‘I don’t want to talk about the past’, responded the McDonald’s UK and Ireland CEO when asked in a BBC interview last week about what action was being taken to address allegations of a toxic culture.

Lauren Shultz had appeared, ostensibly, to talk about McDonald’s new apprenticeship programme. But in trying to steer the conversation onto an area she preferred to talk about, her response came across as defensive and inauthentic - quickly generating headlines of a different kind: McDonald's boss on abuse claims: ‘I don't want to talk about the past’. It became one of the most-read stories on the BBC’s app that day.

A familiar story? It’s one we’ve seen before, from BrewDog to BP.

McDonald’s has been under repeated scrutiny over workplace culture in the UK. And to be clear, it has taken significant action to address some of these issues, including introducing enhanced safeguarding measures, strengthening reporting channels for employees, and agreeing a legally binding action plan with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to improve how harassment allegations are handled across its restaurants.

But this is not simply a McDonald’s issue.

After a crisis, the instinct to draw a line is understandable. Leaders want to show that action has been taken, lessons have been learned, and the business is moving on. But in public, that instinct can backfire.

Culture is not a one-off incident that can be filed under ‘the past’. It is certainly not something you would describe that way to the victims of wrongdoing. It is something organisations are, rightly, judged on continuously, by employees, customers and the media alike. That is why, however well intentioned, attempts to move the conversation on too quickly or control the line of questioning can do more damage.

So, what are the communications lessons?

Don’t draw a line too quickly

Change should not be positioned as a one-off fix, but as an ongoing part of how the business operates. Drawing a line under the past too quickly can sound evasive; silence or refusal to engage can feel defensive. Demonstrate ongoing progress and clearly signpost it.

Audience first
Who are you really speaking to? It’s rarely just the media. In the McDonald’s case, the audience included a potential pool of apprentices. It doesn’t matter if issues have been addressed before - the audience listening now may not have heard. Customers, employees and suppliers are not looking for a polished corporate response. They want acknowledgement, signs that leadership understands the seriousness of the issue, and proof that action is not just reactive.

Actions, not adjectives
Culture should not be treated as a communications issue, and words such as ‘sincere’, ‘committed’ and ‘taking this seriously’ are weak on their own. Focus on the tangible change underway – external investigations, safeguarding policies, training changes, complaint channels – and communicate the action taken.

Trust and transparency go hand in hand
The McDonald’s example illustrates that credibility comes from engaging openly on difficult topics, not avoiding them. Trust is rebuilt through transparency - both in what has been done and in acknowledging why trust was lost in the first place.

Use owned channels effectively
Communicating change does not begin and end with a single media interview. Owned channels should be used to provide fuller explanations, timelines, commitments and updates that cannot be captured in a short broadcast clip. They allow organisations to speak directly to the audiences who most need to hear the message.

When culture is under scrutiny, the issue is rarely just what happened - it is how a company talks about what happened, what has changed, and what still needs fixing. Organisations and corporate affairs leaders must think about more than how to respond in a ‘media moment’, but to demonstrate, consistently and credibly, that change is happening.

Cardew Group helps leaders navigate scrutiny with credibility. To get in touch: enquiries@cardewgroup.com