Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has led to over three million Ukrainian refugees fleeing their home country in search of safety and security. The majority of refugees fled with only a suitcase to their name, with many refugees carrying children for unimaginable durations as they frantically hoped and prayed they would be allowed to enter safe ground.

At the same time, following the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, many women and children fled the country not knowing whether they would see their loved ones again. The scale of this atrocity is unimaginable to many of us, and yet it provides an important reminder that the post-World War scars across Europe can still be opened and allowed to bleed once again.

The social and humanitarian risk facing millions of Ukrainian refugees underscores the changing yet rising nature of social risks across western nations. 

There are many definitions of social risk, but it can broadly defined as: the risk of a party (a company or individual person) suffering reproach from segments of society due to transacting or associating with another party that is perceived by society to have objectionable biases or incompatible views.“

In a recent blog on the topic of social risk, I argued that as social movements evolve and gain critical mass within and beyond national borders, the effect on the political systems of affected localities, countries and regions can be profound and as rapid as the progress of the social movement itself. When this happens, particularly globally, what was initially a local social movement with local social risk can now become a geopolitical event.

This is the case in the context of the mass migration of refugees from Ukraine to other western nations. The ideology and aspirations of a single man – Vladimir Putin – has unearthed a movement that has morphed into a catastrophic geopolitical risk event leading to over three million people moving west in a matter of days. The scale of this social movement has challenged the preparedness and ability of western nations, particularly the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK), to proactively address rapidly escalating social risks threatening millions of innocent people.

And as the true scale of the social risk continues to unfold, with war between Russia and Ukraine continuing to rage and millions of Ukrainian refugees expected to lose loved ones, their homes, and livelihoods, the values and reputation of the EU and UK as forces of social justice and wellbeing will be tested to levels not seen since the Second World War.

Managing reputation at a time of crisis

In times of crises, identities are truly tested. The reputation of an entity, whether a person, firm, or nation, is not determined by the entity itself, but by the perceptions of stakeholders, many of whom may be impacted by or feel a sense of belonging to the crisis. Stakeholders will use the identity of an entity to draw comparisons against their experience. Stakeholder comparisons between identity and perception is what defines reputation. This is especially true in the case of the EU and UK response to the mass migration of three million Ukrainian refugees.

The EU has defined its identity in a set of aims and values, which include human dignity, freedom, equality, and human rights. In the context of the unfolding social crisis facing millions of Ukrainian refugees, one could argue this identity is broadly reflected in the EU’s decision to give immediate protections and rights to Ukrainian refugees, such as access to temporary accommodation and the right to live, travel, work, and access social benefits. The EU’s decisive response to the rapidly unfolding social crisis could be perceived as a demonstration of the EU’s international aim of advancing the “…solidarity and mutual respect among peoples”.

Whether or not the EU benefits reputationally from its response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis will be determined in time. Undoubtedly, however, the clarity of the EU’s aims and values has influenced the way EU nations have come together and unilaterally acted to mitigate the sheer scale of social risk presented to millions of innocent Ukrainian people as they search for safety.

By comparison, at the time of writing this blog, the UK government is yet to publish detailed procedures regarding the manner in which it intends to support Ukrainian refugees. The UK government has experienced escalating internal and external pressure, such as from members of the UK public to representatives of large organisations and international politicians, to provide more accessible and simplified channels for Ukrainian refugees to seek refuge in the UK. To date, the UK government has granted ~5K visas to Ukrainian refugees.   

Reasons believed to have contributed to the UK government’s delayed response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis will be determined by people within and outside the UK based on their own perceptions and beliefs. However, consistent with the EU example above, the public will determine whether the UK government has lived up to British values in their judgement of the UK government’s refugee assistance so far.

UK values are summarised by four leading principles: (i) democracy; (ii) the rule of law; (iii) individual liberty; and (iv) mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The value of individual liberty is defined by the UK government as “Protection of your rights and the rights of others around you.” This value is most intricately linked to the nature of the Ukrainian refugee crisis although it is susceptible to confusion as to whether the scope and objective of this value is inward – or outward-looking (e.g., applicable to people beyond the UK’s borders).

This could imply that the narrow and inward-looking definition of UK national values may have complicated the government’s ability to recognise, and subsequently assist in  mitigating, the social risks presented to millions of Ukrainian refugees.

This is not to excuse the UK government’s response, but to demonstrate the importance of clearly defined and communicated values as a mechanism to setting the tone of an entities identity. In times of crisis, the articulation of an entity’s identity is paramount as stakeholders establish perception of the identity, in the entity’s response to and recovery from the crisis. 

There are lessons for business leaders and risk management professionals to take from the EU and UK government’s preparedness for and response to the Ukraine refugee crisis, with an unparalleled emphasis on the interconnectivity between social and reputational risk.  

We have work to do

The scale and severity of social risk facing Ukrainian refugees will rigorously test the identities of nations across Europe.

It is of immediate importance the UK government, like its EU partners, does everything practically possible to help reduce the scale of social harm caused to Ukrainian refugees, including the efficient implementation of the recently announced Homes for Ukraine scheme.

As the crisis abates, the UK government – with the support of the UK public – must evaluate whether UK values in their current form truly represent the desired identity of an independent Britain, and whether stakeholder perceptions of the UK represent the reputation we want to have. As the saying goes, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and only a moment to destroy it.

We have work to do.

It’s time to act to support Ukrainian refugees.

This letter was sent to John Howell, Member of Parliament for Henley, requesting greater urgency behind the UK governments efforts to open UK homes to Ukrainian refugees.