Yesterday, I attended in London the UK Investor Forum for Professional and Business Services, hosted by Innovate UK and ScaleX Invest. The event brought together venture capitalists, corporate venture arms, institutional investors, family offices, and public funders to address a question that has been quietly nagging at the UK's innovation economy: why does a sector worth £300 billion a year attract so little dedicated investment capital?

Speakers examined the investment case from different angles: what is driving specialist investment in PBS and what is holding it back; how to mobilise capital for UK growth; and how to recycle capital through stronger exit pathways and secondary markets. The speakers were great and shared their views based on their own experience. The analysis was, in large part and as I intepreted it, correct. But as I listened, I kept noticing what was not being discussed. And it is, I would argue, the most important piece of the puzzle.

Nobody talked about positioning. And almost nobody talked about the demand side. I say this, because most most of the goverment’s recent annoucement have been supply-side policy and of Government as an innovator and investor in chief.

The supply-side consensus

The event's diagnosis was clear and largely shared across all three panels. The UK's professional and business services sector sits within a tech ecosystem valued at over $1.2 trillion (Tech Nation Report 2025), with more than 150 unicorn companies, global leadership in legal and financial services, and a regulatory framework that combines stability with a willingness to innovate. AI is transforming the delivery model of professional services in ways that are creating genuinely investable, scalable propositions for the first time. And yet the sector attracts a fraction of the venture funding that comparable sectors receive.

The data points that were shared were striking. PBS was characterised as being in a 'pre-fintech' phase: the opportunity is visible, the market is multi-trillion, but funding remains disproportionately small. A speaker shared that legal tech globally attracts roughly £1.5 to £3 billion in venture funding. The wider PBS sector sees £15 to £25 billion. Set against a multi-trillion addressable market, these are rounding errors.

The structural barriers were well-rehearsed. One speaker noted that the UK produces approximately six unicorns for every thousand startups; the US produces 90. Later-stage domestic capital is insufficient, with 80% of UK growth-stage funding coming from foreign investors. Pension fund participation in venture sits at roughly 10% of LP capital, compared to approximately 70% in the US. And the cultural dimension was clear, as one investor at the forum put it, UK founders reaching £10 million in revenue tend to optimise for profitability, while their US equivalents at the same stage are pushing for £50 or £100 million.

All of this is correct. And all of it is about the supply side: how to get more money into the system, how to keep it circulating, and how to build the exit pathways that give investors confidence they can get it back out.

The demand-side gap

What struck me, sitting in that room, was that almost nobody addressed the other half of the equation. And it is a gap I have been thinking about for some time, not just for PBS specifically, but for the UK's innovation economy as a whole.

The UK has built an elaborate supply-side architecture for venture capital: the British Business Bank, British Patient Capital, the British Growth Partnership, the Sovereign AI Fund, EIS and VCT extensions, Innovate UK grants and catapult centres. The supply-side investment case is strong and is getting stronger. But the demand side, getting UK corporates to actively invest in domestic innovation through corporate venturing, open innovation, and strategic partnerships, remains almost entirely unaddressed.

Consider the numbers. Only 49 of the FTSE 100 use corporate venture capital as a strategic tool, with only 28 having a formal CVC unit. Only 8% of UK VC funding comes from corporate venture capital. Only 14% of corporate-backed funding rounds in the UK come from solely domestic corporates, and 41% of corporate-backed rounds have no UK corporate investor in them at all. The UK sits 6th in the Global Innovation Index but 31st in commercialising that innovation. That gap is structural, not accidental, and it persists because no policy mechanism exists to incentivise UK corporates to invest in the startups and scaleups that the supply side is so effectively producing.

This matters for PBS specifically because the sector's investment case rests on enterprise adoption. A legal tech startup does not scale by winning more VC funding. It scales by winning enterprise clients. An accounting innovation platform does not grow by raising a bigger Series B. It grows by being adopted by the firms and corporates that use accounting services at scale. The demand side, the corporate buyers and investors who validate these technologies in the market, is the critical missing link. And it was barely discussed.

The visibility gap is a positioning problem

One phrase from the first panel deserves more attention than it got: the 'visibility gap.' Companies in PBS are routinely reclassified as SaaS or AI investments to clear traditional venture hurdles. An expenses management system serving HR functions gets repackaged as an AI play. A legal workflow tool gets classified as enterprise software. The sector's identity dissolves into adjacent categories.

This is not a capital problem. It is a positioning and perception problem. And it has consequences that ripple far beyond individual investment rounds.

When a sector lacks a clear identity in the minds of investors, it becomes invisible in portfolio allocation discussions. It does not appear in thematic fund mandates. It does not feature in LP reports. It does not get its own analyst coverage. Capital flows to named categories. PBS does not yet have a name that capital markets recognise.

Fintech did not become an investment category because the technology was intrinsically superior to what came before. It became a category because a group of entrepreneurs, investors, and ecosystem builders created a narrative, a positioning, and an identity that made it legible to capital markets. They defined the category, named it, built events around it, produced benchmarks, and created a shared vocabulary. The technology followed the positioning, not the other way around.

PBS has not yet had its fintech moment. Not because the technology is missing, but because the positioning is.

Trust as strategic capital

There was one theme that surfaced repeatedly across all three panels: trust. Multiple speakers framed their investment theses around it. In a world where foundational AI models threaten to commoditise vertical-specific tools, the defensible moat is not technology alone. It is trust: deep client integration, workflow embedding, and the social proof to provide the verification layer that AI outputs require.

From the practitioner side, the message was equally clear. Professional services firms, particularly in law, are extraordinarily risk-averse. A startup can have the best technology in the world, but if the firm's information security team says no, it is dead on arrival. Understanding the infrastructure, the confidentiality requirements, and the decision-making culture of the organisations you are selling into is a prerequisite for even getting off the ground.

And at the macro level, the UK's competitive advantage as an investment destination rests on the same foundation: trust in the rule of law, trust in regulatory stability, trust in jurisdictional predictability. In a world of geopolitical uncertainty, the UK's reputation as a safe, stable, and sensibly innovative jurisdiction is a tangible economic asset.

The numbers bear this out. The UK's professional and business services sector is not just an economic engine. It is an extension of the UK brand and a pillar of British soft power. UK legal services contributed a record £38 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and achieved a trade surplus of £8.9 billion, with exports passing £10 billion for the first time in 2025. The UK is the largest legal services market in Europe and the second largest globally. English law governs approximately 40% of all global business and financial transactions and underpins the legal systems of approximately 27% of the world's 320 jurisdictions.

The UK is the world's largest net exporter of financial services and a major international centre for management consulting, with net exports reaching £25.3 billion.

When international businesses choose English law for their contracts, when sovereign wealth funds route transactions through London, when governments seek advisory expertise on regulatory frameworks, they are choosing the UK not just for competence but for trust. That trust, built over centuries and reinforced by the rule of law, judicial independence, and regulatory stability, is the foundation of the UK's soft power in professional services. It is also the foundation upon which the PBS investment thesis should be built, because it is the one competitive advantage that cannot be replicated by technology, undercut on price, or relocated to a lower-cost jurisdiction.

There is a further dimension that deserves attention. The UK's courts are the world's preferred venue for resolving international commercial disputes, with 72% of Commercial Court cases and 80% of Patents Court cases involving at least one international party. Parties from 93 countries appeared in English courts last year. They choose London not because they have to, but because they trust a judiciary that is genuinely independent from the political system. In a world where that independence is under pressure elsewhere, the UK's position as the world's court is a strategic asset that government should be actively leveraging, not taking for granted.

But here is the challenge: trust is not self-evident. It does not market itself. It requires deliberate, strategic positioning to translate institutional trust into investor confidence, to make the case not just that the UK is a good place to invest, but that UK PBS specifically offers a combination of technology maturity, regulatory environment, and enterprise readiness that other markets cannot match.

Mansion House: the right ambition, the wrong speed

The second panel addressed the mobilisation of capital, and the Mansion House reforms were a recurring reference point. The original Mansion House Compact (July 2023) saw 11 pension providers commit to investing 5% of DC defaults in unlisted equities by 2030. The Mansion House Accord (May 2025) went further: 17 providers managing around 90% of active savers' DC pensions committed to allocating 10% to private markets, with at least 5% directed to UK assets. The government has stated it will monitor progress and reserves powers to mandate allocations if voluntary commitments prove insufficient.

The ambition is right. The US-UK comparison is stark: in 2022, international pension funds committed approximately £432 million to UK venture and growth equity funds, while UK pension funds committed just £48 million (BVCA, 2024). In 2024, BVCA data showed no recorded commitments from UK pension funds to venture capital at all. Non-UK pension schemes invest 16 times more in UK private capital funds than domestic schemes do. By contrast, US public pension funds allocated a median of 13.5% of their portfolios to private equity in 2024, with private equity delivering the best returns of any asset class in public pension portfolios every year since 2012 (American Investment Council, 2025). Closing even a fraction of this gap would represent a transformational injection of patient capital into the UK ecosystem.

But the forum discussion revealed the practical challenges. Progress is expected to focus on building operational capabilities, establishing asset manager partnerships, and putting infrastructure in place, rather than on significant allocation activity, which is not expected to ramp up meaningfully until 2028-2030. Fund manager fees remain a barrier: venture fund economics (typically 2% management fee, 20% carry) sit uncomfortably with DC pension schemes accustomed to passive investment fees. There is also a tension between the government's ambition for the Accord and the Pension Schemes Bill's controversial 'backstop' clause, which threatens to mandate allocations if voluntary progress is deemed insufficient, a measure that has drawn strong opposition from the pensions industry.

The Mansion House reforms are necessary. But they are supply-side reforms. They address where capital comes from but not where it goes or how it gets deployed effectively. If UK corporates are not investing in domestic innovation through CVCs and open innovation, then pension capital channelled through the British Growth Partnership into venture funds will still face the same commercialisation gap: funded startups without corporate customers, without corporate investors, and without the route to market that scales technology businesses.

This is where Treasury has a lever it has not yet pulled. Reducing friction for UK corporates to establish CVC vehicles, whether through targeted tax incentives, enhanced R&D credit treatment for corporate equity investments in startups, or simply regulatory clarity on how CVC sits on a corporate balance sheet, would cost the exchequer very little while creating the demand-side infrastructure that connects pension-funded venture capital to the corporate customers and partners that startups need to scale. Countries like Germany, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore have done exactly this, and at minimal public cost. The UK has not.

PISCES: a promising innovation, not yet proven

The third panel yesterday introduced what may be the most genuinely innovative element of the UK's capital markets reform programme: PISCES, the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System. This is a new type of regulated trading platform, operating within an FCA sandbox, that enables intermittent one-day auctions of existing shares in private companies through the London Stock Exchange's Private Securities Market.

The concept is simple. PISCES bridges a real gap between remaining fully private and pursuing a full IPO. Companies can schedule trading windows (monthly, quarterly, or ad-hoc), set floor and ceiling prices, control which investors can participate, and manage their cap tables without the ongoing compliance burden of a public listing.

Transfers of shares on PISCES are exempt from stamp duty and SDRT. The first transaction on the PSM, a permissioned auction involving Oxford Science Enterprises (a £1.3 billion investment company commercialising University of Oxford research), is scheduled for 25 March 2026. JP Jenkins has also been approved as a second PISCES operator.

The secondary markets data discussed at the forum provided the context for why this matters. According to secondary market investors in the room, there is approximately $5 trillion in private tech assets globally, yet venture and growth secondaries represent only 4-5% of primary capital flows, compared to roughly 20% in private equity buyout. The market has also become top-heavy: the most recognised companies trade at 15-20% premiums, while everything below the top 30 trades at significant discounts. Companies that lack visibility and narrative struggle to access secondary liquidity regardless of their underlying quality.

This is where the demand side reasserts itself. Market infrastructure creates the possibility of liquidity, but it is awareness, credibility, and strategic positioning that convert that possibility into investor interest. Companies that invest in how they are perceived, not just in what they build, are the ones that attract capital on favourable terms. The plumbing is being laid. The question is whether companies and policymakers recognise that positioning is what turns infrastructure into outcomes.

This, again, is a positioning problem. PISCES provides the infrastructure, but companies still need to be visible, credible, and strategically positioned to attract investor interest in their trading windows. The market infrastructure is a necessary condition for liquidity, but it is not sufficient. The demand side, investor awareness and confidence, requires the same deliberate strategic work.

The international dimension nobody mentioned

Perhaps the most striking absence in the day's discussions was any substantive treatment of international positioning. The UK was compared to the US, repeatedly, but there was almost no discussion of how UK PBS should position itself to investors in the Gulf, in Asia, or in Europe.

Consider the GCC states, where sovereign wealth funds and family offices are actively diversifying their technology portfolios and where the demand for professional services innovation is growing rapidly. Or Japan, where the government is actively encouraging inbound investment in technology services and where trust-based business relationships are the fundamental currency of commercial life. Or Singapore or Malaysia in Southeast Asia, where professional services firms are grappling with the same technology transformation questions.

These markets do not lack capital. They lack trusted intermediaries who can position UK PBS innovation in a way that is relevant to their strategic priorities. Countries like Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and Japan have addressed this through national strategies that reduce friction for companies to establish CVCs, incentivise corporate investment in innovation, and connect corporate demand to the venture ecosystem, often at minimal cost to the exchequer. The UK has not.

What needs to happen next

The Investor Forum did what it was designed to do: it brought the right people into the room, surfaced the investment case, and created connections that will lead to capital flowing into the sector. But if PBS is to have its ‘fintech moment,’ three things need to happen simultaneously.

First, positioning. PBS needs a clear, investable identity that capital markets can recognise, allocate to, and build thematic mandates around. The UK's trust and regulatory advantages need to be positioned as central to the investment thesis, not as background context. And that story needs to be told internationally, particularly in markets and jurisdictions where UK professional services already have credibility and where capital is actively seeking trusted deployment opportunities.

Second, demand-side policy. The government needs to complement its impressive supply-side architecture with policy that incentivises UK corporates to invest in domestic innovation. That means reducing friction for companies to establish CVCs, creating fiscal signals that corporate venturing is valued as a growth tool, and building a commercialisation bridge between publicly funded startups and corporate customers. The Mansion House reforms channel pension capital into venture funds; the missing piece is ensuring those venture-backed companies have corporate customers and corporate investors waiting on the other side.

Third, market infrastructure. PISCES is a genuinely innovative addition to the UK's capital markets toolkit, and the secondary market developments discussed at the forum are encouraging. But infrastructure without awareness or confidence is underutilised infrastructure. Companies and investors need to understand what is available, how to use it, and how to position themselves to benefit from it.

The UK's professional and business services sector is not short of innovation, talent, or opportunity. What it is short of is a positioning strategy that matches the scale of the opportunity, and a demand-side policy that turns the supply of capital into the adoption of innovation. The capital will follow the narrative. And the narrative will follow the demand.

Julio Romo is founder and principal adviser at Twofourseven Strategy, an independent advisory practice working across investment, government, and technology. He was a Specialist with the UK Government's Department for Business and Trade since 2016 and today works with investors, corporate ventures, and family offices on cross-border strategy, positioning, and trust.

For the full analysis or to discuss the implications for your organisation, please get in touch via twofourseven.co.uk/contact.

Subscribe to Reputation Matters for weekly analysis on trust, positioning, and growth: twofourseven.substack.com/subscribe.

Read more: Reputation Matters on LinkedIn | Twofourseven on Substack

For more than a decade, the United Arab Emirates built one of the most compelling wealth propositions in modern economic history. Zero income tax. Golden visa programmes. World-class infrastructure. A geographic bridge between Europe and Asia. And, above all, a carefully cultivated ‘perception’ of stability in an otherwise volatile region.

It worked. In 2024, more than 200 new family offices joined the Dubai International Financial Centre, bringing the total to 800. The UAE attracted a net inflow of 9,800 millionaires in 2025, making it the world’s most popular destination for relocating wealth, according to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report. Assets under management across the UAE surpassed AED 1.2 trillion. Gulf sovereign wealth funds collectively deployed a record $119 billion in a single year.

The narrative was clear: the Gulf was open for business, and the world’s wealthiest families were responding.

Then, on 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran. Tehran retaliated. And in a matter of days, the foundational assumption underpinning the Gulf’s entire wealth proposition was tested in a way that no marketing campaign, tax incentive, or golden visa could offset.

The assumption was stability. And the test was perception.

The Gulf’s Rise: A Decade of Strategic Positioning

Understanding what is now at stake requires understanding what was built. The UAE’s transformation into a global wealth hub was not accidental. It was a deliberate, state-led strategy executed with remarkable discipline across multiple pillars: fiscal policy, regulatory design, infrastructure investment, and, critically, narrative management.

Dubai and Abu Dhabi positioned themselves as jurisdictions where ambition, capital, and lifestyle could converge without the friction that characterised traditional European and Asian financial centres.

For wealthy families from the United Kingdom, where capital gains tax hikes, inheritance tax changes, and the overhaul of the non-domiciled tax regime drove a record 16,500 millionaires to leave in 2025, the UAE offered an obvious alternative. For Chinese-origin families who had established themselves in Singapore, some relocated to Dubai seeking lighter regulatory oversight and proximity to emerging markets. For families in Switzerland and Monaco, the UAE provided comparable lifestyle quality with better connectivity to Asia and the Middle East.

The data confirms the scale of this migration. The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2025 recorded a record 142,000 millionaires relocating globally, with projections of 165,000 for 2026. The UAE sat at the top of every inbound ranking. Gulf sovereign wealth funds, managing approximately $6 trillion (over 40% of the global total according to Deloitte), were simultaneously deploying capital outward at unprecedented scale, investing $9.5 billion into China alone in the year ending September 2024.

The UAE’s most valuable asset was never its tax rate. It was the perception of stability.

This was not simply a tax story. It was a perception story. Families chose the UAE because they believed it was safe, stable, well-governed, and strategically positioned. That belief was the most valuable asset in the Gulf’s portfolio.

The Iran Conflict: A Trigger for Reassessment

The US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory campaign across the Gulf did not create a new risk. Geopolitical proximity to Iran has always been a feature of the region’s geography. What the conflict did was make that risk visible, visceral, and impossible to ignore.

Iranian missile and drone strikes hit every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Dubai International Airport, the world’s busiest hub for international passenger traffic, suspended operations. Abu Dhabi’s airport was struck. QatarEnergy halted all LNG production after Iranian drones hit facilities at Ras Laffan, the world’s largest LNG hub. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of global oil and 20% of global LNG supplies transit, was effectively closed, with 500 ships anchored in open Gulf waters rather than risk passage.

The economic data has been stark. Brent crude surged from $72 to over $106 per barrel within days, with LNG prices rising 60%. JPMorgan cut UAE non-oil GDP forecasts by 2.3 percentage points, the steepest downward revision in the GCC bloc. The Middle East Council on Global Affairs estimated Gulf aviation losses at $40 billion. Three of the four largest GCC economies began reviewing their sovereign wealth fund deployment strategies, according to Reuters, including possible investment pledge reversals and re-evaluation of global sponsorship deals.

But the numbers, significant as they are, tell only part of the story. The deeper impact is reputational.

As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace observed, the Gulf states’ economic diversification strategies rest on the perception of stability. Attracting tourists, building data centres, and sustaining complex logistics hubs requires confidence that these are safe and peaceful jurisdictions. When images of explosions circulate globally, that confidence is tested regardless of how quickly physical infrastructure is repaired.

For a chief investment officer or a family office principal, the question is no longer abstract. It is whether the jurisdiction where your family’s capital is domiciled, where your children attend school, where your operational headquarters sits, is within range of ballistic missiles fired during a conflict you did not choose and cannot control.

Capital in Motion: The Evidence

Within days of the first Iranian strikes, the evidence of capital reassessment began to emerge.

Reuters reported on 6 March 2026 that scores of wealthy Asians were making enquiries or taking steps to move Dubai-held assets to Singapore and Hong Kong. A Singapore-based private wealth lawyer told Reuters that six or seven of his 20 Dubai-based clients, each holding an average of $50 million in assets, contacted him in a single week, with three planning immediate transfers. Anderson Global reported 10 to 20 family offices enquiring about relocating assets from the Middle East to Singapore in the same period. The CEO of Phillip Private Equity noted that 10 to 20 predominantly Asian clients were asking about moving their wealth to Singapore to preserve capital.

One observation from a senior figure at Anderson Global captured the shift precisely: tax benefits, she noted, may no longer be the top priority for these families. A Singapore-based wealth adviser, who had spoken to 13 UAE-based clients with more than half serious about moving, framed it differently: even if the conflict ends tomorrow, the confidence challenge remains.

A runway can be resurfaced in weeks. Confidence in a jurisdiction’s long-term stability takes years to rebuild.

Nikkei Asia reinforced this framing in its reporting on 13 March, noting that the image of the UAE as a safe haven had been shattered even if fighting ends. This is the critical insight. Perception damage does not repair on the same timeline as physical infrastructure.

It is important to note that not all capital is leaving. Some wealth managers report no serious capital flight discussions, and several family office principals have confirmed that their plans remain unchanged provided the UAE does not become directly involved in the conflict. The picture is nuanced. But the direction of travel, for a meaningful segment of mobile wealth, is clear: reassessment is underway, and the basis of decision-making has shifted.

The New Decision Hierarchy: Safety Before Tax

For the past decade, the dominant question for globally mobile wealth was straightforward: where do I pay the least tax? That question drove the migration to Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and other Gulf jurisdictions. Zero income tax, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax, combined with golden visa access and lifestyle quality, made the proposition almost irresistible.

The Iran conflict has introduced a new question that sits above tax in the decision hierarchy: where is my capital safest?

This represents a fundamental reordering of priorities for family offices and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Tax remains a factor, but it has been subordinated to risk management and mitigation. A zero-tax jurisdiction offers limited value if your airports are closed, your shipping lanes are blocked, your bank transfers encounter technological glitches from cyber conflict and damage to data cebtres, and your insurer has withdrawn war risk coverage.

BlackRock’s 2025 Global Family Office Survey, conducted before the Iran conflict escalated, already showed this shift gathering momentum. 84% of the 175 single-family offices surveyed (overseeing more than $320 billion) cited geopolitical uncertainty as the most important issue influencing their capital allocation decisions. 60% were pessimistic about the global outlook, the first negative sentiment since the survey began in 2020. 68% were focused on increasing diversification.

The new hierarchy: safety first, then regulatory quality, then tax, then lifestyle.

The Iran conflict has accelerated a trend that was already in motion. It has not created a new dynamic so much as made an existing one undeniable.

Where Does Capital Go Now?

Capital does not disappear. It relocates. The question is where, and on what basis.

Singapore is the most obvious beneficiary. The city-state had already seen a tenfold increase in single-family offices, reaching over 2,000 by the end of 2024, according to the Julius Baer Family Barometer. The Monetary Authority of Singapore introduced a three-month processing target for family office tax incentive applications in July 2025, signalling a clear intent to streamline access. Singapore offers what the Gulf currently cannot: perceived geopolitical neutrality, regulatory maturity, and physical distance from the Middle East conflict zone.

European alternatives are also in play. Luxembourg offers deep institutional infrastructure as an established fund domicile. Monaco provides lifestyle appeal with proximity to European financial centres. The European Commission is reviewing the EuVECA Regulation with adoption planned for Q3 2026. Switzerland retains its traditional strengths in discretion and stability.

The United Kingdom presents a more complex picture. Historically, every major Middle East oil shock has driven Gulf capital into London property and financial markets. But the UK’s current tax environment, including the recent capital gains, inheritance tax, and non-dom changes that drove the record millionaire exodus, may prevent history from repeating. Regulatory reform is underway, but regulatory architecture alone cannot overcome a tax perception gap that is actively pushing wealth and the creators of wealth and growth outward.

What Governments Must Understand

The jurisdictions that capture the reallocation of Gulf-exposed wealth will be those that understand a fundamental truth that I have presented for many years: reputation is strategic capital.

The UAE spent decades building its reputation as a stable, welcoming, and efficient destination for global wealth. That reputation was its most valuable competitive asset, more important than any individual tax incentive or visa programme. Look at how Dubai was perceived and talked about in the UK and other jurisdictions before the regional conflict. The Iran conflict has demonstrated how quickly reputational capital can be eroded by events outside a jurisdiction’s control.

For governments competing for mobile wealth, the lessons are clear. First, compete on stability and governance, not just tax rates. Second, streamline regulatory frameworks for family offices and wealth structures. Singapore’s three-month approval target sets the benchmark. Third, invest in perception management. Fourth, recognise that capital allocation decisions are now driven by a hierarchy: safety first, then regulatory quality, then lifestyle, and then tax.

The Longer View

None of this should be read as a prediction that the UAE’s wealth story is over. The Gulf states possess extraordinary financial reserves, deep sovereign wealth fund portfolios, and a track record of rapid recovery from crisis. The region’s strategic importance to global energy markets and its position as a bridge between East and West remain structurally significant.

But the Iran conflict has revealed something that cannot be unseen. The perception of safety, the single most important factor in a family’s decision about where to domicile their wealth, is not a permanent asset. It must be maintained, protected, and, when tested, actively rebuilt.

For those of us who work at the intersection of reputation, trust, perception, and investment, the signal is clear. Capital follows trust. Trust follows perception. And perception, once disrupted, does not return on command.

The competition for global wealth is entering a new phase. The jurisdictions that understand this will define the next decade of capital flows.

This article is part of Reputation Matters, my regular analysis on trust, perception and strategic risk for leaders in investment, government and technology.

Subscribe on Substack to receive the next piece directly: twofourseven.substack.com

As the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference begins in San Francisco this week, attention once again turns to not just deal activity, pipelines and market sentiment. But also innovation, announcements and transactions that are not part of the bigger picture.

JPM Healthcare Week has evolved. In 2026, it's no longer just the world’s most important healthcare investment event. It has become a signal-setting forum, where healthcare and life sciences today intersect with geopolitics, industrial policy, capital discipline and artificial intelligence.

For leaders, investors and founders, the real value of this week lies beneath the headlines.

Healthcare is now a strategic geopolitical asset

Life sciences and healthcare are no longer viewed simply as growth industries. They are now strategic geopolitical assets for nations around the world.

Across the developed world, healthcare sits at the heart of national priorities: resilience, economic security, demographic stability and technological leadership. Governments are shaping policy with these objectives in mind, and capital is responding accordingly.

This shift has real consequences. It changes how companies are valued, how innovation is funded, and how markets are accessed. Healthcare is now part of the national industrial strategy, not separate from it, which means perception, alignment and trust matter more than ever.

Reputation, trust and perception are no longer 'soft issues'

One of the most underappreciated dynamics shaping healthcare performance is reputation.

Public research consistently shows a paradox. Many people recognise the scientific value of healthcare innovation, yet broader understanding and trust remain fragile. Familiarity is low, allowing scepticism to persist regarding the benefits and value, with motivations often still misunderstood.

Among clinicians, trust is higher, especially where collaboration exists. But public trust, political confidence and investor perception are uneven.

This matters.

Reputation is not a communications afterthought. It is a strategic asset that influences:

• Patient adoption of innovation

• Clinician confidence and collaboration

• Regulatory engagement and policy outcomes

• Investor appetite and cost of capital

There is a clear economic logic to this. Reputational strength helps organisations navigate policy environments, secure market access, attract partners and stabilise valuations. A weak or ambiguous reputation does the opposite, increasing risk premiums, slowing growth and delaying life-saving and enhancing treatments and potential cures.

For both enterprises and start-ups, reputation, perception and positioning are now core drivers of performance.

Capital discipline has replaced narrative momentum

Another clear signal from JPM Healthcare Week 2026 is the return of capital discipline.

After years of valuation resets, investors are no longer underwriting stories alone. They are underwriting execution, governance and credibility.

Growth is available, but it is selective. Capital is flowing towards organisations that can demonstrate:

• Operational discipline

• Clear regulatory pathways

• Realistic deployment of technology

• Coherent engagement with policy and stakeholders

Narrative still matters, but unsupported narrative now destroys trust rather than creates it. For founders and executives, this represents a shift in what “good storytelling” actually means. It must now be anchored in evidence and delivery.

Artificial intelligence moves from hype to infrastructure

Artificial intelligence remains central to healthcare strategy, but the conversation has matured.

In 2026, AI is no longer judged on what it might do, but on what it delivers in practice. Investors and strategic buyers are focused on:

• Integration with existing systems

• Interoperability across payers and providers

• Measurable return on investment

• Governance, data provenance and security

AI is becoming core infrastructure, comparable to cloud computing or electronic health records. This has significant reputational implications.

Organisations that over-promise on AI, obscure how systems are trained, or underinvest in governance are now seen as higher risk. Those that demonstrate restraint, transparency and operational integration are rewarded with credibility.

In this environment, AI success is less about being first and more about being trusted.

China is a structural force, not a cyclical one

One of the most consequential signals shaping global healthcare is also one of the least openly discussed during JPM Week: China’s accelerating role in life sciences and healthcare.

China is no longer just a manufacturing base or clinical trial location. It is increasingly:

• A source of novel drug discovery

• A leader in specific cell and gene therapy platforms

• A scale player in diagnostics and digital health

• A strategic healthcare partner across Asia, Africa and the Middle East

This has three implications.

First, competitive pressure is now structural. Western companies are competing with, partnering with, or acquiring assets originating from Chinese ecosystems.

Second, capital flows are becoming more multipolar. Asian sovereign wealth funds, regional banks and private capital pools are backing healthcare platforms aligned with regional priorities.

Third, reputation and trust matter more. As geopolitical scrutiny intensifies, data governance, intellectual property protection, and national alignment are examined through both political and commercial lenses.

Ignoring this shift does not reduce risk. It compounds it.

Therapeutic focus reveals what investors really value

On the surface, JPM 2026 highlights familiar therapeutic areas: oncology, obesity, neuroscience, radiopharmaceuticals and cell and gene therapy.

But the deeper signal lies not in which therapies are fashionable, but in what investors are underwriting.

Across these areas, attention is shifting towards:

• Manufacturability

• Logistics and supply-chain resilience

• Scalability and operational readiness

• Late-stage durability rather than early novelty

Radiopharmaceuticals, for example, are attractive not only for clinical promise, but because control over isotopes, logistics and site readiness creates defensible strategic positions.

Similarly, in cell and gene therapy, investors are prioritising vector supply, comparability plans and outcomes-based access models.

Execution capability has become a reputational asset. Scientific excellence remains essential, but it is no longer sufficient.

M&A, private credit and disciplined growth

M&A remains central to healthcare strategy, particularly as large pharmaceutical companies face significant patent cliffs. But deal-making has changed.

Valuation discipline is tight. Deal structures increasingly rely on:

• Staged acquisitions

• Options-to-acquire

• Contingent value rights

• Royalty monetisation

Alongside this, private credit and capital is playing a growing role, attracting institutional investors and family offices with longer return horizons.

In this environment, credibility, governance and clarity matter more than momentum.

The five signals leaders should be watching

Cutting through the noise of JPM Healthcare Week 2026, five signals stand out:

1. Policy alignment is now a valuation input

2. AI governance is a reputational issue

3. Manufacturing and logistics are strategic moats

4. Multipolar healthcare is a reality

5. Transparency is no longer optional

These are not communications issues. They are leadership issues.

Reputation as strategy, not optics

The unifying lesson from JPM Healthcare Week 2026 is that reputation has become a strategic operating system.

For governments, it shapes investment attractiveness and national influence.

For businesses and start-ups, it underpins partnerships, valuation and licence to operate.

For investors, particularly CVCs and family offices, it determines access, deal flow and long-term returns.

Organisations that treat reputation as a by-product of success will struggle. Those who treat it as an asset to be built, governed and protected will shape outcomes.

Seeing the year clearly

JPM Healthcare Week 2026 is not about predicting winners. It is about understanding how the rules of the game are changing.

In 2026, the leaders who outperform will not be those who shout the loudest, but those who:

• Read signals early

• Act coherently

• Communicate transparently

• Build trust across markets, borders and institutions

That is where strategy, geopolitics and reputation now meet in healthcare and life sciences.

This Reputation Matters article is a summary of a longer briefing note that is detailed and supported by facts and sources:

JPM Healthcare 2026: The Signals Leaders Cannot Ignore by Julio Romo

How geopolitics, capital discipline and AI realism are reshaping the investment in and growth of life sciences and healthcare sectors and why positioning and perception matters to build trust.

Subscribe to my Reputation Matters Substack for information.

As we start 2026, most leaders and decision-makers in government, business, and investment will be looking for clear signals to help them mitigate risk and drive growth. The coming year is going to be, at the very least, interesting.

Yet many organisations still do not invest seriously in understanding how geopolitics influences their strategy, shapes their opportunities, or constrains their operating environment.

Geopolitics now behaves less like background context and more like an operating constraint: shaping what you can build, where you can invest, which partnerships are acceptable, and how quickly confidence can evaporate when perception flips.

That would be manageable if trust were abundant. It is not.

We are entering a year in which the economics of trust, the politics of technology, and the fragility of global trade converge into a single strategic conversation. Leaders who continue to treat reputation as an output of communications and geopolitics as a paragraph in the risk register will discover they have miscategorised the problem.

The most material risks are not only what happens, but how it is interpreted, by whom, and how quickly that interpretation turns into a decision: a blocked deal, a delayed procurement, a new regulatory requirement, an employee walkout, or a funding round that suddenly becomes harder to justify.

So here is the test that matters for government leaders, technology executives, and investors across CVC, VC, and family offices:

Can your strategy survive scrutiny from regulators, citizens, employees, customers, and rival states at the same time?

If the honest answer is “not sure”, that is a good place to start. Strategy begins with realism, not reassurance.

These are the signals I believe leaders need to read differently as we move into 2026. None is novel in isolation. What is changing is how they compound, with trust and perception acting as the transmission mechanism.

1) Multipolarisation is now operational, not theoretical

The Munich Security Report 2025 used the term multipolarisation to describe today’s international order: more centres of gravity, more competing models, and widening divisions that make collective responses harder.

This matters because ‘multipolar’ is not simply a description of who has power. It describes how quickly your organisation can become a political object.

In a more contested world, partnership choices are no longer read only as commercial decisions. They are read as signals. Supply chains are no longer only about efficiency. They are about exposure.

Corporate neutrality, once considered prudent, is increasingly interpreted as evasive, particularly when questions touch national capability, dual-use technology, data sovereignty, or capital sources.

This is where reputation becomes operational.

A company may believe it is ‘staying out of politics’, but stakeholders will still assign intent. Governments may believe a policy is technical, but it will still be interpreted through domestic grievance and external suspicion. Investors may think they are simply allocating capital, but in strategic sectors, they are increasingly treated as political actors.

Multipolarisation does not mean choosing sides in every argument. It means clarity about the boundaries of your behaviour, as others will test them for you.

Practical implication for 2026:

Write down your non-negotiables and make them legible. Not in a 40-page policy document, but in a page that can survive stress. If you cannot explain your red lines simply, you will not be able to defend them quickly when challenged.

2) Geo-economics hardens into enforceable friction

The second signal is the continued conversion of economic policy into national security policy.

It rarely arrives with drama. It arrives through process: screening, licensing, procurement clauses, source-of-funds questions, and export controls that tighten incrementally, then bite suddenly.

Two indicators capture the direction of travel.

First, investment screening is now mainstream. The OECD reports that more than four out of five OECD members operate investment screening mechanisms. This is not a technical footnote. It changes how deals are timed, justified, and perceived. Intent is now assessed alongside structure.

Second, capital flows are under pressure. UNCTAD reports that global foreign direct investment fell by 11% in 2024 to $1.5 trillion, marking a second consecutive year of decline. Less patient capital increases competition for ‘clean’ capital and heightens suspicion of unclear objectives.

Now connect this to technology.

In the most strategically sensitive sectors, rules are moving faster than many executives admit. Export controls and counter-diversion expectations in advanced computing and semiconductors have been tightened repeatedly, with a precise policy aim: prevent strategic advantage leaking through the gaps.

This is not simply about compliance. It is about deal viability and operating freedom.

In 2026, more transactions will be slowed, reshaped, or abandoned not because they are illegal, but because they are politically difficult, reputationally fragile, or poorly explained.

Practical implication for 2026:

Treat deal readiness as a strategic capability. Combine legal diligence with political and perception diligence. Map screening triggers early. Identify who can derail a deal informally. Shape the perception of a transaction at the same time as you structure it.

3) Trust scarcity is becoming the baseline condition

This is where the argument becomes uncomfortable.

Many leaders still behave as if trust is the default, and reputation is something you lose only if you behave badly. The evidence suggests the opposite. Distrust is increasingly ambient, and legitimacy must be earned repeatedly.

The World Economic Forum continues to rank misinformation and disinformation among the most significant short-term risks, explicitly linking them to the erosion of trust and governance. Edelman’s Trust Barometer describes a widening ‘crisis of grievance’ that stifles growth and innovation.

In low-trust conditions, stakeholders interpret events through suspicion. Narratives form faster and are harder to correct. Regulatory appetite shifts towards visible toughness, even where nuance would deliver better outcomes.

This is also where the information environment becomes a corporate risk, not just a social one. Disinformation increasingly targets firms, founders, funds, and deal counterparties.

What leaders believe privately and what decision-makers assume quietly matter as much as public reputation.

The cost of generating plausible falsehoods continues to decline. Verification still takes time. That asymmetry is now structural.

Practical implication for 2026:

Shift from messaging to evidence. Build trust infrastructure: governance, independent oversight, transparent standards, and escalation protocols for misinformation events. In 2026, trust will belong to organisations whose claims are verifiable, not merely well-phrased.

4) AI governance moves from opinion to timetable

AI has spent the last two years living in a fog of hype, fear, and ideology. Towards the end of last year, there were signs of a potential AI bubble.

2026 introduces a different dynamic: deadlines.

The EU AI Act entered into force in August 2024 and will be fully applicable in August 2026, with some obligations applying earlier. That alone should change planning cycles for firms operating in or selling into Europe.

It also matters far beyond Europe. Regulatory gravity travels through procurement, supply chains, and global standards. Firms based elsewhere are already being asked for EU-aligned assurance because it reduces buyer risk.

For investors, this is a value and exit issue, not simply a legal one. Companies that cannot evidence governance will struggle with regulated customers, face greater litigation exposure, and see exit routes narrow.

In a low-trust environment, ‘responsible AI’ as a slogan invites scrutiny rather than confidence.

Leaders will be judged on accountability: the models used, how they are tested, the data they rely on, and how incidents are handled.

Practical implication for 2026:

Treat AI governance as a board-level capability. Inventory use cases, including shadow use. Assign accountable owners. Document controls and monitoring. Build an evidence trail that survives scrutiny.

5) Strategic policy-making: reducing market friction

A persistent but under-emphasised signal for 2026 is the need for policy-making itself to become more strategic.

Too often, regulation in areas such as technology, trade, investment screening, and industrial policy is developed in vertical silos, with limited cross-sector oversight. The result is friction within markets and between markets: slower investment, higher compliance costs, and dampened competitiveness.

OECD analysis and business surveys consistently show that regulatory complexity and inconsistency impose measurable burdens on firms and public administration. When policy is written in isolation, the cumulative effect is not just administrative cost, but strategic drag.

For 2026, this matters because investors and technology leaders increasingly price in not just the content of rules, but the coherence and predictability of policy environments.

Practical implication for 2026:

Treat regulatory clarity as a competitive asset. Engage early in cross-government and cross-industry reviews that prioritise coherence and remove unnecessary friction.

6) Hybrid shocks are the new normal

Finally, assume disruption will arrive as a bundle, not a single event.

Critical mineral supply chains remain concentrated, while investment momentum is weakening. At the same time, cyber pressure on public institutions and critical systems is intensifying.

Now connect the dots.

A supply disruption can become a political crisis. A cyber incident can become a legitimacy crisis. Both can be amplified through misinformation and grievance.

When systems fail, the public question is rarely just ‘what happened?’ It becomes ‘were you negligent, naïve, or dishonest?’

Reputation is not the aftermath. It is part of the incident.

Practical implication for 2026:

Run hybrid stress tests that combine operational disruption with narrative pressure. If your crisis planning assumes incidents arrive one at a time, it is built for a world that no longer exists.

The connective tissue: perception is now the delivery mechanism

Taken together, these signals indicate a change in how power operates.

In 2026, outcomes will be shaped less by what you claim and more by whether your behaviour is interpreted as credible under pressure. Perception and trust convert geopolitics into regulatory action, disinformation into commercial friction, and technology governance into market access.

Reputation is not a veneer. It is a form of strategic resilience.

If you lead an organisation operating across government, strategic technology, or cross-border capital, the question for 2026 is not ‘how do we look?’

It is: how do we hold?

A 90-day agenda for leaders

If I were advising a leadership team preparing for 2026, I would start with three moves:

• Codify your non-negotiables. Make them usable under pressure.

• Build deal and partnership legitimacy early. Do not outsource perception to the end of the process.

• Invest in trust infrastructure. Assume misinformation will be part of the next crisis.

This is not about caution. It is about deliberateness.

In a low-trust, high-friction world, the organisations that win are not those with the loudest messaging. They are those whose strategy survives scrutiny and whose leadership can move quickly with evidence when the environment turns hostile.

Sir Martin Sorrell is one of the most consequential deal-makers the advertising industry has produced. His transformation of WPP from a modest manufacturer into the world’s largest advertising and communications group remains a case study in scale, consolidation and financial ambition. More recently, his creation of S4 Capital has sought to reflect a digital-first, data-driven future for ‘marketing’ services. That record deserves recognition.

But admiration for deal-making should not prevent a challenge where his views fall short.

His reported assertion on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that public relations is ‘dead’ and that modern communications is about ‘flooding the internet’ reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how reputation, trust and perception create and protect value in today’s economy. The views that he shared are rooted in ad-man advertising-era logic, not in the realities faced by leaders, boards and investors navigating 2025 and beyond.

This matters because Sorrell’s influence still carries weight. As the architect of WPP’s rise, the founder of S4 Capital, and a regular business commentator, his thinking shapes how executives, investors and the media interpret what ‘modern communications’ should look like. But reducing communications to reach and volume ignores the strategic function that protects enterprise value when scrutiny is highest, risk is greatest, and trust is hardest to earn.

Reputation is not built by flooding the internet. It is built through credibility, consistency and judgement over time. Confusing visibility with trust is not just an intellectual error, it is a strategic risk to leaders who manage companies with huge valuations.

Communications is not distribution. It is trust infrastructure.

At its core, communications is about how organisations are understood, judged and trusted by the people who matter most to their success. That includes customers, investors, regulators, partners, employees and wider society.

Reducing communications to ‘flooding the internet’ collapses three distinct disciplines into one:

• Advertising and media buying

• Digital and performance marketing

• Strategic communications and reputation management

Yes, they intersect, but they are not the same.

Advertising optimises for attention.

Digital marketing optimises for conversion.

Strategic communications optimises for credibility, legitimacy and trust over time.

Those outcomes cannot be delivered by volume alone. In fact, it is private engagement and positioning that establish how an individual, company, or brand is perceived.

Academic and professional research consistently shows that corporate reputation is a material driver of long-term financial performance, influencing profitability, cost of capital, customer loyalty and resilience during crises. Reputation is not an abstract concept. It is a critical intangible asset with a measurable economic impact.

Reputation is one of the most valuable assets a company owns

Multiple studies across economics, management and finance demonstrate that companies with strong reputations:

• Attract and retain better talent

• Command price premiums

• Enjoy greater investor confidence

• Recover faster from reputational shocks

This is why reputation is increasingly treated as a strategic asset, and not a by-product of marketing activity.

Warren Buffett has articulated this more plainly than most business leaders ever have. His long-standing warning that it takes decades to build a reputation and minutes to destroy it captures a truth that advertising metrics cannot measure and algorithms cannot fix.

For Buffett, reputation is inseparable from value creation. Lose money and it can be recovered. Lose trust and the damage can be existential. But yes, Sorrel’s public view is that what matters is flooding the internet. That is not counsel I would ever give to a client.

Why ‘flooding the internet’ is a high-risk strategy

There is a fundamental flaw in equating visibility with credibility.

Digital platforms reward frequency, speed and engagement. They do not reward accuracy, responsibility or long-term trust. In fact, research on platform dynamics shows that algorithmic systems often amplify polarisation, misinformation and emotional responses rather than informed understanding.

From a strategic perspective, this creates several risks:

1. Volume without trust erodes credibility

Audiences are increasingly sceptical of high-frequency brand messaging. Over-exposure without substance damages perception rather than enhancing it.

2. Platforms control reach, not organisations

The assumption that brands ‘own’ digital distribution ignores the reality that platforms mediate visibility, context and tone. Reputational exposure is outsourced to third-party systems with incentives misaligned to corporate trust.

3. Public narratives leak into private judgment

Reputation is formed as much in boardrooms, regulatory meetings, investor conversations and internal culture as it is in public channels. Flooding public spaces does nothing to address private perceptions.

Strategic communications exists precisely to manage these tensions.

Digital marketing KPIs are not reputation metrics

Click-through rates, impressions, engagement and followers are useful operational indicators. They are not measures of trust.

Reputation research focuses on very different signals:

• Stakeholder confidence

• Perceived integrity and competence

• Consistency between words and actions

• Willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt in moments of stress

Studies consistently show that reputation capital correlates with superior financial outcomes in ways that short-term marketing KPIs do not/

This is why serious organisations use reputation audits, stakeholder perception research and long-term trust indicators alongside financial reporting. These tools sit firmly within the remit of strategic communications and public relations, not media buying.

The private sphere matters more than the public one

One of the most persistent misunderstandings about communications is the belief that reputation is built solely in public view. This is wrong.

In reality, the most consequential judgments are often made privately:

• How investors talk about management credibility behind closed doors

• How regulators assess corporate intent before decisions are announced

• How partners evaluate reliability before committing capital or access

• How employees decide whether leadership is worth following

These perceptions are shaped by behaviour, consistency and trust over time. They cannot be engineered through content volume.

PR, at its best, operates in both public and private spheres. It helps leaders understand how they are perceived, where trust is fragile and how to align communication with strategy and conduct.

That work has become more important, not less.

The irony of declaring PR “dead”

There is a deeper irony in dismissing PR as obsolete.

Sir Martin Sorrell’s departure from WPP in 2018 occurred under a personal cloud. Regardless of the legal outcome, the episode demonstrated something fundamental: reputation affects even the most powerful executives. The subsequent creation and positioning of S4 Capital required careful narrative management, stakeholder reassurance and credibility rebuilding.

That is not achieved by flooding the internet. It is achieved through private trust-building with investors, clients, media and employees.

S4 Capital itself operates in markets where reputation, governance and trust directly influence valuation, client retention and investor confidence. For investors in any advertising or technology-enabled services firm, perception of leadership integrity and organisational culture matters deeply.

Communications does not disappear just because it becomes less visible.

Advertising scale versus communications judgment

Sir Martin’s career excellence lies in scale and deal-making. These are formidable strengths. But they are not substitutes for judgment about trust, legitimacy and perception.

Advertising and communications serve different strategic purposes:

• Advertising amplifies messages

• Communications shapes meaning

When organisations confuse amplification with meaning, they risk short-term noise at the expense of long-term value.

This distinction matters even more in an era of AI-generated content, synthetic media and declining institutional trust. As information becomes cheaper to produce, credibility becomes more valuable.

What leaders should take from this debate

For CEOs, boards and investors navigating 2025 and looking towards 2026, there are clear lessons:

Reputation is a strategic asset

It should be governed, measured and invested in with the same seriousness as financial capital and intellectual property.

Trust cannot be automated

AI, platforms, and digital tools can support communication, but they cannot replace human judgment, accountability, and ethical leadership.

Communications must be integrated with strategy

Communications and traditional PR work best when aligned with decision-making, not when treated as a tactical afterthought or distribution function.

Volume is not value

Flooding the internet may generate attention, but attention without trust is fragile and often destructive. Quality or quantity. You first want to be perceived well.

A warning worth heeding

Sir Martin Sorrell’s views carry weight because of his history and influence. That is precisely why leaders should approach his dismissal of PR with caution. Shouting the loudest for longer won’t influence how you are perceived.

Communications today is not about press releases or vanity coverage. It is about protecting and enhancing reputation in an environment where trust is scarce, scrutiny is constant, and perception shapes value.

PR is not dead. It has simply evolved beyond the comfort zone of those who equate success with scale alone.

For organisations that care about long-term value, resilience and legitimacy, reputation remains one of the most powerful assets they possess. Treating it as an output rather than an asset is a strategic mistake.

And one more thing. The irony in that, here we are talking about Sir Martin. For that and his business-building, I do commend him.

As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, controversy is not coming from who might win on the pitch, but how FIFA’s ticket pricing strategy is alienating the very fans who make the tournament great. The backlash we are now witnessing is about more than economics. It strikes at the heart of football’s identity, community connection and a strategic opportunity to grow the game in a market where it still plays catch-up with entrenched American sports such as American Football, Basketball and Baseball.

I’ve grown up as a football supporter. I went to the FIFA World Cup in 1982 in Spain as England held their games in Bilbao. The first club that I supported was Athletic Bilbao, and I am an Arsenal supporter, supporting them home and away for nearly 40 years. Fan atmosphere is a critical part of the game that brings people together. And yes, you can have a balance of supporters from those down in the stands to those in the corporate boxes.

A Global Revenue Juggernaut That Risks Undermining Its Foundation

FIFA is on track to generate record revenues in the 2023–26 cycle, largely thanks to the expansion of the World Cup format and its commercialisation strategy. Projected total revenues for the cycle are in the region of USD 11 billion, up from around USD 7.5 billion in the Qatar 2022 cycle, with significant contributions from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and ticketing and hospitality sales.

According to forecasts, the breakdown is roughly:

• Broadcasting rights: the largest single category, budgeted at around USD 4.8 billion.

• Ticketing and hospitality: approximately USD 3.1 billion, reflecting expanded capacity and premium corporate packages.

• Sponsorship and marketing: around USD 2.7 billion.

These figures illustrate why FIFA might feel justified in increasing prices. The governing body operates with the stated intention of redistributing revenue into global football development across its 211 member associations and claims to reinvest “more than 90 per cent” of its cycle revenues back into the game.

But commercial success does not automatically translate into strategic growth if it compromises the foundational social asset that the World Cup represents: the supporter experience and the tribal, communal atmosphere in stadia.

The Backlash Is Not Just About Price: It Is About Exclusion

The current crisis of confidence stems from FIFA’s initial adoption of dynamic, variable pricing quotas that allow ticket prices to shift dramatically based on “fixture attractiveness” and demand. In one leaked example, a fan following their national team through all stages could face costs of at least USD 6,900 for tickets alone, nearly five times higher than in 2022.

Furthermore, Football Supporters Europe (FSE) has urged FIFA to halt ticket sales, describing the pricing as “extortionate” and warning that a family of four could easily spend USD 30,000 before travel and accommodation.

Most starkly, even though FIFA officially listed tickets as starting at USD 60, this figure has proven largely theoretical: the lowest published ticket prices in some national federation disclosures are significantly higher, and in the secondary market official resale listings have shown World Cup final seats priced at $8,000 to $57,000.

This is not just pricing out fans. It is replacing them with corporate hospitality and high-net-worth travellers.

Tribalism and Atmosphere: What Makes Football Special

Football’s unique energy comes from its supporters. In Europe, we see this manifest in packed terraces of home and away fans, singing and chanting, creating an atmosphere that is not simply noise but part of the spectacle. That tribal culture is not incidental to the product; it is the product.

By contrast, imagine a World Cup stadium where corporate boxes or high-priced tickets make up a disproportionate share of the paid audience. The noise is more polite. The rituals are less authentic. The emotional investment is just weaker. That has clear implications for:

• Broadcast quality: Global television audiences react to crowd energy. A muted stadium dilutes the spectacle.

• Fan conversion: In the United States, where football is still building its fanbase compared with the NFL, NBA and MLB, authentic supporter culture helps convert neutral observers into lifelong fans.

• Corporate narratives: Even corporate hospitality guests want authentic atmospheres. One of the reasons European clubs sell out premium boxes is that they are embedded in packed, vibrant crowds, not empty arenas with scattered wealthier spectators. The game is part of the experience, made better by the crowd's reaction.

The current pricing approach is pushing genuine supporters out of the experience, while still assuming that corporate demand can fill the gap. That may drive short-term revenue, but at long-term strategic cost, meaning that FIFA will get a hit of revenue from having the World Cup in the US but will risk not securing revenue once the show leaves America.

The Experience Economy and Why Atmosphere Matters

We now operate in an experience economy, where value is created not by access alone but by the quality of the experience and the atmosphere at the ground. As described by economists Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, consumers are willing to pay for moments that generate emotion, memory and shared meaning, with the experience becoming the product rather than a by-product.

Football exemplifies this shift. Fans do not buy tickets just to watch a match; they come for the atmosphere, the collective rituals, the tribalism and the emotional intensity created by packed, vocal crowds. Strong live experiences have been proven to drive repeat attendance, long-term loyalty, and wider commercial engagement across media, merchandise, and premium offerings.

FIFA’s pricing strategy ignores this critical pillar of our game. By restricting access for core supporters, whether visiting to support their nation or local families who want to experience ‘soccer’, it weakens the very atmosphere that gives the World Cup its power. In an increasingly competitive entertainment market, undermining the live experience is not just a cultural mistake; it is a commercial one.

After all, how many American owners have bought into the Premier League and lower league clubs? They also do so because the atmosphere helps them grow their brand internationally.

The North American Context: A Market Football Cannot Take for Granted

Football (soccer) in the United States has grown impressively over recent decades, buoyed by participation rates, MLS expansion, and high youth engagement. But culturally, it still competes with the dominance of American Football, Basketball and Baseball, all of which enjoy entrenched fan bases and established commercial ecosystems.

In fact, in America, if you want to experience a tribal atmosphere around their sports, you visit college football or basketball.

American sports are great at selling premium corporate experiences precisely because they also deliver vibrant, accessible grassroots and fan culture at every level. Saturday tailgates, family sections, supporter groups, and affordable group seating all exist alongside premium corporate hospitality. That balance sustains franchise valuations, media interest and local traditions.

Football risks mimicking only the commercial side, high-priced hospitality and corporate suites, without securing the cultural base that sustains enduring local interest.

The saying goes that professional sports in America only take place between a series of prolonged adverts.

Lessons from the 2025 Club World Cup

The dynamics we are now seeing were foreshadowed by the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup held in the United States. Initially, ticket prices for some matches were set very high under dynamic pricing, which led to slower demand and subsequent price reductions.

Fans responded in predictable ways: attendance lagged behind expectations at some fixtures, and the need to cut prices highlighted the elasticity of demand even for marquee events. Even having a global superstar or marquee matchup does not guarantee ticket uptake at unsustainably high prices.

That event should have provided an early warning for FIFA’s ticketing strategy. Instead, it now appears to have informed rather than corrected FIFA’s approach.

Reputation Risk: Fan Alienation Damages The Sport And The Brand

When fans feel excluded, football loses more than the ticket revenue. It loses trust. Supporters in Europe and around the world have responded with anger, from criticising the pricing strategy on forums and social media, to established fan organisations calling out FIFA’s approach as a “betrayal” of the World Cup’s inclusive spirit.

This is not just a media fuss. Reputation risk has tangible business consequences:

• Consumer backlash reduces positive sentiment, affecting merchandise sales, viewer goodwill, and long-term brand affinity.

• Sponsorship environments depend on broad fan engagement, not just headline viewership numbers. Sponsors want authentic fan stories, not headlines about exclusion.

• Host cities and local partners want full, joyful stadia that become part of their own legacy narratives, not empty seats with overpriced hospitality.

A tournament that historically symbolises global unity and shared passion is at risk of being recast as a transactional event for the wealthy few.

Strategic Alternatives: What FIFA Could Have Done

FIFA’s core problem is not that global demand for the World Cup is high. It is that it conflated maximum short-term monetisation with best-practice product and market development strategy.

Here is a more sustainable approach FIFA could have taken while still achieving strong financial performance:

Ringfence fixed-price fan allocations.

Protect a meaningful portion of tickets at fixed, structured price bands for local and international supporters of all nations, rather than subjecting them to demand-based pricing. This maintains atmosphere and accessibility, which adds value to the football proposition.

Segment the market intentionally.

Reserve dynamic pricing for clearly defined premium inventory, hospitality, VIP experiences, best-view seats, while protecting supporter tiers that fuel atmosphere.

Cap resale margins for designated fan categories.

Fans who cannot attend could resell at capped premiums rather than being exposed to unbridled price spirals that benefit neither supporter nor brand.

Connect pricing to long-term market growth goals in North America.

Reward early engagement with loyal pricing incentives for local fans, community programmes, and partnerships with grassroots organisations to embed football deeper in the local sporting culture.

These measures would have aligned better with long-term fan development and revenue sustainability.

A Business and Brand Own Goal

FIFA’s ticket pricing strategy for World Cup 2026 has indeed maximised headline commercial revenue potential. But in doing so, it has deeply risked what makes football distinctive: its community, its tribal supporters, and its powerful emotion that spills out of stadia into local culture and media coverage.

Alienating fans, who are a central pillar of our game, in a market where football is still forging its identity against established sports traditions, is a strategic own goal.

Rather than serving the game's global growth, this pricing strategy may stunt its cultural impact precisely where momentum and a market most ripe for growth are found.

The outcry is not simply about “tickets being expensive”. It is about the soul of the game being priced out of its own showcase. If FIFA wants football to flourish in the world’s largest sports market, it must rethink not just prices but also how it values and protects the unique experience that is uniquely human and makes the World Cup the biggest and truly global sporting occasion.

Yesterday I read an excellent opinion piece by the great Richard Waters, the FT’s West Coast editor, who set out how the potential listings of SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic could trigger not only a record-breaking IPO cycle but a deeper shift in how markets value ambition, with investors increasingly backing companies whose narratives, missions and sense of inevitability outweigh traditional financial metrics

These three companies now dominate expectations for a new wave of technology. Each is raising capital at valuations that would have been unthinkable even two years ago. According to the Financial Times, SpaceX has explored private secondary sales that imply a valuation of around eight hundred billion dollars. OpenAI’s most recent share sale priced the company at roughly five hundred billion dollars, while Anthropic is reportedly seeking a valuation of approximately three hundred and fifty billion dollars.

These figures dwarf the previous record for a technology IPO. Over ten years ago, in 2014, Alibaba's IPO was the world's biggest at $25 billion, which now looks modest by comparison.

If all three companies were to go public within a similar window, they would reshape market expectations of how frontier technology firms are valued. They would also force boards, investors and policymakers to reconsider how narrative, reputation and strategic influence shape the economics of high-growth companies.

This is not just a financial story, but a story about perception. It is about how a small number of companies have mastered the art of framing their work in ways that attract vast capital, maintain investor confidence despite heavy losses and position themselves as critical infrastructure for the future global economy.

This raises a question that Europe, the UK and even some institutional investors in the United States have yet to answer. How can such valuations be sustained when profitability is distant, business models are evolving and regulatory scrutiny is intensifying?

