Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

Article

A Corporate Communications Evolution: Strategies for the Agentic Age

April 22, 2026
By Matt Rose

Corporate Communications has long operated on a stable premise: organizations craft messages, distribute them through controlled and earned channels, and monitor how those messages are received. While tools and platforms have evolved, the underlying model has remained largely intact. At its core, the function exists to sustain visibility, build trust, and protect and enhance reputation among key stakeholders in ways that support business performance and long-term value.

Artificial intelligence challenges that model at a structural level.

The most significant shift is not faster content production or the automation of routine tasks. It is the growing role of AI as an intermediary in how information is consumed, interpreted, and acted upon. Where algorithms once filtered what audiences saw, AI now reshapes it. Organizations are no longer communicating directly with stakeholders; they are communicating through systems that filter, summarize, and reframe information before it ever reaches human audiences.

This shift extends well beyond efficiency. Historically, Corporate Communications assumed that messages, while filtered by journalists, analysts, and platforms, would remain largely intact if those filters were well understood. AI changes that dynamic. Information is no longer simply filtered; it is deconstructed and recombined with other sources to produce new outputs such as summaries, recommendations, and comparisons. Organizations are therefore not communicating discrete messages but contributing inputs into systems that determine how those messages are ultimately presented and understood. The implication is a shift from controlling the message to structuring both message and context, so that they are interpreted accurately by AI systems.

The Changing Nature of Information Consumption

Across stakeholder groups, this dynamic is already taking hold. Investors use machine-assisted tools to analyze earnings calls and identify inconsistencies. Journalists rely on AI to accelerate research and draft initial narratives. Policymakers and regulators are beginning to incorporate AI-generated summaries into their workflows. Customers and patients are turning to AI as a primary source of information and interpretation. In each case, information is no longer encountered in its original form. It is mediated.

This introduces a new layer of risk and opportunity. Errors, inconsistencies, or ambiguities can be amplified quickly. At the same time, well-structured, consistent information can be propagated more effectively than ever before. As a result, narrative control is shifting upstream, from the point of publication to the point of interpretation.

In this environment, the traditional focus on outputs is no longer sufficient. Press releases, speeches, and media engagement remain important, but they are only part of the picture. What matters is not just whether a message is distributed, but whether it is understood as intended across a range of human and machine interpreters.

Across stakeholder groups, this dynamic is already taking hold. Investors use machine-assisted tools to analyze earnings calls and identify inconsistencies. Journalists rely on AI to accelerate research and draft initial narratives. Policymakers and regulators are beginning to incorporate AI-generated summaries into their workflows. Customers and patients are turning to AI as a primary source of information and interpretation. In each case, information is no longer encountered in its original form. It is mediated.

This introduces a new layer of risk and opportunity. Errors, inconsistencies, or ambiguities can be amplified quickly. At the same time, well-structured, consistent information can be propagated more effectively than ever before. As a result, narrative control is shifting upstream, from the point of publication to the point of interpretation.

In this environment, the traditional focus on outputs is no longer sufficient. Press releases, speeches, and media engagement remain important, but they are only part of the picture. What matters is not just whether a message is distributed, but whether it is understood as intended across a range of human and machine interpreters. This requires a shift from outputs to systems.

From Outputs to Systems

An effective communications function must be capable of continuously ingesting external signals, interpreting their significance, generating aligned messaging, assessing potential risks, and executing responses in a coordinated manner. These activities must be integrated rather than siloed and must operate at a speed that reflects the pace of the external environment.

Many organizations are experimenting with discrete AI applications, such as automated content generation or enhanced media monitoring. While these efforts can deliver incremental value, they do not address the underlying structural challenge. Without integration, they risk creating a patchwork of capabilities that improves efficiency in isolated areas but does not fundamentally improve how the organization is understood or how effectively communications supports business outcomes.

The Emergence of Agentic Architectures

What is beginning to emerge instead is a more integrated, system-based model. Distinct AI capabilities perform specific roles within the communications lifecycle. Some systems monitor external signals, drawing on media, social, policy, and market data. Others synthesize this information into a structured understanding of emerging narratives and stakeholder sentiment. Additional capabilities generate content, assess potential risks, or support execution.

These elements are increasingly connected through an orchestration layer that ensures coordination across activities. The result is not a collection of tools, but a system that can sense, interpret, and respond in a continuous loop.

Importantly, this shift does not eliminate the role of human practitioners. Rather, it redefines it. As routine tasks are automated, the relative importance of judgment, context, and strategic decision-making increases. Communications leaders are required to not only craft messages, but to oversee how systems generate and deploy those messages at scale. While execution becomes more system-driven, accountability does not shift. Leaders remain responsible for the accuracy of content, the outcomes it produces, and the trust and credibility the organization maintains with its stakeholders.

Implications for Organizational Design

This evolution has implications for organizational design. Many communications functions remain structured in silos, separating media relations, social and digital, executive communications, and reputation management. While this structure provides clarity, it can lead to fragmentation in execution. Inconsistencies across channels become more visible, and the ability to respond quickly to emerging issues is constrained.

An AI-enabled model places greater emphasis on integration. Shared data layers, common intelligence frameworks, and coordinated workflows become central. The goal is not to eliminate functional expertise, but to ensure that it operates within a unified system rather than in parallel tracks. In practice, this can result in a more centralized model supported by shared capabilities.

Rethinking Measurement

Measurement must evolve as well. Traditional indicators such as volume of coverage, impressions, or engagement rates capture activity, but not whether stakeholders are interpreting the organization’s actions and positions as intended. Advances in data availability now make it possible to assess who is reached, whether priority audiences are engaged, and how messages are interpreted. Metrics such as relevant audience reach, message resonance, and narrative alignment provide a more accurate view of effectiveness in shaping stakeholder perception and supporting business outcomes.

These approaches are more complex and often more resource-intensive, but they reflect how communication actually works in an AI-mediated environment. The central question is no longer how far a message travels, but how accurately it is understood and by whom.

