Employee Login

Enter your login information to access the intranet

Enter your credentials to access your email

Reset employee password

Article

“Find Your Authentic Connection to the Celebration”: The PRWeek Podcast Dives Into the America 250 Unit

May 14, 2026

Jim Joseph, FleishmanHillard Global Director of Brand Impact, sat down with PRWeek‘s Diana Bradley and Frank Washkuch to discuss the launch of the America 250 unit, a new offering supporting brands and institutions in capturing opportunity and managing risk surrounding the United States’ upcoming 250th anniversary.

“The opportunity is connecting your brand with both the history and the future of America and showing the rich heritage of your own company,” said Joseph. “What’s very interesting about it is the 250th is going to be happening at the national level, the state level and also the community level. That’s a unique chance for a brand to connect with very different sets of audiences. It’s a tremendous opportunity.”

Joseph says that the unit, which assembles teams of specialists built around data and custom tools, also provides guidance on just how brands should enter the conversation, if at all. “I think the level of participation should probably be commensurate with your connection to either the history or the future of America. Like anything, your brand equity and your own audiences for your brand or your company should guide the level of participation.”

Joseph’s top tip for brands considering entering the America 250 conversation is to find your unique, authentic connection to the celebration. “If you’re just trying to participate just to become a part of the celebration and to try to riff off of it to gain benefit from it without an authentic connection, I believe that consumers and stakeholders will see through that right away.”

Joseph says that July 4th is just the start of a brand’s involvement with the semiquincentennial. “The event isn’t going to start and stop on the 250th birthday. It’s going to continue likely for a full year, so our clients are going to want to know how to stay involved, how to continue to participate, and the best way to do that is through intelligence. Joseph says that always-on audience insights and a newsletter will continue throughout the year.

FleishmanHillard’s America 250 Unit will provide clients with a full suite of capabilities, including:

  • Strategic counsel on positioning, narrative development, and stakeholder engagement
  • Risk assessment and scenario planning for reputational and political sensitivities
  • Partnerships and alignment with official and unofficial America 250 organizations
  • Earned media strategy and collaboration with leading publishers, media platforms, and influencers
  • Executive visibility and thought leadership programming tied to the milestone
  • Always-on intelligence and audience insights through a dedicated America 250 client newsletter and briefings
Click Above to Find Out More About the America 250 Unit
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. 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

From the Super Bowl to the World Stage: What Health’s Cultural Moment Means Now

February 11, 2026
By Jacob Porpossian

Super Bowl LX offered more than a strong showing for health and pharma brands. It signaled something more durable: health is no longer a category that waits for cultural permission. It’s actively shaping culture on the world’s biggest stages. That shift matters.

Roughly seven major health and pharma campaigns aired during the big game. But what stood out wasn’t volume. It was confidence. These brands claimed space alongside beer, cars, and tech.

More importantly, this moment shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. As we look ahead to the Olympics and the World Cup, we’re entering an extraordinary run of global tentpole moments where health, science, performance, access, and equity will increasingly intersect with culture at scale. Super Bowl LX was an early proof point.

What the strongest work got right

Across categories and geographies, the most effective campaigns shared three defining moves.

1. Stigma reduction through entertainment
Novartis used NFL tight ends to make prostate screening feel approachable, even funny, rather than fearful. Boehringer Ingelheim reframed early-detection testing as a “mission,” turning anxiety into agency. Humor and storytelling didn’t trivialize health; they unlocked attention, relatability, and permission.

2. Normalizing everyday health decisions
GLP-1 related ads put the focus on being human and positioned their treatment options as support and empowerment for patients, not intervention. These brands met people where they are. Not where the healthcare system wishes they were.

3. Cultural clarity
Simple metaphors. Human voices. Ideas that survived the post-game social conversation and shaped Monday-morning dialogue. The work that traveled didn’t over-explain science; it translated it.

The bigger signal

Industry and media reaction underscored a structural shift playing out globally: health is no longer purely clinical. It’s lifestyle-adjacent, values-driven, and culturally expressive. The brands that resonated weren’t just marketing products. They functioned as cultural facilitators, translating science into relevance, credibility, and permission. For trust-based, highly regulated categories, this is the difference between building confidence and eroding it.

Why this matters now

As health brands look ahead to the world’s next major cultural moments, the opportunity (and responsibility) is clear.

Cultural strategy and creative as core health capabilities
Brands need to enter culture without trivializing health, balancing regulatory rigor with entertainment and emotion. This requires earned-first thinking that travels across markets and moments.

Integrated moment marketing
Impact now lives across broadcast, social, earned media, influencers, and executive voice working together. The most effective programs build always-on platforms that culminate in tentpole moments, rather than relying on one-off activations.

