In recent years, crises have once again become omnipresent: Not only the COVID-19 pandemic, but also extreme weather events such as heavy rain and flooding or health risks such as the
EHECshort forenterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli crisis have confronteded political decision-makers with enormous challenges. These include both crisis management itself and thus adequate health protection, as well as crisis communication that ensures that people are informed in such a way that they can take action independently. In federally organised political systems such as the Federal Republic of Germany, local authorities, state governments and the federal government perform different tasks. Responsibilities are distributed across various levels. Appropriate crisis management and crisis communication therefore require responsible stakeholders to coordinate, cooperate and collaborate.Based on the experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and heavy rainfall events in recent years, the state parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia has set up the Enquete Commission ‘Crisis and Emergency Management – Shaping the Future Safely with the Lessons of the Past’. Its aim is to analyse the crisis reactions of those involved, evaluate crisis communication and identify any shortcomings in this regard. Based on this, recommendations for action are to be derived from the evidence provided by empirical research.The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (
BfRshort forGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) was commissioned by the Enquete Commission to draw up a report evaluating the communication, coordination, cooperation and collaboration of various stakeholders in crises. The central interest of this report is, firstly, to identify evidence-based communicative, process-oriented and inter-organisational challenges as well as existing deficits, from which, secondly, recommendations for action can be derived. Based on a systematic literature analysis (scoping review) of 223 scientific articles on three selected crisis events – COVID-19, severe weather or flood events and foodborne disease outbreaks – the collected data was specifically compiled for policy advice. This synthesis enables policy options and research gaps to be identified.
Key findingsThe studies in the sample of the scoping review most frequently deal with the impact of risk and crisis communication, followed by contributions on communication, cooperation and collaboration between organisations and on information needs and information behaviour in crises. A total of 353 deficits and challenges and 481 recommendations for action were identified, relating to (1) external factors, the legal framework, technical factors and crisis prevention, (2) intra- and inter-organisational factors and (3) external (target group-oriented) communication and deficits from the recipients’ perspective. In most cases, the recommendations for action directly reflect the reported challenges and deficits.The results of the scoping review show that some recommendations for action are already very well supported by empirical findings, but that there are also shortcomings and challenges for which there are different approaches to solutions. Firstly, it should be noted that recommendations for action in scientific articles are often formulated in rather general terms and that the actors responsible for their implementation are rarely named. Secondly, the results sometimes refer to conflicting perspectives, thus giving decision-makers room for interpretation and options to act. Various recommendations for action on crisis prevention and (communicative) action during and after a crisis must therefore be weighed up by political decision-makers and decisions made. One example of this is the communication of scientific uncertainty: while some studies encourage communicating this in the sense of transparent risk and crisis communication, others point to the associated possibility of creating uncertainty among the population.(1) External factors such as incomplete data and rapidly changing information require the use of suitable monitoring tools in order to continuously record the relevant information. For crisis prevention, the systematic tracking of experiences from crises and their regular refreshing in crisis drills are emphasised as central. The legal framework should be designed in such a way that general regulations are in place, but sufficient leeway remains to allow for flexible action at various political levels, from local to federal. (2)A shortage of human and material resources has been identified in ministries, authorities, and health organizations. Sufficiently qualified personnel must be available in appropriate numbers and responsibilities must be clearly defined in order to ensure intra- and inter-organisational communication, coordination, coordination and collaboration as well as effective crisis prevention and adequate crisis management. This also requires the use of digital communication tools such as platforms that enable the efficient exchange of data.(3) Government risk and crisis communication must aim to reach external target groups quickly, continuously and adequately – one-size-fits-all solutions are not considered effective. This requires knowledge of the information behaviour and requirements of the respective target group, which should be regularly collected through population surveys and social media monitoring, for example. Building trust through reliable communication and participation in participatory and dialogue formats is also key.
Conclusions and recommendations for practiceSome of the recommendations for action identified in the scoping review are already known: The necessary digitalisation of public administration or the lack of resources are two examples. The fact that they continue to be problematised in the included scientific articles shows that they still need to be implemented more appropriately.In preparation for crises, ministries, authorities and health security organisations should define communication channels, both for intra- and inter-organisational exchange and with the (potentially) affected population. Crisis exercises, crisis management plans and operational scenarios should be scrutinised for their specificity and communication aspects should be included. This should build on the experience gained by actors at the various federal levels. Adequate knowledge management for the transfer of experience and evaluation should be established. Digital tools should be increasingly used for early risk detection.In crises, the use of compatible software for coordination, collaboration and cooperation is recommended. For efficient crisis management, clear responsibilities must be defined in organisations in order to avoid diffusion of responsibility. The increased time pressure of a crisis should be countered by accelerated decision-making and approval processes. The formation of core teams with crisis experience can also facilitate the fluid transition between ‘normal mode’ and ‘crisis mode’. Responsibilities should be clarified between organisations and contact persons should be defined as far as possible to ensure effective cooperation. The establishment and continuous maintenance of networks can be promoted through the use of easily accessible communication tools.External crisis and risk communication should be as evidence-based as possible and tailored to different target groups. In a crisis, information must be communicated proactively and quickly via a broad repertoire of communication channels, including the use of digital offerings and the involvement of multipliers (e.g. medical professionals). It is important to avoid contradictions as far as possible or to address them explicitly. This also includes the transparent communication of scientific uncertainty.Policy makers should now use and pass on these findings and recommendations to review and adapt crisis management plans, existing resources and responsibilities and develop additional tools for future crises. Findings from evaluations should be taken into account, particularly with regard to the lack of participation of professional groups, vulnerable groups and community stakeholders. Target group-specific strategies for risk communication must be developed and implemented more effectively and serve as the basis for effective and efficient crisis management.