Look at the valuations that AI companies are getting and which are generating concerns about a possible bubble.The rapid surge in AI investment has raised concerns that valuations are running ahead of reality. Private funding for generative AI reached more than 25 billion dollars in 2023, almost nine times the previous year, while Nvidia’s market value jumped from about 300 billion dollars in late 2022 to over 3 trillion dollars in 2024 on expectations alone.The IMF has cautioned that such concentrated capital flows could create structural vulnerabilities if revenue models fail to mature. These signals point to a growing risk that the pace of valuation inflation may be unsustainable

The answer lies less in the balance sheet and more in the construction of reputation, control of the narrative, and deliberate engagement with the people who influence capital allocation.

Rewriting valuation logic

Traditional measures of corporate health do not explain these valuations. Instead, companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX have reframed investor expectations by positioning themselves not as providers of products but as architects of the infrastructure that will underpin future industries. Equally, the move towards a more fragmented world is nudging countries to invest heavily in the necessary hardware, chips, data centres, and associated energy industries for AI and other technologies.

OpenAI’s revenue trajectory illustrates how the narrative has shifted to scale, not profit. Reporting by the Financial Times showed that the company is ending 2024 with an annualised revenue rate of around twenty billion dollars, supported by close to two gigawatts of compute capacity. It also plans to triple this capacity to between six and 6.5 gigawatts by the end of 2025. The company suggests revenue growth will follow this compute expansion, creating the expectation that scale itself guarantees long-term value. The exact monetisation timeline remains unclear, but the perception of inevitability has been successfully established.

Anthropic has followed a similar path. The company raised more than seven billion dollars from Amazon, Google and major venture funds across 2023 and 2024. Here too, the valuation rests not on near term profit but on an argument that the company is building a core component of the global intelligence layer.

SpaceX illustrates the same dynamic but in a different sector. The Space Report 2024 Q4 shows that global launch attempts hit a record 259 in 2024, driven largely by SpaceX, which carried out 152 launches and deployed almost 2,000 Starlink satellites. Starlink’s expanding footprint has become strategically significant for defence, humanitarian operations, telecommunications and the emerging AI ecosystem, which increasingly relies on satellite connectivity. Investors are not being asked to value a launch business. They are being asked to value an organisation with an expanding monopoly in a strategically essential sector.

These examples reveal the underlying logic. Each company positions itself as an infrastructure company, which, as a result, attracts a premium valuation because its relevance expands as the global economy evolves.

This is perception engineered into valuation.

Controlling the narrative and limiting scrutiny

A consistent pattern across these and other companies in these sectors is the extent of control they exert over both public and private narratives. Unlike publicly listed firms, they release selective data that amplifies their growth story while limiting exposure to information that might raise questions about sustainability.

This is particularly visible in OpenAI’s financial disclosures. Microsoft reported its share of OpenAI’s losses in a recent quarter as 4.1 billion dollars, which implied that OpenAI’s total losses may have reached approximately 12 billion dollars. In almost any other context, such losses would be reputationally damaging. In this case, the narrative reframes losses as investments in global infrastructure, much as telecom companies were valued during the early phases of broadband deployment.

This narrative control also insulates these companies from critique. Losses become a symbol of ambition. Large capital requirements become a sign of inevitability. Investors rarely challenge this because the companies anchor the conversation in the scale of their vision rather than the detail of their current financials.

This is not misinformation. It is a narrative discipline.

Trust, perception and elite influence

The most powerful perception strategy these firms use is their focus on elite stakeholder engagement. Their audiences are not consumers or journalists. Their audiences are sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, institutional investors, global allocators, national security agencies, regulators, and a small number of corporate investors or family offices with deep capital reserves.

This is a political economy of reputation. Investors place trust not only in the company but in the network of institutions that surround it.

SpaceX benefits from partnerships with NASA, the US Department of Defence and multiple intelligence agencies. OpenAI and Anthropic benefit from close alignment with Microsoft, Amazon and Google, whose reputational and disciplined financial weight and management reduces perceived investment risk.

From a strategic communications perspective, these companies apply a highly selective engagement model. They rarely participate in broad public conversations except where doing so supports their mission narrative. Instead, they invest in private briefings, secure roundtables, controlled investor communications and founder-led storytelling that positions them as irreplaceable.

The result is a reputational halo that few European companies are currently able to achieve.

Why this approach works in the United States but not in Europe

The gulf between the US and Europe is not only about capital. It is cultural. It is a case of US Hyper-Capitalism vs. European Prudence. I've been told this face-to-face by a senior person working within a Silicon Valley company. Someone who wants to see UK technology companies grow with confidence and secure the returns that US companies secure.

American markets accept and reward scale-first economics. Losses are tolerated when the potential gains appear transformational. Dual class shares and concentrated founder control are expected. The US regulatory environment creates a wide runway for experimentation and narrative-driven growth.

Europe and the UK do not operate this way. Institutional investors have capital, but are more conservative. They seek predictable cash flow, clearer business models and earlier visibility of profitability. Regulatory regimes are also more prescriptive and cautious. Founders are not routinely granted the autonomy or control that US markets accept. Equally, American companies grow because their government influences their global partners worldwide. American soft power sells well.

As a result, European companies struggle to construct the same type of perception architecture. Their valuations are constrained by caution, governance expectations, regulatory oversight and a culture of risk aversion that limits ambition and holds back growth. Again, somebody that I respect here in the UK said that, “we need to be more mercenary!” That is a statement that has stuck with me.

This helps explain why sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf direct far more capital to American tech companies than European ones. These funds are attracted to large, high-visibility, narrative-driven bets that signal participation in the next global technological wave. The US ecosystem consistently delivers that narrative. Europe does not.

At the same time, Sovereign Wealth Funds from the Gulf, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others, are mandated to diversify their national economies away from oil revenue by investing in global, future-facing technology. They are patient, strategic capital seeking exposure to frontier technologies like AI and space, aligning with their own national visions (e.g., Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 and its AI build-out). Again, back in 2011, during one of my first visits to the region, I remember learning about the work being done at KAUST that now looks like a precursor to what has become a focus of a planned move away from carbon revenue dependency.

The strategic risks of narrative-driven valuations

The strategies used by SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic and others are powerful, but they also carry material risks.

One is over-reliance on founder identity. Elon Musk’s influence over SpaceX, Sam Altman’s central role at OpenAI and the culture surrounding Anthropic’s founders mean these companies are vulnerable to reputational shocks that stem from leadership behaviour. The governance crisis at OpenAI in 2023 demonstrated how quickly confidence can be tested when internal control structures are unclear.

Another risk lies in the gap between ambition and financial reality. None of these companies has proven a long-term revenue model that fully supports its valuation. Investors are betting on possibility, not certainty. If revenue fails to scale at the expected rate or if regulatory pressures delay deployment, the gap between narrative and performance may widen.

Revenue run-rate projections for these companies are dependent on a massive, perfectly executed infrastructure deployment and a sustained, perfect conversion of consumer/enterprise users into high-margin clients. Any delay in capacity deployment, a slowdown in market adoption, or a major technical misstep could cause the stock price to violently revert to traditional valuation metrics, triggering an immediate correction. These companies are at the edge of perception.

Regulation is also becoming unavoidable. The EU AI Act, US AI-related executive orders, export controls on advanced chips and present geopolitical tensions create uncertainty for AI firms. Space technology is equally exposed to national security regulations and shifting defence priorities.

The final risk is narrative overshoot. Uber’s experience is instructive here. The company repeatedly faced pressure to prove that scale could translate into sustainable profitability. It took until 2023 for Uber to report its first quarterly operating profit, nearly four years after its IPO and following prolonged share price volatility.

And we cannot ignore that the US is the only player and the only strategy in the world. China is using an open source model that is securing buying and admiration.

Narrative creates momentum, but if it outpaces financial evidence for too long, valuation corrections become inevitable.

Strategic lessons for leaders and investors

The story here is not about hype. It is about intentional narrative construction supported by strategic engagement and an ambitious, long-term framing of value creation.

There are lessons here for governments, start-ups, investors and incumbents.

Companies must take control of their story before the market defines it for them. They must understand which stakeholders truly shape their valuation and build trust with those people, not the entire public. They must articulate the mission in a way that strengthens credibility and attracts world-class talent. They must demonstrate progress through evidence. Above all, they must prepare for governance scrutiny that intensifies once they enter public markets.

As I have said many times before and share privately with clients, perception and reputation are no longer soft assets. They are an intangible source of capital. Perception, when constructed with discipline, can shape the trajectory of entire industries.

What these companies have shown is that valuation is now as much about narrative architecture as it is about financial results. The companies that master this will define the next decade of global growth.

The publication of the 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS) last week was not a routine policy refresh. It was a strategic rupture that signals the end of an era in which companies, investors and governments could rely on the United States to underwrite the security of international markets, uphold global norms, and intervene to stabilise supply chains wherever needed.

The new doctrine presents a clear conclusion. The United States will prioritise domestic economic strength, industrial capacity, and resource security over maintaining a predictable global order. This shift affects every organisation operating internationally and presents to the world how the U.S. wants to see an  ‘America First’ global ecosystem.

The document outlines a worldview in which economic vitality, access to critical minerals, supply chain sovereignty, and technological leadership are treated as national security priorities, directly challenging the assumptions that underpinned thirty years of globalisation.

For senior executives, boards and investors, the implications are profound. The world has entered a new era in which geopolitical competence is no longer optional. It is a fiduciary responsibility.

The End of the Global Security Subsidy

For decades, global businesses benefited from a geopolitical subsidy rooted in the assumption that the United States would secure key trade routes, intervene in regional crises, and protect the integrity of global markets. The 2025 NSS explicitly rejects this historic role, noting that prior commitments to liberal globalism and open markets were costly and strategically self-defeating. This ignores how the United States has benefited from globalisation.

The language, though, is unambiguous.

The United States has stated that it will not carry global burdens alone. Instead, it expects allies and partners to take primary responsibility for their regions. It also signals a readiness to leverage tariffs, sanctions and trade restrictions to ensure reciprocal economic treatment. To a certain extent, the current document outlines a brutal commercial mindset - if you want security in these turbulent times, then prove the benefit to the US and then pay for it.

Economically, Europe is still central to US growth, even if the new National Security Strategy talks about it as a burden that must carry more of its own weight rather than as a partner to be protected. The data are pretty clear on that.

Europe is one of the largest end markets for US exports. At the same time EU and US firms together have about €4.7 trillion of investment in each other’s markets. From profits to dividend flows, Europe is one of the main external engines of US earnings, investment returns and technological diffusion.

The shift in the document represents more than a policy change. Yes, it’s the withdrawal of the regulatory and military scaffolding that held the global economy together, which is why businesses and investors in 2026 and beyond must prepare for a world in which a single superpower no longer stabilises global markets. And if they are to be, then the price for security will be costly.

Geoeconomic Realism: A Redefinition of Risk

Economic security is national security

What is clear from the new National Security Strategy is that economic security, industrial capacity and technological leadership are core components of national power, with the United States intending to secure critical supply chains and eliminate dependencies on adversarial states. All while it works to rebuild domestic industrial capability. 

This recalibration is rooted in three structural trends:

• Great power competition and strategic rivalry

• Fragmentation of global supply chains

• Weaponisation of trade, minerals and technology

For boards and investors, the key message is that economic policy is now foreign policy. This means decisions once made under market-led or operational assumptions must now incorporate geopolitical strategic thinking.

What This Means for Global Trade and Supply Chains

Fragile supply chains face structural stress

The NSS reinforces a shift away from the post-Cold War paradigm of hyper efficiency and global interdependence. It emphasises the need for secure, diversified and politically aligned supply chains. Firms that rely on extended, single-region or politically exposed suppliers will face heightened risk. 

This creates upward pressure on operating costs, but also creates a new competitive advantage for companies that can demonstrate resilience, redundancy and political alignment. Perception will matter.

The rise of friend-shoring and near-shoring

Businesses and investors should expect governments to encourage, subsidise, or pressure sectors to relocate supply chains to aligned jurisdictions. This applies especially to critical minerals, semiconductors, dual-use technologies, pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing.

Near-shoring to trusted regions, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, is now considered strategically desirable and may attract preferential state support. 

Intelligence-led supply chain scrutiny

The NSS also authorises the US intelligence community to monitor the integrity, origin and vulnerabilities of strategic supply chains worldwide.

This has two consequences:

1. Corporate supply chain exposure will increasingly become a national security question.

2. Firms with opaque or politically sensitive supply networks may face regulatory or market penalties.

Technology, Innovation and the New Investment Reality

The future belongs to secure and sovereign technologies

The NSS is unambiguous about the strategic importance of advanced technologies. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, undersea systems, defence technologies, energy innovation and critical infrastructure are all viewed as decisive factors in future economic and military competition.

For VC, CVC and PE investors, this is both an opportunity and a compliance obligation.

The United States will actively guide capital toward strategically aligned sectors and away from adversarial ecosystems. Outbound investment restrictions will likely expand, placing new responsibilities on GPs and LPs to demonstrate alignment with national security considerations.

Inbound capital will be filtered through a geopolitical lens

Investors from allied nations may benefit from expedited regulatory treatment, including through bodies such as CFIUS. Conversely, adversarial capital will face presumptive prohibition in strategic sectors.

Investors must now map not only the financial characteristics of deals, but the political identity of shareholders, limited partners and supply chain partners.

Why Companies and Non-US Governments Must Rethink How They Present Themselves

This is where your strategic viewpoint becomes essential. A world that prioritises economic security and sovereign resilience requires companies and foreign governments to articulate their position clearly and persuasively to reduce political risk and secure growth.

This idea is absolutely valid and increasingly essential. In fact, the organisations and governments that present themselves effectively will gain access, trust and policy support. Those who do not will face barriers.

The new imperative: position yourself as strategically valuable

Companies must demonstrate not only commercial merit but also geopolitical value.

This means:

• Showing how your operations support national economic resilience

• Demonstrating alignment with industrial strategy and technological priorities

• Proving that supply chains are transparent, ethical and politically secure

• Positioning your organisation as a reliable partner in a fractured global system

Non-US governments must take the same approach. They need to craft compelling, credible narratives about their reliability as investment destinations, their alignment with US and allied values, and their contribution to regional stability.

This is the difference between being viewed as a strategic partner or a strategic risk.

The power of government-backed positioning

U.S. technology companies have long leveraged the American state's weight as a competitive advantage when entering new markets. Non-US firms should do the same by aligning themselves with their own governments and presenting a unified narrative to international partners.

This reduces risk, supports regulation, and provides legitimacy.

What Senior Executives, Investors and Boards Must Do Now

Below are some strategic recommendations.

1. Embed geopolitical risk into enterprise risk management

Geopolitical risk must be integrated into all strategic decision-making. Conduct regular geostrategy audits to evaluate supply chain vulnerabilities, technology exposure, resource dependencies and political relationships.

Boards should mandate geopolitical risk reporting as standard practice.

2. Build or acquire geopolitical and strategic advisory capability

The pace and complexity of change require specialist capability. Companies should hire internal geopolitical teams or retain external advisory services to support horizon scanning, risk analysis, scenario planning and government engagement.

3. Realign investment criteria and due diligence

Investors must evaluate sovereign alignment, supply chain origins, technology classifications and regulatory exposure as core components of deal evaluation. GPs and LPs must prepare to demonstrate alignment with national security principles.

4. Rethink supply chain models

Friend shoring, near shoring, dual sourcing and vertical integration should be considered where strategic. Firms should quantify the cost of geopolitical instability and incorporate it into production decisions.

5. Engage governments with tailored positioning

Develop clear, evidence-based narratives for relevant governments that show how your company or investment activity supports national strategic outcomes. This may include job creation, industrial innovation, critical mineral security, or technological leadership.

6. Build robust scenario planning and stress testing

Test organisational resilience against geopolitical shocks such as export controls, energy disruptions, sanctions, regional conflict or technology bifurcation. Integrate scenario planning into capital allocation, M&A strategy and operational design.

A New Era of Strategic Responsibility

The 2025 NSS is the most consequential strategic document for business in a generation. It formalises the end of an era in which global markets operated within a predictable security architecture enforced by a single power.

Companies, investors and governments must now adapt to a world defined by selective engagement, fragmented supply chains, sovereign industrial priorities and political risk tied directly to economic activity.

Those who adjust early will be able to secure trust, shape regulation, build strategic advantage and capture growth. Those who fail to recognise the shift risk being left exposed in a rapidly reorganising world.

Geostrategy is no longer an add-on. It is the new operating system for every global business and investor.

Mergers and acquisitions are routinely framed as exercises in financial engineering, operational consolidation or strategic realignment. Yet despite decades of accumulated expertise and countless integration playbooks, the industry still grapples with a painful truth: most deals fail to deliver their intended value. Deloitte, KPMG and Harvard Business Review continue to report failure rates between 70 and 90 per cent. The commercial explanations are familiar, but they mask the deeper issue. Deals fail not because the numbers change but because trust collapses, perception is mishandled, and reputational risk is overlooked until it is too late.

This is not a communications challenge in the narrow corporate sense. It is a strategic problem that begins long before the press release. The most decisive moments in M&A unfold privately, in rooms and conversations that shape expectations, manage emotion, and align political and commercial interests behind the scenes. The organisations that succeed are those that accept that perception is a form of due diligence and that strategic engagement is a core leadership responsibility from the earliest stage.

Too many leaders still rely on the hope that internal memos, polished announcements or a confident Day One narrative will carry the weight of expectation. They won’t. In reality, private communications are the primary mechanism for de-risking a deal, because it is in private that fears surface, alliances form, and early interpretations take hold. Once perception has set, it is extremely difficult to reshape.

Your draft identifies this perfectly: trust, perception and reputation must sit at the centre of any transaction, not on the periphery. They are not soft factors. They determine whether a deal will be welcomed, challenged, scrutinised, or quietly resisted.

Perception Risk: The Critical Factor Deals Ignore

Financial, legal and operational risks are measurable. Perception risk isn’t, yet it can erase value faster than any technical error. A single speculative rumour about job losses can trigger talent flight. A nationalistic narrative can politicise a deal across jurisdictions. A nervous supplier may begin to adjust production or pricing. These reactions often happen before leadership is even aware that a problem exists.

Perception risk is powerful because it is emotional. It is shaped by fear, self-protection and cultural norms. It spreads faster than verified information, and once embedded, it drives behaviour that materially affects value. By the time leaders hear concerns formally, the narrative usually has already moved on.

This is why the space between signing and execution is so dangerous. Without private positioning, anxiety fills the vacuum. What looks like a strategic advantage to leadership can feel like a loss, threat, or identity change to others. That divergence, if unmanaged, is where deals begin to fracture.

M&A is often treated as a rational financial exercise. It is, in reality, a political, emotional and reputational event.

Why Public Communications Always Arrive Too Late

The visible elements of M&A communications still dominate the standard playbook: the Day One announcement, the investor call, the employee Q&A. These matter, but they are almost always reactive. By the time any public communication lands, most key stakeholders have already formed an early judgment, often shaped by private whispers, internal speculation or external commentary.

Public communications can frame a story. Private communications determine whether that story is believed.

Three recurring blind spots illustrate the challenge:

1. Optimism bias: Leaders focus on synergies, ambition and opportunity. When difficult realities are downplayed or ignored, audiences interpret this as spin and trust erodes.

2. Narrow stakeholder mapping: Employees and shareholders dominate the traditional plan, but modern deals live or die through the sentiments of regulators, political actors, supply chain principals, local influencers, NGOs and specialist media. If they are not engaged early, they become unexpected centres of resistance.

3. The assumption of rationality: Communications teams often expect stakeholders to process information through logic. They rarely do. M&A triggers insecurity, questions of identity and cultural sensitivities. Emotion always moves first.

McKinsey famously described communications as ‘the glue’ in M&A. Yet glue only works when the surfaces are prepared. If private engagement has not already addressed tension and misalignment, there is nothing for the glue to bind to.

Private Engagement: The Real Foundation of Deal Stability

Private communications are not discreet conversations or side notes to the core deal. They are a structured strategy of intelligence, influence and reassurance designed to steady the entire stakeholder ecosystem long before the public narrative appears.

Effective private engagement begins with building an inner circle of trusted internal and external voices. This group provides candid feedback, cultural and political insight, and identifies friction points that formal governance structures can obscure. Their input becomes the earliest warning system for risk.

Alongside this sits the shadow influence map, which recognises that formal hierarchies rarely reflect where true authority sits. Influence travels through informal networks, respected subject experts, loyal teams and individuals who shape internal narratives. Understanding who people will call first when uncertainty arises is critical. These individuals must be engaged long before employees hear anything publicly.

A third pillar is quiet regulator engagement. Regulators across Europe, North America and Asia now interpret M&A through lenses far broader than competition law. They consider national interest, industrial strategy, data sovereignty, political sentiment and technology capability. Leaders who wait for formal engagement quickly find themselves on the defensive. Those who engage early and privately build credibility and minimise surprises.

Private engagement also needs to extend to supply chains, where anxiety can rapidly lead to operational disruption. A simple reassurance to a key supplier that volume will remain stable, or that payment terms will not change, can prevent far-reaching consequences. In cross-border or multi-region deals, local communities and regional leaders hold unspoken veto power through social licence. Their sentiment needs careful management through respectful, early engagement that signals commitment, not extraction.

This is not about oversharing or revealing commercially sensitive information. It is about sequencing. Private engagement, conducted lawfully and strategically, is the first line of defence against destabilisation.

Culture: The Most Underrated Vector for M&A Failure

International culture is often treated as a soft factor, captured in integration workshops or post-close HR materials. This is a huge mistake. Culture determines how decisions are made, how conflict is addressed, how authority is perceived and how trust is built, in your home market as well as new international locations. When two organisations from different cultural environments merge, these factors collide. Perceptions from different cultures influence the potential success or failure of a deal.

Cultural due diligence must sit alongside financial and legal diligence. Leaders need to understand how teams communicate across borders, how hierarchy is interpreted, what risk appetite looks like in different regions, and where pace mismatches will cause friction. Without this insight, integration plans that seem logical on paper will fail in practice. In fact, ignoring culture, keeps an unnecessary risk on the deal table.

Cultural fluency is not about adopting a universal style. It is about adapting messaging, tone, sequencing, level of detail, and expectations, to ensure that communication signals stability, respect and clarity. Getting this wrong leads to delayed decisions, conflict between leadership teams and the silent loss of top talent.

Geopolitics: The New Arena Leaders Must Navigate

Today’s M&A landscape is inseparable from geopolitics, especially in the growing multipolar environment we are moving towards. Governments increasingly define technology, data, AI, energy and infrastructure deals as matters of national security. This transforms the communications environment from corporate to political.

A Franco–Japanese merger may be analysed in Washington. A US acquisition of a UK AI firm will inevitably raise concerns in Westminster. A European data infrastructure transaction may face scrutiny under emerging EU digital sovereignty rules. Leaders must be prepared to frame their deal not just in commercial terms, but in terms that resonate with national priorities and political sensitivities.

This requires a strategic communications approach that understands national narratives, industrial strategies and diplomatic concerns. Otherwise, leaders risk allowing competitors, commentators or political voices to shape the narrative first.

The Influence Chain: Wider Than Leaders Assume

The modern deal is shaped by a wider influence chain than most organisations acknowledge. Beyond employees and shareholders, there are regulators, governments, sovereign wealth funds, think tanks, community leaders, analysts, trade associations, NGOs and specialist media. Each group carries its own priorities, anxieties and informal power. Early private engagement is essential to avoid creating unintended opposition.

When these voices understand the rationale, see their interests acknowledged, and feel respected in the process, they become stabilisers rather than disruptors.

The Strategic Advisor: The Missing Piece of Deal Leadership

In my experience, one consistent theme stands out: the need for a senior advisor who serves as the deal's conscience, somebody who brings in external viewpoints to internal decision-makers. This is someone who challenges leaders when optimism outpaces reality, identifies contradictions between messaging and behaviour, and brings an external perspective into a process that can easily become inward-looking.

This advisor is not a spokesperson. They are a strategist who designs the private communications architecture, helps leaders navigate geopolitical and cultural challenges, and ensures that perception risk is addressed at every stage. They see the deal not just from the inside but from the outside, where it will be judged.

Why This Matters: The Space Between the Lines

The contract does not define M&A success. The subtle interactions between leaders, regulators, employees, suppliers and communities determine it. It is determined in the space between what is intended and what is critically perceived.

Deals fail because narratives are misunderstood, cultures clash, rumours spread unchecked, political tensions are left unaddressed, and trust is allowed to erode in silence. Leaders who treat communications as a post-deal task create a vacuum into which fear and misinformation quickly flow. Those who embed strategic communications early, through private engagement, cultural intelligence and geopolitical awareness, enter the public phase with alignment, momentum and confidence.

In a world defined by complexity, ambiguity and heightened political scrutiny, the differentiator is no longer the financial model. It is how well leaders manage the conversations that no-one sees.

Those who invest in shaping perception, engaging stakeholders and building trust early will define the future of successful M&A. Others will continue to learn the hard way.

On Wednesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, delivered her first full Budget. Expectations were low, and morale across business and investment circles had already been subdued. Matters were made worse by a communications failure when the Office for Budget Responsibility’s full economic outlook appeared online more than an hour before the speech. Commentators questioned whether the Treasury had control of the process and presentation.

The OBR confirmed that the Budget raises an additional £26.1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament and will push the UK tax to GDP ratio to 38.3 percent, the highest level in modern history.

Yet the central business challenge was not the leak. It was the realisation that this Budget raised revenue without offering a plan to support growth or unlock private investment. Reeves stressed stability, credibility and fiscal discipline, but delivered no significant structural reforms and no clear strategy to turn the UK’s new 10-year Industrial Strategy into action. It was an opportunity missed.

Stability has value, but stability alone cannot generate growth. If the government cannot spend heavily and will not cut taxes, then the only remaining lever is freeing businesses to invest. This Budget did not use that lever.

Tax Burden Up, Growth Tools Missing

The Budget relied heavily on revenue-raising rather than on incentives for investment or innovation. Key measures included:

• Freezing income tax thresholds to 2031, pulling millions into higher tax bands

• Facilitating the attractiveness of pension salary sacrifice through new caps

• Raising taxes on dividends, savings and high-value property

• Maintaining corporation tax at current levels with no new capital allowances

Some modest reliefs were included, such as business rate support for sectors like retail and hospitality, and a freeze on fuel duty and regulated rail fares.

But these were marginal adjustments, not part of a larger and more ambitious strategy to support growth. The Institute for Fiscal Studies described the next five years as the most significant period of sustained tax increases in modern British politics, and warned that none of the measures would improve long-term productivity or address weak business investment.

The CBI, meanwhile, argued that the Budget did not kick-start growth. And Make UK stated that manufacturers received little support.

The BioIndustry Association said that it was “very concerned about increases to business rates on expensive workspaces.” Adding that, “Life science companies will be unfairly and disproportionately affected, given the need for expensive laboratory facilities alongside office space.”

This combination of tax pressure and absence of growth policy is the core challenge the UK must now address.

Industrial Strategy Without Delivery

Labour came into government promoting a mission-led Industrial Strategy designed to transform the UK’s economic model. The five missions introduced before the election focused on clean energy, AI and digital transformation, national resilience, life sciences and advanced manufacturing.

But the Budget did not deliver the mechanisms needed to turn these missions into reality.

There were:

• No major expansions of R&D tax credits

• No large-scale planning reform for infrastructure, labs or industrial sites

• No significant capital markets redesign

• No new tools for the AI, biotech or energy sectors

• No new talent or visa reforms to help scaling companies

• No regulatory streamlining to accelerate investment

In other words, the Industrial Strategy remains a narrative, not a delivery system.

Private capital leaders noted this gap. Several commentators argued publicly that the Budget did not match the scale of the economic ambitions the government had set for itself. They noted that the missions are credible, but they remain ambitious rather than actionable frameworks without the tools needed to deliver them.

Private capital leaders reacted quickly. Many argued that the ambitions are credible but lack the tools needed to support them. A strategy without regulatory and investment mechanisms remains an expression of intent rather than a plan.

Reform Needed When Spending Is Limited

The government has inherited a challenging fiscal environment. Public debt is high, borrowing costs remain above the levels of the 2010s, and public services require investment. Fiscal rules limit flexibility.

But fiscal constraints do not prevent growth. They simply change its source.

If the state cannot spend, private capital must. That requires a regulatory, administrative and investment environment that enables businesses to deploy capital at speed. The UK has world-class regulators, but processes are often slow, fragmented or outdated.

To unlock growth within fiscal limits, the UK needs to focus on:

• Planning reform

• Capital Markets Modernisation

• Faster regulatory approvals

• Improved talent mobility

• Local investment flexibility

• Unlocking corporate and family-owned capital

The 2025 Budget did not pursue these at the scale required.

Five Structural Barriers to Growth

1. Slow planning and land use decisions

Clean energy developers, lab operators, manufacturers and housing providers all face multi-year approval timelines. A fast-track route for nationally significant projects would unlock billions in private investment.

2. Uncompetitive capital markets

The UK continues to lose listings to New York and Amsterdam. There were no reforms to dual-class shares, listing friction, or pension fund investment rules.

3. Fragmented regulatory processes

In areas such as medicines approvals, energy permitting, AI governance and environmental regulation, firms face slow and complex processes. Faster decisions require modern workflows rather than lower standards

4. Talent and visas remain a bottleneck

Science, engineering and technology firms need faster access to skilled workers. The Budget made no progress on talent mobility or training system modernisation.

5. Local partners lack investment tools

Local authorities cannot borrow or co-invest flexibly.

Local authorities cannot borrow or co-invest flexibly. Unlocking regional investment could drive growth far beyond the Oxford-Cambridge-London corridor, supporting clusters in the West Country, the Midlands, Manchester and Scotland.

In each case, reform would be low-cost but high-value.

The Gap Between Slogans and Policy

One of Reeves’s most repeated lines was: “If you build here, Britain will back you.”

Business leaders welcomed the sentiment but emphasised that building in Britain requires predictable conditions, access to capital and a regulatory system that supports speed.

Investors and founders echoed the same message. They also pointed out that without growth, fiscal headroom will not last. Representatives from private capital noted that avoiding damaging tax changes was positive, but long-term support for EIS, VCT and share option schemes must be part of a much larger growth plan.

The pattern is consistent. The government has been strong on messaging, but so far weak on mechanisms and bringing everything together. Without mechanisms in place, confidence erodes, and companies inevitably look abroad for scale.

The UK remains an excellent greenhouse for innovation. The problem is that scale often happens elsewhere.

Untapped CVC and Family Capital

Corporate Venture Capital is one of the fastest-growing sources of global innovation funding. The United States, Japan and South Korea use it to accelerate commercialisation and industrial transformation.

The UK has not built the framework needed to support CVC investment. The Budget could have:

• introduced incentives for corporate investment in UK innovation

• allowed CVC investments to offset part of the corporate tax

• supported corporate university partnerships

• encouraged family-owned businesses to join regional investment clusters

These measures would have mobilised billions in private capital at no cost to the taxpayer. Their absence weakens the Industrial Strategy, because missions cannot be delivered without financing systems that match their ambition.

Private Capital Ready, Government Not

Following the Budget, several high-profile industry leaders responded publicly. Their messages varied in detail, but all reflected the same concern.

• Some welcomed short-term fiscal stability and the avoidance of more severe tax changes.

• Others emphasised the need for investment pathways that support scaling firms.

• Financial analysts pointed out that increased headroom does not create long-term growth.

• Several noted that the UK risks becoming uncompetitive if it does not act soon.

These statements collectively show that private capital is aligned with the government on the need for stability, but is not seeing the parallel reforms that create opportunity. In other words, the investment community is not resisting the government’s plans. It is waiting for the government to match ambition with action.

Again, an issue of the time it takes to share the ambition and establish policy incentives that free and reward businesses to invest in earmarked sectors.

Fiscal Stability Is Not Growth

Tax rises alone cannot solve the UK’s economic challenge. Fiscal consolidation may be necessary, but it is insufficient.

Without structural reform, regulatory streamlining, modern planning systems, capital markets reform and incentives for corporate and family-owned investment, the UK risks missing its growth opportunity.

The 2025 Budget brought stability but not renewal. It raised revenue but did not unlock investment. It offered ambition in language but not in delivery.

If the government wants businesses to build in Britain, it must back them with policy, not words.

The UK has the institutions, talent and scientific strengths to lead globally. Unlocking that potential now depends on freeing businesses to grow.

Companies pursuing investment often assess venture capital, corporate venture capital and private equity as if they offer broadly similar value. They do not. Traditional VCs specialise in capital allocation, pattern recognition and portfolio discipline, while PE firms excel at operational rigour and late-stage scaling. Corporate venture capital occupies a different and increasingly important space. CVCs can validate technologies in real commercial environments, open supply chains, accelerate go-to-market pathways and provide deep sector insight long before a product gains market traction. These are advantages VCs and PE firms simply cannot replicate. For companies preparing for their next phase of growth, recognising that distinction is central to choosing the right partners.

The latest State of CVC 2025 report by Silicon Valley Bank and Counterpart Ventures places this in stark relief. The industry is becoming more selective, more dependent on strategic clarity, and far more exposed to the reputational strengths and weaknesses of both the fund and the corporate parent. Behind the data sits a bigger story: the next competitive frontier for CVCs will not be fund structure or AI deployment. It will be trust. How CVCs are perceived by founders, LPs, corporate leaders and government stakeholders will determine deal access, partnership quality and the long-term value created for the corporate.

In a market where most CVCs target similar sectors, geographies and early-stage opportunities, reputation has become a core differentiator. The CVCs that win will be those trusted to deliver more than capital; they will be seen as strategic partners that help de-risk innovation, accelerate commercialisation and open networks that traditional investors cannot.

What the 2025 Data Tells Us About the Future of Corporate Venturing

The report shows an industry entering a more disciplined, strategically grounded phase.

1. Early-stage investing continues to dominate

Two-thirds of all CVC-backed deals now occur at seed or Series A/B, up from 55 percent in 2015. This means CVCs are shaping companies earlier and exerting more influence on commercial strategy. At this stage, trust and perception matter enormously because founders rely on their investors for guidance, networks and credibility.

2. AI now defines the investment agenda

AI represents a record 28 percent of all CVC-backed deals, with 69 percent of CVCs naming it their top technology priority. When almost every fund is chasing the same theme, differentiation comes not from the thesis but from trust, expertise and execution capability.

3. Independence is rising, but internal friction remains

A quarter of CVCs have considered moving off the corporate balance sheet, yet only 11 percent have successfully done so. Many face resistance from their corporate parent, reflecting a reputational and perception gap that CVC leaders must navigate.

4. Corporate leaders often misunderstand VC norms

Half of CVCs say their executive sponsors lack familiarity with the investment process, while others encounter unrealistic expectations around timelines and outcomes. This internal disconnect can undermine progress and reputation.

5. Secondaries are becoming essential to liquidity

Fifty-seven percent of CVCs have used or are considering secondaries, up from 52 percent last year. As pressure builds to demonstrate DPI and realise returns, financial credibility becomes central.

6. Bureaucracy is still the enemy

Half of CVCs cite speed and efficiency as major challenges, alongside corporate prioritisation and bureaucratic decision-making. CVCs must therefore project clarity, predictability and discipline if they are to maintain credibility with founders.

Why Trust, Reputation and Credibility Now Matter More Than Ever

Every insight from the report highlights one conclusion: corporate VCs no longer compete on capital alone. They compete on how credible, trusted and aligned they appear to founders and stakeholders.

1. Founders choose investors they trust, not investors that pay the most

The report shows founders often value the investor brand even more than the cheque size: 79 percent of strategic CVCs rely heavily on the corporate logo to win deals.

But brand is not enough. Founders are increasingly asking critical questions that determine a deal's success: Will this CVC actually help us access markets, or will they slow us down? Can they be trusted to navigate corporate politics that might block future rounds, and will they follow on to protect the startup from dilution? Trust and deal-flow are won or lost on the answers to these fundamental concerns.

2. CVCs must win trust inside their own corporates

The perception challenge often begins at home. Many corporate sponsors misunderstand risk, timelines or the purpose of early-stage investment. CVCs that communicate clearly, educate executives and align expectations build internal trust, which in turn unlocks independence and flexibility.

Where this trust is absent, CVCs face slower cycles, constrained mandates and reputational drag.

3. Governments and regulators are watching frontier tech more closely

AI, cybersecurity, fintech and defence-related investments carry regulatory and geopolitical scrutiny. CVCs must therefore demonstrate responsible innovation, transparent governance and clear alignment with societal and regulatory expectations. This is now a core part of reputational risk management.

This is no longer simply about venture performance. It is about geopolitical credibility.

4. CVCs are increasingly judged on how they manage risk

Financial funds must show DPI through secondaries. Strategic funds must show that their investments genuinely accelerate commercialisation.

In both cases, transparent communication, consistency and a disciplined investment narrative underpin trust.

CVCs Deliver Far More Than Capital – But Only When They Are Trusted

The report highlights that strategic funds primarily invest to accelerate commercialisation, source technology and unlock new markets. Their true value lies in offering crucial advantages like market access, customer introductions, regulatory navigation, real-world pilots, and technological validation. But founders only benefit from these advantages if they trust the CVC and its parent organisation to deliver

But founders only benefit from these advantages if they trust the CVC and its parent organisation to deliver.

Financial funds, on the other hand, bring sharper risk assessment, more consistent follow-on capital strategies, and deeper exit planning discipline. However, they only influence founders if they are perceived as reliable and transparent. When trust is strong, CVCs can de-risk innovation better than almost any other investor category. When trust is weak, founders treat CVCs as slow, political, or strategically fickle, and choose traditional VC instead.

But they only influence founders if they are perceived as reliable and transparent. When trust is strong, CVCs can de-risk innovation better than almost any other investor category.When trust is weak, founders treat CVCs as slow, political, or strategically fickle, and choose traditional VC instead.

How Startups Should Position Themselves Before Engaging CVCs

For founders seeking CVC investment and the assocaietd sector knowledge, the findings highlight several critical steps.

1. Build credibility early

Early-stage deals dominate the market. That means founders must communicate:

• a clear problem thesis

• a credible product roadmap

• alignment with corporate pain points

• a realistic commercialisation pathway

2. Understand the CVC’s mandate

The report is clear: 38 percent of funds are strategic, 44 percent hybrid, and 18 percent financial. Each behaves differently.

A founder must know:

• Does this CVC invest for insight, M&A optionality or pure returns?

• Does the corporate parent matter to the relationship?

• Will the CVC follow on?

3. Manage perception internally

Corporate parents talk. A founder must assume:

• Internal championing matters

• Politics can derail a deal

• Clear, consistent communication reduces internal risk

4. Be prepared for rigorous due diligence

The data shows that even strategic funds now reserve IC approval in 92 percent of cases . Consistency in messaging, data and governance builds trust fast.

What CVCs Must Do to Strengthen Trust and Reputation

The report highlights several internal dynamics that weaken reputation if unmanaged: slow decision cycles, executive misalignment, unclear mandates and inconsistent follow-on strategies.

To address this, CVCs should focus on the following.

1. Build executive-level understanding and alignment

With half of sponsors lacking familiarity with the investment process, CVC leaders must engage proactively. They must:

• Educate executives on norms

• Align expectations on exit horizons

• Clarify ownership targets and follow-on strategy

Internal trust creates external confidence.

2. Communicate a clear and credible investment narrative

CVCs need a narrative that explains:

• Their investment mandate

• The value they bring

• Their speed and decision-making process

• How they work with founders post-investment

A consistent narrative closes perception gaps.

3. Professionalise operations to reduce friction

Speed remains a major point of criticism from founders and co-investors. Funds with a reputation for slow response times lose high-quality deals.

Streamlining IC processes, clarifying BU involvement and setting predictable timelines strengthens operational trust.

4. Develop a proactive reputation and communications strategy

Most CVCs still rely implicitly on their parent company’s brand. But the report shows that this influence rarely extends to governance or decision-making.

CVCs need their own identity.

• A trusted, independent voice

• A track record of value creation

• Transparent communication on performance and lessons learned

This is where strategic communications becomes critical.

Recommendations Summary

For CVCs

1. Establish a clear, credible investment narrative.

2. Educate corporate leaders to close knowledge gaps.

3. Improve speed, transparency and operational discipline.

4. Strengthen post-investment support that founders can rely upon.

5. Communicate strategic alignment without signalling corporate interference.

6. Position yourself as a responsible, trusted investor in AI and frontier technologies.

For Startups

1. Tailor your engagement to the type of CVC you approach.

2. Build clarity around commercialisation and regulatory pathways.

3. Maintain interest from other VCs to manage timing and leverage.

4. Link your value proposition directly to the corporate’s strategic challenges.

5. Maintain consistent, disciplined communication to build trust.

Trust Is Now a Strategic Asset in CVC

The State of CVC 2025 report paints a picture of an ecosystem becoming more selective, more specialised and more strategically important. But the report also makes it clear that operational friction, misaligned expectations and corporate bureaucracy remain significant barriers.

This is a trust problem. One that cannot be solved with capital alone.

To win the best deals, influence innovation strategy and deliver value to their corporate parents, CVCs need to invest as much in their own reputation and perception as they do in early-stage AI companies.

In a world where founders have choice, governments have power and markets move fast, trust is the real competitive advantage.

And it is the CVCs that understand this, who build credibility deliberately and communicate strategically, that will shape the next decade of corporate innovation.

For organisations and corporate venture capital companies looking to strengthen their narrative, build message discipline or shape how the yare perceived internally and in the innovation sector, I would be pleased to discuss how my experience can support you

Today, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver a Budget that has already been judged harshly. The cycle of private briefings, leaks, commentary and internal counter-briefings has created an environment where confidence has eroded before she reaches the Dispatch Box. The Government now finds itself in a no-win situation, not because of policy alone but because of perception.

Most people knew the fiscal picture was difficult. Any government would have inherited a challenging economic landscape. But the way today’s Budget has been communicated has highlighted a deeper issue: a lack of narrative clarity, strategic message discipline and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Markets, businesses and investors respond not only to what governments do, but how they talk about what they do.

Confidence is shaped by perception, trust and reputation. When communication becomes fragmented or overly tactical, stakeholders assume the worst. This is even more pronounced during periods of political uncertainty, geopolitical fragmentation and economic volatility. Strategic communication is not a PR exercise. It is a core tool of governance, economic stability and value creation.

From my work with governments, technology companies, venture investors and family offices across Europe and Asia, it is clear that organisations with strong message discipline and stakeholder engagement outperform those without it. They understand that communications must be rooted in behavioural economics, which blends psychology and economics to explain real-world decisions. Failing to consider how people interpret signals leaves risks exposed.

The UK’s recent communication approach has already contributed to uncertainty in markets. Investors are unsure about fiscal direction, the degree of ministerial alignment and the Government’s ability to deliver. This is not about politics; it is about consistency, preparedness and trust.

Why Perception Shapes Capital Flows

Investors operate in an environment of incomplete information. They fill the gaps with signals.

In stable environments, those signals come from policy frameworks, delivery records and consistent communication. In uncertain environments, messages and perception become even more critical. Research from the Bank for International Settlements shows that policy uncertainty directly increases the cost of capital and reduces cross-border investment flows.

Similarly, the IMF has shown that when investors lack confidence in the coherence or credibility of government communication, markets overreact to fiscal news, creating volatility that damages growth.

https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2022/english/wpiea2022036-print-pdf.pdf

For companies, perception and reputation function as intangible assets that influence valuation, partnerships and investor confidence. When perception diverges from reality, value leaks.

Why Message Discipline Matters

Message discipline is not about robotic communication. It reduces risk by creating clarity and alignment. It establishes a destination, explains choices and sets expectations transparently.

Effective message discipline provides:

• Consistency: Markets interpret inconsistency as uncertainty, which raises perceived risk. When ministers contradict each other, or when business leaders communicate in different directions, investors price in this instability.

• Credibility: A leader who maintains a clear, evidence-based narrative builds credibility over time. Like interest, credibility compounds, especially when stakeholders see that communication reflects real strategic decisions.

• Predictability: Predictability lowers risk premiums. Investors do not need guarantees, but they do need stability in how leaders think and communicate. This is not about guaranteeing outcomes. It is about setting expectations.

• Confidence and Stability: Disciplined communication reduces market overreaction and reassures long-term investors that leadership is in control.

Government Lessons: The UK as a Case Study

The 2022 Mini-Budget: A Failure of Signalling

The 2022 Mini-Budget under Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng offers the clearest recent example of how poor communication can destabilise markets.

Problems included:

• No OBR forecast

• Aggressive but unaligned ministerial briefings

• No private preparation with global investors or bond markets

• Messaging that contradicted Bank of England strategy

The consequences were immediate: sterling collapsed, gilt yields surged, mortgage markets froze, and UK credibility suffered. This was a reputational crisis, not just an economic one.

Today’s Budget: Confidence Still Fragile

Despite a different government and a more grounded economic context, the upcoming UK Budget is suffering from similar issues:

• Unclear fiscal messaging over recent weeks

• Conflicting briefings on spending cuts vs stimulus

• Lack of visibility for investors on tax stability

• A perception that key departments are not aligned

• Limited private engagement with global investors or sovereign wealth funds

This is not about political preference. It is about execution.

Confidence matters more than ever. Debt servicing costs remain high, productivity flat, and the UK faces fierce competition from the US, EU and Asia for investment in AI, science, infrastructure and advanced manufacturing.

At the same time, the UK continues to lose homegrown intellectual property as founders relocate or sell early due to perceived policy instability and limited domestic investment incentives. Attracting international investment is important, but neglecting domestic capital formation creates long-term structural risk.

How Investors Read Signals: Why Perception Shapes Capital Decisions

Why Investors Care More Than Ever

Capital does not follow performance alone; it follows conviction. Venture investors, corporate venture capital (CVC) units and family offices increasingly base decisions on the signals leaders send through their narrative, communication discipline and situational awareness. In a world defined by geopolitical shocks and macroeconomic complexity, perception has become a proxy for governance quality and long-term resilience.

Venture Capital and CVC: Narrative Guides Capital Allocation

In venture and CVC, narrative discipline influences capital allocation long before a term sheet appears. Investors look for clarity about a company’s purpose, strategy and understanding of the geopolitical and regulatory landscape. The most effective funds invest heavily in communicating their investment thesis, technology roadmap and approach to risk. Narrative amplifies fundamentals and helps investors understand why leadership deserves confidence.

Deal flow is shaped by perception. Founders gravitate toward funds that demonstrate consistency, clarity and discipline. When messaging is promotional, reactive or contradictory, founders interpret it as a sign of weak internal culture or unpredictable decision-making.

Government relationships operate similarly. Agencies expect venture investors and CVCs to explain how their thesis aligns with national priorities such as AI, life sciences, digital infrastructure or advanced manufacturing. Clear articulation opens doors. Vagueness closes them.

International expansion also depends on message discipline. New markets welcome investors who signal governance maturity and long-term intent. Misaligned or shifting messages slow down partnerships, regulatory acceptance and capital deployment.

Institutional investors now expect portfolio companies to communicate with the same discipline. A founder who cannot articulate governance, geopolitical considerations or market strategy faces valuation pressure later.

Family Offices: Quiet but Highly Sensitive to Message Quality

Single-family offices take a different but equally sensitive approach. Their decisions are shaped by relationships, judgment and long-term perspective rather than formal processes. They value leaders who articulate strategy calmly, clearly and consistently.

Inconsistent communication signals deeper problems. Family offices interpret conflicting messages, promotional narratives or reactive communication as signs of weak governance or poor internal alignment. Those who have navigated multiple cycles are especially sensitive to these signals and avoid organisations that communicate ahead of delivery.

Across my work with family offices in Hong Kong, Singapore and Europe, the pattern is clear: disciplined communication is one of the strongest indicators of investment-worthy leadership. When it is present, trust forms quickly. When it is absent, opportunities disappear.

The Real Cost of Poor Signalling for Governments and Companies

Weak communication creates material, financial, and strategic consequences. When leaders fail to communicate clearly, markets raise borrowing costs and price in additional risk. Volatility increases as investors struggle to interpret intent, reducing overall market confidence.

Poor signalling also damages foreign direct investment, with capital shifting toward more predictable jurisdictions. Partnerships stall when corporates and governments perceive misalignment. Top talent becomes harder to attract because high-calibre individuals prefer stable, strategically coherent environments.

Reputational damage lingers long after fundamentals improve. When leaders fail to manage perception, markets manage it for them.

Five Recommendations for Leaders

1. Build a Strategic Narrative Before You Communicate

Communications should not be reactive. A clear narrative grounded in strategy, evidence and long-term intent prevents communication from becoming reactive or superficial.

• Define what you are trying to achieve.

• Explain why it matters now.

• Set out how you will deliver it.

• Be honest about trade-offs.

• Establish how progress will be measured.

Without this foundation, messaging becomes tactical noise.

2. Align Internally Before Communicating Externally

Credibility depends on internal coordination, especially ahead of major moments that influence markets and partners.

• Ensure Ministers, executives and teams are briefed in a coordinated way.

• Prepare alignment ahead of budgets, capital markets days and fundraising.

• Synchronise messaging during M&A processes and regulatory decisions.

Investors reward alignment.

3. Use Private Engagement to Shape Market Understanding

Engaging investors, analysts and strategic partners privately helps set expectations and strengthen trust without disclosing sensitive information.

• Clarify intent with key stakeholders.

• Stress-test narrative coherence.

• Manage expectations proactively.

• Build relationships that support you during volatility.

Governments, in particular and in my experience, underuse this channel.

4. Anticipate Geopolitical and Macro-economic Interpretation

Every announcement is interpreted within a global system of geopolitical competition, regulation and economic pressure.

• Recognise how signals interact with US-China dynamics.

• Understand EU regulatory expectations.

• Consider Asian investment flows and regional sensitivities.

• Build geopolitical literacy into message planning

Today, and especially for governments, international business and investors, message discipline requires geopolitical literacy.

5. Maintain Consistency Over Time

Confidence builds when leaders communicate coherently over the long term, not through occasional set-piece moments.

• Treat consistency as a cultural norm, not a campaign tactic.

• Ensure messaging reflects delivery and strategic direction.

• Avoid contradictions between different parts of the organisation.

Disciplined communication must be embedded into leadership culture.

The Strategic Benefits of Strong Message Discipline

When governments and companies communicate clearly, risk perception declines, valuations improve, and market confidence stabilises. Disciplined communication also reinforces geopolitical positioning, signalling reliability to international investors and partners.

Stakeholders trust leaders whose words match their actions. Confidence is not sold; it is earned through clarity, discipline and sustained engagement.

Confidence is not sold. It is earned through clarity, discipline and engagement.

Why Message Discipline Shapes Investment Confidence, Valuation and Credibility

In a world defined by geopolitical shocks and rapid technological change, disciplined communication is no longer optional. It is a core requirement of leadership. Governments that mismanage perception face rising borrowing costs and declining policy credibility. Companies that allow communications to drift lose investor trust and strategic momentum.

With today’s Budget, the UK has an opportunity to demonstrate how aligned, predictable communication can rebuild confidence at home and abroad. CEOs, boards, investors and family offices face the same expectation: communicate clearly or allow others to define your narrative.

Leaders who apply message discipline will secure investment, partnerships and talent more effectively. Those who do not will see markets, stakeholders and competitors shape their story for them.

For organisations looking to strengthen their narrative, build message discipline or shape stakeholder engagement across the UK, Europe, Asia or the global investment community, I would be pleased to discuss how my experience can support you.

For decades, corporate and government communications relied on a stable, if sometimes adversarial, relationship with established media. Reputation management strategies, crisis playbooks, and legal protections were designed for this world, a world with editorial gatekeepers, predictable news cycles, and a shared, if often contested, understanding of journalistic standards.

That world is rapidly receding. In fact, it has been changing for the last 10-15 years. A new report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 'Mapping News Creators and Influencers in Social and Video Networks,' provides the data to confirm what many of us in advisory and reputation management have observed: the landscape of public information has fundamentally changed, with many organisations not having adapted their public and private communications processes to manage better how they are perceived.

If the viewer does not load, open the PDF in a new tab.

The report, which analyses data from 24 countries, reveals that news creators and influencers operating in social and video networks have become a ‘significant source of news in recent years,’ often eclipsing traditional news brands in terms of attention. This shift presents a profound challenge to the traditional reputational guardrails of governments and companies. The old playbooks that boards, C-suites, Chiefs of Staff or Political Advisors know are no longer sufficient.

The New Influential: How Creators Reshape Public Debate

The Reuters Institute report is not merely about celebrities posting lifestyle content. It identifies a diverse and robust ecosystem of individuals who command massive audiences and directly influence public opinion on politics, current affairs, and civic issues.

The report defines ‘news creators’ as ‘individuals (or sometimes small groups of individuals) who create and distribute content primarily through social and video networks and have some impact on public debates around news and current affairs,’ noting they are ‘independent from wider news institutions for at least some of their news output.'

Their influence is not a niche phenomenon. The report finds that across a set of markets, including Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States (as well as Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa), news creators are having a very significant impact. In most of these markets, people say they pay more attention to creators and influencers than to mainstream news brands on social media.

The report helps us understand the different kinds of challenges and opportunities these creators represent:

1. Commentary: This is the most frequently mentioned category, dominated by often partisan, mostly male online political talk show hosts like Tucker Carlson (USA) and Joe Rogan (USA). The report notes this commentary is ‘unconstrained by regulation or norms around impartiality that may exist for television and radio.'And the issue is that, while they are based in the USA, their views and opinions reach international markets, many of which use English as a core language. In effect, they reach and influence without any control, regardless of their views being verifiable.

2. Explanation: Creators like France’s HugoDécrypte (Hugo Travers) have millions of followers by explaining complex news topics in simple, accessible ways for younger consumers. The report states that ‘this category of creators is taking attention away from traditional media, which often struggle to connect with younger audiences.'

3. Specialism: Individuals like football transfer reporter Fabrizio Romano or former journalist Taylor Lorenz build powerful niche communities, often going deeper on a subject than traditional media can.

4. News & Investigation: While less common due to resource constraints, some creators and citizen journalists break news or conduct investigations on matters of public interest, such as Palestinians reporting from Gaza or citizen journalists in Kenya documenting police brutality.

Perhaps most critically for reputation managers, the report also details a vast 'news-adjacent' sphere of satirists, infotainment podcasters, gamers, and lifestyle influencers who, due to their massive audiences and built-up trust, can be drawn into political and cultural debates with significant impact.

The Core Challenge for Reputation Management

Traditional communications systems are built for accuracy and accountability, while social platforms reward speed and emotional engagement. As the Reuters Institute notes, creators ‘have been more adept than media companies in moulding their storytelling and tone to the requirements of social platforms,’ particularly among Gen Z and millennial audiences.

The implications are strategic. Younger audiences no longer go directly to official sources; they are influenced by intermediaries who reframe and reinterpret information through personal narratives. As algorithms amplify sensational content, reputational risk multiplies: a single influencer clip can drive a global perception shift overnight. This new dynamic demands that both governments and corporate leaders rethink how they build, protect, and sustain public trust.

The fact is that the rise of the creator economy that we’ve been living through for a good number of years has created three fundamental problems for communications and those working and advising in reputation management.

The Velocity of Reputational

The report highlights that creators are ‘extremely responsive to ever-shifting audience preferences and behaviours.’ Their content is optimised for speed and engagement, not for fact-checking or legal review. A claim made by a prominent creator can achieve viral scale in hours, sometimes minutes, far outpacing the internal response mechanisms of most large organisations. While a company might prepare a statement over several hours, the narrative is already set and cemented in the minds of millions.

The Erosion of Guardrails

Our established systems are built for a different media environment. Issuing a press release, requesting a correction from a news outlet, or leveraging legal frameworks for defamation are processes designed for entities that have structures, assets, and a recognised set of rules.

As the report makes clear, many top creators are independent operators. They are ‘independent from wider news institutions’, meaning they lack the traditional editorial oversight and legal cover that act as a buffer and a point of contact for corporations and governments.

The report notes that ‘many of the biggest names in political commentary... used to work as journalists but are now highly critical of the mainstream media. They relish the freedom to express their true opinions.’ This freedom often comes without the traditional journalistic guardrails, making them potent and unpredictable actors.

The Algorithmic Amplification of Sensationalism

The platforms where these creators thrive are designed to maximise engagement. The Reuters Institute report explicitly states that 'algorithmically driven platforms are pushing both creators and audiences towards more sensational and partisan approaches.’

Content that is emotionally charged, polarising, or controversial travels further and faster than nuanced, balanced reporting. This creates an inherent incentive structure that can reward the rapid dissemination of mis- and disinformation, which poses a direct threat to corporate and governmental reputations.

The report finds that 'online influencers may be attracting more attention but at least some of their content is considered unreliable by audiences..., with well-documented cases of false or misleading information around subjects such as politics, health, and climate change raising important questions about what this might mean for our democracies.’

The Demographic Shift: Reaching the Audience of Tomorrow

The challenge is compounded by a stark generational divide. The audiences for these creators are disproportionately young, representing the future consumers, voters, and stakeholders for every organisation.

The data is clear: 'Under-35s who use social media are more likely to consume news from creators (48%) than from mainstream media (41%). Those 35 and over pay more attention to mainstream media (44%) than creators (35%).’

If your reputation management strategy doesn’t engage the platforms and personalities shaping this generation’s worldview, you’re not just fighting today’s fire, you’re forfeiting tomorrow’s trust. And this is a difficult position to be in, because managing reputations through media engagement and management is, generally, an exercise that, aside from the cost of PR and communications professionals and that of communications agencies, carries no direct cost. Yet influencers, and access to them, well, require a pay-to-play engagement and communications model.

A Strategic Roadmap for Businesses And Governments

Acknowledging this new reality is the first step. The next is to adapt. Here is a strategic framework for leaders and Chief Communications Officers to better protect and build their reputations in the age of news creators.

Move from Monitoring to Mapping and Engagement

Simply monitoring for brand mentions is no longer enough. Organisations must actively map their influence ecosystem.

Governments need to recognise that the content and opinions which reach and influence audiences form part of the wider information ecosystem, and are therefore an element of their geopolitical terrain. As a result, Governments should map not only their domestic media landscape but also transnational influence flows. After all, as the report shows, political ideas and influencers cross borders, especially from the U.S. into other English-speaking countries.

• Identify Key Voices: Beyond traditional journalists, identify the commentators, explainers, specialists, and even news-adjacent influencers in your sector. The most advanced organisations are creating ‘network maps’ of who influences perception in their industry, including critics, advocates, and neutral observers.

• Understand Motivations: Analyse what drives these creators. Are they motivated by building a community, promoting a specific ideology, or simply a commercial opportunity? This understanding is crucial for strategic or tactical management, not just of your reputation but also of building trust.

• Build Authentic Relationships: Proactively and authentically engage with credible creators. Offer them access to subject matter experts, provide early briefings on complex initiatives, or invite them to participate in roundtables. The goal is to become a trusted resource, not just a source for press releases.

Develop a 'Crisis Speed' Response Capability

You need to understand that the 24-hour news cycle has been replaced by the 60-minute viral cycle. This is the world that governments and companies need to acknowledge and rebuild themselves for. Your response protocols must keep pace, and to do this, you need to:

• Build trust ecosystems, not message hierarchies: Develop and pre-approve key messaging frameworks for potential crises that can be adapted and deployed within minutes and/or hours, not days. Companies can build relationships with explanatory creators, subject-matter experts, and credible commentators, not just media outlets.

