About the paper
The report argues that corporate reputation has entered a “multiplayer” era in which it is shaped less by top-down corporate messaging and more by communities, employees, creators and, now, AI systems.
It is a mixed-methods report built primarily on RepTrak’s proprietary survey-based reputation dataset, using responses from the informed general public across 14 major economies collected at the end of 2025, with additional case-based interpretation; the precise number of survey respondents is not clearly specified in the report, although the overall panel reach is described as 70 million consumers and business professionals globally.
Length: 11 pages
More information / download:
https://www.reptrak.com/globalreptrak/
Core Insights
1. What is the report’s central argument about how corporate reputation is changing?
The core argument is that reputation no longer belongs mainly to companies or to the communication channels they control. Instead, it is increasingly co-created by stakeholder networks: communities, employees, creators, cultural participants, and AI systems that synthesise what those groups are already saying. The report calls this shift “multiplayer” reputation. In practical terms, that means the old model of corporate-heavy storytelling through press releases, media relations and investor relations is losing relative power, while reputation increasingly depends on whether external stakeholders choose to carry and reinforce a company’s narrative.
The report is careful not to say that corporate communication has become irrelevant. Rather, it says companies still set inputs and core storylines, but they are no longer the “final shapers” of perception. The decisive difference is whether others pick up that story and validate it through their own voices and experiences. The conclusion on page 11 is especially clear: reputation now “belongs to the communities that choose to carry it”.
That framing also reveals the author’s perspective. RepTrak is not merely describing a media trend; it is arguing for a strategic reorientation in corporate communications. The implied advice is that companies should spend less energy trying to dominate the narrative and more energy creating the conditions for genuine third-party advocacy.
2. How does the report support its “multiplayer” thesis with methodology and evidence?
The report’s main evidence comes from RepTrak’s global reputation model. It says the 2026 ranking is based on survey responses collected across 14 major economies at the end of 2025 from what it calls the informed general public, meaning people who know a company and have formed an opinion about it. Companies had to meet revenue, familiarity and reputation-score thresholds to qualify for inclusion. RepTrak then applies its proprietary “Feel, Think, Do” model, linking emotional response, rational drivers and behavioural outcomes.
The report uses this framework to show that headline reputation remains strong while the underlying mechanics are changing. Average global Reputation Scores rose for a third straight year to 74.6, suggesting that the system is not collapsing. But beneath that stable surface, channel effectiveness is shifting and the companies rising fastest tend to be those whose reputations are sustained by broader stakeholder networks rather than by owned channels or tightly controlled brand ecosystems.
The evidence is therefore both quantitative and interpretive. Quantitatively, the report cites changes in scores, rank movements, and channel impact. Interpretively, it adds company case examples such as LEGO, adidas, Nike and NVIDIA to show how those shifts may work in practice. That makes this less a pure data pack and more a research-led argument built from proprietary survey analysis plus illustrative case reading. The methodology is fairly clear on the survey structure and qualification rules, but the exact respondent count for this specific edition is not clearly specified in the report.
3. Which companies best illustrate the report’s view of winners and losers in the new reputation environment?
The clearest winner is LEGO. It retained the number one position with a Reputation Score of 78.2, and the report treats it as the model multiplayer brand. Its importance lies not only in rank but in the source of its resilience: even when its Products & Services driver slipped slightly, overall reputation held because a wider network of fans, educators, builders and communities continued to advocate for it. The LEGO case on page 6 deepens this argument by showing how product strength fuels community expansion through the Botanical Collection, Fortnite participation, and collaborations with Crocs and adidas. The message is that strong products recruit new communities, and those communities then do reputational work that product quality alone cannot achieve.
Adidas is the other flagship winner. It rose from #16 in 2024 to #2 in 2026, with the report highlighting gains in Conduct, Workplace and “Fair in business”. The argument is that adidas rebuilt and broadened its reputation not through classic controlled brand campaigns, but through creator ecosystems, cultural collaborations and participation in spaces such as Roblox. In the report’s logic, those communities did not merely consume the brand story; they helped author it.
