Author: Jesper Andersen

  • 2026 Global RepTrak 100 by RepTrak

    2026 Global RepTrak 100 by RepTrak

    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.

  • Thought Leadership Alpha Report by Cardinal 40

    Thought Leadership Alpha Report by Cardinal 40

    About the paper

    The report examines whether CEO “thought leadership” — voluntary, owned executive communications such as op-eds, speeches, interviews, public statements and shareholder letters — is associated with stock-market value.

    It is an associative, observational event-study using 1,034 CEO communications from 357 S&P 500 companies over 26 years, with a narrower 287-event non-shareholder sample for its strongest “canon similarity” finding.

    The methodology combines Fama-French three-factor cumulative abnormal return analysis over a one-week window with computational text analysis, including 63 formulaic text features, whole-document embeddings, and semantic comparison against a curated canon of landmark CEO communications.

    The geographic scope is U.S. publicly traded companies; the report explicitly says findings may not generalise to private companies or non-U.S. markets.

    Length: 24 pages

    More information / download:
    https://cardinal40.com/2026-alpha-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central claim about CEO thought leadership and shareholder value?

    The report’s central claim is that the quality of CEO thought leadership is associated with measurable differences in short-term stock-market performance. It argues that CEO communications are not merely neutral containers for information already created elsewhere in the business; the way the CEO frames, writes and communicates ideas may itself be associated with value.

    The headline number is deliberately attention-grabbing: the report says that the difference between top- and bottom-decile communication quality corresponds to roughly 0.9 percentage points in one-week cumulative abnormal returns. For the median S&P 500 company, it translates this into approximately $367 million in shareholder value; for the average Magnificent Seven company, it says the equivalent would be about $25 billion.

    However, the report is careful — at least in several places — to stress that this is not a causal finding. It does not prove that writing a better CEO op-ed, speech or letter will mechanically increase the share price. Rather, it identifies an association between certain kinds of CEO communication and abnormal returns over a short market window. This distinction matters because the report’s own framing sometimes leans rhetorically towards “words create value”, while the research design can only support “words are associated with value”.

    2. How does the report define and measure “thought leadership”?

    The report defines thought leadership as voluntary public communication authored by, or directly attributed to, a sitting CEO. It includes four categories:

    1. bylined op-eds
    2. public speeches and testimony
    3. interviews and public statements
    4. and annual shareholder letters.

    The communications had to have a known publication or delivery date, and the authors excluded communications that could not be reliably dated or that coincided with obvious market-moving information such as quarterly earnings.

    The main financial outcome is the one-week Fama-French three-factor cumulative abnormal return, or FF3 CAR, measured from the trading day of publication through five trading days afterwards. This controls for broad market return, company size and value factors. In plain English, the report is asking: after adjusting for what the stock might normally have been expected to do, did it outperform or underperform in the week after the CEO communication?

    The study then uses two samples. The full universe contains 1,034 communications and is used to show the overall spread of market reactions, to test simple text features, and to test broad embedding-based prediction. The narrower sample contains 287 non-shareholder communications and excludes shareholder letters because these are often published alongside annual reports or other financially material disclosures, making it harder to isolate the communication effect.

    Methodologically, this is best described as an original, mixed-methods-style empirical report: it combines original data collection, financial event-study analysis, natural language processing, and a professionally curated qualitative benchmark of “great” CEO communications. It is not an expert survey, not a simple secondary analysis, and not a modelling/data pack alone.

    3. What does the report find about ordinary writing advice and formulaic text features?

    One of the report’s more interesting findings is negative: simple writing rules do not explain the variation in market outcomes. The authors tested 63 text features, including things such as word count, reading level, sentiment, use of data, and pronoun choices. Only three were statistically significant at the 95% level, and none remained significant after multiple-testing corrections.

    This matters because it pushes against much conventional communications advice. The report is effectively saying that the market signal, if there is one, is not captured by easy prescriptions such as “make it shorter”, “use more data”, “sound more positive”, or “avoid jargon”. Those features may still matter for readability, reputation, clarity or persuasion, but in this study they did not reliably predict one-week abnormal returns.

    The implication is that “good” executive communication cannot be reduced to a checklist. The authors’ interpretation is that quality lives in the whole document: the underlying argument, tone, originality, judgement, structure, substance and credibility of the communication as a complete act of leadership. That is a useful point, although it also makes the report less prescriptive than its commercial framing might suggest.

    4. What role do embeddings and the “canon” play in the report’s argument?

    After simple text features failed, the report turns to whole-document embeddings. These convert each communication into a position in a 384-dimensional semantic space, intended to capture the overall meaning and character of the document rather than isolated attributes. Using five-fold cross-validation, the embedding model produced a statistically significant but modest relationship between predicted and realised one-week abnormal returns. The reported correlation is around r = +0.079 in the main discussion, meaning the model explains less than 1% of the variance.

    That result supports the report’s claim that some textual signal exists, but it does not tell communicators what “good” looks like. To make the finding more interpretable, the authors construct a canon of 33 landmark CEO communications, including examples such as Warren Buffett’s annual letters, Steve Jobs’s Stanford commencement speech, Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth”, and Marc Andreessen’s “Why Software Is Eating the World”. They then measure how semantically similar each CEO communication is to this canon.

    The strongest interpretable finding is that communications closer to the canon are associated with stronger abnormal returns in the 287-event non-shareholder sample. The pooled correlation is modest, r = +0.101, with p = 0.087, which does not meet the conventional 5% significance threshold. But top-quartile canon-similar communications averaged +0.469 percentage points in abnormal return, compared with +0.084 percentage points for the full non-shareholder sample.

    This is the report’s most distinctive idea: “quality” is not defined as mimicry of one famous CEO, but as semantic proximity to a broad region occupied by communications that experienced practitioners judge to be exemplary. The report’s page 20 chart visualises a permutation test suggesting that the observed canon relationship is unlikely to be just an artefact of one hand-picked canon, though the canon itself still rests on professional judgement.

    5. What are the most important limitations and implications of the report?

    The most important limitation is that the study is observational. The authors cannot randomly assign different CEO communications to different companies, so the findings are correlational rather than causal. The report explicitly acknowledges that unobserved firm characteristics, strategic timing, concurrent events or CEO quality more broadly could explain some or all of the observed relationship.

    A second limitation is statistical modesty. The embedding result is statistically significant but explains less than 1% of variance. The canon similarity result is directionally consistent and economically interesting, but it does not clear the conventional 0.05 significance threshold. The report itself warns that neither result should be treated as a strong predictive tool.

    A third limitation is generalisability. The study is based on publicly traded U.S. companies with sufficient trading data, and on communications that could be systematically collected. It may not apply to private firms, non-U.S. markets, internal communication, political communication, social media, podcasts or other executive-visibility formats not covered by the taxonomy.

    The practical implication is not “write like Warren Buffett and your stock will rise”. A more defensible takeaway is that CEO communication quality may be financially material, but that quality is holistic, contextual and difficult to reduce to simple writing hacks. For communications leaders, the report strengthens the case for investing in executive thought leadership as a serious strategic discipline — while also warning against overclaiming what the current evidence proves.

  • State of the Global Workplace 2026 by Gallup

    State of the Global Workplace 2026 by Gallup

    About the paper

    The paper examines employee engagement, wellbeing, daily emotions, job-market sentiment and the human side of AI adoption, arguing that management quality is a decisive factor in whether AI translates into organisational value.

    It is an original survey-based research report built primarily on Gallup World Poll data, supplemented by additional random U.S. workforce web samples; the report draws on 263,810 respondents in 2025, including 141,444 employed adults, and on a full 2009–2025 trend base of 5,754,327 respondents, covering more than 160 countries and areas worldwide.

    Length: 251 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the global workplace in 2026?

    The report’s central argument is that the workplace challenge is not simply technological change, but whether organisations are managed well enough to convert change into performance. Gallup explicitly frames the report around “the human side of the AI revolution” and says the manager is the strongest predictor of employee AI adoption apart from technical integration. In other words, the report treats management effectiveness, employee engagement and organisational readiness as the real bottlenecks in turning AI into measurable gains.

    That argument rests on a broader point: workplaces are entering the AI era while employee engagement is weakening rather than strengthening. Global engagement fell again in 2025, to 20%, its lowest level since 2020, and Gallup argues this matters because engagement is a practical indicator of readiness for disruption and change. Low engagement, in this framing, is not just a morale issue but an economic and strategic one.

    2. What are the report’s most important global findings on engagement, wellbeing, emotions and the job market?

    The most striking headline is that global employee engagement declined for a second consecutive year, falling to 20% in 2025 from a 2022 peak of 23%. At the same time, 64% of employees are classified as not engaged and 16% as actively disengaged. Gallup estimates that low engagement cost the global economy about $10 trillion in lost productivity, or 9% of global GDP.

    By contrast, wellbeing improved slightly. Global thriving rose from 33% to 34% in 2025, the first improvement in three years. But that modest recovery sits alongside persistently high negative emotions: 40% reported stress, 22% anger, 23% sadness and 22% loneliness. The report makes clear that these emotional burdens remain above pre-pandemic levels, suggesting that the workplace has not returned to its earlier psychological baseline.

    Job-market sentiment also improved, but only slightly. Globally, 52% of employees said it was a good time to find a job, up one point from the previous year, though still below the 2019 peak. So the overall picture is mixed: modest improvement in wellbeing and job confidence, but continued weakness in engagement and continued elevation in emotional strain.

    3. Why does Gallup place so much emphasis on managers?

    Gallup’s answer is that the recent global deterioration in engagement is largely a management story. The report says lower engagement among managers accounts for most of the recent downturn, and manager engagement has dropped by nine points since 2022. On the chart on page 7, managers fall from 31% engaged in 2022 to 22% in 2025, while non-managers move only marginally, from 20% to 19%. That is a significant loss of what Gallup calls the former “engagement premium” of being a manager.

    The report also argues that managers are pivotal to meaningful AI adoption. In Gallup’s Q1 2026 U.S. workforce survey, the top two drivers of frequent AI use are integration with existing systems and manager-led adoption. Employees in AI-investing organisations who strongly agree that their manager actively supports AI are 98.7 times as likely to strongly agree that AI has transformed how work gets done, and 97.4 times as likely to strongly agree that AI gives them more opportunities to do what they do best every day.

    Gallup’s perspective is therefore not that AI will bypass human leadership, but almost the reverse: the better the management layer, the more likely AI is to become valuable. The report even suggests AI could improve global engagement if it helps managers apply stronger people-management practices more consistently.

    4. What patterns does the report reveal across regions, and what do they imply?

    The regional data show a world that is far from uniform. On engagement, the United States and Canada rank first at 31%, followed closely by Latin America and the Caribbean at 30%, while Europe ranks last at just 12%. That makes Europe the lowest-engagement region globally despite relatively strong life evaluation and job-climate scores. This suggests that a region can look comparatively strong on broader life outlook without generating much attachment to work itself.

    On wellbeing, Latin America and the Caribbean lead at 56% thriving, closely followed by Australia and New Zealand at 55%, whereas South Asia is lowest at 16%. On job climate, Southeast Asia leads at 64%, while the Middle East and North Africa is lowest at 36%. The United States and Canada stand out for a sharp deterioration in job confidence, dropping 10 points year on year to 47%, making the region second-to-last on that measure.

    Emotionally, the picture is equally uneven. South Asia has the highest anger and sadness, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia the highest loneliness, while Post-Soviet Eurasia records the lowest stress. The report’s implication is that there is no single global workplace condition. Instead, different regions combine engagement, wellbeing, stress and job optimism in distinct ways, which matters for both management practice and interpretation.

    5. What does the report suggest about AI, jobs and the future of work?

    Gallup presents AI as a force that is already boosting individual productivity for many workers but has not yet reliably produced organisation-level gains. The report notes that in U.S. organisations that have implemented AI, 65% of workers say AI has had a somewhat or extremely positive effect on their productivity, yet only 12% strongly agree that AI has transformed how work gets done in their organisation. This gap between personal efficiency and institutional transformation is one of the report’s core tensions.

    The report also shows rising concern about AI-related job loss. In Q1 2026, 18% of U.S. employees said it was somewhat or very likely their job would be eliminated within five years because of technological innovation, rising to 23% in organisations where AI had been implemented. In finance, insurance and technology, the figures are higher still. At the same time, Gallup says the employment effects are not uniformly negative: larger AI-implementing employers are more likely to be reducing headcount, while smaller ones are more likely to be expanding.

