In fragile and conflict-affected environments, how companies and organisations communicate, and when they choose not to communicate, often shapes trust, stakeholder relationships, and, in contexts of active conflict, whether violence erupts or escalates.
We recently asked Dr. Vefa Veisalova-Nyheim, INCAS - International Conflict and Security Consulting Ltd. Strategic Communications Practice Lead, about some of the most common communications challenges organisations face when operating in sensitive environments.
Q: What is the biggest mistakes clients make on communications in fragile and conflict-affected environments?
One of the biggest errors is to view communications as a secondary function, something nice to have and that can be brought in later once operational, legal, or technical decisions have already been made. In reality, by the time clients start thinking seriously about communications, the narrative has already settled. Stakeholders will have formed their conclusions. Rumours, reinforced by dominant narratives abound. Communications is also too often viewed narrowly as reputation management or as a tool for influencing perception. But in fragile environments, communication plays a much broader role. It helps establish credibility, manage expectations, maintain dialogue, and build trust over time.
Q: What happens when organisations communicate too late?
Silence has its purpose, but rarely remains neutral for long. Where there is limited information, people fill the gaps themselves. Communities begin interpreting silence through existing frustrations or previous experiences of broken promises. And once the mistrust hardens, it becomes significantly harder to rebuild relationships. In practice, delayed or reactive communication can contribute to escalating grievances, project delays, reputational damage, loss of social licence, and public conflict that may have been preventable earlier on. Very often, by the time conflict becomes visible publicly, trust has already been deteriorating quietly for a long time.
Q: Why are organisations often hesitant to communicate?
There are many reasons. Legal constraints. Fear of saying the wrong thing. Political sensitivities. Internal approval processes. In some cases, organisations simply do not fully understand local communication dynamics or how communities exchange information and form perceptions. There can also be a tendency to see communications tactically rather than relationally. I remember one executive once saying during a discussion about a stakeholder engagement approach that “there are many ways to skin a rabbit.” The comment reflects a common mindset that understands communication as manoeuvring rather than trust-building.
Q: What does effective communication look like in practice?
The organisations that tend to navigate fragile environments most effectively are the ones that engage early and closely with their key stakeholders, communicate consistently, listen carefully, and are there to talk even when conversations become uncomfortable. That means keeping a finger on the pulse of local concerns, understanding how trust is evolving, and recognising that engagement is relational rather than procedural.
Communication must also be followed by action. One colleague once shared a story about a community frustrated after years of promises with little visible action. Community members eventually told company representatives to “bring light or never return.” What they were really expressing was simple: all talk and no action eventually leads to a loss of legitimacy.
Q: What is the broader lesson?
Communication is key for trust-building. But trust is not built through occasional press releases or reactive engagement campaigns. It is built through continued presence, consistency, listening, and follow-through. In fragile and conflict-affected environments especially, communication cannot be separated from stakeholder engagement, mediation, social investment, and relationship-building processes.