Implementation Considerations

Despite the sophistication of the end state, implementation does not require a comprehensive transformation from the outset. Organizations that are making progress typically begin with focused applications that address clear needs, such as executive briefing tools that synthesize external signals or systems that accelerate the drafting of media responses while maintaining consistency with approved messaging.

Efforts to modernize Corporate Communications have often been constrained by cost concerns and the perception that its impact on business outcomes is indirect. In this case, those barriers are lower. Most large organizations already have access to advanced AI capabilities through enterprise technology investments. The incremental cost of applying them within communications is relatively modest. The greater challenge lies in rethinking how the function operates and how value is defined.

The Risk of Inaction

The risk of inaction is not that organizations move too slowly internally. It is that their stakeholders move more quickly externally. As AI becomes embedded in how information is consumed and decisions are made, narratives are increasingly shaped by systems outside the organization’s control. Inconsistencies are surfaced more quickly, and misinterpretations can scale rapidly.

Addressing this risk requires more than faster response times. It requires ensuring that the organization’s information is structured, consistent, and accessible in ways that support accurate interpretation.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is not simply enhancing Corporate Communications. It is changing the conditions under which communication takes place. Organizations that move toward integrated, system-based approaches will be better positioned to maintain control over how they are understood, sustain trust with stakeholders, and support long-term business performance and value. Those that do not may find that control increasingly resides elsewhere.

In a world where perception is shaped as much by machines as by people, the ability to manage how information is interpreted becomes a core strategic capability.

Matt Rose width= Matt Rose is the Americas Lead for Crisis, Issues & Risk Management. An SVP & Senior Partner in New York, he brings more than 30 years’ experience in advising organizations on crisis and issues management, risk mitigation, and reputation recovery. He has guided companies through reputational crises, labor issues, regulatory challenges, ESG controversies, and high-profile litigation.

 
Article

Get the Report: Inside China’s 2026 Two Sessions

March 24, 2026

China just locked in its economic roadmap for the next four years with a 4.5–5% growth target. Here’s what matters: The 2026 Two Sessions formally endorse a pivot toward innovation-driven growth, economic resilience and calibrated openness that reshapes how global companies operate, partner and communicate across markets.

Our latest analysis cuts through the noise to explain what actually matters for your organization in 2026. Based on observation and conversations with leaders across sectors and regions, it examines the strategic context, the trade-offs China is managing and what corporate communications professionals need to know to navigate influence and opportunity in this environment.

Article

A Rubber Stamp or Chaotic Exit? A Strategic Approach to USMCA Uncertainty

February 12, 2026
By Donna Fontana

With the approaching July 1, 2026, mandatory review of the USMCA trade deal, business leaders need to be on their front foot to keep stakeholders assured of their ability to operate, no matter the outcome. Negotiated during the first Trump administration in 2019, this administration has already stated it will not rubber-stamp the next iteration and is negotiating for concessions, while it also continues separate talks with Mexico and Canada for potential new bi-lateral agreements. Most recently, media reports that Trump is considering withdrawal as a nuclear option as well.

Yet the context for this negotiation has shifted beyond bilateral U.S.-Canada-Mexico dynamics. Mark Carney’s Davos speech signaling that alternative trade architectures are possible has empowered countries to consider diversification beyond U.S.-centric arrangements. For companies, this creates a more complex calculation: the outcome of USMCA renegotiation now intersects with broader geopolitical realignment that will affect market access and positioning beyond North America.

As we’ve seen over the past 12 months, trade and tariff negotiations come with a genuine, but unclear risk with a spectrum of possible outcomes:

  • The deal gets renewed with modest concessions (labor provisions tightened, critical minerals collaboration added, Rule of Origin adjusted).
  • On the other end: Trump follows through on exit threats, tariffs spike, supply chains scramble.
  • Or we end up in the somewhere in the middle with a period of extended ambiguity where the deal’s fate is unclear, decisions get delayed, and market uncertainty persists for months or longer.

Do you try to influence that outcome through strategic communications or stay silent and potentially face greater risk if the worst-case emerges?

Three Potential Reputation Risks

Risk 1: Being Seen as Unprepared if your company hasn’t communicated USMCA’s impact on your business to stakeholders with proactive plans for managing the potential risk to your supply chain.  The situation demands clarity. Can you articulate in 30 seconds why USMCA matters (or doesn’t matter) to your business?

Risk 2: Being Blindsided by Your Own Stakeholders Your trade association is mobilizing. Your competitors are taking positions. Your suppliers are making contingency plans. If you’re silent while everyone else acts, you’ll look reactive when you eventually have to respond.

This happens because urgency compounds. In February, speaking up is a thoughtful choice. In May, it looks defensive. In July, it looks panicked.

Risk 3: Having Your Position Misunderstood If you don’t clarify your view on USMCA early, people will infer one. That inference is often wrong. A company that’s genuinely exposed to Mexico tariffs but stays silent gets read as either indifferent or politically opposed to Trump. Neither is probably true, but silence creates a vacuum that gets filled by assumption.

Critical Context: Distinguishing Negotiating Theater from Genuine Threats

One overlooked dimension of USMCA risk is distinguishing genuine policy shifts from negotiating theater. Some observers say that President Trump’s documented pattern with major trade decisions is to escalate to the “cliff edge” through public threats, then either negotiate a compromise or implement partial measures. Understanding which scenario you’re in will determine your response intensity.

Companies that respond to every statement as existential crisis will exhaust stakeholders and damage credibility. Those that can distinguish signal from noise will preserve organizational energy for when real decisions are being made. Monitor not just the rhetoric, but whether it’s accompanied by institutional action that suggests implementation.

Next Steps for Communicators

1. Get a realistic view of your company’s exposure:

Stakeholder interest: How much do your investors care about this? How much do your employees in Mexico/Canada care about this? (Will they worry if you’re silent?) How much do your customers care about this? (Would tariff increases affect pricing you can offer them?) How much do policymakers care about your view? (Do you have any actual influence?)