    The broader conclusion is that AI is reconfiguring work, but outcomes depend heavily on context, especially leadership, workforce choice and upskilling. Gallup repeatedly links optimism and wellbeing to employees feeling they have choices in the work they do. So the report’s future-of-work message is not deterministic. AI may intensify pressure, flatten structures and increase job anxiety, but it may also improve management and expand capability, depending on how organisations lead the transition.

  • Crossing the Rubicon by the Scriptorium Initiative

    Crossing the Rubicon by the Scriptorium Initiative

    About the paper

    This is a conceptual whitepaper about how brand and communications functions should evolve into AI-native operating models, arguing that AI changes not just the tools of communication but the logic of the function itself.

    It reads as a practitioner whitepaper grounded in secondary analysis, cited literature, and practice-based reflection rather than original empirical research; no respondent base, interview sample, fieldwork period, or defined geographic dataset is clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 28 pages

    More information / download:
    https://scriptorium-initiative.ai/follow-us

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about AI and the future of the communications function?

    The report’s central argument is that AI represents a structural break for communications, not a simple productivity tool. It says previous technologies expanded reach and speed, but AI changes the function more fundamentally because it can read, write, interpret and increasingly act. In that sense, AI is described not just as another channel, but as “the medium, the message, and the messenger”.

    That leads to the paper’s key claim: communications leaders must decide whether to use AI merely to do old work faster, or to redesign the function around intelligence itself. The report repeatedly frames this as “crossing the Rubicon” — an irreversible leadership choice to rebuild workflows, governance, measurement and roles around human–machine collaboration.

    Importantly, the paper does not argue for replacing communicators. It argues that the purpose of communications remains the same — building trust and shaping behaviour — but that the operating model must change. In the author’s framing, the communicator moves from being chiefly a producer of messages to becoming a steward of intelligence, coherence and meaning.

    2. According to the report, what stays constant even as AI transforms communications?

    The report is very clear that the fundamentals do not change even when the tools do. Across different chapters, it returns to two enduring anchors: trust and behaviour. Communications, in the author’s view, has always been about credibility and action — earning belief and shaping what people do. In the AI era, these anchors become more rather than less important because synthetic content, deepfakes and machine-generated noise make trust scarcer and therefore more valuable.

    The paper also identifies five timeless principles that should still guide the profession: truth and transparency, audience understanding, narrative coherence, reciprocity and feedback, and governance and accountability. These are presented almost as first principles for navigating AI disruption. The implication is that while AI may transform production, distribution and optimisation, it does not remove the need for human honesty, empathy, judgment and responsibility.

    That continuity matters because it gives the report its normative centre. The author is not celebrating automation for its own sake. The paper argues that AI-native communications should be assessed by whether intelligence is aligned with integrity, whether meaning remains coherent, and whether human accountability is preserved.

    3. How does the report say the work of communicators will change in practice?

    The report says communicators will increasingly work inside hybrid systems made up of humans and intelligent agents. In these systems, AI will handle more of the executional load: drafting, monitoring, summarising, simulating reactions, spotting reputational risks and supporting decisions in real time. Humans, meanwhile, will focus more on interpretation, ethical judgment, tone, legitimacy and connection.

    One of the strongest ideas in the whitepaper is the shift from “messages” to “meaning systems”. In the old model, communications teams created messages and distributed them through chosen channels. In the new model, messages are filtered, rewritten, summarised and ranked by algorithms before they reach audiences. That means communicators can no longer assume control over the final expression of what they say. Their job becomes designing the system around intent, boundaries, tone and ethics so that AI-generated outputs still cohere over time.

    The paper also says roles will become less rigid. Traditional job boundaries such as press officer, content manager or speechwriter weaken as AI absorbs more production work. What becomes valuable are higher-order capabilities: sensemaking, narrative judgment, ethical discernment and orchestration. Measurement changes too: instead of counting outputs, speed or reach, the report says the function should focus on trust, credibility and behavioural effect.

    A further practical change concerns career development. The report worries that entry-level apprenticeship work may erode if AI takes over research, drafting and scheduling. That creates a paradox: short-term productivity may rise while long-term human capability weakens. So the future communicator is imagined not as someone learning by doing repetitive tasks, but as someone learning to supervise, question and guide intelligent systems.

    4. What leadership model does the report propose for communications chiefs and senior teams?

    The report argues that leadership must shift from control to coherence. Because AI systems are probabilistic rather than fully predictable, leaders cannot simply rely on traditional command-and-control models. Instead, they need to create clear intent, shared values, ethical boundaries and governance structures that keep human judgment at the centre.

    A core principle here is the “human communicator-in-the-loop”. The report insists that AI can assist, accelerate and act, but cannot be accountable. Responsibility for truth, tone and trust must remain human. This is not framed as a minor safeguard but as a foundational leadership doctrine for the AI-native communications function. Humans do not need to approve everything, but they must intervene wherever legitimacy, emotion, trust or significant consequences are involved.

    For chief communications officers in particular, the report outlines a changing role across three phases. In Phase I, the CCO is a learner who builds fluency, shared language and psychological safety around AI. In Phase II, the CCO becomes an architect who integrates AI into workflows, governance and cross-functional collaboration. In Phase III, the CCO becomes a steward of intelligence, acting as the moral and narrative compass for a function whose “Comms Cortex” sits at the centre of the operating model.

    This leadership model is as cultural as it is technical. The paper stresses that people do not simply need tools; they need readiness, trust and inclusion. Leaders must explain why AI is being adopted, what will change, and what must not change. In that sense, the paper presents AI transformation not as a software implementation exercise, but as an exercise in organisational meaning-making and ethical design.

    5. What roadmap does the report offer, and what are its main implications for organisations?

    Rather than promising a fixed end state, the report offers what it calls the “Scriptorium Journey”, a three-phase path towards an AI-native communications function. Phase I, “Wake Up and Skill Up”, is about literacy, orientation and ethical grounding. Phase II, the “Agentic Foundry”, is where experimentation becomes structured integration and hybrid workflows begin to take shape. Phase III, “AI Native and Hybrid Teams”, is the point at which intelligence becomes the organising logic of the function and the Comms Cortex becomes its central cognitive infrastructure.

    One of the report’s most interesting assumptions is that organisations should stop thinking in terms of static target operating models. Because AI is evolving too quickly, the author argues that success should not be defined as reaching a final destination. Instead, organisations need a quarterly rhythm of foresight, experimentation, leadership alignment, team immersion and ongoing evolution. Readiness and relevance over time matter more than finishing a transformation programme.

    The wider implication is that hesitation also carries risk. The report warns that organisations that delay may find their voice increasingly shaped by systems they do not govern. By contrast, those that redesign communications deliberately around intelligence, while retaining human accountability, can preserve trust, relevance and strategic influence. In the paper’s closing logic, the future function may be smaller in structure but deeper in purpose: less focused on output volume, more focused on aligning purpose, perception and behaviour at scale.

    Overall, the report is less a research study than a strategic manifesto for senior communications leaders. Its value lies in the conceptual framework it offers: AI as a structural shift, trust and behaviour as constants, human accountability as non-negotiable, and transformation as a continuing leadership rhythm rather than a one-off change project.

  • 2026 Global Communication Report by USC Annenberg

    2026 Global Communication Report by USC Annenberg

    About the paper

    This report examines how political and social polarization is reshaping corporate communication and the PR profession, arguing that the industry is undergoing “a quiet shift” from expansive purpose-led speech to a more cautious, situational approach.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on an online survey of 704 PR professionals, a parallel online survey of 1,011 U.S. adults, and qualitative research involving six individual CCO interviews plus a focus group with eight senior communications professionals; the PR sample was global in reach but heavily U.S.-weighted, while the public survey was U.S.-only.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though the PR professional survey used non-probability sampling, which limits how broadly those findings can be generalised.

    Length: 50 pages

    More information / download:
    https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/center-public-relations/global-communication-report

    Core Insights

    1) What is the central argument of the report about polarization and the communications profession?

    The report’s core argument is that polarization has become a persistent condition rather than a temporary phase, and that this is fundamentally reshaping the communications function. Instead of treating polarization as a passing disruption, the report frames it as a structural reality that is changing how companies decide when to speak, what to say, and what risks they are willing to take.

    That is what the title phrase, “a quiet shift,” is meant to capture. The shift is not presented as a dramatic collapse of corporate communication, but as a strategic recalibration. Companies are not necessarily speaking less overall; rather, they are becoming more selective, more conditional, and more defensive in their communications choices. The report suggests that the profession is moving away from broad purpose-driven dialogue and toward a more situational model of corporate speech shaped by risk, scrutiny and backlash.

    Importantly, the report does not portray this as a decline in PR’s relevance. In fact, it makes the opposite case: polarization may be socially harmful, but it has increased the strategic importance of communications inside organisations. PR professionals increasingly see themselves as advisers navigating reputational landmines, internal tensions and stakeholder expectations in a climate where one misstep can trigger immediate consequences. That is why the report repeatedly returns to the tension between PR as “trumpet” and PR as “shield” — between amplifying positive narratives and defending organisations in hostile conditions.

    So the central argument is twofold: polarization is pushing companies towards caution, but that same volatility is making PR more indispensable. The profession is becoming less about confident public positioning and more about judgement, risk management, counsel and selective engagement.

    2) How do PR professionals and the U.S. public differ in how they perceive polarization and its consequences?

    One of the report’s most important findings is that PR professionals perceive polarization as more intense, more damaging and more enduring than the general public does. Among PR professionals, 81% say the current level of political and social polarization in the United States is extremely high or high, compared with 69% of the general public. That gap matters because it helps explain why communicators may act with more caution than many audiences expect.

    The two groups also differ over which issues are seen as most polarizing. Both groups rank immigration highly, and crime is another area where views are relatively aligned. But beyond that, the divergence becomes more pronounced. PR professionals are much more likely than the public to describe issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and climate change as highly polarizing, while the public places greater emphasis on inflation and affordable housing. In other words, PR professionals appear more attuned to culture-war fault lines, while the general public is somewhat more focused on economic pressures.

    The same pattern shows up in perceptions of impact. PR professionals overwhelmingly believe polarization is harming quality of life, affecting mental health and is unlikely to decrease any time soon. The public agrees on the direction of impact, but less intensely. The report explicitly raises the possibility that communicators may be “oversensitized” to polarization. That does not necessarily mean they are wrong; it means they experience the issue through a professional lens in which reputational risk is more visible, more immediate and more consequential.

    There is also a generational dimension within the PR sample. Gen X and Baby Boomer practitioners are more likely than Gen Z and Millennials to see current polarization levels as severe. Younger professionals, having entered the workforce in a more polarized era, seem more likely to treat these conditions as normal rather than exceptional. That generational difference is significant because it suggests that the profession’s internal culture may continue to evolve as younger cohorts move into leadership roles.

    Overall, the report shows that PR professionals do not merely mirror public sentiment. They interpret polarization through a heightened risk lens, which shapes how they counsel leaders, prioritise issues and recommend communication strategies.

    3) How is polarization changing expectations around corporate speech, corporate purpose, and the role of business in social issues?

    The report shows a marked retreat from the expansive expectations placed on corporate speech in recent years. Since 2020, the USC team has asked whether companies should engage in social issues even when those issues are not directly related to the business. In 2023 and 2024, nearly nine in ten PR professionals said yes. By 2025 that fell to 52%, and in 2026 it stands at 55%. Among the general public, only 42% agree. That is one of the clearest indicators in the report that corporate purpose, at least in its more outward and activist form, has lost momentum.

    The report does not suggest that social responsibility has disappeared. More than half of PR professionals still believe business has some responsibility to advocate or support social issues, and younger practitioners are especially likely to hold that view. But the dominant mood has shifted from confidence to caution. The report links this to increased political scrutiny, a more punitive public environment, and a broader sense that speaking out now carries higher downside risk.

    That change is reinforced by another finding: both PR professionals and the public assign only a limited role to large public companies in reducing national polarization. Just 30% of PR professionals and 29% of the public say large public companies have a great deal of responsibility here. By contrast, most of the responsibility is placed on political parties, elected officials, social media companies and news media. This is a notable re-scaling of corporate expectations. Business is no longer widely seen as a primary agent for solving societal division.

