Author: Jesper Andersen

  • World PR Report 2024-2025 by ICCO

    World PR Report 2024-2025 by ICCO

    About the paper

    The report is a global survey-based industry study of agency perspectives on the PR market in 2024–2025, covering growth, talent, AI, measurement, client demands, ethics, and regional differences.

    It is based on an online survey conducted between July and November 2024 among 227 PR professionals across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the United Kingdom, North America, Latin America, and the Middle East; some regional sub-samples were under 20, and the report does not clearly specify further methodological details beyond the survey format.

    Length: 47 pages

    More information / download:
    https://iccopr.com/world-pr-reports/

    Core Insights

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

    The report’s core argument is that PR is entering a decisive period shaped by two simultaneous realities: continued commercial opportunity and rising structural strain. On the one hand, agencies are still broadly optimistic. The report says 67% are optimistic about market growth and 61% expect profitability to rise. On the other hand, that optimism sits alongside budget pressure, economic uncertainty, talent strain, misinformation, and a more politically volatile operating environment.

    What makes the report more than a routine confidence survey is that it frames these pressures as a change in the nature of PR itself. The industry is moving further upstream into higher-value advisory work such as corporate reputation, strategic consulting, and increasingly public affairs. That suggests PR is no longer being defined primarily by media execution, but by its ability to help organisations navigate risk, trust, purpose, regulation, and contested public discourse.

    So the big story is not simply “the industry is growing.” It is that PR is trying to become more strategically indispensable at the same moment that technology, geopolitics, and ethical risk are making that role harder and more consequential.

    2. Where does the report see the strongest commercial growth and investment potential?

    The clearest growth pattern is a shift towards reputation-led and advisory-led work. Globally, the top growth areas over the past year were corporate reputation at 31% and strategic consulting at 28%. Looking ahead, the top expected growth areas are strategic consulting at 38%, corporate reputation at 37%, and public affairs at 23%. The rise of public affairs is especially notable because it suggests clients increasingly need help navigating political and regulatory complexity, not just public messaging.

    By sector, technology is the standout growth engine. It was the biggest growth sector over the past year at 46%, ahead of healthcare at 32% and financial and professional services at 27%. Looking forward, IT and technology remains the leading sector for expected growth at 54%, followed by healthcare at 30% and financial and professional services at 27%.

    Expected investment priorities also reveal something important about how agencies think the market is evolving. ESG leads expected investment at 40%, followed by strategic consulting at 31% and influencer communications at 29%. That mix is striking because it combines boardroom issues, advisory work, and newer influence channels. In other words, agencies appear to be investing both in strategic counsel and in the communication formats needed to activate it.

    Taken together, the report suggests that commercial growth is coming less from traditional media relations and more from helping clients manage reputation, policy exposure, stakeholder trust, and complex social expectations.

    3. How does the report portray AI’s impact on PR, and what does that imply for the profession?

    AI is presented as the single most transformative force in the report. Artificial intelligence is named by 86% of respondents as the most relevant future technology, 74% say their organisations have already integrated AI tools into everyday processes, and 79% believe AI’s impact on the industry will be significant, with a third calling it game-changing. Mastery of AI tools also ranks as the most relevant future skill set for PR executives at 47%, ahead of strategic consulting at 44%.

    But the report does not treat AI simply as a productivity story. It makes a more layered point: AI is likely to reshape both what PR does and how PR proves its value. The biggest expected AI impact area within PR is measurement and analytics at 56%, followed by multimedia content creation and research/insight/planning at 44% each. That means the report sees AI not just as a content engine, but as a tool for analysis, interpretation, and decision support. On page 20, the chart also shows that respondents expect technology to matter most for operating more efficiently, building online communities, and improving employee engagement.

    The implication is quite profound. If AI takes over more routine production and accelerates analysis, then human value in PR shifts further towards judgement, advisory capability, crisis counsel, ethics, and strategic interpretation. The report therefore points towards a profession in which technical fluency with AI becomes necessary, but not sufficient. The real differentiator becomes whether agencies can combine AI-enabled efficiency with trusted human counsel.

    4. What does the report identify as the industry’s biggest weaknesses or unresolved problems?

    The report highlights four interlocking weaknesses: commercial pressure, talent problems, thin progress on measurement maturity, and ethical vulnerability.

    Commercially, the biggest challenge for firms over the next 12 months is clients unwilling to commit sufficient funds at 37%, followed by economic conditions generally at 34% and pressure to meet profit or margin targets at 26%. So even where growth opportunities exist, agencies still face a market that is cost-conscious and demanding.

    On talent, the biggest strategic challenge is retaining key talent at 51%, followed by motivating younger executives at 35% and developing junior and mid-level staff at 33%. The report also notes a decline in perceived talent availability and in the industry’s ability to recruit from outside PR. It argues that this is especially problematic because the fastest-growing sectors, especially technology and healthcare, require specialist knowledge that traditional PR talent pipelines may not supply.

    Measurement is another weak point. Although the report presents some encouraging signs, such as measurement being used for reporting, planning, and decision-making, client demand still appears fairly basic in places. The most likely client requests are media clippings at 52%, engagement metrics at 39%, and AVE at 31%. That continued prominence of AVE suggests that parts of the market still rely on legacy proxies rather than more advanced evaluation approaches. At the same time, only 36% say they use AMEC frequently or sometimes, though Asia-Pacific performs better at 46%.

    Finally, ethics is not presented as a side issue but as a structural problem. Misinformation is the top ethical concern at 40%, lack of consequences for unethical agencies is at 38%, and balancing income with ethics is at 37%. Although 73% say they have turned down a client or job for ethical reasons, only 39% think PR is more ethical than other industries. That contrast suggests a profession that sees itself as trying to behave responsibly, while also recognising that its wider legitimacy remains fragile.

    5. What broader conclusions does the report draw about the future role of PR?

    The report’s broader conclusion is that PR’s future will depend on whether it can become more strategically important without losing ethical credibility. It repeatedly returns to three themes: reputation, responsibility, and reinvention. Clients’ most important objective is proactive corporate reputation at 61%, ahead of increased sales at 46% and crisis management at 37%. That tells us PR is increasingly tied to the stewardship of intangible value, not merely campaign delivery.

    At the same time, the profession’s future role is shown to be inseparable from ethical leadership. The report argues that PR professionals now operate in a world shaped by misinformation, polarisation, geopolitical instability, and AI-enabled content manipulation. In that context, 91% believe agencies have a duty to steer clients away from unethical behaviour. The message is that PR cannot credibly claim a strategic role unless it is also willing to act as a moral and reputational adviser.

    There is also a social dimension to this future role. Clients are most likely to prioritise sustainability and environment at 59%, followed by diversity and social inclusion at 28% and technology empowerment at 25%. That suggests PR’s remit increasingly includes helping organisations communicate around public-interest issues, not just commercial ones.

    So the report’s real conclusion is this: the future of PR will belong to agencies that can combine strategic consulting strength, AI capability, robust measurement, sector expertise, and ethical judgement. It is not a story of simple industry expansion. It is a story of professional upgrading under pressure.

  • 2025 Comms Report by PRWeek and Cision

    2025 Comms Report by PRWeek and Cision

    About the paper

    The report examines the current state of the PR and communications industry in 2025, with a particular focus on AI adoption, measurement and analytics, content strategy, influencer effectiveness, workforce challenges and C-suite priorities.

    It is based on original survey research: an online survey of 310 senior-level communications and marcomms professionals in the U.S. and Canada, fielded by PRWeek between 18 October and 20 November 2024; the methodology, sample and geography are clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 13 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.cision.com/resources/guides-and-reports/2025-comms-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about where the communications industry stands in 2025?

    The core argument is that the sector is advancing rather than standing still. The report explicitly frames 2025 as a story of measurable progress, especially in areas that have been recurring concerns since the study began in 2017, such as data, analytics and proving communications’ business value. At the same time, it argues that newer forces, especially generative AI, are now moving from experimentation into active workflow adoption.

    That argument is supported by several headline findings. The report says almost two-thirds of respondents believe generative AI is notably improving their data and analytics capabilities, while only a small minority say AI is not part of their communications strategy at all. It also states that 68% say they now have the tools needed to show the cause-and-effect relationship between communications work and bottom-line objectives. Together, those findings support the report’s broader claim that the industry is becoming more strategic, more data-enabled and more operationally mature.

    The tone is not triumphalist, though. The report still presents communications as a sector under pressure, especially pressure to do more with less, and one that continues to wrestle with reactive ways of working. So the central message is not that the industry has solved its problems, but that it has moved forward in meaningful ways while still facing structural challenges.

    2. What does the report show about AI adoption, and how significant is that shift?

    The report presents AI as the defining new capability story in communications. It says seven new AI-related questions were added this year specifically to capture where the industry now stands, suggesting that PRWeek and Cision see AI as too important to treat as a side issue. According to the findings, 23% say generative AI is used “very much so” in their overall comms strategy and 44% say “somewhat”, while only 9% say “not at all”. The report interprets this as evidence that AI integration has reached an acceleration point.

    The strongest operational uses are practical rather than futuristic. The report says AI is being used most regularly for content review and optimisation, brainstorming campaign ideas, audience targeting and content creation. On page 7, the visual data reinforce this point: content-related tasks stand out as the areas where regular use is highest, and nearly two-thirds of respondents say their company already has an AI policy or strategy in place. That matters because it suggests adoption is becoming formalised, not just improvised at the individual-user level.

    The report also shows that adoption is not limited to using public tools. More than a third of respondents say their organisation has developed at least one proprietary AI tool for internal or client use. Examples include RAG systems for summarising internal IP, insights engines built on large datasets and tools for automating post-meeting outputs. That indicates a shift from experimentation with third-party tools to organisation-specific applications embedded in workflows.

    At the same time, the report does not portray AI adoption as frictionless. Concerns remain about how to communicate AI-driven change to stakeholders, the possibility of budget cuts and job losses, and the risk of marginalising communications’ hard-won “seat at the table”. So the shift is significant, but it is accompanied by uncertainty about governance, role definition and organisational consequences.

    3. How does the report assess progress on data, analytics and measurement?

    This is one of the report’s clearest storylines. It explicitly compares 2025 with the first study in 2017, when 75% of respondents said the sector needed to get better at measuring and proving impact on business objectives. In 2025, by contrast, 68% say they have the necessary tools to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship between communications work and bottom-line outcomes. The report presents this as evidence of real progress in the industry’s relationship with measurement.

    The findings on measurement challenges support that interpretation. On page 5, the report shows year-on-year declines across several familiar pain points, including aligning metrics to revenue, converting data into actionable insights, identifying the best tools and reliance on media impressions. The 15-point drop in over-reliance on impressions is singled out as especially noteworthy. The implication is that communications teams are getting better at using more meaningful metrics and better tools.

    The report also connects this progress to stronger organisational legitimacy. It argues that when communications teams can show direct business value, they are better able to win C-suite trust and investment. This is reinforced by the finding that 84% say the C-suite has sought the counsel of the communications team more in the past year than before. In other words, better analytics are not presented merely as a technical improvement; they are framed as part of the reason communications is becoming more influential within organisations.

    Still, the report does not suggest that the measurement issue is settled. “Inability to measure impact effectively” remains one of the top three general challenges, chosen by 37% of respondents on page 10, and content-related measurement problems also remain substantial. So the deeper conclusion is that measurement has improved materially, but it is still unfinished business.

    4. What changing patterns does the report identify in influence, content and communications practice?

    One of the most striking shifts concerns influence. For the first time in the study’s eight-year history, employees rank as the most effective influencer type, edging out everyday consumers and clearly surpassing celebrities. The report treats this as a major reversal from 2017, when celebrities led and employees ranked last. On page 9, the chart shows employees in first place overall and also leading in sectors such as financial services and healthcare/pharmaceutical.

    The interpretation offered is that employee voices are seen as more authentic and credible than paid celebrity endorsements. The report links this shift to social media visibility and trust, arguing that employees can function as a brand’s most believable advocates when activated respectfully and authentically. It also notes that niche influencers appear to have more persuasive power than macro or micro influencers among dedicated social-media-based categories.

    In content and channel strategy, the report finds more continuity than disruption. Earned media remains the most relied-on part of the media mix, but the gap between earned and paid has narrowed. The most effective content types and social platforms remain broadly the same as last year, with branded social media, websites, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn all remaining prominent. However, the report highlights LinkedIn’s continued importance and notes that comments and shares have become particularly significant social metrics. These patterns suggest that while communications is changing technologically, many core distribution and engagement priorities remain familiar.

    There is also a workforce and organisational practice dimension. Team access to dedicated data analysts has risen, team size among non-agency respondents is up, and confidence in crisis preparedness is high. Meanwhile, work arrangements show a modest movement back toward the office, with fully in-office work rising year on year. So the report captures change not only in tools and tactics, but also in how comms teams are structured and how they operate.

    5. What are the report’s main implications for communications leaders and for the future of the profession?

    The clearest implication is that communications leaders are expected to be both more strategic and more commercially relevant. On page 11, the report shows that respondents think CEOs’ top priorities are strongly tied to growth, value, agility and revenue. That means communicators are being measured not just on storytelling or visibility, but on their contribution to wider business performance. The report also shows that respondents’ own top priorities include analytics and reporting, content creation, media and influencer management, and customer acquisition or engagement.