Additionally, map your non-North American stakeholder exposure: How important are European or Asian markets to your business? Do you have significant operations or customers in markets signaling openness to alternative trade relationships (per Mark Carney’s Davos call for countries to resist U.S. economic coercion)? Could public positioning that strongly aligns with Trump’s approach to USMCA alienate stakeholders in other markets? This matters because the geopolitical context is shifting. Countries are actively building alternatives to U.S.-centric trade architecture.

Supply chain: What percentage of your inputs come from Mexico or Canada? Which of your products would be most affected by tariffs on those inputs? How much pricing power do you have to pass through tariff increases? What’s your realistic mitigation (inventory, alternative suppliers, nearshoring, product shifts)?

Tariff options: Do you actually need USMCA continuity, or could you adapt to tariffs? Are there specific terms (labor, environment, digital trade, Rule of Origin) that matter to you beyond just the deal existing? Would your business be better served by bilateral deals with Mexico/Canada rather than tri-lateral? Do you have competitive exposure? (Would tariffs on inputs hurt you more or less than competitors?)

If the answer to most of these is “not much,” maybe your communications strategy is to stay informed but quiet. If the answer is “a lot,” you have to engage more visibly.

2. Prepare a messaging framework and response plan that allows you to be strategically engaged without being operationally alarmist. While you should be honest about uncertainty, emphasize continuity in messaging. Connect to broader business interest—jobs, innovation, community—not just tariffs. Importantly, frame your USMCA position as aligned with business growth and market access broadly, not as opposition to or appeasement of any particular administration or policy approach. This positioning gives you flexibility as political winds shift (e.g., if Congress exerts pressure to preserve USMCA, or if alternative trade relationships emerge) while maintaining credibility with diverse stakeholders. Avoid language that boxes you into a corner if the geopolitical or political context changes.

In addition, check in with your trade association(s). You may have the option to publicly align with their position and provide quiet support.

As you develop a response plan with messaging aligned with each potential outcome, be inclusive of direct communications to key stakeholders including briefings to analysts/investors, employees, suppliers and customer briefings if you have a very high exposure.

3. Monitoring seems obvious, but things change fast these days. Watch the news and trade publications, but also USTR announcements and congressional activity. Keep an eye on the signposts that indicate whether outcomes are moving toward your scenario or away from it: is the administration signaling progress, are either Mexico and/or Canada making public concessions (even symbolic ones) on key terms, is public pressure coming from business leaders, does Trump publicly or repeatedly threaten withdrawal or shifts statements to bi-lateral rather than tri-lateral? All of these require adjustment to your communication plans.

USMCA is genuinely in flux. How much flux is the guess. As most communicators understand, you plan for the most possible flux, and hope for the least. Understand your exposure. Clarify your interests. Communicate your position clearly. Monitor signposts that tell you whether things are moving toward deal renewal, extended ambiguity, or collapse.

Reputations can be cemented in challenging times. Companies that understand both the genuine risks and the political constraints, that map their exposure accurately, that clarify their position early, and that avoid alienating stakeholders in markets beyond North America will emerge from this stronger. Those that simply react, or that optimize for one narrow audience at the expense of others, will find themselves disadvantaged regardless of which USMCA outcome materializes. Preparation and positioning are not just defensive; they’re competitive differentiators in a shifting landscape.

Donna Fontana width= With 35 years of experience in the B2B and industrial sectors, Donna Fontana is the global lead for the firm’s manufacturing and energy practice and serves as the general manager of FleishmanHillard’s Detroit office.

 
Click above to download our Leadership Playbook ‘License To Lead’
Article

How Legitimacy Risk Is Changing Modern Communications

February 10, 2026
By Matt Rose

For decades, corporate risk followed a familiar playbook. If a company focused on its core business, complied with the law, treated employees fairly, managed crises competently, and protected its reputation, it earned the right to operate. Risk was something to mitigate. Reputation was something to manage. Legitimacy was largely assumed.  

It’s time to stop assuming that.  

A Quieter, More Unsettling Question

Some of the most serious risks companies face today have nothing to do with misconduct, operational failure, or scandal. Instead, they stem from a single, uncomfortable question – one increasingly asked by policymakers, journalists, and the public alike:  

Should this company be allowed to operate this way at all?  

That question sits at the center of what has been called the Legitimacy Gap: the chasm between what companies are legally permitted to do and what society is still willing to tolerate. It is not a new theory and has been discussed among academics since the 1970s. Today, however, legitimacy is becoming one of the most consequential forms of corporate risk – and one of the least well understood.  

Reputation Is Not Permission

Many companies still assume that a strong reputation guarantees legitimacy. If customers trust you, regulators engage constructively, and investors reward performance the social contract feels intact.  

Recent experience suggests otherwise.  

Take the pharmaceutical industry. Large pharma companies are widely respected. They are innovative. Scientifically credible. Their products save lives. Their R&D pipelines are admired. Leadership teams are treated as serious and competent.  

And yet they find themselves in a legitimacy crisis.  

The issue is not that these companies are breaking the law or operating unethically. The issue is simpler – and harder. A growing share of the public and the political class questions whether any private company should have unilateral authority to set prices for medicines people cannot reasonably refuse.    

Complicating matters further, the scientific authority that once helped offset these concerns no longer carries the same weight it did. Confidence in pharmaceutical innovation remains high among experts, but public trust in science itself has become more fragile and contested. As that trust erodes, appeals to data, trials, and regulatory rigor are less effective at resolving what is increasingly a legitimacy question rather than a technical one.  

That is not a reputational critique. It is a permission question.  

A similar conversation is unfolding around artificial intelligence. Many innovative AI companies are respected for their technical sophistication and for engaging regulators in good faith. But the core concern is not whether these companies are reckless. It is whether private actors should hold so much influence over information, labor, creativity, and large-scale decision-making.  