    The report also uses examples and third-party analyses to show how this shift plays out in practice. It contrasts the broad corporate response after George Floyd’s murder in 2020 with the much more muted response to later killings in Minneapolis in 2026. It also presents secondary analyses from Cometrics.io and Meltwater suggesting that corporate and executive communication has shifted away from environmental and purpose-led themes and towards more corporate topics, especially AI. Even when the overall volume of communication remains steady, the content mix has changed substantially.

    In effect, the report argues that business is moving from public moral positioning towards narrower, lower-risk communication. Companies may still engage on issues, but they are increasingly likely to do so only when there is a clear fit with business priorities, stakeholder expectations or operational relevance. The era of broad-based corporate commentary appears to be giving way to a more selective and defensible model.

    4) How is the day-to-day practice of PR changing in response to this environment?

    The report suggests that the everyday practice of PR is becoming more controlled, more tactical and more risk-conscious. This is visible both in the recommended strategies and in how practitioners define their role. The strongest consensus is around restraint and preparation rather than boldness. Large majorities say relationships with influencers and external organisations should be vetted more carefully, scenario planning should happen more often, internal communications should be prioritised, and messages should be more thoroughly pre-tested. Higher approval thresholds for public statements also receive strong support.

    This does not mean the profession has become uniformly silent or passive. On the question of posture, practitioners are split. Nearly half favour the idea that “a good offense is the best defense,” while a substantial minority prefer a more defensive approach. Agency professionals lean more towards proactive communication, whereas in-house professionals are more likely to favour defence. That split makes sense: agencies may be structurally more inclined to push outward-facing strategies, while in-house teams bear more direct responsibility for internal risk, leadership exposure and organisational fallout.

    The report also shows that protecting corporate reputation has become a central responsibility of PR in this environment. Communicating company values, addressing issues important to stakeholders and providing counsel to the C-suite all rank highly. By contrast, acting as the conscience of the organisation and building the business rank lower. That is revealing. It suggests a profession that still sees itself as strategically important, but less in terms of moral leadership and more in terms of judgement, alignment and protection.

    Silence, notably, has become a legitimate tactic. Forty-one percent of PR professionals agree that silence should be employed as a defensive communication strategy in some cases, and the figure rises above half among in-house respondents. That does not mean silence is always preferred, but it does show how much the communicative norm has changed. In a more volatile environment, saying nothing is no longer automatically seen as failure; it can be framed as disciplined judgement.

    The report also points to changes in media strategy. Trust is highest in major newspapers, financial media and trade publications, while influencers, social media, paid media and AI platforms attract much less trust overall. This reinforces the report’s broader argument that communicators are becoming more selective not just about messages, but also about channels and partners. The profession is tightening control: fewer risks, fewer loose affiliations, more testing, more filtering, and more reliance on trusted or controllable environments.

    5) What does the report suggest about the future direction of the profession over the next five years?

    The future described in the report is not one of decline, but of reallocation and adaptation. PR professionals expect resources to move away from DEI, sustainability and purpose-driven initiatives, and towards areas more directly connected to resilience and organisational survival. The highest expected increases are in AI innovation and ethics, crisis communications, government relations/public affairs, influencer engagement, and measurement and evaluation. This is a clear signal that the profession expects its future value to be judged more on operational usefulness than on symbolic positioning.

    AI sits at the top of that list, which is striking. The report treats AI not as a peripheral tool but as a major strategic priority. At the same time, it suggests that communications leaders will need to claim that terrain quickly if they want to shape the transformation rather than have it defined by other functions. That is part of a broader message running through the report: PR’s future influence will depend less on visibility and more on demonstrable business contribution.

    That is why one of the strongest future-facing findings concerns measurement. Asked what would have the strongest impact on addressing the profession’s challenges if polarization continues, respondents put aligning communication measurement with business objectives at the top. Creating stronger partnerships with other C-suite executives also ranks highly. Together, those findings suggest a profession trying to secure its future not mainly by asserting its importance rhetorically, but by proving it in business terms.

    The report also anticipates structural change. More than two-thirds of in-house communicators say their organisations are likely to restructure the communication function in the near future. That implies that PR’s role inside organisations is still unsettled. The profession may gain status, but it will also face pressure to redefine its remit, integrate more closely with other functions and show clearer returns.

    At the same time, the tone is not pessimistic. Personal satisfaction among PR professionals remains high, and 72% say the outlook for future growth of the profession is positive. The concluding argument is that PR will remain essential, but it will become more pragmatic: more focused on trust, risk, business alignment, public policy, finance and AI, and somewhat less driven by idealism, creativity and broad-purpose storytelling. In that sense, the future of the profession is not simply more cautious. It is more hard-edged, more accountable and more explicitly tied to organisational resilience.

  • Future of Work 2026 – Industry Report by LexisNexis

    Future of Work 2026 – Industry Report by LexisNexis

    About the paper

    This sector-specific industry analysis draws on the LexisNexis Future of Work 2026 global survey of 1,400 professionals across more than 20 industries, conducted online through Sago using random sampling from 8–17 September 2025.

    The report focuses on PR, media and communications professionals worldwide, but the size and geographic composition of this sector-specific subsample are not clearly specified in the report.

    It is best characterised as a secondary sector analysis of original survey research, supplemented by LexisNexis interpretation and recommendations.

    Length: 7 pages

    More information/download: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/industries/public-relations-communication/ai-pr-comms-report.page

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central finding about generative AI adoption in PR, media and communications?

    The central argument is that PR, media and communications professionals face an unusually difficult combination of high potential value from generative AI and high reputational exposure when it goes wrong.

    Content creation is the sector’s leading use case for genAI, reported by 55% of respondents. This makes the technology highly relevant to everyday professional work because producing written and other communicative content is central to the sector. At the same time, adoption is relatively cautious: only 32% say they use genAI frequently or always, compared with 52% across all industries, while 45% remain at an early experimental stage.

    LexisNexis interprets this not simply as slow adoption, but as a consequence of the particular risks facing communicators. Errors in many other professions may remain internal, whereas inaccurate, fabricated or misattributed information in PR or media can immediately become public. The report therefore presents the sector as caught between the efficiency benefits of AI and the requirement to protect organisational and professional credibility.

    Its broader thesis is that the sector now needs to move from asking what AI can do towards establishing whether AI-generated information can be trusted. The transition is characterised as a shift from AI “capability” towards AI “credibility”.

    2. Why does the report consider misinformation and reputation particularly serious risks for this sector?

    Misinformation is the standout concern among PR, media and communications professionals. Some 59% identify misinformation as a leading concern, compared with 40% across the full cross-industry sample.

    The report connects this anxiety directly with the nature of communications work. Published material can be scrutinised by journalists, customers, clients and wider public audiences, and errors can become permanent parts of the public record. In media particularly, credibility is based heavily on accuracy, so hallucinations, incorrect sourcing or misattribution can undermine trust in both the individual communicator and the organisation.

    There is also a practical verification problem. The report says that 36% struggle to determine whether AI outputs are based on high-quality sources, while 32% cannot identify hallucinations or incorrect outputs. These weaknesses are especially consequential when AI is used to produce press releases, articles, features and other externally published materials.

    Consequently, PR and communications professionals appear to place greater value than many other sectors on mechanisms that make AI output auditable. Transparent data sources are identified by 45% as the leading way to increase trust, while 41% say human oversight increases trust.

    The report therefore treats misinformation not merely as an AI accuracy problem but as a reputation-management problem. For communications functions, uncertainty about where information comes from and whether it can be verified becomes an organisational risk.

    3. How serious is the gap between AI use and AI competence in PR, media and communications?

    The report portrays the competence gap as one of the sector’s most important weaknesses.

    Only 50% of PR, media and communications professionals describe themselves as very or extremely confident in their ability to use genAI, compared with 64% across industries generally. More strikingly, only 5% say they can confidently explain large language models, compared with 29% across the overall sample.

    The report therefore distinguishes between being able to operate an AI tool and understanding enough about the technology to assess its limitations. This distinction becomes critical when professionals need to judge source quality, identify hallucinations or decide whether an AI-generated claim is reliable enough to publish.

    Training alone does not appear to have solved the problem. Across the entire survey, 82% of professionals receive some form of AI training, yet 41% of PR, media and communications respondents still cite lack of training as a leading barrier. LexisNexis consequently argues that organisations need to move beyond basic AI awareness towards specialised training in verification, source assessment and recognition of situations requiring human checking.

    The report’s underlying concern is therefore not simply that communications professionals need more experience with AI. They need a different kind of competence: the ability to evaluate AI-generated information safely in contexts where mistakes can create public consequences.

    4. What contradiction does the report identify between cautious AI adoption and unauthorised AI use?

    One of the most interesting patterns is that relatively cautious overall adoption coexists with substantial unauthorised use.

    Only 32% of PR, media and communications professionals report using genAI frequently or always, suggesting comparatively restrained adoption. Yet the report also says that large numbers use AI tools without organisational approval.

    There is an internal numerical inconsistency in the report on this point. The narrative states that 63% engage in unauthorised usage compared with 53% overall, while the accompanying chart gives the PR, media and communications figure as 59%. The report does not explain the discrepancy, so the exact sector figure cannot be established confidently from the document.

    Regardless of whether the figure is 59% or 63%, the underlying pattern is clear: formal adoption may be cautious while informal or unsanctioned use is widespread. Among unauthorised users, 62% reportedly say deadlines will not wait, while 61% point to the need for efficiency.

    This creates what the report effectively presents as a governance paradox. Reputational anxiety makes professionals wary of AI, but everyday workload and deadline pressures simultaneously encourage them to use it outside approved systems.

    The implication is that restrictive policies alone may not control AI use. If employees perceive AI as necessary to complete their work efficiently, banning or delaying access can push usage outside organisational governance rather than eliminating it.

    5. What does the report recommend leaders should do, and what perspective underlies those recommendations?

    LexisNexis proposes five main actions. Organisations should provide purpose-built AI tools for high-stakes content work; invest in specialised training focused on quality verification; embed human validation checkpoints into AI-supported workflows; create reputation-protection frameworks defining permitted and prohibited use cases; and accelerate the transition from experimentation towards properly governed integration.

    These recommendations follow logically from the report’s diagnosis. If source verification is difficult, tools should make sourcing more transparent. If users struggle to detect hallucinations, training should concentrate on validation rather than simply prompting or basic AI literacy. If deadline pressures encourage unauthorised adoption, organisations need sanctioned tools that employees can realistically use in everyday workflows.

    The report also argues that human oversight should be designed into processes rather than treated as an abstract principle. Suggested measures include spot-checking AI-generated material and mandatory human review for particularly consequential outputs.

    At the same time, the recommendations should be understood within the report’s commercial perspective. LexisNexis is not an independent academic institution but a provider of information and AI-enabled services. The report explicitly recommends purpose-built tools, reputable technology vendors and transparent source environments, and concludes by inviting readers to explore LexisNexis AI solutions and its content resources.

    The report therefore serves two purposes simultaneously: it presents survey-based evidence about genuine challenges surrounding AI adoption in communications, while also framing those challenges in ways that support LexisNexis’s proposition around trusted data, verifiable sources and enterprise AI tools.

  • State of Journalism 2026 by Muck Rack

    State of Journalism 2026 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The report examines the state of journalism in 2026 through original research based on a self-administered online survey of journalists.

    Muck Rack says it surveyed 1,044 journalists between 30 January and 2 March 2026, with 897 responses retained after data cleaning; the sample is predominantly U.S.-based, with additional representation from the United Kingdom, Canada and India, so the geographic scope is international but heavily weighted toward the United States.

    Length: 48 pages

    More information / download:
    https://muckrack.com/resources/research/state-of-journalism

    Core Insights

    1. What does the report say are the biggest pressures shaping journalism in 2026?

    The report portrays journalism as a profession under pressure from several directions at once rather than one dominant crisis. The top concerns are disinformation and misinformation and lack of funding, both cited by 32% of journalists. Just behind them are public trust in journalism and unregulated or unchecked use of AI, each at 26%, followed by government interference in the press at 25% and politicisation and polarisation at 23%. The report’s own framing is that the threat environment is broadening, with AI moving sharply up the agenda rather than replacing older concerns.

