed, roles blur, and assumptions take over. It’s in that space between intention and execution, where many organisations lose control. Emergency response doesn’t fail in theory. It fails in real time.

When plans are in place, but people don’t hear them

Some of the UK’s most high-profile emergency failures haven’t been caused by a lack of planning, but by miscommunication.

Take Storm Arwen in late 2021. Damage from high winds left over a million people without power across Scotland and northern England. Yet Ofgem’s review found that many affected households—particularly vulnerable individuals—received little or no information for days. Contact numbers failed, digital channels stalled, and confusion reigned.

“The key issue was not the lack of response, but the failure to communicate effectively and compassionately,” wrote Ofgem in its 2022 Storm Arwen review.

Or consider the 2022 fire at Chemoxy’s site in Eaglescliffe, where delays in alarm activation and unclear evacuation instructions prompted uncertainty among staff and emergency responders. 

Thankfully, no lives were lost—but such moments highlight how communication gaps, not just physical hazards, elevate the risk.

Common Pitfalls in Emergency Communication

Across industries and sectors, several patterns keep emerging—often overlooked until the moment they matter most:

• Single-channel dependence: Many organisations still rely on one form of communication—usually email or SMS. When that fails, there’s no fallback.
• Overload or silence: Teams either receive too many updates (and stop paying attention) or none at all.
• No read or acknowledgement tracking: Messages go out, but managers don’t know who has seen them, who’s responded, or who’s still at risk.
• Generic messaging: A one-size-fits-all update might inform, but it rarely drives action. Field teams, HR, IT and leadership often need different instructions.

In short, when a crisis hits, the burden of coordination shifts from systems to individuals. And that’s when errors multiply.

Why This Isn’t Just a Tech Problem

It’s easy to assume better software will fix the issue, but the deeper problem is cultural. Many organisations still treat emergency communication as a compliance formality, not a leadership responsibility.

Who has the authority to send alerts? How often is the system tested? Are staff trained to respond to notifications, or are they likely to dismiss them as spam?

Without embedding communication discipline into the safety culture, even the best tools won’t deliver.

What Better Looks Like

Organisations that respond effectively to incidents tend to have four things in common:

1. Role-based messaging: Different roles receive targeted information, not blanket updates. For instance, a facilities manager receives action steps, while HR receives contact instructions.
2. Multi-channel delivery: Messages go out across multiple platforms—email, app notifications, SMS and even automated calls—ensuring reach despite outages.
3. Two-way capability: Workers can respond, share location, raise alerts, or confirm safety status—all in one place.
4. Real-time dashboards: Safety leads can see at a glance who is safe, who is at risk, and what actions have been taken.

These capabilities underpin Locate Global’s incident communication features, giving organisations the speed, clarity and traceability they need when seconds count.

Why Communication Is the Safety Strategy

Crisis communication is no longer a support function—it is the frontline. When things go wrong, it’s how you communicate that determines whether people feel calm or confused, safe or abandoned.

We live in a world where reputational, operational and legal risks move faster than ever. “We tried our best” is no longer a defensible position, and planning alone isn’t enough. Visibility, responsiveness and accountability must now sit at the heart of every safety strategy.