In both cases, the tension is the same. It is not about bad behavior. It is about concentrated power.  

When private companies control the systems people depend on – whether it is access to medicine or algorithmic decision-making – the debate fundamentally shifts. Questions of efficiency give way to questions of fairness and control, and concerns that the public’s wellbeing is at risk because of what companies do and how they do it, and that wellbeing may not be recovered. And once that shift happens on a large scale, even strong factual defenses begin to feel beside the point.  

How Legitimacy Slips Away  

Legitimacy risk rarely arrives with a bang. It does not begin with protests or front-page scandals. It starts quietly and in places most companies do not watch closely enough.  

First, policy experts and academics raise questions. The language is procedural. Abstract. Easy to dismiss. The experts may be considered fringe or unorthodox, and therefore ignorable.  

Then the framing flips. Critics are no longer treated as outliers; they become credible counterweights in an environment that feels unbalanced in favor of big commercial interests. Coverage shifts from “How does this work?” to “Who benefits from it?”  

Next, the issue becomes moral rather than mechanical. Subjective evaluations of fairness replace objective, carefully measured, and previously acceptable trade-offs. Motive matters more than mechanics. Silence starts to look evasive. Defense begins to sound self-interested.  

From this point, intervention feels inevitable. What is often missed is that legitimacy rarely collapses through formal intervention alone. As permission weakens, organizations lose the latitude to move quickly or adapt. Necessary decisions become slower, more contested, and harder to implement long before any rule formally changes. 

The debate is no longer whether change is needed, but how aggressive it should be. Most companies do not realize what is happening until this stage – by which point the legitimacy of the existing model has already eroded.  Urgent corporate defense compounds the negative responses that have been built over time.   

Why This Catches Companies Off Guard

Legitimacy risk doesn’t show up neatly in dashboards. It doesn’t trigger media-monitoring alerts.

Media teams tend to prioritize volume and sentiment, while legitimacy challenges often emerge among low-volume, but high-credibility voices long before anything trends.

Risk teams focus on compliance and consensus, even though legitimacy questions typically arise just outside that consensus – from skeptics credible enough to matter, but uncomfortable enough to disrupt.

Communications functions are built to respond, not to sense.

Legitimacy risk lives in the gray zone before materiality becomes obvious. That’s why escalation feels sudden. It isn’t. It simply unfolds somewhere companies aren’t looking.

A key signal companies often miss in this early phase is their own workforce. Employees frequently experience legitimacy tension firsthand, particularly during periods of technological disruption, automation, or organizational change. They see how decisions are made, who bears the cost, and where stated values collide with lived reality. When employees begin to question fairness, transparency, or purpose, they are often articulating legitimacy risk before it becomes visible externally.

In that sense, employee skepticism is less a cultural issue than an early-warning indicator of how broader audiences may eventually respond.

Legitimacy risk concentrates where systems become essential, and power becomes unavoidable. The more society depends on what you provide, and the less fair your control over it is perceived to be, the greater the exposure.

Healthcare. Finance. Infrastructure. Energy. Platforms. AI. Education. Housing. Transportation. Food. In these sectors, success doesn’t insulate companies. It magnifies scrutiny.

Click above to download our Leadership Playbook ‘License To Lead’

What Smarter Companies Do Differently 

Companies that navigate legitimacy risk well do not try to message their way out of it. They treat communications as early-warning intelligence, not just amplification. They pay close attention to who is shaping emerging narratives, not only to what is being said. They stress-test uncomfortable critiques internally before journalists, policymakers, or activists do it for them. 

Most importantly, they stop collapsing three very different questions into one. 

Is this legal? 
Is this defensible on the facts? 
Is this still socially acceptable? 

Legitimacy risk lives in the gap between those answers. And it is magnified by another question: Can an average person understand what we do and how? Because the more complex, arcane, and secretive a company’s work is seen to be, the more legitimacy risk attaches to it. 

The Gap Is Widening 

The legitimacy gap is widening. Markets move faster than norms. Technology outruns regulations. Public patience is thinner than most companies realize. In this environment, permission to operate is no longer implicit. It must be continuously earned – and it can be quietly withdrawn long before any law changes. 

Companies that focus solely on compliance and reputation will find themselves defending systems that no longer have public consent. Those that recognize legitimacy as a core strategic risk can shape the terms of debate while they still have room to maneuver. 

The real danger is not regulation. It is discovering, too late, that society has already decided the rules should change. 

Matt Rose width= Matt Rose is the Americas Lead for Crisis, Issues & Risk Management. An SVP & Senior Partner in New York, he brings more than 30 years’ experience in advising organizations on crisis and issues management, risk mitigation, and reputation recovery. He has guided companies through reputational crises, labor issues, regulatory challenges, ESG controversies, and high-profile litigation.

 
Article

Insights From Davos: Building Credibility Through Storytelling

January 20, 2026

FleishmanHillard Global President and CEO J.J. Carter participated in ‘License to Lead: Reclaiming the Art of Storytelling’ at the World Economic Forum, a panel discussion exploring how organizations can earn stakeholder trust in an era of constant volatility.

The panel took place at Inkwell Beach and centered on a fundamental question: in this era of uncertainty, who gets to tell the story and who benefits when those stories shift?

Carter joined FleishmanHillard Chief Inclusion and Impact Officer Adrianne C. Smith, Forbes contributor Doug Melville and marketing leader Peter Sloterdyk to discuss this fundamental crisis facing leaders today: the widening gap between what organizations say and what they actually do.

The conversation drew directly from FleishmanHillard’s proprietary License to Lead research, conducted with 5,550 leaders and stakeholders across the globe to understand what actually earns trust in uncertain operating environments. The findings reveal a stark shift in stakeholder expectations and immediate commercial consequences.