    A second implication is that the profession is entering a more hybrid model of value creation: part human judgement, part AI-enabled execution, part data-driven proof. The report repeatedly suggests that AI is most useful when it accelerates repeatable tasks, strengthens insight generation and frees communicators to focus on higher-value strategic and relational work. This implies that future advantage will not come from using AI in a generic way, but from combining it with strong prompting skills, good data infrastructure, human interpretation and organisational trust.

    A third implication is that communications still needs to become less reactive. The single most cited general challenge is “a focus that is too reactive, as opposed to proactive”. That is important because it suggests the profession’s next leap forward is not only about tools, but about operating model and influence: being earlier in decision-making, better aligned internally and more capable of shaping action rather than merely responding to events.

    Overall, the report’s conclusion is cautiously optimistic. It portrays a profession that is more confident, better equipped and more respected than before, but still under pressure to prove value, adapt to rapid technological change and work across organisational boundaries. That makes the report less a celebration than a status check: communications has advanced, but future credibility will depend on turning AI, analytics and authenticity into sustained strategic advantage.

  • Employee Communications Report 2025 Global Edition by Gallagher

    Employee Communications Report 2025 Global Edition by Gallagher

    About the paper

    The report is a mixed-methods industry report on the state of internal communication and employee experience, focusing on communicator performance, purpose, measurement, relationships, channels, AI, change and wellbeing.

    It combines 2,000+ survey responses with qualitative input from a steering committee of 8, a dashboard discussion group of 20, and six focus groups involving 37 attendees; fieldwork ran between August and December 2024, with the survey itself conducted from October to November 2024.

    The data is global in scope, covering 55 countries, though the respondent base is weighted towards North America, the UK and Europe.

    Length: 40 pages

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

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s main argument about what makes internal communicators successful in 2025?

    The central argument is that communicator success is shaped less by sheer effort or tactical busyness and more by two reinforcing capabilities: using data well and building productive relationships across the organisation. The report states this explicitly in both the introduction and conclusion, arguing that the communicators who perform best are those who can collect, synthesise and apply data tied to business impact, while also maintaining strong cross-functional and leadership relationships.

    That argument is strengthened by the report’s “communicator profiles”: Survivors, Strivers and Thrivers. Thrivers stand out because they score better on KPI performance, confidence, relationship quality, purpose progress and data effectiveness. They are described as aligned, future-focused and consistently able to exceed targets, whereas Survivors tend to operate reactively in poor conditions with weak structures and limited room for growth.

    The report therefore presents success not as a matter of output volume, but as a matter of operating model. Thrivers spend more time on architectural work such as strategy, planning and leadership support, while Survivors spend more time on administration and reactive tactical work. In effect, the report says that the strongest communicators are not simply producing more content; they are better positioned to shape decisions, interpret evidence and influence the business.

    2. How do communicators currently define their purpose, and where is the biggest tension in that purpose?

    The report finds that the top three purposes of internal communication in 2025 are strategic alignment, culture and belonging, and organisational agility. In other words, communicators see their role as helping employees understand the business direction, feel part of the organisation, and adapt to change. Employee listening ranks just outside the top three, but the report treats it as a critical enabling function running through all of them.

    The biggest tension is what the report calls the “purpose vs. perception paradox”. Unlike finance or operations, communications does not have a universally fixed, easily understood mandate. That flexibility can be useful because the function can adapt to business needs, but it also creates risk: when communicators have to define their own purpose rather than receiving a clear top-down mandate, the function may be seen as less indispensable. The report suggests this ambiguity contributes to scope creep and weakens the perceived strategic standing of communication.

    There is also a notable performance gap hidden inside the purpose data. Around two in three respondents are satisfied with progress on strategic alignment and culture and belonging, but satisfaction is far lower on areas such as employee listening and organisational agility. The report notes a roughly 50-point gap between Thrivers and Survivors on progress in the top-ranked purpose areas. So the issue is not only defining purpose, but converting stated purpose into actual progress.

    3. What barriers are most undermining communicator performance, and what do they reveal about the organisational environment?

    The top barriers for 2025 are lack of time and capacity, change fatigue, poor people-manager communication, lack of clear direction from the top, and poor leadership communication. These barriers point to a communications environment under strain, where the problem is not simply channel overload or lack of tools, but wider organisational conditions: too much change, too little clarity, and too much dependence on leaders and managers who are not consistently effective communicators.

    The report goes further by showing that the most damaging blockers are all closely tied to leadership and organisational power.

    The five barriers that most strongly depress communicator confidence are:

    • lack of involvement in decision-making
    • lack of clear direction from the top
    • lack of analytics and measurement
    • lack of involvement in change management
    • and lack of support from senior leaders.

    In other words, communicators struggle most when they are excluded from strategy, lack evidence, or are expected to execute without influence.

    Change fatigue is especially important. It is a new entry in the barrier list yet immediately becomes one of the most significant. The report argues that employees are dealing not just with external uncertainty but with multiple internal change initiatives, often poorly coordinated. Communicators describe a situation where leaders push messages because they feel they are important, without enough attention to what employees actually need to know. That reveals an environment of change saturation rather than disciplined transformation.

    4. What does the report show about measurement, data and cross-functional relationships as drivers of impact?

    One of the report’s strongest themes is that communicator impact depends on both measurement capability and relationship quality. The average communicator is accountable for seven KPIs, most of them shared with other departments, especially HR and the C-suite. That means internal communication rarely “owns” success alone; it operates through joint accountability.

    However, the report also finds a gap between accountability and actual measurement. For instance, while 92% of respondents have some accountability for employee engagement, only 71% regularly monitor it. Likewise, 56% are accountable for employee retention, but only 40% track it as a business metric. This suggests that communicators are often held responsible for outcomes they do not consistently measure, access, or interpret well enough.

    At the same time, the report shows that using data well is closely associated with better outcomes. Communicators who exceed targets are more likely to use data to understand communication effectiveness, inform tactics, evaluate tactics, demonstrate value and shape content decisions. Thrivers are especially strong here, and the report links their success not only to data usage itself but to their ability to connect that data to leadership priorities.

    Relationships are the second half of the equation. Collaborative relationships with HR and the C-suite correlate positively with data use, KPI performance and satisfaction with progress toward purpose. The report is particularly emphatic about the C-suite: communicators with collaborative leadership relationships are more satisfied with progress, more likely to meet or exceed targets, and even show markedly better wellbeing. So data and relationships are not separate findings; they work together as the mechanism through which communicators gain influence and prove value.

    5. What practical implications does the report draw for communicators and organisations heading into 2025?

    The report’s practical conclusion is that communicators need to shift attention from reactive busyness towards strategic capability-building. It recommends clarifying and leadership-aligning the purpose of communication, learning the basics of change management, improving meeting discipline, strengthening visibility with leaders, and building stronger data literacy, especially the non-technical side such as critical thinking, communication and business acumen.

    For organisations, the implication is that communication cannot be treated as a tactical support service if better employee outcomes are expected. The report shows that communicators are often under pressure from constant change, blurred remits and limited resources, while also being asked to support AI adoption, leadership communication and employee listening. If businesses want better results, they need to invest in the function not only with tools and budgets, but with clearer direction, stronger inclusion in decision-making and better cross-functional coordination.

    The AI findings sharpen this point. While maturity has improved somewhat, 38% say there is no AI governance or guidance in place, and many communicators have not decided how transparent they should be about AI use. The report treats this as a strategic risk, not just a tooling issue, because communicators are expected to help shape employee attitudes to AI while lacking organisational clarity themselves.

    Taken together, the report’s practical message is quite clear: in 2025, successful communication functions will be those that can translate evidence into business language, build strong stakeholder coalitions, and impose more clarity on environments marked by overload, ambiguity and continual change.

  • Global Foresight 2025 by the Atlantic Council

    Global Foresight 2025 by the Atlantic Council

    About the paper

    The report is a mixed-methods foresight study on what the world may look like in 2035, combining an expert survey, short horizon-scanning essays on six under-the-radar “snow leopards,” and three written future scenarios.

    The original research element is a survey of 357 geostrategists and foresight practitioners drawn from the Atlantic Council’s networks, fielded in late November and early December 2024, with respondents spread across sixty countries plus the United States and representing every continent except Antarctica; the survey sample, however, skewed US-based, male, and older.

    Length: 84 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/global-foresight-2025/

    Core Insights

    1. What overall picture of the world in 2035 does the report present?

    The report presents a distinctly darker-than-light global outlook. Its central message is that many leading strategists expect the next decade to be shaped less by steady progress than by heightened instability, strategic rivalry, institutional weakness, and accumulating systemic risks. The report explicitly says that 62 percent of respondents think the world in ten years will be worse off than today, while only 38 percent think it will be better off.

    That pessimism is not absolute. The report notes some areas of guarded optimism, especially around artificial intelligence and climate cooperation. A majority of respondents think AI will have a net positive impact on global affairs over the next decade, and about half foresee expanded cooperation on climate change. But those brighter notes are outweighed by broader anxiety about war, nuclear risk, democratic decline, and geopolitical fragmentation.

    Structurally, the report is trying to do more than predict single outcomes. It says foresight cannot provide certainty, but it can help readers understand the forces already driving change and the possible consequences of those forces over the coming decade and beyond. That framing matters: this is not a forecast claiming “this will happen,” but an effort to map where expert opinion sees the heaviest risks and most consequential uncertainties.

    So the overall picture is of a world entering 2035 under pressure from several overlapping dynamics at once:

    • hard-power rivalry
    • erosion of the postwar order
    • weak prospects for conflict resolution
    • technological disruption
    • and climate-linked stress.

    The report’s worldview is therefore not just pessimistic but systemic: it suggests that multiple domains of instability are reinforcing each other.

    2. Which geopolitical and security risks do surveyed experts see as most likely to shape the next decade?

    The headline risk is major war. The report’s most striking finding is that 40 percent of respondents expect another world war by 2035, defined as a multifront conflict among great powers. It adds that this war could go nuclear and could extend into space, with 48 percent expecting nuclear weapons to be used by at least one actor in the coming decade and 45 percent expecting direct military conflict in space.

    The report identifies China and Russia as the main vectors through which a broader conflict could emerge. On China, 65 percent of respondents think Beijing will try to retake Taiwan by force within the next decade, a sharp rise from the previous year’s survey. On Russia, 45 percent think Russia and NATO will engage in direct military conflict, also a significant increase year-on-year. In other words, the report suggests that expert concern is moving away from abstract rivalry and toward concrete expectations of military confrontation.

    Another major concern is bloc formation. Just under half of respondents expect China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea to become formal allies by 2035, and many foresee a world divided into China-aligned and US-aligned blocs. The report treats this as a potentially war-amplifying trend rather than merely a diplomatic realignment. Respondents who foresaw both bloc division and formal alliance-building were much more likely also to expect world war.

    Nuclear proliferation is another core risk. The report says 88 percent of respondents expect at least one new country to obtain nuclear weapons in the next decade. Iran is by far the most cited likely new nuclear power, but expectations also rose for South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. On use, Russia and North Korea are seen as the most likely current nuclear powers to launch a nuclear strike.

    The report also shows pessimism about existing conflicts. On Ukraine, only 4 percent think the war will end on terms largely favourable to Ukraine; most expect either terms favourable to Russia or a frozen conflict. On the Middle East, respondents are much more optimistic about Israeli-Saudi normalisation than about Israeli-Palestinian peace. More than 60 percent expect the current status quo of occupied Palestinian territories to persist by 2035.

    Taken together, these findings suggest the report sees the coming decade as one in which escalation risks are rising across several theatres at once, while the mechanisms for resolving those conflicts appear weak.

    3. How does the report assess the future of US power, alliances, multilateral institutions, and democracy?

    The report’s view of the United States is nuanced: it still sees the US as the likeliest dominant military power in 2035, but a weaker and more uncertain leader in other domains. Seventy-one percent of respondents expect the US to remain militarily dominant, and 58 percent still see it as the leading technological innovator. But fewer expect it to dominate economically, diplomatically, or in soft power, and confidence has dropped across several of these measures compared with the previous year.

    That matters because the report implies that US power is increasingly relative rather than comprehensive. It is not presenting a picture of outright American collapse, but of a more limited United States operating in a multipolar world. Three-quarters of respondents expect the world in 2035 to be multipolar, with multiple centres of power.

    Alliances remain part of that picture, but with more uncertainty than before. A majority still expect the US to maintain its alliance network in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, yet this figure fell sharply from the previous survey. At the same time, almost half expect Europe to achieve greater “strategic autonomy” by taking more responsibility for its own security. So the report suggests a future in which alliances may persist, but under new terms and with more burden-sharing or hedging.

    On multilateral institutions, the mood is much grimmer. Large majorities expect the United Nations, the UN Security Council, and the World Trade Organization to be less capable of solving problems by 2035 than they are today. The World Bank and IMF fare somewhat better, while respondents are relatively more hopeful about regional groupings such as ASEAN, the EU, and even BRICS. That pattern reveals an important assumption in the report: global governance is likely to weaken, while regional or alternative formations may gain relative importance.

    The report is similarly downbeat on democracy. Nearly half of respondents think today’s democratic recession will worsen into a democratic depression by 2035, while only 17 percent foresee a democratic renaissance. It also says 65 percent expect global press freedom to decrease. So the report does not treat democratic backsliding as a side issue; it sees it as one of the defining trends of the next decade.