Prevention and behavior-change storytelling
As healthcare moves upstream toward screening, early detection, and access, brands must reduce fear and inertia. That demands new creative frameworks that motivate action without alarm.

Corporate narrative alignment
Many of these campaigns carried implicit corporate messages around innovation, access, and equity. As scrutiny around healthcare ethics and pricing intensifies, alignment between brand, corporate, and leadership narratives becomes essential; not optional.

Looking ahead

Health is moving faster than many organizations are prepared to follow. The brands that succeed will be those that show up credibly, responsibly, and creatively. Not just during one event, but consistently across the world’s biggest cultural stages.

With the next Super Bowl less than a year away and the Olympics and World Cup on the horizon the window to plan thoughtfully is already open.

Jacob Popossian width= Jacob Porpossian is the Global Executive Creative Director for FleishmanHillard’s Health & Life Sciences practice, where he builds and leads creative and storytelling capabilities for major health brands. With a background spanning creative strategy, digital marketing, communications, and production, he advises integrated teams across healthcare, CPG, corporate, and technology sectors, while also championing diversity and inclusion initiatives across the agency and industry.

 
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

Decisiveness Is No Longer the Constraint, Credibility Is: Observations From Davos

January 23, 2026

Davos revealed the communications imperative in volatile times.

Shared concerns surfaced among corporate leaders and policymakers during conversations at this year’s World Economic Forum. What came through was a noticeable gap between the speed of strategic decision-making and stakeholders’ ability to understand and trust the decisions that need to match the rapid cadence of change.

As PR Week UK described, what was usually a week of diplomatic discussion of issues affecting the globe aimed at consensus this year “adopted a more pronounced sense of geopolitical reckoning.” FleishmanHillard Global President and CEO J.J. Carter spoke with PR Week UK about that shift in tone.

“A consistent tension has emerged here across conversations with CEOs, policymakers and corporate affairs chiefs,” Carter said from Davos. “Leaders are under pressure to act decisively in an environment defined by volatility, but stakeholder tolerance for poorly explained change is wearing thin. Strategies are evolving much faster than understanding, and that gap creates a real drag on execution.”

J.J. Carter
Carter participated in the ‘License to Lead: Reclaiming the Art of Storytelling’ panel from Davos.

Carter noted that even in this challenging environment, a new way of approaching communications created a great opportunity to impact business. “What stood out this week is how central corporate affairs has become to leadership itself. The strongest organisations are not treating communications as a polishing exercise, but rather as an accelerant to business transformation.”

Carter continued that discussion with PR Week’s Steve Barrett, reflecting on how “decisiveness is no longer the constraint, credibility is.”

“With trade conflicts and wars thundering on, there is a palpable sense of urgency this year,” Carter told Barrett. “But also a refreshing openness to the idea that business and government are not destined for a zero-sum future. Big problems demand big tents. Even as political and trade winds tilt toward nationalism, there remains broad acknowledgment that industry and government must function together if society is to move forward.”

“Leaders know they need to move faster, pivot more often, and make bolder bets,” he added. “What’s holding many organizations back isn’t strategy — it’s whether the audiences that matter most understand the context for change, trust the rationale behind it, and know what to do next.” Read more of Barrett’s conversations with communications leaders in Davos.

The conversations follow the release of FleishmanHillard’s proprietary ‘License to Lead’ survey of 5,500 global leaders and stakeholders that paved the way for a playbook for leaders in a volatile era. Executive and communications teams from across global industries and markets showed through their responses that the central challenge facing organizations is often not determining the right strategy, but securing the permission to communicate effectively when bold or evolving strategies test the limits of stakeholder confidence. Dive into ‘License to Lead’ below.

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

Article

From Ragan: Elizabeth Cook on Rethinking Preparedness in Crisis Response

January 21, 2026

As a leader of FleishmanHillard’s corporate affairs team, Elizabeth Cook has shaped executive visibility strategies and the firm’s point of view across media, events and digital platforms.

Now she speaks to Ragan’s Isis Simpson-Mersha for their latest How I Got Here spotlight. Here’s an excerpt:

Ragan: AI-driven misinformation and deepfakes have raised the stakes for crisis response. How should executives rethink preparedness in a world where credibility can be undermined in seconds?

Cook: In a word, vigilance. And it’s not one team’s responsibility — every tool and team has blind spots, so it takes organization and coordination across social media managers, community managers, social care teams and issues and crisis monitoring, with everyone bringing a “see something, say something” mindset. From there, it’s about making sure you can move fast through the playbook — verify the facts, work with the platforms, push your statement and don’t neglect the human stakeholders involved.

