This month has shown how an issue that initially appears to be purely technical — mobile phone batteries overheating and, in some cases, catching fire — can rapidly escalate into a full-scale reputational crisis for a global brand. International headlines and social media have amplified each incident, often filling information gaps with speculation. For any organisation involved in the development and commercialisation of technological products, this episode offers a clear lesson in how operational risk, communication and public trust intersect.
First and foremost, the manufacturer’s immediate response — recalling devices, alerting distributors and launching an internal assessment process — is essential to reduce physical and legal risks. However, credibility cannot be restored through technical measures alone. Transparency, consistency and speed of communication are decisive. When information is incomplete or contradictory, audiences and media outlets tend to fill the void with conjecture, accelerating the erosion of corporate trust far more quickly than any subsequent marketing effort can repair it.
Equally critical is allowing room for independent audits and open engagement with regulators and safety authorities. Public perception places significant value on measures that can be verified by third parties, as well as on the existence of a clear framework for customer support and compensation. At the same time, supply chains and quality-control processes must be thoroughly reviewed. Crises of this nature rarely stem from isolated failures; they usually reveal systemic weaknesses that require structural solutions rather than short-term fixes.
Finally, organisations must consider the long-term dimension. Rebuilding reputation depends on accountability, demonstrable improvements and a cultural shift that places safety and quality at the centre of decision-making. In the short term, the priority is to protect users and contain damage. Over the medium and long term, trust can only be restored through objective evidence, honest communication and a visible commitment to operational excellence.
For the companies and institutions we advise, this case reinforces a principle we have long emphasized: reputation is a fragile yet strategic asset. Prevention — through robust quality controls, crisis preparedness and clear communication protocols — is invariably more effective, and less costly, than managing the consequences of a crisis once it has already unfolded.