    There is also a gender dimension to that pessimism. Women in the survey were more negative than men across several questions, especially about nuclear use, democratic decline, rights curtailment, and future US dominance. The report interprets this as reflecting persistent inequalities and the unequal burden crises place on women.

    4. What overlooked “snow leopards” does the report argue could have outsized future impact?

    One of the report’s most distinctive features is its “snow leopards” section: six under-the-radar developments that may not dominate headlines now but could become highly consequential. This is the horizon-scanning part of the report, and it broadens the analysis beyond headline geopolitics.

    1.The first is the threat that non-state actors could attack undersea cables.

    The report argues that the global digital and financial system depends heavily on these cables and that they are vulnerable not only to states but also to militant groups or terrorists. Its core point is that a relatively low-cost attack on critical subsea infrastructure could produce outsized disruption across communications, finance, and military operations.

    2. The second is enhanced geothermal systems.

    The report presents this as a low-carbon energy source with major underexploited potential, noting that if technological and cost barriers fall, it could become a significant contributor to electricity generation in the United States. This is framed not merely as a climate story but as a strategic energy-development story.

    3. The third is a new carbon-capture material, COF-999, described as a yellow powder that could dramatically reduce the cost and resource intensity of pulling carbon dioxide from the air.

    The report does not claim this solves climate change, but it treats the discovery as an example of the sort of scientific breakthrough that could shift the economics of mitigation.

    4. The fourth is rewilding.

    Here the report argues that land abandonment, urbanisation, changing food systems, and ecological restoration could together make much more land available for rewilding, with implications for biodiversity, carbon capture, tourism, and land use. It also notes trade-offs and possible backlash, so this is presented as a consequential but contested trend.

    5. The fifth is quantum batteries.

    The report uses this as an example of a frontier technology that may transform energy storage, with particular attention to medical devices, emergency systems, and electric mobility. The point is not that the technology is ready now, but that its eventual impact could be large if the science translates into scalable applications.

    6. The sixth is Gen Z’s vulnerability to misinformation.

    This may be the most sociologically revealing of the snow leopards. The report challenges the assumption that digital natives are naturally better at navigating false information, arguing instead that heavy social media exposure, algorithmic feeds, parasocial influence, and weak verification habits may leave this generation especially susceptible. The long-term implication is that future elites may enter positions of power with distorted information habits and weaker trust.

    Across all six, the deeper message is that the future will not be shaped only by visible great-power rivalry. It may also be shaped by overlooked vulnerabilities, scientific breakthroughs, and social shifts that sit below the surface until they suddenly matter.

    5. What do the report’s three scenarios suggest about the range of possible global futures—and what is the report ultimately trying to make readers understand?

    The report ends with three scenarios for 2035:

    1. “The reluctant international order”
    2. “China ascendant”
    3. and “Climate of fear.”

    These are explicitly presented not as predictions but as plausible futures designed to stimulate thinking. That distinction is crucial. The scenarios are a tool for exploring interaction effects between present-day trends, not for declaring which future is most likely.

    “The reluctant international order” imagines a world in which the rules-based international order has neither collapsed nor been revitalised. Cooperation persists because major powers and non-state actors still need it, even if they engage reluctantly and pragmatically. This scenario suggests that messy, improvised, partial cooperation may be more realistic than either liberal renewal or total breakdown.

    “China ascendant” imagines a world in which Beijing becomes the dominant global power, not through one dramatic rupture but through a slow shift enabled by US inwardness, economic influence, institutional repositioning, and strategic patience. The point here is that geopolitical transformation need not come through open war; it can happen gradually through hedging, institutional drift, and changing perceptions of who is reliable and effective.

    “Climate of fear” imagines a world where worsening climate instability drives migration, political conflict, democratic stress, and escalating interest in radical responses such as geoengineering. This scenario shows the report’s assumption that climate change is not just an environmental issue but a force multiplier affecting politics, conflict, mobility, governance, and public fear.

    Taken together, the three scenarios reveal the report’s deeper purpose. It is not merely asking, “What will happen?” It is asking readers to think about how today’s choices, vulnerabilities, and neglected signals can combine into very different but still plausible futures. That is why the report mixes survey data, horizon scanning, and narrative scenarios. It wants to move the reader from passive consumption of trends to active strategic imagination.

    The underlying perspective is clear: the future is not predetermined, but it is being shaped now by decisions on deterrence, alliance maintenance, institutional reform, climate action, technology governance, and democratic resilience. The report’s central implication is therefore strategic rather than descriptive: if leaders fail to act early on compounding risks, the darker futures it sketches become more plausible.

  • FGS Global Radar 2025: The Year of Consequences by FGS

    FGS Global Radar 2025: The Year of Consequences by FGS

    About the paper

    The report is a mixed-methods outlook on the political, economic, technological, climate and workplace consequences likely to shape 2025, with a strong emphasis on what those shifts mean for business.

    It combines 70 individual depth interviews with senior stakeholders across business, politics, media, finance and academia, conducted in October and November 2024, with a nationally representative UK poll of 2,084 adults fielded from 15–17 November 2024; the primary geographic scope is the UK, although the analysis addresses global developments, especially the US and Europe.

    Length: 25 pages

    More information / download:
    https://a.storyblok.com/f/137553/x/493262557e/fgs-global-radar-2025_the-year-of-consequences.pdf

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about 2025, and why does it call it “the year of consequences”?

    The core claim is that 2025 is not presented as a year of entirely new issues, but as the year in which the consequences of recent political shocks, especially the 2024 election cycle and above all Donald Trump’s return, begin to bite. The report argues that many of the underlying challenges remain the same, but the language, political framing and practical terms of engagement around them are changing. In that sense, 2025 is portrayed as a year of disruption, reframing and forced clarity rather than simple continuity.

    The report roots this in a broader anti-incumbent mood across developed Western economies. It argues that falling living standards, inflation and concern over immigration helped drive voters away from established governments. Trump is treated as the most consequential manifestation of that trend, with likely spillover effects across geopolitics, sustainability, AI, business and culture.

    At the same time, the report is not wholly apocalyptic. It repeatedly stages a tension between pessimists and pragmatists, or between gloom and opportunity. Its final position is that 2025 will be dangerous and unstable, but that it may also create openings for decision-making, innovation and strategic repositioning. That balanced but business-oriented framing is central to the report’s purpose.

    2. How does the report think Trump’s return will reshape the global environment for politics and business?

    Trump is the organising force of the report. The authors state bluntly that “2025 will be the year of Trump”, and the expert consensus presented is that he should be taken more seriously this time because he now has more experience, stronger intent and a limited window in which to act. The report expects an early phase of “shock and awe”, including executive action on tariffs, deregulation, immigration and geopolitical positioning.

    Economically, the report expects Trump to push tax cuts and deregulation, with many experts anticipating a short-term US boom that could also buoy global dealmaking and M&A. But it also records a counter-view: that tariffs, labour restrictions and fiscal loosening may later fuel inflation and possibly trigger conflict with the Federal Reserve. So the outlook is not one of settled optimism, but of a potentially powerful near-term stimulus coupled with medium-term instability.

    Geopolitically, the report suggests Trump’s foreign policy is harder to predict because international order is not seen as his main priority. It outlines fears that support for NATO, Ukraine and multilateral institutions could weaken, while authoritarian states may feel emboldened. It also expects pressure on Ukraine to accept a deal, sympathy towards Netanyahu, and renewed tension around Taiwan. At the same time, some interviewees think Trump’s disruptive style might break deadlock in stalled conflicts. That split between alarm and reluctant pragmatism is one of the report’s recurring patterns.

    3. What does the report say about the state of democracy, public trust and mainstream politics, especially in the UK and Europe?

    A major theme is that democratic systems are under strain because governments are struggling to bridge the gap between what they promise and what they can actually deliver. The report links this to structural pressures such as debt, ageing populations, infrastructure needs, weak growth and immigration tensions, especially in Europe. It argues that this mismatch is eroding faith in liberal democracy and creating fertile ground for populism.

    The UK polling evidence is used to illustrate this erosion. The report says 24% of the UK electorate now believes that voting does not make a difference, while nearly eight in ten voters think they are entitled to expect more from government. Particularly striking is the finding that more than one in five people under 45 agree that the best system for running a country effectively is a strong leader who does not have to bother with elections. The report reads this as a serious warning sign about younger adults’ confidence in democratic delivery.

    On the UK specifically, Labour is portrayed as politically dominant but strategically unclear. The report says business and even Labour supporters see a lack of compelling growth narrative, while public confidence is weak: only 13% think the government has a clear and convincing plan for stronger growth, only 11% think it is doing what they hoped, 64% think the UK is in steep decline, and 68% believe Labour will increase their taxes. So the report’s view is that stability of parliamentary control does not equal public confidence or strategic clarity.

    4. What picture does the report paint of AI, climate and business opportunity in 2025?

    The report treats AI as both transformative and unsettled. It emphasises the extraordinary scale of investment, including a cited $1 trillion being spent on AI data centres, and argues that while many firms are still struggling to turn proof-of-concept work into real competitive advantage, most experts believe the technology will prove genuinely transformative over time. It suggests that the biggest near-term gains may come not from science-fiction breakthroughs, but from practical uses that improve productivity, speed up processes and reduce backlogs in functions such as marketing, communications and public services.

    But the public mood is far more divided. The report says opinion splits almost exactly into thirds: those who fear AI could control humans, those who think it will positively transform lives, and those who think it is overhyped. It also notes public scepticism about concrete benefits: only 39% expect positive effects on healthcare and life expectancy, 38% on productivity, and just 17% on their own standard of living, while 50% fear negative effects on job opportunities. The report therefore positions AI as a field where elite and public sentiment have not yet converged.

    On climate, the report argues that international diplomacy has weakened, especially because of Trump and the disappointing COP29 outcome, yet it also sees real momentum in the economics of transition. Its key argument is that sustainability will progress less through idealistic global cooperation and more through energy security, cost competitiveness and industrial advantage. In other words, the report believes the climate narrative is shifting from moral exhortation to transactional self-interest.

    That argument is reinforced by polling. Majorities believe climate science and think action is necessary, but many also want a slower pace to reduce cost burdens, and 45% say there is little point in costly UK action unless larger countries do more. So the report’s broader conclusion is that both AI and climate will move forward in 2025, but under more pragmatic, contested and economically framed conditions than before.

    5. What does the report conclude about workplace culture, generational divides and the implications for business leaders?

    The workplace section suggests that culture debates will remain intense, but the report’s own evidence points to a fairly practical hierarchy of employee priorities. In its UK poll, the top three features of an ideal workplace culture are flexible working hours, trust in leadership, and support for employee wellbeing and mental health. That is notable because it places everyday working conditions and leadership credibility above more symbolic or ideological culture-war themes.

    The report argues that hybrid work is still durable, but that employers will become more assertive about office attendance, with three-day minimum expectations likely to spread. It also says mental health will become even more strategically important because of its effect on absenteeism, wellbeing and retention. By contrast, DEI remains in place but is expected to be discussed less publicly and in less politicised language, especially in the wake of Trump’s return. The report also finds that DEI-related factors rank relatively low in the public’s list of workplace culture priorities.

    Generational differences are another major finding. The report shows sharp age-based divides on asylum, free speech, gender identity, China, EU relations and views of intergenerational fairness. But it also complicates the cliché of a simple youth-versus-age split by showing that preferences are more situational: for example, flexible working matters most to those in mid-career and to women, while views on resilience, authority and fairness vary in more layered ways.

    For business leaders, the implication is clear: broad-brush assumptions about “what younger people want” are not enough. The report points instead towards a need for clearer leadership, more explicit explanations of workplace expectations, greater care around employee wellbeing, and more disciplined choices about when companies comment publicly on social or geopolitical issues. Overall, it recommends a more grounded, less performative model of corporate culture.

    Overall, the report is best read as a business-facing synthesis of elite interviews and UK public opinion that argues 2025 will be shaped by disruption, reduced ideological certainty and more transactional politics. Its message is that leaders should prepare for volatility, but also for openings created by clearer power structures, technological progress and a more hard-headed operating environment.

  • C-suite Outlook 2025 – Delivering Value in a Volatile World by the Weber Shandwick Collective

    C-suite Outlook 2025 – Delivering Value in a Volatile World by the Weber Shandwick Collective

    About the paper

    The report examines how global C-suite leaders are thinking about value creation, stakeholder priorities and volatility in 2025.

    It is based on original survey research: a short survey of 200 private-sector global business leaders from multinational companies operating across North America, Latin America, EMEA and APAC, with fieldwork conducted from 14 November to 4 December 2024.

    The sample includes companies headquartered in the United States and 22 other countries across five sectors, so the geographic scope is global, although the report presents only limited methodological detail beyond the sample profile.

    Length: 9 pages

    More information / download:
    https://webershandwick.com/news/delivering-value-in-volatile-world

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about leadership in 2025?

    The core argument is that CEOs and senior executives are entering 2025 with underlying optimism, but that optimism is tempered by a strong sense that the external environment remains unstable and difficult to control. On page 2, the report frames this tension directly: business leaders see relative macroeconomic stability compared with recent years, yet they remain highly alert to geopolitical disruption, market shocks, activism, policy change and other forces that can quickly alter the operating environment.

