About the paper
This report examines how political and social polarization is reshaping corporate communication and the PR profession, arguing that the industry is undergoing “a quiet shift” from expansive purpose-led speech to a more cautious, situational approach.
It is a mixed-methods report based on an online survey of 704 PR professionals, a parallel online survey of 1,011 U.S. adults, and qualitative research involving six individual CCO interviews plus a focus group with eight senior communications professionals; the PR sample was global in reach but heavily U.S.-weighted, while the public survey was U.S.-only.
The methodology is clearly stated, though the PR professional survey used non-probability sampling, which limits how broadly those findings can be generalised.
Length: 50 pages
More information / download:
https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/center-public-relations/global-communication-report
Core Insights
1) What is the central argument of the report about polarization and the communications profession?
The report’s core argument is that polarization has become a persistent condition rather than a temporary phase, and that this is fundamentally reshaping the communications function. Instead of treating polarization as a passing disruption, the report frames it as a structural reality that is changing how companies decide when to speak, what to say, and what risks they are willing to take.
That is what the title phrase, “a quiet shift,” is meant to capture. The shift is not presented as a dramatic collapse of corporate communication, but as a strategic recalibration. Companies are not necessarily speaking less overall; rather, they are becoming more selective, more conditional, and more defensive in their communications choices. The report suggests that the profession is moving away from broad purpose-driven dialogue and toward a more situational model of corporate speech shaped by risk, scrutiny and backlash.
Importantly, the report does not portray this as a decline in PR’s relevance. In fact, it makes the opposite case: polarization may be socially harmful, but it has increased the strategic importance of communications inside organisations. PR professionals increasingly see themselves as advisers navigating reputational landmines, internal tensions and stakeholder expectations in a climate where one misstep can trigger immediate consequences. That is why the report repeatedly returns to the tension between PR as “trumpet” and PR as “shield” — between amplifying positive narratives and defending organisations in hostile conditions.
So the central argument is twofold: polarization is pushing companies towards caution, but that same volatility is making PR more indispensable. The profession is becoming less about confident public positioning and more about judgement, risk management, counsel and selective engagement.
2) How do PR professionals and the U.S. public differ in how they perceive polarization and its consequences?
One of the report’s most important findings is that PR professionals perceive polarization as more intense, more damaging and more enduring than the general public does. Among PR professionals, 81% say the current level of political and social polarization in the United States is extremely high or high, compared with 69% of the general public. That gap matters because it helps explain why communicators may act with more caution than many audiences expect.
The two groups also differ over which issues are seen as most polarizing. Both groups rank immigration highly, and crime is another area where views are relatively aligned. But beyond that, the divergence becomes more pronounced. PR professionals are much more likely than the public to describe issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and climate change as highly polarizing, while the public places greater emphasis on inflation and affordable housing. In other words, PR professionals appear more attuned to culture-war fault lines, while the general public is somewhat more focused on economic pressures.
The same pattern shows up in perceptions of impact. PR professionals overwhelmingly believe polarization is harming quality of life, affecting mental health and is unlikely to decrease any time soon. The public agrees on the direction of impact, but less intensely. The report explicitly raises the possibility that communicators may be “oversensitized” to polarization. That does not necessarily mean they are wrong; it means they experience the issue through a professional lens in which reputational risk is more visible, more immediate and more consequential.
There is also a generational dimension within the PR sample. Gen X and Baby Boomer practitioners are more likely than Gen Z and Millennials to see current polarization levels as severe. Younger professionals, having entered the workforce in a more polarized era, seem more likely to treat these conditions as normal rather than exceptional. That generational difference is significant because it suggests that the profession’s internal culture may continue to evolve as younger cohorts move into leadership roles.
Overall, the report shows that PR professionals do not merely mirror public sentiment. They interpret polarization through a heightened risk lens, which shapes how they counsel leaders, prioritise issues and recommend communication strategies.
3) How is polarization changing expectations around corporate speech, corporate purpose, and the role of business in social issues?
The report shows a marked retreat from the expansive expectations placed on corporate speech in recent years. Since 2020, the USC team has asked whether companies should engage in social issues even when those issues are not directly related to the business. In 2023 and 2024, nearly nine in ten PR professionals said yes. By 2025 that fell to 52%, and in 2026 it stands at 55%. Among the general public, only 42% agree. That is one of the clearest indicators in the report that corporate purpose, at least in its more outward and activist form, has lost momentum.
The report does not suggest that social responsibility has disappeared. More than half of PR professionals still believe business has some responsibility to advocate or support social issues, and younger practitioners are especially likely to hold that view. But the dominant mood has shifted from confidence to caution. The report links this to increased political scrutiny, a more punitive public environment, and a broader sense that speaking out now carries higher downside risk.
