By Paola Iuspa-Abbott, President of Top of Mind Public Relations
When a company built on trust suddenly finds itself under scrutiny, the issue isn’t just legal. It’s reputational.
That’s the position Lululemon is navigating as questions around PFAS put a spotlight on a brand long associated with wellbeing. The facts are still unfolding. They may ultimately work in the company’s favor.
But situations like this tend to follow a familiar pattern. The investigation moves at one pace. The narrative moves faster.
And once the narrative takes shape, it’s difficult to reverse.
This is where many companies get stuck. Say too much, and it can create legal exposure. Say too little, and the story gets written without you. Most organizations don’t struggle because they lack information. They struggle because they don’t have a clear crisis communications strategy for moments like this.
When the Narrative Moves Faster Than the Facts
In any crisis communications strategy, the challenge isn’t just accuracy. It’s timing.
The public doesn’t wait for a full set of facts before forming opinions. Media coverage, social platforms, and third-party commentary begin filling in the gaps almost immediately. By the time an investigation reaches a conclusion, the market has often already decided what it believes.
That doesn’t mean companies should rush to speak. It means they need to understand the role communication plays alongside legal strategy.
The most effective responses are grounded in a simple principle: say what is known, avoid speculation, and make sure every word can hold up over time. That level of discipline is what separates companies that maintain trust from those that spend years trying to rebuild it.
Where Most Crisis Responses Break Down
The biggest mistake companies make during a regulatory investigation is treating legal and communications as separate workstreams. They aren’t.
Every public statement becomes part of the broader record. It can be referenced in media coverage, scrutinized by regulators, and revisited long after the issue itself has passed. At the same time, a response that is technically accurate but emotionally disconnected can create its own kind of damage.
The balance is controlled transparency. That means communicating clearly without overreaching, staying aligned with legal counsel, and resisting the pressure to fill in gaps that haven’t yet been resolved. Companies that navigate this well don’t say more. They say only what they can stand behind.
The Role of Leadership When Stakes Are High
A spokesperson statement can carry a company through the first news cycle. After that, expectations change.
When the core identity of a brand is being questioned, people look to leadership. A CEO or founder stepping forward signals accountability in a way that no corporate statement can replicate. It tells customers, investors, and the public that the issue matters at the highest level of the organization.
That doesn’t mean being more expansive. It means being more intentional.
The most effective leadership messages acknowledge the issue directly, reinforce the company’s values, and make clear that there is a process underway. They avoid speculation. They avoid absolutes. And they leave room for facts to emerge without creating contradictions later.
In high-stakes moments, credibility is built less on volume and more on restraint.
Why Silence Doesn’t Protect Your Brand
It’s understandable that companies hesitate to speak during an investigation. Anything put into the public domain can be indexed, shared, and resurfaced long after the situation has been resolved.
But silence doesn’t prevent a digital footprint. It just means that footprint is created by others.
Media coverage, legal analysis, and online commentary will define the narrative if the company doesn’t. By the time an organization chooses to engage, the story is often already framed.
The more effective approach is to control the record.
That usually means issuing one clear, tightly written, legally vetted statement and establishing it as the single source of truth. From there, communication becomes more measured. Social channels point back to that statement rather than expanding beyond it. The goal is not to dominate the conversation, but to anchor it.
Beyond “We’re Cooperating”
Most companies default to a familiar line: “We are cooperating with the investigation.”
It’s expected. It’s necessary. But it doesn’t move perception.
What builds trust is showing how seriously the issue is being taken beyond what is required. That might involve reviewing internal processes, engaging third-party experts, or committing to share updates at appropriate milestones.
There’s a meaningful distinction between responding to a situation and taking ownership of it.
The companies that emerge stronger are the ones that demonstrate action, not just compliance.
A Local Issue Can Become a Global Narrative Overnight
One of the defining characteristics of modern crisis communications is speed.
What begins as a local or regional issue can quickly expand across markets, platforms, and audiences. In the case of Lululemon, the conversation extended internationally within days, reaching key global markets.
That level of amplification is no longer unusual. Any crisis communications strategy today has to account for the reality that messages won’t stay contained. They will travel across geographies, languages, and digital ecosystems, often without context.
Planning for that from the outset is no longer optional. It’s part of the baseline.
When Brand Promises Are Put to the Test
There’s a deeper issue that situations like this bring into focus.
Many brands today are built on trust-based positioning. Words like “clean,” “non-toxic,” and “sustainable” carry weight with consumers. But they also carry risk.
Regulators can test those claims. Legal challenges can scrutinize them. And a more informed public can question them in real time.
The real exposure often lies in the gap between what a company says and what it can prove. That gap is where reputational risk lives.
For companies that rely on trust as a differentiator, this isn’t just a communications issue. It’s a structural one.
Staying Present Without Overexposing the Business
One of the more difficult aspects of managing communications during an investigation is knowing how often to speak.
Disappear, and it creates uncertainty. Over-communicate, and it increases risk.
The balance is consistency.
A company doesn’t need to issue constant updates. But it does need to maintain a steady presence that signals awareness, accountability, and control. Even a simple, consistent message that updates will be shared as appropriate can help maintain credibility during a prolonged process. The goal is not to dominate the conversation. It’s to avoid losing control of it.
The Bottom Line
A regulatory investigation doesn’t just test a company’s legal position. It tests its ability to communicate under pressure.
In today’s environment, organizations don’t control whether a narrative exists. They control whether their voice is part of it, and whether that voice holds up over time.
A well-structured crisis communications strategy allows companies to respond with clarity, align with legal realities, and protect the trust they’ve built with their customers.
Because when a brand is built on a promise, every response has to be able to defend it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a crisis communications strategy?
A crisis communications strategy is a structured approach to managing public messaging during high-risk situations such as investigations, legal issues, or reputational threats. It ensures communication is accurate, timely, and aligned with legal guidance.
What should a company say during an investigation?
A company should communicate only verified facts, avoid speculation, align closely with legal counsel, and provide a clear, consistent source of truth for stakeholders and the media.
Why is silence risky during a crisis?
Silence allows media coverage and public commentary to define the narrative. Without a company’s input, the digital footprint is shaped entirely by third parties.
How do PR and legal teams work together in a crisis?
PR and legal teams must collaborate from the beginning to ensure messaging protects the company legally while maintaining credibility with the public.
About the Author
Paola Iuspa-Abbott is the founder and president of Top of Mind Public Relations, a national PR agency specializing in strategic media relations, thought leadership, and digital visibility. A former journalist with more than a decade of experience in major newsrooms, she brings a newsroom mindset to public relations, helping clients earn meaningful press coverage and build authority across both traditional and digital platforms.
Since launching Top of Mind PR in 2015, Paola has led campaigns for law firms, real estate developers, nonprofits, and national brands, with a focus on securing high-impact media placements, optimizing content for search engines, and staying ahead of how AI and algorithms shape visibility today. Based in South Florida, Top of Mind has offices in Washington D.C., Albuquerque, and Philadelphia.