    From that starting point, the report argues that corporate leadership now has to move beyond older, more polarised debates about shareholder primacy versus stakeholder capitalism. Its preferred framing is practical rather than ideological: the job of leadership is to define and deliver the specific mix of value that matters most to the stakeholders who shape the company’s success. In other words, the corporation’s role is presented not as serving one constituency at the expense of others, but as earning legitimacy and performance by managing a company-specific “value equation” across multiple stakeholder groups. This is the report’s main conceptual move, and it underpins everything that follows.

    2. How do executives define “value”, and which forms of value matter most to them?

    A major contribution of the report is that it treats value as multi-dimensional rather than purely financial. On page 4, executives rank five forms of value: economic value is highest at 98% importance, followed by functional value at 96%, ethical value at 88%, and both emotional and societal value at 78%. When respondents were asked to allocate relative weight across these categories, economic value received the largest share by far at 41%, compared with 24% for functional value, 14% for ethical value, 11% for societal value and 10% for emotional value.

    That ranking shows two things at once. First, the report does not pretend that executives have become post-financial or post-commercial. Economic performance remains dominant. Secondly, it suggests that modern business leadership increasingly sees non-financial forms of value as part of business success rather than as optional extras. Ethical, societal and emotional value are not leading priorities, but they are still recognised by substantial majorities as important. The report therefore presents a broadened model of business value: financial performance sits at the centre, but it is strengthened or undermined by how companies function, behave and relate to stakeholders.

    There is, however, an interesting gap between aspiration and performance. The page 4 chart on how well companies are delivering value across stakeholders shows strong perceived delivery on economic and functional value, but weaker performance on societal and especially emotional value. Fewer than a quarter say they are delivering societal or emotional value “very well”. So the report implies that executives recognise a wider value agenda more readily than they currently execute it.

    3. Which stakeholders matter most in executive decision-making, and what does that reveal about the report’s perspective?

    The report makes clear that stakeholder thinking is now mainstream among the leaders surveyed. On page 3, 99% say that considering the interests of multiple stakeholders is important. But the stakeholder model being described is not flat or equal. On page 5, customers rank first, with 99% saying they are important and 86% calling them very important. Investors and shareholders follow at 96%, and employees at 93%. Policymakers and government officials come next at 81%, with partners and suppliers and local communities both at 79%. Advocacy groups and non-profits rank much lower.

    This hierarchy matters because it reveals the report’s practical worldview. It is not arguing that all stakeholders should be treated identically, nor that external advocacy pressure should dominate corporate decisions. Instead, it suggests a prioritised stakeholder model centred on those groups most directly tied to performance, legitimacy and licence to operate: customers, capital providers, employees, regulators and key operational partners. That is a more managerial and strategic version of stakeholder capitalism than a purely normative one.

    The report also subtly signals that stakeholder management is becoming more political. The relatively high ranking of policymakers and government officials, combined with repeated references later in the report to regulation, geopolitics and public affairs, suggests that public policy is no longer a peripheral concern. It is becoming structurally central to the executive agenda, especially in a world where policy decisions can affect supply chains, investment flows, reputation and growth.

    4. What does the research say about volatility, preparedness and growth prospects for 2025?

    The report’s most important empirical message is that leaders feel materially less prepared for the kinds of disruptions they cannot control directly. On page 5, executives report greater confidence in handling internal or more familiar reputational threats, such as a major data breach, a company security threat, a health epidemic or a product recall. But preparedness drops sharply for external shocks such as global armed conflicts, terrorist attacks, political division after US elections, misinformation campaigns, natural disasters and actions by elected officials. This distinction is central: leaders are more comfortable with operational crises than with systemic volatility.

    That matters because the report links growth prospects to the ability to deliver value under pressure. On page 6, only 17% of companies are described as in “high growth”, while 63% report moderate growth and 21% expect moderate or high contraction. Eight in ten companies therefore expect at least moderate growth, but the standout point is not exuberance. It is restraint. The report presents 2025 as a year of cautious forward movement rather than broad-based acceleration.

    The priority data reinforces that interpretation. Revenue growth and profitability top the list of business priorities, but leaders also rank managing market volatility, investor expectations, business transformation, culture and workforce capability very highly. On page 7, the actions executives say they are taking include growing the business, launching products, adjusting governance structures, navigating AI, diversifying supply chains and responding more actively to policy and regulatory issues. So the report portrays growth not as a return to normal expansion, but as something that must be actively defended and engineered amid instability.

    5. What are the report’s implications for communication and public affairs teams?

    The clearest implication is that corporate communications and public affairs functions are becoming more strategically important, but many organisations are not yet confident that those teams are equipped for the task. On page 7, only 17% of executives say their communications and public affairs functions are “well equipped” to keep pace with rapid change, while 13% say their confidence in those functions has decreased. The report therefore identifies a capability gap at exactly the point where volatility makes communication, public affairs and reputation management more consequential.

    The practical implications are spelled out most fully on page 8 in the “new rules” section. The report argues that value creation must start at the top, that CEOs need to prepare now for future volatility, that organisations must actively manage controllable volatility such as mis- and disinformation, that AI should support decision-making, and that the policy environment will become more demanding in 2025. In effect, communications is being repositioned from a downstream messaging function to an upstream strategic capability that helps leadership sense, interpret and respond to threats and expectations.

    For a communications reader, the most significant underlying message is this: communicators are not merely being asked to explain value after the fact. They are increasingly expected to help organisations define value, map stakeholder expectations, detect volatility early, prepare response systems, and support CEO judgement in real time. At the same time, the report suggests that many firms have not yet invested enough in these capabilities. So its conclusion is both elevating and cautionary: communications teams are needed more than ever, but they must upskill and become more operationally strategic if they are to meet the expectations being placed on them.

    One caution is worth noting. Because the report is based on a relatively short survey of 200 leaders and is presented in a highly synthesised, infographic-style format, it is better read as a directional executive sentiment study than as a deeply elaborated academic analysis. Even so, it offers a clear and useful picture of how senior leaders are framing the challenge of 2025: deliver growth and stakeholder value, but do so in a world where volatility is persistent, political and increasingly external to managerial control.

  • 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer by Edelman

    2025 Edelman Trust Barometer by Edelman

    About the paper

    The report is an original research study based on Edelman’s 25th annual online survey of the general population, examining global trust and what it calls a growing “crisis of grievance”.

    Fieldwork ran from 25 October to 16 November 2024 across 28 countries, with more than 33,000 respondents in total and country samples ranging from 1,150 to 2,124; the geographic scope is global, spanning markets in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though some analyses exclude certain countries or rely on adjustments because of question sensitivity or translation issues, and the report notes that in lower-internet-penetration countries the online sample may skew younger, more urban and more affluent.

    Length: 78 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer?

    The report’s core argument is that a long run of institutional failures has produced not just scepticism, but a deeper and more combustible public mood: grievance. Edelman’s framing is that trust is no longer the only issue. The bigger problem is that many people now feel that business, government and the wealthy operate for the benefit of a select few, while ordinary people bear the costs. That sense of unfairness is presented as the defining context for public trust in 2025.

    The report argues that this grievance mindset has material consequences. It erodes trust across institutions, darkens expectations for the future, increases acceptance of zero-sum thinking, and creates a harsher environment for leadership, public discourse and social cohesion. Its conclusion is that the challenge is not merely reputational. It is social, economic and political: when people believe the system is rigged, trust falls, optimism fades and conflict becomes easier to justify.

    2. What evidence does the report present that trust is fragile and that grievance is widespread?

    Several findings build that case. Globally, the overall Trust Index is flat at 56, and the report’s headline on page 6 is that elections failed to improve trust. Among the 13 countries with national elections or leadership changes in the relevant period, only Argentina and South Africa saw significant trust gains. That supports Edelman’s view that political turnover by itself is not fixing the underlying problem.

    The report also shows a broad climate of anxiety and disillusionment. Job insecurity fears rose across every threat measured, including recession, trade conflict, automation and lack of training. Employer trust, which had long been a relative bright spot, fell by 3 points globally to 75, which the report describes as an unprecedented global decline. Only 36% say the next generation will be better off, and in most developed countries fewer than one in five believe that. Fear of experiencing prejudice, discrimination or racism rose to an all-time high of 63 globally, up 10 points from 2024 in the countries tracked for that measure.

    Most importantly, grievance itself is widespread. The report says 61% have a moderate or high sense of grievance against business, government and the rich, and majorities reach that level in 23 of the 26 countries included in the grievance analysis. High grievance is also linked to a far stronger zero-sum outlook: 53% of those with high grievance believe that what helps people with different politics comes at a cost to them, versus 23% among those with low grievance.

    3. How does grievance reshape trust in institutions, leaders and technology?

    This is where the report becomes especially sharp. Among people with low grievance, business, government, NGOs and media all sit in either trust or near-trust territory. Among those with high grievance, all four are distrusted: business falls to 42, government to 25, NGOs to 45 and media to 34. In other words, grievance does not just lower trust a little; it imposes a full-spectrum trust penalty.

    The same pattern appears with business leaders and artificial intelligence. Trust in CEOs in general drops from 64 among those with low grievance to 30 among those with high grievance. Trust in one’s own CEO also falls sharply, from 72 to 51. Comfort with business use of AI declines from 50 to 29, while trust in AI falls from 56 to 34. The report’s message is that grievance makes people more suspicious not only of institutions, but also of the leaders and technologies associated with them.

    It also deepens perceptions of institutional motive. On page 34, those with high grievance are much more likely to say news organisations would rather attract a large audience than tell people what they need to know, and more likely to believe media would support an ideology rather than inform the public. On page 35, the report finds that understanding ordinary people matters more for legitimacy than formal authority, especially among the highly aggrieved. That suggests a growing premium on empathy, fairness and lived relevance over status or office.

    4. What does the report say about business, and why does it treat business differently from the other institutions?

    Business occupies a complicated position in the report. On the one hand, it remains the most trusted institution globally at 62, ahead of NGOs at 58 and well ahead of government and media, both at 52. The report also argues that business is the only institution seen as both competent and ethical in its 2025 mapping, and it notes a 19-point increase in perceived business ethics since 2020 in the subset of countries used for that analysis.

    On the other hand, that relative advantage does not amount to a free pass. The report shows that people with high grievance are more likely, not less, to say business is not going far enough on affordability, climate change, retraining, misinformation and discrimination. At the same time, there is very strong cross-group agreement that business is obliged to provide good-paying jobs in local communities and to train or reskill employees. That is one of the report’s most important implications: trust in business is conditional on practical contribution, not symbolic positioning.

    The report also gives CEOs a circumscribed licence to act. Majorities say CEOs are justified in engaging on societal issues when they can make a major impact, improve business performance, protect stakeholders or address problems their business helped create. This is not an argument for unlimited corporate activism. It is a case for relevance, competence and accountability. Business has permission to lead where it can deliver, but not to pretend it can solve the crisis alone.

    5. What broader conclusion does the report reach, and what are its practical implications?

    Edelman’s larger conclusion is that grievance must be addressed at root level. The report does not argue that one better campaign, one election or one executive message will restore confidence. Instead, it says institutions need to rebuild trust by producing fairer outcomes, improving people’s economic prospects, strengthening skills, investing in communities and improving the quality of information. On its own summary page, the report reduces this to four ideas: grievances must be addressed, business has a licence to act, business cannot act alone, and trust can restore optimism.

    That conclusion is reinforced by the relationship the report shows between trust, grievance and economic optimism. As trust rises across the nine-point trust spectrum, high grievance falls dramatically while optimism about one’s family’s economic future rises strongly. The implication is that trust is not treated here as a soft sentiment metric. It is positioned as a condition that supports social stability, confidence in the future and willingness to cooperate.

    For communicators, the report points to a more demanding brief. People are less persuaded by authority alone and more focused on whether leaders understand them, whether institutions benefit them fairly, and whether claims are backed by visible action. That means communication cannot substitute for delivery. In this report’s logic, credibility now depends on whether institutions can show economic usefulness, fairness and genuine understanding of stakeholder reality.

  • The Global Risks Report 2025 by World Economic Forum

    The Global Risks Report 2025 by World Economic Forum

    About the paper

    The Global Risks Report 2025 is the World Economic Forum’s 20th annual assessment of major global risks across geopolitical, environmental, societal, economic and technological domains.

    It is a mixed-methods report based primarily on the 2024–2025 Global Risks Perception Survey of over 900 experts worldwide, collected from 2 September to 18 October 2024, supplemented by the Executive Opinion Survey of over 11,000 business leaders in 121 economies and qualitative input from 96 experts.

    The geographic scope is global.

    Length: 104 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the global risk landscape in 2025?

    The report argues that the world is entering 2025 in a state of deepening fragmentation, with risks increasingly reinforcing one another across domains. Its central diagnosis is that geopolitical conflict, societal polarization, environmental stress and technological disruption are converging in ways that existing governance systems are poorly equipped to manage.

    The immediate risk that dominates the 2025 outlook is state-based armed conflict, selected by 23% of GRPS respondents as the risk most likely to present a material global crisis in 2025. This is a major shift from the previous year, when it ranked eighth. The report connects this rise to the wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Sudan, and to broader fears that conflicts could escalate or spread.

    But the report does not present conflict as an isolated geopolitical problem. It describes a risk environment where conflict is linked to geo-economic confrontation, cyber warfare, misinformation and disinformation, forced displacement, humanitarian crises and weakening multilateralism. In other words, the world is not only experiencing more crises; it is losing some of the connective tissue needed to manage them collectively.