While 90% of engaged consumers now expect volatility, they’re no longer willing to accept storytelling disconnected from operational truth. According to the research, stakeholders understand that strategic adaptation is necessary as leaders face pervasive uncertainty. What they say they won’t tolerate is silence or polished narratives that don’t match their lived reality. Those surveyed say that storytelling without operational truth is just noise.

The panel emphasized that authenticity equals accountability with leaders owning their missteps, explaining strategic shifts and demonstrating that they grasp the impact of their decisions on stakeholders before asking for buy-in. Leaders who fail to bring stakeholders along lose credibility faster than any communications misstep.

J.J. Carter and Peter Sloterdyk at Inkwell Beach

The research also surfaced a hopeful finding: people are willing to pivot and evolve if they believe in leadership. The challenge is earning and maintaining that license to lead every single day through consistent, authentic communication rooted in truth.

FleishmanHillard has developed a comprehensive playbook based on these global responses to help leaders navigate this new reality. Organizations looking to close the gap between narrative and operations can access the full License to Lead report below:

Click above to download ‘License To Lead’

Article

From Survival Mode to License to Lead: A Corporate Affairs Playbook for an Uncertain Era

January 13, 2026
License To Lead Report

New calendar years often come with a fresh perspective and a commitment to a fresh start. And though there’s been no shortage of reflection on the current era of unprecedented and pervasive uncertainty, many organizations are still struggling to shift from reactivity to recapturing strategic agency and advantage.  

The compounded experience of widespread corporate shifts on social and political stances, sustainability and product development and the pervasive fear of what AI might mean for work, security and safety have played into a new paradigm of what it takes to build confidence in a company’s leadership. 

It’s past time that every executive leadership team and corporate affairs organization develop a durable playbook for success under these conditions. Our experience counseling C-Suites and communications teams from across global industries and markets have shown us that the central challenge facing organizations is often not determining the right strategy. It is securing the permission to execute when bold or evolving strategies test the limits of stakeholder confidence. That’s what we call having License to Lead.   

Organizations and executives with a License to Lead do not avoid volatility or always manage to walk a straight line from strategy to execution. Instead, they move and adapt with less friction. Why? They start from a position of strength and confidence with their stakeholders. They can pivot earlier and with less reputation clean up, enabling them to recover faster and sustain legitimacy. All while their competitors stall under resistance and skepticism.  

A new survey from our Global Executive Advisory and True Global Intelligence identifies what it takes to earn the License to Lead and where executive teams are falling short. The comprehensive global study includes and compares the opinions of 1,550 business and political leaders and 4,000 engaged consumers—a new, modern definition that identifies proactive individuals who have recently taken multiple tangible actions tied to a company’s values and reputation. Together, the findings paint a clear picture of shifting corporate expectations and reputation. Jump Straight To The Full Report

1. Data from engaged consumers and policymakers show they aren’t blind to the challenging dynamics that business leaders face, leading to a new belief that a top leadership skill is the ability to adapt quickly to change. 

  • 84% of engaged consumers and 82% of policy stakeholders agree the current business environment is more unpredictable and disruptive than it was three years ago. 
  • 51% of engaged consumers believe the ability to adapt quickly to change will matter most for business leaders to succeed over the next decade.   

2. While engaged consumers understand changing circumstances must be met with strategic shifts, there are clear expectations of what must be true to have permission to pivot without losing stakeholders along the way.

Compared to a few years ago, around half of engaged consumers report higher expectations of companies to:

  • Act with their customers in mind (52%)
  • Do the right thing (50%)
  • Act with a balanced stakeholder approach (47%)

Over 90% of engaged consumers report the following actions are key to building confidence in a company’s leadership:

  • Communicating their strategy and direction in clear, straightforward terms (93%)
  • Ensuring a consistent message about the company’s goals (93%)
  • Being transparent about the reasons behind difficult decisions (93%)
  • Genuinely engaging with and listening to their stakeholders (94%)

The top three factors to building long-term loyalty include:

  • Product the company offers (42%)
  • Company’s mission and purpose (38%)
  • How the company treats employees and stakeholders (38%)  

The benefits of meeting these expectations are striking: 92% say a company with a strong, positive reputation has more permission to undertake a major business transformation and 85% of engaged consumers being likely to give a company they respect the benefit of the doubt if there is a crisis or mistake. 

3. However, there’s a major gap between how leaders think they’re doing, and how stakeholders grade them – and that gap reveals a major erosion of confidence in business.    

  • Business and policy stakeholders express great confidence in large companies despite today’s volatility. 49% of executives and 44% of policy stakeholders are very optimistic in corporate leaders’ ability to address challenges; 51% and 41% respectively have a lot of confidence that business leaders will act in the best interest of society, and 44% and 36% believe large companies are very prepared to lead effectively during future disruption.   
  • However, engaged consumers don’t score business nearly as high. Just 20% of global engaged consumers are very optimistic about large companies’ ability to address major challenges. Only 19% have a lot of confidence that corporate leaders will act in the best interests of society, and only 15% believe companies are very prepared to navigate uncertainty and disruption.    

4. The consequences of failing to bring stakeholders along as a company drives the strategy forward go well beyond an abstract benchmark on reputation. 

  • Corporate credibility has become highly fragile: 98% of engaged consumers say they are paying attention to corporate follow-through, and nearly half (48%) say that inconsistent or conflicting messages from company leadership greatly decrease their confidence.   
  • That loss of confidence comes with a loss of spending. In the past 12 months, engaged consumers reported that after a company’s actions caused them to lose confidence they stopped buying or significantly reduced spending (58%), switched to a competitor’s products or services (50%), or privately advised friends or family against the company (40%).  

5. Engaged consumers are over grand purpose and vision statements. Today’s priorities are about rebuilding the table stakes of corporate behavior, communication and stakeholder respect – and to earn License to Lead, executives must take a hard look at whether they’re measuring up.  

