Few Indonesian-based companies and local brands are in hot water and their damage control may not be sufficient

Congratulations you've made a donation as crisis mitigation but your product may be "haram"(official statement from the Indonesian Islamic Council - MUI). The latest official urge from MUI can further compel Indonesians to steer away from buying and consuming products that even have the slightest implication towards Israel and its aggression. Goes to show that in this part of the world, as long as the issue has not been resolved, brands that previously were in the middle of the Israel - Hamas controversy are putting bandages over gaping wounds. Their damage control and crisis communication efforts are getting the cold shoulder treatment, their customers simply do not trust them.

Companies try to move on after narrative framing, but issues persist under the surface

One could argue that the news cycle will eventually surpass the issue and social media posts will bury the topic, however when the issue significantly resonates with how people identify themselves it will not be easily forgotten. When the issue is bigger than you (the owner), your brand (product & and service), and your whole company, it's a perpetual issue that a one-time donation will not restore your image. These companies desperately wish the controversy would blow over as they want to believe a few reactive donations will let them check the box and move on, returning to business as usual.

The impact of controversies lingers

A company's reputation and public perception take time to build but can be damaged quickly by a one-time but high-profile controversy or scandal. Even if public attention fades once the news cycle moves on, the negative associations created by the controversy linger in people's minds. There can be a lasting stain or cloud over the brand's image, especially if the company is perceived to have acted unethically, hypocritically, or recklessly. People don't easily forget transgressions and may change their opinions of a brand for good based on its handling of crises. The reputational damage endures in the form of eroded trust, loss of benefit of the doubt, and lack of confidence in the brand's reliability. These companies need to understand that it will take a long time for companies to rebuild goodwill and positive brand perception through consistent ethical behavior.

Substantive change versus superficial responses

While donations provide temporary urgent relief, the conditions and systems that fueled the conflict remain untouched without resolution of root causes. Therefore, companies contributing to these systems through their business relationships maintain complicity, regardless of any donated "bandaid" funds after the fact.

The companies that held the customers' trust for years stood complicit, then papered over the problem with hollow philanthropy. They cannot unsee this gap between the brands’ platitudes and their true priorities. Principles matter most when it is inconvenient to stand by them. And when unresolved issues inevitably flare up again, these companies are at the center of renewed criticism and activism.

So when they are seen to publicly endorse or enable actions that violate their customers' stated values, it cuts deep. Consumers assumed such hypocrisy might occur behind closed doors, but now the curtain has been drawn back. The companies failed to realize that no amount of damage control could completely scrub the taint of complicity. Consumers recognize these efforts as hollow and self-serving if tied to companies that are also profiting from the status quo of oppression that caused such suffering. Because when principles are compromised for the sake of convenience and profits, trust erodes.

Fails to address roots of consumer concerns long-term

Rather than making substantive reforms or addressing the roots of public criticism, these damage control donations appear performative - intended to subdue backlash without impacting business interests or relationships that exacerbated the conflict in the first place. Companies should have consistent processes for stakeholder engagement and ethical business alignment audits, and make corporate social responsibility an ingrained priority. True brand values alignment means a willingness to have difficult internal conversations, review political ties, and make bold moves if needed.

Customers now expect brands to stand for more than just profits - they evaluate social and political stances. Silence or avoidance of major issues is noticed. Vague pledges or minimal donations may temporarily quiet criticism, but they ring hollow if the brand hasn't established a consistent track record on the social issue. Until brands are willing to have uncomfortable internal dialogues, question standard business practices, and take risks on issues they supposedly care about, suspicion will remain.

The long road toward restoring reputation, image restoration, and consumers' trust

Companies can't essentially say "Trust us, we're good now" after years of perceived indifference without undertaking real reform. Cheap signaling won't cut it when core principles are at stake. Walking the talk is the only path to rebuilding trust. Bridging this credibility gap requires transparency on past missteps, substantive commitments even at some business cost, and willingness to engage rather than deflect rising concerns.

How to think about crisis communication and stakeholder sentiment during brand controversy:

• Knee-jerk reactions or one-off efforts when under pressure may temporarily quiet critics, but skepticism will return without sustained commitment
• Performative gestures like donations or celebrity PSAs without operational changes undermine trust by revealing ulterior motives
• True trust-building requires sticking to virtuous actions even when public attention fades - "doing the right thing, long after doing the easy thing"
• Consistent transparency, such as regularly reporting on ethical audits or supply chain reforms, maintains engagement versus going silent after the headlines fade
• Making substantial investments in programs aligned with stated values, even if costly, signals an authentic commitment beyond shallow signaling
• Admitting past missteps and blindspots demonstrates genuine reflection rather than denial and deflection when challenged
• Listening to stakeholder concerns and incorporating that input into business practices shows responsiveness versus insularity
• Leadership consistency even amid changes in public sentiment proves devotion to ethics and people over profits.