• Empower Digital-First Teams: Ensure your social media and digital communications teams have the authority to respond quickly in a crisis, using authentic, platform-native language (short-form video on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram). And remember that whatever you share needs to be designed using language that engages your current stakeholders as well as audiences of influencers that are part of your own ecosystem.

• Embrace transparency as a defensive asset: In a world where ’many creators are turning themselves into mini-businesses and brands,’ audiences expect similar authenticity from companies, which is why there is a growing need to embrace and openly acknowledge uncertainty, explaining decisions, and engaging directly with sceptics can mitigate polarisation and rebuild credibility.

• Practice for a Creator-Led Crisis: Include scenarios in your crisis simulations where the trigger is a viral video from an influencer, not a newspaper investigation.

Invest in Explanatory and 'Prebuttal' Content

If explanation is a key creator strength, it should become a core competency of your communications team.

• Become Your Own Explainer: Use your owned channels to produce clear, engaging, and visual content that explains complex policies, products, or issues. Adopt the storytelling techniques that make creators successful. The report notes that media companies have the opportunity to 'copy creator storytelling techniques to make content more accessible.’

• Practice 'Prebuttal': Anticipate misinformation and proactively create content that addresses potential criticisms or false narratives before they gain traction. Feed this content to both trusted creators and your own audiences.

Rethink Legal and Regulatory Strategies

While legal action remains a tool, it is often blunt and can be ineffective against a decentralised network of creators. Instead, focus on platform partnerships and proactive transparency.

• Weigh the Streisand Effect: Legal threats can often amplify the original content, a phenomenon known as the Streisand Effect. Consider this carefully before acting.

• Focus on Platforms: Invest in building relationships with platform trust and safety teams to understand their policies and reporting mechanisms for harmful misinformation.

• Promote Media Literacy: Consider supporting or partnering with organisations that promote digital and media literacy, helping the public better identify unreliable information.

Collaborate with Caution and Clear Purpose

Some news organisations are now looking to 'collaborate with creators by bringing content (labelled) into their platform.’ This is a potential model for corporations and governments, but it must be handled with care.

• Define the Terms of Engagement: Any collaboration must be transparent. Audiences should know the nature of the relationship.

• Respect Creator Authenticity: Micromanaging a creator's content can seriously backfire. The value is in their authentic voice and how they are perceived by their own community. Provide them with information and context, not a script.

• Focus on Value Exchange: Successful collaborations are based on mutual benefit. What unique access or insight can you provide that adds reputation or even indirect financial value to the creator's audience?

Reputation in the Age of the Algorithm

The Reuters Institute report highlights that 'the professional and creator worlds are converging.’ This is not a temporary trend but a permanent structural shift in the wider landscape of how people consume media and content. The 'unruly information space' is the new normal.

For leaders and Chief Communications Officers, the new environment that they must recognise is one where they can no longer rely solely on reputation management processes designed for a media environment from the 20th century. The speed, scale, and nature of the threat and opportunity presented by news creators demand a new agile playbook where companies and governments better understand their direct and indirect audiences.

This demands a shift from reactive defence to proactive engagement. It means listening to new voices, speaking on new platforms, and telling your story in ways that resonate.

By understanding the creator ecosystem and adapting with speed and intelligence, governments and companies can protect reputation and build the trust that defines their future. By understanding the creator ecosystem mapped in this report, and by adapting your strategies with speed and intelligence, you can not only protect your reputation but also build deeper, more authentic connections with the audiences that will define your future.

Reputation has never moved faster. If you’d like to discuss how to protect and grow yours, let’s talk.

You can also stay connected through my Reputation Matters newsletter for insights on trust, strategy, and influence.

Follow Reputation Matters on LinkedIn

Stay ahead on trust, strategy, and influence. New editions for senior leaders and communications professionals.

Last Friday, I attended a private roundtable at the Spanish Embassy in London with Carlos Cuerpo, Spain’s Minister for Economy, Trade and Business, joined by his investment team from Madrid and London, as well as a cross-section of investors, venture capital funds, founders and advisers.

Since leaving UK Government it has been a privilege to engage with partner countries and support where that is needed, with either strategic advisory, communciations and positioning or international stakeholder engagement.

The session at The Spanish Ambasador’s Residence wasn’t just a briefing. It was an example of how a country can intentionally reposition itself and reshape its reputation, and, in doing so, build alliances, attract capital, and secure its place in the growing global innovation economy. The event was the culmination of an extended visit to London, where Cuerpo met with his UK Government counterpart Peter Kyle as well as with the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves.

For too long, Spain has been viewed through a narrow lens, as a tourism-led economy known for ‘quality of life, cultural exports, and sunshine.’ Those strengths remain, but are now being leveraged to rebrand Spain and its competitive offer to the world.

The fact is that the Spain that I grew up in and see today is one that has plenty of capital. In the past, this was just not seen. Today, with a range of companies ranging from infrastructure to telecommunications and fashion, Spanish capital is seen and investing in innovation and growth opportunities. As Carlos Cuerpo made clear at the embassy, Spain is now staking its claim as a serious innovation and investment hub, rooted in economic resilience, technological ambition and international credibility.

“Despite being the most affected country by COVID,” the Minister said, “we’ve now recovered the pre-COVID trend. It’s a great sign of how dynamic the Spanish economy is.” And the data backs it up and is being used to reset the narrative from Spain being there for tourism to one where it is there for investment and growth.

A new economic story is being written

Data shows that Spain is outpacing the EU average with growth that, in the Minister’s words, is “twice as much as the EU,” is forecasting over the coming year, with a projected IMF growth rate for 2025 of 2.9%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), October 2025 World Economic Outlook. Not bad.

According to data presented:

• Over half a million new jobs are being created annually, “more stable, higher-value jobs,” many in sectors such as advanced engineering, digital services, and life sciences.

• Labour market participation is now 30% higher than before COVID, and real wages have grown despite global inflation pressures.

• Spain is today Europe’s third-largest start-up and scale-up ecosystem, with €5.7 billion invested in 2025, up 36% year-on-year.

• 85% of Spanish tech investment rounds now involve international investors, a clear sign of market confidence and openness.

This transformation is attracting attention. In recent months, the IMF, The Financial Times, and The Economist have all pointed to Spain as a standout performer in Europe. Just last month, The Editorial Board of The Financial Times wrote an opinion piece stating that, ‘Spain has become Europe’s standout economy.’

Strategic in a multipolar world

What makes Spain’s repositioning so relevant today is the context in which it is happening.

As I’ve stated before, we are living in a growing, multipolar, reputation-driven world, where alliances are shifting, capital is mobile, and narratives are as important as numbers. Countries that can project credibility, openness, strategic clarity and can be agile and move at pace are more likely to secure investment, attract talent, and build influence. Look at Asian countries and the civil services of countries like Singapore.

Spain has understood that it is not just economic policies that matter, but also how these and the country are presented and, critically, perceived. A point that I made at the roundtable and then to the Minister.

And it’s not just reacting to global change; it is using the tools of policy, investment, and strategic communication to define its place not just in Europe, but beyond.

“We’ve grown with purpose,” Minister Cuerpo said. “That means growth that is inclusive, investment-led and stable.”

Investment: from quantity to quality

One of the clearest signals of this soft repositioning that I picked up is how Spain is attracting high-quality foreign direct investment in future-facing sectors.

At the event, Cuerpo said that, “Spain was ranked seventh globally for new investment projects between 2018 and 2024,” citing Financial Times FDI Markets data. “We were second only to the United States in attracting investment in digital and green sectors.”

This isn’t speculative capital. It’s increasingly strategic and long-term by those that are looking for international growth markets.

The Ministry’s senior adviser on investment policy shared that the Next Tech Fund has already committed €600 million this year alone, investing:

• 54% in digital transformation

• 20% in deep tech

• The remaining 26% in infrastructure, renewables, and industrial resilience

Spain’s Start-Up Law (2022), ENISA funding, and the public-private ICO Next Tech programme are all working together to professionalise the ecosystem and de-risk early-stage innovation.

This joined-up approach is building confidence, with investors around the table stating they are scaling up their efforts and investments in Spain over the next two years. The market's dynamism, transparency, and ease of investing, features not necessarily true across all EU markets, are helping to make Spain stand out.

Beyond tourism: the perception pivot

Spain’s shift is about more than policy and numbers. It is a reputational shift, which now requires a national brand evolution to reflect and amplify the confidence, capability, and ambition that is fast growing internationally.

In the past, Spain’s international perception centred on lifestyle, tourism, and cost competitiveness. Those qualities remain assets, but they are no longer the only story, especially if you also consider the innovation happening in universities and the work of their tech transfer and spin-out teams.

From Madrid to Málaga, Bilbao to Barcelona, Spain is increasingly viewed as a hub for serious business, particularly in:

• Quantum computing (Multiverse Computing)

• Life sciences (Barcelona’s Biocat and Madrid’s health clusters)

• AI and applied data science in Euskadi - The Basque Country

• Green mobility and renewable infrastructure

One investor described it as “a generational shift in mindset, Spanish founders today don’t just want to build for Spain. They want to lead in Europe and scale globally.”

Another founder said that, “Spain now produces the kind of founders we didn’t see ten years ago.” They are internationally minded, ambitious, and building for longevity.”

Years ago, when I was based in the UAE, I remember learning of the infrastructure work that Spanish construction companies like Ferrovial and others were involved in in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. I raised this as a great example with a Spanish Senior Civil Servant at the round table, of the quiet work that Spain is achieving worldwide and he agreed and said about how “Spain has been that we have been involved in rebuilding around the world.”

Soft power meets hard economics

What we are currently seeing with Spain’s transformation also challenges the artificial divide between ‘soft power’ and ‘hard policy’.

Yes, its reputation for cultural richness, social cohesion, and quality of life has long been admired. But, what’s happening now is a fusion of this soft power and strategic positioning, which makes Spain more investable.

International talent wants to live and build in places that offer safety, belonging and creativity. Investors look for ecosystems with stable governance, transparency, and alignment with international standards. Spain now offers both.

In fact, one participant put it plainly: “People used to go to Spain for the lifestyle. Now they stay because the ecosystem works.” And when you look at that lifestyle and the weather and culture, well, look at California and it’s origins and look at what Spain is building. Could it create a European model of Silicon Valley? A lot is needed, but it’s not impossible that, certainly within the EU, Spain could position itself as its European counterpart.

The role of strategic communications in national competitiveness

For me and my work at the intersection of strategy, communications and investment, Spain’s case highlights something unique: how national competitiveness is becoming increasingly reputational, and how this intangible asset needs to be leveraged correctly, to deliver growth that can support every citizen.

GDP growth is vital, but, unless that growth is experienced by a majority of citizens, well, GDP growth won’t be enough.

Governments need to translate communications into tangible experiences. It needs to communicate what makes their economy different and the experiences that they delivery. They must build stakeholder trust, offer predictability, and present a vision that investors and partners believe in.

Carlos Cuerpo’s team focused on presenting a coherent, data-driven, and quietly confident story of transformation. Yes, questions and requests were still being made privately, but these questions were noted for internal discussion.

As for where Spain is now, their framing was clear:

• Spain is open: 85% of funding rounds involve foreign investors.

• Spain is mature: It now hosts over 15 unicorns and third- and fourth-time founders.

• Spain is trusted: Its policies are seen as credible, transparent, and consistent.

What other countries can learn

Spain’s offers several lessons for nations and leaders navigating this complex geopolitical moment:

1. Narratives matter: Investment follows clarity. A country’s story must match its substance and be told with confidence and continuity.

2. Perception is a strategic asset: Reputation influences who shows up at the table, and whether they stay.

3. Soft power is not a luxury; it’s a multiplier: Spain’s culture, creativity and openness are now part of its economic proposition.

4. Build for partnerships, not just praise: Spain’s strength lies in how it brings together government, capital, universities, and corporates, and opens the door to international collaboration.

Spain’s future as a central figure in European innovation

The data doesn’t lie, and I hear that from my contacts in other markets across the GCC, Asia, and Southeast Asia. Spain is positioning itself and is being recognised as a pillar of the EU’s innovation agenda, particularly in strategic autonomy areas such as digital infrastructure, biotech, AI, and climate technology.

So, what comes next?

• Spain will need to double down on scaling late-stage ventures to turn unicorns into global market leaders.

• Continue building out its institutional capital base, including pension and sovereign fund participation in VC.

• Extend its international communications footprint, ensuring that Madrid, London, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, New York, and Tokyo all understand the depth and direction of Spain’s growth model.

Spain is no longer just an economic recovery story; it’s a reputational success story

In a fragmented, multipolar world, countries like Spain that combine strategy, narrative and trust will lead the next wave of global growth.

Yes, Spain has changed, and not just in numbers, but in how it is seen. And that, ultimately, is what will shape and enhance its influence, its investment flows, and its future.

Earlier this week, FleishmanHillard published a report that looked at the readiness of companies to the rising number of issues and potential crises. The report, 'Leading in the Era of Compounding Crisis,' is both a warning and a wake-up call. It confirms what many of us in strategic communications and corporate advisory have suspected: modern crises do not arrive as single, neat events. They layer, amplify and feed on one another. The fact is that Boards and C-suite teams today remain organised around last-century culture and assumptions about risk, expertise, and decision-making, which increases their reputational risk and, as a result, financial risk.

The issue has two sides: what and how executives view risk and how they react to it and also what value they place on trust, reputation and perception. Because, as it stands, brand value is seen as a tactical asset rather than a strategic intangible asset.

Why FleishmanHillard’s findings matter now

FleishmanHillard’s UK study interviewed senior leaders and found a stark preparedness gap. Yes, executives perceive an expanding set of threats, from cyberattacks and supply chain shocks to geopolitical threats, disinformation, and cultural flashpoints, and consistently report that they are less ready to manage those threats than they are concerned about them.

The report highlights, for example, that leaders view cyber, supply chain, and customer-service failures as among the top risks with a significant impact on EBITDA. Yet, many do not feel ‘very prepared’ to respond. 

That same report makes two practical observations that are hard to ignore. First, crises now compound and cascade: one issue creates conditions for another. Second, internal failings, delayed decision-making, poor alignment and weak issue reporting often convert a manageable incident into a full-blown crisis. Both factors mean that a reactive, siloed approach to risk management is no longer adequate. 

The expertise gap at the boardroom table

Without a doubt, the uncomfortable truth is the structural mismatch between the skills boards have and the risks companies now face.

Traditional boardroom profiles prioritise financial, operational and legal experience. Without a doubt, that is critical, of course, but in today's world, it is not sufficient.

Independent research reveals that communications leaders are still rarely represented at the highest governance levels. For example, Spencer Stuart’s analysis notes that very few chief communications officers have directorships on large company boards. That absence matters because communications and reputation are strategic, not tactical, risks.

As I’ve argued before, while reputation might be an intangible asset, it is one of the key economic and value drivers. Recent analysis of the modern economy shows intangible assets now dominate market valuation. For the S&P 500, intangible assets account for the vast majority of market value, a shift that magnifies the cost of reputational damage and the upside of earned trust.

Boards need to realise that the cost of recovering from a major crisis often greatly exceeds what it would have cost to invest in reasonable prevention, preparedness and reputation protection. Not treating reputation and communications expertise as strategic assets and value gatekeepers exacerbates risk, which could be managed.

How the gap hits valuation and profitability

Two linked dynamics make the expertise gap material to valuation.

First, direct shock. Cyber incidents, product safety failures, or a mismanaged employee scandal can significantly impact sales and margins. FleishmanHillard’s respondents identified cyber, supply chain, and legal or regulatory shocks as the risks most likely to damage EBITDA. When these events compound, for example, a cyber breach that triggers regulatory scrutiny, employee unrest and negative media attention, the financial effect can multiply. 

Second, the slow burn. Market confidence, customer loyalty and investor appetite are all sensitive to trust. Surveys from major trust studies show that public confidence in businesses and leaders is a significant variable in purchasing and investment choices; companies with higher trust metrics are better positioned to weather shocks. The point is stark: trust and reputation are not peripheral to the matter. They are a material factor in commercial resilience. 

For boards and investors, the implication is straightforward: reputation and communications are not 'soft' risks to be passed down the organisational chart. They are financial exposures that deserve board-level oversight, specialist expertise and clear KPIs that link back to business value. After all, as Lloyd’s of London report found, reputation can account for up to 43% of market capitalisation.

The cultural problem: risk as something to react to, not plan for

Culture is both cause and effect in the compounding crisis. FleishmanHillard finds that leaders are increasingly cautious in public because they fear internal backlash. That fear culture drives overly defensive decision-making, which can in turn precipitate escalation. In short, when boards and executives act from fear rather than insight, they make errors that compound risk.

And this view of risk is what differentiates established enterprises from lean and mobile disruptive start-ups.

Start-up leadership is typically founder-led, driven by speed and growth, comfortable with uncertainty, and more operationally hands-on. Their boards are smaller, more tactical and often reflect the interests of the lead investors. This, while Enterprise boards and C-suites are typically process-oriented, risk-averse, long-term stewardship-focused - think institutional investors, with formal committees (audit, remuneration, risk). Decision-making is often layered, consensus-driven and influenced by regulatory and investor reporting rhythms. Senior roles tend to reflect long-established governance norms, for example, finance, legal and operations expertise.

A healthy organisational culture treats issues reporting and reputational insight as routine business. It encourages early escalation, cross-functional problem-solving and scenario rehearsal. That requires not only the right processes but leadership that values openness and who are practised in communicating under pressure.

Practical recommendations for boards and leadership teams

Based on my experience, these are the practical steps boards should adopt now.

1. Embed communications and reputation expertise at board level or in direct board advisory roles: Boards must deliberately include directors or trusted independent advisers with senior strategic communications experience. The relative scarcity of CCOs in boardrooms remains a critical governance gap that shareholders and investors need to address to mitigate risk to their investments more effectively. Where directorship is not immediately realistic, establish a permanent, formal advisory role with direct access to the chair, CEO and general counsel.

2. Treat reputation as a financial metric: Introduce reputation KPIs and scenario-tested reputation stress-tests alongside liquidity and credit stress-tests. Use data and sentiment analytics to make reputation measurable and visible in board papers. Advisory firms already estimate reputation as a material share of market value; boards should take that seriously.

3. Radically Restructure Risk Committees: The siloed risk committee, focused on financial and operational hazards, is obsolete. An Integrated Risk Council must replace it. This council should formally include the Chief Communications/Reputation Officer, the General Counsel, the CHRO, the CTO, and the Head of Public Affairs. This cross-functional team must meet regularly to conduct reputational risk assessments alongside operational ones, using tools like FleishmanHillard’s issues tracker to scan the horizon for compounding threats dynamically.

4. Update director skill matrices and succession plans. Board refresh should include skills such as digital literacy, geopolitical risk, public policy, and strategic communications. For publicly listed firms, especially, these competencies are material to oversight of the business model and the firm’s licence to operate.

5. Practice with realism. Run red-team exercises that stress-test reputational scenarios, misinformation campaigns and internal leaks. Rehearsal builds the muscle memory that leadership needs to act decisively and proportionately. FleishmanHillard’s research highlights how rehearsal is one of the most effective ways to avoid decision paralysis when a real crisis arrives.

Why General Counsel must work with strategic communications advisers

I have previously argued that General Counsel and communications advisors cannot operate in silos.

Legal victories can be hollow if they leave trust in tatters, and numerous examples illustrate this. My piece on why GCs and communications advisers must work together sets out how legal risk and public risk interact, and why joint scenario planning, reputational due diligence for deals, and aligned litigation and public messaging are non-negotiable. Boards should mandate this collaboration and verify it through joint training, shared playbooks and combined briefings to the board. 

Practically, that means the GC should be part of reputation stress tests, and the CCO or reputation adviser should have unfettered access to legal counsel, ensuring that messages are both legally sound and reputationally effective. This pairing matters at every stage: pre-deal diligence, M&A integration, regulatory response and crisis response.

In fact, a good number of law firms work with reputational advisors to ensure that their clients receive the best possible counsel to ensure that the impact on intangible assets does not damage tangible and valuation.

What business and management education must do next

Business schools and executive education are habitually late to reflect commercial change. Leaders are coached and trained in many business schools, thus creating the need to re-evaluate and rethink of how reputation is taught within the curriculum. Here are three recommendations:

1. Integrate reputational risk into finance and strategy modules. If intangible assets dominate market value, then reputation should be taught as discounted cash-flow models. Students must learn to quantify reputational exposures and the consequences of poor stakeholder management.

2. Teach multi-disciplinary decision-making. Scenarios that mix cyber, regulation and social media must be standard case work. This requires collaboration between faculties: strategy, law, communications, technology and geopolitics.

3. Train for public leadership. Senior executives will increasingly act as corporate diplomats, critical in today’s growing multipolar world. Education should provide practical media and stakeholder training that simulates the pressure of real crises and the ethical trade-offs leaders will make. FleishmanHillard rightly highlights that leaders often feel isolated and underprepared; simulation-based learning helps address this issue, as well as ensuring that a modern-day board has the insight and expertise that reflects a world with more friction.

Executive programmes must also widen admissions criteria: bring in serving board members, experienced communications leaders and senior legal counsel as both students and faculty. That will make the teaching immediately more practical and relevant.

A brief note on measurement and perception

Modern measurement makes reputation manageable. There are now robust tools for sentiment analysis, issues tracking and stakeholder mapping. Use them, but do not mistake data for judgment. Measurement should inform board decision-making, not replace it. Context and scenario testing is even more critical today for companies and investors.

Two further points matter. First, the growth in value derived from intangible assets means reputational shocks are more expensive than ever. Analysts and investors will take note, and markets will incorporate reputational risk into their valuation.

Second, the public’s expectations of corporate behaviour remain fluid. Surveys show that business remains one of the more trusted institutions, but that trust is still fragile and varies by market and context. Boards should therefore assume that stakeholders will quickly judge actions, and that misreading cultural dynamics can be expensive.

A realistic call to action

Boards are not failing because they don’t have suitable people. They are failing when they rely on models and skill sets that were built for simpler times.

The FleishmanHillard report is valuable because it translates that reality into evidence and practical recommendations. Boards, chairs and senior executives should act now to:

• Reassess board skills and bring reputation expertise closer to the governance centre.

• Make reputation a governance metric with regular reporting and scenario tests. 

• Institutionalise cross-functional crisis decision-making and regular rehearsal. 

• Require GC and CCO collaboration as part of board assurance. 

• Insist that executive education reflects the multi-dimensional nature of modern risk. 

If you lead a board or advise one, this is not a theoretical conversation. It is a practical governance upgrade. The cost of inaction is clear: avoidable damage to EBITDA, market cap and the trust that powers long-term growth. The alternative is management by crisis, where companies survive by luck rather than design.

A few weeks ago, I was involved in a conversation about the difference between Growth and Venture Mindsets and how each influences innovation outcomes quite differently. It was great to be part of this debate. Much was shared.

One of the great comments was this, “... the biggest problem with AI: humans.” And that is so true. You invest in the technology and its embedding into an organisation, whether corporate or government, but forget the end user and the need for a support framework to unlock how AI can support humans and increase productivity, because humans can resist anything that looks like a threat.

All this got me thinking about how these two philosophies, Growth and Venture, dominate a lot of the outcomes that shape innovation and the world we live in.

So, what are Growth and Venture Mindsets, and how are they different? To summarise, the former is obsessed with scaling metrics, including user acquisition, revenue curves, and market penetration, while the latter is fixated on strategic positioning, exit multiples, and portfolio returns. For years, these have been viewed as parallel tracks, sometimes even at odds with each other.

But what if the most significant multiplier for both isn't the technology or innovation, but rather perception and/or trust —the human element and the perception, as well as the appetite to risk that we have or don’t have?

Trust and perception play a critical role in innovation, yet it is often left to a tactical stage of delivery. Leveraging this requires expertise and a deep understanding of emotions and human decision-making. Trust isn't a soft skill, but a hard currency that directly accelerates growth and secures venture-scale outcomes.

The Growth Mindset: The Engine of Scale

Popularised by Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, the term ‘growth mindset’ has been adopted by the business world to describe a relentless focus on scaling a company. It’s a culture of experimentation, data-driven iteration, and a ‘get-big-fast’ mentality.

What the growth mindset requires is also the right culture and the right understanding of risk-taking and the returns that risk-taking can deliver, all aligned over a specific period of time. This is equally what different countries have, a different appetite to risk based on culture and how decision makers perceive the associated risks to innovation and the associated costs, as an example, short term investment vs. short term or long term returns.

Growth Mindset can be defined as:

• Core Focus: User acquisition, market share, revenue growth, and operational scaling.

• Key Metrics: Month-over-Month (MoM) growth rates, Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), and Lifetime Value (LTV).

This mindset is powerful and pushes teams to move quickly, break things, and prioritise speed above all else. However, the risk is that when pursued in isolation, this mindset ‘can’ harbour a fatal flaw: it often sacrifices long-term stability for short-term gains. Think of it, as ‘build and flip.’

The ‘move fast and break things’ mantra, which was once the rallying cry of Silicon Valley, over time has revealed its limitations.

Mark Zuckerberg later reflected that the focus needed to evolve. "We used to have this famous mantra... and what we realised is that it wasn't helping us to build the best services for people because building a service that is meaningful for people and that helps people connect... it needs to be reliable," he stated in an interview with TechCrunch. Make of Zuckerberg’s comments what you will, and think of how Meta is now perceived and if it is, now, an innovative company or if it just leverages it’s capital to buy up innovators?

The breaking point for many companies today trust. A data scandal, a product failure that harms users, or a toxic culture exposed to the public can halt growth overnight. Leaders in these companies often call in reputation advisers (lawyers, more often than not) when the damage is done, and often because they have not factored in perception, reputation and trust during the building, delivery and growth stages. Why? Because perception, trust and reputation are seeing as tactical and not strategic assets that are part of the brand.

Trust is what investors need to equally consider when they are supporting founders and innovators. Growth and disruption with no care or investment in building trust and reputation increases risk for investors, and that is not what investors want.

The Venture Mindset: The Architecture of Value

The venture mindset, meanwhile, is typically associated with investors and founders planning for an exit, takes a longer, more strategic, and pragmatic view. It’s about building a valuable, defensible asset that focuses on the quality of growth, not just its quantity.

Venture mindset can itself be defined and measured as follows:

• Core Focus: Business model durability, competitive moats, intellectual property, strategic partnerships, and ultimately, a successful exit (IPO or acquisition) at a high valuation multiple.

• Key Metrics: Valuation, EBITDA multiples, market capitalisation, and internal rate of return (IRR).

The venture mindset asks, "Is this growth sustainable and valuable to a future acquirer or the public markets?" This mindset is inherently risk-aware, constantly evaluating how external factors, from regulatory changes to market sentiment (perception!), could impact the company's ultimate worth.

The renowned investor Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz wrote that the fundamental challenge in building a company is communications. Horowitz said, “As a company grows, communication becomes its biggest challenge. If the employees fundamentally trust the CEO, then communication will be vastly more efficient than if they don’t. Telling things as they are is a critical part of building this trust. A CEO’s ability to build this trust over time is often the difference between companies that execute well and companies that are chaotic.”

This confirming that it’s people who regulate the speed of innovation and growth, and not technology, which is iteration at greater speed that people shifting their perception of risks of innovation.

The Trust Bridge: Where Growth and Venture Converge

Effective communication and the building of trust is critical to ensure how innovators can bridge the growth and venture mindsets. Trust is not an intangible abstract concept or asset; it is a very  tangible and fluid asset that when managed correctly can help deliver sustainable growth while unlocking the realisation of venture-scale value.

Research by PwC found that organisations with high levels of trust significantly outperform their peers. They are more innovative, have stronger customer loyalty, financially perform better and are better at managing crises.

1. Trust as a Growth Accelerant

From a growth perspective, trust is the ultimate growth hacker. It reduces friction at many parts of the growth journey. Perception in and of your business influences the trust and confidence that you, your brand and your proposition have, which influences how you sell or secure investment.

Trust helps with:

• Lower Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC): Customers who trust you are more likely to try your product, refer others, and forgive occasional missteps. Word-of-mouth, the cheapest and most effective marketing channel, is powered entirely by trust. A Nielsen study found that 83% of consumers trust recommendations from people they know.

• Higher Lifetime Value (LTV): Trust drives retention. When customers believe you have their best interests at heart, they tend to stay longer and make more purchases. For example, after a significant data breach, a company can expect not only an immediate drop in users but also a long-term increase in churn, which can be devastating to LTV.

2. Trust as a Venture Multiplier

From a venture perspective, trust is directly quantifiable in a company's valuation. It is the ‘reputation premium’ that acquirers and public markets are willing to pay for.

Trust influences:

• Higher Valuation Multiples: A company with a strong reputation for ethical conduct, data security, and customer care is a less risky investment. It is insulated from reputation-based crises that can wipe out billions of dollars in market capitalisation overnight. As Warren Buffett famously stated, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."

• M&A Attractiveness: A strong brand built on trust is a powerful competitive moat. It makes a company a more attractive target for acquisition. Large corporations, especially those in regulated industries such as finance or healthcare, will pay a significant ‘reputational’ premium for a trusted brand that aligns with their own risk and compliance standards.

The Foundational Pillars of Trust Capital

Building this ‘trust capital’ in your venture, enterprise company, or start-up requires effort from both leaders, founders and investors, and, in my experience, rests on three pillars, each demanding specific qualifications.

Pillar 1: Radical Transparency

This goes beyond marketing and tactical communications. It means being open about product limitations, transparent about data usage policies, and proactive in communicating mistakes. The qualification for founders and leaders is integrity and courage, the willingness to be vulnerable for the long-term health of the brand, as well as transparency and empathy in your tone of voice and how you communicate.. For investors, it means championing transparency even when the news is bad, understanding that covering up problems only further damages the trust and reputation further.

Pillar 2: Consistent Reliability

Trust is built in increments through consistent delivery on promises. Does the product work as advertised? Is customer support responsive? Are payroll and vendor payments made on a timely basis? The qualification here is operational excellence. Founders must build systems that ensure reliability, while investors must value and measure these operational metrics as diligently as they measure growth. An increase is positive perception and trust can equally be a signal of future improved earnings.

Pillar 3: Genuine Empathy

Trust is a human emotion. Companies that demonstrate genuine care for their customers, employees, and community build deeper, more resilient bonds. The qualification is emotional intelligence. Founders must foster a culture of respect from teh start, and investors must evaluate culture and employee satisfaction as key indicators of long-term viability of what they have or are considering investing in. If founders and leaders have a strategic understanding of the importance of trust then there is an increased chance that investments carry less risk.

The New Qualification Set for Founders and Investors

The fact is that traditional playbooks, even from the last 10/15 years, are no longer enough. The qualifications for what is needed to secure success is evolving.

For Founders:

The modern founder must be more than a visionary operator. They must also be Chief Trust Officer and have as part of their team leaders and advisers that understand:

• Proactive Communication Skills: The ability to articulate vision, own failures, and engage with stakeholders authentically.

• Ethical Data Stewardship: A deep understanding of and commitment to data privacy and security, viewing customer data as a responsibility, not just an asset.

• Crisis Management Preparedness: Having a plan for when things go wrong, focused on preserving trust above protecting ego.

For Investors:

The modern investor’s role is expanding from capital provider to trust and reputation partner. Their qualifications must include:

• Due Diligence on Culture: Actively investigating company culture, leadership integrity, and customer satisfaction during the investment process.

• Long-term Value Mentality: Prioritising sustainable growth strategies over short-term ‘pump and dump’ schemes that can damage a portfolio company's reputation.

• Governance Guidance: Using board seats to advocate for strong ethical frameworks, diverse leadership, and transparent reporting.

Fusing Mindsets for Unbreakable Growth

The difference between a growth mindset and a venture mindset is a false one. The most formidable companies of the future will not choose one over the other; instead, they will choose both. They will fuse them, using and investing in the building of trust as the catalyst and to secure growth.

Growth achieved without a foundation of trust is britille. Venture-scale value built without reputation is an illusion, a high valuation waiting for a reality check, which is why American business media outlets always focus on a loss in market capitalisation when an issue or crises happens.

The ultimate competitive advantage lies in building a company where the growth engine is powered by customer and stakeholder trust and the venture-scale outcome is secured by the integrity of the brand. Yes, it’s a more challenging path, requiring greater discipline and a broader set of qualifications from both leaders and investors. But as data and many example show, it is the only path to creating something that is not just big, but innovates and is allowed to disrupt.

The business world has been captivated by artificial intelligence (AI). From boardrooms to government agencies, leaders are under immense pressure to adopt and deploy AI, not just as a tool, but, as it’s being promoted, as a ‘cost-cutting’ solution and a transformative engine for growth and efficiency.

Tech firms have done a great job in repositioning themselves, and as a result, have secured meteoric growth. They have been great at repositioning their platforms as providers of solutions that help companies integrate their data to deploy AI models, which in turn help them secure growth. The impact that AI is already having without a doubt is huge, and we are just at the early stages of the transformation we will be experiencing.

But, there are huge caveats. Buying into AI for ‘efficiency’ and ‘cost-cutting’ ignores and even deliberately misses the critical understanding of how in the end all businesses work and grow, and that is through human interaction. AI is an incredible solution at analysing data and finding patterns. It is a tool that can automate many processes, but, in the consultancy world it still requires people with expertise and critical and cognitive thinking to verify and humanise the analysis and output.

Businesses and governments that adopt AI will grow. But the same organsiations that understand and invest in the importance of perception, trust and reputation will minimise risks and secue competitive advantage.

For growth technology drives only half of the solution. Having a team, internal, from a consultancy or agency or independent that understands human-nuances like culture, especially international culture, is where the opportunities lie for success. To a certain extent, hyper-local and hyper-personal approaches are what will help organisations achieve better returns from their tech stack, their people, and their advisers, especially those who are experts in perception, reputation, and trust.

AI can become a great foundation and engine for many organisations, great for automating tasks and suggesting broader context. But these same organisations will require strategists with expertise rather than just AI output, especially in an environment where people can already influence the output of LLMs.

The Economist: McKinsey and other consultancies are not loosing their shine. Instead, like others, they are adapting and evolving.

The Increased Demand for Human Judgment

Despite the AI hype, leadership, business, and innovation require critical thinking and experience. Organisations often turn to experts and advisors who have experience, for reasons that AI alone cannot satisfy:

1. Contextual Intelligence and Ethical Nuance: Yes, AI can analyse a dataset, but it cannot understand the cultural nuances of a workforce resistant to change, the historical baggage of a brand, or the delicate political ecosystem within which a government operates. These and many more are critical issues for international organisations. Human consultants bring cross-sector experience, applying lessons from healthcare to manufacturing, as well as from tech to nonprofits. The ability to connect disparate dots and see the story behind the data, and to build empathy between parties, is a uniquely human skill.

2. Strategic Vision, Not Just Technical Execution: A new tech partner can develop a robust algorithm that identifies patterns from proprietary data, enabling informed decision-making. That said, senior consultants can help identify the culture and emotions that can help deliver a better reputational advantage. We ask the 'why' before the 'how.' We help leaders and their teams articulate a vision that aligns technology with human purpose, ensuring that AI initiatives are not only technically sound but also strategically brilliant. This approach is what inspires and guides the future of business.

3. Stakeholder Synthesis and Consensus Building: Major transformation creates winners and losers. It disrupts power structures and creates fear. AI cannot negotiate a tense boardroom discussion, coach a CEO through a difficult announcement, or rally a sceptical employee base behind a new direction. This requires empathy, persuasion, and a deep understanding of organisational dynamics, the core competencies of experienced advisors.

The most successful advisory engagements will not see AI replacing humans, but rather augmenting them. For AI to truly unlock value amongst consultancies, communications and advisory agencies, you must have collaborative teams that have coders and tech experts with communications and reputational professionals.

The future belongs to a symbiotic model where human expertise is amplified by artificial intelligence.

How AI Empowers the Human Consultant

For strategists, AI is not a threat; it's the force multiplier. It liberates them from time-consuming analysis, remembering that time is billable, to focus on high-value, human-centric work.

• Supercharged Research and Insight Generation: AI can process vast volumes of data, financial reports, news cycles, social sentiment, and geopolitical events in seconds. An experienced strategist can use this to identify patterns, emerging risks and opportunities, understand shifting perceptions, and benchmark against competitors with unprecedented speed and scale.

• Scenario Planning and Predictive Modelling: Consultants can use AI to model countless ‘what-if’ scenarios. What if a key regulation changes? What if a supply chain is disrupted? What if a product launch fails? AI can predict potential outcomes, allowing strategists to develop pre-emptive plans and advise clients from a position of prepared strength, not reactive weakness.

• Personalisation at Scale: In stakeholder engagement, AI can analyse communication patterns to help shape messages for different audiences, identifying the concerns of investors against employees and community leaders. This creates highly personalised and effective engagement strategies developed by the consultant.

This approach encourages advisors to focus on their highest-value role: that of trusted strategic counsel. It enables them to spend less time searching for data and more time interpreting its meaning and implications for leadership.

The Critical Advantage: Strategists of Trust and Perception

This is where the argument becomes crucial for leaders and decision-makers. While many tech firms and consultants can offer AI deployment, only a select few can build and deploy a comprehensive proposition that, in addition to AI, also includes critical components of strategic communications, stakeholder engagement, and research. This skillset is no longer a ‘soft’ value-add; it’s a skillset that gives leaders confidence.

An organisation can develop the most powerful LLM in the world, but if it fails to secure the trust of its customers, employees, regulators, and investors, it will fail.

This is the core differentiator. Consultants who understand perception, reputation, and trust are uniquely positioned to ensure AI initiatives deliver real growth. Here are four reasons:

1. Building the License to Operate: Innovation, especially with AI, is often met with scepticism and fear. A strategist’s first job is to help build public trust and secure a ‘license to operate.’ This involves transparent communication, ethical framing, and proactive engagement with stakeholders to demystify the technology and align it with societal values. AI can identify a risk to reputation; a human expert designs the campaign to mitigate it.

2. Managing the Narrative: An AI rollout is a story. Will it be a story of progress and empowerment, or one of job displacement and opaque decision-making? Experts in strategic communications craft and control this narrative. They ensure the story told, both internally and externally, builds confidence and excitement, turning the deployment into a reputational asset rather than a liability. And I say this with experience of supporting teams that have led in the design and delivery of digital and data solutions.

3. Engineering Internal Alignment: The most common point of failure for many technology projects, and today, AI projects, is internal culture. Consultants who have gained real-world experience and are skilled in change management and engagement use AI-derived insights to identify pockets of resistance, understand employee concerns, and design strategies to bring people along on the journey. They turn a technical implementation into a shared mission.

4. Driving Adoption Through Confidence: Technology is only valuable if people use it, and trust is the key to adoption. By building transparent and trustworthy implementation processes, strategists ensure that end-users - businesses, investors, governments or the general public- have the confidence to embrace new AI tools, thus guaranteeing a return on the investment. This emphasis on trust-building reassures both investors and the audience of the consultants' role in the success of AI adoption.

In the world in which we are moving, consultants and advisors act as the essential bridge between the potential and hype of AI and the human reality of AI adoption. They translate code into confidence, and data into trust.

The Symbiotic Future

The rise of specialist AI firms is a welcome disruption. It pushes the entire advisory and communications industry towards greater tangibility and results. However, it does not ignore the profound need for human judgment, strategic vision, and, most importantly, the ability to manage perception and build trust. Stressing the importance of human experience and judgment can instil confidence in clients and make them feel valued and part of the process.

The leaders of today and tomorrow are not looking for a choice between AI and human expertise. They are actually looking for a synthesis. They need advisors who can bring together the raw power of AI to provide deeper insights and models, but who then apply their human cross-sector experience and deep understanding of human systems to guide the implementation.

The ultimate return on investment in AI won't be measured in teraflops or algorithms alone, but in growth, confidence, competitive advantage, and ultimately, in trust. And that ROI will be maximised by strategists who know that trust is the most valuable currency in the economy of innovation, and the one thing AI cannot generate on its own.

The blog and article was created using an AI stack and series of prompts that I included based on my experience and career to date.

I work with governments, investors, and corporate leaders to help them sharpen their positioning, communicate with impact, and build the kind of reputational strength that drives long-term value and trust.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your network, who may benefit. And subscribe to my LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Yesterday, at the Houses of Parliament, The Foreign Policy Centre released a report entitled, ‘Playing to our strengths: The future of the UK’s soft power in foreign policy.’ The report looks at the UK’s influence in and on the world and makes recommendations on how best to reposition itself in what is becoming an increasingly fractured and multipolar world, an issue that I have written about in the past.

Soft power is, as Harvard’s Joseph S. Nye defined it, 'the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment.' It rests on culture, values and policies that are seen as legitimate. Put simply, soft power is why people choose to work with you, study with you, buy from you or vote with you, even when you are not the biggest economy or the strongest military in the room.

While in the short term, hard power often dominates, over time attraction and credibility compounds. That is why the strategic power play is to combine hard and soft power rather than treat them individually. 

Why soft power still matters in a multipolar world

We are currently living in times when globalisation is changing and the global system is fragmenting. Power is spreading among an increasing number of actors, with economic weight been shifting towards emerging economies for several years.

The IMF estimates that in 2025, emerging and developing economies account for roughly 61 percent of world GDP measured at purchasing power parity, which underscores the reality of a more multi-centred economy. In a system where no single bloc can impose outcomes, persuasion, credibility, and networks are strategic force multipliers.

As an example, Saudi Arabia is pursuing 'multi-aligned' strategies, hedging security and leveraging it’s geoeconomic strength to secure influence, while using soft power to reposition how the Kingdom is perceived.

From campaigns to a system: an 80/20 model

In it’s report, The Foreign Policy Centre’s 2025 report on the UK’s soft power argues for an 'always on' approach underpinned by a clear delivery model.

Its core recommendation is an 80/20 strategy. Eighty percent of soft power should be left to independent cultural and creative actors to flourish. The remaining twenty percent is where government must lead through narrative, coordination, enabling regulation and targeted funding. This framing is as much about governance as it is about messages, and it suits a world in which credibility is earned by independent institutions more than by government advertising.

My view is that this is more of a 20/80 strategy, with the state setting a narrative that supports not just independent cultural and creative actors to export and promote the UK, but also businesses and investors. Like the US, which benefits from it’s corporate might, what is needed is to leverage UK business brands from across a range of sectors.

How soft power is measured and who leads

So, how is soft power measured? There is no perfect index, but Brand Finance’s Global Soft Power Index has become a widely used yardstick of perceptions among business leaders and policymakers.

The 2025 edition ranks the United States first, China second and the United Kingdom third. Rankings do not confer automatic wins, but indicate reservoirs of credibility that shape choices about study, tourism, partnerships and capital.

The index also highlights the United Arab Emirates holding a top-ten position globally, reflecting pro-business policies and diplomatic reach. 

What effective soft power looks like

The United Kingdom, education, sports and media

Having worked with teams within the UK Government’s Department for Business and Trade and the Great campaign, which is managed out of Cabinet Office, I know how the UK’s education, sports and media sectors are leveraged overseas, with science, technology and innovation moving into that nation branding space.

Looking at media, the BBC’s World Service reached around 450 million people weekly according to the 2024 Global Audience Measure, reinforcing the UK’s reputation for impartial, high-quality journalism. Research cited in the report indicates that BBC users show higher future intent to invest in the UK than non-users. At the same time, funding changes have forced service closures and digital-only shifts just as competitors invest in state media abroad. This is a textbook example of why credibility assets need stable, multi-year support rather than stop-start budgets.

In sports, brands like The Premier League are a year-round soft power engine with both domestic and international impact. FPC summarises 2023 to 2024 figures that include more than £8 billion value added to the UK economy and 90,000+ jobs supported.

Research by The British Council has found that a state’s soft power has a statistically significant impact on foreign direct investment (FDI), overseas student recruitment and tourism.

Government figures reported hundreds of millions in additional student spending attributable to 'Study UK,' and VisitBritain calculates that its activity delivered £1.26 billion of additional visitor spend in 2023/24. Marketing budgets fluctuate, so protecting high-ROI soft power spend matters. You invest now for the future.

The United States, exchanges and culture

Looking at the US, The Fulbright Program is a flagship of American soft power. Over the decades, more than 370,000 alumni have participated, including 62 Nobel laureates and dozens of heads of state or government. Scholarships, research networks and alumni relationships convert into policy familiarity, business partnerships and enduring goodwill.

Public diplomacy and international broadcasting are also resourced at scale through the U.S. Agency for Global Media, with a fiscal year 2025 budget request of approximately $950 million.

At the same time, sports, business and investment, especially in technology, help shape how the US is perceived as a location to invest and grow a business in.

Silicon Valley and Hollywood studios actively promote the US in markets in which they have a presence, which is many, and push a core narrative that the country is seen for.

The EU, Germany and France, cultural institutes at scale

Germany’s Goethe-Institut operates about 150 institutes across roughly 98 to 99 countries, promoting German language and culture and convening partners across education and the arts.

France’s Alliance Française network counts more than 830 language and cultural centres in over 130 countries. These long-term, locally embedded institutions make cultural engagement habitual rather than episodic, and they provide credible platforms for business dialogues and scientific cooperation. 

Germany complements this with DAAD scholarships that supported around 140,000 people in 2023 to 2024. The mobility of students and researchers fosters decades-long professional ties that influence trade, inward investment, and joint R&D. 

Japan, Selling Culture For Commerce

Japan has built a coherent soft-power stack that centres on permanent, high-trust platforms rather than one-off promotions. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Japan House venues in London, Los Angeles and São Paulo curate design, food, technology and policy to broad public and influencer audiences.

Government has complemented this with targeted capital for overseas expansion of creative and lifestyle industries through the Cool Japan Fund, which reported ¥143.3 billion (US$967 billion) in capital as of March 2025.

The result is a durable perception premium: Japan ranks fourth in Brand Finance’s 2025 Global Soft Power Index, and will showcase innovation at scale through Expo 2025 Osaka, a six-month shop window that authorities hope turns attention into travel, partnerships and investment.

Soft power has translated into hard numbers. Japan welcomed a record 36.87 million visitors in 2024, with inbound spending of roughly ¥8.1 trillion that year, widely reported as the country’s second-largest ‘export’ after automobiles. Those flows sit alongside an increasingly intentional bridge from culture to commerce: JETRO’s Global Acceleration Hubs and Global Startup Acceleration Program connect Japanese firms and founders to overseas markets and co-investment partners, while corporate venture activity has scaled from ¥39.6 billion (US$263 million) in 2013 to ¥204.9 billion (US$1.3 billion) in 2023.

Corporate investors then ride the ‘Japan quality’ signal into competitive rounds abroad, exemplified by global vehicles such as Sony Innovation Fund’s SIF3, Woven Capital and others.

In practice, the cultural trust generated through perception and trust shaping and building exercises, shortens diligence windows, and improves access to high-growth founders and partners in Europe, the United States and Latin America.

South Korea, content exports and the power of culture

South Korean culture has itself meanwhile become a major export in its own right, with national government data showing content exports reaching a record US$13.24 billion in 2022, buoyed by K-drama, K-pop and gaming. Films from Korea have been recognised with Academy Awards.

Netflix has pledged US$2.5 billion for Korean content production from 2024 to 2028, a sign of sustained global demand and a reinforcing loop for brand Korea. The soft power return is not just ratings. It is tourism, product tie-ins, language learning and business familiarity.

It’s business community have benefited from the growing interest in South Korea, with brands growing internationally and supporting many enterprise companies in investing in their own corporate venture capital companies, which then invest in medium and long-term investments overseas, in markets in which they see opportunities.

These companies also create family offices, who look at growth internationally.

The Middle East: Saudi Arabia and the UAE, deliberate soft power strategy

Saudi Arabia has put soft power at the centre of Vision 2030, using mega-events, tourism and high-profile sports investments to reposition the Kingdom and diversify its economy.

The Kingdom has secured two global platforms to showcase reforms and attract visitors and capital: World Expo 2030 and the 2034 FIFA World Cup, both officially confirmed by the Bureau International des Expositions and FIFA respectively.

Tourism is the lead indicator of this reputational shift, with the Saudi Tourism Authority reporting over 100 million visitors  for the second year running in 2025 compared with 2019 levels, a milestone that aligns directly with Vision 2030’s diversification goals.

Sport has been the sharp end of Saudi soft power: with, as an example, the Public Investment Fund’s acquisition of Newcastle United anchored a durable presence in European football; the league now touts distribution in 180+ countries as it pivots from marquee signings to longer-term sustainability.

This visibility is paired with scale financial firepower: the Public Investment Fund (PIF) is targeting US$2 trillion AUM by 2030 according to Global SWF, even as outside analyses debate the path to that number and note a tactical tilt toward domestic projects that support diversification.

The strategic logic is straightforward: by hosting global events, drawing record tourism and embedding itself in elite sport, Saudi Arabia seeks to convert attention into partnerships, FDI and technology transfer, using PIF and related vehicles to turn soft-power visibility into hard-power investment outcomes under Vision 2030 that rewire the Saudi economy so it becomes less dependent on revenues from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, in The United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi and Dubai have treated soft power as a strategic programme, with the UAE having established a Soft Power Council and a national soft power strategy in 2017, and it has stayed in Brand Finance’s top ten.

Like with Saudi Arabia, the approach combines culture and heritage with pro-business regulations, diplomacy, global events, and an 'easy to do business with' reputation that underpins deal-making and investment flows.

With strategic advice and access to capital, the UAE is repositionig itself internationally.

Does soft power still add value and security?

Yes. It does not replace deterrence or industrial capacity, but it lowers the cost of cooperation and raises the cost of isolation. There are primarily five strategic payoffs:

1. Coalitions and legitimacy. Countries with trusted brands build broader coalitions and find it easier to frame rules and standards. That matters for sanctions, technology governance and climate coordination. Nye’s reminder applies here: attraction reduces reliance on sticks and carrots.

2. Talent and capital. International students and researchers can become founders, investors and senior officials. The correlation between soft power and FDI, tourism and student flows is supported in British Council research, and you can see the practical effect in the UK, US and Germany numbers above.

3. Market access. Cultural familiarity shortens sales cycles. Korea’s content boom and the UK’s education-led alumni networks are real examples of influence translating into commercial opportunity.

4. Resilience in crises. Trusted country and corporate brands are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in times of crisis. Public diplomacy institutions and reputable media give governments and firms a credible channel to clarify facts quickly when mis and misinformation spread.

5. Room to manoeuvre. In a multi-polar and multi-aligned world, soft power creates optionality. The UAE’s experience shows how reputation, openness and convening power help a middle power keep diverse partnerships without becoming a policy taker. At the same time, time and focus, is helping Saudi Arabia reposition itself in how it is perceived.

Strategic advice for governments

1. Treat soft power as a system, not a campaign. Fund the architecture that compounds over time, including trusted media, cultural institutes, scholarships and scientific collaboration, businesses that already have a footprint overseas. Building trust takes time and it is imperative that a country is able to leverage all it’s assets, not just a few. Some companies and/or brands often have greater reach than a given government, which is why stakeholder engagement is critical to help shape perception that benefits them and the wider country.

2. Align narrative with policy reality. Attraction collapses when behaviour contradicts values. Think about the rule of law and openness as strategic assets. Keep the narrative and the story simple and human. Accept the differences, but highlight the cultural understanding. Trust is earned through mutual respect.

3. Make student mobility a national priority. Visa policy is a soft power policy. Tighten fraud controls, yes, but maintain a competitive welcome. The US, UK and Germany continue to benefit from alumni networks that last for decades. Erasmus+ scale shows the regional power of mobility. I’ve met many leaders internationally that have studied in the UK and as a result have a positive perception of the UK, similar tho those who study in the US, France or Spain. Think of how many business, political or government leaders have studied in universities in your home market?

4. Invest in digital credibility. The information space rewards speed and punishes uncertainty. Build surge capacity for crises, institutional verification, and evidence that can be quoted and linked in real time. The Reuters Institute data underline the platform shift that communicators must plan for.

5. Map and manage sharp power risks. Distinguish open cultural exchange from covert influence. Equip universities, think tanks and media partners with due diligence tools and transparency standards. Democracies should defend open exchange without being naïve about manipulation.

Strategic advice for businesses and investors

1. Price soft power into market entry. A country’s reputation for education, media freedom, rule of law and cultural affinity is a leading indicator of commercial friction. The Brand Finance index is a useful heuristic tool alongside your macro and political risk models.

2. Borrow credibility from trusted platforms. Partnerships with public broadcasters, cultural institutes and universities are not PR stunts. They are routes to high-trust audiences, regulators and future talent. For example, UK participation in British Council and GREAT activities, or German projects via Goethe-Institut and DAAD, can anchor local relationships.

3. Use culture to open doors, not close deals. Sponsoring a film festival or a scholarship will not, by itself, win a procurement in the short term. It does, however, build familiarity that shortens later negotiations and helps businesses from a home market win contracts in the medium term. Korea’s content exports and Netflix’s multi-year commitment show how culture creates commercial gravity that others can piggyback on.

4. Build alumni and diaspora strategies. Alumni from your target markets who studied in your home country, and diaspora communities in your sector, are high-leverage connectors. Treat them as strategic stakeholders, not as an afterthought. The scale of international student flows in the US, UK, and Germany is your opportunity set.

5. Stress-test corporate soft power. In contested markets, firms themselves have soft power profiles. Independent governance, sustainability performance, workforce development and transparency all influence access to capital and permits. Coherence between what you say and do remains the key to a competitive edge. At the same time, it is critical for companies to leverage and borrow the brand equity of businesses that have a presence in markets overseas.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Confusing promotion with persuasion. Saturating a market with messaging is not the same as being attractive. Credibility comes from independent voices, not only from official channels. BBC World Service and similar outlets have reach because audiences believe they play it straight.

• Underfunding the boring but vital. Scholarships, language teaching, mobility schemes and trade missions lack glamour, but they compound and influence. Germany and France show the pay-off from consistent, decades-long investment in cultural networks.

• Expect short term returns from international events. Deals can take longer than a financial year, but the fact that a country is able to bring together it’s business or cultural leaders together and showcase them overseas shows confidence and helps position the UK and it’s business community as open for business. Think short term about the cost of this and you cut your nose and let competing nations overtake you. Investment in perception shaping pays off.

What success looks like over the next five years

The success of soft power will be visible in three key areas.

First, talent and knowledge flow. Countries that remain magnets for international students, researchers and creators, soft power, will sustain innovation pipelines and alumni goodwill. The US, UK and EU nations are currently setting the pace. The goal should be to maintain welcome policies without compromising security.

Second, credible, global public service media. Weekly reach and trust in editorial independence will continue to matter. If international services can hold or grow audiences among younger, mobile-first users, they will remain key assets in crises and in everyday explanations. 

Third, culture, business with economic gravity. Korea and Japan show that cultural exports can become strategic industries. Countries that back creative ecosystems and protect intellectual property will convert attention into tourism, brand licensing, product sales and inward investment. 

The Bottom line

Soft power is not a luxury in a tougher world. It is part of national and corporate risk management, market access and coalition-building.

The multipolar system rewards those who can convene and persuade. Governments should protect independent institutions that give them credibility, keep student and cultural exchange open and measurable, and incorporate verification into their communications. Businesses and investors should weigh country's soft power alongside political risk, and invest in partnerships that borrow trust from credible platforms.

Soft power will not stop wars or roll back sanctions on its own. What it can do is lower the temperature of disputes, widen the circle of people who want you to succeed and shorten the distance between first contact and agreement. Nye’s enduring point still holds: attraction reduces your reliance on pressure and payments. In a world where neither is cheap, that is a strategic advantage you can measure.

A couple of days ago, I came across a great article in The Financial Times that highlighted how ‘private equity firms [were] struggling to raise money despite offering unprecedented enticements to attract new investor cash, underscoring a sector-wide contraction that is denting the profitability of the industry.’ This was not the first article that I’ve read on this subject, but, given how PE firms are such a dominant force in the GP ecosystem, it caught my attention. So, if PE firms are having issues fundraising, what is the cause and what will be the impact further down the capital chain?

Private equity firms are finding it difficult to raise money, despite offering unprecedented enticements to attract new investor capital. This struggle underscores a sector-wide contraction that is denting the industry's profitability. This fundraising slump signals a broader shift in the private capital landscape, where once-dominant performance metrics no longer guarantee access to capital. In this new environment,

Trust, reputation, and perception have emerged as the ultimate currency, one that cannot be manufactured overnight or easily repaired once it is damaged.

The Private Capital Landscape in a State of Flux

Over the past 14 months, the private equity sector has found itself operating in a markedly different landscape. Once buoyed by cheap money from low interest rates, rising valuations, and a seemingly insatiable appetite from Limited Partners (LPs), the market has shifted into a lower gear, and according to Adams Street Partners, global private equity funds raised just $746.5 billion in 2024, an 18% drop from the previous year and the lowest in four years. Meanwhile, Bain & Company reports that buyout fundraising alone declined by 23% in the same period, primarily driven by subdued investor sentiment in North America. The private equity industry is facing a reckoning, with fundraising plummeting to $592 billion in the 12 months ending June 2025—the lowest level in seven years.

Amid this downturn, distributions to investors have collapsed to just 11% of assets, marking the weakest performance since the 2009 financial crisis. Even with General Partners (GPs) slashing fees and offering unprecedented incentives, LPs remain reluctant to commit fresh capital. This caution is a clear indication of a fundamental shift, driven by a lack of confidence stemming from both macroeconomic and geopolitical issues.

The Indispensable Role of Trust, Perception, and Reputation

In the world of private capital, trust is the foundation. LPs trust GPs to act in their best interest, and GPs trust LPs to be long-term partners. Reputation is what makes or breaks this dynamic. Even in private and discreet networks, reputation is a key commodity that can both unlock capital and deals.

In today's digital world, where information travels fast, a single issue in one jurisdiction can affect a GP's ability to raise future funds or co-invest in other regions. Reputation is now a strategic asset that can either attract capital or repel it.

For both LPs and GPs, reputational risks are significant and can include:

• Failure to deliver returns or manage the downside 

• Governance breakdowns 

• Negative media coverage or activist scrutiny

• Regulatory compliance breaches 

• Misalignment with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) or DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) values 

A New Architecture of Trust: The Rise of Sovereign Wealth Funds and Family Offices

The transformation in private markets is particularly evident in how sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) and single and multi-family offices evaluate investment opportunities. These institutions, which hold trillions in assets under management, have moved beyond simplistic return calculations to assess the reputational infrastructure of their GP partners and the ventures they invest in.

Sovereign Wealth Funds as Strategic Financiers

SWFs are not just passive capital providers; they are strategic global financiers that view reputation as an integral part of risk management. Their investment decisions increasingly hinge on questions that extend far beyond IRR projections: Can a GP navigate regulatory scrutiny? Will their governance withstand public examination? Does their leadership demonstrate the institutional maturity required for a long-term partnership?

Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) exemplify this shift. According to its 2024 annual report, PIF has approximately $913 billion in assets under management. ADIA has approximately $1.057 trillion in assets. The emergence of Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi as global financial hubs illustrates how reputation and capital flow intersect in practice. When GPs partner with Emirati institutions, it signals to other investors that they have passed a sophisticated due diligence process. The credibility that comes from co-investing alongside an institution like ADIA or Mubadala validates a GP's strategy in ways that traditional marketing cannot.