    That wider strain also shows up in how journalists describe their working lives. While 65% still say their work feels meaningful, 47% say it feels exhausting and 38% say it feels precarious. More than half say misinformation has made reporting harder over the past year, and nearly one-third say safety concerns have affected how they do their job. Altogether, the report suggests a profession that still finds purpose in the work but is operating in a more fragile, contested and demanding environment.

    2. How are journalists’ day-to-day working conditions and career outlook changing?

    The report presents a mixed picture: journalists retain some short-term confidence, but the broader career outlook is less secure. On workload, 62% say their responsibilities have expanded in the past year, exactly matching last year’s level according to the report. At the same time, most still feel they can usually meet their standards: 18% say they always have enough time and 39% say often. Even so, 15% say they rarely or never do, which points to a notable minority under significant time pressure.

    Support levels are also mixed. A slim majority, 56%, feel supported in terms of tools, training or editorial guidance, but 21% feel unsupported to some degree. On career confidence, 53% feel confident about their long-term prospects in journalism, whereas 66% feel their current job is secure over the next 12 months. That gap is important: it implies journalists are somewhat more confident in immediate job continuity than in the long-term health of the profession. The report reinforces that interpretation by noting that short-term job security outpaces long-term career confidence.

    3. What role do AI and social media now play in journalism, and how is that role shifting?

    AI is clearly moving from experimentation towards mainstream use. The report says 82% of journalists now use at least one of the listed AI tools in their work, up from 77% the year before. ChatGPT remains the leading tool at 47%, while Gemini rises to 22% and Claude to 12%. Transcription tools remain steady at 40%. At the same time, concern about unchecked AI use in journalism has risen from 18% to 26%, so adoption and anxiety are growing together. That is one of the report’s most important tensions: journalists are integrating AI more deeply while also becoming more worried about its consequences.

    Social media tells a different story. Its importance for producing journalism has weakened: only 21% now say social media is very important for their work, down 12 points from 2024. Yet it remains highly important for promotion, with 45% saying it is very important for that purpose. So the report suggests social platforms are becoming less central to reporting itself, but still crucial to distribution and visibility.

    The platform landscape is shifting too. Facebook is rated the most valuable platform overall at 28%, LinkedIn is second at 20%, and X has dropped to 17%. In trust terms, LinkedIn stands out most strongly, with 58% saying they trust it to treat journalistic content fairly. By contrast, distrust in TikTok has risen to 61%, and Bluesky’s momentum has weakened, with the share spending more time there falling by 14 points year on year. The report’s wider implication is that journalists are becoming more selective and pragmatic about platforms: they are not abandoning them, but they are recalibrating where value and trust still exist.

    4. What does the report reveal about the relationship between journalists and PR professionals?

    The report shows a relationship that is clearly important but often poorly executed. More than half of journalists, 53%, say relationships with PR professionals are important or very important to being successful at their job. And 86% say at least some of their published stories began with a PR pitch, even if for most journalists the share is modest. That means PR remains a meaningful input into the news cycle, even though it rarely drives the majority of coverage.

    However, the quality and relevance of outreach remain major problems. Only 3% say pitches are always relevant to what they cover, while 43% say relevant pitches are seldom received and 4% say never. Unsurprisingly, 88% say they immediately disregard or delete pitches that are irrelevant to their coverage, 71% reject pitches that feel overly promotional, and 50% are put off by what look like mass emails. The report is therefore quite blunt: PR can be useful, but most failures come from poor targeting and low editorial sensitivity.

    The findings also show what journalists actually want. Seventy per cent say a pitch should clearly demonstrate relevance to their beat, 58% want interview access to relevant sources, and 40% value original data or research. When the question shifts from beat relevance to audience relevance, the answers become even more revealing: 78% say a pitch feels genuinely relevant when it directly affects the community their audience belongs to, and 45% want clear local or cultural context. So the report’s deeper message is that good PR is not just about matching a topic area; it is about understanding the outlet’s audience, community and public value.

    5. What broader conclusion does the report draw about the state and future of journalism?

    The overall picture is not one of collapse, but of a profession in uneasy transition. Journalism still appears to offer strong intrinsic meaning: that is the dominant emotional response in the survey. There is also evidence of resilience, with majorities feeling at least somewhat supported, somewhat secure in the near term, and still able to meet their standards most of the time.

    But that resilience is under strain from structural, technological and reputational pressures all at once. Funding pressures remain severe, disinformation continues to complicate reporting, AI is both increasingly embedded and increasingly feared, and journalists are operating in a more fragmented and less trusted information environment. The media relations section adds another layer: journalism still depends in part on external information subsidies from PR, but the quality of those interactions often falls short of what journalists need.

    In that sense, the report’s implicit argument is that the future of journalism will depend not only on newsroom adaptation to AI and platform change, but also on restoring relevance, trust, editorial support and sustainable resourcing. The profession still has purpose and momentum, but the survey suggests that its future will be shaped by whether institutions can reduce precarity while helping journalists navigate a noisier, more politicised and more automated media landscape.

  • The Unofficial Linkedin Algorithm Guide by Trust Insights

    The Unofficial Linkedin Algorithm Guide by Trust Insights

    About the paper

    This report is an independent secondary analysis of LinkedIn’s feed and recommendation architecture in Q1 2026, produced by Trust Insights rather than LinkedIn itself.

    It synthesises public LinkedIn engineering research, academic papers, conference material and some verified news reporting, and the report says it draws on more than 30 current LinkedIn engineering publications, with 31 primary sources consulted overall; there are no survey respondents or interview participants because this is not original field research.

    Its scope is platform-specific rather than geographic: it focuses on LinkedIn’s global product and AI systems as documented in public sources.

    Length: 138 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.trustinsights.ai/insights/whitepapers/the-unofficial-linkedin-algorithm-guide-for-marketers/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the guide?

    The guide’s core argument is that LinkedIn’s feed no longer works as a largely signal-counting system that rewards simplistic “algorithm hacks”. Instead, it argues that LinkedIn now operates through a more sophisticated two-stage AI architecture built around retrieval and ranking, and that success depends on aligning with how those systems understand relevance.

    More specifically, the report says the old game of sending numerical signals to a mechanical system is over. In its place, LinkedIn now uses two complementary systems: an LLM-powered retrieval system that reads language and a sequential ranking system that learns from behaviour over time. That leads the authors to a new premise: language quality determines retrieval, while engagement patterns determine ranking.

    The guide compresses this into three main propositions. First, relevance has displaced recency as the main logic of feed ranking, within the 30-day window of connection-based retrieval. Second, LinkedIn’s content distribution works as a two-stage pipeline, meaning content has to be retrieved before it can be ranked. Third, both retrieval and ranking depend on semantic embeddings, so coherence across profile, content and engagement shapes who sees your posts.

    In practical terms, the guide is arguing against superstition and in favour of structural understanding. It wants readers to stop obsessing over posting-time folklore and instead focus on profile clarity, topical consistency, high-quality writing and engagement that creates a coherent professional signal.

    2. What evidence and methodology does the report use to support that argument?

    This is not a survey report or interview-based study. It is an evidence synthesis built from public technical and engineering material about LinkedIn. The report states that it synthesises engineering research, academic papers and conference presentations from LinkedIn’s own AI researchers, and that it uses generative AI to help synthesise the material.

    In the methodology section, Trust Insights says it used Google Gemini 2.5 Pro and Anthropic’s Claude to synthesise roughly 400,000 words of source material across the primary sources. It also says that technical claims are traced back to official LinkedIn publications, peer-reviewed research or verified news sources, and that future-facing claims are labelled as goals rather than confirmed deployments.

    The source base is fairly substantial for a document of this kind. The guide says it draws on more than 30 current LinkedIn engineering publications, and elsewhere specifies that 31 primary publications were consulted overall, including 20 current 2025–2026 LinkedIn engineering publications that form the main evidentiary base.

    The report is also reasonably careful about limitations. It says LinkedIn has not endorsed or reviewed the guide, that LinkedIn’s systems change continuously, that some architectural claims are inferences where public documentation is incomplete, and that published sources do not cover everything LinkedIn uses in production. That makes the methodology stronger than a typical “guru” explainer, but it still remains an independent interpretation of partial public evidence rather than a definitive inside account.

    3. What does the guide say actually changed in LinkedIn’s architecture in 2026?

    According to the report, the big change publicly confirmed in March 2026 was that LinkedIn had replaced a fragmented older feed infrastructure with two complementary AI systems: a unified LLM-based retrieval system and a sequential ranking model. The older setup had relied on multiple separate retrieval sources and a ranking model that treated impressions more independently. The newer design is meant to understand both semantic relevance and behavioural sequences more effectively.

    On the retrieval side, the guide says LinkedIn fine-tuned LLaMA-3 as a dual encoder that generates embeddings for members and content, enabling semantic matching at scale. It describes this as a unification of several previously separate retrieval systems. The model uses profile information and positive engagement history to generate a member embedding, and it can retrieve relevant content even for users with sparse connection histories.

    On the ranking side, the report says LinkedIn’s production ranker is now the Generative Recommender, a sequential transformer that processes more than 1,000 historical interactions to identify behavioural patterns. Rather than “reading” posts in the way many users imagine, it learns from the sequence of what a member viewed and how they interacted. The report emphasises that recent engagement carries more weight because of how the sequence model works.

    The broader implication, in the guide’s telling, is that LinkedIn is no longer mainly about gaming simple engagement weights. It is about becoming legible to two AI systems at once: one that reads your professional language and one that reads your professional behaviour.

    4. What are the most important practical implications for creators, marketers and professionals?

    The guide’s practical message is that profile quality, content quality and engagement quality now reinforce one another. Since retrieval depends on semantic clarity, users need profiles and posts that clearly express expertise, use relevant professional language and stay topically coherent. Since ranking depends on behavioural patterns, users also need consistent engagement histories that reflect the professional domains they want to be associated with.

    This makes the profile much more important than in many older LinkedIn playbooks. The guide describes the profile as a foundational input to both stages of the system: it feeds the retrieval model directly, and a separate profile embedding also feeds the ranking model. In the guide’s framing, your headline, About section and experience descriptions are not just presentation devices for humans; they are inputs into machine understanding.

    The same logic applies to content. The guide argues that high-performing posts are not merely those that generate quick reactions, but those that have clear topical focus and generate sustained, meaningful engagement from the right professional communities. That is why it repeatedly stresses semantic coherence, useful content and deliberate audience alignment over tricks such as timing obsession or comment-baiting.

    It also argues that engagement should be treated strategically. Because likes, comments, shares and dwell patterns become part of the behavioural sequence the ranking model processes, what you engage with influences what you are shown and how LinkedIn understands your professional identity. In other words, your interactions do not merely boost others; they also train the platform’s understanding of you.

    5. What are the report’s biggest conclusions and limitations?

    Its biggest conclusion is that durable LinkedIn success now comes from clarity, coherence and consistency rather than from short-term “algorithm hacks”. The authors say the only sustainable strategy is to maintain a strong professional profile, create valuable content and build a legible engagement pattern, because the underlying system is continuously evolving and increasingly hard to game.

    A second conclusion is that discoverability and distribution are no longer simple matters of network size or posting frequency alone. Because the retrieval system can infer interests semantically, newer users and low-connection users may benefit more than before, provided their profile and content are clear enough. The report cites improved interaction metrics for these users as evidence of that shift.

    At the same time, the guide is careful to flag its own limits. It is not endorsed by LinkedIn, it relies on public disclosures that are necessarily incomplete, and some of its interpretation involves architectural inference. It also notes that LinkedIn updates its systems continuously, so details may change after publication.

    So the fairest reading is this: the report is a strong, well-documented interpretive guide to LinkedIn’s public technical record, not a final or official specification. Its value lies in translating scattered engineering evidence into a strategic model that creators and professionals can actually use.

  • Global Connectedness Report 2026 by DHL and NYU Stern

    Global Connectedness Report 2026 by DHL and NYU Stern

    About the paper

    The paper is a data-driven globalization report by Steven A. Altman and Caroline R. Bastian of NYU Stern, produced in partnership with DHL.

    It is not survey-based; it is a secondary-analysis and index report using more than 9 million country-to-country data points on trade, capital, information and people flows, ranking 180 countries globally.

    Its geographic scope is worldwide, with country profiles and regional analysis across major world regions.

