Restructuring: Renault law creates challenging crisis communication process

In that context, it is enormously frustrating for a company: the Renault Act requires an information and consultation phase in which employees and unions have the opportunity to ask questions and formulate proposals (e.g., to avoid a major round of layoffs). During this period, companies must be careful to always communicate in a conditional manner: it is still an "intention to. Moreover, the legislator has not provided a time limit.

The information and consultation phase is followed by the so-called black-out period. Usually these are 30 days, with a maximum of 2 years. Also in this phase, the company can only talk about intentions and must communicate in general terms about the impact of the intended restructuring. For employees, a long period of uncertainty. They want to know what their fate is, but they get no answer. And that, of course, can cause a lot of tension.

All this makes crisis communication during this whole period particularly fragile.

Empathy (understanding what is happening to your employees) and trust ('we are sure they have tried everything to avoid this scenario') versus economics ('we have no other choice because...'). Everyone will understand that economic story, but when it's delivered with insufficient empathy, you get labeled "cold and hard. But overly emotional communication, or putting the wrong emphasis will make you appear implausible. Find the right tone of voice.

Word to word. Your story about the need to intervene, demonstrable with numbers. The unions guaranteed to unpack that they had "warned management about this for some time," or accuse them of "spinning a wheel for years," "minimizing the problems," or "people don't count anymore, only money. By the way, do you want to have the discussion en publique? Is it advisable to go along with a yes-no narrative with unions? Absent from the debate versus (too much) going along with the polarization? Either way, think carefully, case by case, about the potential impact on your reputation.

Unions have a bigger playing field than corporate management. They can speak freely about the plans proposed to them during social consultation, and it is difficult - sometimes out of the question - for the company to respond formally. So always ask yourself honestly: who is sitting opposite me, can I trust him or her 200%, or is there a risk that everything I say here will be leaked? And make no mistake: in times of restructuring, the most sympathetic union representative can suddenly turn into a wolf in sheep's clothing. Although a good relationship with your unions, in a climate of dialogue and trust, can obviously also be an asset.

What you tell the outside world, you should always tell internally first: employees should get news from you first and not from some news website. The Renault Act already takes that idea and clearly prescribes that the intention to reorganize the company must first be communicated to the employees. Often there is then a special works council at the same time. Anyway, make sure that the news is announced by management before the unions start their communications - a matter of thorough preparation and planning.