The ‘Governance Premium’ of Singapore

Singapore's GIC and Temasek Holdings, with combined assets exceeding $1.4 trillion, provide another example of the role of reputation. These institutions have built a reputation for disciplined, long-term investing. They are willing to pay a governance premium, a willingness to pay higher fees and even accept lower returns, in exchange for working with GPs that demonstrate exceptional governance standards.

GIC's selectivity has created a tier system in private equity, where access to premier LPs becomes a competitive advantage. When these established LPs back a manager, they are putting their own credibility on the line, making them extraordinarily careful about due diligence.

The Growing Influence of Family Offices

The rising influence of family offices has also accelerated the importance of reputation. These investors, who now represent more than $4 trillion in investible assets globally, often make decisions based on relationship capital and trust signals that can be difficult to quantify. Unlike institutional investors with standardised processes, family offices typically prioritise the alignment of values and long-term relationships over purely financial metrics. They invest in people, not just strategies, and need to believe that their GP partners will make sound decisions even when they are not in the room. This emphasis on personal relationships creates a need for a level of trust that goes well beyond reviewing historical performance data.

Strategic Communications: A Board-Level Imperative

Given the paramount importance of trust, perception, and reputation, strategic communications is a strategic function, not just a tactical one. It is about protecting fundraising credibility, managing stakeholder perception, and supporting crisis navigation. It also enhances transparency and trust, enabling growth into new markets or sectors.

In many cases, especially when navigating geopolitical and geoeconomic sensitivities or cross-border investor dynamics, external advice adds objectivity and experience. While privacy is critical, the private nature of LP-GP relationships doesn't protect them from scrutiny. Pension fund beneficiaries read headlines. Sovereign investors are held to public standards. Even private family offices are increasingly expected to show purpose, not just profit. GPs must market themselves privately and publicly to raise their next fund, recruit top talent, and exit companies in competitive environments. Perception, trust, and reputation are no longer optional soft skills; they are board-level imperatives.

5 Questions Decision-Makers Need to Consider

Decision-makers within both LP and GP organisations must proactively manage their reputation. Here are five key questions you need to consider:

1. Are our values aligned with those of our stakeholders? This means understanding the priorities of LPs, portfolio companies, and employees, and ensuring the firm's actions consistently reflect its stated values.

2. Are we communicating performance, governance, and ESG clearly and consistently? Transparency builds trust, and in an environment where LPs are increasingly focused on operational due diligence and risk management, clear communication is non-negotiable.

3. Do we understand how internal decisions may be perceived externally? Every major decision, from acquiring a new portfolio company to making a senior personnel change, has a reputational impact that must be considered.

4. Have we identified and mapped our reputational risks and put mitigation plans in place? Proactively identifying potential risks and having a clear crisis communication plan is essential to protecting the firm's reputation and maintaining LP confidence.

5. Do we have access to experienced, discreet advisers who understand strategic communications, not just PR? A professional advisor can provide the objectivity and experience needed to navigate complex reputational challenges, from regulatory scrutiny to geopolitical sensitivities.

The New Mandate for Private Capital

The transformation of reputation from a secondary consideration to a primary factor in private markets reflects broader changes in the global financial system toward greater transparency, accountability, and stakeholder capitalism. Even in the era of AI and automation, the industry remains fundamentally human and relationship-driven, with personal relationships between GPs and LPs continuing to play a crucial role in investment decisions, especially during challenging market conditions.

For an industry built on relationships and trust, adapting to this new reality is critical for long-term survival and success.

GPs and LPs that view reputation as a strategic asset will be best positioned to attract or leverage capital, recruit talent, and thrive in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Artificial intelligence has moved from theory into practice at remarkable speed. Across boardrooms, government offices, and investment committees, conversations now revolve around how AI can reshape processes, reduce costs, and deliver efficiencies. Generative AI in particular has captured attention for its ability to perform data-heavy and repetitive tasks, from document drafting to market analysis, in a fraction of the time it would take a human.

Yet this focus on efficiency, while understandable, hides a strategic blind spot. Efficiency is often interpreted narrowly as doing the same work with fewer people. In this view, AI is seen primarily as a tool for reducing headcount and compressing costs. But that mindset risks undermining the very capabilities that make organisations competitive and resilient in the long term.

The real opportunity lies not in replacing human workers, but in augmenting human potential. According to PwC, AI could add as much as 14% to global GDP by 2030, the equivalent of US$15.7 trillion. Much of that value will be realised not through cost savings, but through productivity gains, enabling people to work on higher-value activities, innovate faster, and build stronger relationships with stakeholders.

The leaders who will succeed in the AI economy will be those who recognise that human skills, creativity, empathy, trust-building, and ethical judgement, are not made obsolete by AI. On the contrary, they will become more valuable as the world becomes more automated.

Technology as a Catalyst, Not a Replacement

We have been here before. The printing press replaced manual scribes, but it also democratised knowledge and fuelled entire industries in publishing, education, and commerce.

The industrial revolution displaced agricultural labourers, but it created urban manufacturing economies and spawned new professions in engineering, logistics, and management.

The computer age automated calculations and data entry, eliminating certain clerical roles, but it also gave rise to software engineering, digital marketing, cybersecurity, and a whole ecosystem of internet-based businesses.

The consistent lesson is this: societies and organisations that invest in complementary human skills during technological transitions don’t just survive, they lead. Those that fixate on cost savings without reinvesting in their people often fall behind.

Artificial intelligence is different in scope and scale, but the principle remains. AI can process and analyse information at speeds we cannot match. But the translation of that analysis into strategy, innovation, and trust-based relationships still depends on human critical thinking and insight.

The Current Landscape: Opportunity and Risk

The speed of AI adoption across sectors is breathtaking. According to McKinsey’s 2025 State of AI survey (a client), seventy‑eight percent of organisations reported using AI in at least one business function in early 2025, up from just 55% a year earlier. Use of generative AI alone rose from 33% to 71% of organisations during 2024.

As of December 2024, in the United States, a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) digest reported that 28% of employed respondents used generative AI at work, with 24.2% using it in the previous week and 10.6% using it every workday. That level of uptake came just two years after the release of ChatGPT, eclipsing the adoption trajectories of personal computers or the early internet.

In the United States, between August and November 2024, generative AI was estimated to assist between 6.0% and 24.9% of total work hours among users, and between 1.3% and 5.4% of all hours across the full workforce. On average, workers reported saving approximately 5.4% of their work hours per week thanks to generative AI use. Those everyday users who engaged AI regularly reported time savings of four hours or more, with each hour spent using AI yielding roughly 33% greater productivity compared to hours without the tool.

These numbers show that AI is rapidly embedding itself into daily work routines. In consulting, for instance, firms like McKinsey have deployed tools akin to “Lilli” to streamline access to knowledge and accelerate analyses across global teams. In legal services, Dentons and other firms use generative models to support case research and contract drafting, enabling lawyers to focus on advocacy and negotiation. In finance, AI systems analyse large datasets to surface investment trends that would previously have taken analysts weeks to uncover.

The gains are real and measurable. Yet this dynamism also carries a risk, with many organisations interpreting these efficiency gains as justification for reducing headcount, especially amongst entry‑level staff.

In 2025 investment banking and consulting, firms such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan confirmed that their AI projects were intended to automate the workflows traditionally performed by juniors. While saving cost, the consequence is fewer junior hires and fewer opportunities to build on‑the‑job experience and institutional knowledge, creating a risk in the medium to long-term.

This is not a benign shift. Without early-career roles, organisations may face talent shortages later in the future. Opportunities for employees to develop judgement, negotiation, client relationship skills, and reputational stewardship through practice begin to vanish, confirming that the risk extends beyond talent pipelines and that while AI is powerful, it may only unlock value in certain domains and used by people with contextual knowledg and experience. Where generative models overstep, they generate risk and degrade performance.

All together, the uptake rates, the time-savings, and the performance pitfalls, these findings outline a double-edged landscape. On one side lies opportunity: more productive output, faster decision-making, interesting new efficiencies. On the other lies risk: erosion of capability development, degraded outcomes in edge scenarios, and organisational brittleness without human judgement.

Deployed without human guardrails AI can create risk that damage trust and reputations, critical intangible assets for businesses, investors and governments. AI only adds value when it is integrated with respect for human learning, oversight, relationship-building, and soft-power dynamics. Efficiency alone is not enough.

The Human Factor: Why We Are Not Irreplaceable

Humans are social beings. Our societies, economies, and organisations are built on networks of trust, perception, and reputation. These are not abstract concepts, they are measurable assets that influence investment decisions, political stability, and market performance.

AI can simulate conversation and predict sentiment, but it does not experience emotion, understand cultural nuance, or navigate complex ethical dilemmas. It cannot build credibility over decades with clients, voters, or citizens from different cultures.

In business, this ‘human factor’ underpins customer loyalty and brand equity. In investment, whether in venture capital, corporate venture capital or family offices, the relationship between parties will influence and shape co-investor relationships, portfolio company confidence, and the ability to attract the right partners. In government, it determines public legitimacy and international influence.

These are precisely the domains where AI should be used as a support tool, not a substitute.

AI can monitor brand sentiment in real time, flagging shifts in public opinion. But it takes human judgement to decide how to respond in a way that protects or enhances reputation. AI can identify potential risks in a supply chain, but it takes human negotiation to resolve them in a manner that strengthens relationships rather than damaging them.

And I haven’t talked about the challenges AI faces surrounding cultural sensitivities, given that many US-trained models implicitly encode Western norms and reasoning frameworks.

A position paper by Amr Keleg from the University of Edinburgh rightly argues in my view that LLM development efforts often wrongly assume cultural homogeneity within the Arab world, even though social norms, values, and worldviews can differ dramatically across countries and communities. As a result, such models can inadvertently produce responses that feel tone-deaf, inaccurate, or contextually inappropriate in Arabic-speaking markets.

Responding to this gap, organisations in the Gulf have begun developing native Arabic models that better reflect local linguistics and cultural nuance. For instance, the UAE’s ATRC/TII released Falcon Arabic in May 2025. Trained on 600 billion tokens of native Arabic text spanning regional dialects, it matches the performance of much larger, non-Arabic models while requiring significantly fewer resources. Similarly, the open-source model Jais, developed through a UAE‑based collaboration, combines English and Arabic in its training and achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance in Arabic contexts.

Productivity Over Efficiency: A Strategic Reframing

Efficiency is about doing the same things with fewer resources. Productivity is about achieving more valuable outcomes with the same or fewer inputs. In other words, efficiency cuts; productivity expands.

Consider Disney’s ‘tiger teams’, cross-functional groups bringing together experts from animation, marketing, and data science. AI handles scheduling, data retrieval, and background research. The humans focus on creative problem-solving, audience engagement, and brand storytelling. The result is not just faster work, but richer, more innovative outcomes.

This is the model that leaders in all sectors should aim for: AI taking care of the mechanical and repetitive, humans driving the creative and strategic.

Business: Building Customer-Centric AI

In the corporate world, AI offers clear opportunities to improve customer service, optimise supply chains, and develop products faster. But the real differentiator will be how companies maintain and strengthen their human touch.

Customers may accept automated interactions for basic queries, but loyalty is built through personalised, empathetic engagement. If AI is deployed purely to cut costs by removing people from the process, the risk is that customer trust erodes. Once lost, trust is expensive, and sometimes impossible, to regain. And where trust is lost, so is reputation and the perception of leaders and organisations that deploy AI without an understanding of human nuances.

The companies that will thrive will use AI to empower their people, giving them better insights, freeing their time for higher-value conversations, and supporting them in delivering consistently excellent customer experiences.

Investment: AI as an Enabler of Trust-Based Deals

For investors, from corporate ventures with their specific cultures to single-family offices, AI can transform due diligence, market analysis, and portfolio monitoring. It can surface risks earlier and identify opportunities faster. But closing a deal still depends on human relationships.

In private equity or venture capital, deals are often won or lost on the basis of trust between parties. AI can help identify potential partners; it cannot replace the judgment required to assess whether those partners share your values, strategic vision, and appetite for risk.

And for portfolio companies, well, investors who bring both capital and reputation management and development expertise will be increasingly valuable. In highly regulated sectors, the ability and agility to manage public and government perception will be as critical to growth as financial performance.

As I said before, giving AI tools to a CEO or their Chief Investment Officer to issue communications that is outside of their individual area of expertise creates risk.

Government: Balancing Automation and Legitimacy

In government, AI can streamline administrative processes, analyse policy impacts, and support rapid decision-making. But governance is not just about efficiency; it is about legitimacy. Citizens want to know that human beings are making decisions that affect their lives, guided by empathy, ethics, and accountability.

If governments use AI solely as a cost-cutting tool, they risk creating perceptions of detachment and technocracy. If, instead, they use it to give civil servants more time to engage with communities, explain policy decisions, and negotiate internationally, they strengthen both their effectiveness and their credibility.

Within the UK Government, the focus has been to deploy AI to deliver solutions so that taxpayers money is better deployed to the delivery of front-line services. As an example, the UK Government’s Incubator for Artificial Intelligence delivered the Health Deterioration and Fall Prediction Tool to analyse real‑time patient vital signs, such as heart rate, temperature, and blood pressure, to predict early signs of health deterioration and fall risk in home care settings. Developed in partnership with health tech provider Cera, the tool, now deployed across two‑thirds of NHS integrated care systems as of March 2025, is used in over two million home care visits monthly. It generates high‑risk alerts with 97% accuracy and prevents around 2,000 falls and hospital admissions per day, reducing hospitalisation by up to 70% and saving the NHS over £1 million per day.

Trust, Perception, and Reputation as Growth Catalysts

In the AI economy, trust, perception, and reputation will be the decisive competitive factors. They will act as intangible commodities that can open or close the doors to growth.

An organisation with a reputation for ethical AI use will attract customers, investors, and partners who share its values. One that is perceived as using AI to hollow out jobs and cut corners will face resistance, regulation, and critical reputational damage.

Trust, as Warren Buffett said, takes years to build and seconds to lose. Perception shapes reality in markets, elections, and negotiations.

Reputation determines the quality of opportunities that come your way. These are human-led assets. AI can help measure and monitor them, but it cannot create or sustain them on its own.

The Human-Centred AI Future

Artificial intelligence is already reshaping businesses, economies and our world, but it will not replace the fundamental truth that human relationships, creativity, and judgement are the ultimate drivers of sustainable growth.

Leaders who treat AI as a partner in productivity, rather than a blunt instrument of efficiency, will unlock the greatest value. That means reinvesting productivity gains into their people, maintaining pathways for talent development, and embedding trust, perception, and reputation into their organisations and AI strategies.

Technology is changing the game, but human skills will help you win it!

In the discreet world of family offices, where privacy is often paramount, it's tempting to believe that concepts like 'reputation' or 'public perception' are irrelevant. Historically, the priority has been to remain discreet, operating quietly behind the scenes while building and preserving wealth for future generations. However, in an era of unprecedented transparency and interconnectedness, this traditional fortress of privacy is facing new and complex challenges. Today, a family office’s success is no longer defined solely by its investment performance; it is increasingly tied to its perception, the trust it inspires, and the reputation it meticulously builds and protects. This is a fundamental shift from the tactical to the strategic.

Reputation is no longer a peripheral concern handled by a junior associate after a PR crisis. It is a core strategic asset, a non-financial metric that directly impacts financial outcomes, philanthropic endeavours, and the very legacy a family seeks to create.

Family office principals and chief investment officers are now recognising that their influence and standing, both in the private and public spheres, are essential to navigating the complexities of modern investment and succession.

The most effective offices take a proactive approach that blends legal counsel, governance discipline, and expert strategic communications advice, which protects both the office and the companies it invests in.

Leaders and advisers in this space must treat reputation as the strategic asset that it is, not a reactive function.

The Family Office Ecosystem

Family offices have grown into a formidable force in global finance, managing over US$3.1 trillion in assets across more than 8,000 single-family offices worldwide, according to Deloitte. That figure is expected to rise to US$5.4 trillion managed by nearly 11,000 offices by 2030. In 2024 alone, UBS reported that the average net worth per family office stood at US$2.6 billion, underscoring the scale and influence these organisations now command.

Compared to the global hedge fund industry, which managed US$4.5 trillion in the same year, family offices are not far behind, and they are catching up fast. Despite their scale, many remain lean in structure, with 20% operating with three or fewer employees, and around two-thirds employing no more than ten. These are agile, high-value entities that wield significant investment power, often with limited internal oversight.

This environment places a premium on privacy, trust and perception. Unlike publicly listed institutions, family offices do not rely on brand recognition or shareholder communication, but they are still judged, particularly in private circles of dealmakers, co-investors, and advisers.

A growing reliance on alternative assets, which make up 42% of portfolios, means offices are more exposed to partnerships, joint ventures, and illiquid holdings where reputation drives access and terms. At the same time, the threshold to operate effectively has shifted from US$200 million to upwards of US$3–4 billion, bringing increased visibility and scrutiny. In this context, trust is not just internal—it must be actively maintained across legal, financial, and advisory relationships.

Perception, especially within discreet investment networks, often defines opportunity before any paperwork is signed.

In fact, as I’ve written about before, family offices often lead in terms of investing in innovation where others follow. Why? Because families have sector experience and a vast network that they can tap into.

The Unseen Currency: Perception in the Private Sphere

For family offices, reputation isn't just about what's said in the media. A much more potent and critical aspect of reputation is the perception of them in private settings.

Family offices are becoming increasingly focused on their reputation, not just their public image, but also their reputation among peers and the people they do business with. This private perception is the lifeblood of deal-making. It's about how they are viewed by their peers, potential co-investors, investment banks, and the talent they wish to hire. Within these private spheres, reputation is everything.

It’s the unspoken assessment made over a confidential dinner, the implicit trust granted during a sensitive negotiation, or the quiet confidence that underpins a multi-generational partnership. Family offices with a strong reputation for being a reliable, fair, and trustworthy partner will be presented with better opportunities. Conversely, a family office perceived as brutal, overly aggressive, or lacking integrity will find itself on the outside looking in. This is especially true in a world where direct deals and club-style investments are becoming more common. Principals and CIOs are increasingly judged on their character as much as their capital. The fact is that trust is the currency that makes deals happen in the private world.

This is why the strategic management of reputation is so critical. It’s not about issuing public communications, but about private positioning in private communities. It’s about consistently demonstrating values that positively shape perceptions through actions. It means building long-term relationships, honouring commitments, and ensuring that every interaction, from a confidential meeting to a simple email, reinforces a positive impression, so that when you do speak publicly, you are perceived positively.

The Evolving Landscape: Discretion is Not Enough

Traditionally, family offices have relied on discretion and tight control of information. That model, though, is under strain.

Family offices are becoming 'more institutional in how they act and how they operate, but they are also getting more strategic on their reputation management, recognising that in an increasingly crowded market it is a point of differentiation'.

The size and influence of family offices have grown exponentially, even as oversight remains minimal. This has led to a new wave of scrutiny, especially after high-profile blow-ups like Archegos Capital, which was technically structured as a family office. However, it operated more like a highly leveraged hedge fund. What begins as operational discretion can quickly be perceived as secrecy, creating reputational vulnerabilities.

Reputational crises that arise from poor judgment or a lack of strategic foresight confirm how, even in a private world, there is no hiding. 'Family offices have to be strategic in their thinking and recognise that what happens in the private sphere can, and increasingly does, have public ramifications'. A misstep in a private deal, a poor decision by a portfolio company, or a personal scandal involving a family member can all have a ripple effect. The lines between a family's private life, their business dealings, and their philanthropic activities are increasingly blurred.

The reputation of a family office is intrinsically linked to the reputation of the companies it invests in. As one FT article underscores, 'The actions of a portfolio company, particularly if controversial, can quickly rebound on the family office owner, testing its values and its carefully guarded privacy'. This means a family office must be prepared to offer strategic counsel not just to its own principals, but to the leadership of its portfolio companies, requiring a sophisticated and holistic approach.

The Critical Role of Governance and Legal Partnerships

At the heart of strategic reputation management lies strong governance. Robust protocols ensure that sensitive information is managed securely and that access to advisers is structured and protected. One FT lawyer made the point clearly: 'If access is to be limited, this needs to be agreed from the beginning'. 'Governance is not just about control; it’s about creating a framework that protects the family’s wealth and reputation'.

The FT reporting made it clear that lawyers supporting family offices are increasingly being cut out of the loop. This is risky because without access, legal privilege can be lost, and without counsel, decision-making becomes vulnerable. The core message from the FT articles is that family offices need to seek strategic counsel from experts in reputation management. This is where reputation experts and legal counsel must work together in a collaborative fashion. While lawyers ensure actions are legal, a reputation advisor focuses on whether they are

perceived as ethical, fair, and aligned with values. A legal win can sometimes be a reputational loss. The strategic reputation advisor works

alongside lawyers to ensure that legal and communication strategies are developed in tandem from the outset of a crisis.

Strategic Advisory: Building, Maintaining, and Protecting Your Legacy

For family offices to effectively manage their reputation, they must move beyond tactical firefighting and embrace a proactive, strategic approach. This requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to integrating reputation into every aspect of their operations.

Building Your Reputational Capital

Reputational strength is built over time through clarity, consistency, and credibility. Family offices benefit from defining a clear set of values and principles that guide not only investment strategy, but also how the office is perceived among peers, partners, and advisers. A coherent and well-articulated narrative, shared privately and deliberately, helps ensure that the right perception is reinforced across every interaction, from investment negotiations to philanthropic engagement.

A family office’s reputation is often tied to how well it demonstrates integrity, purpose, and alignment with its stated mission.

Communicating that alignment effectively requires strategic thinking: who needs to understand your position, when should they hear it, and through what channel? Whether it’s a discreet stakeholder update or a closed-door investment briefing, the goal is to ensure that your actions and identity are consistently and credibly understood.

Maintaining Your Strategic Edge

Reputation is not static. It requires ongoing attention to ensure that risks are identified early and mitigated before they become visible problems. This includes reviewing whether portfolio companies and strategic partners continue to reflect the values of the family, particularly when reputational or regulatory risks emerge. It also means identifying blind spots, where decisions made for operational reasons may carry reputational implications.

Crucially, reputation management should not sit separately from legal, compliance, or governance processes. Decisions taken in isolation, without cross-functional input, can inadvertently damage trust. Family offices benefit from an integrated approach where legal advisers, strategic counsellors, and operational leads assess decisions through both a legal and reputational lens.

Protecting Your Legacy in Times of Crisis

No matter how well prepared, every organisation will face reputational challenges. Planning ahead is essential. A tailored crisis response plan ensures the family office is ready to act quickly, cohesively, and in a manner that protects not only the principal’s legacy but also the office’s broader network of relationships and investments.

An effective plan goes beyond external messaging. It includes clarity on internal roles, pre-agreed communications frameworks, and alignment with legal counsel. When done well, this ensures that in moments of scrutiny, whether public or private, the family office responds with authority, coherence, and discretion. The priority is to preserve trust, demonstrate stability, and safeguard long-term reputation, while maintaining privacy and discretion.

By investing strategically in building and safeguarding this invisible but critical intangiable asset, family offices secure more than just their financial capital; they protect their legacy, enhance their influence, and create a foundation of trust that endures across generations. In the discreet corridors where family offices operate, a strong reputation is the ultimate strategic advantage.

Don’t wait for a crisis to discover its value; start building your strategic reputation resilience today.

A few days ago, I read a great post on LinkedIn by Dawn Lim, Executive Director and Chief of the Design Singapore Council, which presented how Singapore is a 𝑵𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒃𝒚 𝑫𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏.’ The post and associated campaign were being shared in the lead-up to Singapore’s Design Week in September this year, and it got me thinking about how Singapore has grown, the values that the country embodies, and the impact ‘Nation by Design’ has had on how this country is perceived.

Nations today are competing for talent, capital, and credibility, and are investing in nation branding campaigns to differentiate themselves. Yet, the problem is that marketing alone is not enough in the hyper-competitive, interconnected world in which we live and work. What matters to business is policy, perception and strategic thinking.

Singapore is one of a small number of countries that stand apart because they have grown and progressed not just by policy, but by vision and design. While governments across Western markets pursue campaigns and reforms to attract growth, few have matched the coherence and clarity of Singapore's approach.

Through its initiative Nation by Design, Singapore presents a great case study in how intentional, values-driven national design has transformed this small city-state into a globally respected hub for innovation, business, and inclusive progress. There is a lot that policymakers and business leaders can learn from the values, processes and presentation that Singapore and other nations are embracing.

From Campaign to Concept: Beyond Marketing to Meaning

Singapore's Nation by Design is more than a slogan. It's a strategic framework for national development based on long-term thinking, cross-sector integration, and human-centred innovation. Launched by the DesignSingapore Council, the initiative integrates design as a strategic tool across government, education, urban planning, healthcare, and business.

Compare this to the UK's ‘GREAT’ campaign, an impressive piece of nation branding that excels in visual storytelling. While ‘GREAT Britain’ builds visibility, Singapore builds systems, and while the UK’s campaign centres on advertising-led messaging,

Singapore embeds design thinking into public service, policymaking, and industry development. That gives it a reputational edge grounded in action, positioning Singapore as modern, innovative, and agile, and ranking 4th globally in the World Innovation Index, with a top ranking of 14 out of 78 indicators.

Key Elements of Singapore's Strategic Model

• Strategic Public Service Culture: Singapore’s civil service is consistently ranked among the world’s most effective. It is strategic, professionalised, and trusted, with civil servants trained to think long term, balance competing interests, and implement swiftly. Their focus is on delivery, and their political and civil service salaries being amongst the highest globally, a conscious decision by the government to attract and retain top talent, prevent corruption, and maintain high performance standards. Transparency and strict performance metrics underpin the system, with performance bonuses and national bonuses being given. This is in stark contrast to more politicised or fragmented systems in many Western democracies.

• Integrated Government and Business Strategy: Government-linked companies and departments (GLCs) like Temasek, Mediacorp and SingTel support national development goals and act as agile bridges between policy and private enterprise. Agencies co-create policies. Startups access decision-makers from the Singaporean government in days. In other countries, industrial strategy often feels abstract, distant or poorly aligned with business incentives.

• Education as Infrastructure: Investment in education is not just a line item; it is a vital component of economic growth. It's part of Singapore’s national identity. World-class universities, vocational institutions, and lifelong learning frameworks ensure a future-ready workforce.

• Fiscal and Tax Environment: With a low corporate tax rate (17%), no capital gains tax, efficient regulation, and a legal framework that is regarded as one of the most transparent and efficient in the world, this underpins a stable, business-friendly environment. Additionally, regulatory ‘sandboxes’ allow fintechs to trial ideas without the usual red tape. This is especially attractive to multinationals and start-ups who want regional headquarters in Asia.

• Design-Led Policy and Urban Innovation: Singapore integrates user-centric design into its public housing, transportation, digital services, and healthcare, thereby increasing citizen satisfaction and service efficiency.

• Reputation Built on Delivery: Consistency, transparency, and quality of delivery have given Singapore high trust scores internationally. Its reputation is earned, not claimed.

Singapore vs. Others: A Comparative View

• United Kingdom: The UK has world-class institutions, cultural influence, and a deep innovation base. But frequent policy shifts, siloed departments, and a reactive rather than strategic civil service have held it back. Campaigns like ‘GREAT’ promote and shape tactical perception, but decision-makers and investors care make decisions based on experience.

• European Union Nations: Germany, France, and others have strengths in industrial design and science, but struggle with fragmented governance across national and EU levels. Regulatory complexity and inconsistent policy incentives dilute impact.

• United States: America remains a magnet for talent and capital, thanks to scale, capital markets, and elite universities. But growing inequality, underinvestment in infrastructure, and political polarisation have dented its global standing. It is more dynamic than designed.

• Japan: Japan excels in design, technology, and tradition. But its demographic challenges, rigid bureaucracy, and slow-moving policy cycles limit its agility. Yet, policy is changing to resolve these issues.

• Gulf Cooperation Council nations - UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia: These nations are investing aggressively in transformation. Initiatives like Saudi Vision 2030 and the UAE’s Smart Government agenda borrow from Singapore’s playbook. Yet they still face trust, transparency, and rights-related perception gaps, which could impact international investor confidence. That said, they are investing heavily in initiatives to reposition how they are perceived.

Trust, Perception and Reputation: Singapore’s Competitive Advantage

Nations are brands. Reputation drives FDI, partnerships, and talent attraction. Singapore understands that reputation must be earned through delivery, not declared through campaigns.

• Trust: Built through decades of consistent service delivery and minimal corruption.

• Perception: Designed by showcasing not only success, but how success is structured and shared.

• Reputation: Maintained by transparency, performance, and future-readiness.

While other nations struggle with policy U-turns, culture wars, and trust deficits, Singapore’s cohesive governance and strategic consistency offer clarity and reassurance to international partners.

Design as a Process: Deep, Iterative, and Inclusive

One of the most powerful differences is how Singapore views design, not as decoration, but as a process. Nation by Design emphasises:

• Empathy: Understanding the needs of citizens, not just policy goals.

• Co-Creation: Involving people in shaping services and places.

• Iteration: Treating solutions as evolving systems, not fixed blueprints.

This mindset is absent in most national branding exercises. It helps explain why Singapore’s public spaces, policies, and platforms feel joined-up, intuitive, and future-proof.

What Other Countries Can Learn

• Institutionalise Strategic Design Thinking: Embed design methodologies into public policy, education, and economic planning. This goes beyond hiring designers; it requires retraining leadership culture.

• Invest in Civil Service Capability: A competent, respected civil service can think across electoral cycles and deliver with consistency.

• Align National Vision with Economic Policy: Growth plans must be cross-sectoral and long-term. Stop treating economic strategy and nation branding as separate silos.

• Create Feedback Loops Between Citizens and State: Use data, consultation, and co-design to build better services and trust.

• Build a Reputation of Delivery: Be known for what you do, and for your delivery, not just what you say. Global reputation flows from domestic performance.

Why ‘Nation by Design’ is More Than a Slogan

Singapore’s approach shows that a small nation can outperform its size if it is intentional, transparent, and strategically designed. It also reminds us that design is not a luxury; it is a lever for inclusive growth, institutional trust, and long-term competitiveness.

Contrast that with the UK, where talent and innovation are abundant, but joined-up thinking is rare. Where slogans abound, but systems are patchy. And where citizens and investors alike increasingly feel that the vision does not match the delivery.

Designing a nation is hard work, but as Singapore proves, it pays off.

STRATEGIC DIALOGUE

Navigating the friction between policy, perception, and commercial interest requires a perspective tailored to your specific context. If you wish to discuss your situation or the implications for your own organisation, you are welcome to connect with me on LinkedIn.

Connect on LinkedIn

Last week, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) hosted a timely breakfast event exploring how the government's relationship with business has evolved under Labour and titled ‘Red Tape or Red Carpet? How Has the Government’s Relationship with Business Changed Under Labour?’, the session brought together industry colleagues to discuss whether the new administration was paving a clear path for economic growth or creating new bureaucratic entanglements.

Chaired by Farzana Baduel, CEO of Curzon PR and President-Elect of the CIPR, the panel provided invaluable insight. Guests included John Lehal, former Chief Operating Officer of the Labour Party; Alice Grimes, Head of Public Affairs at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI); and Grace Wyld, Head of Policy and Research at the Future Governance Forum. The timing of the event was significant, marking just over one year since Labour's historic landslide victory in July 2024.

The central tension of the discussion was clear: while the government has made progress in its first year, ministers are becoming frustrated that their message isn't "on the front foot" or being widely recognised. Despite a large number of press officers within the government machine, the administration's story of change and growth is not cutting through.

From Opposition Agility to Government Machinery

The panel offered a striking contrast between Labour in opposition and Labour in power. Pre-election, the party operated with a startup-like agility, with the lines of communication being ‘really tight.’ They were proactive in developing policy and engaging directly with businesses and stakeholders, building a reputation as a credible ‘government-in-waiting.’ Ministers and advisers were accessible, responsive, and nimble.

However, the reality of governing has introduced a new dynamic. The civil service, with its ingrained processes and risk-averse culture, has slowed the pace of change. As was noted, "civil servants make recommendations to you, often looking at things through a lens of kind of worst-case scenario." This caution, while understandable, has constrained the government's agility. What was once a swift, direct operation has now become part of a complex, structured system.

For business leaders who had grown accustomed to Labour's responsiveness before the election, this shift has led to slower turnarounds, uncertainty, and mixed signals. It's not a matter of bad will, but the inevitable friction of a new government learning to operate within a vast and cautious bureaucratic machine after 14 years out of power.

A Cultural Challenge: The Civil Service and Risk

The conversation delved into the cultural challenge at the heart of this issue. When asked what the Civil Service must do to better understand business and become more delivery-focused, the consensus was that while it is filled with talent and commitment, its culture is not structured for innovation. Siloed departments, cautious officials, and a lack of business fluency at senior levels create an environment where a ‘mission-driven’ government struggles to flourish. Change is happening, but this is not being seen, and it is not relating back to delivery, which is what counts.

The panel argued that to achieve its ‘missions,’ the government needs new capabilities within the Whitehall machine. It requires civil servants who can think cross-departmentally, communicate a clear narrative, manage complex relationships, and have the humility to admit what they don't know. As one panellist put it: "It requires a different kind of capability within Whitehall, and the humility to say we don’t have all the answers." Another added: "If missions are to be achieved, they will be achieved by society and the civil service working in collaboration across sectors."

This is not a one-way street; for mission-driven government to succeed, business must also engage with clarity and practical, aligned proposals. Importantly, though, a new agile culture is needed within the civil service.

In my eight years of working as a specialist withinthe UK Government, I’ve had the pleasure of working with some exceptional civil servants, who focus on delivery, some of whom have grown frustrated by the siloed focus on tactical delivery rather than strategic nation-building. And yes, I’ve seen that decision first-hand.

Delivery, Delivery, Delivery - The Problem of Communications and Strategic Leadership

Keir Starmer’s first address outside Number 10 set a clear tone: trust would be rebuilt through "actions, not words." This theme of delivery over messaging has shaped the administration and led the public to focus on delivery before the necessary changes to the machinery of government were made.

Yet the cultural focus on messaging and perception persists. This raises a critical question: how can a government dedicated to delivery transform itself when its core communications approach remains tethered to a traditional media mindset and a culture of risk aversion?

The government’s view of communications appears to be outdated, failing to recognise how dramatically the media landscape has changed. Public opinion is no longer solely shaped by front-page headlines; it is forged in private groups, on social media, and through online communities. While legacy media titles still hold influence, their reach is diminishing.

This is where the appointment of David Dinsmore, a former newspaper editor, to head the Government Communication Service becomes a strategic point of contention. It is not a personal criticism, but a question of strategy. Is a leader with a background rooted in traditional press best equipped to navigate a complex, multi-channel environment where influence is built through listening, storytelling, and nuanced engagement? The government needs a strategic leader who understands this shift and can educate those at the top, from political appointees to senior civil servants, that press relations alone will not get the message out.

Equally, the recent move by Number 10 to restrict civil servants from speaking publicly further highlights this strategic disconnect. As the Institute for Government rightly points out, this is not message discipline; it is "message dysfunction." Such a policy is counterproductive, leaving ministers to answer every technical and operational question and undermining their ability to focus on vision and leadership.

A smarter strategy would separate the political from the practical: ministers articulate the mission, while civil servants explain the details of delivery. Empowering officials to speak builds public trust and helps external partners plan and align. This centralisation of control reveals a deep discomfort with openness, when what is needed is transparency and a recognition of how influence is built in today's environment.

Control of the message is critical and important, but control is needed more during a crisis and not when you are trying to build awareness and your reputation. As the saying goes in corporate communications, you need to get your staff to sell your message and your influencers to amplify it. If they don’t or you restructure them, then the job is harder.

The Return of Strategic Departments

Despite these challenges, there are signs of progress. The government’s ‘growth’ mission is slowly beginning to change thinking at the centre, encouraging a more strategic approach from businesses and their communications operations. While engagement is primarily with large enterprises, the voices of small and medium-sized businesses, the majority of the UK economy, are being heard through trade bodies and associations.

Another key shift is the presence of trade unions in business forums and industrial strategy meetings. This reflects Labour’s roots but also signals a broader move towards tripartite policymaking involving government, business, and labour. While this may have caught some companies off guard, it’s not inherently negative. Done well, it leads to more stable, inclusive, and legitimate policymaking.

Recommendations for Engaging with Government

Drawing from the panel’s insights and the broader political landscape, here are key recommendations for businesses, investors, and trade associations looking to engage effectively with this government:

1. Speak in Coalitions: Ministers are time-poor. Don’t go it alone. Use your trade body or form strategic alliances to amplify your message and demonstrate consensus. The government wants solutions, not just more stakeholder management.

2. Frame Everything in Public Benefit Terms: Your pitch must align with national missions: better jobs, higher wages, climate transition, or skills. Show what your proposal means for the UK public, not just your firm's bottom line.

3. Support the Civil Service Modernisation Agenda: Offer to help. Provide secondments. Co-develop policy pilots. Encourage regulators to co-design solutions. Civil servants need external insight, not pressure.

4. Be Solution-Led, Not Lobbyist-Led: Make your proposals specific and practical. Show the trade-offs and provide clear options. Ministers and advisers will not prioritise vague asks or general introductions.

5. Engage Beyond Your Sector: Missions are cross-cutting. Connect your business to wider missions like net-zero, skills, or public health. This shows you are a partner in national renewal, not just a sectional interest.

6. Invest in Local Delivery Partnerships: If you want to build credibility, show up in the regions. Industrial strategies are being shaped at the local level. Join those conversations and demonstrate your commitment on the ground.

This is the Moment to Deliver

The panel ended with cautious optimism. Labour has cleared the first hurdle: building credibility and articulating a mission. The real test now is delivery, and getting that message out. This will be the immense challenge facing David Dinsmore and the political leadership at the heart of government.

At a time when the Government Communication Service has gone through a period of shock, it needs modernisation and the ability to be agile. There is also a need among leadership that civil servants, from fast-stream to SCS3s, understand that their reputation and perception matter in how policies they create for the ruling party are perceived. If your stakeholders don’t buy into your policies, and there has been no strategic and collaborative working in the creation of policy, tactical communications activities will fail to secure buy-in.

Now is the time to engage with and educate those at the top, making it clear that the press alone will not convey the message effectively.

Changing that perception while simultaneously pushing out a core message of change and growth will be exceptionally difficult. It requires strategic communications not just within the GCS, but across the entire civil service, empowering officials to be the credible voice of the government's work.

This government wants growth and delivery. But it needs your expertise, your partnerships, and your ideas to make it happen.

The moment for talk is over; the moment for delivery is now.

For generations, Britain prided itself on innovation. From the steam engine to the World Wide Web, the sparks of ingenuity flew here. We possess world-class universities, deep scientific talent, and a legacy of global trade. Yet, beneath this impressive facade, a troubling reality persists: Britain fundamentally lacks a culture of aspiration and entrepreneurship commensurate with its potential. We have the ingredients, but the engine sputters. Founders, brimming with ideas, too often find the environment here stifles their ambition to truly scale and conquer global markets, especially when compared to the relentless drive fostered across the Atlantic. This isn't just an economic hiccup; it's a cultural deficit with profound consequences for our prosperity.

We are a nation of knowledge, not scale. Unlike the US, China and other Asian countries, we fail at commercialising our knowledge and innovation.

The Aspiration Gap: Risk, Reward, and the Ghost of Failure

Walk into a tech hub in Silicon Valley or Boston, and the air crackles with an almost tangible sense of possibility. Failure, far from being a terminal stain, is worn as a badge of experience, a necessary step on the path to eventual, often monumental, success. The narrative is one of relentless growth, scaling rapidly to capture global markets. Venture capital flows abundantly towards ambitious visions, even unproven ones. The societal message is clear: Aim high, swing big, build something massive. If you fall, learn, and try again.

Contrast this with the UK. While pockets of dynamism exist, the broader cultural landscape is often characterised by risk aversion. The fear of failure looms larger, carrying a heavier social and professional stigma. "Playing it safe" is often subliminally encouraged. This isn't about laziness; it's about deeply ingrained attitudes. Starting a small business? Admirable. But expressing a burning desire to build the next global unicorn? That can sometimes be met with scepticism, even subtle disapproval – "Who do you think you are?" The aspiration to scale, not just survive, feels less embedded in our national psyche.

This cultural difference manifests practically. Founders here report greater difficulty securing later-stage funding needed for explosive growth compared to the US. Investors, perhaps reflecting societal caution, can be perceived as more conservative, seeking earlier profitability over audacious market capture. The result? Promising UK startups, nurtured by our excellent science base, too often get acquired by larger (often foreign) corporations before reaching their full potential, or relocate their headquarters to access the capital and ambition ecosystem they crave. The brain drain isn't just of people; it's of future giants.

Policy Myopia: Wealth Creators vs. Wealth Extractors

What makes the UK’s cultural problem worse is a policy mindset that seems fundamentally out of touch with how entrepreneurship and investment actually work. Recent tax changes targeting non-domiciled residents and high earners have sent a clear, and damaging, message: the UK, its policymakers, and certain members of the media don’t understand, celebrate, or value the people who build or the entrepreneurial spirit that has grown the UK for decades.

Too often, wealth is treated not as something created through risk, effort and reinvestment, but as a static asset to be taxed and redistributed. That framing misses the point — and the opportunity.

These decisions aren’t just symbolic. They directly undermine the founders and investors needed to grow high-value businesses, drive innovation, and create the tax base for public services.

As Dom Hallas, Executive Director of the Startup Coalition, warned on LinkedIn:

“This is a hammer blow to UK competitiveness… It signals to global talent & investors that the UK is not open for business. We are making it harder, not easier, to start and scale a company here.”

Steve Rigby, Group CEO of Rigby Group, echoed the frustration many founders feel:

“Dom I am also receiving similar guidance. Lets that said keep the pressure up to understand the implications here. Norway lost 30 or its 50 wealthiest citizens when it delivered its tax. with 15% of any tax being derived from the top 10 individuals we would have a similar experience.”

Separate to his reply to Dom, Steve shared a post that shared the key and critical issues:

“While we invest significant effort in helping new ventures start their journeys, we do much less to ensure that these companies grow, export and endure over time.

The problem is not a lack of public money as, each year, local and central governments back hundreds of incubators, accelerators and regional growth hubs.

We are missing coherence. Too much funding is awarded on short grant cycles with scant evaluation, leading to a long tail of well-intentioned but under-performing programmes.”

That’s the heart of it: Britain has a perception problem.  and policy is making it worse. Entrepreneurs don’t want applause; they want consistency, clarity, and respect for the risks they take. When success is penalised, not celebrated, ambition moves elsewhere. And in a global economy, talent and capital have no reason to stay where they aren’t welcome.

It’s increasingly clear that policies impacting high-growth entrepreneurs, from changes to capital gains tax and non-dom rules to the closure of investment schemes, are made with little understanding of how start-up ecosystems actually function.

These decisions might win short-term political points but create long-term economic damage. Many successful founders live mobile, global lives. When the UK creates friction, innovators and those who invest in them relocate, often taking their teams, capital, and next ventures with them.

And when we look at wealth, we also need to consider the family offices that are often discreetly among the first around the investment table for any innovation opportunity.

The Perception Trap: Reframing the Entrepreneur

This leads us to the critical challenge of perception. Why? Because Britain has a communications problem. We don’t tell the right success stories. The narrative around entrepreneurship in the UK is still too often cloaked in scepticism.

How are entrepreneurs viewed in the UK? While admired in abstract, the wider narrative surrounding wealth creation is often poisoned by misconceptions:

1. “All Wealth is Ill-Got": A pervasive, often politically expedient, narrative conflates the patient, high-risk wealth creation of scaling a business with rent-seeking or exploitation. This ignores the years of sacrifice, reinvestment, and job creation inherent in building a significant enterprise.

2. "Entrepreneurs are Selfish": The drive to build something significant, to compete globally, is misrepresented as greed, rather than ambition to create value, solve problems, and build lasting legacies. The immense personal risk and long hours are downplayed.

3. "Failure is Final": The stigma persists, discouraging second and third attempts and limiting the pool of experienced founders. We lack the "fail forward" mentality ingrained in other ecosystems.

This negative framing is toxic. It influences public opinion, seeps into policy discussions, and ultimately discourages potential founders and investors. It tells the next generation that building big isn't valued, or worse, is suspect.

We have stories worth telling. But we don’t tell them loudly, proudly, or strategically. Our press focuses on scandals, not scale-ups — our political class rewards cautious administrators rather than visionary builders.

Where’s our equivalent of the US “founder myth,” the garage-to-NASDAQ journey that inspires millions to try?

This creates a perception, both at home and abroad, that Britain doesn’t back its best. Overseas investment comes in to buy our knowledge. It’s all a bit ‘Only Fools and Horses.’

Rebuilding the Engine: Cultivating a Culture of Scale

Transforming this landscape requires a fundamental shift, both culturally and in policy. It’s not about becoming a clone of the US, but about rediscovering and amplifying the ambitious, inventive spirit that is part of our heritage, while crafting a uniquely British path. Here’s how we start:

1.  Policy Revolution:

• Stability & Certainty: Stop the constant tinkering. Entrepreneurs invest over 5-10+ year horizons. Frequent, unexpected tax and regulatory changes (like the Non-Dom status) destroy confidence. Instead provide clear, long-term roadmaps, without fear of headline narratives.

• Incentivise Scale, Not Just Start: Rethink capital gains tax to reward long-term investment in scaling businesses. Reform R&D tax credits to support scaling as much as initial research. Enhance the SEIS/EIS schemes to make them even more effective for growth stages.

• Attract & Retain Global Talent: Fix the visa system. Make it genuinely fast, simple, and affordable for high-skill talent (founders, key employees, investors) to come and stay. Don't just train talent; keep it and attract it.

• Listen, Then Legislate: Engage deeply and continuously with founders and investors before formulating policy. Understand the real-world impact. Bodies like the Startup Coalition should be core advisors, not afterthoughts.

2.  Cultural Transformation:

• Celebrate Scale & Ambition: Government, media, and institutions must actively champion founders building globally significant companies from the UK. Shift the narrative from "small is beautiful" to "scale is essential." Highlight British scaling success stories relentlessly.

• Reframe Failure: Actively destigmatise business failure. Encourage stories of resilience and learning. Support programmes that help founders rebound. Make "I tried, I learned, I'm trying again" a respected narrative.

• Education for Aspiration: Embed entrepreneurship, not just as starting a business, but as a mindset of problem-solving, calculated risk-taking, and ambition, into education at all levels. Showcase diverse role models.

• "National Builders: Narrative: Consciously cultivate a national identity that values builders, those who create companies, jobs, technologies, and export success. Position them as vital to national renewal and pride, alongside other valued professions.

3.  Financial Ecosystem Evolution:

• Unlock Patient Capital: Address the later-stage funding gap. Encourage pension funds and institutional investors to allocate more to high-growth UK ventures. Foster the growth of sovereign wealth-style funds focused on scaling national champions.

• Build Bridge Builders: Strengthen connections between world-class UK science (where we excel) and the scaling expertise and capital needed to commercialise it globally.

Reclaiming Our Future

Britain stands at a crossroads. We possess immense latent potential: unparalleled human capital, scientific brilliance, and a global language. Yet, we are held back by a culture that often subtly discourages the very ambition needed to convert that potential into widespread prosperity, and by policies that too frequently undermine the risk-takers who drive it.

The frustration voiced by Dom Hallas and echoed by Steve Rigby is a symptom of a system failing its builders. We cannot rely on past glories. We need a conscious, national effort to foster a culture where the aspiration to build significant, global enterprises is not just tolerated, but actively celebrated and supported. Where failure on that path is seen as learning, not disgrace. Where government policy is designed with a deep understanding that wealth is created through entrepreneurship and investment, not merely collected and redistributed.

This isn't about favouring the wealthy; it's about creating the conditions for more wealth, higher-quality jobs, greater innovation, and increased tax revenue for public services – a rising tide lifting all boats. It’s about reigniting the engine of aspiration that once powered Britain. The skills, the knowledge, the science are here. Now, we need the courage, the culture, and the smart policies to truly scale. Our future prosperity depends on it.

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, delivered her 2025 Mansion House speech with great fanfare this week, promising a sweeping reduction in financial services regulation intended to “unleash growth” and “make the UK economy stronger and more secure.” The move is being framed as a purge of red tape, with an ambition to let the City of London be the engine of economic renewal across the country. But the early signs suggest this may be more of a press release than a policy revolution.

As the Financial Times reported, City leaders were notably underwhelmed. Many interpreted the speech as an example of old wine in new bottles: vague talk of regulatory streamlining, a nod to economic patriotism, but little of the substance or urgency needed to stimulate real investment or innovation. On Bluesky, FT journalist Chris Giles put it more bluntly, noting the repetitive nature of City reform pledges over the past two decades. This reaction matters. When the City shrugs, international markets and investors take note.

We had the "Edinburgh reforms" of the financial sector in 2022 Now we've had the "Leeds reforms" of the financial sector in 2025 Which UK city will host the 2028 edition?

— Chris Giles (@chrisgiles.ft.com) July 16, 2025 at 12:41 PM

A Reputation at Risk

The tepid reception from financial leaders exposes a deeper issue: the UK government is struggling with a credibility problem. It’s not just about what’s said, it’s about what’s delivered. For all the talk of unlocking capital and promoting growth, there remains a glaring absence of detailed, costed, and incentivised plans that inspire confidence.

Sadly, this is not a new problem, but it’s becoming more acute. Since the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016, successive governments have promised a “new economic chapter” built on innovation, trade, and financial liberalisation. Yet time and again, plans have been hampered by poor planning and implementation, a cautious civil service culture, and a political class that often lacks the tools or appetite to deliver entrepreneurial policy at scale. It’s all about the headlines, the optics of the short term reaction.

Is the Problem Political or Structural?

While ministers bear ultimate responsibility for policy, it would be unfair, and strategically unwise, to blame the government alone. Much of the paralysis lies within the culture and machinery of government itself.

The UK civil service has many strengths, including legal rigour, policy discipline, and institutional memory. But these very strengths can, paradoxically, become weaknesses. Risk aversion, limited commercial experience, and a preference for consultation and yet another ‘taskforce’ over execution have created a culture in which delivery, teh most vital component, is seen as someone else’s problem.

I’ve worked within the UK Civil Service as a specialist for eight years, and had the pleasure of engaging and supporting some great civil servants who who had strategic vision and a desire to change and unlock growth, but who were equally frustrated by the culture that existed, which was risk averse, not entrepreneurial, had a lack of understanding of modelling based on strategic interests and business outcomes. A culture that was quietly enforced from the top.

This dynamic was on full display in Reeves’ Mansion House speech. Despite the promise to make Britain “the best place to invest,” few new mechanisms were offered to turn sentiment into capital deployment. There were no clear incentives for pension funds, corporates, or institutional investors to back UK innovation. There was no action plan to transform productivity or close the UK’s deepening investment gap.

Policy for Headlines, Not for Growth

One of the most telling aspects of the current economic discourse is the disconnect between rhetoric and outcomes. The Mansion House address came just weeks after the new government launched its Industrial Strategy, a document that outlined broad ambitions but lacked a clear delivery architecture.

Without mechanisms that drive capital into innovation, infrastructure, skills and R&D, these announcements risk being seen as political theatre. The UK’s global competitiveness is on the line. Investors, UK and international, and foreign governments don’t just look at speeches, they study balance sheets, tax frameworks, regulatory consistency, and market behaviour. If the UK wants to unlock and attract long-term capital, it must move beyond headline economics and policy making.

A Missed Opportunity: Mobilising Domestic Capital

What’s striking is how little attention is paid to mobilising UK-based business investment. One area that remains underused is corporate venture capital (CVC).

Encouraging British businesses to create CVCs, dedicated units that invest in start-ups and emerging technologies, could help channel private sector capital into innovation while reducing reliance on state funding.

Globally, CVC investment has soared, with markets like the US, Japan, South Korea, China and Brazil having mature markets. Even the European Union is looking at updating policy in order to support European businesses to invest in innovation that can deliver improved productivity, growth and job creation.

According to Global Corporate Venturing, CVC-backed deals globally has continued to see an increase. Through their corporate venturing arms, corporates are investing at many different stages and are supporting not just with capital, but also with knowledge transfer, increasing the chances of success for many who receive investment.

If the government were serious about growth, it could introduce tax incentives, matched-funding programmes, or regulatory reliefs for businesses that launch CVC arms focused on strategic sectors like AI, clean tech, or advanced manufacturing. Doing so would encourage business-led innovation and open new routes to scale for UK start-ups.

Without a doubt, perception matters when creating policy, but the Daily Mail test should not be a key metrics for what cannot be done.

From Strategy to Execution

So, how can the UK and the Labour Party turn its policy ambitions into tangible economic growth tha tdelivers an increased in productivity and jobs? Here are five recommendations:

1. Establish a Comprehensive UK Innovation Investment Framework: Implement a "UK Innovation Investment Incentive" offering matched funding or EIS/SEIS-like tax reliefs for companies (including larger firms and CVC funds) investing in R&D and early-stage businesses. This framework will be complemented by encouraging City institutions to commit a defined percentage of their assets under management to UK-focused innovation via pensions, private equity, or venture debt, and by launching an "Innovation Bond" scheme to mobilize patient capital for a dedicated UK innovation fund.

2. Enhance Incentives for Employee Ownership and Strategic Reinvestment: Expand tax reliefs for direct employee share schemes (e.g., reduced income tax on purchases, lower CGT on employee-held shares) and establish an "Employee-Owned Business" accreditation. Simultaneously, optimize corporate gains and loss relief by introducing reduced or zero corporate gains tax on profits strategically reinvested into UK R&D or growth activities, and by enhancing loss carry-forward provisions (unlimited with fewer restrictions) and extending carry-back periods.

3. Streamline and Simplify the Business Tax System: Commit to predictable and stable tax policy with longer-term roadmaps, and significantly reduce the administrative burden of claiming tax reliefs, potentially by consolidating existing innovation incentives into a single, clearer "Innovation Tax Credit."

4. Form a Dedicated Delivery and Monitoring Taskforce: Stand up a public-private taskforce, reporting directly to the Chancellor, responsible for overseeing the implementation of regulatory changes and investment mobilisations. This taskforce will benchmark and report progress quarterly through a publicly accessible dashboard, including metrics such as capital deployed, productivity growth, number of start-ups funded, and global investor sentiment.

5. Implement Strategic Communications to Build Confidence: Develop and execute a comprehensive communication strategy around trust, predictability, and investor confidence, both domestically and internationally, to reinforce the narrative power of UK economic policy.

The Cost of Delay

At a time when global capital is increasingly mobile and geopolitical risk is on the rise, the UK cannot afford to simply talk about growth. It must build the frameworks that generate it. The UK is and has always been an entrepreneurial nation. But it needs to relearn to better work collaboratively and the value that can be unlocked by not having Government working in a bubble.

National growth can be delivered by supporting entrepreneurial SMEs, something that the civil service needs to better understand and support, and that the policy is not teh outcome, it’s only the output.

The government’s reputation, both in The City and on the world stage, depends on moving from narrative to numbers.

This moment demands more than tidy speeches. It demands delivery.

Earlier this week, the European Innovation Council’s (EIC), released its Corporate Startup Collaboration report, which shines a light on something many have long argued: Europe’s future competitiveness in deep tech depends not just on research or investment, but on how well startups and corporates work together, and how that collaboration is governed, communicated, and incentivised.

The findings make for encouraging reading. Since 2017, the EIC’s Corporate Partnership Programme (CPP) has supported over 1,500 collaborations between startups and more than 120 major companies, including Airbus, Holcim, Galp, and Clariane. These relationships have delivered measurable results, with 97 business deals signed and a 92% satisfaction rate from participating startups.

Yet, while the volume of engagements is growing, the structure needed to support long-term impact — trust, alignment, strategic communication, and incentives — is still not fully in place. If Europe, including the UK, is to lead in scaling deep tech, we must close this gap.

Europe, while making progress, still sits behind both the USA and leading Asian economies in corporate venture capital (CVC) engagement. As an example, in 2024, global CVC-backed funding reached approximately $186 billion, but the USA accounted for over $107 billion of that, compared with only around $30 billion in Europe and a further $39 billion in Asia-Pacific ($30.3 billion and $39.5 billion, respectively). Moreover, U.S. CVC involvement occurs in roughly 32 % of all venture deals, whereas Asian CVC participation peaks at approximately 39 %, and Europe lags behind. That digital deep‑tech investment gap is even more pronounced: between January and September 2024, U.S. deep‑tech startups attracted about $52 billion, in contrast to only $14 billion in Europe and $13 billion in Asia. These disparities reflect deeper structural divides. While Europe’s 10-year CAGR for VC has outpaced other regions (13%, compared with 8% for the U.S. and just 2% for China), absolute funding remains far below the scale needed for global leadership.

Looking at where Europe is compared to the US or Asia, there is a gap that needs to be closed, and if this is achieved, it can deliver growth for European and UK businesses.

Reading the report, we look at the challenges and opportunities as well as what levers policymakers need to pull in order to unlock greater value for corporates, startups, and the public.

Strategic collaboration, not matchmaking

Unlike typical matchmaking programmes, the EIC Corporate Partnership Programme is structured with rigour. Its 10-step process takes place over 4 to 6 months, from open calls and tailored scouting to intensive preparation, one-to-one meetings, and post-event follow-up.

Companies are required to sign a declaration of intent and dedicate internal teams to the process. Startups receive mentoring and coaching before meeting potential partners in curated formats, either single-corporate or multi-corporate days. The most effective outcomes, according to the EIC, come from in-person, single-corporate events where one-to-one time and focused discussions can take place.

This matters. Deep tech isn’t like consumer apps. Startups need corporates for regulatory access, pilot opportunities, supply chain scale, and credibility. Companies need startups to deliver novel IP, fresh business models, and the agility to challenge internal orthodoxy. When structured well, this can be transformational.

Aside from capital, which is critical for innovation, what corporates offer start-ups in deep-tech and other sectors is industry and knowledge that can help start-ups scale quickly and at pace. At the same time, Europe, as a mix of different cultures, can better adapt its propositions for growth in other international markets, because culture, like trust and reputation, matters.

Where success is happening

According to the report, successful collaboration stems from four strategic pillars:

1. Strategy: Companies must define internal innovation goals and align them with startup engagement. This includes governance models, milestone planning, and IP strategy.

2. Commitment: Buy-in from top leadership is non-negotiable. Without executive support and internal champions, efforts are often diluted or delayed.

3. Skills: Companies must have the ability to absorb startup innovation through not just legal, technical, and operational interfaces, but also the internal culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

4. Experimentation: Effective partners run proof-of-concept pilots and establish learning loops, turning each engagement into a foundation for future growth.

These pillars are not unique to Europe, but the structured implementation within the CPP is notable. Corporates like Holcim, which partnered with EIC-backed startup Nanolike to transform logistics and supply chain operations, provide strong case studies. Galp, the Portuguese energy major, used the programme to explore AI-based predictive diagnostics for its refineries.

However, many of these success stories are undercommunicated. And that’s a missed opportunity.