  • When asked what gives a company the “right to lead” during periods of change, engaged consumers ranked demonstrated ethical behavior (24%) and clear and consistent communication (21%) the highest. When it comes to confidence-building behaviors from leaders, an overwhelming 76% of global engaged consumers say displaying integrity is very important and 74% say the same of accountability. These values rank higher than even raw competence (66%). 
  • A major perception gap must be addressed by business leaders about the success of their current efforts. While executives say they often see business leaders displaying integrity and honesty (44%) and accountability (40%), engaged consumers rank their performance much lower at 23% and 22%, respectively.   

A New Executive Playbook to Create the License to Lead 

What emerges from the data validates that a new playbook for leadership is both urgently needed and also completely within a company’s control – built through a consultative partnership between the C-Suite and corporate communications, corporate affairs, public affairs and other critical functions. In other words, while so much of the world feels out of a company’s control, successfully winning and retaining license to lead isn’t. 

Becoming a high performing, aligned organization that can move quickly to fast-track opportunities and adapt without the drag of residual “reputation pollution” isn’t accidental. It is the result of cultivated conditions.  

  • Simplification as an Antidote to Complexity: High-performing leaders focus relentlessly on answering three fundamental questions: Where are we going? Why now? What principles guide us? If your stakeholders can’t repeat the direction back to you, you haven’t simplified enough. 
  • Ruthless Leadership Alignment: Misalignment erodes permission faster than bad news. In organizations with a License to Lead, alignment is a discipline, not a communications exercise. Visible alignment signals strategic confidence and pivots feel coordinated rather than chaotic. 
  • Campaign the Strategy: Too many companies assume everyone is following the breadcrumbs. Recently, one of our clients had an analyst who attended the company’s Investor Day where the strategy was launched act surprised when he heard about it again six months later. The strategy for the future should anchor every communication to drive to a consistent audience takeaway.  
  • Owning the “Why”: Our data proves that stakeholders are savvy to the big picture – and they don’t want to feel gaslit by leaders about decision reasons or implications. Radical honesty about rationale and tradeoffs behind strategic shifts protects credibility and keeps leaders in control of the narrative. 
  • Stakeholder Relevance Without Shortcuts: Permission is earned through engagement, not declaration. Broad, aspirational purpose statements are insufficient during real change. Stakeholders grant permission when can see their concerns reflected in how decisions were made and how the human impacts are handled.  

When these conditions are met, reputation becomes an enabling force. Stakeholders grant leaders the permission to change course, absorb uncertainty, and continue moving forward even when the path is not yet fully visible. That permission is what allows ambition and adaption without breaking execution. 

Corporate Affairs as Leadership’s Operating System 

Meeting these conditions cannot be improvised. It requires a system. To build License to Lead, corporate affairs must operate as an integrated leadership infrastructure—one that continuously converts complexity into clarity and builds reputational capital through stakeholder buy-in to sustain legitimacy as leaders make decision that move the strategy forward.  

This shift is subtle but profound. Leaders increasingly rely on corporate affairs to answer fundamental questions: 

  • What do stakeholders have confidence in us to do?  
  • What do they need to understand to stick with us through change?  
  • Where will friction emerge and how can we smooth it? 
  • How much latitude do we have to move—and where are the limits? 

High-performing corporate affairs functions integrate three capabilities—Insight, Influence, and Adaptability—not as separate activities, but as a continuous operating loop. We look forward to expanding on those throughout 2026.  

The Leadership Test Ahead 

What’s clear from the data and trends is that in 2026, disruption is expected. It will no longer be an excuse for inertia, poor performance and self-inflicted stalls. In fact, adapting fast enough to succeed despite chaotic conditions is the new benchmark for leadership. Taken together, these implications redefine what it means to lead through uncertainty to get to the competitive advantage. Leadership is no longer about minimizing change. It is about managing it without losing legitimacy. 

Strategy will evolve. Assumptions will break. External realities will continue to intrude. The leaders who succeed will be those who recognize that permission is as critical as direction—and who build the reputational and organizational capacity to sustain it over time. 

That is the essence of a License to Lead. 

    Get the Full Report

    Article

    License To Lead: A Corporate Leadership Global Study

    January 7, 2026

    In an era of unprecedented disruption, executives face a paradox: while they understand the strategic direction their organizations need to pursue, they often lack the stakeholder capital required to execute bold change. This is the central insight of a new global study on corporate leadership, and it helps explain why so many well-conceived strategies stall before gaining traction.

    The research identifies what top-performing companies are doing differently. They possess what we call a License to Lead, the stakeholder confidence that allows them to innovate and adapt without losing legitimacy or reputation.

    Disruption is no longer an excuse for poor performance. It is simply the operating environment. The organizations that will thrive are those that treat corporate affairs not as a discrete function, but as an integrated leadership operating system—one that continuously converts complexity into clarity and builds the reputational capital needed to sustain confidence through inevitable change.

    Download the full License to Lead report below to explore the data, insights, and leadership behaviors that enable organizations to adapt, move decisively and sustain stakeholder confidence in uncertain times. You can see some of the top findings here.

      Get the Full Report
      Article

      Get the Report: Corporate Affairs Trends for 2026

      December 10, 2025

      Expectations from executives and stakeholders continue to rise. Geopolitical and societal uncertainty is intensifying. The demand to show clear business impact is higher than ever. This is the constant pressure cooker corporate affairs leaders operate in. Their role is more central to enterprise value but with that comes exposure to risk, scrutiny and rapid change.

      Our latest forecast surfaces the trends that matter most for senior communications professionals. Grounded in data, real-world observation and conversations with clients across sectors, it cuts through the noise to focus on what is actually shifting in the operating environment and what that means for your team, your agenda and your influence inside the business. It also looks back on 2025 predictions to draw out lessons that can guide leaders in the year ahead.

      Click Below to Download the Report and dive deeper on the FleishmanHillard UK site.

