FTI survey finds most crisis plans go untested until risk escalates
FTI's survey finds a large gap between written crisis plans and continuous readiness, with implications for PR and legal escalation.
FTI Consulting has put a number on a persistent problem for corporate communications teams: many organizations maintain written crisis plans but fewer demonstrate that those plans can identify and contain risks before they escalate. Its newly released global general counsel survey says only 17% of organizations represented in the sample have a proactive approach that is tested continuously.
The October 28 report, produced independently by Economist Enterprise and sponsored by FTI, surveyed 1,100 primary legal decision-makers across North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific. The distinction matters. It measures the views of senior legal respondents, rather than every business or corporate communications leader.
Table of contents
Jump to each section:
- Written crisis plans are common
- Early warning remains a difficult organizational task
- What the figures mean for communications teams
- Readiness needs a test, not just a document
Written crisis plans are common
Nearly 70% of responding organizations reported a written plan, but only 17% described an approach that identifies emerging risks proactively and is tested on a continuing basis, according to the company's survey announcement. It is a telling operational gap: a document can set out responsibilities without proving that the right people receive a warning, understand its implications and make decisions quickly.
17% of organizations represented in FTI's survey reported a proactive, continuously tested method for detecting and handling emerging risks, according to the October 2026 research announcement.
The results do not establish that the other organizations have no crisis capability. They suggest that maintaining a plan and rehearsing a working response are distinct disciplines. For a regional organization, a test also has to account for local teams, reporting lines, regulators and the speed at which reputational problems can cross borders.
The study is called Steady Advisers for an Unsteady Age: Realising the Full Potential of the General Counsel in a Polycrisis. The official report page positions general counsel at the intersection of legal, operational and reputation risks. That is also where communications decisions often become difficult: messages can move faster than internal fact-finding.
Early warning remains a difficult organizational task
More than four in five surveyed organizations said they engaged outside crisis support only after a risk had escalated. That timing can narrow the room available for a communications team to establish the facts, coordinate with legal advisers and prepare credible responses before media or stakeholder attention peaks.
The research also suggests a difference in how proactive organizations use technology. Across the overall sample, 46% reported using AI-enabled monitoring of external signals; among respondents whose organizations reported a proactive crisis-management approach, the proportion was 61%.
61% versus 46% is the reported use of AI-enabled external monitoring among proactive organizations and the overall survey sample, respectively, according to FTI Consulting. This is an association, not evidence that the tools caused better crisis outcomes.
AI monitoring can extend the range of issues a team watches. It cannot by itself decide whether a social complaint, consumer safety concern or regulatory inquiry is significant. The information still needs context from operations, customer support, regulatory affairs and the people who own the decisions.
FTI chairman and chief executive Steven H. Gunby described the coordination problem this way: “The successful management of crises rarely sits neatly within one part of a company or one jurisdiction.” The observation is relevant to communications managers dealing with a situation in which different teams see different pieces of the same risk.
What the figures mean for communications teams
First, escalation protocols should specify who recognizes an early signal and who can assemble an incident team. A plan that names a press spokesperson but does not establish when legal and operations should be involved is an incomplete response system.
Second, teams should separate detection from judgment. A dashboard can show more alerts, but it does not determine what evidence is reliable or whether a statement is ready for publication. Monitoring quality should be measured by useful escalation and decision speed, rather than the total volume of alerts alone.
Third, external specialist relationships matter before the crisis. An agency, legal adviser or independent investigator is harder to integrate while facts are disputed and executives are under pressure. The survey's late-engagement finding is a reason to test those relationships during routine exercises, not evidence that every company should outsource its response.
Independent legal-industry coverage by Lexpert likewise emphasizes the gap between crisis plans and timely action. For communications leaders, the practical question is whether a warning can move from one function to the people empowered to act.
Readiness needs a test, not just a document
A useful exercise does not require a dramatic, invented crisis. Teams can take an ordinary customer complaint or regulator inquiry and test the sequence: who confirms the facts, who tracks what is publicly known, who advises executives, who drafts the holding statement and who approves the final response.
That exercise can expose gaps that are easy to miss in a policy document: outdated contact lists, unclear time-zone coverage, overlapping sign-off authority or assumptions about what an agency or lawyer has been asked to monitor.
FTI also reported that only 27% of respondents said crisis preparation spending was protected when budgets were under pressure. For communications leaders, that makes narrow, repeatable simulations and documented escalation roles more useful than a large plan that is never rehearsed.
The central lesson of the survey is operational rather than technological. Continuous monitoring may surface a weak signal sooner, but organizations still need people, authority and coordinated decision-making to turn that signal into a credible response.