A failure to communicate innovation and change limits the reach and influence that innovation delivers. Perception matters, not just in how products or partnerships are viewed, but in how investors, partners, regulators, and talent judge a company’s long-term relevance.

In the absence of clear, confident communications, others will fill the void with assumptions, outdated narratives, or scepticism.

It is a company's responsibility to shape how it is perceived, not only to maximise the impact of what it is doing today, but to build a sustained reputation that earns trust over time.

Strategic positioning and consistent communication are not short-term PR exercises; they are long-term investments in credibility, stakeholder alignment, and market access. Corporates that fail to articulate their innovation journey risk being excluded from critical opportunities, whether it’s future funding rounds if they’re start-ups, regulatory influence, or the next generation of partnerships that will define industry leadership.

The perception gap: Strategic communications is underused

One of the most striking points from the report, as well as from conversations I’ve had with companies, investors, and policymakers across Europe, is that these programmes often suffer from a lack of narrative. In other words, the innovation is happening, but the world doesn’t see it.

To build ‘reputational capital’ around innovation, European companies and governments must communicate three things clearly:

• What challenge are they solving

• Why was this startup selected

• What was learned, even if the result wasn’t a deal

When communicated well, in owned channels, in trade media, and through C-suite commentary, these collaborations reinforce the credibility of both the startup and established companies. They also serve as powerful soft power tools for nations. In global markets where reputation is often a proxy for reliability, stories of successful, ethical, and innovative collaboration matter.

Look at countries listed in the WIPO’s Global Innovation Index, and you start to see a pattern of which nations deliver greater returns from their business community and the innovation they invest in.

Strategic communications also play a critical role in building trust, a currency that startups desperately need when working with large organisations. When a company publicly commits to a programme like the EIC CPP, shares its governance model, and highlights its innovation roadmap, it becomes a more attractive partner.

Where challenges remain

While the EIC CPP is performing strongly, the report outlines several areas that still require work:

• Fragmented engagement: Many corporates participate at the business unit level, without aligning the entire organisation or integrating startup engagement with broader R&D or commercial strategies.

• CVC under-utilisation: Despite some notable players, many European corporates still treat venture capital as a reactive or PR-driven activity, rather than a strategic lever. Only a minority have established CVCs with genuine autonomy or multi-year mandates. And yes, there is a gap between the timelines for returns from R&D that is held internally within a corporate and a CVC, which looks more at medium and long-term returns.

• Mid-tier corporates missing: The programme remains heavily skewed toward large, well-resourced firms. Mid-sized companies, often the biggest employers in Europe, are largely absent. Equally, universities and the research they deliver can form part of a bigger ecosystem of innovation that companies can access in specific markets.

• Lack of incentive alignment: Many corporates lack fiscal incentives to invest early or take risks on pilots. The thinking here is on trying not to fail with investments, a very different way of thinking than that of the US and China, where knowledge is gained to help innovation. Without capital leverage or tax relief, investment teams remain cautious.

These challenges are solvable. But they require policy engagement and a change in culture within the European C-Suite, which, understandably, focuses on short-term returns to shareholders because it has failed to communicate its longer-term vision and the opportunities for growth that it aims to unlock through CVC and risk-taking.

Time for fiscal alignment: tax incentives as a growth lever

If Europe wants more corporates to behave like investors, they must be treated and rewarded like investors.

At present, R&D tax credits are often geared toward internal innovation. What’s missing is a modernised approach that reflects the reality of open innovation ecosystems. The following mechanisms could unlock significant corporate capital:

• Enhanced R&D deductions for corporates engaging in externally sourced innovation via startups.

• CVC investment credits, similar to angel or EIS-style schemes, where equity investments in early-stage deep tech firms deliver a fiscal benefit.

• Accelerated depreciation for capital assets developed or acquired via startup partnerships.

• Public-private match funding for corporate-led proof-of-concept pilots with VC-backed startups.

Internationally, Canada’s Innovation & Skills Plan and US state-level tax incentive schemes (e.g. in New York and California) offer playbooks that the EU and UK can adapt. They align fiscal tools with the innovation lifecycle, from ideation and R&D through to commercial scale.

The UK’s return to Horizon Europe offers an important bridge here. Through Innovate UK, British corporates can now collaborate more easily with EU partners, aligning funding streams, co-investment opportunities, and tax incentives across borders. Yet, given the volume of capital that exists in the UK, more policy is needed to unlock companies, especially UK companies, as investors in growth, which in return delivers not just shareholder value but also jobs.

Policy today needs to be more about the road to delivery!

Positioning matters — for nations, not just firms

Europe is in a global race for capital, talent, and credibility in deep tech. Positioning matters.

We are competing not only with North America, but increasingly with ecosystems in Singapore, South Korea, and the GCC, including nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, which are leveraging geo-economic capital. In these markets, government strategy, policy, communications, and private capital work hand in hand.

Singapore’s ecosystem, for example, aligns its Global Innovation Alliance with its Economic Development Board, sovereign funds (like GIC and Temasek), and major corporates. The result is a cohesive narrative that attracts startups and reassures global investors.

In contrast, Europe’s narrative is fragmented. Innovation policy often lives in one department, investment incentives in another, and corporate collaboration in a third. The result is missed opportunities.

The UK has been working under Labour to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past by creating its new Industrial Strategy in a more strategic manner. Yet, it overlooks CVCs as a lever for investment and growth.

By aligning messaging, offering clear fiscal pathways, and spotlighting success stories, the EU and the UK can project a stronger voice on the global stage, especially at a time when American researchers are being challenged and are looking for growth opportunities at home within UK and European universities.

As a side note, here in the UK, the narrative has been about non-doms leaving the UK, while ignoring that high-net-worth (HNWI) and ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNWI) and their respective family offices are moving from the US to the UK.

Six recommendations to unlock greater value

1. Professionalise strategic communications: Corporates and governments should treat startup collaborations as reputation assets. Assign advisory and communications teams to every pilot, and publish insights, even if a deal isn’t signed.

2. Expand participation to mid-tier firms: Offer tailored entry points for mid-size corporates, possibly through industry clusters or trade bodies, supported by lighter-touch onboarding.

3. Create fiscal incentives for CVC activity: Link tax credits directly to startup co-investment or collaboration, rewarding corporates for deploying capital and taking product risk. And think beyond tax credits to incentivise investment in innovation.

4. Integrate evaluation and learning: Introduce a shared framework across EU and UK corporates to evaluate what works in collaborations. Use these insights to improve programmes annually.

5. Establish thematic CEO summits: Convene Horizon-aligned innovation leaders across energy, biotech, quantum to set strategic goals and unlock institutional alignment. Tasks that the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is doing.

6. Share lessons globally: Position EIC CPP and other initiatives as international models, inviting participation from corporates in Japan, the US, the GCC, and beyond. Communications and engagement is critical in private settings and at public events. Learn how to sell the UK and Europe and the values that it has.

Final thoughts

The EIC’s Corporate Startup Collaboration report isn’t just a snapshot of what’s working — it’s a blueprint for what’s possible.

To turn these partnerships into national competitive advantages, we need to align our policy, positioning, and communication. We must reward risk, showcase results, and utilise strategic communications as a growth engine, not an afterthought.

Europe and the UK have the science, the talent, and now the frameworks. What they need next is coherence and collaboration in how we support innovation, how we discuss it, and how we incentivise it.

That’s how we unlock growth!

I work with governments, investors, and corporate leaders to help them sharpen their positioning, communicate with impact, and build the kind of reputational strength that drives long-term value and trust.

If you’re leading in corporate venturing or managing capital through a family office and want to strengthen your reputation and influence, let’s connect.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your network, who may benefit. And subscribe to my LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Spain is no longer just a holiday destination or a logistics hub for Southern Europe. It’s becoming one of Europe’s fastest-evolving venture ecosystems, fueled by deep structural reforms, targeted public investments, and a maturing corporate venture capital (CVC) landscape that’s quietly powering innovation.

Yesterday, I attended an event at the Spanish Embassy in London, where insights were shared on UK–Spain Venture Capital: Trends and Opportunities. Investors, entrepreneurs, and advisors gathered to explore how Spain is positioning itself as a key hub for innovation and scale.

A Decade of Momentum: From Fragmented to Formidable

In just over ten years, Spain’s VC ecosystem has transformed. According to one panellist, “we’ve gone from €1.7 billion in venture funding to €14 billion, and now €22 billion in 2024.” The country has produced 17 unicorns, nurtures over 5,000 start-ups, and has created co-investment models that blend public and private capital with increasing sophistication.

The acceleration is not just in headline figures. It’s about the quality and diversity of innovation. “From neurosurgical research in the Canary Islands to sustainable aviation fuels in Barcelona, Spain’s regional ecosystems are maturing,” noted one speaker.

There’s depth in biotech, clean energy, quantum computing, and AI, often supported by EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds and the Spanish public sector’s investment arms such as CDTI, ENISA and ICO.

“Tourism and immigration help, but growth now depends on digitisation, clean energy and science-led innovation.”

Spanish Ambassador to the UK, His Excellency Don José Pascual Marco Martínez

What Makes Spain Competitive?

Structural Reform and Stability

1. Spain’s post-COVID reforms in labour law, training, and tax are paying dividends. Start-up and scale-up visa schemes have made it easier to attract global talent. Vocational training reform has helped bridge the science–industry gap.

2. Supportive Funding Ecosystem

   The interplay between public funds (ICO, CDTI, ENISA) and an increasingly active VC and CVC market creates risk-sharing models that are attractive to early and growth-stage companies.

   “Public and private funds now account for 50% of all VC activity in Spain,” said one investor. “You rarely see one without the other.”

3. Cost Advantage and Lifestyle Magnetism

   Barcelona, Valencia, and Bilbao offer high-quality infrastructure, skilled labour and lower costs than major hubs like London or Berlin. “You can hire brilliant engineers in Valencia for half the cost of London,” one UK investor noted.

4. Gateway to Latin America

   Spanish start-ups and corporates benefit from natural corridors into LATAM markets, thanks to language, diaspora ties, and trade flows. For UK investors, this opens up a dual-market opportunity from a single base.

5. Investment into the UK

   The UK is Spain’s second-largest global investment destination, and Spain is among the top 10 investors in the UK, with Spanish FDI growing over 30% in early 2024.

Corporate Venturing: The Quiet Force Behind the Boom

One of the most striking insights from the event was the emergence of Corporate Venture Capital as a vital component of the Spanish innovation system.

CVC funding now accounts for around 20% of all VC in Spain, up from 5% just five years ago. When combined with public financing, corporates and public entities collectively support more than half of Spain’s venture deals.

“Corporate venturing is no longer niche. It’s central to how Spanish innovation scales. Public funds and corporates now play indistinguishable roles in accelerating tech,” said a leading Madrid-based investor.

What’s changed?

• Strategic Maturity: Spanish corporates, from energy to telecoms, now view venture investing as part of long-term open innovation, not a PR exercise.

• Dual Metrics: CVCs measure success through both financial performance and strategic alignment. One speaker from a global CVC described the mandate as:

  “Don’t lose money. Beat the benchmarks if possible. But above all, learn faster than your competitors.”

• Access to Market and Distribution: Start-ups see CVCs not just as chequebooks but as trusted distribution and product planning partners. However, some cautioned against bureaucracy:

  “Corporates can’t take 60 days to approve investments when VCs move in 6,” one founder shared.

For UK investors and corporates, partnering with Spanish CVCs presents an opportunity to share risk, gain market intelligence, and access new verticals, especially in energy, healthtech, and mobility.

Deep Tech: Spain’s Investment Sweet Spot

A key theme across the panels was the strategic opportunity in deep tech, AI, biotech, quantum, and advanced materials. These sectors require patient capital, government alignment, and industrial partnerships, all of which Spain is developing at speed.

“AI might be the most epoch-defining technology of our time, but biotech like CRISPR will redefine human health and life expectancy,” said one panellist. “These aren’t short-run wins. But if you back them right, the moat is unassailable.”

Spain’s universities, particularly in Valencia, Madrid, and Seville, are producing spinouts with increasing commercial potential; however, the scale-up challenge remains.

That’s where international VCs, CVCs and ecosystem builders can make the difference, by bridging the capital, market, and mentorship gap between early-stage and global scaling.

Where Do the Opportunities Lie?

For Investors:

• Late-stage venture and growth equity in under-capitalised Spanish scale-ups.

• Co-investment vehicles with regional governments and Spanish corporates.

• LP roles in emerging VC and CVC funds focused on Spanish deep-tech and climate ventures.

For Innovators:

• Access to European and RRF-linked funding through Spanish public investment vehicles.

• Lower cost of talent and operations without sacrificing access to EU customers.

• Partnerships with Spanish corporates willing to back pilots and new models.

For Corporates:

• Open innovation via structured CVC arms, increasingly aligned with government priorities.

• Shared IP and R&D incentives through consortia funding from EU programmes.

• Market expansion to LATAM through Spain-based start-ups with regional exposure.

A Note on Mindset and Market Entry

One piece of advice echoed throughout the event: presence matters.

“To invest in Spain, or anywhere, you need boots on the ground. You need to spend time in the market, in person,” said a UK-based founder now operating across Madrid and London.

Delegations, co-working residencies, and dual-hub structures are increasingly common. Whether for scouting investment opportunities or embedding talent, Spain rewards visibility and collaboration.

Final Thought: Don’t Miss the Inflection Point

Spain is no longer a peripheral player in European innovation. It is becoming a core part of the EU’s growth engine, particularly as the region retools its industrial base, advances clean energy, and expands digital sovereignty.

For investors seeking to deploy capital beyond traditional destinations, and for corporates looking to establish R&D pipelines and growth partnerships, Spain offers both value and velocity.

“We’re not just catching up. We’re shaping the next wave of European innovation,” said one closing panellist.

Judging by the quality of insight and ambition at this event, it’s hard to disagree. And not just that, but it is also how they deploy that capital in overseas opportunities.

If you’d like to explore investment opportunities in Spain, or how CVCs and strategic communications can unlock value across borders, connect with me here on LinkedIn.

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) has come of age. No longer a shadow to traditional VC or simply an R&D extension of parent firms, today’s CVCs are strategic powerhouses,  blending capital with capability, and investing not just money, but deep industry insight, global networks, and operational advantage into the companies they back.

This past week, at the Global Corporate Venturing Symposium in London, I participated in panels and conversations with innovation leaders, fintech entrepreneurs, policy officials, and CVC professionals. We explored everything from the rise of university spinouts to the challenges of financial reform. But a unifying theme ran through it all: how CVCs are uniquely positioned to drive innovation and scale with smarter, more sustainable outcomes,  and why trust, perception, and strategic communications are critical enablers of that success.

From Capital to Capability: The Evolving Role of CVCs

CVCs differ from traditional VCs in ways that can give founders an edge. They bring insight from operating businesses, understand procurement and regulation inside and out, and are often part of global supply chains.

One speaker from a major Middle Eastern financial institution explained how their venture arm, though new, was building bridges between fintechs and their core banking operations,  not just for innovation theatre, but for practical deployment and scale.

This advantage matters. Founders backed by CVCs gain access to not only funding but also commercial pathways, technical expertise, and procurement opportunities that pure-play venture capitalists (VCs) simply cannot offer.

Yet, as many agreed at the symposium, this strategic advantage can only be fully realised when the CVC and the portfolio company speak the same language,  and that’s where communication comes in.

Communications as Strategy, Not Just Output

Too often, communication is treated as an afterthought a tactical activity where the focus is on PR, social media, press releases, blog and/or campaign slogans. These are tools, not strategy.

True strategic communications sits upstream. It clarifies identity. It aligns perception with purpose. It builds trust with investors, policymakers, partners, talent and prospective investment partners like family offices.

And in a world where markets move on confidence and capital seeks clarity, it is as critical as your cap table or product roadmap.

When speaking to founders and CVC professionals alike, I often ask: “How do others see you,  and how much of that are you shaping versus reacting to?” It’s a crucial question, particularly when scaling internationally or preparing for follow-on fundraising.

Communications, when embedded from the start, can do four essential things for a CVC-backed company:

1. Accelerate Trust: Through clarity of message and consistency of presence, start-ups earn the confidence of new customers, regulators, and investors.

2. Position for Growth: Companies that know how to tell their story can attract the right partners and talent at the right time.

3. Build Strategic Advantage: Messaging rooted in market understanding and corporate strategy can differentiate you in crowded sectors.

4. De-risk the Narrative: Anticipating scrutiny (especially in regulated sectors) and shaping the story reduces reputational and operational risk.

The Power of Perception in Private Markets

The conversations at the symposium also explored the reform of private markets and innovations in secondary share trading. Mark James, who is leading work around the Private Intermittent Securities Exchange System (PISCES), described how this new model aims to bring liquidity to private firms,  through regulated, one-day share auctions that allow founders and early backers to realise value without going public.

This is significant. A lack of liquidity has long been a barrier for many founders and investors. But it also introduces a new layer of scrutiny. As private market visibility increases, so does the importance of reputation and perceived performance. Price transparency, investor confidence, and capital flow are no longer just functions of financials,  they are also shaped by sentiment, perception, and trust.

Strategic communications becomes a critical input in these environments. It provides companies with the tools to shape their investor narrative, manage the timing and tone of announcements, and maintain discretion where required.

As one CVC leader put it, “For every investor that wants more transparency, there’s another who wants less.” Communications must navigate that tension with discipline and tact.

Communications, both tactical and strategic, help shape confidence, which is critical in capital markets, specially when fundraising. As I’ve said before and organisations like Lloyds of London have confirmed with their own studies and data, valuations of companies are influenced by the value of reputation, an intangible asset. If you think solely about communications from the perspective of of tactical comms - PR, blogs and social, then there is a misunderstand of how strategic communciations can help steer a company to growth.

University Spinouts: Innovation’s Untapped Arsenal

One of the most energising sessions I joined, which followed on from an event I attended at the SFO Week in May, focused on university spinouts. Institutions like Oxford, Cambridge, and Imperial are attracting global IP and academic talent, with interest accelerating due to shifts in US higher education and global geopolitics. And yes, US researchers are already looking at moving over The Atlantic. Perception matters and influences decisions.

Yet spinouts face a complex challenge. They are often rich in IP but lean on commercialisation experience. Their founders are researchers, not entrepreneurs. Their language is scientific, not strategic.

Here again, communication plays a bridging role, in both the strategic advisory and positioning.

It’s not enough to have a breakthrough; you must communicate it in a way that resonates with funders, regulators, and industry. As I said during one conversation, there’s the “public side of comms,”  your website, your LinkedIn, your media coverage,  but the private side is even more vital. For many companies and spinouts, it requires a model where, as an example, 80% of time is spent with more private and strategic positioning and the remaining 20% if more tactical.

Again, as an example, from my early days supporting charities and NGOs over 30 years ago. Charity fundraising is split between the public side that we all see, the fundraising runs, people sponsoring cake stalls and challenges - activities that are equally critical to win over public support, but the big ticket fundraising from charitable trusts, corporates and foundations, who lend in big numbers. The psychology is perfect. You need £10 million, when £8 million is raised privately, go public and ask people for support the remaining. People tend to be morereceptive.

That’s the work of aligning your story to your business outcomes and shaping how you are seen by those who matter most: prospective investors, regulators, and partners.

This becomes even more important as UK universities scale their IP commercialisation activity. The risk is not the science, it’s the signal.

Communicating value clearly, at the right time, to the right audiences can mean the difference between a licensing deal and a lost opportunity.

CVCs as Builders, Not Just Backers

There’s a fundamental difference between CVCs and many financial investors. CVCs understand timelines. They know that deep-tech and industrial innovation takes longer to commercialise. They operate inside regulatory environments. They see innovation not just as financial upside, but as a strategic necessity for their sector and their own corporate. It forms part of a wider strategic vision of planning for the long term.

And this long-term view is powerful if harnessed well.

The GVC Institute and GCV’s network play a vital role in sharing operational knowledge and facilitating peer learning among CVCs. At the symposium, there was honest discussion about the friction that can exist between a parent corporation’s priorities and a CVC’s investment goals. But there was also a clear appetite for solving it through internal education, strategic alignment, and communications that reflect both the independence and the integration of CVCs.

One of the more powerful observations made was that “CVCs can help start-ups succeed because they understand supply chains and internal procurement better than most.” That’s insight no Series A fund can buy. Strategic communications can amplify that advantage by packaging knowledge into a reputation, turning operational value into perceived value.

The Case for a Communications Playbook for CVCs

If you’re a CVC leader reading this, here’s what I’d advocate:

1. Treat Your Reputation Like an Asset: As Lloyd’s of London and KPMG report that i highlighted before said, reputation can account for over 25% of a firm’s market value. And it’s even more pronounced for early-stage companies, where visibility and perceived credibility drive deal flow.

2. Embed Communications into Due Diligence: When investing in companies, assess not only their tech or team, but their readiness to communicate clearly, strategically, and with impact. Build that ability early.

3. Offer Non-Capital Value Through Communications Support: Your portfolio companies need more than just cash. Equip them with narrative development, media training, and stakeholder engagement tools. That’s what makes a founder confident in front of a sovereign wealth fund or a government panel.

4. Engage Policymakers with Clarity and Purpose: Many of the innovations you back will face regulatory scrutiny. Helping companies prepare and shaping the policy environment around them is a role few CVCs play, but should. You want a narrative that gives regulators and other investors confidence and where there are issues these need to be resolved privately.

5. Measure Perception as a Leading Indicator: Just as you monitor run rate and burn, track perception in relevant stakeholder groups. It’s often the best early signal of future fundraising, partnership, or acquisition potential.

Why Now Matters

As we look to the second half of 2025, the context is both urgent and hopeful. Capital markets are evolving. Regulatory reform here in the UK is underway. Equally, within the EU there are movements to deregulate and change the culture so that the innovation that is created within this trading block can scale. IP is moving across borders. The UK, in particular, is in a “Goldilocks” moment for innovation, with global talent inflows, attractive legal frameworks, and new secondary markets emerging.

But for these opportunities to translate into outcomes, we need more than science and money. We need alignment. We need trust. And we need a narrative.

That’s where communication comes in, as a strategic lever.

If you lead a CVC fund or advise start-ups, ask yourself this: “Are we shaping how your CVC and each of your portfolio of companies are seen? Or are you hoping that your success will be obvious?”

The winners will do the former.

The UK is entering what many describe as a “Goldilocks moment” for innovation, an inflexion point where policy ambition, private capital, and ecosystem readiness converge. For family offices and corporate venture capital (CVC) investors, recognising this structural shift and responding with long-term, trust-based investment strategies is both a commercial and reputational imperative.

NVIDIA’s Vote of Confidence

At London Tech Week 2025, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang declared: “Because of AI, every industry in the UK will be a tech industry.” He backed this with substance: the launch of a new NVIDIA AI Lab, a national AI developer training initiative, and commitments to AI-native 6G research. However, he also highlighted a strategic vulnerability: the UK is “the largest AI ecosystem in the world without its own infrastructure,” calling for urgent action on sovereign compute investments .

CNBC at London Tech Week 2025: Nvidia Jason Huang says UK is in a ‘Goldilocks’ moment: ‘I’m going to invest here’

The Mansion House Accord: Institutional Capital in Motion

Simultaneously, the Mansion House Accord is unlocking domestic institutional capital. Seventeen of the UK’s largest DC pension schemes have pledged to allocate 10% of their default funds into private markets by 2030, releasing up to £50 billion, with at least half earmarked for UK-based private assets. This commitment, underpinned by support from Rothschild & Co and the UK Treasury, signals a shift from passive allocation to proactive nation-building.

For family offices, this opens co-investment opportunities with robust governance frameworks, and for CVCs, it validates private market participation as part of a broader industrial strategy.

Public Policy Foundations: Spending Review 2025

The fiscal backdrop adds further depth. The Spending Review 2025 outlines a £18 billion increase in real-terms departmental spending from 2024–25 to 2027–28, and commits £4.5 billion to innovation, AI infrastructure, and digital connectivity.

Crucially, it focuses on skills investment and lifelong learning as enablers of productivity and social mobility. This is more than budget-setting; it’s a strategic attempt to rewire the UK’s economic engine around innovation and human capital.

Academic–Industry Hubs: Catalysts for Growth

The Cambridge × Manchester Innovation Partnership, backed by £6 million in joint funding from Research England and partner universities, exemplifies this national ambition. With participation from Microsoft, Arm and AstraZeneca, the partnership is designed to commercialise research, develop scale-ups, and attract foreign investment into UK IP. These hubs are not only incubators, they’re mechanisms for de-risking early-stage innovation and aligning capital to long-term policy goals.

Unlocking Regulation and Incentivising Innovation

While the capital and policy signals are clear, one critical piece remains under-leveraged: regulatory reform and incentive design for entrepreneurs.

If the UK is to fully realise its growth potential and broaden its tax base, it must modernise outdated rules and actively support innovation.

1. Regulation as Enabler, Not Obstacle

Too often, regulation is framed as a post-facto guardrail. In a growth environment, it must instead be a strategic enabler. Regulatory frameworks should:

• Accelerate licensing for new technologies (e.g., AI-enabled health diagnostics, fintech, green energy storage).

• Create fast-track regulatory sandboxes for highly regulated sectors (e.g., aerospace, life sciences), modelled after the FCA’s AI sandbox.

• Incentivise family office and CVC-backed companies with pre-certification programmes to de-risk product rollouts and meet global standards.

Such measures would help innovative firms scale faster while reinforcing the UK’s reputation as a responsible but responsive regulatory jurisdiction.

2. Smart Tax Reform for Founders and Investors

Generating more income for the state means supporting those who create value. HM Treasury and HMRC should consider the following:

• Reform CGT treatment on founder equity, especially for start-ups moving from Seed to Series B. Current punitive tax rates often push founders to exit early or relocate.

• Reintroduce a modernised version of Entrepreneurs’ Relief, with caps tied to impact metrics such as job creation, R&D investment or export revenue.

• Expand Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) limits and offer additional relief for investments into regions or sectors prioritised in the UK Innovation Strategy.

Such incentives would not only drive more founder-led scale-up activity but also support longer holding periods, increasing value capture and thus tax receipts for the UK.

3. Institutional Alignment: Mobilising Pension and Public Funds

Pension capital, unlocked via the Mansion House Accord, should be matched by regulatory alignment:

• Allow DC schemes to offer innovation-linked default funds with proper oversight and diversified governance.

• Streamline reporting requirements for private-market investment vehicles, encouraging pension funds to increase allocations to tech, climate, and infrastructure sectors.

• Incentivise blended finance models where public funds (e.g., British Patient Capital) de-risk early-stage innovation for private follow-on capital.

Why This Matters to Family Offices and CVCs

The reputational payoff from strategic alignment is clear. Family offices that invest not only capital but capability, by helping shape governance, standards, and policy dialogue, will be perceived as nation-building partners.

CVCs, particularly those active in regulated or critical sectors, can build credibility by showcasing how their investments contribute to UK sovereign goals.

At next week’s GCV Symposium in London, corporate venture leaders will discuss exactly these themes. But to succeed, this must go beyond discussion. Family offices and CVCs should co-develop position papers with academic partners, contribute to regulatory consultations, and take visible positions in public‑private investment and innovation alliances.

We need to break down barriers and move at pace if we are to unlock growth and deliver for everyone and not the few, which is the current perception.

Yesterday at SXSW London we learnt about the rise of Como 1907, which isn’t just a club being built about great football led by former Arsenal and Barcelona legend Cesc Fabregas. It’s a story about football being used to create a global brand that fuses innovation, data, and identity with the emotional power of football, and local Italian community values.

For years and thanks to George Clooney, Lake Como has become known for luxury and beautiful mountain scenery, not league tables. Yet nestled in this iconic setting is one of the most ambitious projects in modern football. Under the leadership of Mirwan Suwarso and Head Coach Cesc Fàbregas, Como 1907 is turning what was a bankrupt fourth-tier Italian football club into a global brand with ambitions that stretch far beyond Serie A.

From Collapse to Credibility

When Suwarso and his Indonesian consortium, led by the Indonesian Hartono brothers, Robert Budi Hartono and Michael Bambang Hartono, took over Como 1907, the club had endured three bankruptcies in a decade. Trust was non-existent. "They didn’t want to work with us," Suwarso admits at the talk at Shoreditch Town Hall in London. The strategy began not with players, but people. The club paid for local COVID-19 vaccinations, revitalised shopfronts, and restored trust through grassroots economic initiatives. Retail partnerships alone jumped from under 200 when they arrived to nearly 500 in just 18 months.

Yet, Suwarso knew that to create a global brand, football was the hook that crossed international boundaries, which is why, despite the off-pitch innovation, the philosophy was crystal clear: football drives everything. "If you don't get it right on the pitch, you're just a fourth-division side," Suwarso said. Promotion to Serie B was the first step. With Fàbregas at the helm, the team plays with an attacking identity rooted in belief, structure, and tempo.

"If I lose, I want to lose on my terms," Fàbregas says. That means leading with vision, style, and conviction. The footballing product becomes not just a performance, but the nucleus of a brand.

Lake Como as a Football Brand

But this isn’t just about winning matches. Como 1907 is working to redefine what a football club can be, and now in Serie A, it has extra exposure to do just that.

Lake Como With nearly five million tourists visiting Lake Como each year, Suwarso sees an opportunity to make Como 1907 a "premium soccer tourism destination."

Look back at the early 1990s, and Lake Como received around 500,000 tourists each year. The number rose after George Clooney arrived in 2002, attracting over 1.3 million visitors in and around 2018, around the time Como 1907 was purchased, and due to the Global Expo that took place in Milan. Lifestyle campaigns associated with the club, as well as social media influencers, then pushed that number to a record high of five missions, confirming the vision and strategy adopted by Sarwaso and the club's owners.

For Como 1907, Football is the entry point to a curated lifestyle brand that includes lakefront villas for VIP matchday experiences and is repurposing them into 365-day hospitality offerings, including restaurants, clubs, and branded experiences.

To take the story to the world, the club has some locked in values from Cesc’s football career, together with Italian values that sell so well around the world and focus on famiglia, artigianalità, bellezza and dolce vita.

Data-Led Decisions, Human-Centred Strategy

While the vision is romantic, the execution is rigorous, with a focus on innovation that does not forget local or national heritage.

The club has invested heavily in data and analytics. On the football side, critical in building a global brand, recruitment blends instinct and information, identifying undervalued talent across Europe and giving them a platform to grow.

"We believe in data," says Fàbregas. But, unlike many clubs that lean into cold metrics, Como 1907 uses data to inform a broader emotional and cultural fit. Players aren't just signed for ability, they buy into the vision.

And with the experience of Suwarso in branding and the digital economy, he and his team looked at solutions where there were blockers. As an example, Italy’s ticketing systems for football games are notoriously opaque. Como saw this problem and built their own blockchain-powered platform. By minting NFTs tied to ticket issuance, they allow tourists to plan match attendance months in advance, solving a problem that conventional systems can’t.

This also combats touting, enhances security, and creates new value layers for fans. Forty percent of Como’s ticketing revenue now comes from international visitors.

The Brand Ecosystem: Beyond the Pitch

Como 1907 isn’t just a football club, it’s a multi-sector brand. The club has launched subsidiaries in:

• Fashion: Branded apparel and lifestyle lines

• Media: Storytelling and content creation

• Craft Beer: Brewed with local Como silk

• Education: A football academy for U.S. students

Each venture reinforces the core identity: premium, place-based, and emotionally resonant. It sells values and perceptions to the world. And that is built on having a strategic vision that the investors buy into financially.

Suwarso knew that there was going to be pushback when he arrived, which is why he published his personal email and responded directly to fan complaints. When fans demanded new paint at the stadium, they volunteered to do it themselves. That blend of humility and ambition sets Como apart. All set against local community values that people in Como and around the world can relate to.

A Model for Modern Football Leadership

What Como 1907 is building matters for football executives, marketers, and brand strategists. It offers a real-world template for:

• Scaling legacy institutions with global potential

• Integrating tourism, data, and sport

• Operating with agility despite regulatory drag

• Treating clubs as cultural products, not just teams

With a world-famous coach at Como (yes, the question about the rumours of a move to Inter was asked!), an iconic location, and a willingness to innovate on every level, Como 1907 is showing how the next generation of clubs can think beyond the pitch and win.

This isn’t football as usual. This is football as a future, where their associated brands can grow and deliver growth based on the values of Como the club, Como the region and Italy.

Translating global trends into actionable organisational strategy is a bespoke process. My work focuses on aligning reputation and strategic interests for firms looking at technology to deliver growth. To discuss a potential mandate or professional engagement, please get in touch via LinkedIn.

Last week, I had the privilege of again attending SFO Week 2025, where family offices, innovators and advisers came together to discuss the future.

A huge congratulations to the Single Family Office Alliance (SFO Alliance) for bringing together such an influential community of investors. In an era marked by geopolitical uncertainty, transformative technology, and generational change, bringing principals, advisors, and investors together in one space has never been more timely.

This year’s sessions surfaced powerful insights into the unique and growing role that single-family offices (SFOs) play in shaping the future of innovation, enterprise, and economic resilience.

From university spinouts to deeptech ventures, and from next-gen brand building to concentrated thematic portfolios, family offices are quietly assuming a role that traditional capital often cannot fulfil: that of patient, values-aligned, globally minded investors. VCs get the headlines, but VCs engage with family offices to secure capital and investment into their own funds.

And yet, the path is not without its challenges. SFOs must navigate macro risks, manage multigenerational expectations, and protect their legacy and reputation, all while unlocking capital for the next wave of innovators.

Innovation as a Strategic Imperative

The conversations across SFO Week clarified that innovation is no longer an opportunistic add-on to wealth management strategies. It is central to a family office’s long-term vision. Sessions such as “University Spin-Outs” and “Deeptech” revealed how SFOs are leaning into research-driven and science-based ventures that may take a decade or more to deliver returns but offer asymmetric upside and societal value.

Family offices are increasingly unbound by fund cycles and institutional reporting demands, unlike traditional VCs. This enables them to support early-stage founders, back university tech transfer efforts, and offer capital and long-term strategic alignment.

However, unlocking this innovation isn’t without its barriers. From the inconsistent spin-out terms that founders face at universities to the often-siloed approach between researchers and commercial stakeholders, there is a clear need for trusted, informed guidance and advisory. This is particularly important in sectors like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and biotech, where national interest, regulation, and intellectual property cross paths.

The Role of Perception and Reputation

What became evident to me during the sessions is that reputation, trust, and perception are, at the same time, no longer intangibles. They are investment-critical. As one speaker noted in the session on family office structures, “reputation is an asset class in itself.”

In the world of spin-outs, for example, the perceived success of a university in supporting commercialisation directly affects its ability to attract world-class researchers and future investment. Similarly, founders choose backers based not just on capital, but on alignment, purpose, and perceived trustworthiness.

This is especially true in global innovation ecosystems. Family offices recognised as mission-driven, supportive, and discreet can unlock opportunities in highly regulated or sensitive sectors, from quantum computing to next-generation energy, in markets like Japan and Southeast Asia, where cultural fluency and stakeholder engagement matter as much as balance sheets, family offices with a thoughtful public and private reputation are significantly advantaged.

Navigating Geopolitics and Geoeconomics

The geopolitical backdrop to innovation investment cannot be ignored. In a wide-ranging discussion on global power dynamics, several sessions explored the re-emergence of multipolar tensions, especially between the US and China. And yes, we were told, rightly so, that we are witnessing and living through a second Cold War, one shaped not by nuclear weapons but by semiconductors, trade routes, and information warfare.

In this environment, capital is not neutral. In fact, in this environment, capital seeks safer jurisdictions. Family offices are thinking ahead, balancing opportunity with their exposure to risk, and diversifying their footprints.

This is where strategic clarity matters, not just to them, but to the innovators that benefit from their investment. Family offices investing in cross-border ventures must anticipate financial volatility and reputational and political exposure. This includes understanding where their capital flows, who their partners are, and how the geopolitical perceptions of their home country may influence dealmaking abroad.

Intergenerational Change and Next-Gen Purpose

The generational shift within family offices was another core theme that emerged. Sessions that discussed how younger family members are reshaping portfolios to reflect new technologies and values. They build brands, businesses, and investment theses around sustainability, health, inclusion, and purpose.

But with this ambition comes a need for deeper business support. Next-gens often face structural or governance hurdles in deploying capital or creating alignment between legacy strategies and future vision. They require mentorship, ecosystem access, and strategic storytelling to articulate and legitimise their initiatives, both within the family and in public view.

This is an important area for family offices to reflect on. Enabling the next generation to lead doesn’t just protect continuity. It creates relevance in an era where values and visibility matter; relevance and perception can be differentiators.

Focused Portfolios, Deep Conviction

The session on building a concentrated portfolio highlighted the conviction-led strategies that many family offices are now pursuing. Rather than chasing index-matching diversification, these offices go deep in areas they understand, from climate tech to fintech to life sciences.

With this focused approach comes both opportunity and risk. Without the cushion of broad diversification, reputation and access become even more critical. Whether backing a promising founder or securing a regulatory green light, family offices rely on their networks, brand, and ability to show up as committed, long-term partners.

This is also where alignment with policy and public interest plays a role. As government funding tightens and public trust in institutions fluctuates, family offices can become anchor investors in innovation ecosystems, but only if they are seen as constructive, patient, and strategically aligned.

From Capital to Capability

Across SFO Week, one theme resonated: single-family offices are evolving from passive wealth stewards to active system-builders. They are deploying capital with conviction, but also with conscience. They are seeking returns, but also relevance. And they recognise that the world of accelerating complexity, perception, positioning, and purpose is as vital as portfolio performance.

In many ways, family offices are uniquely positioned. They have the time horizon, the discretion, and the autonomy to take bold, long-view positions. But to fully realise their influence, they must invest not just in companies, but in capability, reputation, and strategy.

As the discussions at SFO Week 2025 revealed, those family offices that understand the power of aligned capital, narrative trust, and cross-border fluency will not only support the future of innovation. They will shape it.

And it’s worth remembering that it isn’t just start-ups and innovators that are looking for the support of family offices. It is also governments that are making this an international battle for capital that helps countries grow!

Economic Diplomacy Is Now Business Strategy

Economic diplomacy is no longer a side theme in foreign affairs—it’s a frontline business strategy. In a world where markets, politics, and technology collide, the ability to engage at the intersection of public and private power has become a defining edge for companies and investors.

The recent Saudi-U.S. Investment Summit demonstrated this shift in action. With high-profile participants like Elon Musk (Tesla/SpaceX), Larry Fink (BlackRock), and Jane Fraser (Citi), the summit was more than a showcase of commercial opportunity. It revealed a new model of influence, where economic alignment with national agendas creates access, capital, and credibility.

And the roadshow didn’t return to the US after Saudi. Instead, what it did is continue tp Qatar and Abu Dhabi in the UAE to meet and agree more financial support.

Redrawing Global Influence Through Economic Diplomacy

Economic diplomacy blends corporate strategy with geopolitical leverage. It is not about deal brokering alone, but shaping environments where investment decisions carry strategic and reputational weight.

As Gillian Tett wrote in the Financial Times, this era of "geoeconomics" sees nations using economic tools as power plays. Today, when the U.S. sends delegations abroad, it includes not just diplomats but CEOs from Amazon, Blackstone, NVIDIA, and more. These aren’t ceremonial attendees. They are instruments of influence.

Governments now deploy corporations as extensions of foreign policy. Business and diplomacy are no longer parallel tracks, they are one strategic lane.

Taking Brand America and Trump on Tour

With US President Trump leading the way and happy to be engaging with leaders in the Gulf - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.

While that wasn’t a surprise, what was was the delegation of US Leaders that went with him and secured direct access to decision-makers in the region.

US companies engaged and secured investment and headlines in a region where Trump’s brand is highly regarded.

Saudi - US Investment Forum 2025

The Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum was a high-stakes convergence of political ambition and private sector firepower. It aligned with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, a $3 trillion roadmap to diversify its economy beyond oil.

Participating firms, OpenAI, Google, Boeing, Halliburton, Citicorp, Schlumberger, were not there for visibility. They were aligning with a national transformation agenda. And in return, they gained preferential access to one of the most capital-intensive markets in the world.

The U.S. government committed $600 billion in new investments, including a record-breaking $142 billion defence deal and $80 billion in joint ventures with tech giants. Google, Oracle, AMD, and Salesforce anchored infrastructure and AI projects, while Boeing closed a $4.8 billion aircraft sale. Aramco signed energy agreements with NextDecade and Sempra.

This wasn’t just deal-making. It was strategic positioning.

Qatar Investment

Following the visit to Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump moved on to Qatar, where he announced a $1.2 trillion economic exchange agreement, including a $96 billion Boeing deal with Qatar Airways and a $10 billion investment in the Al Udeid Air Base.

UAE Investment

In Abu Dhabi, the UAE committed to a $1.4 trillion, 10-year investment framework in the U.S., spanning energy, AI, and manufacturing sectors. Additionally, agreements were made to establish a 5GW-capacity AI data centre in Abu Dhabi and facilitate the UAE’s purchase of advanced AI semiconductors from American companies, announcements that were warmly received by American tech companies.

It’s also worth remembering that not that long ago, the UAE with its various investment funds and Sovereign Wealth Funds went to the US and secured meetings with senior leaders of America’s tech sector. As I wrote before, this highlighting how flexing economic might get’s you attention.

Global Models That Validate the Strategy

Economic diplomacy is not a new concept, but it is now a primary play. The Riyadh event fits into a wider pattern:

• China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Over $1 trillion invested across 140+ countries, expanding China’s reach through companies like Huawei and Sinopec.

• Germany’s Mittelstand: Government-backed trade missions have enabled SMEs to dominate global industrial niches, accounting for 52% of national GDP in 2024.

• India’s Digital Public Infrastructure: Platforms like Aadhaar and UPI have become tools of influence across Africa and Southeast Asia.

The Strategic Mandate for Businesses

Economic diplomacy rewards those who think long-term and align deeply with host-country priorities. It is not about market entry; it’s about influence entry.

Align with National Priorities

Vision 2030 has made Saudi Arabia a magnet for companies aligned with its digital, defence, and green energy goals:

• AI and Tech: OpenAI and NVIDIA’s involvement aligns with the kingdom’s ambition to lead in artificial intelligence.

• Energy Transition: Schlumberger and Baker Hughes are positioning for leadership in green hydrogen and low-carbon solutions.

Strategic alignment translates into fast-tracked approvals, co-investment from state actors, and insulation from market shocks.

Protect Reputation in High-Exposure Markets

Deals in geopolitically sensitive regions carry reputational risk. As Ray Dalio put it at Davos 2025: “Investors now scrutinise ESG compliance as fiercely as ROI.”

Transparency, governance, and ESG compliance are now boardroom imperatives—not optional add-ons. Companies must be prepared for scrutiny from shareholders, regulators, media, and civil society.

Strategic Advisers: From Optional to Essential

The role of geopolitical advisers is no longer advisory—it’s operational. They provide foresight, access, and protection across volatile, high-value environments.

What Strategic Advisers Deliver:

• Geopolitical Intelligence: Track policy shifts, alliances, and regulatory movements that shape market access.

• Diplomatic Access: Open doors to decision-makers, regulators, and sovereign investors.

• Crisis Planning: Build systems to respond to sanctions, protests, or sudden reputational threats.

• Strategic Fit: Ensure your market positioning supports the national narrative and policy agenda.

Why Demand Is Rising

In a 2025 survey by Adams Street Partners, over 80% of institutional investors said geopolitical factors directly influence capital allocation. This is now a board-level issue.

EY’s 2025 CEO Outlook Pulse shows many global CEOs are adjusting strategies, moving supply chains, and reassessing market exposures. BlackRock’s Geopolitical Risk Indicator reflects sustained market sensitivity to global political dynamics, from U.S.–China tensions to energy regulation.

Turning Insight into Advantage

The value of advisers lies in execution:

• Risk Assessment: Identify deal-breakers before they happen.

• Stakeholder Mapping: Build coalitions with policymakers, local industry, and NGOs.

• Scenario Planning: Anticipate disruptions and craft response strategies.

• Opportunity Identification: Pinpoint where your value proposition intersects with national ambition.

This is no longer risk management—it’s competitive intelligence.

Lead or Follow in the Age of Economic Diplomacy

The rules of global business have changed. Influence, access, and resilience now depend on your ability to navigate and contribute to economic diplomacy.

This isn’t just a risk space, it’s a growth space.

Companies that align strategically with national goals, while maintaining ESG discipline, will lead the next chapter of global expansion. And those with the right advisers will get there faster, safer, and stronger.

As Larry Fink put it: “The companies that thrive will be those that treat geopolitical strategy as core to their operational DNA.”

I advise a wide range of organisations, including governments and investors on how to position themselves and sharpen messaging, and build resilient reputational capital that supports long-term value creation and stakeholder trust.

If you’re looking to modernise your communications team so that it is ready to tackle the growing threat of deepfakes and reputation challenging issues then, I would welcome a conversation.

To stay informed, subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter, Reputation Matters, where I share insight and practical guidance at the intersection of investment, innovation, and trust.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your network, who may benefit. To my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Just yesterday, a Financial Times TikTok video came through my timeline where Markets Columnist Katie Martin and US Financial Commentator Robert Armstrong talked about Warren Buffett.

Right at the beginning of the post, Katie comments on how Buffett looks at good companies for a good price, before Robert adds that he also looks for “a management team that I trust.” Just that one word, Trust, unlocks attention. Everything there is about trust.

@financialtimes What will happen to America’s most famous conglomerate? After Warren Buffett announced his retirement this month, Katie Martin and Rob Armstrong look at his incredible career, and try to figure out what becomes of a somewhat random collection of businesses. Tap the link to listen to more from Unhedged. #Buffett #berkshirehathaway #WarrenBuffett #Investing ♬ original sound - FinancialTimes

Today, we are living in a volatile and information-rich environment where trust has emerged as a critical asset underpinning reputation, enabling investment, and fueling long-term growth. On the subject of trust, Warren Buffett also said the following when he and his team are looking at investments:

“We’re looking for three things when we hire people or invest in companies: intelligence, energy, and integrity. And if they don’t have the last one, don’t bother with the first two.”

Buffett’s perspective is not just philosophical one, it serves as a strategic lens through which investors and stakeholders assess organisations before deploying capital, especially at scale.

Yet, the concept of trust amongst leaders is often misunderstood. It’s seen as a tactical asset that is built and managed at a tactical rather than at a strategic level, even though what decision-makers and senior stakehodlers seek is assurance that an organisation and it’s leadership have the capability and trustworthiness to lead, execute their vision, report transparently, and act with integrity amidst uncertainty.

Reputation as a Strategic Asset

Trust is the foundation upon which businesses build relationships with employees, customers, investors, and regulators. In 2025, 93% of business executives agree that trust directly improves profitability, while 94% reported facing challenges in maintaining it, a sharp increase from 2023. This dichotomy highlights a critical gap: organisations recognise trust’s value but struggle to operationalise it.

Consider the consequences of failing to bridge this gap:

• 42% of executives cite customer disengagement as a top risk when trust erodes, while 38% highlight profitability declines.

• Employees who feel distrusted are half as productive and twice as likely to leave, costing companies talent and institutional knowledge (data from Deloitte from 2021).

Trust is not a static metric but a dynamic force that shapes market perceptions. For instance, the Edelman Trust Barometer 2025 reveals that 61% of the global population hold grievances against businesses and governments, with distrust correlating to reduced consumer spending and investor hesitation.

Reputation reflects how trust is perceived externally, shaping the views of investors, regulators, partners, employees, and consumers. A strong reputation reduces negotiation friction, boosts stakeholder confidence, and accelerates capital flows. Conversely, a tarnished confidence and reputation can stall deals, invite regulatory scrutiny, and increase operational costs.

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer also revealed a continued and significant shift towards the grievance-based society that we are experiences and which is marked by economic fears and a pervasive belief that systems are unfair and institutions aggravate these issues. This sentiment has led to election upsets in major Western democracies and criticism against business involvement in social issues. Key concerns include job loss due to automation and globalisation, stagnant wages, widening trust gaps between income brackets, and fears of discrimination.

Trust in institutions has become alarmingly low, with deep-seated grievances causing zero-sum mindsets. To counter this, the four major institutions, businesses, NGOs, government, and media, must work together to rebuild trust, deliver competent governance, and provide reliable information, fostering a sense of control and positive societal change. 

The Cost of Losing Trust

Trust is arduous to build but easy to lose, and the repercussions are substantial. Warren Buffett, again, said:

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.”

For as much as businesses today try to gain trust and manage how they are perceived, recent data shows that 7 in 10 people believe government officials, business leaders, and journalists deliberately mislead them by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations. This erosion of trust among traditionally reliable figures underscores the fragility of institutional credibility.

And real-world examples abound:

• Wirecard: The collapse of this fintech company due to fraudulent accounting practices led to a significant loss of investor trust.

• Boeing: The 737 Max crisis, which I’ve written about before, was exacerbated by communication missteps, resulting in brand erosion and financial losses.

• Facebook (Meta): Privacy concerns and data breaches have led to continued regulatory scrutiny.

These instances demonstrate that when trust erodes, so does value, rapidly and often irreversibly.

Building Trust Strategically

Organisations often misconstrue trust as a by-product of good work. This is a mistake. In reality, trust must be strategically cultivated through alignment across three core pillars:

1. Strategy and Leadership Integrity

Strategic clarity and authentic, values-driven leadership enable stakeholders to align with an organisation’s mission. Leadership must consistently demonstrate alignment between words and actions.

As BlackRock CEO Larry Fink emphasised in 2022:

“Stakeholders are pushing companies to go beyond disclosure and demonstrate how they are living their purpose.”

Leaders must integrate reputation and trust into strategy development, extending beyond public relations and investor relations.

2. Culture and Internal Communication

Trust originates within the organisation. Employees serve as the first line of reputation. A culture rooted in transparency, empowerment, and ethical decision-making projects outward. If there is a negative culture at the top, then that will permeate throughout the organisation.

McKinsey’s research indicates that companies with healthy cultures are three times more likely to achieve total shareholder return above their industry median.

This underscores the importance of systems reinforcing accountability, values, and employee voice.

3. Strategic Communications and Stakeholder Engagement

Trust is as much about communication as it is about action. Leaders who prioritise proactive, two-way stakeholder engagement outperform their peers. Strategic communications should focus on:

• Listening mechanisms to inform action

• Message discipline and transparency

• Regular updates, especially during uncertainty

Companies excelling in this area, such as Microsoft, Patagonia, and Unilever, build ‘permission capital’ with stakeholders, earning the benefit of the doubt during crises.

Trust as a Growth Multiplier

Trust is not a cost centre but a revenue driver. Deloitte’s research shows that a 10% increase in societal trust boosts GDP growth by 0.5% annually, translating to $40+ billion for economies like Brazil. For individual firms, this manifests as:  

• Higher Employee Productivity: Trusted teams achieve 15–20% efficiency gains through collaboration.

• Accelerated Innovation: R&D investments yield 30% higher returns in high-trust environments.

• Resilient Investor Relations: Firms with strong ESG ratings attract 20% more capital inflows during downturns.

When trust is embedded, organisations experience tangible benefits:

• Accelerated Decision-Making: When trust is established, investors, regulators, and partners act more swiftly.

• Enhanced Valuations: Companies perceived as well-governed and ethical command premium valuations.

• Crisis Resilience: Trusted companies recover more rapidly and retain customer loyalty during crises.

A Harvard Business Review study found that high-trust companies outperform low-trust ones by:

• 286% in total return to shareholders

• 76% in employee engagement

• 50% in productivity

These are not marginal gains; they are transformative, which many public or private organisations dream about.

A Strategic Playbook for Leaders

For C-suite leaders, board members, and senior government officials, embedding trust and reputation into organisational DNA is mission-critical. Here is a strategic playbook:

Step 1: Diagnose Your Trust Position

Conduct a comprehensive trust audit across stakeholders, internal and external. Assess perceptions of leadership, performance, communication, and purpose using tools like:

• Employee surveys

• Investor perception studies

• Stakeholder interviews

• Media and sentiment analysis

Step 2: Integrate Trust into Strategic Planning

Apply a trust lens to every strategic decision:

• Are actions reinforcing or undermining trust?

• Do actions align with stated values?

• How do key stakeholders perceive us?

Trust considerations must be integral to strategic board-level discussions.

Step 3: Communicate Transparently and Authentically

In an era of scepticism, communications must be clear, values-driven, and responsive:

• Prioritise openness and understanding, even when conveying bad news

• Equip leaders to engage authentically, with empathy and humility and beyond the spreadsheet

• Foster long-term relationships with media, regulators, and investors

Step 4: Prepare for Crises Proactively

Trust is tested during crises. Organisations that prepare in advance, with scenario planning, crisis response teams, and rehearsed communications, preserve reputational capital.

EY’s Global Crisis Survey indicates that organisations with crisis plans recover trust more swiftly and limit brand damage.

Step 5: Measure Reputation and Trust

Implement dashboards to monitor:

• Media coverage and tone

• Stakeholder trust indices

• ESG ratings and performance

• Social media sentiment

• Employee and customer Net Promoter Scores (NPS)

What gets measured gets managed—and funded.

Trust in the Public Sector

For governments and public institutions, trust is foundational. The OECD reports that trust in government correlates with higher compliance, better service delivery, and greater societal cohesion. Without trust, policies are ignored, investments stall, and social resilience weakens. Therefore, civil service reforms, public-private partnerships, and international investment pitches must be built on credible, transparent, and strategically communicated trust.

Trust as a Strategic Imperative

We are living in an era marked by economic fears and institutional scepticism; trust and reputation are not optional but strategic imperatives. Leaders must proactively cultivate trust to unlock investment, drive growth, and build resilient organisations.

As Warren Buffett’s legacy demonstrates, trust is not just about ethics, it’s about economics.

I advise a wide range of organisations, including governments and investors on how to position themselves and sharpen messaging, and build resilient reputational capital that supports long-term value creation and stakeholder trust.

If you’re looking to modernise your communications team so that it is ready to tackle the growing threat of deepfakes and reputation challenging issues then, I would welcome a conversation.

To stay informed, subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter, Reputation Matters, where I share insight and practical guidance at the intersection of investment, innovation, and trust.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your network who may benefit. To my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Earlier this year, a sophisticated deepfake video began circulating online, purporting to show Goldman Sachs’ Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, David Kostin, endorsing a fraudulent investment scheme. The video, seemingly authentic and convincingly delivered, claimed returns of 48%, 66%, and even 108% within a week. It replicated Kostin’s speech patterns and delivery style with unsettling precision, making it indistinguishable from authentic corporate media.

The reputational hit was immediate and serious for a figure like Kostin, whose analysis guides institutional investors and whose commentary moves markets. Though Goldman Sachs swiftly issued a rebuttal and triggered takedown requests, the damage had already spread. The clip was re-uploaded across Telegram and WhatsApp groups, and even embedded in online investment scams targeted at retirees and young retail investors.

This wasn’t just a technical manipulation. It was a personal violation with significant implications for investor confidence, media trust, and Goldman Sachs’ hard-earned reputation.

Kostin and Goldman Sachs are not the only people and financial institutions that have been targeted and used by online scammers. With growing GenAI tools, clever social engineering, a lack of educational awareness of these tools, scammers are targeting those who are most vulnerable from the fake opportunities they peddle.

A Timeline: From Novelty to National Security Risk

The evolution of generative AI (GenAI) and deepfakes has moved rapidly from experimental novelty to serious institutional risk.

Between 2018 and 2020, AI’s potential became increasingly evident. Openai’s release of GPT-2 in 2019 marked a turning point, so powerful that its full version was initially withheld due to concerns over ‘misuse potential.’ Around the same time, deepfakes emerged on platforms like Reddit and YouTube, primarily as tools for political satire and non-consensual pornography. In fact, the main risk point for deepfakes was initially thought to be those working in politics and government.

While the early uses that came out in the public were seen as fringe, financial institutions quietly began exploring AI to enhance fraud detection and Know Your Customer (KYC) processes.

From 2021 to 2023, Genai entered the mainstream. Openai’s GPT-3, alongside image generators like DALL-E and Midjourney, triggered a wave of enterprise adoption. Banks began integrating GenAI into customer service (via chatbots), regulatory compliance, and document processing. Yet, as these tools gained traction, with security agencies raising the alarm.

In 2023, Europol warned that synthetic media could dominate digital content by 2026, flagging significant misinformation and identity fraud risks.

By 2024 and the start of 2025, the threats became a reality. Deloitte reported a 700% surge in deepfake incidents targeting the financial sector. A high-profile case in Hong Kong saw scammers use a deepfake CFO in a video call to steal $25 million. Regulatory bodies reacted quickly. FINRA included AI-generated deception as a core compliance risk in its 2025 oversight report, while the U.S. Treasury and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued specific guidance on AI impersonation threats to financial market integrity.

As the world continues to move towards a multipolar world with more conflict and economic insecurity, bad states or individual actors are turning to Genai to target not just financial institutions, but also citizens.

The Trust Deficit: AI and the Erosion of Perception

Executive Voices Are Now Vulnerabilities

The attack on David Kostin is part of a broader trend. According to Deloitte, in 2023 deepfake incidents in the financial sector increased within Europe by over 780 percent, and the UK accounted for 13.5 percent of total cases.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025, which was published in January, revealed that ‘cybercrime grew in both frequency and sophistication, marked by ransomware attacks, AI-enhanced tactics – such as phishing, vishing and deepfakes – and a notable increase in supply chain attacks.’

The report highlights how GenAI ‘supports attackers in developing credible social engineering attacks in a wider range of languages, which helps threat actors target a greater number of people in more countries at a lower cost,’ and ‘when augmented with GenAI, threat actors can create convincing impersonations of the voice, video, images and writing styles of senior leaders. When these deepfakes are maintained over prolonged interactions with targeted staff, they can be used to defraud organisations or help attackers gain access to their IT systems.’

Accenture’s research has noted a 223% rise in the trade of deepfake-related tools on dark web forums between Q1 2023 and Q1 2024.

In this climate, every executive voice, every onscreen briefing, becomes a potential liability, one that can mislead millions, move markets, or trigger regulatory inquiry.

Declining Consumer Confidence in Digital Authenticity

In the LNRS 2025 Trust Index, 55% of consumers said they no longer trust financial video content without verification. Younger audiences, especially Gen Z and Millennials, were the most sceptical, citing AI-generated scams seen on Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok.

Similarly, Accenture’s ‘Banking Consumer Trends 2025’ report found that only 26% of respondents trust banks to use AI ethically, down from 41% just two years prior.

As AI accelerates, trust decays, and without trust, perception becomes volatile.

Deepfakes as Financial Weapons: Case Studies and Impact

Arup Deepfake Scam – Asia, 2023

In one of the earliest high-profile corporate deepfake attacks, UK-headquartered engineering firm Arup fell victim to a sophisticated AI-driven fraud. In late 2023, scammers targeted Arup’s Hong Kong office staff with a deepfake video call that convincingly impersonated the company’s Chief Financial Officer and senior leaders.

The attackers recreated the CFO’s voice using audio from publicly available recordings while leveraging generative AI to simulate multiple known participants in a virtual meeting. During the call, an employee was instructed to process a series of fund transfers, resulting in a $25 million USD loss. The scam was only discovered hours later, when inconsistencies were identified internally. The funds were unrecoverable.