      The License To Lead Study: A New Corporate Playbook for 2026

       Click Below for More Reports From the UK Team:

      Article

      Executive Impact: Turning Transitions into an Enterprise Advantage

      By Elizabeth Cook, Chris Thornton and Michelle Mahony

      The spotlight on executives has never been brighter. In 2025, CEO turnover is hitting record highs and CFO departures at Fortune 500 companies are up 33% year over year. CEO tenure continues to shrink —to just 6.8 years.  

      Against a backdrop of AI disruption, geopolitical and supply chain pressure, employee and stakeholder challenges and investor scrutiny, leaders are expected to deliver impact fast. Nearly half of executive transitions are judged as failures or disappointments within two years. Yet despite these pressures, most organizations still treat executive transitions as a sequence of announcements and introductions — and the shallowness of this approach is more evident than ever.  

      Transitions aren’t PR moments. They’re enterprise moments. The difference shows up in results. Handled well, a transition can unlock energy, clarify priorities, and accelerate operating performance. Handled poorly, it drains trust, distracts teams, and invites scrutiny. The difference in outcomes isn’t driven by the number of interviews or town halls conducted or the addition of a few more executive LinkedIn posts. It’s dependent on a complete re-think of the support that executives receive in transition and a laser focus on how leadership skills, change management principles and communications can come together to drive success.   

      As we head into 2026 expecting the pressure on new leaders to only grow, the Global Executive Advisory teams for FleishmanHillard and Daggerwing Group have formalized an integrated approach to transition that moves from executive visibility to Executive Impact. Executive Impact is a new way to manage leadership transitions as critical, ongoing business processes that shape reputation and future performance. Success isn’t measured by optics but by outcomes: how quickly a leader earns trust, sets strategic direction, and delivers results.  

      Because real impact depends on more than narrative, Executive Impact includes the underlying mechanics that determine performance: clarifying how the leader will shape structure, decision rights, operating rhythms, and processes so the organization can deliver measurable business results at speed. 

      Our Five As for Executive Impact transition framework offers a practical path for new executives to follow from the moment they know they’ll be taking the seat—but it also can be entered at any point by an executive who begins to feel that their organization isn’t fit for the challenges ahead. We help executives create and operationalize momentum—making it easier for their team to believe, act, and deliver together: 

      • Announce with intent: Focus executive appointment communications on establishing credibility and setting expectations, align communications across audiences and regulations, and prepare leadership teams and champions to carry consistent messages. 
      • Align through understanding: Balance listening with diagnosis and the setting of leadership expectations, and operationalize early shifts in roles, rhythms, and decision forums. 
      • Activate the agenda: Articulate a visible purpose and strategy, define early choices and symbolic moves, and connect communications to execution. 
      • Accelerate the system: Equip the leadership team to deliver at pace, close gaps, manage moves decisively, and embed cadences that create urgency and ownership. 
      • Amplify what works: Codify new norms, keep stakeholders updated, reconnect to purpose, and prepare for the next inflection point. 

      This system targets real business outcomes: Faster trust and alignment across executive and employee teams and boards of directors, quicker strategy adoption and execution, and reduced risk of derailment in the first 180 days. 

      Our experience includes Fortune 100 leadership transition consulting and coaching; turnaround, transformation, integration and culture programs; CEO and C-suite positioning and visibility programs; employee, investor and stakeholder engagement; and counseling companies across issues, crisis, and C-suites in duress. 

      Leaders don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. Every transition carries risk; the right design turns that risk into resilience. Executive Impact helps leaders set a credible course, accelerate execution, and sustain momentum beyond the early window. If you’re anticipating a change — or need to course-correct — FleishmanHillard and Daggerwing Group can partner with you to make this transition your advantage. 

      Executive Impact
      From Left to Right: Elizabeth Cook, Chris Thornton and Michelle Mahony

      Elizabeth Cook is part of the FleishmanHillard U.S. corporate affairs leadership team and directs regional executive positioning offerings.

      Chris Thornton is Senior Principal at Daggerwing Group and works with leaders to build the mindsets, skills, and confidence needed to lead transformation and embed change across complex organizations.

      Michelle Mahony is the President of Daggerwing Group and works to bring together the science and art of transformation to life for clients.

      Article

      Augmented Judgment, Accelerated Execution: AI’s Role in Crisis, Issues and Risk Management

      October 14, 2025
      By Matt Rose and Alexander Lyall

      Everyone’s talking about the promise of artificial intelligence. For crisis, issues and risk managers, that promise isn’t theoretical anymore. It’s already changing the game. The speed, scale and complexity of today’s challenges demand more than human effort alone. We need tools that sharpen judgment, spot risks sooner, simulate outcomes and move faster than we ever could on our own.

      At FleishmanHillard, we call this Augmented Judgment, Accelerated Execution. It’s the balance of seasoned, human counsel with the foresight, scale and speed of AI. When used well, AI doesn’t replace human judgment, it strengthens it. AI compresses timelines, expands context, flags risks earlier and gives leaders the clarity they need under pressure.

      Here’s how we’re putting this advantage into practice at FleishmanHillard, using trusted frameworks and strong data governance to help clients address crises, issues and risk with confidence.

      AI for Early Warning

      AI is becoming an essential early warning system. It examines global news, regulatory updates, and social activity to detect emerging topics and weak signals before they escalate. By analyzing conversations across markets, languages, and, it connects jurisdictions patterns that siloed teams might miss, with speed and breadth that today’s lean human teams cannot match.

      It can also track how issues are likely to evolve and flag pressure points like upcoming regulations, activist campaigns, or viral moments. In addition, it can be pointed to anticipate when separate concerns may converge, adding complexity to timing, messaging, audience response and stakeholder engagement. This kind of foresight helps leaders act early, communicate clearly and stay ahead before critical moments hit.

      AI for Stakeholder Simulation

      Spotting a potential issue is one thing. Understanding how different audiences might respond is the next. Employees may question values. Regulators may focus on compliance. Investors may worry about financial impact. Customers may be concerned about reliability.