    The tone is notably pessimistic. Only a small share of respondents see the near-term outlook as stable or calm, while a majority expect an “unsettled” world and sizeable minorities expect turbulence or stormy conditions. The report’s broader message is that short-term crisis management is no longer enough because many immediate risks are symptoms of deeper structural shifts.

    2. Which risks dominate the short-term outlook to 2027, and why?

    The top risk over the two-year horizon is misinformation and disinformation, which ranks first for the second year running. The report sees this as especially dangerous because false or misleading content now interacts with political polarization, conflict, elections, distrust in institutions and advances in generative AI.

    The short-term top risks also include extreme weather events, societal polarization, cyber espionage and warfare, state-based armed conflict, inequality, involuntary migration or displacement, erosion of human rights and civic freedoms, geo-economic confrontation and pollution.

    Several patterns stand out. First, geopolitical risks have moved sharply upward. State-based armed conflict is now third over the two-year horizon, and geo-economic confrontation has risen from fourteenth to ninth. Second, economic risks such as inflation and economic downturn have fallen out of the two-year top 10, even though the report warns against complacency. Third, societal risks remain highly prominent, suggesting that social cohesion is becoming a central risk variable rather than merely a consequence of other crises.

    The report’s short-term outlook is therefore not just a list of threats; it is a picture of a world where trust is weakening. Misinformation undermines shared reality, polarization reduces the capacity for collective action, and geopolitical rivalry makes international cooperation harder just when it is most needed.

    3. How does the report describe the longer-term risk outlook to 2035?

    The 2035 outlook is even darker than the short-term outlook. The report finds that all 33 risks assessed in the GRPS are expected to increase in severity over the 10-year horizon compared with the two-year horizon. Environmental and technological risks become much more prominent over the longer term.

    The highest-ranked long-term risk is extreme weather events, followed by critical change to Earth systems, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, natural resource shortages and misinformation and disinformation. This means that four of the top five long-term risks are environmental.

    The report presents environmental risk as having moved from a distant long-term concern to an urgent, worsening reality. Extreme weather remains the top 10-year risk for the second year in a row, while biodiversity loss and Earth system change are framed as signs that the world may be approaching irreversible thresholds.

    Technological risks also rise sharply over the decade. Adverse outcomes of AI technologies ranks only low in the two-year outlook but climbs to sixth in the 10-year ranking. The report treats this as a warning against complacency: current risk perception may be underestimating how quickly AI, biotechnology and other frontier technologies could reshape social, political and security risks.

    The 2035 message is that the world faces a compounding risk landscape: climate stress, technological acceleration, demographic change and geostrategic fragmentation are not separate trends, but structural forces that interact.

    4. What role do technology, misinformation and polarization play in the report’s risk narrative?

    Technology is treated as both an accelerator and an amplifier of risk. The report does not argue that technology itself is the root cause of fragmentation, but it shows how digital platforms, generative AI, algorithmic systems and expanding surveillance capabilities can intensify existing social and political divisions.

    The most immediate concern is misinformation and disinformation. The report notes that generative AI makes it easier to produce false or misleading text, images, audio and video at scale. This makes it harder for citizens, companies and governments to distinguish reliable information from manipulated content.

    The report links this directly to societal polarization, which ranks fourth over the two-year horizon. Polarized societies are more vulnerable to manipulated narratives, and manipulated narratives can in turn deepen polarization. The risk is a feedback loop in which trust in media, institutions and public information continues to erode.

    The report also highlights algorithmic bias and censorship and surveillance. As public services, media systems and political communication become more data-driven, biased or opaque algorithms can produce unfair outcomes and further reduce trust. Meanwhile, the growing digital footprint of citizens gives governments, companies and threat actors greater capacity to monitor and influence behaviour.

    The report’s underlying assumption is that technological governance is lagging behind technological capability. It calls for stronger accountability, transparency, digital literacy and upskilling for those building and using automated systems.

    5. What does the report imply for global governance and risk preparedness?

    The report’s strongest implication is that fragmented governance is becoming a risk multiplier. Across conflict, trade, technology, pollution, biotech and demographic ageing, the report repeatedly returns to the same problem: many of the most severe risks require collective action, but the international environment is becoming less cooperative.

    For armed conflict, the report argues that weakened faith in multilateral institutions could push governments towards unilateral action and selective alliances. For geo-economic confrontation, it warns that escalating tariffs, sanctions and investment restrictions could fragment global trade and weaken cooperation on climate, health, technology and development. For pollution and biotech, it stresses the need for better regulation, monitoring and global norms.

    The report does not suggest that global treaties alone are sufficient. It also emphasizes regional organizations, multi-stakeholder engagement, domestic resilience, public education, corporate strategies, research and development, and better monitoring systems. But its broader conclusion is that durable risk mitigation depends on rebuilding forms of cooperation that can survive geopolitical rivalry.

    The final message is cautiously normative: the world is moving into a more divided and unstable period, but the report insists there is no viable alternative to dialogue, collaboration and multilateral solutions. Its purpose is therefore not simply to forecast risk, but to push leaders to act before today’s warning signals become irreversible crises.

  • Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2025 by Reuters

    Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2025 by Reuters

    About the paper

    The report examines the pressures, priorities, and strategic bets shaping journalism in 2025, with a particular focus on platform disruption, AI, product innovation, and the changing relationship between publishers and audiences.

    It is based primarily on original survey research with 326 senior media leaders from 51 countries and territories, fielded online between 20 November and 20 December 2024, and supplemented by background interviews and industry examples. The geographic scope is global, though the report notes that respondents were concentrated in the UK, US, and Europe.

    Length: 47 pages

    More information / download:
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2025

    Core Insights

    1. What does the report identify as the central challenge facing journalism in 2025?

    The report argues that journalism is under pressure from several directions at once: hostile politics, economic strain, weakening platform relationships, and the rise of AI-driven intermediaries that may displace publishers in the discovery chain. Its core claim is not that journalism is disappearing, but that institutional journalism is being forced to redefine its value in a far more contested information environment. Publishers face attacks from populist politicians, a growing creator-led alternative media ecosystem, and a technology landscape in which search, social, and conversational interfaces are all shifting against them.

    A key tension in the report is the contrast between low confidence in journalism as a sector and higher confidence in individual companies’ prospects. Only 41% of surveyed leaders say they are confident about journalism’s prospects in the year ahead, while 56% are confident about their own company’s business prospects. That gap suggests leaders believe the wider institution is weakening even while some organisations think they can adapt and survive.

    The report’s underlying perspective is that journalism’s challenge is no longer just commercial. It is also structural and civic. Publishers are losing control over distribution, are being bypassed by politicians and creators, and may increasingly find their reporting summarised or repackaged by AI systems before audiences ever reach the original source. The report therefore frames 2025 as a year in which journalism must fight for visibility, authority, and economic leverage all at once.

    2. How does the report describe the impact of platform change and search disruption on publishers?

    The report presents search disruption as one of the most serious emerging threats to news publishers. After major declines in referral traffic from Facebook and X, publishers are now worried that search could be next as AI overviews and conversational search products replace traditional link-based discovery. The report cites Chartbeat data showing Facebook referrals to news sites down 67% over two years and X down 50%, while aggregate Google search traffic had not yet fallen overall at the time of writing. Even so, 74% of respondents say they are worried about possible declines in referral traffic from search engines in 2025.

    The concern is not just fewer clicks. It is that AI products increasingly look like replacements for publisher interfaces rather than gateways to them. The report points to ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, Particle, Grok Stories, and other automated news interfaces that summarise multiple sources and foreground the platform’s answer over the publisher’s full article. That changes the economics of discovery. A publisher may still be cited, but citations are not equivalent to traffic, habit, subscriptions, or control of the audience relationship.

    This leads to a second issue: compensation and bargaining power. The report notes that some major publishers have secured licensing deals with AI companies, but these arrangements are uneven and opaque. Nearly three-quarters of respondents, 72%, say the industry should push for collective agreements rather than company-by-company deals. The report therefore treats AI licensing not as a settled revenue opportunity, but as a contested and potentially unequal new layer in the publisher-platform relationship.

    3. What strategic responses are publishers prioritising to adapt their business models?

    The report shows publishers leaning harder into reader revenue, product diversification, and direct relationships. Subscription and membership remain the most important revenue focus, cited by 77% of commercial publishers, ahead of display advertising at 69% and native advertising at 59%. But the report also emphasises that most companies are now combining several revenue streams, including events, platform funding, e-commerce, philanthropy, donations, and related businesses.

    A major theme is that strengthening the core product is no longer seen as sufficient on its own. While 55% still say strengthening the existing product is the main priority, 44% say developing new products and services will be most important for future growth. Publishers are exploring youth products, audio, video, education, games, food, international editions, and bundled offerings. The report presents this as a strategic shift from a narrow news product to a broader portfolio model, influenced especially by the New York Times example.

    The report also suggests that bundling may become more important as a retention strategy. Publishers are looking to combine news with adjacent services and lifestyle products in all-access subscriptions, both to reduce churn and to compete in a crowded subscription market. This reflects a larger assumption in the report: that publishers will need stronger owned-and-operated ecosystems because platform-dependent growth is becoming less reliable.

    4. What role does generative AI play in newsroom transformation, according to the report?

    The report makes clear that generative AI is no longer a speculative issue for news organisations. It says newsrooms are already being transformed, with 87% of respondents saying GenAI is transforming newsrooms fully or somewhat. The strongest emphasis remains on back-end and workflow uses, such as tagging, transcription, copyediting, recommendation systems, coding support, research assistance, and commercial modelling. These are seen as more mature and less risky than fully automated publishing.

    At the same time, the report argues that audience-facing uses of AI are becoming the next frontier. Publishers say they are actively exploring text-to-audio, AI-generated summaries, translation, chatbots, new search interfaces, and text-to-video conversion. The most widely planned initiatives are text into audio at 75%, AI summarisation at 70%, and translation at 65%, with 56% exploring chatbots or new search interfaces. The direction is towards more personalised, reformatted, and conversational news experiences.

    But the report is not triumphalist about AI. It repeatedly notes uncertainty about whether these investments will generate savings or sustainable advantage. It also warns that third-party tools may outpace in-house newsroom tools, and that a flood of synthetic content could increase misinformation risks and further weaken the visibility of original journalism. So AI appears in the report both as an efficiency tool and as a destabilising force that publishers must adapt to quickly without assuming it will solve their core business problems.

    5. What broader shifts in audience behaviour, talent, and media culture does the report see as shaping journalism’s future?

    One of the report’s most important arguments is that journalism is being reshaped by the rise of personalities, creators, and more socially native forms of news consumption. It highlights research showing that many younger audiences increasingly get news from influencers and creators rather than established news brands, and it notes that publishers themselves are split on whether this trend is good or bad for journalism. The report positions this “creator-fication” as both a competitive threat and a creative challenge to legacy media.

    This shift has implications inside news organisations too. The report says talent concerns are especially acute in engineering, data science, product, and design. While most respondents are confident about retaining editorial staff and even editorial stars, they are far less confident about attracting and keeping technical talent. That matters because the same organisations that need to innovate most aggressively around AI, product development, and user experience are struggling to recruit the people required to do it.

    The report also points to audience fatigue as a major issue. It describes efforts to respond through explainers, more human-centred storytelling, constructive or positive products, and “less noise, more signal” formats. This suggests the future challenge is not just reaching audiences but making journalism feel usable, sustainable, and worth returning to in a saturated and exhausting information environment. In that sense, the report’s broader conclusion is that journalism’s future depends not only on defending its principles, but on redesigning its formats, products, and relationships for a very different media culture.

  • Future of Jobs Report 2025 by World Economic Forum

    Future of Jobs Report 2025 by World Economic Forum

    About the paper

    The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 analyses how technological change, geo-economic fragmentation, economic uncertainty, demographic shifts and the green transition are expected to reshape jobs, skills and workforce strategies by 2030.

    It is primarily an original employer survey, supplemented by data partnerships with ADP, Coursera, Indeed and LinkedIn; the survey covers more than 1,000 employers representing over 14 million workers across 22 industry clusters and 55 economies.

    The methodology is employer-perspective forecasting rather than labour-market measurement alone: the survey was conducted in late 2024 and asks organisations to estimate expected changes over the 2025–2030 period. The report is global in scope, but it explicitly focuses on larger companies and does not fully cover small enterprises or the informal sector.

    Length: 290 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/

    Core Insights

    1. What are the main forces expected to transform global labour markets by 2030?

    The report identifies five broad forces: technological change, geo-economic fragmentation, economic uncertainty, demographic shifts and the green transition. These are presented not as separate trends, but as overlapping pressures that will reshape business models, employment and skill needs simultaneously.

    The most prominent single trend is broadening digital access, which 60% of employers expect to transform their business by 2030. Within technology, AI and information-processing technologies stand out even more strongly: 86% of employers expect them to transform their business, followed by robotics and automation at 58%, and energy generation, storage and distribution at 41%.

    Economic pressure remains highly important. Rising cost of living is the second-most transformative overall trend, cited by 50% of employers, while slower economic growth is cited by 42%. The green transition is also central: 47% expect climate-change mitigation to transform their business, and 41% expect climate adaptation to do so. Demographic change adds a further layer, with ageing populations affecting mainly higher-income economies and growing working-age populations affecting many lower-income economies.

    The report’s perspective is clearly employer-led: it is concerned with how organisations expect these forces to affect business transformation, jobs, skills and workforce planning. That gives the report practical value, but it also means its findings reflect employers’ expectations rather than a neutral prediction of what will definitely happen.