Elon Musk Crypto Deepfake – USA, 2024

In the consumer space, a deepfake video of Elon Musk promoting a cryptocurrency investment circulated widely on X (formerly Twitter) in early 2024. Despite visible disclaimers, the convincingly edited clip was shared over 150,000 times, misleading viewers into believing Musk endorsed a fraudulent scheme.

One U.S. retiree reportedly lost $690,000 after acting on the video’s investment pitch. Though flagged by moderators and removed, the scam’s virality underscored how high-profile impersonations can lead to serious financial loss.

How Can Financial Institutions Strengthen Their Strategy Against AI Threats?

So, how do we mitigate the rising threat of AI-driven fraud and protect institutional reputation and investor trust? And what can financial institutions do and adopt so that they can be proactive and resilient in their strategy?

Above all, strategists and strategic communicators need full sight and understanding of an organisation's governance and technology before advising, engaging and communicating privately and then publicly with stakeholders and the wider public.

Internal Governance and Preparedness

1. Executive Authentication Protocols - How to Strengthening Identity in a Synthetic Age.

As generative AI and deepfake technologies become more accessible and sophisticated, ensuring the authenticity of executive communications is no longer optional, it is a strategic imperative.

Financial institutions must implement robust executive authentication protocols to safeguard against impersonation, fraud, and reputational damage.

One of the most effective first lines of defence is the use of biometric logins for executive access to sensitive platforms, including internal communications tools, trading systems, and board portals. Biometric identifiers, such as facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, or voice biometrics, provide far greater security than traditional passwords, which are increasingly vulnerable to phishing or brute-force attacks. Some banks and investment firms are already exploring multi-modal authentication, combining biometrics with behavioural data, such as typing patterns or location, to confirm identity in real-time.

2. Crisis Simulation and Tabletop Exercises - Preparing for AI-Driven Disinformation Scenarios

In today’s evolving threat environment, where AI-generated content can mimic trusted voices and visual identities, traditional crisis planning is no longer sufficient. Financial institutions must integrate AI-specific tabletop exercises and simulation drills into their governance and communications frameworks. These exercises should be designed to test not only operational resilience, but also how executives, communications teams, compliance, and legal counsel respond under pressure to reputational and market-moving threats.

Quarterly cross-functional drills are a best practice. These simulations should reflect real-world scenarios tailored to the institution’s risk profile. For example, a deepfake video of the CFO announcing a dividend cut might be released during earnings season. Or, a fabricated briefing from a regulatory body might circulate on encrypted messaging apps, falsely suggesting that the firm is under investigation. In another case, an impersonation email, complete with a synthetic voice message, might instruct staff to execute a high-value fund transfer. Each scenario should test executive decision-making and their communications teams response timing, as well as coordination with IT/security teams, and internal escalation protocols.

Importantly, institutions should look to penetration testing (pen-testing) methodologies as a model for stress-testing their communications infrastructure. Just as cyber teams routinely simulate phishing and intrusion attempts to test systems and staff, communications and risk leaders should commission controlled disinformation campaigns or synthetic media drops, crafted by vetted external consultants or internal red teams.

These exercises allow executive teams to experience the shock, confusion, and urgency of a real deepfake event, and to practice delivering accurate, calm, and credible responses under pressure.

To be effective, these simulations must involve the C-suite, corporate affairs, investor relations, legal, compliance, and cybersecurity functions. After-action reviews should assess response speed, message consistency, legal risk exposure, and public impact. Findings should be used to refine crisis communications playbooks, update contact chains, and pre-approve holding statements.

In a world where a synthetic message can erode billions in market value or trigger regulatory intervention, rehearsing for the worst is now a mark of strategic foresight and not paranoia. At the same time, it can reassure markets and the insurance and re-insurance that financial institutions are required to have.

3. AI Model Governance Councils: Embedding Oversight into AI Deployment

As generative AI becomes embedded in customer service, investment analysis, and operational decision-making, financial institutions must establish robust oversight structures to mitigate systemic risk. A best-practice approach is the formation of a cross-functional AI Model Governance Council, a formal body responsible for evaluating, approving, and continuously monitoring all high-impact AI deployments.

Every significant AI system should undergo a mandatory risk assessment prior to launch. This includes evaluating data provenance, accuracy, model explainability, and potential for bias or misinformation. Use cases such as client-facing chatbots or automated investment insights require particular scrutiny, given their potential to influence decisions and damage reputation if they “hallucinate” false outputs.

Effective governance requires more than technical expertise. Councils should include representatives from legal, compliance, communications, risk, and data science teams, ensuring that regulatory, ethical, and reputational considerations are built into decision-making. This cross-functional lens ensures that potential crises, such as an AI issuing misleading financial guidance, are anticipated and contained.

Critically, all AI systems must be designed with an embedded ‘kill switch’ or deactivation protocol. This allows institutions to immediately pause or withdraw an AI tool from use if it begins generating harmful, incorrect, or non-compliant content, protecting customers, markets, and institutional trust in real time.

4. Data Hygiene and Provenance: Building Trustworthy AI from the Ground Up

High-integrity AI begins with high-quality data. Financial institutions must prioritise data hygiene and provenance to ensure that AI systems produce accurate, fair, and compliant outputs. This starts with auditing all training datasets for accuracy, recency, and bias, particularly when models are used in regulated contexts such as customer service, credit scoring, or investment analysis.

Institutions should establish clear protocols to source data only from verified, auditable, and purpose-appropriate origins. Integrating unstructured or unverifiable data—such as Reddit threads or open web forums—into training pipelines can contaminate models with misinformation or culturally biased assumptions. Any external data must be rigorously validated and documented.

Regular data reviews and model retraining cycles should be scheduled, particularly after major market events or regulatory updates. Transparency logs and version control systems can also support accountability. Ultimately, strong data governance is not only about performance—it’s a foundation for building responsible, explainable, and legally defensible AI.

Public-Facing Trust and Reputation Management

1. Transparent AI Ethics Policy: A Signal of Trust

Financial institutions should publish a clear, detailed stance on their use of artificial intelligence, demonstrating transparency, accountability, and leadership in a rapidly evolving landscape. A comprehensive AI policy should outline how the organisation governs AI oversight, ensuring that all systems are reviewed for accuracy, compliance, and risk. This is not just important for the business or consumer base, but also for regulators, shareholders and other critical stakeholders.

Equally important is a firm commitment to data privacy. By clarifying how customer and institutional data is collected, stored, and used in AI models, institutions can reassure stakeholders and regulators that both ethical standards are being upheld and consumers can trust them and the regulators.

Institutions must also establish and disclose anti-disinformation protocols, including how they identify and respond to AI-generated misinformation, especially when it involves executive impersonation or market-sensitive content.

Finally, highlighting and supporting ethical AI development partnerships with academic, regulatory, and technology organisations adds credibility. A well-communicated AI policy is not just a risk mitigation tool, it’s a proactive strategy to build long-term reputation, stakeholder trust, and regulatory confidence.

HSBC, for example, published its “Responsible AI Principles” in 2023 and updated them with external audits in 2024.

2. Investor and Customer Education: Strengthening Digital Resilience

Educating investors and customers is essential to building trust in an AI-driven environment. Institutions should create accessible online hubs that explain emerging fraud risks such as deepfakes and offer guidance on how to verify official communications.

Sharing anonymised case studies of detected or thwarted scams demonstrates transparency and preparedness, reinforcing confidence in the organisation’s ability to respond to digital threats.

How you communicate and the tone of voice that you use can help with how you are perceived.

3. Real-Time Monitoring and Response Cells: ​​Staying Ahead of AI Threats

To protect reputation in a high-speed information environment, financial institutions must invest in and support real-time monitoring and response capabilities.

Using specialist platforms such as Blackbird AI, Reality Defender, and Cyabra, firms can continuously scan digital channels for deepfakes, impersonations, or coordinated disinformation campaigns. This proactive surveillance enables early detection and containment of threats before they escalate.

Equally important is the development of clear escalation pathways, involving communications, legal, compliance, and executive teams.

Pre-approved legal statements and PR responses should be prepared in advance to ensure a swift, consistent reply when reputational risks emerge.

By combining technology with operational readiness, institutions can maintain control of their narrative and reinforce public trust.

4. Build Industry Alliances: Collaborating to Counter AI Threats

Fighting AI-enabled fraud requires collective action. Financial institutions should actively join initiatives such as the World Economic Forum’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety, which promotes best practices for detecting and mitigating harmful content.

Collaborating with regulators, peer institutions, and cybersecurity firms enables the sharing of deepfake signatures, threat intelligence, and takedown protocols.

These alliances not only enhance early warning capabilities but also demonstrate industry-wide accountability and leadership. By working together, institutions can create a stronger defence against AI-driven threats while reinforcing trust across the financial ecosystem.

What Boards, General Counsel, and Strategy Teams Must Do

For Legal Teams

Boards, legal teams, and strategy leaders must take a proactive stance on AI-related risk. General Counsel should review and update IP and image rights policies to cover synthetic likenesses, ensuring legal protection in the event of executive impersonation. They should also prepare templates for swift DMCA takedowns and explore AI-specific indemnity clauses with insurers.

For Investor Relations

Investor Relations teams can strengthen transparency by including AI governance frameworks and incident logs—such as deepfake detections—within ESG disclosures and shareholder communications.

For Boards and Risk Committees

Boards and Risk Committees must recognise AI-enabled reputational harm as a material risk. This includes allocating dedicated resources to reputation intelligence platforms and establishing clear crisis response protocols. Directors should be regularly briefed on synthetic media threats and integrated escalation plans, reinforcing their governance responsibilities in a high-risk digital environment. Taking action now will protect reputation, maintain market confidence, and meet rising regulatory expectations around responsible AI use.

What the David Kostin Deepfake Teaches Us

Kostin’s case is not the first and it won’t be the last. But it is a wake-up call: GenAI has become powerful enough to replicate expert voices, deceive investors, and manipulate entire segments of the market.

A senior figure’s reputation, built over decades, can be compromised in minutes by an AI-generated clip. And the effects aren’t limited to one firm: they ripple through the sector, shake confidence, and attract regulators’ scrutiny.

Global Regulation Is Catching Up

Governments are moving to regulate AI and deepfakes, setting minimum expectations that financial institutions must meet and ideally exceed. In the UK, the Online Safety Act (2024) enables Ofcom to order takedowns of fraudulent synthetic media, with the FCA and PRA set to issue AI governance guidance for the sector in late 2025.

The EU’s AI Act imposes strict labelling requirements and limits deepfake use in high-risk domains, with fines reaching €30 million or 6% of annual turnover.

In the U.S., the SEC is pushing for “technology-agnostic” regulation, while Congress debates mandatory watermarking of synthetic content.

Singapore’s MAS has already mandated ‘Explainable AI’ for systems used in financial compliance. These evolving regulations should serve as a baseline.

Leading institutions must go further—embedding governance, transparency, and verification into every stage of AI deployment to safeguard reputation and maintain public trust.

Defending Trust in the Age of Synthetic Reality

The financial services sector is built on confidence. But confidence cannot survive if perception is corrupted by deception.

Deepfakes are not just a cybersecurity issue—they are a strategic risk, a communications crisis, and a boardroom priority.

What’s needed now is not just technical mitigation, but full-spectrum resilience:

• Strategic foresight to predict vulnerabilities.

• Ethical leadership sets the tone from the top.

• Cross-sector collaboration to protect shared reputation.

As AI tools continue to evolve, so must our approach to trust.

David Kostin’s experience is not an anomaly, it’s a warning. The question for financial institutions, boards, and advisors is simple: Will you wait until a deepfake crisis strikes, or will you lead the defence now?

I advise a wide range of organisations, including governments and investors on how to position themselves and sharpen messaging, and build resilient reputational capital that supports long-term value creation and stakeholder trust.

If you’re looking to modernise your communications team so that it is ready to tackle the growing threat of deepfakes and reputation challenging issues then, I would welcome a conversation.

To stay informed, subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter, Reputation Matters, where I share insight and practical guidance at the intersection of investment, innovation, and trust.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your network who may benefit. To my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

In today's startup ecosystem, especially in tech, founders and investors operate in a world where trust isn't a soft virtue; it's a strategic asset. For venture capital (VCs), corporate venture capital arms (CVCs), and family offices (FOs), reputation increasingly dictates who gets funded, how fast deals close, and whether a relationship survives public scrutiny. And of course, if a pre-IPO company or start-up is looking for a buy-out or an exit in the long term, reputation and how they and their management are perceived is critical in how they get valued during future funding rounds.

With more than 32,000 active venture capital firms, 8,000 corporate venture capital units, and 10,000 single-family offices worldwide, and institutional investors increasingly seeking safer opportunities, perception has effectively become reality.

Startups looking for funding in 2025 face a high-stakes environment. Institutional investors are more selective. Reputation has moved from a nice-to-have to a non-negotiable filter. In a market where digital footprints and public narratives shape due diligence as much as financials, tech leaders and investors must treat reputation as core infrastructure.

The Financial Value of Reputation

How your brand, product, or service is perceived is your reputation, and your reputation is an intangible asset.

In 2020, research from Lloyds of London and KPMG found that ‘corporate brand and reputation accounts for 25.3% of the market capitalisation of the world’s leading equity market indices, equating to $16.77 trillion of value for shareholders in Q1 2019.’ At the start of 2024 reputation accounted for 30% of FTSE 350 companies’ market capitalisation, equating to £719 billion. This marks a 3.8% increase from the previous year, according to Echo Research.

The value and contribution of reputation to the valuation of a company is not equal. The importance of brand and reputation changes depending on the industry. In fast-growing sectors like technology, reputation can make up a big part of a company’s value, up to 43%. In slower-moving and more established industries like utilities, it still accounts for up to 25%, confirming how companies in industries focused on innovation, how a company is perceived really affects its success.

Understanding the Key Investors: VC, CVC, and Family Offices

How VCs Operate and Why Reputation Matters

Venture capital firms raise closed-end funds, typically lasting 10 years, and target internal rates of return (IRR) in the range of 20–30%. These firms compete aggressively to lead rounds, seeking both strategic influence and governance rights. In Q1 2025, VC deal activity totaled 3,990 U.S. deals worth $91.5 billion, an 18.5% increase in value from the previous quarter—the highest since early 2022. However, the market remains selective: only 892 of these were first-time financings, a continued decline from prior years. Notably, AI companies received 71% of all VC capital, signaling a strong flight to quality .

From the first meeting to investment committee approval, reputation is increasingly a critical filter. Startups demonstrating strong governance, transparency, and credible leadership are more likely to secure funding in this cautious yet capital-rich environment.

The Strategic Lens of Corporate Venture Capital

Corporate venture capital (CVC) arms invest corporate funds to gain insights into emerging technologies, markets, and potential acquisition targets. While they often take minority stakes (typically 10–25%), they prioritize alignment with the parent company’s values and brand.

According to Silicon Valley Bank’s 2024 State of Corporate Venture Capital report, CVCs participated in 28% of global venture capital deals, reflecting their significant role in the innovation economy. Notably, 80% of surveyed CVCs listed “brand fit” and “reputational alignment” as essential criteria for investment decisions.

Meanwhile, Global Corporate Venturing’s the World of Corporate Venturing 2025 report notes that over 65% of CVCs now integrate ESG metrics into investment decisions from the outset, and a growing number are embedding reputational due diligence into standard deal workflows. It also highlights that sectors such as AI, climate tech, and digital health have seen an uptick in CVC activity precisely because the reputational alignment with future-forward innovation has become a competitive differentiator.

Reputational due diligence is no longer a post-deal PR consideration, but a critical component of strategic value creation and risk management, with corporate risk or communications teams often holding veto power over deals that pose reputational threats.

Family Offices and the Reputational Stakes of Legacy Capital

Family offices represent generational wealth and place immense value on brand integrity. Citi Private Bank reports that 69% of family offices now make direct venture investments, with average deal sizes of $24 million. Yet 74% of them cite “preserving the family name” as a top priority.

Their reputational bar is high. Scandals, such as Singapore’s $3B seizure of FO-linked assets in 2023, demonstrate how fast trust can unravel. Most family offices operate without formal governance frameworks, further increasing the impact of reputational damage, but that is changing.

Single or Multi-Family Offices expect privacy and discretion. They often limit information online, preferring trusted human gatekeepers and portfolio managers to maintain confidentiality, which is why private strategic advisory and communications are for many slowly becoming a must-have, especially when they make investments in innovation that can create returns.

The ROI of Trust: Financial Value of Reputation

Trust Premiums and Risk Discounts

Edelman’s 2025 Trust Barometer shows that businesses are the most trusted institutions globally, but that trust is conditional and is only loaned to businesses by the public who shape their perception of each company depending on their values and the experience they themselves get. Reputation reduces information asymmetry, a known barrier in venture deals. Research shows that companies with strong reputations enjoy up to 10% lower capital costs and better IPO outcomes.

Echo Research found that reputation adds pricing power. Meanwhile, the NVCA tracked that startups with a positive reputation close Series A rounds up to 9 months faster.

VCs Use Reputation to Make Faster, Better Bets

When markets cool, investors get more selective. Academic studies in 2024 found that founder reputation weighed 25% more heavily in VC decision-making in colder funding environments. Founders with strong digital footprints not only raise faster, they also fail less. Personality traits like conscientiousness correlate with a 30% lower startup failure rate.

Reputation Risk in the Public Spotlight: CVC and FO Realities

CVCs have unique vulnerabilities. They’re exposed to public markets. Forty-one percent of CVCs left deals in 2023 due to concerns about founder conduct. A bad founder headline can knock more off the parent company's stock price than the entire investment value.

For family offices, reputational risks hit home, literally. Without diversified shareholder bases, any issue reflects directly on the family name. Consequently, jurisdictions are tightening Know-Your-Client rules, and background checks are getting deeper and more global.

Data That Proves Reputation Moves Capital

The numbers speak volumes. A strong reputation isn’t just nice optics, it accelerates fundraising and improves pricing.

Actionable Strategies for Founders

For Founders Targeting VCs

1. Own your digital presence: Start with search engines. Secure your domain, polish your LinkedIn, and ensure expert third-party references validate your story.

2. Signal governance early: Add an experienced advisor or board member—investors see this as a sign of maturity.

3. Transparency is credibility: Clearly address regulatory, IP, or ESG risks in your pitch. Founders who proactively surface challenges earn trust.

4. System beats heroics: VCs increasingly back methodical execution over lone-wolf brilliance. Show process, not just passion.

For Founders Navigating CVC Deals

• Anticipate brand alignment issues: Show you understand how your startup affects the parent company’s image, customers, or supply chain.

• Plan communications in advance: CVCs often want veto power on public statements. Agree on messaging protocols early.

• Culture matters: Ensure ethical compatibility. Many CVCs have walked away after realising values misaligned late in diligence.

For Founders Pitching Family Offices

• Highlight mission fit: Make it personal. Show how your goals reflect the family’s values and legacy.

• Assure privacy and control: Emphasise discretion and reporting transparency. Many FOs avoid the press and need assurance.

• Prepare for deep diligence: Be ready for private investigators, detailed social media audits, and extensive reference checks.

Tools for Investors to Manage Reputational Exposure

For All Investors

• Use real-time sentiment tools: Platforms like Aon show that social sentiment can flag risks up to 48 hours before mainstream media.

• Test your ESG narrative: Regulators and the public scrutinise climate-related statements—integrity here builds trust.

• Check founder resilience: Prior failure isn’t disqualifying, unless it's undocumented or unaccountable. Resilient storytelling matters, and keep close to your narrative.

For CVC Committees

• Ask for reverse diligence: Let founders evaluate you. It helps identify cultural fit and increases mutual trust.

• Model reputational downside: Weigh how a founder scandal could affect the parent stock price versus deal value.

• Use observer seats first: Until startups meet milestones, keep influence without full exposure.

For Family Offices

• Formalise succession and oversight: Only 47% of FOs have succession plans. Reputational crises can escalate without clear leadership.

• Cross-check due diligence: Supplement commercial vetting with journalistic or NGO insights.

• Pre-invest in buffers: Crisis communications and insurance may feel optional—until you need them.

Reputation Is Capital

Across venture capital, corporate venture, and family offices, the mechanics of investing may be different, but one principle holds: reputation, perception, and trust moves money. Managing perception is now a financial must-have in an age where every stakeholder can broadcast their judgment instantly. For many, what you are asking for and negotiating privately, you want to remain private.

Founders who prioritise transparency, governance, and integrity don’t just earn trust, they compound it. Investors who integrate real-time data and stress-test for narrative risk will gain a competitive edge.

In 2025 the most influential backer may not sit on your cap table. It may be the online consensus shaping every deal. Respect it, earn it, and capital will follow.

Privately or publicly, reputation matters.

For VCs, CVCs, and family offices, reputation is no longer a soft metric, it is a strategic asset. I advise investors and their portfolio companies on how to strengthen governance, how to position themselves and sharpen messaging, and build resilient reputational capital that supports long-term value creation and stakeholder trust.

If you’re seeking to enhance the strategic positioning of your investments or reduce reputational risk, I would welcome a conversation.

To stay informed, subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter, Reputation Matters, where I share insight and practical guidance at the intersection of investment, innovation, and trust.

Please feel free to connect or share this with your nrtwork who may benefit. to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

When sustainability sells, the pressure to sound green can push brands too far. Just last month, on 30 April 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that Lavazza UK and Dualit Ltd misled consumers with claims that their coffee pods and bags were ‘compostable,’ without making it clear they weren’t suitable for home composting.

Both companies had advertised their products using terms like ‘eco capsules’ and ‘compostable coffee bags,’ creating the impression that these items could break down in a garden compost bin. In reality, the products needed industrial composting to degrade properly—a detail buried in the fine print, if mentioned at all.

The ASA found both companies in breach of the rules on misleading and environmental advertising. The message was clear: sustainability claims must be specific, substantiated, and written with the consumer in mind.

What the ASA Found

Lavazza UK ran a paid search ad for its ‘Eco Caps,’ describing them as ‘compostable capsules’ for home use. Lavazza argued the claim referred to the material’s compostability, not how it should be disposed of. However, the ASA stated that consumers would reasonably assume ‘compostable’ meant suitable for their garden compost bin, particularly in a home-use context. The company had failed to clarify the industrial-only requirement, despite the ad having ample space to do so.

Dualit Ltd faced a similar ruling over its ad for ‘Compostable Coffee Bags.’ The bags were made from PLA-based materials and carried industrial composting certification, but again, the term ‘compostable’ was unqualified in the ad. Like Lavazza, Dualit had character space to clarify the claim, and didn’t.

Both companies were found to have breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (misleading advertising) and 11.1 and 11.2 (environmental claims). Their ads were banned, leaving questions about the claims of their products.

Do Green Claims Boost Business?

Green marketing first gained traction in the 1980s and 1990s as companies responded to growing pressure around waste, emissions, and ethical consumerism. But it wasn’t until the 2000s, driven by climate activism and the rise of sustainability reporting, that environmental claims became a core part of brand strategy. Today, they show up everywhere: in packaging, ad campaigns, investor reports, and corporate missions.

But with greater visibility comes greater scrutiny. Green claims are no longer just a PR opportunity; they’re a compliance risk if not handled carefully, particularly when marketing, advertising, or communications teams are unable to verify claims against standards set by regulators and the expectations of their audiences. Regulators are watching, and so are consumers who are increasingly alert to ‘greenwashing.’

However, when done right, sustainable messaging still delivers results. A recent McKinsey and NielsenIQ report found that products making ESG-related claims grew 28% over five years, compared to 20% growth for products without such claims. That’s a notable sales lift, more than 6 percent, linked directly to communicating environmental and social value.

Selling green credentials can help a company, but only if those claims are clear, credible, and compliant.

How Did It Happen? A Breakdown in Sign-Off

The rulings highlight a recurring issue in modern marketing: when sustainability claims are rushed to meet consumer demand, critical cross-functional checks can be overlooked.

The typical process involves:

• Marketing: creates the ad content and selects the terminology.

• Comms/PR: reviews for tone, positioning, and reputational fit.

• Legal/Regulatory: checks compliance with advertising and environmental laws.

• Agencies (where involved): produce and place the ads under brand direction.

In Dualit’s case, the creative agency We Are Strawberry Ltd was involved. Lavazza’s ad was, we think, created in-house. Either way, the disconnect likely happened in the handoff between teams. Marketing might have assumed ‘compostable’ was legally safe based on certification. Legal might have focused on technical accuracy rather than consumer interpretation. Comms teams, focused on clarity and tone, might not have dug into the claim’s implications.

The result? Everyone signed it through. No one stopped to ask how the public would read it.

The Fallout: Trust and Transparency Take a Hit

The ASA ruling attracted media coverage, including from The Guardian, and raised the spectre of greenwashing—when brands overstate or mislead on environmental benefits.

For consumers who care about sustainability, this can feel like a betrayal. Once trust erodes, it’s hard to win back. In a digital world, where outrage spreads rapidly, even unintentional missteps can cause lasting brand damage.

Environmental credibility isn’t just about certifications or checkboxes. It’s about how real people understand your message. When that message misleads, even unintentionally, it undermines a brand’s broader values and integrity.

Lessons from the Greenwashing Frontlines

Hanna Basha, lawyer and Partner at Payne Hicks Beach, summed it up on LinkedIn: “We are seeing more and more reputational issues around claims of green credentials. Often not intentionally deceptive but still reputationally damaging.”

And regulators are tightening up. The ASA’s decision came amid broader scrutiny of environmental advertising under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which gives watchdogs more power to hold companies accountable for misleading claims.

In short, the rules are evolving, and the bar for clarity is rising.

Four Ways to Get Sustainability Claims Right

Here’s how brands can stay compliant, credible, and consumer-friendly:

1. Speak Like a Consumer

• Test language. If most people think ‘compostable’ means backyard compost, don’t assume otherwise. It is the job of communications professionals not just to promote, but to protect brands, and to also push back claims that can’t be verified or can be misunderstood by the public.

• Be explicit: say ‘industrially compostable only’ upfront.

2. Show, Don’t Hide

• Mention certifications (like EN13432) early, not three clicks deep.

• Put disposal instructions in plain sight. Keep it simple, which is often hard and time-consuming, especially for agencies and how their business model works.

3. Make It a Team Sport

• Set a ‘four-eyes’ rule: legal, marketing, comms, and sustainability leads must all approve environmental claims. Internal communications teams must think like regulators.

• Keep a paper trail: if regulators come knocking, you’ll want proof.

4. Brief Your Agencies Well

• Give them clear ‘do’s and don’ts’ on eco language.

• Treat agency ads to the same scrutiny as internal work.

Fixing the Process: Bring Legal and Comms in Early

To avoid future greenwashing headaches, companies should rethink how they structure sign-offs:

• Collaborate from the Start: Legal and comms teams shouldn’t be an afterthought. Include them at the ‘brief’ stage. I have written about this and shared some insight on how an organisation’s general counsel needs to better work with communications teams.

• Use Checklists: Standardise review processes with simple, shareable checklists for green claims.

• Train Constantly: Keep teams up to date on the latest ASA rulings and best practices.

• Create a Sustainability Board: Consider a cross-functional governance group to review high-impact campaigns.

Get it right and your brand is protected. Get it wrong and the perception and value of your brand are hit, which can take time and extra money to fix.

Final Word: Bold Claims Need Solid Ground

Lavazza and Dualit aren’t alone. Many brands are navigating the fine line between appealing green messaging and misleading overstatement. But as these rulings show, if you say it, you need to back it up, clearly, truthfully, and in the language consumers understand.

When done right, sustainability messaging can foster loyalty and trust. Done wrong, it invites headlines, bans, and long-term reputational damage. The lesson is simple: if you want to sound environmentally conscious, first ensure you’re being clear. Only sell and promote what your communications team can confirm.

When Donald J. Trump took the oath of office for a second time on 20 January 2025, the global reaction was swift.  Within ten weeks, Morning Consult’s 42-country U.S. Reputation Tracker logged a 20-point collapse in net favourability toward the United States – the steepest fall it has observed outside wartime shocks. In parallel, the Trump administration’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariff regime (a blanket 10 % levy plus higher ‘reciprocal’ rates for deficit partners) triggered retaliatory moves from allies and rivals alike, feeding the perception that the White House is willing to weaponise trade for domestic gain.

Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson put it bluntly when on the new administration’s tariff policy, he said, “erratic and unpredictable … If he continues, he’s in such danger of doing so much damage in this world.”

Even U.S. executives are sounding alarms. On IBM’s Q1 call, CEO Arvind Krishna listed ‘anti-American sentiment’ as a potential headwind if it ‘becomes louder than it is today.’ Wall Street peers from JPMorgan to P&G have issued similar caveats in recent weeks.

How far, and where, has sentiment fallen?

Morning Consult’s survey recorded a 20-point global drop in the U.S. net favourability score during the first quarter of 2025, highlighting how the perception of the US is being damaged. What is concerning is not just the fact that negative perceptions of the US are growing amongst allies, but the steep drop in the net favourability scores, which risks establishing a view point that might be difficult to repair in the medium to long term..

Looking at the data from between Oct 2024 and Mar 2025, the most significant drops in net-favourability are in:

• Canada: −54.9 pp

• Mexico: −41.3 pp

• Japan: −40.0 pp

• Netherlands: −38.3 pp

• France: −38.6 pp

• EU-27 (average of six majors): −34 pp

• United Kingdom: −34.3 pp

Pew Research’s Global Attitudes spring soundings (fieldwork February–March) echos the Morning Consult data, noting that unfavourability toward the U.S. now exceeds 60% in Germany and 55% in South Korea.

And where a drop in reputation occurs, China moves in quickly to establish itself as a trustworthy partner, a message that was echoed by recent meetings between China, South Korea, and Japan, as well as visits by China’s Xi Jinping to Vietnam and Malaysia.

Tariffs and politics: the narrative drivers

Three forces now dominate the global conversation about the United States, and each is amplified by the way the new administration handles the press.

1. Reciprocal tariff regime.  The blanket 10 % duty on all imports, plus 25 % on cars from the EU and Japan, has produced tit-for-tat measures. Because tariffs are headline numbers, such as the over 140% tariffs levied on imports from China make tariffs an instant barometer of Washington’s mood; each new announcement fuels market volatility and invites a fresh round of hostile editorials overseas. The FT’s Katie Martin, in her opinion column - The Long View, highlights how ‘Fund managers will have no rest for as long as he is in office with policy predictability in short supply.’

2. Perceived unilateralism.  Washington’s hints at reducing NATO funding and pausing military aid to Kyiv feed accusations of unreliability.  French senator Claude Malhuret labelled the U.S. “a source of instability and betrayal” in a viral Senate speech. The reputational hit is not abstract: polling shows a 34-point fall in average U.S. favourability across the EU-27 since October, and European countries are opting to look to non-US defence companies for security, something that will be of concern to American defence contractors, which do a lot of business with European countries.

3. Social-media amplification.  Campaigns such as #DropUS in Scandinavia and ‘Buy Canadian’ trend whenever a new tariff headline lands, giving consumers a low-cost protest outlet.  Fitch Solutions documents the visible shelf removal of U.S. snack brands in Denmark. What begins as digital outrage is now visibly reshaping retail inventories in countries outside of the U.S.

Mapping sentiment to economic exposure

When you look at the sentiment and trade data together, what you see is a convergence of reputational risk and economic exposure that could materially weaken the United States’ trade position and fiscal resilience.

The data is clear and increasingly urgent picture: the United States is facing a growing reputational backlash from some of its most economically significant partners. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, Japan, the UK and the EU-27 are not only seeing a steep decline in public sentiment toward the U.S., but they also happen to be among the country’s biggest trading partners and largest holders of U.S. Treasury debt. And this matters. A lot.

Take Japan and the EU, for example. Together, they hold over $2.5 trillion in U.S. Treasuries. That gives them considerable influence over America’s fiscal health. If either were to slow their purchases—or even begin quietly offloading holdings—it wouldn’t take much to really spook bond markets. Yields would rise, borrowing would get more expensive, and the ripple effect would be felt across everything from mortgage rates to federal budgets.

At the same time, public sentiment is continuing to shift dramatically in places that matter most for trade. Canada (–54.9 points) and Mexico (–41.3 points)—America’s neighbours and critical partners in the USMCA framework—are already seeing signs of consumer backlash. From social media campaigns like #BuyCanadian to retailers removing U.S. products from shelves, the reaction is real, and it’s already affecting sales.

What’s emerging is a dangerous combination: economic reliance meets political discontent. Allies with significant financial exposure to the U.S. are facing public pressure to act, and that gives them leverage. If that pressure continues, the U.S. could find itself navigating not only a more hostile geopolitical environment but one where its trading partners begin using debt, demand, and public opinion as tools of influence.

The countries that have soured most sharply on the U.S. still buy about half of all American exports and hold three-quarters of foreign-owned Treasuries.  The overlap between sentiment and economic leverage is uncomfortably tight.

This isn’t just about reputation—it’s about resilience. And right now, both are under strain.

Real-economy tremors

If you want an example of how perception matters in trade then look no further than the new administration’s policy decisions, particularly around tariffs and political alignment, is reshaping and influencing how countries, businesses and citizens engage with the American economy.

In Europe, consumer and corporate responses are already visible. As an example, Tesla’s deliveries in the EU and UK dropped 50% year-on-year in Q1 2025, despite electric vehicle demand rising by 20%, highlighting how Elon Musk’s perceived closeness to controversial U.S. policies is now directly impacting brand appeal and sales to such an extent that he only recently said that he would be pulling back from DOGE to spend more time at Tesla, the firm that gives him the greater value to his wealth. Yet, his reputation is damaged.

On the industrial side, German and Italian auto suppliers are pausing planned investments in the U.S., citing the unpredictability of tariff regimes as a key reason. This hesitancy among supply-chain partners signals a shift away from the U.S. as a dependable hub for manufacturing and trade.

Meanwhile, the broader economic knock-on effects are surfacing: Germany has cut its 2025 GDP forecast to zero, blaming U.S. policy shocks. As demand weakens in these export-heavy economies, American firms will inevitably feel the impact in lost orders and reduced growth.

Capital-flow channels

The perception of U.S. policy unpredictability is beginning to shape the global flow of investment, and not in Washington’s favour.

Inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) into the U.S. fell sharply from $206 billion in 2022 to $149 billion in 2023, marking a 28% decline. While the U.S. still tops the 2025 Kearney FDI Confidence Index, that ranking is increasingly built on legacy strength, not current sentiment. In fact, respondents now cite ‘policy unpredictability’ as their single biggest concern when considering U.S. investment.

This erosion of confidence is already changing the investment behaviour of America’s closest allies. Large-scale, subsidy-backed projects, especially in semiconductors and clean energy, are still proceeding, buoyed by incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act. However, mid-sized European manufacturers and suppliers are taking a step back, with many pressing pause or cancelling expansion plans entirely. These are often the firms that form the backbone of advanced supply chains, and their hesitancy is a warning sign.

As the perception of the U.S. as a stable, rules-based economy continues to shift, businesses and governments abroad are reevaluating their exposure and, in many cases, beginning to diversify. This trend reflects a deeper unease, not just with individual policies, but with a broader sense that the U.S. may no longer be the predictable partner it once was.

Outbound VC and CVC

Recent data from PitchBook shows a noticeable decline in U.S. investor participation in European venture rounds. In Q1 2025, U.S. VCs and corporate VCs were involved in just 47% of European deals, down from 51% in Q4 2024. While this may seem like a modest dip, it marks the sharpest quarterly drop since the pandemic, and it’s gaining attention as more than just a cyclical blip, especially when you look at South East Asia, where between 2021 and 2024 U.S. CVC deal saw a 14 point drop from 35% to 21%.

The shift reflects growing caution from both sides of the Atlantic. On one hand, U.S. investors are becoming more risk-averse, particularly in geopolitically sensitive sectors. On the other hand, European founders are starting to factor in U.S. political volatility when deciding who to raise money from. As Sifted magazine reported, ‘a growing number of European founders are now adding ‘political-risk slides’ to their pitch decks’ and are seeking valuation buffers and contingency clauses when negotiating with American investors.

This change signals a deeper structural shift in founder sentiment and dealmaking dynamics. U.S. capital, once viewed as the gold standard, is now being weighed more critically, not for its size, but for the strategic baggage it might bring. If the trend continues, America’s role in global innovation ecosystems may become increasingly contested, especially if leading Ivy League institutions continue to be challenged by the new administration.

Strategic Communications and Policy Playbook

So what can US companies do to separate themselves from the negative sentiment and perceptions that are establishing themselves in international markets, an issue that affects US brands that secure more of their revenue from trading in markets outside of the US.

Above all, companies and US brands need to be able to localise and become relevant. Signal national and local collaboration in nations in which they have an established presence. Branding, engagement and communications need to be more localised and empathetic. A strategic communications approach needs to be adopted.

Additionally, they need to:

• Decouple the brand from the flag: Businesses should highlight local R&D investments, manufacturing sites, and partnerships. Labelling products with regionally resonant tags like ‘Made in Brandenburg’ helps counter consumer boycotts rooted in national identity.

• Mitigate tariff optics: Companies can ring-fence a portion of their margin to absorb tariff costs and clearly communicate that decision to customers. This signals empathy and shows a proactive commitment to protecting local buyers, softening reputational blowback.

• Prioritise local spokespeople: Using regional general managers, rather than U.S. executives, for media and stakeholder engagement lends authenticity and reduces the risk of being seen as politically charged.

US companies need to be prepared with pre-approved communications. Develop ‘rebuttal kits' with FAQs, social copy, and response content in local languages to address misinformation and pushback swiftly and sensitively.

Ultimately, businesses must be able to leverage coalition advocacy effectively. Collaborating with peer companies and lobbying via trade chambers provides a stronger, unified voice. This collective effort helps neutralise accusations of unilateralism and ensures that businesses are not isolated when policy headwinds hit.

From tech to consumer goods and automotive to finance, these strategies offer a roadmap for U.S. companies to safeguard global reputation, strengthen stakeholder trust, and remain competitive amid growing geopolitical risk.

For investors (VC & CVC)

As anti-American sentiment rises in key innovation hubs, particularly across Europe and Asia, U.S. venture capital (VC) and corporate venture capital (CVC) investors must adapt their strategies to continue securing high-quality deals. Start-up founders in these regions are increasingly cautious, not just about financial terms, but about the political and reputational implications of accepting U.S. capital.

VC and CVC investors need to engage with strategic communicators who can advise them on how best to navigate this growing, difficult geopolitical environment.

Three general top-line options exist. They include:

• Co-investing with trusted local funds (co-GP structures) offers a powerful way to build confidence. Local general partners offer cultural fluency, market access, and a layer of reassurance that can help mitigate concerns about regulatory risk or geopolitical blowback. These partnerships also offer visibility into local deal flow that U.S. investors may otherwise miss.

• Second, offering valuation buffers or step-in clauses is now a smart move, not a concession. Founders are factoring in the cost of geopolitical uncertainty—tariffs, sanctions, or sudden policy shifts. Step-in clauses or conditional terms that allow founders to unwind or restructure exposure if political tensions escalate demonstrate foresight and trust.

• Finally, U.S. investors must proactively structure deals to be compliant with CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) guidance, especially in sectors like AI, defence tech, or health data. Taking non-controlling stakes, avoiding board seats, and being transparent about governance can reduce friction and open the door to more cross-border opportunities.

Risk, risk, everywhere

Business leaders, investors and their strategic advisers need to keep an eye on the following four clear indicators in the months ahead. Each of these is a forward-looking risk that is tied to the growing policy volatility and anti-American sentiment.

Trade is first. The upcoming USTR tariff-review deadline in July 2025 carries material economic risk. Should the administration reinstate the full suite of tariffs—especially those targeting allies—a 0.3 percentage point reduction in U.S. GDP could follow. This would signal real-world consequences for protectionist rhetoric and generate renewed global backlash.

Treasury markets offer another key signal. Watch the foreign ‘allotment’ share in U.S. long-bond auctions in May and August. A 5% pull-back in foreign participation would be enough to push 10-year Treasury yields up by ~4 basis points, increasing borrowing costs across government, corporate, and consumer credit channels.

Inbound FDI remains a barometer of global confidence. If the BEA’s June release shows new investment falling below $140 billion, it will indicate persistent caution from international firms, especially mid-sized European and Asian manufacturers who are vital to the U.S. supply chain ecosystem and are impacted by the Tariffs placed on them, which US companies will need to pay, or not.

Finally, VC flows offer a pulse on innovation partnerships. If PitchBook’s Q2 data shows U.S. participation in European rounds dropping another 3–4 percentage points, it will mark the start of a structural disengagement in transatlantic capital and collaboration.

These signals aren’t just economic—they’re reputational. Each one tells a story about how global partners perceive U.S. reliability.

Softer power, hard costs

Anti-American sentiment has shifted from a soft-power headache to a balance-sheet issue. It is hitting export orders, delaying incremental capital expenditure and making founders think twice before taking U.S. money.  The irony is that the countries most affected, America’s traditional allies, are also the very ones that finance its deficits and host its forward military deployments.

The damage is reversible.  Reputation curves have rebounded before, post-Vietnam, post-Iraq. However, history shows that recovery starts only once the economic pain is acknowledged and concrete actions follow.  Tariff relief for allies, locally rooted brand narratives, and transparent investment rules are the fastest levers.

For boardrooms and governments, the task is immediate: localise value, communicate empathy, hedge exposures, and keep an exit ramp open for Washington when politics cools.

The alternative is a slow erosion of the United States’ privileged position at the centre of the global trading, funding and innovation system.

As artificial intelligence continues to reshape industries, from newsrooms to boardrooms, a fundamental question arises: how can organisations leverage AI to enhance trust, reputation, and productivity, without losing the human element that makes communication credible and meaningful?

That was the central theme of our recent webinar, AI, News & Trust: The Future of Communications, featuring Laura Oliver, senior newsroom consultant and former Reuters Institute contributor, and Hans-Petter Dalen (HP), IBM’s Business Executive for AI across EMEA. Their insights, drawn from deep experience in journalism and enterprise technology, offer strategic takeaways for communicators, business leaders, and policymakers navigating AI’s next wave.

🧠 Beyond Hype: Why We Must Focus on Use Cases, Not Just Tools

HP Dalen opened the conversation with a striking point: we’re talking too much about technology, and not enough about what it’s actually for.

‘If we don't understand how we use it [AI], we don't focus on the use cases, It will it will become a technology-driven evolution. And that's not going to benefit lines of business.’ – Hans-Petter Dalen

HP reminded us that IBM has been in the AI space since the 1960s — long before terms like “generative AI” became mainstream. What’s changed today, he argued, is the accessibility of these tools. But adoption doesn’t equal impact.

‘You’ll see surveys saying that 90% of companies say they use generative AI on a daily basis, and it gives them personal productivity. But personal productivity doesn't benefit your company if you use it for drinking more coffee or you leave early.’ – HP Dalen

📰 Lessons from the Newsroom: Adapting to AI While Defending Trust

Laura Oliver provided a nuanced view from the frontlines of journalism, an industry that has been repeatedly disrupted — first by the internet, then by social media, and now by AI.

‘For far too long at a business level as well, within journalism, the focus has been on where are those marginal kinds of efficiency savings we can make, where there's marginal cost savings we can make … But I think where it's disrupting in a positive way, where it's being used most effectively, is where the newsrooms have identified problems that can help them solve.’ – Laura Oliver

She highlighted a growing tension: AI is helping journalists save time on rote tasks, but there’s little evidence that those saved hours are being reinvested in deeper reporting or investigations. That mirrors concerns in corporate comms: time saved with AI doesn’t automatically mean value gained.

📉 The Misinformation Threat: More Content, Less Clarity?

Both speakers raised concerns about AI’s potential to exacerbate misinformation, particularly when it automates content creation without sufficient editorial oversight.

‘We’re already overwhelmed by volume. AI just makes it easier to flood the zone with misleading content. This isn’t just a media problem — it’s a trust crisis.’ – Laura Oliver

The solution isn’t to resist AI, but to embed strong governance.

HP cited the “biggest AI scandal in Norway,” where a city council used ChatGPT to justify school closures, without checking the accuracy of the generated content. The result? Fabricated references, public backlash, and a crisis in credibility.

‘That wasn’t an AI scandal. That was a human scandal. Nobody verified the output. No governance, no oversight — and that’s the real risk.’ – HP Dalen

⚙️ SLMs and the Rise of the AI Stack

A particularly insightful part of the discussion focused on Small Language Models (SLMs) and the growing need for organisations to develop their own AI stacks.

While most businesses rely on off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs), like ChatGPT or Gemini, these tools are general-purpose and trained mostly on public data. As HP explained, less than 1% of the data used to train LLMs is enterprise data. That’s a massive blind spot.

‘We’re seeing real success with small models — trained in-house, enriched with enterprise data, and governed for accuracy. That’s where the strategic advantage lies.’ – HP Dalen

A case in point: a group of small newspapers in Norway used a custom AI model to scan local planning applications and flag potential stories. The model didn’t generate articles; it simply summarised documents to save journalists' time, freeing them to focus on investigations, a perfect example of AI augmenting human work rather than replacing it.

💡 Newsroom Innovation = Comms Strategy Inspiration

Laura’s experiences working across UK, European and US newsrooms offered valuable lessons for PR and strategic communications professionals.

‘Journalists are using AI tools like summarisation, transcription, and translation. But the smartest use is where it supports better audience understanding.’ – Laura Oliver

One of the most promising applications? Using AI to analyse user behaviour and improve products — something newsrooms are beginning to do with greater precision. Strategic comms teams can borrow this approach to better understand stakeholder engagement, sentiment shifts, and messaging effectiveness.

“AI can help us ask: What makes someone subscribe? What makes someone stay engaged? That kind of insight is gold — for journalists and comms pros alike.” – Laura Oliver

🧠 Teaching Over Tools: The Critical Thinking Imperative

One of the most important themes in the webinar was the need to invest in human capability, not just tools.

As the conversation turned toward journalism education, Laura explained how AI can be overwhelming for students and teachers alike. The key, she said, isn’t just teaching tools, but embedding critical thinking as a core skill.

‘It shouldn’t be about training the tech. It should be about building the thinking skills to assess any new tool or technology that comes in.’ – Laura Oliver

This point was echoed at the enterprise level by HP, who shared a frustration heard often at C-suite level:

‘We talk to frustrated C-levels almost weekly who have invested millions in AI technologies and maybe seen 50k in return, because we make this about technology and not where we apply the technology … Why? Because the focus was on tech, not on training their people to use it effectively.’ – HP Dalen

This mirrors what many of us in strategic communications have long known: trust, reputation, and performance are built by people — and enhanced by technology, not the other way around.

🏛️ What Business Leaders and Government Should Do Now

This discussion wasn’t just about the practicalities. It was a call to action. Here are some of the key takeaways for decision-makers in business and government:

1. Shift the focus from tools to use cases

It’s not about which AI platform you use. It’s about where and how you apply it to solve real problems. Start with the issues you want to resolve - your outcomes, not your vendors, who will sell you anything.

2. Build your AI stack — not just plug into someone else’s

If you want trust, privacy, and performance, you’ll need models that reflect your organisation’s data and values. That means investing in SLMs and enterprise-ready infrastructure. Your data and your people are the foundation of how successful your AI can help you be.

3. Invest in people, not just platforms

From HR to comms to policy teams, the ROI on AI only materialises when your people understand how to use it, what to question, and where to add human value. People shouldn’t see AI as a shortcut to problem-solving. They need to understand how to prompt and have the necessary critical thinking in place so they can verify insights and suggestions made by LLMs and SLMs.

4. Take trust governance seriously

Don’t make headlines for the wrong reasons. Embed fact-checking, source attribution, and ethical review into every AI-supported process, especially those that touch the public.

Whether you are writing government policy or a business plan, delegating your thinking and decision-making to LLMs creates risk. AI will only help you, the human, if you have the necessary critical thinking to verify the work that AI can support you, your organisation and government department with.

5. Learn from journalism

Journalists know how to work under scrutiny, assess sources, and strike a balance between speed and accuracy. AI gives them and their media outlets a better ability to asses data and reach and engage with their audiences. PRs and strategic communicators should mirror this mindset when deploying AI in public-facing campaigns.

And in an era of misinformation, communications teams need to be prepared to react at a greater speed, especially in a future environment where audiences are more likely to form a judgment and opinion based on the output of a query from an LLM.

🚀 Final Word: Reputations Are Built by Humans, Not Machines

As I closed the session, I returned to a point that resonates across sectors:

‘It’s not just about the AI stack — it’s about the human stack. If we want better productivity, better outcomes, and better reputations, we must invest in the people who use the tools, not just the tools themselves.’

The future of communications, like the future of journalism, will be shaped by how well we combine technology with trust, and strategy with scrutiny.

AI can amplify our impact. But only if we anchor it in purpose, governance, and the kind of human judgment that no algorithm can replicate.

This webinar was run in partnership with Folgate Advisors, a community of international senior communicators.

I've worked with governments and leaders in technology and investment to unlock complexity and integrate strategic communications and international stakeholder engagement into their decision-making processes.

Let’s discuss the importance of managing your reputation in an era where AI can make you more transparent than ever before, or empower how negative actors manipulate your audience and how they perceive you.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

The arrival of generative artificial intelligence has accelerated every process inside a modern newsroom.

In January, the Reuters Institute canvassed 326 editors, product chiefs, and CEOS in 51 countries; 87 per cent said that generative AI is already transforming their organisations, from automated transcription to story drafts and personalised audio feeds.

Associated Press, The Financial Times, and USA Today’s parent, Gannett, now treat automation as infrastructure, redeploying reporters to investigations, routine earnings calls, or match reports in the AI Era.

AI literacy is fast becoming a core newsroom skill. AP’s grant‑funded training offers webinars, tip‑sheets and conference workshops; the BBC, Guardian and Reuters run internal “prompt‑engineering clinics”. Journalism schools at Columbia and City, University of London, now teach students to audit AI outputs for bias and hallucination, alongside classic source-checking. Taken together, these experiments point to a permanent shift: stories will be broken, checked and packaged by hybrid teams of journalists and models.

Leaders who fail to supply machine‑readable facts—clear timelines, structured data, provenance‑rich images—risk being mis‑summarised by search‑generative experiences before a human reporter even calls.

Join Our Expert Webinar – Wednesday, 23 April 2025

Because the newsroom and journalism are changing, I am hosting a 45-minute free webinar and live discussion this Wednesday, 23 April at 15:00 (UK Time) with freelance journalist, newsroom consultant and journalism trainer Laura Oliver and IBM’s Business Executive for AI in EMEA, Hans-Petter (HP) Dalen.

There is still time to register to hear about the impact of AI, not just in business or politics, but importantly in newsrooms around the world. How AI is being adopted in newsrooms impacts how those in strategy, communications and reputation management need to operate.

The State of Public Trust in News and Media 2025

Trust remains the critical scarce resource. This year’s Edelman Trust Barometer places media at 48 per cent global trust, the lowest of the four institutions Edelman tracks, and five points behind business. In the United Kingdom, overall trust in news stands at 36 per cent, while in the United States, it sits at 32 per cent—barely one in three Americans.

Yet consumption has not dipped: DataReportal’s Digital 2025 Global Overview counts 5.24 billion active social-media user identities, representing 63.9 per cent of humanity, and is up 206 million from last year.

News—verified or fabricated—now travels at the speed of the scroll. “Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust,” Nobel laureate Maria Ressa reminds us.

Why Trust Is Harder to Earn: Four Interlocking Pressures

Journalists, strategists and corporate communicators agree on four structural drags:

• Political and regulatory churn. Patchwork legislation, including the EU AI Act, the UK Digital Markets Bill, and state-level deep-fake laws in the US, produces conflicting disclosure rules.

• Behavioural fatigue. Bullish influencers and doom‑scrolling create “news avoidance”—a phenomenon the Financial Times has charted across Britain and the US.

• Technological disorientation. Deep-fake video, voice cloning, and AI-generated “slop” flood timelines faster than fact-checkers can respond.

• Commercial fragility. Local news deserts widen; platform referral traffic declines as Google’s AI Overviews answer queries without clicks.

Each pressure alone dents credibility. Combined, they fuel what Edelman calls a “grievance-based society,” where six in ten respondents believe that business and government “make their lives harder.”

Strategic Communications in a Synthetic Landscape

Against this backdrop, what leaders in communications and reputation management, as well as their leaders of business and governments, need is a three‑part operating system:

1. Monitoring and resilience. Invest in provenance‑tracking. Tools that read C2PA or Verify‑IPTC metadata can flag manipulated assets within minutes, not news cycles.

2. Narrative design. Assume an LLM will summarise your following policy paper before anyone opens the PDF. Offer well‑labelled fact‑sheets, Q&AS and slide decks so the first‑pass AI reads what you want it to read.

3. Governance and ethics. Map every internal AI use case against the EU AI Act’s disclosure clauses. Voluntary watermarking today prevents forced disclosures tomorrow.

Failure on any pillar escalates reputational risk at the speed of computation,' as DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis put it.

Global Nuances: One Story, Many Audiences

In Europe, privacy law and the forthcoming AI Act impose rigorous compliance burdens—but also provide the clearest rule‑book. While in the United States, First Amendment protections curtail regulation, so accountability often arises through shareholder lawsuits or advertiser boycotts. Across the Asia-Pacific, a hybrid model prevails: Singapore’s strict online-falsehoods law coexists with India’s high-trust public broadcasters, even as closed WhatsApp groups disseminate rumours at scale.

A disclosure that satisfies Ofcom in London may not placate the SEC in New York; a tongue‑in‑cheek TikTok that delights Gen Z in Manchester could misfire in Jakarta. Translation double‑checks and local counsel are no longer “nice to have”—they are release criteria.

Law firms are positioning themselves in a crucial role to legally protect not only intellectual property, but also their reputations.

Scenario Planning for Leaders

The three draft essays from Chatgpt, Stanford’s Storm and Google Gemini all recommend forward scenarios; the synthesis here highlights four that merit board‑level drills:

• Search without clicks. AI answers hoover up traffic; publishers push for licensing or block crawlers.

• Verified provenance. C2PA-style watermarking becomes default; early adopters bank a “trust dividend”.

• Synthetic saturation. It is predicted that by 2026, 90 per cent of online content will be machine-generated, making human-crafted journalism a premium tier.

• Regulator as a platform. Governments release official data via APIS, shrinking misquote risk but concentrating information power. The UAE is to become the first nation to write laws using AI, in a world first.

Each scenario changes how reputation crises ignite and spread; rehearsing them in simulation now saves real‑world cost later.

Six Practical Moves for Boards and C‑Suites

1. Audit the content pipeline. Which statistics, images or voice clips could be convincingly faked today?

2. Publish an AI‑use charter. Transparency about your models earns goodwill with regulators and journalists alike.

3. Expand the human edit desk. Automation multiplies scale; only editors reduce errors.

4. Back to media‑literacy training. Your employees are the first line of defence against disinformation.

5. Re‑engage professional newsrooms. Exclusive briefings, access to domain experts, and rapid fact packs help journalists get the story right—fast.

6. Fund quality journalism. Whether through sponsorship, subscriptions, or philanthropy, supporting independent reporting is a risk mitigation strategy, not a form of CSR embellishment.

Rebuilding the Facts Together

History suggests that every communications revolution eventually settles around new norms of credibility.

The movable‑type press gave way to libel law; broadcast radio learnt balance after the Fairness Doctrine; Satellite and cable news now wrestle with subscription fatigue and algorithmic referral loss. Generative AI will be no different—unless leaders opt out of the conversation.

Those who invest today in transparent data, ethical automation and genuine dialogue will not merely survive the synthetic era; they will define the public square that follows. Or, as Maria Ressa reminds us, “Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust… and democracy as we know it is dead.”

Join us on Wednesday for a live free webinar to learn more.

Every year in April, Perugia, Italy, becomes the newsroom of global journalism. Thousands of journalists, editors, media thinkers and technologists gather for the International Journalism Festival (IJF), one of the most influential events in the media calendar.

This year, the conversations in Perugia weren’t just about journalism but the future of the media, information, leadership, and public trust. And if you’re in a position of influence in business, government, or public affairs, what’s happening in journalism should be on your radar.

In 2025, journalism’s most significant challenges are becoming universal leadership issues for businesses and government alike:

• How do you build trust in a skeptical world?

• How do you harness AI without losing credibility?

• How do you communicate effectively when your audience is scattered, distracted, or tuned out?

Here’s what every senior leader needs to know.

1. AI Is Rewriting the Rules—And Leadership Needs to Catch Up

Artificial Intelligence and GenAI were dominant themes in Perugia. Not in a theoretical, someday-soon sense, but in the here-and-now of daily newsroom operations.

As an example, newsrooms around the world are today using AI to:

• Generate article summaries

• Translate content in real time

• Tag and archive video/audio content

• Analyse audience behavior

• Even draft story templates.

The upside is speed, scale, and personalisation. The downside? Misinformation, hallucinations, and the risk of losing the human touch or not including context are critical for people to make informed decisions and develop trust.

How AI is impacting and disrupting media and journalism is a subject that affects us in strategy and communications, and I’ll be debating with freelance journalist, newsroom consultant and journalism trainer Laura Oliver (who was in Perugia) and Hans-Petter (HP) Dallen, IBM’s Business Executive for AI in EMEA, as part of Folgate Advisors AI Month.

This webinar will take place on Wednesday, 23 April at 15.00 (UK Time). To sign up, click my LinkedIn post below and complete the online form.

2. Trust Is the Most Valuable—and Fragile—Asset

Trust, or the lack of it, is an issue that affects us all. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer painted a sobering picture: 61% of people worldwide feel a sense of grievance toward major institutions. Trust in media? Hovering at 50% and falling in many international markets.

Even more concerning:

63% say they struggle to distinguish real journalism from content designed to mislead.

That confusion is happening at the intersection of social media, AI, and information overload—and it affects more than news organisations. It’s hitting businesses, governments, and NGOs alike.

I remember the days in the early 2000s when media outlets invested in the creation of user-generated-content teams who spent time finding real stories which they could verify and then publish with context. Today, well, for the last eight to ten years, content online has been challenging to verify and issue that is becoming even more difficult with AI being used by ‘actors’ to negatively influence perceptions and opinions not just of governments but of businesses and individuals.

How businesses and their communications teams and advisers react will be even more critical as when continue to move into unchartered media territory.

3. The Collapse of Traditional Traffic Is a Signal for All Sectors

Another major headline from IJF 2025: Social media no longer reliably drives traffic to news sites, an issue that has been raised in the past by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Annual Report. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) have reduced external linking. AI assistants now answer questions without sending users to source material.

That collapse in referral traffic has forced newsrooms to reinvent how they reach people. Some have invested in:

• Direct relationships (newsletters, apps, SMS updates)

• Community-building tools

• Compelling video/audio content

• Platform-specific storytelling (e.g., TikTok, Reels)

The parallel is clear. Businesses and governments can’t rely on a single channel—social media, SEO, or third-party apps. Like media organisations, organisations must build deeper, more direct relationships with their audiences.

The platforms that they choose need to be able to support fact over fiction.

4. Storytelling Is Now a Strategic Skillset

I’ve said this for many years, but how organisations, businesses or governments are perceived is down to the real-life experience of audiences, the quality of their storytelling, and how relatable this is to the audience.