      AI helps make this analysis possible through FleishmanHillard’s SAGE Synthetic Audiences. These simulations, built on polling data, demographics, and behavioral insights, let teams pressure-test messaging in real time.

      AI can also model how a story might spread. Coverage could draw regulatory attention, spark activism, or open the door for competitors. With this foresight, teams can weigh options early, decide how to respond, and plan outreach in the right order.

      AI for Story Forecasting

      Reporters rarely work in isolation. Their previous stories, tone, and interview style often foreshadow how a new piece might unfold. AI can analyze this public data to forecast likely narratives, giving teams time to scenario-plan and prepare fact-based responses.

      In one recent case, the FleishmanHillard team leveraged AI to generate a full-length draft of a potential investigative article based on a reporter’s in-depth inquiry, their past work, and facts they were likely to uncover. The projection closely matched the final story, serving as a clear model for the client and FH counselors to work against and affording weeks to prepare. Together, they aligned messaging, cleared responses and rehearsed scenarios. When the article ran, the team responded with focus and confidence, avoiding both unwanted attention and business disruption.

      Click Above for More From the FleishmanHillard Crisis Team

      AI for Crisis Content Management

      Crisis response is rarely just one statement. It quickly becomes a growing stack of analytics and materials: standby statements, employee letters, investor scripts, customer updates, government briefings, media talking points, FAQs and social posts. Managing it all can become chaotic, especially with lengthy approval chains.

      AI tools like FH Crisis Navigator help bring order. Acting as a virtual program manager, it adapts approved language for different audiences with speed and consistency. Using this tool, a crisis counselor can generate drafts, maintain version control, and keep updates aligned across every document. This reduces drift, speeds up approvals, embeds expert counsel, and keeps teams focused. So, when leadership needs to respond – whether to investors, regulators, customers, or the public – everything is already in place and ready for review.

      AI for Scenario-Based Training

      Preparation has always been essential to crisis readiness. But traditional tabletop exercises often fall short of real-world complexity. AI-powered platforms like the FleishmanHillard Crisis Simulation Lab raise the bar. Run by experienced facilitators, these simulations evolve in real time based on participant decisions. They introduce realistic challenges like media calls, stakeholder emails and viral posts, all tailored to the organization’s sector and geography.

      Simulations can launch in hours instead of weeks, making them useful for both training and real-time strategy support. Structured feedback focuses on fact management, stakeholder engagement, and adaptability – building the muscle memory teams need when reputations are on the line.

      AI for Campaign Risk Screening

      Crises don’t always come from the outside. Sometimes a product launch, influencer partnership, or purpose-driven campaign can spark backlash, trigger scrutiny, or misfire in a volatile moment.

      FH Risk Radar helps teams assess these risks before campaigns go live. It reviews concepts against regulatory guidance, cultural signals, public sentiment, and platform-specific challenges. The system scores ideas across dimensions like reputational exposure, influencer fit, message durability, and cultural sensitivity. Instead of a simple go-or-no-go call, teams get a full risk profile and clear mitigation strategies. This shifts review from a late-stage checkpoint to a strategic advantage.

      From Promise to Practice

      For communicators, risk leaders, and executives, AI is no longer a future promise. It’s a working tool, a strategic coach, and a force multiplier available to improve outcomes now. It surfaces early warning signs, simulates reactions, forecasts narratives, manages complex content, powers training, and screens campaigns. It delivers sharper, faster options for decision makers when every move counts.

      AI’s role in crisis and risk management will only grow more sophisticated. But the message today is simple: the technology is here and can be applied to create immediate value. The leaders who use it will be better prepared to protect reputation in high-stakes moments.

      At FleishmanHillard, we’re applying these tools every day to help clients anticipate challenges, navigate uncertainty, and emerge stronger. At the heart of it is Augmented Judgment, Accelerated Execution – the combination of trusted human counsel and the structured speed of AI. Together, they help organizations make better decisions, faster.

      Crisis Team width=

      Matt Rose (top) – Americas Lead for Crisis, Issues & Risk Management: Matt is an SVP & Senior Partner in New York with more than 30 years’ experience in advising organizations on crisis and issues management, risk mitigation, and reputation recovery. He has guided companies through reputational crises, labor issues, regulatory challenges, ESG controversies, and high-profile litigation.
      Alex Lyall – Lead, Risk Management, AI & Innovation: Alex is an SVP & Partner in New York with more than 15 years of experience in crisis communications, issues management, preparedness, and risk management, working across industries. As part of the leadership team, Alex will help define best practices, shape go-to-market strategies, and scales solutions, with a focus on AI integration and talent development.
       

      FH Guidelines for AI in Crisis, Issues, and Risk Management Applications

      At FleishmanHillard, we apply artificial intelligence with purpose, not hype. In crisis, issues, and risk management, that means combining human expertise and experience with proven frameworks, proprietary technology, necessary confidentiality, and responsible guardrails to help organizations respond with speed, confidence, and control.
      During a crisis, there is no substitute for seasoned judgment. AI can surface information, suggest language, or model scenarios, but it cannot navigate the nuance of legal implications, stakeholder dynamics, or reputational risk in real time. That takes seasoned counselors who have sat in the room, weighed the tradeoffs, and led under pressure. When the stakes are high, experience is not just helpful, it is essential.
      That is why each FleishmanHillard application of AI in the Crisis, Issues and Risk Management Practice is anchored in three principles:
      • Experienced crisis counselors remain at the center of each use case, ensuring that technology enhances but never replaces human judgment.
      • Our systems are designed in secure, quality-assured environments that safeguard client information and uphold rigorous ethical standards.
      • AI is embedded within tested frameworks and workflows, allowing teams to move faster without sacrificing accuracy, accountability, or trust.
      This disciplined approach ensures AI strengthens decision-making rather than creating new risks. With FleishmanHillard, organizations embrace innovation in crisis, issues, and risk management with confidence, knowing that innovation never comes at the expense of accuracy, ethics, or trust.