That change is reinforced by another finding: both PR professionals and the public assign only a limited role to large public companies in reducing national polarization. Just 30% of PR professionals and 29% of the public say large public companies have a great deal of responsibility here. By contrast, most of the responsibility is placed on political parties, elected officials, social media companies and news media. This is a notable re-scaling of corporate expectations. Business is no longer widely seen as a primary agent for solving societal division.
The report also uses examples and third-party analyses to show how this shift plays out in practice. It contrasts the broad corporate response after George Floyd’s murder in 2020 with the much more muted response to later killings in Minneapolis in 2026. It also presents secondary analyses from Cometrics.io and Meltwater suggesting that corporate and executive communication has shifted away from environmental and purpose-led themes and towards more corporate topics, especially AI. Even when the overall volume of communication remains steady, the content mix has changed substantially.
In effect, the report argues that business is moving from public moral positioning towards narrower, lower-risk communication. Companies may still engage on issues, but they are increasingly likely to do so only when there is a clear fit with business priorities, stakeholder expectations or operational relevance. The era of broad-based corporate commentary appears to be giving way to a more selective and defensible model.
4) How is the day-to-day practice of PR changing in response to this environment?
The report suggests that the everyday practice of PR is becoming more controlled, more tactical and more risk-conscious. This is visible both in the recommended strategies and in how practitioners define their role. The strongest consensus is around restraint and preparation rather than boldness. Large majorities say relationships with influencers and external organisations should be vetted more carefully, scenario planning should happen more often, internal communications should be prioritised, and messages should be more thoroughly pre-tested. Higher approval thresholds for public statements also receive strong support.
This does not mean the profession has become uniformly silent or passive. On the question of posture, practitioners are split. Nearly half favour the idea that “a good offense is the best defense,” while a substantial minority prefer a more defensive approach. Agency professionals lean more towards proactive communication, whereas in-house professionals are more likely to favour defence. That split makes sense: agencies may be structurally more inclined to push outward-facing strategies, while in-house teams bear more direct responsibility for internal risk, leadership exposure and organisational fallout.
The report also shows that protecting corporate reputation has become a central responsibility of PR in this environment. Communicating company values, addressing issues important to stakeholders and providing counsel to the C-suite all rank highly. By contrast, acting as the conscience of the organisation and building the business rank lower. That is revealing. It suggests a profession that still sees itself as strategically important, but less in terms of moral leadership and more in terms of judgement, alignment and protection.
Silence, notably, has become a legitimate tactic. Forty-one percent of PR professionals agree that silence should be employed as a defensive communication strategy in some cases, and the figure rises above half among in-house respondents. That does not mean silence is always preferred, but it does show how much the communicative norm has changed. In a more volatile environment, saying nothing is no longer automatically seen as failure; it can be framed as disciplined judgement.
The report also points to changes in media strategy. Trust is highest in major newspapers, financial media and trade publications, while influencers, social media, paid media and AI platforms attract much less trust overall. This reinforces the report’s broader argument that communicators are becoming more selective not just about messages, but also about channels and partners. The profession is tightening control: fewer risks, fewer loose affiliations, more testing, more filtering, and more reliance on trusted or controllable environments.
5) What does the report suggest about the future direction of the profession over the next five years?
The future described in the report is not one of decline, but of reallocation and adaptation. PR professionals expect resources to move away from DEI, sustainability and purpose-driven initiatives, and towards areas more directly connected to resilience and organisational survival. The highest expected increases are in AI innovation and ethics, crisis communications, government relations/public affairs, influencer engagement, and measurement and evaluation. This is a clear signal that the profession expects its future value to be judged more on operational usefulness than on symbolic positioning.
AI sits at the top of that list, which is striking. The report treats AI not as a peripheral tool but as a major strategic priority. At the same time, it suggests that communications leaders will need to claim that terrain quickly if they want to shape the transformation rather than have it defined by other functions. That is part of a broader message running through the report: PR’s future influence will depend less on visibility and more on demonstrable business contribution.
That is why one of the strongest future-facing findings concerns measurement. Asked what would have the strongest impact on addressing the profession’s challenges if polarization continues, respondents put aligning communication measurement with business objectives at the top. Creating stronger partnerships with other C-suite executives also ranks highly. Together, those findings suggest a profession trying to secure its future not mainly by asserting its importance rhetorically, but by proving it in business terms.
The report also anticipates structural change. More than two-thirds of in-house communicators say their organisations are likely to restructure the communication function in the near future. That implies that PR’s role inside organisations is still unsettled. The profession may gain status, but it will also face pressure to redefine its remit, integrate more closely with other functions and show clearer returns.
At the same time, the tone is not pessimistic. Personal satisfaction among PR professionals remains high, and 72% say the outlook for future growth of the profession is positive. The concluding argument is that PR will remain essential, but it will become more pragmatic: more focused on trust, risk, business alignment, public policy, finance and AI, and somewhat less driven by idealism, creativity and broad-purpose storytelling. In that sense, the future of the profession is not simply more cautious. It is more hard-edged, more accountable and more explicitly tied to organisational resilience.