    Length: 320 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.dhl.com/global-en/microsites/core/global-connectedness/report.html

    Core Insights

    1. Is globalization actually reversing, or is the report arguing that deglobalization is overstated?

    The report’s central argument is that deglobalization is overstated. It does not deny that geopolitical risk, tariffs, war, policy volatility and public scepticism have increased. But it argues that the actual data on cross-border flows do not show a broad retreat from international to domestic activity.

    The DHL Global Connectedness Index reached a record high in 2022 and has remained broadly stable through 2025. The report’s key measure of “depth” — international activity relative to domestic activity — sits at around 25%. That means globalization is historically high, but still limited: the world is far from “hyperglobalized”. Most economic and human activity still happens within countries rather than across borders.

    This distinction is central to the report’s logic. The authors are not saying that globalization is smooth, frictionless or politically uncontested. They are saying that globalization is being reshaped rather than reversed. The world is more volatile, but not meaningfully less connected.

    2. What evidence does the report give that global flows remain resilient?

    The report examines four broad types of flows: trade, capital, information and people.

    On trade, the report finds that goods trade grew faster in 2025 than in any year since 2017, excluding the post-Covid rebound. Part of this was driven by U.S. importers front-loading goods before tariff increases, but China’s exports to non-U.S. markets and AI infrastructure investment also supported growth. AI-related goods reportedly accounted for a large share of goods trade growth in the first three quarters of 2025.

    On capital, the picture is more mixed, but not one of retreat. Foreign direct investment and M&A activity remain broadly in line with historical patterns, even though greenfield FDI announcements weakened in some areas. The report emphasises that companies continue to invest abroad and that multinational firms still conduct close to record shares of activity outside their home markets.

    On information, the report is more cautious. Information flows have been the fastest-growing part of globalization over the past two decades, but some indicators have plateaued or weakened since 2021. International patenting has slowed, scientific collaboration has declined slightly, and cross-border intellectual property flows have eased. The report suggests that geopolitical tensions and data restrictions may now be constraining this part of globalization.

    On people, the report finds that international travel has recovered from the Covid-19 collapse, while international student mobility and migration remain on longer-term rising trends. However, people flows remain the least globalized category: only a small share of the world’s population lives outside its country of birth.

    3. How serious is geopolitical fragmentation, especially between the U.S., China and Russia?

    The report treats geopolitical fragmentation as a real risk, but argues that its global effects remain limited so far.

    The clearest evidence of fragmentation is in U.S.–China ties. Since 2016, the share of U.S. trade, capital, information and people flows involving China has fallen substantially, while China’s share involving the U.S. has also declined. Direct U.S. imports from China fell from a peak of 22% in 2017 to 13% in 2024, and then to 9% during the first three quarters of 2025.

    However, the report adds an important complication: the U.S. has not necessarily reduced its underlying reliance on Chinese content. Goods imported from third countries may still contain Chinese inputs. When looking at direct and indirect China-origin content, the report says there is no clear evidence of a major decline in U.S. reliance on goods from China through 2024.

    Russia is the more dramatic case. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s flows with the EU have collapsed across trade, investment, information and people flows. Russia’s exports have become less diversified and more dependent on a few destinations such as China, India and Türkiye.

    But the report’s broader conclusion is that these cases do not amount to a global split into rival blocs. Only a small share of global trade and investment has shifted away from geopolitical rivals. Most international business already takes place among friendly or neutral countries, which limits the likely impact of “de-risking” on globalization as a whole.

    4. Is globalization being replaced by regionalization or nearshoring?

    The report’s answer is: not yet, at least not in the data.

    Despite widespread discussion of nearshoring, friendshoring and regional supply chains, the report finds that many international flows are crossing longer, not shorter, distances. The average distance traversed by flows in the DHL Global Connectedness Index reached a record high in 2024. Goods trade and greenfield FDI crossed record average distances in 2025.

    This directly challenges the idea that globalization is giving way to regionalization. If international activity were becoming more regional, the average distance covered by flows should be falling. Instead, the report finds the opposite for several major flow types.

    That said, the report does not dismiss regionalization entirely. It notes that many governments and companies are interested in nearshoring and supply-chain resilience, and that such changes can take years to implement. It also acknowledges that international flows are already highly regionalized: roughly half of global trade, capital, information and people flows occur within major world regions. The report’s point is not that regionalization is irrelevant, but that there is not yet robust evidence of a major new shift from global to regional patterns.

    5. Which countries are most globally connected, and what does that reveal about globalization?

    Singapore ranks as the world’s most globally connected country, followed by Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Hong Kong SAR, the United Arab Emirates, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Denmark.

    The report distinguishes between two dimensions of connectedness: depth and breadth. Depth measures the size of international flows relative to domestic activity. Breadth measures how widely a country’s flows are distributed across the world.

    Small, wealthy economies tend to score highly on depth because their domestic markets are limited and they rely heavily on cross-border trade, capital, people and information flows. That explains the strong performance of places such as Singapore, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Ireland and the UAE.

    Larger economies often score higher on breadth than depth. The United Kingdom ranks first on breadth, followed by the United States, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Israel, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Australia. These countries have flows that reach widely across the world, but their large domestic economies mean that international activity can still represent a smaller share of total activity.

    This country-level analysis reinforces one of the report’s core themes: globalization is uneven. Some countries are deeply and broadly connected, while others remain peripheral. Wealth, peace and security, openness, regional integration, infrastructure and domestic business conditions all shape how connected a country becomes.

  • Employee Communications Report 2026 Global Edition by Gallagher

    Employee Communications Report 2026 Global Edition by Gallagher

    About the paper

    This report examines the state of internal communications and employee experience, with a particular focus on what Gallagher calls the “Readiness Gap” between perceived organisational risk and the communications capabilities needed to handle it.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on a global survey, roundtables, and focus groups conducted from September to November 2025, drawing on input from more than 1,300 communications and HR professionals across 40 countries; the geographic profile is weighted heavily toward North America and the UK/Europe.

    The report is broadly descriptive and analytical rather than experimental, and its methodology is reasonably clear, though some findings are based on sub-samples rather than the full respondent base.

    Length: 48 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ajg.com/employeeexperience/state-of-the-sector/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report, and what does Gallagher mean by the “Readiness Gap”?

    The report’s central argument is that internal communications and HR functions are operating in an environment of constant change, but many organisations are still not structurally or strategically prepared to respond well. Gallagher defines this mismatch as the “Readiness Gap”: the gap between the risks organisations face and the capabilities, governance, strategy, and operating structures communicators need in order to manage those risks effectively.

    The report argues that readiness is not about predicting the future perfectly. Instead, it is about building enough clarity, resilience, and strategic maturity to deal with volatility as a normal operating condition. In this framing, the issue is not simply that communicators face risk; it is that too many functions lack visibility into their mandate, lack codified strategy, or respond to complexity with high-volume, low-targeted communication that actually worsens overload, burnout, and mistrust.

    A major strength of the report is that it treats readiness as multi-dimensional. Its “Readiness Index” combines six dimensions: risk, agility, AI readiness, human-centric communication, strategy, and impact. The global averages show a striking pattern: risk is relatively high at 57%, while AI readiness is only 39% and impact maturity just 36%. That suggests that many teams are highly exposed to pressure but comparatively weak in the systems that would help them respond strategically.

    In practical terms, the report’s argument is that strategic maturity is the main dividing line. Mature teams do not necessarily face fewer problems; in fact, they may face more complexity. What distinguishes them is that they have stronger strategic foundations, clearer governance, more active socialisation of strategy, and better operational discipline. In other words, the report is ultimately arguing that readiness is a function-level capability problem, not just an environmental problem.

    2. What are the most important risks and structural weaknesses identified in the research?

    The report identifies a cluster of recurring risks that define the current operating reality for internal communicators. The most severe and widespread are manager effectiveness, information overload, audience burnout, budget constraints, decision exclusion, lack of strategic direction, and low trust in leadership. Among these, burnout and overload are especially prominent: 81% of respondents see employee burnout as a moderate or significant risk, and 83% say information overload is a growing problem. Manager capability is even more acute, with 87% saying that managers lacking skills and capacity is a significant or moderate risk.

    What makes these risks especially important is that they are not isolated. The report repeatedly shows that they reinforce one another. High communication volume is associated with greater overload, greater burnout, and higher perceived trust risk. For example, in high-volume environments, the risk of burnout rises sharply, and communicating heavily about change, culture, or strategy can increase trust-related problems if the communication is not matched by relevance, authenticity, or audience fit.

    The report also highlights major structural weaknesses beneath those risks. Many teams simply do not have the strategic assets or governance mechanisms needed to respond well. A majority lack formal change communications approaches, manager toolkits, audience personas, channel frameworks, and formal listening approaches. Only 15% have an active and socialised EVP, while 37% have no formal EVP at all. Fewer than one in five are satisfied with their ability to personalise communication through current channels.

    Another weakness is measurement immaturity. Most functions remain stuck measuring output rather than outcomes or business impact. The report says 70% are still largely tracking activity metrics such as opens, clicks, and views, while only a minority measure sentiment, understanding, behavioural outcomes, or business impact. This matters because teams that cannot measure what they influence struggle to prove value, gain visibility, and escape being perceived as administrative rather than strategic.

    So the report’s diagnosis is not just that communicators are under pressure. It is that too many teams are under pressure while also being under-instrumented: lacking strategy, lacking tools, lacking measurement, and lacking the authority or structure to act early rather than react late.

    3. How does the report explain the difference between high-performing and low-performing communications functions?

    The report’s most important explanatory idea is that strategic maturity separates the stronger functions from the weaker ones. Gallagher groups respondents into four “Readiness” segments: Vulnerable, Untapped, Resilient, and Stable. The low-performing ends of the spectrum are Vulnerable and Untapped; the higher-performing ends are Resilient and Stable. What distinguishes them is not simply team size or sector, but the interaction of maturity, visibility, governance, and strategic activation.

    Vulnerable teams operate in high-risk environments with low maturity. They are more reactive, less likely to track their mandate, more likely to be driven by leadership requests than employee insight, and more likely to experience burnout and low leadership trust. Untapped teams are slightly different: they report lower perceived risk, but they also score low on the capabilities that would actually reduce risk. The report suggests that they may be living with a false sense of security.

    By contrast, Resilient teams operate under pressure but maintain control. Stable teams combine lower risk with strong maturity and governance. These higher-performing groups are much more likely to have active, socialised strategies, better measurement practices, stronger visibility into what they are accountable for, and a more consultancy-like operating model. Stable teams, for instance, are described as most likely to operate as a strategic consultancy, while Resilient teams prove that high performance is possible even in high-pressure settings if discipline and strategic structure are in place.

    One of the report’s strongest findings is the emphasis on socialisation of strategy, not just the existence of strategy. Only 27% say their strategic documents are well understood by stakeholders, yet those with active, socialised strategies are much more likely to report stronger engagement, better influence, better measurement, and lower perceived risk. The report even suggests that teams with a living strategy can double their odds of success and substantially reduce missed KPIs.

    This means the report is not really celebrating strategy as a document. It is celebrating strategy as an active operating system. High-performing teams write things down, align stakeholders, use their frameworks to guide decisions, and connect communications work to outcomes. Low-performing teams often have fragments of strategy, but not enough codification or shared understanding to turn intent into consistent action.

    4. What does the research reveal about change, AI, and the future capability demands on communications teams?

    The report presents change communication as the new baseline capability for the profession. It explicitly argues that change is no longer a specialist area; it is now central to the job. Change management communication ranks as the most critical skill for the coming 12 months, yet 61% of teams do not have a formal change communications approach. This is one of the clearest examples of the report’s broader argument: the capability needed most urgently is often the one least systematically developed.

    The report also shows that workforce readiness is constrained by team size, structure, and budgets. Across organisations of all sizes, 69% have fewer than six people in a comms role, and one in three have no dedicated communications budget. The research suggests a particular strain as organisations move past 500 employees, when complexity rises faster than capability. Gallagher describes a mid-market “capacity crash”, where communicators per 1,000 employees drop sharply and perceived risk rises.

    On AI, the report takes a relatively sober line. It does not present AI as a transformative equaliser by default. Instead, it argues that AI amplifies pre-existing maturity. Most respondents are using AI for drafting and summarising, but far fewer are using it for higher-value applications such as measuring outcomes, automating workflows, generating insight, or supporting strategic decisions. Three-quarters of functions remain in early-stage experimentation or ad hoc use, and only 36% of respondents feel they have the skills and literacy needed to use AI effectively.