NVIDIA is the most interesting new entrant. It debuts at #14 and is described as a company whose reputation was built “almost entirely without traditional corporate communications infrastructure”. The report attributes that to its developer community, the broader cultural moment around AI, and consistent execution over time. That makes NVIDIA an important proof point for the claim that a company can accumulate reputational strength through network effects well beyond formal communications.
On the losing side, Nike is the key contrast case. It fell to #50, and the report presents this as the result of narrowing its ecosystem through a direct-to-consumer strategy centred on owned channels. In the report’s reading, Nike pursued control in the name of community, but ended up weakening the independent stakeholder network that could have supported it when performance and conduct issues emerged. Spotify and Harley-Davidson are also presented as declines that support the broader thesis, while Disney is cited as an example of a once-strong reputation falling out of the rankings entirely.
4. What does the report say about channels, and why is AI such an important development?
One of the report’s most important findings is that channel impact is compressing. It says impact, defined as the gap in Reputation Score between those exposed to a channel and those not exposed, is now at its lowest recorded level across every channel. But the report insists this should not be misread as simple decline. The exposed score has mostly stayed flat or risen; the big change is that the non-exposed score has risen by 2 to 4 points across nearly every touchpoint since 2017. In other words, strong perceptions formed in one place now travel across the wider ecosystem, lifting the baseline everywhere else.
This is where the report introduces its “co-authorship effect”. People reached through a channel do not remain passive recipients. They carry their interpretations into other spaces, interactions and communities. That helps explain why individual channels appear less decisive on their own: they now operate inside a networked environment where meaning spills across boundaries.
AI matters because it is presented as a fundamentally different kind of channel. Unlike other channels that people encounter passively or habitually, generative AI is used in response to explicit questions. That makes it an answer engine rather than just a distribution channel. The report says AI reaches only 10% of stakeholders, ranking 11th out of 14 channels by reach, but already ranks 7th in impact with a score of 6.6. Its exposed score is 80.4 versus a non-exposed score of 74, giving it one of the largest impact gaps in the dataset.
The implication is striking: AI does not simply repeat corporate messaging. It synthesises what everyone else has said about a company. For firms with genuine stakeholder alignment, AI amplifies that positive signal. For firms with a gap between claimed identity and lived reality, AI becomes, in the report’s phrase, an “unsparing auditor”. That is one of the report’s strongest strategic warnings for communications leaders.
5. What broader implications does the report draw for corporate communications and reputation strategy?
The report’s biggest implication is that communications strategy must move from message control to stakeholder alignment. It suggests that the companies that will perform best are not the loudest broadcasters but those that provide a clear, consistent and credible core story that others are willing to adapt and carry in their own voice. That requires communicators to think less like message managers and more like stewards of an ecosystem.
A second implication is that fundamentals still matter. The report does not celebrate decentralised storytelling for its own sake. It repeatedly argues that community amplification only works when there is something worth amplifying: strong products, credible leadership, visible values, and employee cultures that can withstand scrutiny. This is why LEGO’s product strength is so central, and why firms under pressure on performance, conduct or leadership lose ground even in a networked environment.
A third implication comes from the “Feel, Think, Do” data. Reputation appears to be splitting between short-term transaction behaviour and longer-term commitment. Buy and Recommend both fell by one percentage point, while Invest rose by one point. The report interprets this as stakeholders becoming more selective in immediate transactions but more willing to back companies they believe in over time. That suggests reputation may increasingly function as a buffer and a trust reserve, not just a demand driver.
Taken together, the report’s conclusion is quite pointed: the architecture of trust has not changed, but the environment in which trust is formed has. More channels, more peer influence and AI synthesis mean that companies cannot rely on communications volume or channel control alone. They have to earn consistency across products, behaviour, culture and stakeholder experience, because that is what communities and AI will now reflect back to the market.
This post’s ‘featured image’ was constructed with A.I. to fit the entire paper’s title into a 3:2 image.