How human, engaging, transparent and trustworthy an organisation’s storytelling is will shape, or not, how they are perceived and the trust and reputation that their audiences will give them.

For media, long-form storytelling is becoming less common, primarily because it secures less engagement and retention. Instead, newsrooms are getting creative with:

• Short-form vertical videos

• Podcasts and voice notes

• Interactive explainers

• Live Q&As and comment blocks

• Multilingual, multi-platform storytelling

This is more than a format change—it’s a mindset shift to reach audiences whose attention span has steadily dropped.

PRs and strategic communicators need to invest more time in thinking like storytellers - aligned to simple, engaging narratives, not just spokespeople. Content should be explicit, visual, and built for the platforms where your stakeholders spend time. The message may be profound, but the delivery must meet modern expectations.

5. Audience Behavior Has Changed—for Good

One concern raised at IJF 2025: News avoidance is rising. People are overwhelmed, anxious, and distrustful. Many opt out of news or stick to platforms that confirm their views. We’ve known this for many years, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed. We need to see how AI is leveraged to retain audiences.

This matters for public engagement across the board. Whether rolling out a national campaign or managing an organisational shift, your audience might not be listening as they used to. Media outlets have known about this for quite some time, and communicators need to learn more from journalists and their media outlets.

Some organisations and their communications advisers already understand and shape their comms based on an understanding of audience fatigue, for which they simplify their messages and use a trusted messenger who is not the CEO.

Equally, they engage with audiences not just on email but on more personable broadcast platforms like WhatsApp, YouTube or even Instagram if the platform is relevant to the brand and they can maintain control and trust.

6. Collaboration Is the New Competitive Advantage

Faced with shrinking budgets and massive complexity, media outlets have been partnering more than ever. They’re co-funding investigations, sharing tools, and forming alliances with NGOs and tech companies.

They are becoming critical at hosting events and private dinners at which they can convene decision-makers- events for which consultancies charged a hefty fee. Outlets like The Financial Times have their Strategies team that delivers counsel to media outlets.

Thinking collaboratively unlocks value and can enhance trust. In a fractured-attention economy, sharing the stage can amplify your impact.

The Bottom Line: Journalism’s Struggle Is a Mirror

The Perugia Journalism Festival showed us that the media industry is grappling with the very same pressures that businesses and governments now face, such as the disruption that AI is enabling and the impact of the current trust-deficient audience. This is forcing many organisations to reassess how they communicate and engage with their audiences and stakeholders.

What’s happening in media is bigger than journalism. It reflects the information economy in which we all live and lead. The leaders who adapt to these shifts—who lead with clarity, transparency, and a sense of responsibility—will not only survive this transformation. They’ll lead it.

What You Can Do Now

Join our webinar and learn how AI is transforming the newsroom and business of news, changing the business of communications.

A few days ago, I was reading Global Corporate Venturing’s article “Impact funds aren’t disappearing” by Robert Lavine, and a critical point stood out: While ESG start-ups and their investors are quietly and confidently delivering impact, they could do more if they better strategically communicated this.

Yet, as we know, ESG businesses have become the target of political backlash—especially in the United States under a second Trump administration—even though impact funds are continuing to grow, diversify, and deliver value.

Populist narratives dominate the airwaves, but the story is different in boardrooms and sovereign wealth offices outside of the US: the market is rewarding reality. In fact, while four years in politics is a lifetime. In finance, it’s barely a moment.

As Global Corporate Venturing points out, impact funds are becoming essential to de-risk portfolios and build long-term value in the volatile global economy we find ourselves in.

Why? Because ESG-aligned investing is no longer a fringe movement or corporate window-dressing. It’s a calculated response to macroeconomic shifts, climate risk, technological transition, and societal expectation. In a world facing systemic shocks—from climate and biodiversity loss to geopolitical instability—impact funds are proving more resilient than carbon-heavy investments weighed down by reputational risk and stranded assets.

The Long-Term Horizon: Political Cycles vs. Financial Reality

Political leaders in Western Democracies often operate in short-term cycles: four or five years of headlines, electoral strategy, and ideological posturing. But asset managers, sovereign funds, family offices, and corporations take a far longer view—often 10, 20, or even 50 years. And the financial data is clear: ESG investing is not only here to stay but outperforming legacy models.

Despite headlines suggesting waning interest, ESG investing remains a major force—though the nature of investor engagement is evolving. According to Morningstar’s Global ESG Q4 2024 Flow Report, global sustainable funds experienced net outflows of $88 billion in 2024, reversing the modest $4.3 billion in inflows recorded in 2023. These outflows were mainly driven by Europe, which accounted for $86.5 billion in redemptions, reflecting regulatory pressures and repositioning among a handful of large managers.

However, the underlying picture is more nuanced—and telling. Passive ESG funds attracted $47.8 billion in new capital globally, while active ESG funds saw $135.9 billion in withdrawals. This shift suggests investors remain committed to sustainability but increasingly favour transparent, low-cost, index-based strategies over more opaque active approaches. In the US, ESG sentiment remains politically polarised, yet even there, sustainable strategies retain a foothold.

What this signals is not an ESG retreat but a recalibration. Investors are demanding more clarity, better performance metrics, and strategic alignment. The capital is still very much available for those able to communicate value, resilience, and measurable impact.

Strategic Moves from Global Powers

China: Outspending, Outbuilding, Outperforming

China’s green finance strategy is a masterclass in long-term positioning. By the end of 2024, green loans in China had reached ¥36.6 trillion (approx. $5.1 trillion), a 36% annual increase, now accounting for over 13% of total lending in the country.

China isn’t just decarbonising—it’s capitalising. It leads the world in solar PV, wind turbine, battery and electric vehicle manufacturing. In fact, 60% of all new renewable energy capacity between now and 2030 is expected to come from China.

This isn’t greenwashing—it’s geopolitics. While some Western governments politicise ESG, China is quietly securing its leadership in the global green industrial revolution.

The Middle East: Sovereign Funds Go Sustainable

In 2024, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s sovereign wealth funds—including Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), the UAE’s Mubadala and ADQ, Qatar Investment Authority, and Oman Investment Authority—deployed $55 billion across 126 deals in sectors including green hydrogen, renewables, smart cities and advanced manufacturing.

Equally, as a strategic example, look how the UAE has positioned itself with the new US administration through its UAE USA United programme. Here’s a post from the UAE Embassy in Washington DC that shows how economic power works.

This isn’t a reputational offset. It’s a recognition that long-term returns lie in diversified, sustainable portfolios—not fossil-fuel dependence.

Saudi Arabia’s PIF is now targeting 70% of the Kingdom’s renewable energy goals by 2030. UAE’s Masdar is investing in renewables across Africa and Asia—activity that I have personally seen.

ESG principles are increasingly embedded across these funds’ mandates—not for PR and reputation management but for Return on Investment.

ESG and Impact Investing: Financial Returns Speak Loudest

Sustainable investing is delivering.

According to Morgan Stanley, in the first half of 2024, ESG-focused equity funds outperformed traditional funds by 60 basis points, with ESG-aligned fixed-income strategies showing even greater resilience during market volatility.

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency reported that investment in clean energy globally was expected to hit $2 trillion by the end of 2024—doubling fossil fuel investment.

Strategic Recommendations for Investors and Businesses

To realise the full potential of ESG and impact capital, decision-makers need to rethink how they position themselves and their ventures and act strategically—shaping perception, protecting reputation, and creating trusted financial narratives.

Here are some strategic recommendations:

1. Reframe ESG as Risk Management, Not Morality

Make the case for impact investing in language boardrooms and investors understand: resilience, long-term value, regulatory alignment, and reputational capital. As I wrote about before, in a Capitalist and ‘America First’ environment in which we now find ourselves in, frame ESG in terms of innovation that delivers financial returns.

Action: Equip LPs, clients and stakeholders with sector-specific data and clear performance comparisons that show how ESG-linked assets de-risk portfolios. This is all about not what you want to say and present but what you want them to understand and the necessary framing to get their support.

2. Align Capital with Policy Certainty, Not Political Noise

Ignore political noise. Track where capital is going, not where it’s being criticised. Most major economies—from the EU and China to the UAE and Singapore—are aligning with sustainable growth policies.

Action: Use policy foresight and regulatory trend analysis to identify sectors where early-stage impact investment will yield long-term first-mover advantage.

3. Prioritise Trust and Transparency in Communications

Investors want clarity. Policymakers need consistency. Stakeholders value honesty. Reputation is built on these principles—and increasingly priced into valuations, as I’ve written about before.

Action: Integrate ESG and impact narratives into annual reports, investor relations, public positioning and stakeholder communications.

4. Own the Reputation Advantage

In a world of misinformation and distrust, reputation becomes a premium. Impact capital—when properly explained and backed by data—builds authority, credibility and public trust. It is investing in stability and the future and not the past.

Action: Appoint strategic communications and reputation advisors at fund level to shape the narrative, influence stakeholders, and unlock new partnerships and markets.

The Market Will Reward Strategic Patience

The backlash against ESG may dominate short-term headlines, but the long-term financial case is unshakable.

China and the nations in the GCC are proving that with the right strategic vision, sustainable capital allocation is not only the right thing to do—it’s the most profitable.

In the battle between politics and money, trust the money. And trust those who build, communicate and protect reputations for the long haul.

Rethinking Data Culture in Government: Why People Matter More Than Platforms

Brent Hoberman, Co-Founder and Chairman of Founders Forum Group, recently posed a pointed question on LinkedIn: 'How good is the data that governments use to make choices?' In a world where data drives nearly every sector, his query lands at the heart of policymaking—and exposes a much bigger issue.

The problem isn’t just data quality. It’s what happens after the data is gathered: how it’s interpreted, challenged, applied, and communicated. This is where people and culture play an outsized role. And it’s why leaders—in government, investment, and business—must stop thinking about data as a technical asset alone and start treating it as a strategic one that depends on human judgment and institutional design.

I want to unpack these issues from the perspective of data quality, which is important, but the people interpreting it and the culture of the environment in which they have to question the data and make assumptions.

In my view, GenAI is not there to deliver shortcuts but to present different perspectives that our critical thinking needs to consider to unlock the outcomes of improving productivity and growth, which AI can deliver.

Good Data, Bad Decisions: Where Things Go Wrong

We often treat data as inherently objective, but how it is interpreted—who interprets it, through what lens, and under what constraints—matters as much as the data itself.

Take the UK’s experience during COVID-19. Despite access to extensive health and economic datasets, inconsistent interpretations led to wavering policy responses. The Office for Budget Responsibility later admitted significant forecasting errors, shaking public confidence in data-driven decisions.

Similar issues surfaced in significant infrastructure projects like HS2. Initial economic modelling drastically underestimated costs, leading to public mistrust and reactive policy changes. These aren’t failures of data—they’re failures of how it was applied.

Even Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, a voice from the private sector, noted the danger of false confidence in large datasets—his point: insufficient data isn’t the only problem. Misapplied data—interpreted without critical thinking or contextual understanding—can be just as damaging.

In the eight years I have worked as a specialist within the UK Government, in Digital Data and Technology, Policy, Trade and Internal Audit professions, I’ve had the pleasure of working with some great people and civil servants. However, what I have noticed in my time is that the culture is what has held true innovation from taking place.

The Human Layer: Risk Aversion, Bias, and Bureaucracy

Looking at the examples that Brent highlighted, let’s look at why these policy-making issues and outcomes keep repeating themselves. In my view, it comes down to three interlocking human and cultural challenges:

1. Risk Aversion Is Rational—But Limiting

Civil servants operate in a high-stakes environment. Their decisions are under constant scrutiny by media, politicians, and the public. In this context, risk-taking is often viewed as not innovation but liability.

Sarah Munby, Permanent Secretary at the UK Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, has acknowledged that it’s often rational for civil servants to avoid risk. But logical or not, it breeds inertia.

When failure is penalised more than success is rewarded, the safest decision is to do nothing new.

2. Cognitive Bias Distorts Data Use

Confirmation bias, anchoring, and availability heuristics aren’t abstract psychological concepts. They shape how policies are made.

A policymaker invested in a particular narrative may unconsciously seek data confirming their view and discount contradictory evidence.

Over-interpretation is also a significant issue. Data stretched to fit political needs loses its integrity—and can lead to flawed, even dangerous, decisions.

3. Bureaucratic Silos Kill Momentum

Government departments often operate in silos. Data is hoarded, not shared. Systems don’t talk to each other. This report by the UK National Audit Office confirms that departments need to ‘work together more effectively on industrial strategy.’

And insights that could drive better outcomes get lost in translation—or trapped in incompatible formats.

The UK's approach remains fragmented and outdated compared to digitally integrated governments like South Korea, Singapore or Japan - the latter two I have got to know quite well.

Global Lessons: What Innovative Nations Get Right

While the UK wrestles with entrenched bureaucracy, other countries show what’s possible when data, leadership, and culture align.

• Singapore: Through its 'Smart Nation' initiative, Singapore integrates real-time data platforms to make public services seamless. Government, academia, and private industry collaborate deeply, removing institutional silos.

• Japan's ‘Society 5.0’ vision blends AI and big data to plan more intelligent, sustainable urban environments. In fact, this strategy is central to the Osaka (Kansai) 2025 Global Expo.

• South Korea: Its ‘Digital New Deal’ enabled swift data-led responses during COVID-19, powered by strong partnerships between government and tech companies.

• United Arab Emirates: The UAE—particularly Abu Dhabi—has taken a bold, strategic lead in AI adoption by integrating it into national policy, investing billions through sovereign wealth funds like ADIA, Mubadala, and MGX, and forming global partnerships to position itself as a hub for innovation and digital governance. Their national strategy is called the UAE national Strategy for Artificial Intellegence 2031.

• The U.S.: While federal agencies vary widely, collaborations with private firms like Palantir and Microsoft have produced some of the world’s most advanced public data systems.

In all these examples, one thing is clear: technology alone doesn’t drive transformation. It’s the willingness to take calculated risks, to experiment, and to bring in diverse expertise that makes the difference.

Lessons from Business: Why the Private Sector Moves Faster

The cultural divide between government and business regarding data is stark. That said, the ability of the public to innovate at pace can be remarkable, but in the private sector, data decisions are often tied directly to customer feedback, revenue impact, and competitive pressure—that forces action and rewards adaptation.

Silicon Valley startups and tech companies in Shenzhen and Tokyo iterate constantly. They make small bets, test them, learn fast, and scale what works. It is in the culture that risk is learnt from, which enables the unlocking of innovation.

This mindset—rapid experimentation over exhaustive analysis—is still rare in government, where long policy cycles and political accountability inhibit quick movement. Yet, this agile approach is exactly what data requires.

A Smarter Path Forward: Strategic Recommendations

Governments must recalibrate how they think about data to close the gap between aspiration and impact.

This means shifting from a tech-first mindset to a people-and-culture-first strategy is one that McKinset, one of my clients, promotes with confidence in the ‘Never Just Tech’ way of working and communications campaign.

Here’s how government needs to rewire itself:

1. Build a Culture of Informed Risk-Taking

• Encourage pilot projects or 'policy sandboxes' that allow for low-risk testing of new approaches.

• Create internal protections for innovative civil servants so failures are treated as learning opportunities, not career risks.

2. Strengthen Cross-Departmental Collaboration

• Mandate interoperability standards for data systems across departments.

• Fund cross-agency task forces to address complex, multi-dimensional challenges like climate, health, and housing.

3. Invest in Data Literacy and Critical Thinking

• Embed data literacy into civil service training—not just technical skills but also bias awareness, ethical interpretation, and critical evaluation.

• Include diverse expertise on policymaking teams: behavioral scientists, data analysts, domain experts, and communicators.

4. Prioritise Ethical Data Use and Public Trust

• Develop and publicise transparent guidelines for collecting, storing, and applying data.

• Engage citizens in how their data is used—building understanding and trust through plain-language communication.

5. Benchmark Globally, Act Locally

• Use international models not as copy-paste solutions but as inspiration tailored to local political and institutional realities.

• Create a structured approach to learning from countries with more substantial digital infrastructure and integrated policy systems.

6. Communicate with Honesty and Clarity

• Communications and positioning are critical. Be upfront about uncertainties and trade-offs in data-led policy. Voters are more likely to support change when they understand the rationale.

• Use storytelling to humanise data—show how real people benefit when better insights inform policies.

The Bottom Line: It’s Not Just About Data

If the UK and other governments want to deliver better services, smarter spending, and more substantial outcomes, they need more than dashboards and datasets. They need cultural change. They need institutions that reward learning, not just control. They need to empower people who can ask hard questions about the data—not just accept it at face value.

This doesn’t mean we abandon analytics or modeling. It means we ground them in a human-centered strategy supported by ethics, collaboration, and a willingness to evolve.

As Brent Hoberman’s question rightly implied, 'How good is the data?' isn’t the only thing we should be asking. We also need to ask:

• Who is interpreting the data?

• What assumptions are they bringing?

• And are we creating the right conditions for the best insights to surface—and stick?

The future of effective policy isn’t just data-driven. It’s people-powered and not just about the technology!

The Signal Chat That Shook National Security

Imagine this: The CEO of a global investment bank opens a private Signal group chat to coordinate a confidential strategic acquisition. Senior partners, a regulator liaison, and the head of compliance are all included. But by accident, so is a journalist. Within minutes, the journalist has read—and screen-grabbed—market-sensitive, insider information. The story hits the press the next day.

Chaos ensues. Regulators investigate. Fines are issued. Careers are over. Trust evaporates.

This scenario is not fiction—it’s a corporate parallel to what just happened when The Atlantic's Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was ‘accidentally’ added to a Signal group chat involving senior U.S. government officials—including the Vice President—who were discussing imminent military action in Yemen. This leak, now referred to by some as ‘Signal Gate,’ raises profound questions about information security, governance, and trust.

In business, particularly in financial services, this kind of breach wouldn’t just spark headlines—it would trigger an avalanche of regulatory, legal, and reputational consequences.

So what would happen if such a breach occurred inside a regulated financial institution, and what lessons must leaders take from this?

The Reality of Regulation: Financial Firms Live in a Compliance Minefield

Financial institutions in the US, UK, EU, and across Asia-Pacific operate under stringent rules defining how sensitive, confidential, and market-moving information is handled. These regulations exist for good reason: the financial system runs on trust, and even the perception of misconduct or poor governance can shake markets, trigger withdrawals, or destroy brands.

Key frameworks include:

• US: SEC, FINRA, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act mandate strict control over electronic communications, insider trading, and recordkeeping.

• UK: FCA SYSC rules require senior managers to take responsibility for controls, while MiFID II mandates secure recordkeeping and reporting.

• EU: GDPR and the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) require tight access controls and whistleblowing channels.

• Asia-Pacific: MAS (Singapore), ASIC (Australia), Financial Services Agency (Japan) and others require compliance teams to monitor, log, and protect market-sensitive communications.

In this context, if a CEO or trader used Signal, WhatsApp, or Telegram to discuss confidential deals or non-public material, and an unauthorised party was added—intentionally or not—the consequences would be immediate.

What Would Happen in a Financial Firm? A Breakdown of the Fallout

Internal Governance Crisis

An immediate breach of internal communications policy would occur. Most institutions prohibit the use of nonauthorised communication apps for business. The incident would trigger a forensic investigation by internal audit, compliance, and legal teams.

Regulatory Enforcement

In the US, the SEC and FINRA would begin parallel investigations. Recent fines against banks for using WhatsApp and Signal for business communications have exceeded $2 billion, with JPMorgan, Barclays, and Goldman Sachs all sanctioned. The FCA and EU regulators would likely act similarly.

Criminal and Civil Liability

Depending on the content, the leaders involved could face civil lawsuits (for breach of fiduciary duty or negligence), insider trading allegations, or even criminal charges if material non-public information was mishandled.

Reputational Crisis

Media coverage would be fierce. Headlines would focus on leadership recklessness, board failings, and lapses in compliance. In a sector where trust underpins everything, the damage could be long-lasting.

Investor Fallout

Public companies could see share price declines as investors question governance standards. Private equity firms, venture capital and corporate venture capital firms would likely face LP pressure, potential fund withdrawals, and damage to future fundraising rounds.

The Trust Factor: Why It’s Bigger Than Just Cybersecurity

The fallout from an incident like this is not just technical—it’s reputational.

Trust and reputation are strategic and intangible assets. Banks, asset managers, and insurers compete not just on performance but on predictability, discretion, and professionalism. Reputational risk is now treated by many boards as equal to credit and market risk.

Whether the new leadership and administration believe it or not, in the case of Signal Gate, U.S. military and diplomatic credibility was undermined globally. If the same thing happened in finance, the brand equity built over decades could unravel in days.

Lessons for Business and Government Leaders

So, what do leaders need to be aware and mindful of to ensure that the organisation’s reputation and financial well-being are protected? Well, thankfully, most financial institutions will have a cyber team focused on not just the technology but the human weaknesses, and they with the leadership would be focused on the following:

Never Use Informal Tools for Formal Business 

Even if an app offers encryption, it should be off-limits for regulated or sensitive discussions if it's not approved for enterprise use. Organisations should invest in auditable, enterprise-grade communications platforms.

Build Governance Around People, Not Just Tech

Most breaches are not caused by technology failures but by people. Leaders must model proper behaviour and ensure policies are actively enforced.

Assume Everything Will Be Made Public

Today’s environment demands radical transparency. Assume that anything said or written can be leaked or misdirected. Would your organisation be comfortable with what’s said in private being on the front page tomorrow?

Crisis Plans Must Include Reputational Risk from Communication Breaches

Organisations need detailed incident response plans covering internal comms, media engagement, regulatory notifications, and stakeholder management. The potential risk confirms the need for strategic communications to work alongside the General Counsel to ensure that while regulatory matters are dealt with, the perception of the public and stakeholders can be managed and supported.

Regulators Are Watching Closely

This isn’t theoretical. Regulators around the world are actively cracking down on the use of informal channels. The bar is rising.

How Financial Services Firms Are Responding

Many firms today are implementing:

• Zero Trust architectures with identity-based access controls

• Automated surveillance of communications across email, Slack, Teams, and Zoom

• Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) restrictions or approved corporate device policies

• Executive training and attestations around information handling and digital conduct

• Chief Trust Officer roles that merge cybersecurity, legal, and reputational oversight

These aren't optional. They are becoming central to protecting stakeholder confidence, with insurance and re-insurance looking at reputation management activities in place to manage non-regulatory requirements.

What Government Can Learn From Finance

Ironically, while governments regulate banks tightly, many don’t apply the same discipline to themselves. The Signal Gate episode reveals a governance, recordkeeping, and operational discipline gap among elected officials.

Governments could benefit from adopting practices such as:

• Auditable communication tools for national security discussions

• Regular ministerial and official training in operational security and cyber hygiene

• Independent audits and reviews of digital communications policy compliance

• Reputation scenario planning at the Cabinet or department level

While governments have protocols and garding for people who can access what information, the gap is always the human and the lack of awareness of what is and isn’t allowed based on their grade and the sensitivity of the information that they have access to. And, in this geo-political climate, security is becoming even more of a need.

Trust, Governance, and the Cost of Informality

If the Signal Gate incident had occurred in a major investment bank or asset manager, the consequences would have been devastating: regulatory sanctions, lawsuits, firings, and the collapse of hard-earned trust.

In today’s connected world, leaders must treat information security and communications discipline as core to strategy—not just compliance. Whether you run a financial institution, a multinational company, or a government department, how you handle sensitive information defines your reputation.

Signal Gate isn’t just a political embarrassment. It’s a warning to every leader: in an age of instant leaks and global scrutiny, there is no room for informality when trust is on the line.

I work with and advise leaders on how to protect and enhance trust, reputation, and perception—especially when it matters most.

Let’s talk about how your organisation manages sensitive information and the reputational risks linked to communication and governance failures.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

An Urgent Call for Media Literacy

Media literacy is no longer optional but a crucial means of safeguarding public trust, institutional reputation, and social cohesion in a fast-evolving information landscape.

This call powerfully stood out during yesterday’s House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee session, which convened to hear evidence about the challenges and threats posed by online misinformation and disinformation.

The committee called on two expert witnesses to share their insight and experience. They were:

• Dr Mhairi Aitken, Senior Ethics Fellow at The Alan Turing Institute

• Professor Sander van der Linden, Professor of Social Psychology in Society at the University of Cambridge

Drawing on their distinct but complementary areas of expertise, they painted a picture of how artificial intelligence (AI), social media platforms, and deeply ingrained psychological biases have been engineered together to intersect and undermine trust in digital content. Taken together, their testimonies suggest that UK citizens—of all demographics—face a complex and growing set of online risks.

According to Professor van der Linden, a key metric from Ofcom indicates that “40% of people say that in the preceding month they’ve seen misinformation in the UK, 90% say that they’re very concerned about the impacts of misinformation, and about 20% say that they’ve seen deepfakes”.

While online falsehoods are not new, the recent explosion of generative AI has made fabricated images, videos, and text more difficult to detect. Dr Aitken explained that a ‘particularly pressing threat’ is the cumulative erosion of trust, warning that “people might increasingly see or hear something fake and believe that it’s real” while also beginning to “lose trust in all content online”. This dual threat—the difficulty of identifying fake content and a growing reflex to doubt everything—sits at the heart of an urgent policy conversation.

After watching the session, the following are issues raised at the select committee hearing, which looked into and discussed the ramifications for society, perception, and reputation, and asked for the experts’ proposals for governments, businesses, and the broader public.

Key Threats: Generative AI and Misinformation

The greatest challenge underscored by both witnesses is the combination of misinformation with generative AI, a technology category that can create new audio, video, imagery, and text with minimal human oversight.

Just a few years ago, misleading social media posts might be produced by so-called ‘troll farms’ or individual bad actors. Now, AI-driven systems can produce and distribute fabricated narratives at incredible speed and scale.

The Proliferation of Deepfakes

Deepfakes—manipulated videos in which a person’s face or voice is digitally forged—present a tangible example of how AI erodes traditional authenticity indicators.

Professor van der Linden noted that roughly 20% of people surveyed in the UK had encountered deepfake material. Moreover, large-scale foreign or domestic actors can easily automate their production. Instead of relying on teams of people to craft convincing fake videos, AI can churn out hundreds of variants with minimal effort.

AI-Driven Micro-Targeting

Other examples of AI-aided manipulation include micro-targeting and ‘nano-targeting.’ By analysing vast quantities of user data—web browsing history, social media interactions, demographic information—AI systems can pinpoint individuals most susceptible to particular narratives.

As the professor observed, while micro-targeting is already a ‘significant concern,’ it may pale compared to what AI-driven nano-targeting can achieve, zeroing in on single individuals with hyper-personalised messages.

Burdens on the Public

Dr Aitken highlighted, a further complication is the expectation that individuals should be able to spot every AI-generated or manipulated piece of content.

People often view low-resolution images on mobile devices, scrolling at speed through a feed of rapidly updating posts.

Even the best ‘tips and tricks’ for identifying AI content—such as looking for distortions in background objects—are moot when technology evolves or when images are compressed, cropped, or quickly shared on ephemeral channels. Asking average users to maintain a constant, high-level vigilance leads to what she termed ‘over-scepticism,’ a corrosive distrust of all media, genuine or otherwise.

Erosion of Trust: Societal and Reputational Implications

The consequences of rampant misinformation and advanced AI tools go beyond a few embarrassing mix-ups on social media. Both witnesses stressed how digital manipulation poses serious, long-term threats to trust, social harmony, and reputation at multiple levels.

1. Public Health: Misinformation about medical treatments or vaccine safety can undermine public compliance with health guidance, especially when disguised as authoritative.

2. Democratic Processes: Elections can be swayed if certain voter groups are deliberately targeted with misleading claims. Repeated exposure to conflicting information sows confusion, making it easy to discredit genuine journalism and verified facts.

3. Incitement of Violence: Professor van der Linden invoked the concept of ‘stochastic terrorism,’ wherein misinformation repeatedly circulates, amplifies societal tensions, and eventually sparks public disorder or violence.

4. Reputational Harm: At the personal level, deepfake technology can ruin individual reputations by forging compromising images or videos. At the institutional level, businesses and government agencies can lose public goodwill if they are linked—accurately or not—to a scandal or false claim.

5. Widening Inequality: Evidence shows that minority groups are targeted explicitly with false narratives, intensifying distrust towards mainstream platforms or public agencies and further polarising society.

Much of this erodes trust in news outlets, democratic institutions, and official communications.

Dr Aitken warned that, as public scepticism grows, audiences might respond to legitimate media stories with the reflex: “How do I know that’s not fake?”. The constant drip of dubious content can make all news unreliable, with serious repercussions for policy-making, governance, and business credibility.

Policy Gaps: Current Regulatory Shortcomings

Many nations struggle to regulate digital platforms effectively. In the United Kingdom, there is an ongoing debate about balancing freedom of speech with the urgent need to protect users—especially children and vulnerable populations—from harm.

Online Safety Act Limitations

Witnesses and committee members mentioned the Online Safety Act, which addresses various forms of online harm. However, both Dr Aitken and Professor van der Linden emphasised that, in its present form, the Online Safety Act does not comprehensively tackle misinformation or disinformation. It focuses on issues such as child safety, terrorism, and illegal content but does not give Ofcom or other regulators explicit powers to rein in widespread false narratives unless they meet a stringent legal threshold—for instance, deliberate falsehoods shared to cause harm.

Moreover, the act appears ill-prepared to keep pace with AI-driven developments, leaving significant scope for malicious actors to exploit the technology in ways not subject to enforcement. As one committee member observed, crafting legal definitions for broad terms like ‘misinformation’ or ‘fake’ without risking overreach or conflating legitimate debate with manipulative content is extremely difficult.

Regulatory Coordination and Accountability

Neither Dr Aitken nor Professor van der Linden suggested that government agencies should become arbiters of truth. Instead, they see an ‘accountability gap’ between platforms and the public.

Social media companies often set community standards that ostensibly prohibit hate speech or deliberate misinformation but are rolling back enforcement. Regulators and researchers frequently lack access to the data needed to understand how content is being promoted, and there is inadequate government coordination across various departments (for instance, the Home Office, DCMS, education, and foreign affairs).

Professor van der Linden cited other jurisdictions—like the EU’s Digital Services Act—as a model for improving transparency, setting risk assessments, and imposing fines when companies fail to address harmful misinformation systematically.

Action Agenda: Recommendations for Government

Reflecting on the hearing’s evidence, it is clear that tackling misinformation demands concerted action by government and public bodies, with an emphasis on regulation, education, and coordination.

Expand the Regulator’s Remit

Witnesses proposed strengthening Ofcom’s powers to investigate misinformation. This involves not policing everyday opinions but ensuring accountability when platforms allow the systematic spread of demonstrably false content that can incite harm.

Consider requiring large tech platforms to label AI-generated content more reliably, through digital watermarking. Although Dr Aitken noted that “malicious actors can fairly easily evade” watermarks, systematic labelling would be necessary.

Invest in National Media Literacy Programs

Both experts recommended embedding ‘prebunking’ or ‘inoculation’ approaches into the national curriculum, an idea borrowed from the success of Nordic countries like Finland. Teaching children—at an early age—how to identify common tactics of propaganda and conspiracies can pay dividends in adulthood.

This instruction should be repeated yearly (so-called ‘booster shots’) to reinforce critical thinking and adapt to the evolving media landscape.

In fact, the Finnish model, developed because of how Russia was spreading misinformation was a model I remember teaching during my communications training in markets in South East Asia like Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.

Establish Cross-Government Coordination

Various government branches face overlapping challenges: foreign disinformation campaigns, domestic extremist content, health conspiracies, and election integrity. A more structured approach could unify intelligence-sharing and policy interventions.

A central point of contact or cross-department council could help standardise definitions, guidelines, and escalation procedures when misinformation spikes around national events.

Support Trusted Community Organisations

Dr Aitken stressed that local institutions and community groups, already trusted within specific demographics, are prime vehicles for meaningful engagement around misinformation. Government funds or grants could expand their capacity to hold workshops and discussions, addressing the distinct concerns of each community, from public health guidance to political processes.

By pursuing these strategies, government authorities can restore control and resilience to the information environment without impeding fundamental freedoms.

Business Imperatives: Corporate Responsibility

It is not only government agencies that have a responsibility to act. Companies—particularly those that operate online platforms or depend on user-generated content—must shoulder a share of the burden.

What is needed is a collaborative strategy and approach where stakeholders can work together towards a common beneficial aim for all, which is establishin gand rebuilding trust.

Platform Accountability and Transparency

Social media giants can and should do more to highlight suspicious content, verify legitimate sources, and demote material flagged as misleading.

Platforms must share data and cooperate with independent researchers to evaluate the efficacy of algorithms, especially recommendation systems that can amplify polarising material.

Consistency in policy enforcement is crucial. One hearing participant observed that some companies currently have rules, “but they’re not enforcing their own rules.” This rollback undermines trust in the platforms themselves.

Corporate Risk Management

Beyond social media, most businesses face reputational threats if they become the subject of AI-fuelled smear campaigns or manipulated leaks. Implementing robust fact-checking, crisis communication plans, and staff training can guard against these risks.

Larger firms might coordinate with regulators and law enforcement to address repeated attempts to slander brand images or defraud customers through imposter AI chatbots.

Ethical Innovation

AI startups and established tech firms alike should consider it a design principle to embed watermarking or labelling features in generative AI systems by default.

Taking the lead in developing reliable detection tools or in refining watermarking standards can help companies demonstrate leadership in corporate social responsibility.

Public Engagement: Building a Culture of Inquiry

A better-informed and critically engaged public is the best bulwark against manipulative narratives. Dr Aitken and Professor van der Linden recognised the importance of giving individuals the skills to interpret the onslaught of online content while avoiding the trap of ‘over-scepticism.’

Critical Literacy from a Young Age

School-based programmes can enhance pupils’ capacity to question sources, use fact-checking tools, and discuss manipulative tactics. Age-appropriate lessons can demystify how AI can forge realistic text or images.

Encouraging healthy scepticism rather than pervasive cynicism is the goal. Young people should learn how to differentiate credible data from speculation or factual reports from memes designed to provoke strong emotional responses.

Adult and Lifelong Learning

Outside formal education, libraries, community centres, and adult learning institutes could integrate short workshops or modules on digital verification.

Employers could also offer in-house seminars, particularly in businesses prone to reputational risks. In doing so, adults who missed out on formal digital literacy education can catch up and adapt.

Grassroots Awareness Campaigns

Sustained and well-funded public information campaigns can publicise known ‘red flag’ signals of misinformation. They can also direct citizens to reliable fact-checking services or official clarifications on viral claims.

Dr Aitken noted that promoting dialogue within communities encourages a nuanced understanding of AI’s capabilities and dangers. This approach fosters trust, as the information comes from local figures already known to residents.

Securing Our Information Future

The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee hearing was an urgent reminder that the UK—and every modern democracy—faces a rapidly evolving fight against misinformation.

Generative AI is accelerating the creation of false or distorted content, undermining trust in genuine sources and posing unique challenges for policymakers, businesses, and the public.

Yet, despite the severity of the threats described by Dr Aitken and Professor van der Linden, their testimonies also sketched out a constructive path forward:

• Regulation: Expand Ofcom’s remit, or develop new frameworks, so that the willful spread of false content can be scrutinised and platforms compelled to act.

• Education: Implement a national media literacy strategy, teaching children from an early age how to detect propaganda and manipulative tactics. Support adult-focused programmes to ensure no segment of the population is left behind.

• Coordination: Improve cross-department government collaboration and data-sharing. Recognise that misinformation is not just a digital communications problem; it cuts across security, health, education, and social welfare.

• Platform Responsibility: Urge companies to enforce their community standards consistently, label AI-generated content, and partner with external researchers so that harmful content can be identified and demoted swiftly.

• Community and Trust: Fund and partner with local organisations to promote engagement on AI, content verification, and resilience-building. Leverage already-trusted voices and institutions to reach different demographics effectively.

Given the complexity of the modern information environment, no single initiative—whether a piece of legislation, a fact-checking partnership, or an educational policy—will suffice. However, by distributing responsibility across governments, businesses, and the public, society can begin to reassert standards of authenticity.

Resisting the lure of cynicism, Dr Aitken encapsulated the challenge: “The deeper threat here is that increasingly, as there is exposure and awareness of AI-generated content, people begin to lose trust in all content online.”  The goal is to prevent that sweeping crisis of faith in legitimate information. A thoughtful balance of regulation, community engagement, corporate accountability, and personal awareness can achieve just that. By investing in robust media literacy for all, the UK can empower citizens to question manipulative claims but still recognise—and trust—fact-based reporting and expert opinion.

As organisations and individuals adapt to a world where falsehoods may look as convincing as truth, the stakes have never been higher.

Society stands at a crossroads: either we accept a downward spiral of suspicion, or we collectively commit to equipping each new generation with the knowledge, tools, critical thinking and regulations necessary to maintain a healthy, informed democracy.

The vision that emerged from the select committee hearing points toward the latter. By acting decisively, government bodies, corporate leaders, and citizens can protect credibility and reputations in the era of AI, ensuring that open, evidence-based discourse continues to flourish in the UK’s public sphere.

For centuries, diplomacy was the exclusive domain of governments. Treaties, alliances, and negotiations were the purview of ambassadors and ministers. Today, this traditional order is undergoing a profound transformation.

Multinational corporations (MNCs) are increasingly brokering deals, influencing policies, and intervening in crises once considered solely governmental responsibilities.

This emergence of "corporate diplomacy" has been accelerated by globalisation, rapid technological advancements, and a fragmented geopolitical landscape. Businesses today must learn to navigate this complex new reality.

Drivers of Change: Globalisation, Technology, and Geopolitical Shifts

The interplay between government-led international relations and the global expansion of MNCs has changed significantly since the late 20th century. Globalisation and trade digitisation have empowered some companies to wield economic influence comparable to mid-sized nations.

American big tech companies, for example, demonstrate how businesses can influence policy and regulation internationally, as seen in their engagement with the EU. Nation-states compete for investment, jobs, and growth, altering the balance between state and business. Where government-led negotiations have been slow or ineffective, corporations have stepped in, becoming "transnational actors in their own right," as Harvard Business Review and Foreign Affairs noted. Large firms now set global standards in areas like data privacy, energy policy, and environmental protection. A 2019 Brookings Institute study highlighted multinational corporations' influence through lobbying on foreign policy.

Heightened political polarisation and rising global conflicts, particularly in Ukraine, have made this shift even more visible. Businesses must reassess supply chains, navigate sanctions, and even take on diplomatic-like roles. New companies and startups with international supply chains also grapple with these challenges.

According to a Chatham House analysis of the Ukraine conflict, we are witnessing broader geopolitical fragmentation, revealing a multipolar world where economic and military power is widely dispersed. MNCs must now navigate market forces, shifting regulations, social responsibility expectations, and local political realities. Corporate leaders find themselves adopting roles once exclusive to professional diplomats, requiring geopolitical and geoeconomic awareness.

Shifting from Market Strategy to Non-Market Influence

Success now depends on more than just products, services, and balance sheets. Corporate diplomacy involves non-market strategies, including stakeholder engagement, lobbying, and alliance-building. Companies rely on networking, corporate reputation, and competitive intelligence to shape their public image and impact policy outcomes.

The "business diplomacy" concept emphasises long-term, trust-building exercises with governments and civil society, addressing issues from climate policy to cybersecurity.

@financialtimes The US tech company, whose manufacturing fortunes are prominently tied to China, now has a small but growing footprint in India. But analysts warn that the iPhone maker must navigate geopolitical tensions as it seeks to reduce its reliance on Beijing. #apple #India #tech #business #iphone ♬ original sound - FinancialTimes

Trust Gaps and Public Expectations

Businesses enjoy higher public trust (51%) than governments (37%), according to Edelman’s 2025 Trust Barometer. Corporations that showcase ethical conduct and social impact are leveraging this trust. However, this trust is fragile. Controversies around data privacy, labour standards, or environmental harm can trigger public backlash. As governments struggle to maintain consensus, companies have an opportunity and responsibility to step into diplomatic-like roles but must do so carefully to avoid accusations of overreach.

Moving Towards a Multipolar World: Geopolitical Fragmentation

The conflict in Ukraine exemplifies the move toward a multipolar global environment. While Western governments imposed sanctions on Russia, Russia pivoted towards China and the global south. Chatham House analysts emphasise how such fractures splinter global alliances, forcing businesses to adapt supply chains and evaluate new risks.

The lines between commerce and national security have blurred. Firms must navigate volatile markets, stricter export controls, and the risk of reputational damage.

Cyber-Diplomacy: Cybersecurity as a Diplomatic Domain

The Ukraine conflict also highlighted cybersecurity’s critical role. Technology companies are the guardians of the digital ecosystem. Cybersecurity is now a first-order corporate diplomacy issue, as Microsoft’s President Brad Smith emphasised at a lecture at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Science Po).

Mechanisms of Corporate Diplomacy

• Lobbying 2.0: Modern lobbying addresses digital regulation, data governance, and sustainability issues. Companies engage multiple stakeholders to shape policies.

• Networking and Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Networking is vital for advancing corporate interests. High-level government contacts and grassroots ties help influence policy and maintain brand credibility.

• Competitive Intelligence and Scenario Planning: Tracking geopolitical, regulatory, and social developments is essential. Firms must adapt quickly to events like sanctions and tariffs.

• Reputation Management and CSR: Corporate image is crucial. CSR initiatives must be aligned with corporate strategy and deliver a return on investment.

Recommendations for Leaders

In a world where MNCs rival states in influence, leaders must embrace the mindset and tools of diplomacy. They need to:

• Manage Reputation as a Strategic Asset: Balance public pressure and ensure social programs are authentic.

• Invest in Strategic Communications and Crisis Simulations: Share ESG commitments proactively and run scenario-based drills.

• Gather and Leverage Geo-Economic Insights: Partner with specialist firms and diversify supply chains.

• Strengthen Stakeholder Engagement: Form multi-stakeholder alliances and localise diplomacy.

• Build In-House Diplomatic Expertise: Hire former diplomats and trade officials and provide geopolitical training.

• Embed ESG in Core Strategy: Set genuine targets and be transparent.

Why Strategic Communications and International Engagement Are Critical

Reputation is paramount in the age of instant global communication. Companies must map political risks for various events, such as financial risk scenario planning.

Diplomatic collaboration and thought leadership, through partnerships with think tanks and policy forums, are also crucial.

Looking Ahead: Corporate Diplomacy in a Fragmenting World

Several trends will define the next phase:

• Heightened Vulnerability to Geopolitical Risks: Flexible, scenario-based planning is essential.

• More Assertive Social Responsibility: Companies must address social issues to avoid alienating the public and stakeholders.

• Digital Diplomacy and Cyber Challenges: Cybersecurity will be intertwined with global politics.

• Evolving Role of Middle Powers: These nations have outsized influence.

• Expansion of Partnerships and Coalitions: Multi-stakeholder coalitions will proliferate.

Embracing a Diplomatic Mindset

The age of corporate diplomacy has arrived. Businesses operate at the heart of policy debates and crisis response. Leaders must adopt a diplomatic lens, meshing profit objectives with local sensitivities, global partnerships, and ethical governance.

The next generation of corporate strategists will require fluency in finance, marketing, international relations, and risk analysis. Corporate leaders are blending commerce with diplomacy.

Corporate diplomacy is no longer an optional add-on but an existential requirement. Organisations must think and act like politicians, bridging cultural divides and resolving complex challenges.

By cultivating trust and demonstrating genuine social impact, companies will protect themselves from political turbulence and unlock lasting value.

I work with leaders to integrate strategic communications and international stakeholder engagement into their decision-making processes. Let’s discuss how strategic geo-political advisory can help your business and/or investments navigate uncertain envirorments..

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Late last night on Thursday night, 20 March, a fire at an electrical substation in Hayes triggered a full power outage at Heathrow Airport, leading to the cancellation of over 1,200 flights and severe disruption for over 200,000 passengers.

As one of the world’s busiest airports and a major cargo hub, the incident brought to light systemic vulnerabilities in the United Kingdom's national infrastructure, supply chains, and emergency preparedness.

The situation caught a lot of people and experts by surprise, highlighting the importance not just in how critical infrastructure is protected, but also why in today’s tense world climate the public and private sectors here in the UK and overseas need to invest more not just in security and resilience, but also in managing risk and the trust and reputation that is given to them by the public and wider stakeholder communities.

Geopolitical instability and hybrid threats are sadly becoming a part our every day life. As Benjamin Franklin said, “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

Today, spare a thought for the communications professionals, not just at Heathrow, but down the supply chain in the UK and overseas that, are also having to manage this situation.

Heathrow: A National Asset Under Pressure

Heathrow is more than just a passenger terminal—it is a strategic national asset, handling 80 million passengers and 1.7 million tonnes of cargo annually, accounting for 30% of UK air freight.

In 2023, Heathrow managed a staggering £198.5 billion worth of goods, surpassing the combined cargo throughput of all other UK airports.  This dominance in air freight underscores the airport’s critical position in the UK’s logistics and global trade networks.

Yet, the airport is controlled by a consortium of international investors, each with distinct risk appetites, strategic priorities, and governance standards. While this diversified ownership brings capital and global expertise, it also complicates decision-making during crises and can cause delays in unified communication, inconsistent protocols, and governance silos can hinder a swift response

UK exports to non-EU nations via Heathrow were alone worth over £100 billion last year with the airport supporting around 180,000 jobs. It functions as a primary entry and exit point for goods and people, making its operational continuity critical to the UK's economic and reputational standing.

The fire and ensuing shutdown revealed how reliant the UK is on a single infrastructure node for air travel and logistics. The temporary loss of this gateway created ripple effects throughout the economy, impacting businesses large and small that depend on just-in-time delivery models, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, food, and high-value technology.

Hybrid Threats and National Security

Though no foul play has been confirmed, counter-terrorism police were involved in the investigation, reflecting growing concern about infrastructure as a target for state and non-state actors. MI5’s 2024 Annual Update had already warned of increased attempts by foreign actors to disrupt UK energy and transport systems.

The Heathrow incident exemplifies the evolving threat landscape, where traditional risk management models fall short.

In February, I wrote about why CEOs must invest in geo-political risk strategy. Now we see conformation of not just that, but resiliance structures and the necessary communications infrastructures that can work to support an re-assure stakeholders and the wider public.

Reputational Fallout and Stakeholder Confidence

The reputational damage from the incident was immediate and far-reaching. News outlets, including The Times, Financial Times, and Reuters, as well as many outlets in international markets covered the event extensively, reporting widespread delays and the failure of backup systems. 

Sir John Holland-Kaye, former Heathrow CEO, once described the airport as “the front door to the British economy.” The fire highlights how the UK needs to work collaboratively to manage the risk, perception and reputation, especially given how interconnected our economy is.

Key reputational risks included:

• Public Confidence: Travellers and cargo clients experienced significant delays and confusion, compounded by inconsistent communication.

• Investor Perception: Heathrow Airport Holdings, owned by a consortium including Qatar Investment Authority and other global investors, saw short-term impacts on its financial instruments.

• UK's Global Image: International observers questioned the UK’s capacity to secure and manage critical infrastructure, particularly in a post-Brexit landscape where global competitiveness is vital.

Crisis Communications: Lessons in Transparency and Empathy

Initial responses to the incident were marked by technical jargon and slow updates, an issue noted by PR Week, which spoke to crisis communication industry colleagues, including Rod Cartwright, principal at Rod Cartwright Consulting and special advisor to the CIPR’s Crisis Communications Network.

Key principles of effective crisis communication include:

• Speed and Clarity: Timely, accurate information prevents speculation.

• Consistency: Unified messaging from all stakeholders avoids confusion.

• Empathy: Acknowledging the human impact builds trust.

• Media Engagement: Using trusted outlets to shape the narrative supports market confidence.

Strategic Communications Recommendations

To improve crisis communication preparedness, leaders across government and business in the UK and overseas must adopt a proactive, strategic approach. Key recommendations include:

Communicate for Confidence

Embed crisis communications into infrastructure planning. Leaders must be ready to communicate swiftly, credibly, and empathetically during crises to preserve institutional and market trust. Timely and transparent updates can reinforce confidence among investors, supply chain partners, regulators, and the public. This should also include scenario-based communication protocols that are regularly reviewed and rehearsed.

Strategic and Crisis Communications Investments for Business Leaders

Business leaders must scale up their investment in strategic communications capabilities as part of their risk and reputation strategy. Consider:

• Dedicated Crisis Communications Teams: Establish in-house or retained external teams that can be activated instantly when an issue happens. These teams should be trained in handling high-risk scenarios with accuracy, empathy, and speed, and be able to engage at the highest level internally and externally.

• Stakeholder Perception Mapping: Regularly assess how customers, investors, regulators, and partners perceive the business and its resilience. Use qualitative and quantitative tools to track changes in sentiment before, during, and after a crisis.

• Crisis Response Playbooks: Develop and rehearse communication scenarios with templates, messaging trees, and designated spokespersons. These playbooks should also include escalation protocols and guidance for communicating across different markets and legal jurisdictions.

• Leadership Visibility: Train executives to show presence, calm, and decisiveness during crises—an essential part of public and market reassurance. Visible leadership builds confidence among internal teams and external stakeholders alike.

• Digital Listening and Monitoring Tools: Use real-time monitoring tools to track sentiment, media coverage, and misinformation across traditional and digital channels. This will help you to develop quick corrective messaging and targeted responses at pace.

• Internal Communications Readiness: Ensure staff are informed and empowered to when appropriate share accurate updates externally. Internal alignment is critical to prevent conflicting messages and reinforce unity.

• Stakeholder Trust Building: Develop long-term communications strategies that go beyond reactive messaging. Build and maintain trust by showing transparency, competence, and responsiveness consistently over time—not just in moments of crisis.

• Cross-Sector Media Training: Provide media training to executives and senior spokespeople who may face scrutiny during crises. Messages must be adapted for diverse audiences including regulators, customers, investors, and the media.

From Vulnerability to Vision

The Heathrow fire was more than a logistical disruption. It was a systemic warning about the fragility of national infrastructure in the current volatile world in which we live and work.

In an era where hybrid threats, climate shocks, and geopolitical competition are converging, resilience is not a regulatory checkbox—it is a strategic imperative.

Leaders must embed resilience into infrastructure design, ownership structures, communications strategies, and cross-border cooperation.

The call to action is clear: transform fragmented governance, modernise outdated systems, and create a unified, intelligence-led approach to protecting the lifeblood of the British economy. The time to act is not during the next crisis but now.

Correspondence:

Infrastructure resilience and the navigation of high-stakes operational risks often carry implications best addressed in a non-public forum. If you wish to discuss your situation or the specific support your organisation requires, I invite you to reach out via LinkedIn.

Direct Inquiry

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the landscape of public relations, communications and strategic advisory professions, reshaping workflows, amplifying message reach, and redefining the speed at which professionals operate. However, amidst this technological transformation, a critical distinction remains: AI excels at tactical implementation, but strategic advisory and high-level stakeholder engagement must continue to be guided by experienced human professionals.

Senior leaders, boards, and decision-makers in businesses, investment firms, and government entities must understand this nuance to leverage AI effectively while preserving human-led strategic governance.

The Tactical Power of AI in Communications

AI’s influence on PR and communications has been profound, primarily enhancing efficiency, accuracy, and scale. According to a report by Gartner (2024), ‘40% of businesses have deployed generative AI in multiple units, especially marketing and customer service functions.’

Equally, a McKinsey report identified that ‘companies implementing AI writing solutions report productivity increases of up to 40% in content creation tasks. These technologies enhance business writing capabilities by providing advanced language processing, content optimization, and creative suggestions that align perfectly with brand voice and industry standards.’

For example, AI tools can rapidly generate press releases, social media posts, and briefings based on predefined criteria, enabling communicators to respond swiftly to fast-moving events.

McKinsey’s analysis from 2022 also noted that companies using AI-powered analytics improved their messaging targeting, significantly enhancing campaign effectiveness and reach. Research from the University of Southern California (USC) Annenberg Center for Public Relations presents insight into the ‘rising application of AI across communications by the public relations industry.’

However, as tactical capabilities increase through AI, senior executives must recognise the limits of automation.

While tactical execution is streamlined, the critical components of planning and strategic decision-making, particularly in reputation management and stakeholder engagement, demand nuanced human insight and intervention.

Strategic Advisory: The Human Domain

Strategic communication involves more than disseminating messages—it requires thoughtful consideration of context, empathy, cultural nuances, and long-term impacts. It requires the ability to identify stakeholders and their specific interests and be able, in essence, to connect the dots.

Despite its sophisticated analytics and predictive capabilities, AI currently lacks the depth of emotional intelligence and cultural sensitivity necessary for high-stakes advisory roles. And even when it can overcome this, the one thing that it will not be able to replace is the human interaction that people rely on.

AI and GenAI delivers improved productivity so that leaders, especially those who engage on a peer-to-peer level, with added insight that they can use in their advisory work.

Research published by Harvard Business Review (2023) underscores that 75% of executives consider trust and human relationships integral to successful strategic communication, especially during crises or complex negotiations. By its nature, senior-level advisory demands direct human interaction, trust-building, and judgement based on experience, ethics, and emotional intelligence—qualities that AI cannot fully replicate.

When considering crises, an organisation’s general counsel usually leads in engagement with the Board or C-suite. AI can be a great asset, especially when working alongside a strategic communications advisor.

Equally, the power and influence of experts are critical. Leaders make decisions not just based on the data they are presented with but also on the trust and perception of those presenting them with strategic options. Peer-to-peer advisory happens because of the expertise that an individual brings to a situation that needs solving.

What experts bring to the table is contextual awareness, nuance, or strategic alignment with organisational objectives, market realities and geopolitical or geoeconomic situations.

AI-generated options could overlook critical cultural, political, reputational, or human considerations, potentially misleading decision-makers and leading to misguided strategic choices or unintended consequences, which is why expertise and human engagement. Yes, improving prompting can help, but it still lacks the human ability to understand the outcome and the data generated from the prompt engineering used.

Relationships Are Crucial, Especially Across International Cultures

Understanding cultural nuances is indispensable in international strategic communications. A 2019 article from Harvard Business Review highlights how, globally, trust in institutions is deeply intertwined with cultural perceptions, and messages that resonate in one region can significantly differ in another.

Human communications experts bring the ability to navigate these cultural complexities. They possess the experience to interpret subtle cultural signals, body language, and unspoken expectations—critical for international business and diplomatic communications. By contrast, AI tools, though capable of identifying patterns, data and sentiments across large datasets, lack the innate ability to genuinely engage and build trusted personal relationships across diverse cultures, which are critical in international business and trade.

Peer-to-peer relationships are fundamental in business, particularly when operating across different markets and cultures because they establish trust, mutual respect, and a deeper understanding that transcends transactional interactions.

Effective peer relationships foster open dialogue, enable nuanced decision-making, and help navigate cultural complexities that technology alone cannot decipher. Negotiating with a leader gives you the confidence that whatever is ultimately agreed, the authority of the person you’ve negotiated with will enable them, most of the time, to action what’s been agreed. 

Recognising and adapting to cultural differences not only improves communication clarity but also strengthens partnerships, facilitating smoother negotiations and more resilient business outcomes. Ultimately, businesses that invest in cultivating meaningful, culturally aware peer-to-peer interactions are better positioned to succeed in international markets.

In my 15 years of working internationally, across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, South East Asia and the US, I have seen the differences that make us unique. Training and advisory insight in these markets have had to be adapted to ensure that the messages and insight I share are received, and for this, an understanding of culture and the unique situation that each client, whether junior or senior, has been critical.

Clients I have worked with directly or indirectly expect an understanding of them and the environment in which they live or work. An understanding of culture helps to open doors.

AI-Assisted Design and Activation of Campaigns

While strategic decision-making and relationship management remain human-led, AI can significantly benefit the design, activation, and monitoring of influencing public or private campaigns.

AI can analyse vast datasets, segment audiences precisely, and optimise message dissemination at scale. For example, during a public health campaign, AI can rapidly adapt messaging based on real-time feedback loops, increasing campaign responsiveness and effectiveness. Similarly, in private influence campaigns, such as those aimed at regulators, investor communities or internal corporate stakeholders, AI-driven analytics can precisely measure and predict audience reactions and engagement levels.

However, while AI can effectively design and activate these campaigns, and automate them, governance and risk management must remain human-driven.

Equally, it is worth remembering that AI algorithms are prone to biases from historical datasets, which can inadvertently amplify misinformation or cultural insensitivity. Human governance and oversight ensures ethical standards, inclusivity, and appropriateness in messaging remain paramount.

Integrating Human Expertise and AI: A Model for the Future

Senior leaders in business, investment and in governments must strategically redesign their communications functions to integrate AI’s tactical capabilities alongside human strategic oversight.

In essence, where AI can support and unlock value for strategists and communicators by improving the productivity of leaders and the efficiency of those doing the tactical activation.

Here are some recommendations for effectively combining these capabilities:

1. Clear Delineation of Roles

Executives should clearly delineate between tasks suitable for AI automation and those requiring human oversight.

Tactical tasks such as media monitoring, basic content creation, and routine campaign management should leverage AI.

Conversely, strategic roles involving stakeholder engagement and management, crisis communications, high-level messaging, and ethical considerations must remain human-led.

2. Human-Centric Advisory Framework

Organisations should establish or enhance senior advisory councils comprising experienced communication strategists and General Counsel, an issue that I have written about in the past.

These councils ensure that AI-generated strategies align with corporate values, ethics, and long-term stakeholder interests. These issues are discussed at the Board and C-suite and serve as a governance mechanism to mitigate AI-driven risks.

3. Invest in Human Skills

Companies should invest in continuous human capital development, emphasising skills that AI cannot replicate, such as emotional intelligence, critical thinking, ethics, and cross-cultural competency.

According to Deloitte’s 2023 Future of Work report, organisations investing in these skills see significant improvements in strategic agility and employee engagement.

4. Establish Robust Risk Management Practices

Leaders should embed robust risk management protocols that allow rapid human intervention if AI-driven campaigns diverge from desired outcomes or inadvertently propagate misinformation. Regular audits and oversight frameworks led by human teams ensure accountability and alignment with strategic objectives.

5. Foster Cross-Functional Collaboration

Encourage close collaboration between communication professionals, data scientists, legal experts, and senior leadership. This cross-functional approach ensures comprehensive understanding and alignment, maximising AI’s tactical benefits while retaining strategic integrity and mitigating risks.

Building the Future: Human-Led Strategic Excellence

AI’s transformative potential in PR and communications is undeniable. Yet, in my opinion, it remains a complementary rather than substitutive force. Organisations that excel will be those that judiciously leverage AI for tactical excellence while maintaining human-led strategic governance.

In a profession fundamentally grounded in human connection, influence, and trust-building—especially within complex international contexts—the future of successful PR and communications lies in a balanced model. One where AI enhances capabilities without replacing the essential human judgment, cultural awareness, and strategic foresight necessary for genuine engagement at the highest levels.

By clearly defining roles, enhancing human advisory capabilities, and embedding rigorous governance frameworks, leaders can ensure their organisations are perfectly positioned to harness AI’s full potential without losing the irreplaceable human element that remains the foundation of effective strategic communications.