    The strongest AI finding is about governance. Teams with high governance, clear policies, training, and support are far more likely to move from experimentation into enabled or strategic use. The report says those with stronger governance are 10 times more likely to reach enabled maturity, and that higher-maturity teams use AI to amplify thinking and measurement, whereas lower-maturity teams mainly use it to draft faster. That is a significant claim because it reframes AI readiness as a management and governance issue, not just a tooling issue.

    So in future-capability terms, the report points to a new skills mix: change capability, leadership coaching, stakeholder management, AI literacy, and data literacy. It is effectively arguing that the future communicator is not just a channel manager or content producer, but a strategic advisor with stronger analytical, coaching, and transformation skills.

    5. What are the report’s main implications for communication leaders, and what should they take away from it?

    The report’s biggest implication is that communication leaders should stop thinking of function maturity as a nice enhancement and start treating it as a risk-management necessity. In Gallagher’s framing, readiness is directly linked to organisational performance, employee trust, and the ability to absorb change. That means communication leaders need to invest less in simply pushing more content and more in building the strategic and operational conditions that make communication effective.

    A second implication is that audience-first communication is no longer optional. The report repeatedly shows that segmentation, human tone, relevant formats, and better listening reduce risk and improve effectiveness. Teams that communicate in more human-centric ways are better able to cut through noise, protect trust, and reduce burnout and overload. Yet most organisations still fall short on segmentation, personalisation, and audience profiling. The implication is clear: relevance is becoming a core performance discipline, not a stylistic bonus.

    A third implication concerns proof of value. The report strongly suggests that communicators will struggle to gain strategic standing if they remain trapped in activity metrics. If the function wants to close the gap between aspiring to be a strategic consultancy and actually being seen as one, it has to improve measurement maturity and link communication efforts to business outcomes, risk reduction, behaviour change, and employee sentiment. Otherwise, the “admin” label persists.

    Finally, the report implies that leaders should focus on four priorities for 2026: clarity and direction, workforce readiness, operational enablement, and human-centric communication. These are not presented as separate workstreams but as mutually reinforcing. Clarity without enablement will stall. AI without governance will remain shallow. Listening without strategy will stay anecdotal. Human-centric intent without time, permission, or systems will remain uneven.

    Taken together, the report is less a celebration of best practice than a warning against drift. Its core message is that many communication functions are trying to operate in a strategic age with reactive-era structures. The teams that do better are not necessarily louder or larger; they are more codified, more socialised, more disciplined, and more human in how they communicate.

  • Leading at the Intersections 2026 by Weber Shandwick

    Leading at the Intersections 2026 by Weber Shandwick

    About the paper

    Weber Shandwick’s Leading at the Intersections 2026 is a short corporate affairs trends report about the strategic shifts reshaping modern corporate affairs, especially in the U.S. and for U.S. multinationals.

    It is primarily an expert commentary / advisory perspective, with one referenced survey of Fortune 1000 communications and corporate affairs executives conducted by Weber Advisory and Gravity Research; the sample size, fieldwork method and timeframe are not clearly specified in the report.

    The geographic focus is mainly the United States, with some attention to global stakeholder expectations around U.S. companies abroad.

    Length: 13 pages

    More information / download:
    https://webershandwick.com/news/the-five-shifts-redefining-the-c-suite-agenda-in-2026

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report argues that corporate affairs leaders are now operating “at the intersections” of several forms of disruption:

    • geoeconomic instability
    • polarised U.S. politics
    • reputational volatility
    • AI-driven transformation
    • workforce anxiety
    • cultural fragmentation
    • and changing expectations around responsible business.

    Its core message is that corporate affairs can no longer be treated as a reactive communications function. The authors frame it as a strategic leadership capability that must help organisations make sense of complexity, protect licence to operate, create stakeholder value and support business resilience.

    The report’s strongest underlying assumption is that the operating environment has become too volatile for narrow, bottom-line-only communication. Companies need to understand how business value, stakeholder expectations, culture, politics, technology and social impact now interact. In that sense, the report positions modern corporate affairs as a form of integrated strategic intelligence.

    2. How does the report suggest companies should think about value in a time of disruption?

    The report warns that in uncertain times, leaders may be tempted to focus narrowly on economic value and the bottom line. Weber Shandwick argues the opposite: disruption is precisely when companies need to broaden their understanding of value.

    It identifies several value dimensions beyond financial performance:

    • functional value
    • emotional value
    • and societal value.

    The point is not that profit becomes irrelevant, but that companies’ licence to operate depends on more than profit. Trust, relevance, purpose, stakeholder relationships and perceived contribution to society all become part of the value equation.

    The report links this especially to the 2026 U.S. midterm environment. Affordability, cost of living, inequality, trade, healthcare, housing, immigration and AI regulation are all described as issues shaping public expectations. In this environment, companies face reputational risk if they are seen as detached from ordinary stakeholder concerns.

    One particularly useful insight is that “corporate speak” is no longer neutral. The report frames over-polished, generic language as a credibility risk. Companies are advised to communicate with more emotion, empathy and candour — not as a stylistic preference, but as a trust-building necessity.

    3. What new expectations does the report identify for corporate diplomacy?

    The report argues that U.S. multinationals will be pushed into more explicit forms of corporate diplomacy in 2026. The key issue is that foreign stakeholders may increasingly expect U.S. companies to show that they are not simply proxies for U.S. foreign policy.

    This is an important distinction. The report suggests that U.S. brands have, so far, retained some independence from declining perceptions of U.S. political leadership. But that separation may become harder to maintain if U.S. government actions become more confrontational or less aligned with international norms.

    Three expectations stand out. First, companies must demonstrate local accountability: where decisions are made, how local interests are protected and which commitments endure despite political shifts in Washington. Second, they need deeper local relationships across government, business and civil society, because these relationships become a form of reputational defence. Third, executives may need to speak more visibly and carefully abroad, because silence can increasingly be interpreted as alignment.

    The report also connects this to B2G strategy in an “America First” context. For tech companies in particular, it recommends local storytelling around outcomes governments already care about: workforce upskilling, manufacturing, energy resilience, defence readiness and public-sector efficiency.

    4. Why does the report treat cultural intelligence as a leadership capability?

    The report presents cultural intelligence as a core leadership currency because companies are increasingly pressured to respond to cultural flashpoints in real time. Digital discourse, ideological polarisation, influencer dynamics, bots and platform algorithms all make it harder for organisations to remain silent or generic without others filling in the blanks.

    The report’s argument is not that companies should comment on everything. Rather, leaders need to know their organisation’s “true north” and make sharper decisions about when to engage, how to engage and when not to engage. Cultural intelligence is therefore both an external sensing capability and an internal decision-making discipline.

    The report highlights three ways to build cultural adaptation fluency. Companies should internalise organisational values so they function as an operating system rather than decorative statements. They should dig deeper into the “why” behind cultural signals, not just track what is trending. And they should make scenario planning a routine practice, using AI and other tools to anticipate how cultural communities and influencers may react.

    A useful nuance here is the distinction between audiences and algorithms. The report notes that meaning still comes from human belief, but reach is shaped by platforms. Leaders therefore need to design communication for both human interpretation and algorithmic circulation.

    5. What implications does the report draw for responsible business and AI transformation?

    The report argues that responsible business is not disappearing, even if the language around ESG, sustainability or social impact changes for political and practical reasons. The fundamentals remain important because companies still need to balance material business pressures, stakeholder tensions and reputational risk.

    Three responsible business challenges are highlighted.

    1. First, companies must define the future of human work as AI integration accelerates. Stakeholders will expect human-first integration plans, workforce readiness and credible opportunities for future talent.
    2. Second, the report argues that climate action is becoming more fragmented because coordinated multilateral action is weakening, while “China First” green tech and “America First” energy politics reshape the context.
    3. Third, companies must separate values from “vibes”: in a fragmented information environment, responsibility strategies must be anchored in the business model rather than broad, consensus-seeking purpose claims.

    On AI, the report’s position is pragmatic rather than utopian. AI transformation is treated as unavoidable, but the authors warn against simplistic winner/loser narratives. Companies need a transformation narrative that proves the business case while addressing the human side of change.

    The report identifies three AI-related communication challenges:

    • real-time stakeholder insight
    • machine readability intelligence
    • and human-centred generative creativity.

    The most distinctive point is “machine readability”: companies now need to understand how they appear in AI search and AI-generated summaries, which sources shape those outputs, and how to correct misinformation or poor representations.

    The final message is: be AI-enabled, not AI-enthralled. For B2B marketing in particular, AI should not replace the entire martech stack or become a reason to defund other vital technologies. The stronger argument is for deliberate integration: clear use cases, regulatory awareness, privacy safeguards and attention to workforce impact.

  • Fast + Flexible – 2026 C-suite Perspectives Study by Padilla

    Fast + Flexible – 2026 C-suite Perspectives Study by Padilla

    About the paper

    The paper is a mixed-methods report on how C-suite leaders are approaching uncertainty, workforce change, AI, hybrid work, well-being, social impact, and DEI/ESG positioning in 2026.

    Padilla says it combines an online survey of 100 C-suite executives and 1,000 employed adults, more than 60 interviews with C-suite leaders analysed using both AI and human interpretation, and desk research conducted in the latter half of 2025; the geographic scope appears U.S.-focused, but the respondent geography is not clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 10 pages

    More information / download:
    https://padillaco.com/c-suite-perspectives-2026

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the 2026 C-suite mindset?

    The core argument is that senior leaders are no longer waiting for uncertainty to pass. Instead, they are treating instability as a permanent condition and responding by trying to move faster while keeping room to pivot. The report frames this as a shift from earlier stages of disruption management toward a new posture it calls “fast + flexible.” It explicitly contrasts previous years’ mindsets — “conflicted” in 2023, “fatigue + focus” in 2024, and “moving ahead” in 2025 — with a 2026 mood defined by urgency, adaptability and momentum.

    That shift is not presented as optimism in the simple sense. The report says leaders want more stability, but do not expect to get it. In other words, their confidence is pragmatic rather than serene. They are trying to make decisions under pressure, operate through volatility, and show progress despite persistent ambiguity. This is especially visible in the report’s emphasis on inflation, policy change, regulation, AI and innovation as rising leadership challenges.

    For communicators, the deeper meaning is that organisations are entering a period where flexibility itself becomes a strategic capability. The report suggests that leadership credibility now depends less on promising certainty and more on showing agility, direction and steadiness amid ongoing turbulence.

    2. Where does the report find the biggest gaps between leaders and employees?

    The report’s most important pattern is a recurring perception gap between the C-suite and employees. It argues that leaders and employees do not experience organisational reality in the same way, and that this divergence is now showing up across several high-stakes issues. The report even describes this as a kind of “K-shape” divide in viewpoints between leadership and employees.

    The clearest gap concerns change readiness. According to the report, 67% of leaders believe employees are “fully” or “very” well equipped to embrace and support change initiatives, while only 43% of employees agree. That is a substantial disconnect, especially given that the changes in question include AI, mergers and acquisitions, and leadership transitions. The report interprets this as evidence that some leaders may be overestimating workforce readiness.

    A second gap concerns well-being. Leaders say their own well-being has improved and are also relatively upbeat about employee well-being, with 48% believing employee well-being has improved. Only 25% of employees say the same. Importantly, when people do report improvements, the report says these are tied more to personal boundaries, health and self-care than to better workplace conditions or stronger business performance. That weakens any claim that organisations themselves have solved the well-being issue.

    A third gap appears around AI. The report says 88% of leaders describe their organisations as adopting AI aggressively or selectively, yet only 43% of employees view AI as a net benefit to their job. The report is careful here: it does not present employees as outright rejecting AI, but rather as uncertain about its value and impact. That distinction matters, because uncertainty can still become resistance if not addressed.

    Taken together, these gaps support one of the report’s strongest underlying messages: organisational change is not just about strategic decisions at the top, but about whether employees understand, trust and can absorb those decisions.

    3. What does the study say about the leadership qualities now seen as most necessary?

    The report argues that leadership today requires an unusual combination of traditional authority and human openness. It says the three most important “classic” leadership qualities are credibility, vision and authenticity, which together create what the report calls a paradoxical need to show both certainty and vulnerability.