Read Cook’s full interview including how two decades of advising Fortune 100 companies, government agencies and NGOs through high-stakes moments shaped her approach to crisis leadership today.

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

The Supreme Court Case That Could Redefine U.S. Trade Policy

November 12, 2025
By Geoff Mordock

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to decide a case that could shift the balance of power between the White House and Congress – and reshape how businesses navigate global trade risk.

The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, challenges the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At its core, it asks whether the President can unilaterally impose, extend, or adjust tariffs under IEEPA after declaring a national emergency, without returning to Congress. The outcome could unlock billions in refunds for affected companies, tighten judicial review of trade actions, and force a broader reckoning with executive authority in economic policy.

The stakes are high. And the implications go far beyond trade.

What the Court Is Actually Weighing

The Trump administration used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports, citing national emergencies and foreign threats. But the challenge brought by Learning Resources and others focuses less on the why and more on the how.

The Court must decide:

  • Did the executive branch overstep the authority granted by Congress under IEEPA?
  • Can the President keep adjusting tariffs based on a standing national emergency declaration, without ongoing Congressional approval?
  • Are companies entitled to refunds if those tariffs are later ruled unlawful?

During oral arguments, Justices across the ideological spectrum voiced concerns about unchecked executive power. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett both questioned whether an initial finding should give the President indefinite authority. Justice Gorsuch warned of the dangers of unconstrained trade power, while Justice Sotomayor zeroed in on the lack of procedural fairness for businesses seeking relief.

That kind of bipartisan skepticism is rare. It suggests the Court may be ready to draw new boundaries.

Supreme Court Hearings

Why This Case Matters More Than It Seems

The headlines will likely focus on tariffs and China. But the deeper implications touch nearly every global business and every White House to come.

A Reset on Executive Power

If the Court limits the use of IEEPA, future administrations may be forced to return to Congress for approval of extended or revised trade actions. That would be a major shift – reintroducing legislative oversight into a domain that has become increasingly dominated by executive discretion.

A Path to Refunds

For companies, the most immediate impact may be financial. If the Court rules that these tariffs were imposed or extended unlawfully, businesses could pursue billions in refunds. That would also establish a precedent for challenging future trade actions and raise the stakes for getting them right.

Clarity, but Also Complexity

A ruling in favor of Learning Resources could bring greater predictability for importers and global supply chains. But it would also open the door to more litigation and place new burdens on companies to monitor the legality of policy changes, not just their bottom-line impact.

A Signal on Delegated Power

This case could continue a broader trend from the past several terms, where the Court has increasingly shown willingness to revisit how much power Congress delegates to the executive branch, especially in regulatory and economic matters. If the Justices continue to tighten these limits, the effects could continue to ripple into environmental law, labor regulation, and beyond.

Global Repercussions

Other governments are watching closely. If U.S. courts rein in presidential trade powers, it could change the tone of global negotiations and alter expectations in future disputes. It could also give international trading partners new leverage or new reasons to challenge U.S. moves at the World Trade Organization.

If the Trump Administration Prevails

Should the Court uphold the administration’s actions, the message will be clear. The President has broad authority to manage trade policy under IEEPA, including imposing and adjusting tariffs in response to declared national emergencies or foreign threats.

That would preserve the status quo on tariffs, but also the unpredictability that comes with it. Companies would face continued uncertainty about how and when tariffs might change, and how much say Congress or the courts might have.

For some industries, especially those protected by tariffs, this could be welcome news. For others, it could reinforce the need for strong internal planning and government affairs engagement.

What Business Leaders Should Be Doing Now

Whatever the outcome, this is a strategic inflection point. Companies need to think beyond legal exposure and assess what this case reveals about the regulatory and political environment.

Some practical questions:

  • How exposed is our business to shifts in tariff law or enforcement?
  • Could a refund, or the loss of one, impact earnings expectations?
  • Are we prepared to explain that outcome to stakeholders?
  • Do we have a plan for navigating increased scrutiny or a rush of litigation?
  • How are we preparing for the next administration’s approach to trade?

The smart move is not to wait. Whether the Court limits executive power or affirms it, the policy environment will remain fluid. The most resilient companies will have already mapped out multiple scenarios and coordinated across legal, finance, communications, and operations teams.

One Case, Many Signals

Learning Resources v. Trump is not just about one set of tariffs. It is a test of how trade power is used, how far it can go, and what legal remedies companies can expect in an era of aggressive policy moves. In other words, this is not just a case. It is a signal. And in times like these, signals are what smart leaders watch.

Geoff MordockGeoff Mordock leads Issues Management at FleishmanHillard. He is an SVP & Senior Partner based in Orange County and brings more than 25 years of experience helping organizations manage and shape corporate reputation, including navigating significant crises and issues through critical moments.