    2. What does the report predict about job creation, job displacement and the changing composition of work?

    The report predicts substantial labour-market churn. Based on employer expectations, structural labour-market transformation between 2025 and 2030 is expected to affect the equivalent of 22% of today’s jobs. That consists of 170 million jobs created, equal to 14% of current employment, and 92 million jobs displaced, equal to 8%, producing a net increase of 78 million jobs, or 7%.

    This is an important nuance: the report does not present the future of work as simple mass unemployment caused by technology. Its argument is that disruption will be large, uneven and reconfigurational. Some roles will grow quickly, some will decline sharply, and many workers will need to shift skills, roles or sectors.

    Technology is described as especially double-edged. Broadening digital access and AI are expected to create jobs and displace jobs at the same time. Robotics and autonomous systems are more clearly associated with net job displacement. The report’s underlying message is therefore not “technology destroys work” or “technology creates work”, but that technology changes the distribution of work and the skill profile required to remain employable.

    3. Which jobs are expected to grow or decline most, and why?

    The fastest-growing roles in percentage terms are mainly technology-related. These include Big Data Specialists, FinTech Engineers, AI and Machine Learning Specialists, Software and Applications Developers, Data Warehousing Specialists, Information Security Analysts and related roles. Green-transition roles also feature strongly, including Autonomous and Electric Vehicle Specialists, Environmental Engineers and Renewable Energy Engineers.

    However, the largest growth in absolute numbers is expected in frontline and foundational roles, not only in high-tech occupations. The report highlights Farm-workers, Delivery Drivers, Construction Workers, Salespersons and Food Processing Workers, alongside care and education roles such as Nursing Professionals, Social Work and Counselling Professionals, Personal Care Aides, and Tertiary and Secondary Education Teachers.

    The largest declines are expected in clerical and secretarial work. Cashiers and Ticket Clerks, Administrative Assistants and Executive Secretaries, Postal Service Clerks, Bank Tellers and Data Entry Clerks are among the roles expected to decline most. This reflects the combined impact of digitalisation, AI, automation and changing business processes.

    A key implication is that “future jobs” should not be understood only as AI engineers and data scientists. The report points to a more mixed labour-market future: high-growth technology roles, green-transition roles, care and education roles, and continued demand for many frontline jobs.

    4. How are skills expected to change, and what does this imply for workers and employers?

    The report estimates that 39% of workers’ existing skill sets will be transformed or become outdated over the 2025–2030 period. This is lower than the 44% estimate in the 2023 report and much lower than the 57% estimate in 2020, but it still represents a major level of disruption.

    Analytical thinking remains the most sought-after core skill, with seven in 10 companies considering it essential in 2025. It is followed by resilience, flexibility and agility, and leadership and social influence. This matters because the report does not frame the future skills agenda as purely technical. Human, cognitive and adaptive capabilities remain central.

    The fastest-growing skills are AI and big data, networks and cybersecurity, and technological literacy. These are followed by creative thinking, resilience, flexibility and agility, curiosity and lifelong learning, leadership and social influence, talent management, analytical thinking and environmental stewardship. Manual dexterity, endurance and precision are expected to see a notable net decline in demand.

    The report’s underlying assumption is that employability will increasingly depend on combining technical fluency with adaptability and judgement. This is especially important because the skills that differentiate growing from declining roles include resilience, flexibility and agility; resource management and operations; quality control; programming; and technological literacy.

    5. What workforce strategies do employers expect to use in response to these shifts?

    Upskilling is the dominant response. The report says 85% of employers plan to prioritise upskilling their workforce. In addition, 70% expect to hire staff with new skills, around half plan to transition staff from declining to growing roles, and 40% expect to reduce staff as some skills become less relevant.

    The scale of the training challenge is large. If the global workforce were 100 people, the report estimates that 59 would need training by 2030. Of these, 29 could be upskilled in their current roles, 19 could be upskilled and redeployed elsewhere in the organisation, and 11 would be unlikely to receive the reskilling or upskilling they need.

    Employers also identify skill gaps as the biggest barrier to business transformation, cited by 63% of respondents. This makes skills not just an HR issue, but a strategic bottleneck. The report also highlights employee health and well-being as a top strategy for improving talent availability, cited by 64% of employers, while reskilling, upskilling and better progression are also seen as important.

    Finally, AI-specific workforce strategies are central. Half of employers plan to reorient their business in response to AI, two-thirds plan to hire talent with AI-specific skills, and 40% anticipate reducing their workforce where AI can automate tasks. The report’s practical conclusion is that organisations face a dual challenge: they must adopt technology fast enough to remain competitive, while also redesigning jobs, training systems and talent pipelines fast enough to avoid widening skill gaps.

  • UK Corporate Affairs Trends for 2025 by FleishmanHillard

    UK Corporate Affairs Trends for 2025 by FleishmanHillard

    About the paper

    The paper is a forecast-style corporate affairs report on the challenges and priorities likely to shape 2025 for organisations operating in the UK.

    It is a mixed-input outlook rather than original survey research, grounded in firm data, observation, client discussions, and input from FleishmanHillard’s UK corporate affairs experts; the report does not clearly specify a respondent count, case count, interview number, or formal fieldwork process.

    Its geographic focus is primarily the UK corporate affairs landscape, though several trends are framed as global pressures affecting UK-based decision-making.

    Length: 32 pages

    More information / download:
    https://fleishmanhillard.co.uk/2024/12/corporate-affairs-trends-for-2025/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about corporate affairs in 2025?

    The report’s main argument is that corporate affairs leaders are entering a more volatile, fragmented and demanding environment in which complexity itself becomes the defining condition. FleishmanHillard argues that leaders are being asked to do more by boards, executives and stakeholders at the very moment the information environment is becoming harder to read and harder to influence. Traditional media still matters, but it is no longer sufficient as the primary route to key audiences, whose media habits are spreading across more platforms and formats.

    The report says this new reality will be shaped by five interlocking trends: the politicisation of business values, the rise of geopolitics as a day-to-day business issue, the spread of misinformation and inauthentic content, the erosion of reliable data sources alongside the emergence of new ones, and the accelerating operational importance of AI. In other words, the report does not present 2025 as a year of one dominant disruption, but as a year in which multiple pressures converge and force corporate affairs teams to become more adaptive, audience-led and strategically embedded.

    2. What are the five key trends the report identifies, and why do they matter?

    The first trend, The Values Imperative, argues that politics is increasingly entering business life through employees, public debate and direct political targeting. Companies are under greater pressure to take positions, but the report warns that expression is only rewarded when audiences agree with the stance taken. That makes corporate values more than branding language; they become a decision framework for whether and how to engage on contentious issues.

    The second trend, The Corporate Diplomat, says geopolitical issues are no longer distant matters for government relations teams alone. Populism, nationalism, regulatory divergence, supply-chain disruption and state-linked cyber risks mean senior executives and corporate affairs leaders must increasingly act as diplomats themselves. The report suggests that success in one market may now depend on managing tensions involving another market, including a company’s home market.

    The third trend, Ubiquitous Malignancy, describes misinformation as a persistent feature of nearly every communications situation, not a rare exception. The report argues that communicators must judge how much of a situation is being shaped by inauthentic or misleading content and develop specific capabilities for intervention, especially as AI-driven deepfakes raise the stakes.

    The fourth trend, Data Erosion & Accretion, focuses on the weakening usefulness of old monitoring approaches, especially those heavily dependent on X/Twitter and text-based media. At the same time, audience attention is moving toward harder-to-monitor environments such as podcasts, video, WhatsApp and other closed or semi-closed platforms. New tools may help, but the report says the overall picture will become more cluttered and demand more sophisticated interpretation.

    The fifth trend, AI Moves Ahead, argues that generative AI is already improving speed and efficiency in communications work, but that bigger structural change is still ahead. The report sees current tools as operationally useful but limited, while newer models may reshape analysis, memory and self-learning capabilities more profoundly. That makes today’s experimentation a preparation phase for deeper transformation.

    3. What assumptions or perspective shape the report’s interpretation of these trends?

    The report is written from the perspective of a strategic communications adviser addressing corporate affairs leaders who must help organisations navigate uncertainty rather than merely manage publicity. Its underlying assumption is that communications is no longer a support function operating at the edge of decision-making; it is increasingly central to risk management, stakeholder navigation and executive judgement.

    A second assumption is that the environment is not becoming simpler or more controllable. Instead, the report assumes fragmentation, unpredictability and cross-border complexity will intensify. This is visible in how it treats politics, geopolitics, misinformation, data fragmentation and AI not as isolated topics, but as overlapping forces that reshape the communicator’s role.

    A third assumption is that organisations need clearer frameworks rather than louder messaging. The report repeatedly emphasises preparation: values frameworks, issue-assessment models, broader intelligence gathering, better geopolitical literacy, more nuanced data interpretation and structured AI adoption. That reveals a distinctly managerial and advisory lens. The purpose is less to predict headlines than to encourage more disciplined organisational readiness.

    4. What practical capabilities does the report say organisations need to build now?

    On values and politics, the report recommends reviewing the organisation’s values statement so it genuinely reflects shared principles, then using those values as a test for whether a political issue warrants engagement. It explicitly advises leaning strongly against engagement where an issue does not connect directly to a core business value or commercial need. That suggests restraint, not performative commentary, as the preferred operating model.

    On geopolitics, it argues for broader information gathering, deeper historical understanding, better assessment of tensions across key markets and supply chains, and more diplomatic skill sets such as negotiation and war-gaming. This implies that corporate affairs teams need to widen both their input sources and their strategic repertoire.

    On misinformation, the report says teams need methods for distinguishing authentic from inauthentic content, frameworks for deciding when to intervene, and readiness to communicate directly with audiences rather than relying solely on media or fact-checkers. It also stresses that countering misinformation may require behavioural science techniques and emotional engagement, not just rational rebuttal.

    On data, the recommendation is to push partners to improve coverage across podcasts and video, interpret reactions across multiple platforms rather than assuming one channel represents the whole picture, and strengthen human intelligence networks to compensate for what tools cannot see inside walled gardens such as WhatsApp.

    On AI, the report urges organisations to expand trials, identify tasks where GenAI should make the first attempt, and reposition employees from pure production roles toward advisory roles that guide AI strategically and improve output quality. The practical message is that AI adoption should be systematic and role-shaping, not ad hoc.

    5. What are the main implications of the report for corporate affairs leaders in 2025?

    The clearest implication is that corporate affairs leaders will need broader mandates and stronger judgement. The function is being asked to interpret political risk, geopolitical change, data ambiguity, misinformation threats and AI-enabled disruption all at once. That means success will depend less on excellence in any single channel and more on the ability to synthesise complex inputs into sound advice for senior leadership.

    A second implication is that old playbooks are becoming less reliable. Traditional media relations, basic social listening and fact-based rebuttal are still relevant, but they are no longer enough on their own. The report suggests that influence now depends on audience-led, channel-agnostic and emotionally intelligent engagement, supported by better frameworks and more diverse intelligence.

    A third implication is organisational: communications teams must evolve structurally, not just tactically. Values need to be operationalised, geopolitical awareness mainstreamed, misinformation preparedness embedded, data practices modernised and AI integrated into workflows. In that sense, the report presents 2025 as a capability-building year. The leaders who thrive will be those who treat communications as a strategic discipline for navigating uncertainty, not simply a function for message delivery.

  • State of PR Measurement 2024 by Muck Rack

    State of PR Measurement 2024 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The report examines how PR professionals measure, track and report their work, with a particular focus on which metrics they use, which they trust, the challenges they face, and how reporting is coordinated internally.

    It is based on original research: a self-administered online survey fielded from 11 to 21 October 2024, with 472 responses collected and 397 retained after data cleaning; the report gives a conservative margin of error of about ±5%.

    The geographic scope is not clearly specified in the report, although respondents were recruited primarily through Muck Rack’s database and email contacts.

    Length: 25 pages

    More information / download:
    https://muckrack.com/blog/2024/11/06/the-state-of-pr-measurement-2024

    Core Insights

    1. Why does PR measurement matter so much to practitioners, according to the report?

    Measurement matters because PR professionals see it as central to demonstrating the value of their work. The report shows that 86% say measuring and reporting PR efforts is either very important or extremely important, and 89% say the main reason they report on their work is to demonstrate impact to leadership or clients.

    It is also not a marginal activity within the profession. For 40% of respondents, measurement and reporting account for at least a quarter of their job, making it one of the more time-consuming parts of PR work. The report therefore presents measurement not as an optional add-on, but as a core part of how PR teams justify their contribution and maintain credibility with decision-makers.

    A further sign of its importance is that respondents link PR’s perceived value to measurability. The top factors seen as increasing PR’s value among internal stakeholders include producing measurable results and tying PR activities to key business initiatives. That suggests PR measurement is not only about internal reporting discipline, but also about status, influence and budget legitimacy inside organisations.

    2. Which metrics do PR professionals rely on most, and which do they trust least?

    The most commonly used metrics are number of stories placed, reach/impressions and website impact. Specifically, 85% track number of stories placed, 76% track reach/impressions, and 46% track website impact. On average, respondents say they track five metrics.

    However, the metrics that are most used are not always the same as those seen as most accurate. The three metrics considered most trustworthy are number of stories placed, reach/impressions and key message pull-through. Number of stories placed is the standout: 63% say it most accurately measures their efforts. Reach/impressions comes next at 42%, followed by key message pull-through at 35%.