    What has risen most sharply, however, are qualities associated with toughness and steadiness under pressure. On page 4, the visual “Qualities on the Rise” shows the biggest year-over-year increases for fearlessness (+18), stoicism (+14), vision (+13), certainty (+13), authenticity (+7) and inclusivity (+7). That pattern is revealing. It suggests leaders feel pressure to be decisive, resilient and unflinching, but also to remain credible through honesty and attentive listening.

    The report does not celebrate hard-edged leadership on its own. It explicitly warns that while leaders may be leaning into traditional executive traits to power through uncertainty, employees may need more empathy, transparency and humanity in order to come along with them. So the model of leadership implied here is not pure command-and-control. It is stronger than that in one sense, but softer than that in another: leaders must project direction without pretending to know everything.

    This has direct communication implications. The report says employees and leaders are broadly aligned on which traits matter, and that communicators can use this alignment to support strategy. That means internal communication should not just explain decisions; it should also help leaders perform the right balance of realism, openness and conviction.

    4. How does the report interpret current organisational flashpoints such as hybrid work, AI, social issues, and DEI/ESG?

    The report treats these issues not as isolated debates but as examples of a wider strategic tension: leaders want to keep adapting quickly, but employees do not always share their assumptions or pace. Hybrid work is a good example. The report says 79% of leaders expect their organisations to maintain or move toward hybrid models, but 21% are becoming stricter about in-office policies. Its interpretation is that organisations have settled into hybrid work operationally, but not psychologically or culturally. In other words, hybrid remains workable, but unresolved.

    AI is presented as having crossed an inflection point. The report says it is no longer seen by the C-suite as experimental, but as core infrastructure. Yet employee uncertainty remains significant. The implication the report draws is not merely that firms need AI tools, but that they need a clear narrative about AI’s intent, value and expectations. It explicitly recommends combining change management with thought leadership around AI. That is a notable framing, because it positions communication not as a support function after adoption, but as part of adoption itself.

    On social issues, the report suggests leaders are more willing to speak out than before, but selectively and mainly when issues are directly relevant to the business. It says 54% of leaders believe it is important to speak out on relevant external social issues, while 26% of employees think their companies are avoiding taking a stand at all costs. The report’s explanation is that companies may now be communicating their positions more internally or to directly affected groups, rather than through broad public declarations.

    On DEI and ESG, the report argues that language is changing more than underlying intent. It says these commitments still rank low as formal C-suite priorities, but the benefits associated with them remain valued. On page 7, the report says organisations are using alternative terms such as belonging, inclusion, fairness, representation and culture instead of DEI, while ESG is increasingly treated as “good business hygiene” focused on practical actions such as emissions reductions, efficiency and sustainable sourcing. The key idea is not abandonment, but repositioning in more business-linked language.

    5. What are the main implications for communicators and organisations?

    The report’s most consistent conclusion is that communication now has to do more than inform. It has to reduce gaps in perception, build trust in leadership intent, and help organisations carry people through instability. Nearly every section ends with an implication that points back to communication as a strategic enabler rather than a downstream messaging function.

    First, communicators need to treat change readiness as a live organisational risk. Since leaders appear more confident than employees about workforce preparedness, internal communication should not assume readiness; it has to build it. That means clearer explanations, more deliberate engagement, and more effort to create what the report calls change-resilient cultures.

    Second, communicators have an especially important role in AI. The report makes clear that executive enthusiasm alone is not enough. Employees need a believable account of why AI is being used, where it adds value, what expectations apply, and how risks are being managed. In effect, AI adoption requires narrative leadership as much as technical implementation.

    Third, the report suggests that hybrid work, well-being, and social-impact positions all require stronger internal sense-making. Tightening office expectations without buy-in may damage retention. Assuming employee well-being has improved may mask unresolved strain. Taking stands selectively without explaining the “why, when and how” may create internal scepticism. In all three cases, silence or vague messaging widens the gap between leadership intent and employee interpretation.

    Finally, the broader strategic implication is that communicators should help leaders embody the report’s central formula: move fast, but not blindly; stay flexible, but not vague; build momentum, but through alignment, clarity and trust. That is the real communication agenda running through the entire study.

  • Global Foresight 2036 by the Atlantic Council

    Global Foresight 2036 by the Atlantic Council

    About the paper

    The report is a mixed-methods strategic foresight publication from the Atlantic Council that combines original survey research, expert commentary, six “snow leopard” horizon-scanning essays, and a shorter AI discussion section.

    Its core empirical base is the organisation’s fourth annual survey of 447 geostrategists and foresight practitioners from 72 countries, fielded in November and December 2025; the respondent pool is global, though roughly half are US citizens and the sample is drawn from the Atlantic Council’s network rather than a general population sample.

    Length: 76 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/global-foresight-2036/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the world of 2036?

    The report’s central argument is that the decade ahead is likely to be more unstable, more fragmented, and more dangerous than the present, even though the exact future cannot be predicted with certainty. Rather than offering a single forecast, the report uses foresight to map the pressures, risks, and directional shifts that experts think are most likely to shape 2036.

    Its overall tone is notably pessimistic. The opening findings state that 63 percent of respondents expect the world in 2036 to be worse off than it is now, while only 37 percent think it will be better. The report frames this darker mood through a cluster of reinforcing trends:

    • intensifying US-China rivalry
    • a possible hot conflict over Taiwan
    • weakening multilateral institutions
    • democratic decline
    • nuclear proliferation
    • climate stress
    • and rapid AI advances whose benefits are matched by growing concern.

    At the same time, the report is not purely apocalyptic. It argues that foresight is valuable precisely because it helps policymakers and readers prepare for multiple possible futures, including surprising ones. That is why the publication pairs survey findings with under-the-radar “snow leopards” and a separate AI section: the aim is not just to describe probable big trends, but to widen the reader’s field of vision.

    2. What are the report’s main findings from the expert survey?

    The report organises its main survey results into ten headline findings. The most prominent is that respondents broadly expect China to surpass the United States economically by 2036, even if they do not think China will simply replace the US as an uncontested global hegemon. Instead, most foresee either bipolar competition or a more diffuse multipolar system. They also increasingly expect China to attempt to take Taiwan by force, and more than 40 percent foresee another world war, most likely sparked in Taiwan or surrounding waters.

    A second major finding is that NATO is expected to survive, but not unchanged. Respondents are divided on whether it will become more or less influential, yet 44 percent think it will no longer exist in its current form by 2036. The survey also suggests growing doubts about whether the United States will still play the same commanding role within the alliance.

    On Russia and Ukraine, the survey points away from a decisive Russian victory and toward a frozen conflict. Respondents also see Russia as a diminished power by 2036, though still potentially dangerous, especially in nuclear terms. On AI, a majority believe artificial general intelligence could emerge within the decade, and more respondents still see AI as a net positive than a net negative, though the gap has narrowed as concern rises.

    Other major findings include:

    • expectations of wider nuclear proliferation, especially involving Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, and some NATO countries
    • a more autonomous but still strategically limited Europe
    • declining climate cooperation even as warming worsens
    • weakening global institutions alongside democratic erosion
    • and continued dollar dominance, though with crypto seen as the biggest challenger rather than another national currency.

    3. What evidence and patterns in the report best reveal how experts think power is shifting?

    One of the clearest patterns is that respondents do not think the future belongs to a single dominant actor in the way the post-Cold War era was often understood. The report repeatedly points to diffusion, contestation, and erosion of established forms of leadership. China is seen as rising strongly in economic power, nearly matching the US in technology and diplomacy, while the United States is still expected to remain militarily pre-eminent. That split itself is telling: respondents appear to be imagining a world where different forms of power are no longer concentrated in one state.

    Another pattern is institutional weakening.

    Respondents expect the United Nations, UN Security Council, WTO, World Bank, and IMF all to lose influence over the next decade.

    That suggests not merely dissatisfaction with current institutions, but a broader expectation that the post-1945 order is fraying. The report explicitly connects this decay with democratic recession, arguing that respondents who foresee deeper democratic decline are especially likely to expect institutional weakening and a worse overall world.

    A third pattern concerns regional and bloc-level reconfiguration. Europe is not expected to become the world’s leading military, economic, or tech power, yet respondents increasingly think it will achieve greater strategic autonomy. NATO may endure, but in altered form. The Global South section then adds another layer by showing that respondents from those countries often expect even sharper shifts away from US primacy and are more inclined to see China rising, Russia doing better in Ukraine, and even internal US breakdown.

    Together, these patterns show that the report is less about simple replacement of one superpower by another and more about a messy redistribution of influence across states, blocs, technologies, markets, and non-state actors.

    4. What does the report suggest about the role of technology and underappreciated trends in shaping the future?

    The report treats technology as both a direct force of change and a lens that reshapes how other global risks unfold. AI is the most obvious example. Respondents expect major advances, including the possible arrival of AGI within a decade, and the report presents AI as a technology with systemic implications for economics, geopolitics, knowledge production, and everyday life. But the accompanying expert discussion is more cautious than the survey toplines: Atlantic Council specialists stress that today’s AI is not good at truly forecasting the future, that AGI is far from certain, and that trust, energy demands, and market instability could constrain progress.

    The six “snow leopards” deepen this technological and horizon-scanning emphasis. These essays focus on phenomena that may be easy to overlook now but could become highly consequential. They include:

    1. Private tech firms shaping conflict outcomes
    2. Circular rather than one-way migration
    3. Kelp forests as climate and economic assets
    4. The erosion of the human rights order
    5. AI-driven cultural erasure
    6. Neurotechnology capable of decoding thought.

    What unites these cases is the report’s belief that future disruption will not come only from the usual headline issues. Some of the biggest shifts may emerge from domains that sit between established categories: companies behaving like geopolitical actors, migration functioning as an innovation loop, environmental restoration becoming industrial strategy, or data bias turning into cultural loss. This part of the report broadens the frame beyond interstate competition and argues for paying attention to early signals and second-order effects.

    5. What are the report’s biggest implications for policymakers, strategists, and communicators?

    The report’s main implication is that leaders should prepare for a world defined less by stability and rule-bound cooperation than by rivalry, fragmentation, and institutional stress. For policymakers, this means planning for deterrence, alliance adaptation, nuclear risk, democratic erosion, and climate-related conflict at the same time rather than treating them as separate silos. The report’s structure itself makes that point: geopolitics, democracy, climate, finance, and technology are deeply entangled.

    A second implication is that strategic assumptions inherited from the post-Cold War period look increasingly fragile. The report suggests that US leadership can no longer be taken for granted, NATO may need redesign rather than maintenance alone, and multilateral bodies may not be capable of managing future crises in the way they were once expected to. That pushes strategists toward resilience, contingency planning, and coalition-building under less favourable conditions.

    For communicators, the report is especially useful as a map of narratives that may dominate the coming decade:

    • democratic decline
    • technological disruption
    • geopolitical fragmentation
    • and competing visions of order.

    It also shows that audiences are unlikely to share a single worldview.

    The section on Global South respondents is particularly important here, because it demonstrates that expectations about the future vary significantly by geography and political vantage point. In practical terms, this means communication about global risk, strategy, or public policy will increasingly need to account for fragmented perceptions rather than assuming one shared interpretive frame.

    The final implication is methodological: the report argues implicitly for foresight as a discipline of disciplined imagination rather than prediction. Its value lies not in claiming certainty, but in helping readers test assumptions, notice emerging signals, and think more seriously about consequences before they fully arrive.

  • 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer by Edelman

    2026 Edelman Trust Barometer by Edelman

    About the paper

    The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer is based on Edelman’s 26th annual online survey, fielded from 25 October to 16 November 2025 across 28 countries, with 33,938 respondents and roughly 1,200–1,501 respondents per country; the report states the data are representative of the general population by age, gender and region within each market.

    The report also uses partial-sample questions for some topics, including future outlook, media exposure, trust brokering and foreign-company trust, so some findings rest on smaller subsamples with larger margins of error.

    Methodology is generally clear, though several analyses rely on derived scales or partial samples explained in the technical appendix.

    Length: 77 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the state of trust in 2026?

    The core argument is that trust has not simply weakened in a uniform way; it has become more inward-looking. Edelman frames this as a progression from polarization to grievance and then to insularity, which it defines as a reluctance to trust anyone who is different from you. The report’s main claim is that economic displacement, cost-of-living pressures, misinformation, discrimination, geopolitical tension and the pandemic have pushed many people towards safety, familiarity and sameness rather than openness.