    By contrast, respondents are notably sceptical about several metrics often associated with more sophisticated or business-oriented measurement. Pitch performance is seen as the least accurate by 32%, while sentiment and revenue impact are each named by 24%. Reach/impressions also appears on the “least accurate” list for 23%, showing that some widely used measures are also contested. In other words, PR professionals continue to rely heavily on familiar output and exposure metrics, while remaining uncertain about the validity of several commonly discussed alternatives.

    3. What does the report reveal about confidence and difficulty in PR measurement?

    The report reveals a profession that sees measurement as necessary, but not fully settled or secure in how it does it. Only 7% say they are extremely confident in the metrics they report, while 31% are very confident and 49% are only somewhat confident. That means roughly half of respondents occupy a middle ground: they are not without confidence, but neither are they fully convinced that their reporting tells the whole story well.

    The difficulty of the work reinforces that picture. Just 25% say tracking their efforts is easy or very easy, while 40% say it is neither easy nor difficult and 35% say it is difficult or very difficult. So although most teams do measure their work, many do so with uncertainty and friction.

    Time pressure appears to be part of the explanation. Most respondents spend relatively little time on measurement and reporting: 56% spend one to four hours per week, and 32% spend less than one hour. Altogether, 88% spend under four hours weekly. The report implies that PR measurement is treated as important, but often carried out under practical constraints that limit how rigorous or comprehensive it can be.

    4. What are the biggest obstacles preventing stronger PR measurement?

    The biggest obstacle is linking PR metrics to business goals. This is selected by 61% of respondents, making it the top challenge in the study. That is significant because it points to a structural problem: PR teams may be able to report activity and outputs, but struggle to connect those outputs to wider organisational priorities and outcomes.

    The next major challenge is managing stakeholder expectations, cited by 53%. This suggests measurement is not just a technical problem of data collection, but also a political and communicative one. PR professionals are operating in environments where different stakeholders may want different kinds of proof, at different levels of sophistication, and with different assumptions about what PR should be able to deliver.

    Other important barriers include unclear goals or success metrics, named by 38%, and not having the right goals or success metrics, cited by 23%. The report also notes that open-ended responses mentioned data quality, access to resources and maintaining consistency year over year. Taken together, these findings suggest the core weakness is not merely lack of tools, but a broader lack of alignment around what success looks like and how PR contribution should be evaluated.

    5. What broader picture does the report paint of the current state of PR measurement?

    The report paints a picture of a profession that is committed to measurement, but still in a transitional stage of maturity. Most PR professionals measure their work, most consider measurement highly important, and many recognise that metrics are essential for proving PR’s value. But this commitment sits alongside only moderate confidence, persistent methodological disagreement and fairly limited time investment.

    It also shows that measurement remains unevenly integrated inside organisations. Responsibility for reporting is spread across roles, with 32% saying the whole team collaborates equally, while others assign it to managers, coordinators, directors or others. Coordination with marketing is mixed: 31% say reporting is handled separately with no coordination, 30% share reports for alignment, and only 13% hold joint meetings to discuss combined metrics. This suggests PR measurement is still often siloed rather than fully embedded in a broader business-performance framework.

    The report’s underlying perspective is clear: PR needs better ways to demonstrate impact, especially to leadership. But the findings also suggest that the field has not fully resolved the tension between easy-to-report output metrics and more meaningful business-linked measures. The consequence is a measurement culture that is active and valued, yet still searching for stronger credibility, clearer standards and better organisational integration.

  • Global CommTech Report 2024 by Purposeful Relations

    Global CommTech Report 2024 by Purposeful Relations

    About the paper

    The report presents original research on how public relations, communications and corporate affairs professionals think about and use AI and communication technology.

    It is based on an online survey conducted via Microsoft Forms between July and September 2024, with 161 professionals surveyed across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America.

    The data is global in scope, although the respondent mix is weighted towards Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

    Length: 68 pages

    More information / download:
    https://purposefulrelations.com/global-commtech-report-2024/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report about AI and communication technology in public relations?

    The report’s core argument is that the PR and communications profession recognises AI as a major issue, but is still responding too cautiously, too narrowly and too operationally. The authors argue that the sector understands AI mainly as a tool for efficiency rather than as a strategic force that will reshape professional practice, organisational decision-making and the wider social licence around AI use.

    That argument appears early and runs throughout the report. The introduction says the industry sees AI as the “greatest challenge” but is not doing enough to address it. The executive summary repeats that pattern: AI is named as the top challenge, investment priority and training priority, yet actual preparedness remains weak. The report therefore frames the issue not as a lack of awareness, but as a gap between awareness and meaningful action.

    A second part of the argument is that communications teams are at risk of repeating earlier mistakes made around digital change. The report explicitly warns that, just as the profession lagged on search and social media, it could also lag on AI unless it moves faster on policy, literacy, leadership and governance. It presents AI not just as another toolset, but as a development with effects comparable to an industrial revolution. That is a deliberately strong claim, and it is used to justify the urgency of the report’s recommendations.

    Finally, the report argues that PR should not leave AI to technologists, lawyers or IT. Instead, it should play a central role in governance, ethics, stakeholder trust and organisational legitimacy. In other words, the profession’s real opportunity is not only to use AI more efficiently, but to shape how organisations adopt AI responsibly and credibly.

    2. What do the findings reveal about how PR professionals currently understand and use AI?

    The report shows that AI is now widely recognised as relevant, but that understanding of its value remains limited and uneven. Nearly half of respondents say AI skills are essential for communications professionals, and a broader majority rate them as important or essential. That suggests the profession no longer sees AI as marginal. However, the report repeatedly argues that respondents still associate AI mainly with simple, tactical uses rather than deeper strategic possibilities.

    This becomes clear in the perceived benefits. Respondents most often cite saving time and improving productivity, while far fewer point to improving quality, boosting creativity, or enabling more advanced strategic work. The dominant mental model is therefore efficiency-led: AI helps people do existing tasks faster. The report sees that as too narrow, because it underplays AI’s role in insight, planning, forecasting, governance and relationship management.

    The same pattern appears in how respondents think AI will affect practice areas. Many expect the biggest impact in consumer marketing communications, while far fewer expect major effects in crisis communications or public affairs. The authors interpret this as a misunderstanding of AI’s broader implications. In their view, the profession is over-associating AI with content production and underestimating how much it could reshape higher-stakes advisory and strategic work.

    Actual use also reflects this early-stage maturity. Respondents report using AI most often for alternative content versions, content creation, brainstorming, monitoring, summaries and related tasks. But some areas reportedly “didn’t work well”, especially media outreach and research, which the report suggests may say as much about weak prompting, poor training or wrong tool choice as about AI’s actual limitations. The report also notes use of both personal and work AI tools, with ChatGPT the most prominent. One especially striking finding is that 66% say they have used personal AI tools for work. The authors treat this as a warning sign because it suggests shadow usage, weak governance and possible privacy or compliance risks.

    So the overall picture is not one of rejection. It is one of partial adoption: interest is real, experimentation is happening, but the profession still tends to use AI as an assistant for tasks rather than as a source of strategic advantage.

    3. What are the main organisational gaps and barriers preventing better use of AI and communication technology?

    The report identifies two headline weaknesses around AI: policy and training. Sixty per cent of respondents say they do not have an AI policy, and only 43% say they have received AI training. The authors present those figures as the most urgent warning signs in the report. In their view, this means many teams are experimenting with AI without clear rules, formal literacy or strong organisational support.

    Training itself also seems incomplete. Among those who have received it, most training is focused on practical use rather than ethics, safety or security. The report sees that as misaligned with the risk landscape, because respondents also identify legal, copyright, privacy and security concerns as the biggest AI challenges. In other words, the profession is worried about risk but is not training people proportionately on risk.

    A related weakness is the lack of formal AI governance. Only about a third report that their team has an AI working group. The report suggests that this may mean either such groups do not exist or that communications is not represented in them. Either way, the implication is that PR is not consistently at the table where AI policy and practice are being shaped.

    On the wider technology side, the biggest barriers are integration and capability. Three quarters cite difficulty integrating different systems, and two thirds cite the team’s ability to use technology effectively. Resistance to change also matters, but the report treats training and system complexity as the more structural obstacles. It argues that many organisations already pay for tools they do not fully use, which makes underuse and lack of upskilling a recurring theme.

    There is also a leadership gap. Most respondents say there is no technology leader in their team. Where such leadership does exist, it often sits outside communications. The report sees that as a serious weakness because technology choices, adoption and governance are then shaped elsewhere, even though they increasingly affect communications performance directly.

    Overall, the report’s diagnosis is that the main barriers are not merely technical. They are organisational: insufficient governance, weak literacy, fragmented systems, underused tools and a lack of ownership inside the communications function.

    4. How does the report assess the broader state of communication technology adoption beyond AI?

    Beyond AI, the report paints a fairly critical picture of the communications profession’s technology habits. Its broader claim is that many teams still rely on outdated, inefficient tools and workflows, especially spreadsheets and email, even when more suitable specialist tools exist.

    This is most visible in relationship and task management. More than half of respondents say they use spreadsheets to manage relationships with contacts, and 43% say spreadsheets are their main way of managing projects and tasks. The report treats this as evidence that communications teams have not modernised core operational systems. It argues that these habits make teams less efficient, less collaborative and less capable of using data well.

    The report also highlights inconsistent use of collaboration tools. Microsoft Teams appears to be the most common collaboration platform, but email remains heavily relied upon, which the report regards as a sign of outdated workflow culture. Likewise, even where organisations already subscribe to tools included in broader software suites, such as Microsoft Planner, adoption remains low. The authors interpret this as wasted investment: teams are paying for capabilities they neither configure nor train people to use properly.

    At the same time, respondents do understand that communications technology matters. Media monitoring, media databases, content creation tools, collaboration systems and project management tools are all rated as important. So the issue is not that professionals deny the value of technology. The issue is that their actual tool choices and usage patterns often lag behind that stated recognition.

    The report is especially pointed about agencies and consultancies. It says they continue to rate themselves as more competent than in-house teams at using and adopting technology, yet the wider evidence in the report suggests in-house teams are often ahead on training, policy and actual maturity. That creates an interesting contrast between self-perception and practice.

    In short, the report sees broader comms-tech adoption as underdeveloped. The profession may be surrounded by tools, but it still often lacks the processes, discipline and leadership needed to turn those tools into real operational advantage.

    5. What conclusions and practical implications does the report draw for the future of the profession?

    The report’s conclusion is that doing nothing is no longer a viable option. It argues that AI and communication technology are not temporary trends but structural shifts that will affect every part of the profession. That leads to a clear practical message: communications teams must move from passive awareness and scattered experimentation to deliberate capability-building.

    The immediate priorities are concrete. The report calls for organisations to develop AI policies, expand AI training, establish working groups, improve technology leadership and make better use of existing systems. It also recommends moving away from spreadsheet-led processes, improving collaboration and focusing technology investment on real pain points in workflows and decision-making.

    But the implications go further than operational tidying-up. The report argues that senior leaders must engage personally with AI, not delegate it downward. It explicitly rejects the idea that AI is mainly for junior staff or content creators. Instead, the report suggests that AI can enhance senior advisory work in areas such as corporate affairs, crisis communications and stakeholder influence. That widens the significance of the findings: the future of the profession is not only about efficiency gains, but about whether experienced communicators can use AI to improve strategic judgement and organisational value.

    There is also a normative conclusion. The profession, the report says, has a responsibility to help organisations secure the social licence to use AI. That means PR should contribute not just to messaging, but to ethical use, governance, transparency and public trust. This is arguably the report’s most ambitious claim: that AI could elevate the profession if communications leaders step into a broader role around legitimacy and responsible adoption.

    So the final implication is twofold. On one level, the profession needs better tools, training and processes. On another, it needs a bigger sense of its own role. The report sees AI as both a capability challenge and a professional identity test. Teams that treat it only as automation will fall behind; teams that treat it as a strategic, ethical and organisational issue may strengthen their relevance.

  • Future of Professionals Report 2024 by Thomson Reuters

    Future of Professionals Report 2024 by Thomson Reuters

    About the paper

    Thomson Reuters’ Future of Professionals Report 2024 examines how AI and GenAI are reshaping professional work across legal, tax, accounting, global trade, risk, fraud, compliance, government, and corporate C-suite roles.

    It is original survey research based on 2,205 responses collected through 15–20 minute surveys, with respondents across the United States, UK, Canada, Mainland Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East/North Africa.

    The report is heavily AI-focused because respondents identify AI as the dominant force currently driving change in professional services.

    Length: 37 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/technology/future-of-professionals-2024/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report argues that AI and GenAI are now the dominant forces reshaping professional work, not as distant possibilities but as practical technologies already influencing strategy, workflows, value creation, pricing models, and career expectations.

    The strongest evidence is that 77% of respondents believe AI will have a high or transformational impact on their work over the next five years, up from 67% in the 2023 report. The report presents this as a shift from speculative concern to more concrete expectation: professionals are no longer merely wondering whether AI matters; they are beginning to understand where and how it will affect their daily work.

    The report’s tone is notably optimistic. Thomson Reuters concludes that AI can make professional work more efficient, productive, and fulfilling. It repeatedly frames AI as a way to release professionals from routine or labour-intensive tasks so they can focus on judgement-based, strategic, client-facing, and higher-value work.

    However, the report does not argue that AI adoption will be automatic or risk-free. Its central argument is conditional: AI can be a force for good, but only if organisations combine adoption with responsible use, human oversight, data security, transparency, training, and new business models.

    2. How are professionals currently using AI, and what does this reveal about adoption maturity?

    Current AI use appears practical but still relatively early-stage. Respondents most commonly use AI-powered technologies for drafting documents, summarising information, conducting basic research, preparing communications, reviewing documents, and generating first drafts.

    The report says 50% of respondents who have used AI as a starting point describe its output as “a basic starting point” where they still need to do most of the work. Another 28% say it provides “a strong starting point” that mainly requires editing. This suggests that AI is already useful, but professionals still see it primarily as an assistant rather than an autonomous producer of reliable final work.

    The main barriers among non-users are also revealing. Concerns centre on accuracy, data security, ethics, uncertainty about what AI can be used for, and uncertainty about how to access it. The report notes generational differences too: Gen Z professionals have tried AI at higher rates, while baby boomers show lower current usage but surprisingly ambitious expectations for future AI assistance.

    The adoption picture is therefore mixed: AI is already embedded in common professional tasks, but many users still regard it as a productivity aid that requires significant human review. The report’s own interpretation is that trust will depend on transparency, benchmarking, responsible innovation, and better user education.

    3. What productivity and value gains does the report expect from AI?

    The report’s most concrete productivity claim is that AI could free up four hours per professional per week within one year, eight hours within three years, and twelve hours within five years. Based on an assumption of 48 working weeks per year, that would equal roughly 200, 400, and 600 hours respectively.

    This is one of the report’s most important findings because it connects AI adoption to organisational strategy. Freed-up time is not presented simply as a cost-saving mechanism. Respondents say they would use additional time for work-life balance, client work, long-term projects, business development, process improvement, strategic planning, research, training, and better workload management.

    The report also distinguishes between efficiency and value. More than half of professionals are excited about AI because of time savings and productivity improvements, but 39% are most excited about AI’s ability to add new value to their work. Examples include handling large volumes of data more effectively, improving client response times, reducing human error, enabling advanced analytics, and supporting better decision-making.

    This distinction is crucial. The report does not merely say AI will help professionals do the same work faster. It argues that AI may allow professional services to change what kind of work is done, what quality of service is delivered, and where professionals focus their expertise.

    4. What risks, ethical concerns, and governance needs does the report identify?

    The report identifies several persistent concerns:

    • accuracy of outputs
    • data security
    • ethical use
    • overreliance on AI
    • inadequate human judgement
    • and unclear accountability.

    These concerns are especially important because the professions covered in the report often involve legal, regulatory, financial, compliance, or high-stakes advisory work.

    Professionals draw a clear ethical boundary around full AI autonomy in high-stakes professional judgement. More than 95% of legal and tax respondents say it would be a step too far for AI to represent clients in court or make final decisions on complex professional matters. Legal professionals are particularly resistant to AI providing legal advice, while respondents in tax, risk, fraud, and compliance appear somewhat less opposed to AI involvement in strategic advice.

    The report finds no single consensus on responsible AI use, but several principles recur. Almost two-thirds of respondents see data security as vital, both for prompts and outputs. A similar share see compulsory human review as critical. Other important elements include transparency about data sources, clarity on which tasks AI may be used for, bias mitigation, deletion of personal data, and standards for training data.

    On enforcement, respondents favour certification processes for AI systems and standards developed by professional or industry bodies. Government regulation, company guidelines, whistleblowing, and algorithm audits are also mentioned, but the report presents certification and professional standards as the leading options.

    5. What are the broader implications for professional careers, leadership, and business models?

    The report’s broader implication is that AI will shift the nature of professional work rather than simply eliminate it. Fear of widespread job loss appears less prominent than in the previous year’s report. Instead, 85% of respondents believe new or additional roles will be created to manage broader AI use.

    The human skills expected to become more important include problem-solving, creativity, judgement, strategic thinking, and the ability to manage AI responsibly. The report therefore frames the future professional not as someone replaced by AI, but as someone who must become better at using AI while preserving human expertise.

    For leaders, the report implies that AI adoption is not just an IT project. It affects talent strategy, operating models, pricing, client value, workflow design, risk management, and organisational culture. Leaders are advised to assess skills, invest in training, create responsible AI principles, run pilot projects, scale successful use cases, and explore how AI can open new sources of stakeholder value.

    The pricing implication is especially significant for professional services firms. Many respondents expect hourly-rate pricing to decline over the next five years. As AI makes routine work faster, firms will need to explain why clients should still pay premium fees for work completed more efficiently. The report argues that firms must move towards value-based pricing and become better at articulating the value AI adds beyond speed.

    The conclusion is optimistic but demanding: AI can make professional careers more fulfilling and organisations more competitive, but only for those that actively embrace the technology, redesign work around it, and take responsibility for its limits.

  • IC Index 2024 – The Trust Issue by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2024 – The Trust Issue by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The report examines how internal communication shapes trust in UK workplaces, with a particular focus on leadership trust, strategy belief, change communication, AI, hybrid work and organisational stances on societal issues.

    It is a mixed-methods report: the core evidence is a representative quota survey of 4,000 UK workers aged 18–64 in organisations with 500+ employees across the UK, fielded 6–20 March 2024, supplemented by a practitioner survey of 220 IoIC members and six senior-leader interviews; the report is UK-wide and the methodology is clearly stated.

    Length: 29 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource/ic-index-2024-report-trust-issue.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the relationship between internal communication and trust?

    The central argument is that good internal communication is not a peripheral support function but a core condition for organisational trust. The report makes this case repeatedly: where employees rate internal communication as excellent, trust in leadership is far higher, engagement is stronger, and people are more likely to stay with their employer for longer. The report frames trust not as an abstract cultural nice-to-have, but as something communication actively builds, protects and, when mishandled, damages.

    The report’s headline message is that “good IC is integral to trust” and that this matters especially in a context of uncertainty, continuous change and rising expectations around authenticity and empathy. It argues that communication is the basis of trust in workplace relationships and then tests that claim empirically through the Trust Index and associated measures. The data show a 74-point difference in trust in senior leaders between employees who rate communication as excellent and those who rate it as poor, which is an enormous gap and one of the strongest pieces of evidence in the report.

    The report also suggests that communication matters most where personal contact is weaker. Trust in direct managers is higher than trust in senior leaders or the CEO, and the authors infer that communication becomes even more important as the distance between employees and leaders increases. In other words, for senior leadership, communication is not just a channel for trust; it is often the main mechanism through which trust is experienced at all.

    So the report’s big idea is clear: internal communication is a strategic trust infrastructure. It influences whether employees think leaders are competent, honest, empathetic and acting in the right interests.

    2. Which specific factors most strongly build trust in leaders and organisations?

    The strongest trust-building factor across leadership levels is open and honest communication. On the report’s trust model, belief that employer communications are open and honest is the top driver of trust in both the CEO and the wider leadership team, and it also remains one of the top drivers for trust in direct managers. Alongside this, empathy matters greatly: employees need to feel that leaders understand the challenges they face.

    For senior leaders and CEOs specifically, trust also depends heavily on strategic credibility. Employees must believe that the organisation’s strategy is the right one for success. The report goes further by identifying what most strengthens that belief: not just knowing what the strategy is, and not just hearing about progress, but understanding how one can personally contribute to achieving it. When employees know their own contribution, belief in the strategy jumps by 35 points compared with people who only know the strategy and its progress. That is one of the report’s most important causal clues.

    For direct managers, slightly different drivers come to the fore. The most important is behavioural consistency: managers must act in line with the organisation’s values and behaviours. Frequency of communication also matters here; employees need to hear from their direct manager at least every few days to weekly. So trust in managers is built less by abstract strategy and more by visible, consistent, everyday conduct.

    The report also shows that feeling valued and believing the organisation operates in employees’ best interests are powerful trust builders. In fact, employees who believe the organisation acts in employees’ best interests have the highest Trust Index scores. This means trust is not only about message quality. It is also about whether communication aligns with lived organisational reality. A polished message cannot compensate for a widespread belief that the organisation mainly serves profits, leadership interests or shareholder priorities.

    3. What does the report reveal about the main trust weaknesses inside organisations today?

    The report’s most striking weakness is that trust becomes more fragile the higher up the hierarchy you go. Overall trust is fairly positive, with a combined Trust Index of 63%, but this masks a steep gradient: 75% trust their direct manager, 58% trust the leadership team, and only 55% trust the CEO or most senior leader. Many employees are not openly negative so much as uncertain, especially about senior leaders. That suggests distance, inconsistency and lack of direct connection are key problems.

    A second major weakness is perceived organisational self-interest. Only 43% believe their organisation operates in employees’ best interests, while larger proportions think organisations prioritise shareholders, profits and customers. This matters because belief that the organisation acts in employees’ interests is tightly linked to trust. The report also shows that this belief declines as organisation size increases, suggesting scale makes it harder to sustain a credible sense of mutuality between employer and employee.

    A third weakness is the existence of distinct trust segments, including a sizeable cynical bloc. The report identifies four broad trust types: Total Trusters, Proof Seekers, Senior Sceptics and All-round Cynics. The last group makes up 22% of employees and is characterised by very low trust in managers, leaders and the organisation as a whole. This is important because it shows that mistrust is not evenly distributed. Some employees need more evidence, some mainly distrust senior leadership, and some are alienated across the board. That means communicators cannot assume a single audience psychology.

    The report also points to a persistent communication inequality between digitally connected and non-connected workers. Employees who spend most of their time away from computers report lower satisfaction with communication and lower trust, especially in the CEO. This suggests that organisations still struggle to create equitable communication environments across frontline, operational and desk-based roles.

    4. How does communication affect employees’ experience of change, AI and hybrid working?

    The report treats these as live stress-tests of trust, and in each case communication emerges as decisive.

    On change, the findings are particularly strong. Four in ten employees say their organisation has restructured in the last year, and many have experienced redundancies, negative headlines, business transformation or leadership change. Yet the report argues that low trust is not an inevitable consequence of change itself. Rather, it is a consequence of change in organisations where communication is poor. Among employees who have been through a restructure, those who rate communication as excellent are dramatically more likely to believe communications are open and honest and to trust senior leaders and the CEO. The gaps between excellent and poor communication are above 50 points on these measures.

    Employees are also very clear on what better change communication looks like. They want clarity on the reasons behind change, honesty about the impact, and more listening. They also want earlier communication and more detail on the plan. The report’s underlying point is that people do not necessarily reject change itself; they reject opacity, spin and one-way communication.

    On AI, the report finds a trust deficit, especially for communications that are supposed to feel human. Around one third would not trust at all a CEO message developed with AI, and similarly high scepticism exists for manager messages and AI-created visual content featuring people. Trust is somewhat higher for impersonal content such as newsletters, intranet articles or policy documents. The report’s interpretation is that AI is less acceptable when it appears to simulate human presence or voice. It also notes that employees with higher overall trust in their organisation are more comfortable with AI use, implying that AI adoption depends on prior trust, not just technical capability.

    On hybrid work and return-to-office mandates, the findings are especially damaging. More than two in three employees do not believe the reason their employer gave for requiring office attendance. Employers most often cited collaboration, but many employees believe the real motive was oversight of working hours. The report presents this as a credibility gap: it is not simply that employees dislike the policy, but that they distrust the communicated rationale. That makes return-to-office communication a textbook example of how message–motive misalignment corrodes trust.

    5. What are the practical implications for internal communicators and organisational leaders?

    The report’s practical implication is that internal communication should be treated as a strategic lever for trust, retention and organisational performance, not as a downstream distribution function. The evidence gives communicators a stronger business case: excellent communication correlates with higher engagement, lower turnover intentions, stronger trust and greater belief in strategy. That means communication teams can argue for investment not only on cultural grounds, but on operational and performance grounds too.

    For communicators, one implication is to focus less on message volume and more on message credibility. The report repeatedly rewards openness, honesty, empathy, clarity and visible listening. It suggests that communication works best when it helps employees understand not only what is happening, but why, what it means for them, and how their voice is being heard. This is especially important during change, where candour matters more than polish.

    A second implication is that managers matter enormously as communication intermediaries. Employees value managers who listen, set clear objectives and offer personal support, yet only a minority of managers have been trained in key communication capabilities, especially change communication and support during personal issues. The report therefore points towards a practical priority: equip managers better, because they are central to trust formation, especially for less digitally connected workers.

    A third implication is that leaders must communicate strategy in a participatory rather than merely explanatory way. Employees need to know how they personally contribute. This moves communication beyond broadcasting strategy slides and into helping people connect their work to organisational direction. That is where belief in strategy becomes materially stronger.

    A fourth implication is that communicators and leaders need tighter alignment with HR and external communication. The report says this explicitly in relation to change and societal issues. Questions about layoffs, hybrid work, climate stance or public values cannot be handled well in silos. Employees interpret silence, inconsistency and vague positioning as signals in themselves.

    Finally, the report implies a more sober lesson: trust cannot be built by communication alone if the organisation’s conduct contradicts the message. Since trust is strongly tied to whether employees think the organisation acts in their interests, lives its values and genuinely listens, communication succeeds best when it reflects reality rather than attempts to mask it. In that sense, the report is not just a defence of internal communication. It is also a challenge to leadership behaviour.