    That argument is supported by one of the report’s most important headline findings: globally, 7 in 10 respondents are classified as having an “insular trust mindset”, meaning they are either hesitant or unwilling to trust someone who differs from them in values, facts, problem-solving approaches, or culture/background. The segmentation is not casual wording; it is built from a specific measurement model in the appendix, where respondents are grouped as unwilling, hesitant or open based on their average willingness to trust people unlike themselves.

    The report therefore presents 2026 not as a simple trust crisis, but as a trust reorientation. Trust is moving away from broad, shared institutions and towards one’s own immediate circle, local ties and familiar actors. That is why the title, Trust Amid Insularity, matters: trust still exists, but it is increasingly conditional, local and bounded.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that people are turning inward rather than outward?

    The strongest evidence is the combination of pessimism, fear and narrowing openness. Globally, only 32% say the next generation in their country will be better off than today, down 4 points year on year. That is a strikingly low level of forward optimism for a study centred on public trust, because it suggests that many respondents do not see broad-based future progress as plausible.

    The report also shows elevated economic anxiety. Among employees, worry about losing one’s job because of a looming recession and concern about international trade and tariff conflicts hurting one’s employer have both reached all-time highs in the global trend data presented. Alongside that, fear that foreign countries are deliberately contaminating domestic media with falsehoods has risen sharply and reached an all-time high in many countries.

    A further sign of retreat is informational narrowing. Only 39% say they get information at least weekly from sources with a different political leaning than their own, a 6-point drop from 2025, with statistically significant declines in 20 of 28 countries. This matters because the report links insularity not just to emotion, but to reduced exposure to difference itself.

    Finally, the report shows that recent societal events have increased trust in people close at hand while reducing trust in shared institutions. Among those who say major events affected their trust, respondents report net gains in trust for neighbours, family and friends, coworkers and CEOs, but net losses for national government leaders, major news organisations and foreign business leaders. In other words, “we” gives way to “me” and “my circle”.

    3. How uneven is trust across countries, classes and institutions?

    The report makes clear that trust is highly uneven geographically. The global Trust Index rises slightly from 56 to 57, but this masks a sharp divide between developing and developed countries: developing countries average 66, while developed countries average 49. China, the UAE, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia sit near the top of the ranking, while Japan, France, the UK and Germany are much lower. So the story is not one of universal decline, but of divergence.

    There is also a pronounced income divide. On the long trend shown in the report, the gap in the Trust Index between high-income and low-income groups has widened from 6 points in 2012 to 15 points in 2026 in the 21-market tracking average. In the current 28-market snapshot, high-income respondents score 65 on trust versus 50 for low-income respondents. The report explicitly describes these as “different trust realities”.

    At the institutional level, employers and business remain the most trusted institutions globally. The report shows trust at 78% for “my employer” among employees and 64% for business overall, compared with 58% for NGOs, 54% for media and 53% for government. That hierarchy matters because it underpins Edelman’s later argument that employers and business are best placed to act as trust brokers.

    The report also argues that insularity and grievance are closely linked. Among people with an insular mindset, a moderate or high sense of grievance is substantially more common than among those with an open mindset. That gives the report a broader sociological claim: distrust is not just about institutions failing in abstraction, but about groups feeling excluded, harmed or left behind.

    4. What does the report say are the consequences of insularity for society, work and business?

    One of the report’s most important claims is that insularity is not just an attitudinal problem; it has concrete economic and organisational costs. On page 18, sizeable minorities say they would rather switch departments than report to a manager with different values, would put less effort into helping a project leader with different political beliefs succeed, or would support reducing foreign companies in their country even if it led to higher prices. This is Edelman’s case that insularity can damage productivity, increase workplace conflict and reinforce economic nationalism.

    The report also shows that people with insular mindsets trust their own circle but distrust institutions led by people unlike them. Among this group, neighbours and CEOs inside their own frame score relatively well, while journalists and government leaders score much lower. Separate analysis shows large trust gaps between open-minded and insular respondents when institutions are imagined as being led by people who differ from them in values, facts, approaches or background.

    For multinational business, the consequence is geopolitical insularity. Respondents in several countries trust companies headquartered in their own country markedly more than foreign-headquartered firms. The report’s implication is that global scale alone no longer guarantees legitimacy; local embeddedness matters more. That is why it argues multinationals may need a more “polynational” model rooted in long-term local relationships.

    The broader consequence is that difference itself becomes a barrier to cooperation. The report warns that if perfect alignment becomes a prerequisite for trust, progress stalls: innovation becomes harder, leadership weakens and social divides deepen. In that sense, the report is not only describing a mood, but warning of a drag on collective problem-solving.

    5. What solution does the report propose, and who does it believe should lead it?

    Edelman’s answer is “trust brokering”. The report defines this as a set of practices and behaviours that counter insularity by facilitating trust across difference. Crucially, it says trust brokering is not about changing people’s identities or forcing consensus. Instead, it is about surfacing common interests, listening without judgement and translating the needs and realities of one group to another.

    The report finds that this approach resonates more than simple side-taking. When asked what would most increase trust in a business responding to a highly divisive social issue, the top answer is encouraging people to cooperate on solutions without taking a side, ahead of supporting a position consistent with the company’s values or supporting the respondent’s own position. That is a revealing finding: respondents appear to prefer a convening role over performative alignment.

    It also argues that long-term local relationships matter more than one-off gestures. If a foreign company from a distrusted country wanted to operate in a local community, respondents were most likely to say it could earn trust by investing in long-term community projects and hiring local people, rather than merely helping during crises or donating to social organisations. The report’s logic is that trust is built through durable presence, not episodic signalling.

    As for who should lead, the report gives the strongest practical role to employers. It says all major institutions are seen as having an obligation to bridge divides, but employers have the smallest gap between perceived obligation and current performance. It also finds high support for employer actions such as promoting a shared identity, building teams that require people with different values to work together, and providing training for constructive dialogue. That is why the report’s concluding argument is so employer-centric: business, and especially employers, are portrayed as the institutions best positioned to scale trust brokering in practice.

  • State of AI in PR 2026 by Muck Rack

    State of AI in PR 2026 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The report is an original research survey about how PR professionals are using, governing and judging generative AI and emerging AI agents in their work.

    It is based on a survey of 564 PR professionals fielded from 5 December to 24 December 2025 and distributed primarily via email; responses were reviewed for low-effort patterns and outliers.

    The geographic scope is not clearly specified in the report, and the methodology is useful but relatively thin on sampling detail beyond distribution method and data cleaning.

    Length: 28 pages

    More information / download:
    https://muckrack.com/resources/research/state-of-ai-in-pr

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the current state of AI in PR?

      The core argument is that generative AI has moved from novelty to normal practice in PR, but that adoption has now largely plateaued. The report says AI use has “peaked” at around three-quarters of PR professionals, with 76% already using generative AI in their workflow and only modest shares still undecided or resistant. In other words, the market now appears split between a large majority who have already incorporated AI and a smaller minority who are unlikely to change their minds soon.

      The report also argues that this is no longer just an individual experimentation story. Organisations are adapting to AI institutionally: 51% of respondents say their company has an AI use-case policy, and 43% say their workplace offers AI training. That suggests AI in PR is becoming formalised, governed and embedded in workplace practice rather than remaining a purely ad hoc tool used by curious individuals.

      At the same time, the report draws a clear line between generative AI and agentic AI. While text-generation and workflow support are mainstream, AI agents have not yet crossed into broad professional adoption. Only 12% say they use AI agents in their work, and most respondents remain uncomfortable with autonomous action without human review. So the report’s bigger message is not “AI is coming”; it is “AI is here, but autonomy is not yet trusted.”

      2. How are PR professionals actually using AI, and where do they see the most value?

      The report shows that PR professionals are using AI mainly in mainstream knowledge and writing tasks, not in highly specialised or fully automated ways. The most common use case is editing and refinement, cited by 86%, followed by research and insights at 76%, writing and content creation at 74%, and strategy and planning at 68%. Administrative tasks are also significant at 51%, whereas media outreach, measurement and creative asset production remain much less central.

      That distribution matters because it shows where AI currently fits the profession best: it acts primarily as a cognitive and editorial assistant. It helps polish drafts, speed up background work, support ideation and assist with planning. The report says PR pros use AI in an average of four distinct work areas, which reinforces the idea that adoption is broad across tasks even if it is not yet deep in every part of the workflow.

      Perceived value is also very strong. Eighty-two per cent say AI has improved the quality of their work, while 93% say it helps them complete projects more quickly. When asked where the greatest time savings occur, respondents again point to core communication work: editing and refinement, research and insights, and writing and content creation. This suggests AI’s practical value in PR is currently less about replacing judgement and more about compressing routine labour around producing and shaping communication.

      3. What does the report suggest about trust, oversight and the limits of AI in PR practice?

      A key theme running through the report is that PR professionals are using AI extensively, but they do not trust it enough to leave it unsupervised. The clearest sign of this is editing behaviour: 98% say they always or often edit AI-generated text before using it. Although the extent of editing has decreased over time, the human review step remains almost universal. That implies AI is accepted as a draft partner, not as a final author.

      The report also reveals a selective approach to data input. Large majorities say they avoid entering financial data, personally identifiable information and proprietary or strategic material into AI systems. Yet far fewer avoid entering client or brand names and internal communications. This points to a practical but uneven data-risk mindset: many PR professionals recognise serious information-governance risks, but boundaries around what is safe to share with AI are still inconsistent.

      Trust drops even further when the report turns to AI agents. Only 7% say they would be comfortable allowing an AI agent to send messages or publish updates without human review, while about nine in ten are uncomfortable. The main conditions for greater trust are strong evidence of reliability, explicit human approval before publishing or sending, strong privacy and security safeguards, and transparent records of what the agent did. The report therefore implies that the profession is not rejecting automation outright, but it wants clear guardrails, accountability and a human in the loop.

      4. What risks, concerns and professional tensions does the report identify?

      The biggest concern in the report is not that AI will immediately destroy PR jobs, but that it could erode professional formation. Seventy-seven per cent say the main risk is that younger or newer PR professionals will fail to learn the principles of the profession and rely too heavily on tools. That is a profound concern because it goes to capability-building, judgement and the long-term health of the field.

      Other major concerns are also closely tied to quality and professional standards. Sixty-three per cent worry about unscrutinised AI output lowering the quality of communication, while 61% fear content becoming less original or creative and 61% think audiences may be overwhelmed by rising volumes of content. There is also concern that clients or firms may conclude they no longer need content creators. Together, these findings show that respondents fear AI may devalue craft, raise noise levels and weaken the human distinctiveness of communication work.

      Among non-users, the resistance is often principled rather than merely practical. The report notes that the 7% who do not plan to explore generative AI often cite environmental impact, plagiarism and broader ethical concerns. Many of them do not appear persuadable: 80% say they do not see themselves using AI in the future no matter what. That is important because it means non-adoption is not simply a training gap for everyone; for some, it reflects a deeper values-based objection.

      5. What are the report’s main implications for the future of PR work, capability-building and organisational practice?

      The report points towards a future in which the competitive edge in PR will come not from whether someone uses AI, but from how well they use it under proper governance. Since adoption has already stabilised at a high level, the next differentiator is likely to be capability. Respondents say the most important new skills are prompt writing or engineering, ethical decision-making, AI tool evaluation and selection, and data literacy. That suggests the profession is shifting from simple tool familiarity to a broader blend of technical fluency, judgement and governance awareness.

      There is also a strong implication for employers. Training and policy appear to matter. Among those open to AI but not yet using it, 60% say training or proven examples would help them start. At the same time, the growth in workplace policies and training since 2024 suggests companies are beginning to respond to that need. So the report implies that organisational maturity around AI is no longer optional; it is becoming part of professional infrastructure.

      Finally, the report suggests that PR is heading towards a hybrid future rather than a fully automated one. Paid AI use is rising rapidly, and everyday AI-supported work is now common, but agentic AI remains marginal because trust, accountability and reputational risk still demand human control. The underlying conclusion is that PR professionals are prepared to augment their work with AI, but not to surrender authorship, responsibility or final judgement to it. That is probably the report’s most important strategic implication.