Need to strategy and advisory to help your agency or in-house to better use AI for or strategic advisory or tatical campaign development?

I work with leaders to modernise and integrate strategic communications into their decision-making processes. Let’s discuss how your company can better use AI work flows in your communications, and corporate strategy for long-term success.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

The UK Government’s recently published it’s Blueprint for Modern Digital Government, which outlined an ambitious reform agenda aimed at transforming public services through digital innovation. The blueprint builds on the State of Digital Government Review and presents a six-point plan for reform, setting a long-term vision for digital public services. The Government Digital Service (GDS) has been refreshed to spearhead this transformation.

While the blueprint rightly focuses on digital capability, data, technology, and service transformation, a key ingredient for success remains underemphasised: strategic communications and stakeholder engagement. Without effective communication, the government’s digital reform efforts risk facing resistance, misunderstanding, and lack of buy-in from key internal and external stakeholders, including civil servants, businesses, and the general public.

Now, this is an issue: the lack of inclusion of strategic communications in digital services and product design and delivery that doesn’t just affect governments and their attempts to digitally transform their environment and the way they support the public. It is also a critical issue for many private sector start-ups, who see comms as an afterthought and consider it only in a tactical way at launch rather than through the discovery phases of the development of the company.

Drawing on my experience working with the Digital, Data, and Technology (DDaT) profession at the then Department for International Trade (DIT) - now the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), this piece explores the essential role of communications in digital transformation, the barriers that poor communication can create, and recommendations for ensuring that communication is embedded within digital delivery teams.

The Role of Communication in Digital Service Design

Effective communication is critical and foundational in digital service design. It serves as the bridge between user needs, stakeholder objectives, and technological capabilities. At its core, communication ensures that digital initiatives are understood, adopted, and successfully implemented.

In a rapidly evolving digital landscape, where user experience is paramount, the ability to convey ideas clearly and persuasively enhances engagement and determines the success of digital initiatives.

Digital transformation is not just about technology but culture, perception, and trust. A lack of strategic communication can lead to misalignment between digital teams and policy units, resistance from civil servants who feel excluded from the process, and confusion among external stakeholders who struggle to see the relevance of reforms.

By prioritising and embedding communications in digital product and service design teams, the government can bridge these gaps, ensuring that both business objectives and user expectations are met through collaborative efforts among developers, designers, and stakeholders. After all, the political risk of releasing digital services that are not adopted can be huge given the costs, modest compared to the development costs of private sector digital services that are funded by investors from VCs and CVCs.

Embedding Communications within Agile Digital Delivery Teams

The Service Manual for Government Digital Services advocates for an Agile approach to digital delivery, yet communications often remain a separate, supporting function rather than an embedded one. This siloed approach creates unnecessary friction, slowing down adoption and increasing the likelihood of misunderstandings during the development and delivery stages.

Embedding a dedicated communications function within Agile digital delivery teams enables better real-time messaging alignment, where communications professionals shape internal narratives alongside product teams. It also ensures that stakeholder engagement begins early in the process, especially with non-digital budget holders, preventing misalignment between policy and technology teams. 

At the same time, visual and interactive communication techniques, such as clear typography, infographics, and multimedia storytelling, play a crucial role in explaining complex digital reforms. These elements help capture attention and make digital transformation efforts more accessible and engaging.

How Communications Can Help Overcome Blockers to Digital Reform

Organisational Resistance to Change

One of the most significant barriers to digital reform is cultural resistance. Civil servants accustomed to traditional workflows may see digital transformation as threatening their roles or an unnecessary disruption. Without clear communication, reforms risk being perceived as top-down directives rather than collaborative initiatives.

Proactive internal engagement is essential. Communication must highlight success stories, demonstrate the benefits of digital tools, and provide regular updates that reinforce how transformation enhances efficiency and service delivery. Transparency is key—civil servants must feel that they are part of the journey rather than passive recipients of change.

Public Trust in Digital Government

The general public is naturally increasingly wary of government digital initiatives due to concerns around data privacy, cybersecurity, and digital exclusion, even though design teams invest time in resolving these issues. Many fear that automated services might reduce human oversight or limit accessibility for those who are not digitally literate.

Addressing these concerns requires a two-way communication approach. The government must actively listen to public feedback, clearly articulate how citizen data is protected, and ensure that digital services are designed with inclusivity in mind. Regular reports, case studies, and user testimonials can help build confidence in digital initiatives.

Unclear Value Proposition for Businesses and Investors

The private sector plays a crucial role in the UK’s digital transformation, yet many businesses and investors struggle to see how government reforms will benefit them.

Without a compelling narrative, digital initiatives risk being seen as bureaucratic exercises rather than opportunities for collaboration that deliver productivity and economic growth.

A targeted engagement strategy is critical. Communication teams should develop industry-specific messaging highlighting efficiency gains, cost reductions, and new opportunities for innovation.

Roundtable discussions, thought leadership articles, and strategic partnerships could further reinforce the value proposition of digital government initiatives. Stakeholder mapping and engagement is essential.

Misalignment Between Digital and Policy Teams

Government digital teams often work faster than policy units, leading to misalignment, delays, and missed opportunities. This disconnect can result in policies that are either out of step with technological capabilities or digital services that fail to reflect broader policy goals.

One reason is the different culture that exists across Government and specific arms-length bodies (ALBs)—Agile vs. a very siloed waterfall approach.

A structured communication framework can help bridge this gap and modernise government cross-working. Regular cross-team meetings, shared communication channels, and collaborative working sessions can ensure that digital priorities align with policy objectives from the outset.

Embedding a communication function within digital teams further helps translate complex technical updates into clear policy-aligned narratives.

Lessons from My Work with the DDaT Function at DIT

Between 2016 and 2019, I was the DDaT Head of Communication and Engagement at the then Department for International Trade.

The directorate and team worked at a pace. There was friction, but the focus was on delivering a range of services to support trade. The teams within the directorate were digital, whether in digital design, data, or technology.

Part of my work was to support position each specific project that the directorate worked on, internally, across government and with stakeholders. I worked with designers and user researches to find out every little nuance in order to better frame the work we did and the value we secured.

I scaled my communication work to focus more on the strategic side and equally worked with departments' communications and marketing teams, as well as those from other departments, very much jumping between silos.

Only when I left the team in 2019 did I realise and was told about how strategic communications and stakeholder engagement played a crucial role in digital transformation. Some key takeaways that were shared with me included:

• Early engagement was key: Bringing communications professionals into digital projects from the start ensured messaging was aligned and stakeholder concerns, including those from Ministers, Perm Sec and Leadership, were addressed proactively.

• Agile and collaborative comms strategies worked best: Just as Agile delivery methodologies allow for continuous iteration, communication strategies must be flexible and adaptive for the new approach by the government.

• Senior leadership buy-in is crucial: If leadership does not champion the digital transformation message, uptake across departments suffers.

When I left the team, I made sure that the role was held by a senior civil servant. I equally ensured that digital teams realised the value of comms to their own individual work.

Recommendations for Strengthening Communications in Digital Reform

To ensure the success of the new UK Government’s digital transformation, an entrepreneurial culture is needed, and the following actions are a must:

Embed a Communications Lead within Every Digital Delivery Team

A senior communications professional should sit within Agile teams, ensuring real-time collaboration and feedback loops. Their role should not be limited to external messaging but should also facilitate internal alignment.

Develop a Cross-Government Digital Communications Strategy

A comprehensive strategy should clearly articulate how reforms will improve services for citizens, businesses, and civil servants. It should also provide guidance on effective stakeholder engagement and crisis communication management.

Invest in Stakeholder Engagement Initiatives

Regular consultations, industry roundtables, and open forums should be held to ensure businesses, investors, and the public are informed and engaged. Strategic partnerships can further amplify key messages.

Adopt Agile Communications Practices

Just as digital teams work iteratively, communications teams should use rapid feedback cycles, real-time analytics, and adaptive messaging. This ensures that communication strategies remain relevant and responsive.

While at DIT, I designed an Agile communications process that I use to this day with technology start-ups and forms part of my own advisory and playbook.

Champion Internal Storytelling and Case Studies

Success stories from within government departments should be widely shared to build confidence and encourage adoption. Digital transformation should be framed as an ongoing journey rather than a one-off initiative where you get a spike of interest and then nothing. Influence is an ongoing effort.

Making Digital Reform a Success

The UK Government’s digital transformation is a necessary and ambitious step forward. However, its success depends on technology, strategic communications, and stakeholder engagement. Without clear, consistent, and compelling communication, even the most well-intentioned digital reforms risk faltering due to scepticism, resistance, or misunderstanding.

By embedding communications within digital delivery teams, adopting Agile comms methodologies, and investing in stakeholder engagement, the government can unlock the full potential of its digital transformation agenda—making digital government a reality that is trusted, understood, and embraced by all.

Did you know that over 66% of Fortune 500 companies—among them Tesla, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, ExxonMobil, and Berkshire Hathaway—are incorporated in the US State of Delaware? Look at a number of those names, and you might see that Tesla and Meta have been looking to move their registration to other states, like Texas. But why, you should ask, is this an issue?

In a recent ProMarket article, Alan Jagolinzer, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Sander van der Linden argued that a 'false crisis' is being used to justify limiting shareholder rights in Delaware and that if enacted, these restrictions could threaten the balanced corporate governance structure that has long drawn businesses, investors, and policymakers to see Delaware as the bedrock of trust and transparency in US corporate law. In effect, any alterations to Delaware’s corporate governance and due diligence standards would reverberate beyond the United States, potentially impacting investor confidence, regulatory frameworks, and market dynamics on a global scale.

Trust, reputation, and perception would impact confidence globally, which is why I wanted to follow up on Alan’s, Stephan’s, and Sander van der Linden’s article with my own views and experience.

Equally, you might have seen the story of US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick just last week and his consideration of removing government spending from GDP figures. This might be seen as an effort to “cook the books,” given that the markets—businesses and investors—rely on data and standards for their decisions.

In this blog and article, I want to critically assess how proposed changes to Delaware corporate law could destabilise the cornerstone of shareholder protection and offer concrete recommendations for business leaders and investors on lobbying, collaboration, and preventive measures to safeguard trust, market confidence, and strong reputation in an era of potential data manipulation.

Why Shareholder Rights and Transparency Matter

For decades, Delaware has enjoyed an esteemed and earned status as the incorporation hub for over 66% of Fortune 500 companies (Delaware Division of Corporations). This reputation rests on several key pillars:

• Specialised Court System: The Court of Chancery focuses on corporate cases, ensuring efficient, expert-driven rulings.

• Robust Legal Framework: Delaware law typically balances management flexibility with shareholder protection, creating a predictable climate for both.

• Global Recognition: Investors and governments worldwide recognise “Delaware Corporations” as the gold standard for clarity, consistency, and governance frameworks.

The Emerging Threat to Shareholder Rights

Jagolinzer, Lewandowsky, and van der Linden’s ProMarket article warn that certain legislators and lobbying groups use an allegedly “false crisis” of litigation overload to promote restrictions on shareholder legal recourse. Such measures might include limiting class-action suits, narrowing opportunities for discovery, and raising barriers for shareholders seeking remedies for corporate misbehaviour.

As an example, Elon Musk and Tesla, Inc. have repeatedly been in the spotlight of Delaware’s Court of Chancery, reflecting the state’s central role in resolving corporate disputes. In one case, Musk faced shareholder litigation over Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity, with allegations of conflict of interest and inadequate oversight by the Tesla board. More recently, Musk’s substantial compensation package also came under scrutiny in Delaware, underscoring how the state’s stringent corporate governance framework can test the boundaries of executive power and fiduciary responsibility.

Earlier this year, it was reported that Meta was discussing reincorporating its business outside of Delaware.

As someone who advises on strategy and strategic communications, I believe such changes are inherently risky.

The cases to date and the actions against Delaware set in motion a perception amongst the corporate community that transparency and accountability are eroding. Trust becomes the first casualty—often followed by reduced investor engagement and higher risk premiums.

Trust is “the ultimate currency” underpinning financial markets; it can take years and considerable expense to restore once compromised.

Broader Impact on Stakeholder Confidence

A 2022 survey by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) found that 78% of institutional investors consider strong shareholder litigation rights non-negotiable. Reduced legal protections in Delaware could signal a seismic shift in how these influential investors evaluate corporate governance risks. Delaware might risk losing its competitive advantage if significant pension funds or private equity firms begin imposing more stringent demands—or deciding to incorporate elsewhere.

Additionally, data from Finance on Point demonstrates that ‘global events’ that weaken legal protections or introduce instability can directly inflate the cost of capital. In other words, even a perceived weakening of governance can trickle down to higher borrowing costs, lower equity valuations, and slower economic growth.

A Wrong Turn for Delaware—and the US

Eroding Governance and Accountability

These proposed reforms effectively reduce checks on corporate boards and executives. On paper, limiting litigation is a money-saver for companies facing frivolous lawsuits. In reality, it risks removing a critical oversight tool that has historically ensured that boards remain answerable to their shareholders.

Case in Point: Tech Sector IPOs

Many tech startups that launched IPOs in the last decade have done so under Delaware incorporation. Historically, over 90% of US-based IPOs are under Delaware law.

A perceived decline in shareholder protections could deter venture capital and large institutional funds, which rely heavily on the ability to step in should they detect wrongdoing. If those investors perceive Delaware as less transparent, they might gravitate toward states (or even countries) offering more robust shareholder rights with less corporate accountability.

Undermining Global Trust

Trust fuels global financial flows, from cross-border M&A deals to foreign direct investments. This is the case and the view that I’ve had from many conversations with lawyers specialising in the M&A and corporate space, which is why I’ve written about the importance of lawyers and strategic communications professionals to work more ‘hand-in-glove.’

Growett highlights that institutional investors reward governance structures that minimise uncertainty. Weakening shareholder rights undercuts this reward system, feeding uncertainty and risk aversion. Over time, this uncertainty can erode Delaware’s standing as a global hub for incorporation.

Potential Tipping Point for Reputational Harm

Limiting shareholder rights in Delaware can spark a reputational chain reaction. Once broken, trust is extremely difficult to reestablish, particularly in an era when negative stakeholder sentiment can spread quickly via social media and activist networks.

There is a reason brand equity, like reputation, is considered an intangible asset: it is both invaluable and vulnerable.

The Commerce Secretary’s GDP Proposal: ‘Cooking the Books’?

In an ‘apparently unrelated’ but contextually relevant development, a Reuters article reveals the US Commerce Secretary is considering revising the standard calculation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by removing government spending. Such a move would have widespread ramifications:

1. Distorted Economic Indicators: GDP is a cornerstone metric for both domestic policy decisions and international confidence in the US economy. As Investopedia emphasises, stable financial markets rely on honest data. Excluding government spending may artificially inflate or deflate GDP figures, depending on the economic cycle.

2. Erosion of Institutional Trust: If stakeholders suspect the US is “gaming” its economic statistics, confidence could plummet. ProMarket (2023) observes that trust in institutions undergirds effective monetary and fiscal policy. Perceived data manipulation could roil capital markets.

3. Uncertain Policy Outcomes: Government spending is a key stabilising factor during economic downturns. Removing it from GDP risks concealing vital information, potentially leading to skewed policy decisions at federal agencies or the Federal Reserve.

Linking this to Delaware’s Corporate Governance

Why does this matter for Delaware? Simple: global investor sentiment is holistic. If investors see the US as a place where official data can be manipulated, or corporate law becomes less investor-friendly, they may lose more faith in the US economic landscape. This knock-on effect impacts Delaware-incorporated entities, which, despite strong fundamentals, might see rising scepticism among global stakeholders.

For example, a multinational corporation (MNC) deciding whether to cross-list shares on the NYSE or NASDAQ must weigh the perceived stability and transparency of the US. If that same MNC notices Delaware scaling back shareholder rights and US officials adjusting economic metrics, it may opt for European or Asian stock exchanges. This shift was observed historically in specific sectors when investors felt regulatory or legal uncertainty overshadowed business advantages.

Recommendations: Lobby, Collaborate, and Protect

So, what do businesses and investors need to do to safeguard trust and corporate reputation in Delaware—and globally—amid shifting governance rules?

Here are some recommendations outlining how to unite stakeholders, reinforce corporate oversight, and champion honest economic data. By adopting these strategies, companies can remain resilient and credible, even when key safeguards or vital metrics like GDP come under pressure. In these uncertain times, trust and perception are going to be critical for investor confidence.

Lobby for Robust Governance

1. Join or Form Coalitions: Bringing together industry associations, legal experts, and investment funds amplifies your voice. By advocating for legislation that preserves shareholder protections, these coalitions can highlight the tangible economic risks of weakening transparency.

2. Engage in Public Consultations: In Delaware, stakeholder input can still sway legislative outcomes. Participating in public hearings or providing formal statements can spotlight how strong shareholder rights benefit not just shareholders but also corporate boards, the state’s economy, and broader US economic interests.

3. Highlight Empirical Evidence: Cite data from Finance on Point or Investology Hub illustrating how markets penalise jurisdictions with opaque governance. Real-world statistics often resonate more powerfully with lawmakers than purely theoretical arguments.

Strengthen Internal Transparency

• Voluntary Reporting and Auditing: Companies can adopt best-in-class disclosure practices rather than relying on minimal regulatory requirements. This includes publishing detailed ESG metrics, executive compensation reports, and risk oversight strategies. Transparent disclosures reassure stakeholders that the company remains accountable, regardless of legislative shifts.

• Independent Oversight Boards: Ensure committees like audit, compensation, and risk management are chaired by directors with no direct ties to management. Such independence signals credibility, which is especially critical when external shareholder protections might weaken.

• Proactive Communication: Host regular investor briefings where leadership teams address strategic decisions, potential risks, and governance processes. Candid Q&A sessions help forge trust. According to Growett, this culture of engagement can differentiate a company from peers that rely purely on mandated disclosures.

Collaborate with Policymakers on Data Integrity

1. Voice Concerns Over GDP Changes: Encourage transparent, methodologically sound economic indicators. This involves pressing the US Commerce Department to conduct broad consultations before revising core metrics.

2. Promote Holistic Economic Health: If the government omits certain components (like spending) from GDP, the resulting figure might mislead stakeholders. Companies and trade groups should advocate for clarity, ensuring the potential ramifications of such changes are publicly and transparently debated.

3. Avoiding the “Cooked Books” Label: By publicly supporting consistent data reporting, businesses can stand apart from any suspicion of complicit behaviour. Demonstrating a commitment to data integrity can bolster a firm’s reputation, mitigating broader trust erosion.

Mitigate Reputational Risks Through Strategic Communications

• Crisis Preparedness: Develop a robust crisis management playbook that addresses investor relations concerns, legal challenges, and potential misinformation in the media. Swift, transparent responses often quell negative sentiment.

• Ethical Branding: Showcase a strong ethical code of conduct, emphasising zero tolerance for misleading disclosures. If Delaware law becomes less stringent, strong internal policies protect corporate credibility.

• Education and Engagement: Host webinars or panel discussions featuring governance experts, economists, and possibly government representatives. This open dialogue strategy can prevent undue speculation and align stakeholders around the truth.

Looking back to 2012 you see the example of JPMorgan Chase & Co., which is incorporated in Delaware and faced heightened scrutiny from UK regulators during the so-called ‘London Whale’ trading scandal. In response, JPMorgan launched a significant internal investigation, revamped its risk controls, and hired additional compliance officers—steps that went beyond initial requirements and were publicly disclosed. Over time, the bank regained confidence from both retail and institutional investors, and its share price stabilised as stakeholders recognised the firm’s proactive stance on reforming governance. This case illustrates how robust self-regulation and transparency can ultimately help a Delaware-registered entity rebuild trust—even under intense global regulatory scrutiny.

Could Weakening Shareholder Rights Signal a Regulatory Race to the Bottom?

Some observers are worried that if Delaware weakens shareholder protections, other states might follow suit, aiming to attract corporate registrations by offering even more permissive laws. However, such a ‘race to the bottom’ typically backfires.

Markets respond favourably to jurisdictions that strike a careful balance between efficiency and accountability—two concepts at risk if legislators single-mindedly focus on limiting shareholder recourse. As the Kellogg School of Management’s Trust Project highlights, trust is fragile, and institutional frameworks that diminish it can experience long-term economic fallout.

Historical Parallels

In the 1980s, certain offshore financial centres relaxed regulations to attract global banking. While this momentarily lured some businesses, repeated scandals and reputational damage curbed the influx, and other jurisdictions with tighter regulatory standards remained more reputable. Delaware risks a similar fate if it discards the very shareholder rights that constitute its strategic advantage.

Potential 'Flight of Capital'

Companies worried about future liabilities often incorporate in Delaware because they appreciate predictable legal outcomes. If that predictability falters—particularly regarding shareholder litigation—capital might shift to states like Nevada, which have also been positioning themselves as business-friendly, or even to foreign jurisdictions that align more closely with global investor expectations.

Time for A Proactive, Unified Approach to Safeguard Trust and Confidence

Delaware’s proposed rollback of shareholder rights strikes at the core of what draws businesses and investors: a stable, trusted environment. Coupled with the possibility of 'cooked books' arising from the US Commerce Secretary’s suggestion to remove government spending from GDP, global market sentiment might sour on the perceived integrity of America’s business ecosystem.

From my perspective as a strategic communications adviser, the most effective response is a collective, outspoken defence of transparency and accountability. Specifically:

1. Lobby: Encourage trade groups, professional associations, and corporate leadership to unite and push back against diluted shareholder protections.

2. Collaborate: Align forces with economists, think tanks and regulators to maintain accurate, holistic economic measures—especially regarding GDP.

3. Self-Regulate: Even if Delaware laws change, companies can adopt more rigorous oversight, reporting, and ethics practices, thus reassuring shareholders of their commitment to fairness and honesty.

4. Educate: Foster open dialogues with investors and government officials (in the US, UK, and beyond) to shape a shared narrative around the importance of trust in economic data and corporate governance.

it is essential to remember that trust, reputation, and robust shareholder rights are competitive assets. They differentiate a jurisdiction—or a corporation—as stable and principled.

By proactively safeguarding these attributes now, Delaware can preserve its global standing, and businesses can position themselves as resilient, attractive destinations for capital—even in a climate of increasingly complex regulatory shifts.

Elon Musk’s recent attempts to disrupt a $2.4 billion Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) telecommunications contract with Verizon have ignited a firestorm over corporate misinformation.

By leveraging his platform X (formerly Twitter), Musk allegedly spread misleading claims about Verizon’s capabilities while promoting SpaceX’s Starlink as a replacement. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell condemned the move, stating his actions “raise serious red flags” about undue influence over critical infrastructure. This incident underscores a pressing challenge for businesses: safeguarding trust in an era where misinformation can instantly dismantle reputations.

The Musk-FAA-Verizon Controversy: A Case Study in Misinformation

In February 2025, the FAA awarded Verizon a $2.4 billion contract to modernise U.S. air traffic control telecommunications. Shortly after, Musk began posting on X, questioning Verizon’s reliability and advocating for Starlink as a “cost-effective alternative.”

Internal FAA documents later revealed that Starlink’s infrastructure remains unproven for such large-scale safety systems. Yet, despite this, Musk’s posts spurred lawmakers to reconsider the contract, highlighting how his words, his presence on DOGE and his close connection to Donald Trump, as well as the influence he can leverage on his platform, can create a firestorm on social media can skew public perception and regulatory decisions.

The Ripple Effect: How Misinformation Undermines Trust

Musk’s campaign against Verizon illustrates three critical risks:  

Reputational Damage

By suggesting that the FAA’s decision-making process might be compromised, Musk’s statements risk undermining the trust that the public and stakeholders place in both Verizon’s ability to deliver secure, reliable services and the FAA's ability to support flying in the US—this after the recent tragedies in Washington DC National and other locations across the country.

Stock Price Volatility

Such high-profile commentary can influence investor sentiment, potentially affecting Verizon’s share price as market participants react to perceived instability.

Stakeholder Distrust

For companies like Verizon, the cascading effect of misinformation can erode confidence among partners, customers, and regulators, even after misinformation is debunked.

The Rising Threat of Misinformation in Business

Musk’s tactics reflect a broader trend: bad actors weaponising social media to manipulate policies and markets for their own interests.

Deepfakes, bot networks, and viral disinformation campaigns now enable individuals to destabilise companies faster than ever before.

For businesses, the stakes extend beyond lost contracts—they risk lasting erosion of stakeholder trust.

Damage to Corporate Reputation

Misinformation can create a narrative that, even if untrue, leaves a lasting impact on a company’s brand image. When influential figures target established players like Verizon, it becomes crucial for the affected companies to counteract these narratives with factual, transparent communication at pace. It is essential to find the balance between legal action and audience engagement.

Influence on Share Prices and Stakeholder Perception

Investor sentiment is highly sensitive to news—especially in sectors like telecommunications and technology. Tweets or posts that doubt regulatory decisions can lead to short-term volatility, while long-term trust is built on consistent, reliable communication. The risk here is not just immediate market reaction but the potential for a sustained impact on how stakeholders perceive corporate governance and competitive fairness.

A Structured Defense: How Companies Can Protect Themselves

To combat misinformation, businesses must adopt a proactive, multi-layered strategy:

Proactive Monitoring

Deploy AI tools to track brand mentions and detect false narratives in real time. At the same time, work with communications executives, internal teams and external advisors to ensure that executives and spokespersons with media training can effectively communicate under pressure.

Rapid Response Protocol

Establish a cross-functional team (legal, PR, leadership) to swiftly issue fact-based rebuttals. This team, led by the General Counsel and Strategic Communications (I’ve called for the working relationship to be implemented at the top of companies), must work together speedily and transparently to refute misinformation, which can damage trust, reputation, and the valuation of a company or an investment.

Facts and data, along with an understanding of the emotions of your audiences and stakeholders, are critical if false claims are going to be countered. It is essential that consistent messaging is promoted privately and publicly, whether through press releases, social media, or internal updates—are consistent and evidence-based

Stakeholder Education

Regularly engage and update investors, employees, and customers via trusted private and public channels. Preemptively address vulnerabilities exposed in crises.

Maintain open lines of communication with stakeholders, investors, and regulatory bodies. Transparency in decision-making processes builds trust. Equally, conducting regular audits by independent third parties can validate a company’s practices and provide an objective view of its operations.

Regulatory Partnerships

Collaborate with policymakers to strengthen accountability for misinformation. Senator Cantwell’s scrutiny shows the value of regulatory allies. This is an example of social proof and community engagement, where verified customer testimonials and case studies reinforce service reliability.

Invest in Verification, Digital Monitoring and Cybersecurity Tech

Implementing real-time advanced monitoring systems to track social media and news coverage is becoming essential. Early detection of misinformation can allow companies to respond before false narratives gain traction.

At the same time, cybersecurity is no longer just about protecting IP and assets but also about reputation and perception online, which influences people's opinions. It is critical that cyber now maps out networks used where your brand and those of your leaders and partners are discussed to ensure that their reputations are protected.

Blockchain-based authentication and digital watermarking can help validate official communications, making falsification harder.  

Turning Crisis into Opportunity  

The Verizon-FAA saga is a wake-up call: trust is your most fragile asset. By embedding anti-misinformation measures into your company’s DNA, companies can mitigate risks and position themselves as transparent industry leaders.

This is a growing issue for companies, investors, and governments. The erosion of trust requires organisations to look within themselves and see how they can make their organisations more transparent and proactive in how they present themselves.

Your reputation and the trust you hold are critical to growth. Think strategically and be ready tactically to protect yourself.

We are living in a time where now more than ever, as The Wu-Tang said, we have to ‘Protect Ya Neck.’

Legal Wins Mean Nothing Without Trust and Reputation

Imagine this: a company successfully defends itself in court, yet its reputation is irreparably damaged because customers and other stakeholders have lost trust in the organisation and its leadership.

Trust and reputation are everything, and legal victories alone aren’t enough in today's fast-moving world. You can win the battle of words and still lose the war of trust. In business, reputation outlasts any legal victory.

This is why strategic communications must work alongside an organisation’s General Counsel (GC). The GC navigates legal risks while communications professionals manage perception and shape narratives that protect the company’s long-term value.

Case Study: Boeing’s Crisis—A Legal and Reputation Disaster

Boeing’s 737 MAX crisis is a prime example of why legal and communications teams must collaborate and work closer together.

Boeing secured regulatory approvals and legal settlements following two fatal crashes, yet its reputation plummeted, resulting in billions in lost market value.

Some time back I wrote about the reputation and cultural challenges facing Boeing. The Financial Times covered the situation in December 2024 in this investigation.

• Legal Strategy: Boeing complied with regulators and settled lawsuits.

• Communications Failure: The company’s public response lacked empathy and transparency, eroding trust.

• Outcome: Even after legal resolutions, Boeing’s brand damage persisted, leading to a long-term financial and reputational crisis.

Lesson: GCs and strategic communicators must collaborate to manage legal risks and public and stakeholder perceptions in crises.

Boards Must Stop Treating Communications as a Tactical Function

Many companies still mistakenly view communications as a tactical function and an afterthought. Relying solely on legal-driven messaging can weaken stakeholder trust and brand credibility. Instead, legal and communications teams should collaborate more to craft narratives that are compliant and reputation-enhancing.

When leaders and Boards consider that ‘corporate brand and reputation accounts for 25.3% of the market capitalisation of the world's leading equity market indices,’ they see the value that communications advisors protect.

Failing to integrate how GCs and Communications Advisors support business leaders risks reputational damage and financial value.

Why Strategic Communications Matter

• Trust drives financial performance: 67% of global consumers consider trust in a company’s leadership before purchasing (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2024).

• Crisis communications reduce market damage: Companies with strong crisis communication strategies recover 20% faster in market value (Harvard Business Review, 2023).

• Reputation impacts investment decisions: 85% of investors assess ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors before investing, with corporate reputation as a top consideration (McKinsey, 2023).

Without a strategic communications function, companies risk losing investor confidence, market trust, and long-term valuation—even if they legally “win.”

How General Counsel and Strategic Communications Should Work Together

1. Crisis Management: GCs manage legal risk; communicators manage public risk.

• Example: When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed (2023), the legal teams handled regulatory fallout while strategic communications focused on reassuring depositors and preventing panic. Since the buyout and rescue by First Republic and HSBC in the UK, communications have been critical in how the rescued SVB is seen and engages with start-ups.

• Best Practice: Align legal and communications responses early to avoid contradictions that can damage trust.

2. Litigation and Regulatory Issues: Legal fights must not be fought in the media.

• Example: Meta’s regulatory battles in the EU (2023-24) saw legal teams defending compliance while communications teams framed the narrative on innovation and digital rights.

• Best Practice: Communications teams should work with GCs to craft proactive messaging that positions the company positively.

3. Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A): Reputation risks can derail deals.

• Example: Microsoft’s $69B Activision Blizzard acquisition (2023) faced antitrust challenges. Legal teams secured approvals, while communications crafted a compelling public narrative around gaming innovation and consumer benefits.

• Best Practice: Ensure legal filings and public messaging align to avoid investor confusion and regulatory scrutiny.

4. ESG and Corporate Governance: Reputation matters as much as compliance.

• Example: Companies like BlackRock and Tesla have faced ESG scrutiny. While legal teams focus on compliance, communications teams must tell the ESG story credibly to investors and the public.

• Best Practice: Use strategic communications to frame ESG commitments authentically and prevent reputational damage.

5. Guiding Reputation & Risk in VC & CVC Investments

When venture capital (VC) and corporate venture capital (CVC) firms invest in start-ups, legal teams focus on deal structuring, due diligence, and risk mitigation. However, strategic communications advisors ensure the investment is positioned positively among founders, markets, regulators, and media.

• Example: When Sequoia Capital invested in FTX, the legal and due diligence processes failed to flag critical risks. Stronger communication and reputational risk analysis could have assessed public sentiment, media narratives, and trust indicators, helping Sequoia better understand the non-financial risks before investing.

• Best Practice: Before closing an investment, strategic communications advisors should conduct reputational due diligence, assessing public perception, regulatory risks, and market sentiment around a start-up’s leadership and business model. This ensures that legal, financial, and reputational risks are considered holistically, protecting investors from unforeseen brand damage and trust erosion.

How Boards Must Establish Strategic Communications as a Core Advisory Function

Hire a Chief Communications Officer (CCO) with direct Board and GC access.

• Strategic communications must be elevated to the same level as legal and finance functions.

• Boards should engage reputation advisors in decision-making.

Ensure legal and communications teams are aligned from Day One.

• GCs and CCOs must co-develop crisis response plans, M&A strategies, and litigation narratives.

• Hold joint legal-comms scenario planning exercises to prepare for potential crises.

Invest in data-driven reputation management.

• Use AI-driven sentiment analysis and stakeholder engagement tracking to measure reputational risks proactively.

• Track investor, customer, and regulator perception alongside legal metrics.

Treat trust and reputation as a financial asset.

• Companies with strong reputations recover 2.5x faster from crises (Bain & Company, 2023).

• Boards should demand trust and reputation KPIs alongside legal compliance metrics.

Reputation is Hard to Earn, Easy to Lose

Corporate leaders and boards must stop viewing legal and communications functions in silos. Trust is an asset, and protecting it requires legal and strategic communications working hand in hand.

If your company isn’t integrating GC and strategic communications counsel effectively, you expose yourself to unnecessary risk and long-term value loss.

Need to Strengthen Your Reputation and Crisis Strategy?

I work with leaders and boards to integrate strategic communications into their decision-making processes. Let’s discuss how your company can better align legal, communications, and corporate strategy for long-term success.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Imagine a world where governments must lobby businesses to maintain a rules-based system. In that world, governments will have to explore whether they can better manage the increased risk that is coming our way.

In recent decades and the last few years, the balance of influence between the private sector and government has primarily been one-sided. Companies, trade bodies, investors, and multinational corporations have invested heavily in lobbying efforts to secure policies that benefit their commercial interests. This dynamic has been simple: The private sector has lobbied the public sector.

Yet, here we are, one month into a new and more aggressive ‘America First’ environment. Donald Trump and his new administration are pretty direct in letting the world know they will leverage their geopolitical and economic strength to reposition the US and its corporations as the apex nation.

Remember, it was just last month when Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that private view out loud when he stated, "We're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more."

That statement was about how they and other US companies will encourage the new administration to target nations with their own laws to align with a more American view of the world and one in which they are not taxed. This would create a new world order in which allies ‘kowtow’ to America.

Yet, this aggressive redesign by the new US administration creates risk for its own trade and economy. Pushing too hard could result in international companies pivoting away if they feel they can predict the unpredictable nature of the new administration, which is leveraging punitive and uncalled-for tariffs on allies.

The Trump administration's 'America First' strategy, characterised by its aggressive ‘shock and awe’ trade policies and unpredictable geopolitical manoeuvring against its allies, presents significant risks to global economic stability. This approach may hinder rather than foster the desired economic growth. In this blog post, I’ll look into the evolving dynamics of government relations and policy advocacy in a multipolar world. I’ll analyse the historical role of corporate lobbying, examine the potential fallout of the Trump administration's controversial trade policy decisions, and offer actionable strategic communications recommendations for international governments, US and multinational corporations, and global investors to navigate this complex landscape.

The Legacy of Corporate Lobbying

Historically, companies have been at the forefront of influencing policy. With deep pockets and sophisticated lobbying networks, multinationals have secured favourable tax regimes, regulatory relaxations, and trade agreements that have helped shape economic policy worldwide. Yes, they could and would like to have achieved more, but everything is about balance and perception and possible reaction to companies to push the boundaries too hard.

The longstanding tradition of private and sometimes public lobbying has created an environment where private interests often steer public policy, sometimes at the expense of broader national or global welfare.

The Multipolar Shift and Changing Geopolitics

A single superpower or market like the US no longer dominates the global economic order. While its economy and influence are huge, so is its level of debt. Many international businesses want to take advantage of the opportunities in the US. But suddenly, with the rhetoric and actions of the new administration, they see risk—tariffs and possible punitive behaviour against them.

This rhetoric risks shifting eyes to what were once emerging markets, further confirming the multipolar environment that we have entered into. Because no friend likes to be kicked, which is why nations are joining together in trade networks like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and other ASEAN markets whose economies and consumer middle classes are growing, a fact that was confirmed by the Asian Development Bank in a report, just five years ago that confirmed that Asia had 54% of the world’s middle classes, with projections indicating it is likely to have 65% in 2030.

Just last month, the World Economic Forum ran an article looking into the challenges of geopolitics for businesses. In its article entitled ‘Why businesses need “geopolitical muscle” in a multipolar world’, it presented the case as to why companies need to understand geo-politics, a subject I have written about before. At the same time, The Economist Impact Unit published an article in which it asked if the world economy can weather the storms of 2025, sharing some great data and insight.

How America Is At Risk Of Losing Friends and Alianating Allies

The current geopolitical environment is marked by heightened uncertainty, which significantly impacts business confidence and investment decisions. While some US companies may benefit from preferential treatment under the 'America First' agenda, this approach risks alienating international partners and disrupting global trade flows. This uncertainty creates a volatile landscape for multinational corporations and investors who rely on predictable trade policies and stable global markets for long-term growth.

Yet, the irony of ‘America First’ is that according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for 2022, U.S. multinational enterprises (MNEs) generated a total worldwide value added of $7.0 trillion. Of this, $5.3 trillion (approximately 75.7%) was produced by U.S. parent companies domestically, while $1.6 trillion (approximately 24.3%) was generated by their majority-owned foreign affiliates.  

In the context of the S&P 500 companies, Reuters ran a story with data from Apollo Global Management that states that more than 41% of their revenues are derived from international markets. In the note, the firm adds that:

“This leaves these [US] firms vulnerable on two levels. First, sub-par growth in many key economies and trading partners such as China, Canada and Europe should, all else being equal, cause demand for U.S. goods to weaken. And second, revenues accrued abroad will now be worth significantly less in dollar terms than they would have a year ago.”

This enacted ‘shock and awe’ policy will likely have private critics in the business community. These are those waiting for the damage to be done and for people to feel the pain before they privately work on influencing any policy.

At the same time, retained investors might suddenly adopt more activist measures if they feel that their investment or cost-of-living situations are not improving.

The Imperative for Private, Strategic Communications

Recent threats from Trump and his administration to penalise international governments that allegedly  ‘punish’ US firms complying with their national laws highlight a new challenge.

When international governments seek to influence US companies—especially those exercising their version of free speech—they risk public confrontation and retaliatory measures. This situation underscores the necessity for engagement and strategic communications that is private.

The Case for Private Engagement

• Avoiding Public Backlash: Publicly confronting US enterprises risks provoking the administration into punitive measures that could destabilise market confidence. Instead, private, discreet channels allow international governments to present their perspectives without inciting defensive responses. We’ve already seen reactions by Vice President J.D. Vance to public comments made by Ukraine President Zelensky.

• Mitigating Retaliation Risks: Given the administration’s warnings, US firms must take the risk of overt reality action, preserving the integrity of cross-border business relationships and trade.

Strategic Communications and Private Lobbying Recommendations

International governments and US businesses must adopt a proactive and strategic approach to policy advocacy to create a more stable and predictable global economy that benefits all stakeholders. This requires a nuanced understanding of geopolitical risk and effective strategic communications to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world. Here are some key recommendations for international governments and US stakeholders to effectively engage with multinational corporations and investors:

Establish Confidential Dialogue Channels

• Private Advisory Panels: Form non-partisan advisory panels comprising senior figures from private equity firms, venture capital, pension funds, and Wall Street. These panels should serve as conduits for confidential discussions focusing on mutual economic interests without public fanfare.

• Discreet Government-to-Enterprise Engagement: Develop secure, private channels for dialogue between international governments and US companies. This will allow for candid discussions about regulatory concerns, market stability, and shared long-term objectives without exposing either party to unnecessary political risk.

Leverage Data-Driven Messaging

• Robust Economic Analysis: Utilise independent research and detailed economic data to illustrate how unpredictable policy environments can undermine business confidence and investment returns. Data-driven messaging helps build a compelling, non-ideological case for stability.

• Case Studies and Comparative Data: Present evidence from other markets that have successfully navigated similar geopolitical challenges. Comparative case studies can underscore the benefits of stable, predictable policy environments and the risks of rapid policy shifts.

Tailor Engagement Strategies for Different Stakeholders

• Targeted Briefings: Organise bespoke, confidential briefings for different segments of the investor community, such as Private Equity firms, VC investors, and pension funds, to demonstrate how a stable policy framework benefits their specific interests.

• Sector-Specific Communication: Develop messaging that resonates with particular industries, highlighting how aggressive, carefully managed policy advocacy can protect and enhance their competitive position in the global market.

Encourage Shareholder Activism and Corporate Accountability

• Facilitate Collective Action: Create platforms that enable shareholders to unite and demand accountability from corporate boards, ensuring that companies uphold the commitments made during election campaigns. Collective shareholder pressure can be a potent force for maintaining a policy environment favouring long-term growth.

• Transparency and Accountability Measures: Advocate for increased transparency in corporate engagement with government policies. This could include mandatory reporting on how companies are influenced by—or respond to—policy shifts and executive orders.

Craft a Non-Ideological, Long-Term Narrative

• Focus on Economic Benefits: Emphasise that the push for policy stability is not ideological but a pragmatic, data-backed strategy to safeguard economic growth and global competitiveness. As I have said before, it is imperative to include ‘America First’ messaging in corporate narratives now more than ever.

• Consistent, Clear Messaging: Develop a unified narrative that outlines the economic risks of erratic policy decisions and the benefits of a measured, predictable approach. This narrative should be communicated consistently across all private channels, ensuring stakeholders understand the urgency and the long-term vision.

Mitigate the Risks of Rapid Policy Shifts

• Monitor and Communicate Executive Actions: Establish monitoring systems to track executive orders and policy shifts. Use these insights to provide real-time feedback to US enterprises and international partners, ensuring that rapid policy changes do not surprise businesses.

• Develop Contingency Plans: Work with industry groups and investors to develop contingency plans for sudden policy shifts. These plans should include strategies for maintaining market stability and protecting investor interests during periods of high volatility.

The Shift in Influence: Why Governments Must Privately Lobby Business to Safeguard Global Stability

The traditional paradigm of corporate lobbying is undergoing a profound transformation. In today’s multipolar world, where geopolitical uncertainties and rapid policy shifts are increasingly the norm, the United States faces a significant risk: alienating the very investors and businesses that have underpinned its economic success for decades. President Trump’s controversial remarks—such as his attacks on Ukrainian President Zelensky and his pursuit of Ukraine’s mineral wealth—exacerbate these concerns, adding layers of opportunism and distraction to an already volatile policy environment.

Furthermore, the Trump administration's threats to penalise international governments that publicly attempt to influence US firms underscore the necessity for private, strategic communications. By adopting a discreet yet assertive approach, international governments and US enterprises can safeguard economic interests and promote a stable, predictable policy environment that benefits both domestic and global stakeholders.

To secure sustainable economic growth, governments must establish confidential dialogue channels, leverage data-driven messaging, tailor engagement strategies to key investor groups, and empower shareholder activism. By doing so, they can help US enterprises adopt a more aggressive stance that transcends ideological divides and prioritises long-term prosperity for all.

In an era marked by rapid policy changes and heightened geopolitical tensions, a collaborative, strategic, and private lobbying approach may be the key to navigating these turbulent times and ensuring that the United States continues to be a beacon of economic opportunity on the world stage.

The global trade landscape is fracturing. Resurgent protectionism, escalating tariffs, and geopolitical tensions have injected unprecedented uncertainty into markets. As the foundations of economic diplomacy weaken, businesses, investors, and governments face heightened risks. In this volatile environment, businesses and their strategic communications advisers are indispensable navigators, mitigating uncertainty, engaging stakeholders, and building resilience.

McKinsey: Geopolitics and the geometry of global trade: 2025 update.

The New Normal: Geopolitics Dominates the Risk Register

The traditional risk register, which once focused on internal issues or sector-specific threats like regulatory changes, is now dominated by geopolitical and geoeconomic risks. That spreadsheet that you looked at and which was often green or amber, well, the chances are that it is now all flashing red. This "new normal" of volatility includes:

• Tariff Volatility: Unpredictable tariffs and retaliatory measures disrupt supply chains, inflate costs, and deter investment and growth.

• Regulatory Fragmentation: Diverging trade policies force businesses to navigate a patchwork of legal frameworks across markets.

• Market Instability: Economic shifts increase financial risks, eroding investor confidence and complicating corporate decision-making.

• Reputational Vulnerability: Companies risk being collateral damage in political crossfire, damaging brand perception and stakeholder trust.

In this landscape, strategic communicators must shift from reactive crisis management to proactive risk anticipation, minimising reputational and financial fallout before it occurs.

Strategic Communications as a Risk Mitigator  

To navigate this turbulence, communications professionals must adopt a proactive, three-pronged approach:

1. Intelligence Gathering and Scenario Planning  

• Monitor policy changes, economic indicators, and regulatory developments in real-time.

• Cultivate relationships with trade bodies, think tanks, and policy analysts for early warnings.

• Use data-driven scenario planning to prepare tailored messaging and response strategies.

2. Strategic Stakeholder Engagement

• Engage governments, trade representatives, and regulators to advocate for favourable policies.

• Facilitate cross-border dialogues to foster consensus and collaborative solutions.

• Build alliances with trade associations and diplomatic entities to amplify influence.

3. Resilient Corporate Narratives

• Craft adaptable narratives emphasising stability and long-term value creation.

• Establish rapid-response frameworks to counter misinformation or political rhetoric.

• Train executives in crisis communication to ensure consistent, transparent messaging.

Tactical Execution: From Strategy to Action  

Beyond strategy, communicators must implement tactical measures:

• Crisis War Rooms: Dedicated teams to monitor real-time developments in tariffs, trade disputes, and regulations.

• Targeted Stakeholder Communications: Proactively update investors, media, and partners on strategic positioning.

• Thought Leadership: Publish authoritative content to shape public discourse and educate stakeholders.

• Diversification Messaging: Highlight efforts to diversify supply chains and reduce reliance on vulnerable trade routes.

The Future: A Proactive Approach

Uncertainty will remain a hallmark of global trade. Strategic communicators must:

• Integrate Geopolitical Risk: Embed risk assessment into core business strategy.

• Invest in Data Analytics: Leverage real-time monitoring of sentiment, markets, and policy shifts.

• Foster Cross-Sector Collaboration: Strengthen alliances to shape policy narratives and protect business interests.

• Develop Multi-Market Crisis Frameworks: Create adaptable responses for evolving economic conditions.

A Defining Moment for Communications Leaders

In this era of turbulence, businesses need strategic advisers who can help them and their investors navigate these uncertain times. Their ability to anticipate risks, shape narratives, and guide organisations at pace through uncertainty will define future leaders. As risk registers flash red, those who embrace this challenge will safeguard their organisations and seize emerging opportunities in an increasingly complex global economy.

The UK government took a significant step forward this week in shaping the responsible and effective use of artificial intelligence by publishing the AI Playbook for the UK Government. Developed by the Government Digital Service (GDS) in collaboration with multiple government departments, industry, and academic institutions, the Playbook provides a clear, practical framework for how AI should be deployed across the UK’s public sector.

It builds upon the Generative AI Framework for HMG and expands its scope to cover all forms of AI technologies, ensuring that government departments have the necessary guidance to use AI in a lawful, ethical, and secure manner.

This document arrives at a time when AI’s potential to transform public services is widely recognised. From streamlining operations and enhancing decision-making to improving efficiency and reducing costs, AI has already begun reshaping how governments function. However, with these opportunities come risks—bias, security vulnerabilities, accountability, and ethical considerations—which the Playbook directly addresses.

Between 2016 and 2019, I spent three years working in the Digital, Data and Technology (DDaT) directorate within the UK Government’s then Department for International Trade as DDaT’s Head of Communications and Engagement.

During these three years, we worked together using Agile and service design methods. Skills that enabled us and our great teams to design, test and deliver digital services to support international trade.

This new AI playbook once again established a foundation for helping the government and the civil service adopt and benefit from AI, which can help deliver better services and outcomes for people and businesses across the UK.

AI as a Force for Efficiency and Innovation

AI is already demonstrating its potential to improve public service efficiency, with ThePlaybook highlighting real-world applications that illustrate how AI can enhance productivity, free up human resources and reduce administrative burdens. One such example is GOV.UK Chat, an AI-powered chatbot designed to assist people in navigating government services.

The GOV.UK Chat service uses Natural Language Processing (NLP) to help users find the information they need quickly and efficiently, reducing call centre strain and allowing government employees to focus on more complex tasks.

In another case showcased in the playbook, NHS.UK deployed an AI-driven content moderation system to efficiently handle thousands of patient reviews. This streamlined the process and reduced the costs associated with manual moderation, demonstrating AI’s ability to optimise resource allocation while maintaining accuracy and fairness. These examples highlight a key message of the Playbook: AI is a tool that, when applied correctly, can help the government do more with less.

Feryal Clark MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for AI and Digital Government, encapsulated this vision in the Playbook’s foreword:

“The potential of AI to transform public services is enormous, giving us an unparalleled opportunity to do things differently and deliver more with less.”

This statement underscores the UK government’s ambition to embrace AI while ensuring responsible oversight, setting a model for other nations.

Managing AI Risks with Governance and Transparency

Despite its benefits and the hype, AI is not without risks. The Playbook rightly so acknowledges and addresses concerns about fairness, security, accountability, and ethical implications. AI models, if not carefully designed and monitored, can perpetuate biases, make opaque decisions, or be vulnerable to cyber threats.

Let’s remember that we humans create Large Language Models (LLMs). The reliability of LLMs is shaped not just by their training data but also by how humans interact with them. Bias can enter at multiple levels—through historical, cultural, or political imbalances in training data and how users frame their questions. These biases pose risks in government policy development, corporate decision-making, and AI-driven legal or financial insights. While techniques like reinforcement learning and bias audits help mitigate some risks, human oversight must remain essential. Humans require critical thinking in order to question the output and recommendations of AI. The key to maximising AI’s value lies in balancing its efficiency with responsible use, ensuring that models serve as impartial tools rather than amplifiers of pre-existing bias.

To mitigate these risks, the Playbook establishes clear protocols for AI governance. Departments using AI are required to maintain an AI Systems Inventory, ensuring transparency in how AI is applied. Additionally, bias audits, human oversight mechanisms, and AI assurance techniques are mandated to prevent potential harm. The government has also committed to using the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS), ensuring that AI’s role in decision-making remains open to public scrutiny.

David Knott, Government Chief Technology Officer at DSIT, reinforced this commitment:

“The AI Playbook will support the public sector in better understanding what AI can and cannot do, and how to mitigate the risks it brings. It will help ensure that AI technologies are deployed in responsible and beneficial ways, safeguarding the security, wellbeing, and trust of the public we serve.”

This focus on transparency and accountability will be crucial in building public confidence in AI-driven government services.

However, what will be critical and needed is the focus on establishing a culture where designers and users of AI tools within the government can test these tools. The public's adoption of AI tools relies on the trust and reputation of those delivering these AI services to the public.

Lessons for Governments, Businesses, and Public Sector Organisations

The Playbook is not just a resource for the UK government—it holds valuable lessons for businesses, start-ups, investors, and international governments looking to navigate the AI landscape.

For government departments and arms-length bodies (ALBs), it sets a precedent for ethical AI governance, offering a structured approach that balances innovation with public trust. By ensuring risk management strategies are in place, governments worldwide can follow the UK’s lead in making AI a tool for positive societal impact rather than an unchecked technological force.

For businesses and technology providers, the Playbook serves as a blueprint for engaging with the public sector. Companies developing AI solutions must align with government procurement requirements, focusing on compliance, security, and ethical AI deployment. Those who demonstrate transparency and responsible AI practices will find themselves well-positioned to secure government contracts and collaborate on AI-driven projects. The watchword I’d add is how AI can help increase productivity - a better return from taxpayer money.

For public sector organisations, AI offers significant efficiency gains, but the key takeaway is that AI must be deployed thoughtfully. The hype is that AI is for everything, when for some services, it might not be.

The Playbook encourages a “human-in-the-loop” approach, ensuring that AI augments human decision-making rather than replacing it.

A Landmark Achievement for the UK’s Digital Future

The publication of the AI Playbook for the UK Government is a milestone in the UK’s digital transformation journey. The UK has long positioned itself as a leader in AI governance, regulation, and innovation, and this Playbook solidifies that stance.

The Government Digital Service (GDS) and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) have delivered a document that is both practical and visionary, equipping government bodies with the tools they need to embrace AI responsibly.

By setting clear principles, governance structures, and ethical guidelines, the UK government has ensured that AI will serve the public good—enhancing services, increasing efficiency, and driving innovation—while safeguarding security, fairness, and transparency.

As AI continues to evolve, like GDS’ Service Manual did in the last, this Playbook will act as a living document, adapting to new challenges and opportunities. For now, it stands as a foundational blueprint of responsible AI adoption—one that governments, businesses, and organisations in the UK and around the world should take note of.

The findings highlight the most significant investment themes, emerging technologies, and the geopolitical factors shaping the venture capital ecosystem. With funding levels reaching an eight-year low, this analysis offers critical insights for start-up founders, investors, and policymakers seeking to navigate a rapidly evolving investment market.

The Evolving Landscape of Venture Capital in 2024

The global venture capital ecosystem is undergoing a transformation. Venture capital (VC) investment hit an eight-year low in 2024, reflecting economic uncertainty, shifting investor priorities, and evolving geopolitical dynamics. Yet, despite the decline in total deal volume, some sectors—most notably artificial intelligence (AI), climate tech, and advanced healthcare innovations—are attracting significant capital.

Understanding these trends and knowing how to position one’s start-up is becoming critical for founders, corporate executives, investors, and government policymakers.

After reading the report, I wanted to share what stands out for me about the investment patterns shaping the venture capital ecosystem in 2024, looking at which countries are leading the charge and what start-ups and governments do to attract more investment to support the innovation that is taking place.

Investment Trends in 2024: Where Is the Money Going?

AI is Dominating Venture Capital

If one sector defines venture capital in 2024, it is artificial intelligence (AI). AI investments accounted for 37% of total venture funding, a record high. With nearly three in four AI deals being early-stage, investors are betting on AI’s potential for disruption. Databricks ($10B), OpenAI ($6.6B), and xAI ($6B) were among the top five largest AI-related deals of 2024.

The fastest-growing AI sub-sectors include:

• Enterprise AI agents and automation tools.

• Generative AI for customer service and digital content creation.

• Autonomous driving systems and industrial humanoid robots.

Fintech Faces Challenges, But High-Potential Startups Still Secure Investment

The fintech sector, once a dominant force in venture investment, has seen a slowdown. Funding has declined from $143.6B in 2021 to $33.7B in 2024. However, particular areas, particularly AI-powered financial services and blockchain innovations continue to draw interest.

Notable fintech deals include Uala ($300M), Current ($200M), and Zepz ($267M Series F). Start-ups offering embedded finance, alternative lending solutions, and AI-driven risk management can still raise capital, provided they demonstrate sustainable unit economics and a clear path to profitability. Again, it's all down to how the opportunity is presented.

Energy, Climate Tech, and Advanced Healthcare on the Rise

While traditional investment sectors struggle, funding is flowing into renewable energy, nuclear technology, and biotech. Key deals included:

• Pacific Fusion ($900M Series A) in clean energy.

• X-energy ($500M Series C) in nuclear technology.

• Metsera ($215M Series B) in biotech innovation.

Venture firms see long-term value in companies addressing climate change, energy security, and healthcare advancements—sectors that are benefiting from both technological innovation and government-backed incentives.

Equally, with the appetite for investing in AI taking the lead, the opportunity exists for start-ups and other companies that support the delivery and establishment of AI, such as energy.

Which Countries Are Leading (and Lagging) in Venture Capital Growth?

Winners: Countries With Resilient or Expanding Venture Ecosystems

Despite a global slowdown, certain regions continue to attract substantial investment:

• The United States remains the dominant VC hub, with $60.8B in Q4 2024 and continued strength in AI and deep-tech.

• Asia’s VC ecosystems in Japan, India, and South Korea are expanding, bucking the global trend. Japan is one location, where it’s companies are investing in innovation through their respective CVC units.

• The UK remains Europe’s strongest venture capital hub, particularly in fintech and AI, an area that is supported by the UK government’s recently published ‘AI Opportunities Action Plan,’ which is being challenged by France’s Artificial Intelligence Action Summit that is taking place this week and at which President Macron will signal ‘investments of 109 billion euros in French AI by the private sector.’

Losers: Markets Facing a Decline in Investment

• China’s VC ecosystem shrank by 33% year over year, driven by geopolitical tensions, increased government intervention, and US restrictions on semiconductor exports. A looming trade war between the world’s leading economies will impact how China is perceived as an investor, even though the US is building bridges by imposition of tariffs on many of its allies.

Venture Capital vs. Corporate Venture Capital: Understanding the Differences

In 2024, Google Ventures (27 deals), Mitsubishi UFJ Capital (21 deals), and Samsung NEXT (9 deals) emerged as leading CVC investors.

How Can Start-ups Secure Investment in 2025?

With a tougher investment climate, start-ups must adapt to secure funding. Positioning, Perception and Profitability will influence how successful start-up challengers succeed. Here are some strategic views on what founders need to focus on:

1. Incorporate AI and Automation: Investors prioritise start-ups leveraging AI to improve efficiency, productivity and scalability.

2. Show a Path to Profitability: The growth-at-all-costs model is over. Sustainable business models with clear revenue strategies are more attractive to investors.

3. Seek Strategic Partnerships: Aligning with corporate venture capital (CVC) investors can provide credibility and long-term support.

4. Strengthen Regulatory Compliance: Fintech, AI, and healthcare startups must proactively address regulatory concerns to reduce investment risk.

In these areas, investing in strategic communications and advisory can help companies navigate the challenging economic climate in which innovation is taking place.

The difficult choice for the business and public sectors is that to secure growth, they need to invest and pump prime opportunities.

Geopolitical Risks and Government Policies Affecting Venture Investment

Geopolitical Risks Impacting VC Investment

• US-China trade tensions are slowing cross-border investments in technology.

• Increased AI regulations in Europe and the US are affecting investment decisions.

• Rising protectionism in national markets is leading to more scrutiny over foreign investments in sensitive sectors.

Government Policies That Help or Hinder Venture Growth

Countries Supporting VC Growth:

• The UK and Singapore offer tax incentives and innovation-friendly regulations, attracting foreign VC investment. Watch out for more policy changes to help attract investors, businesses and opportunities. Understand how there is a need for public-private collaboration, and equally collaboration and support to academic institutions.

• Japan and South Korea provide government-backed funding programs to stimulate local venture ecosystems.

Countries Hindering VC Growth:

• China’s capital controls and tech sector crackdowns are deterring foreign investors. Given how China is perceived, there is a needs to directly and inderectly reposition itself.

• Germany and Canada’s bureaucratic hurdles are slowing down VC deal-making.

Strategic Recommendations for Governments to Attract More Venture Capital

Governments play a pivotal role in shaping the venture capital ecosystem. To attract more investment and foster innovation, policymakers should:

1. Create Clear AI and Fintech Regulations: Start-ups and investors need predictable, transparent rules to operate confidently. There is a huge need to simplify and redesign the regulatory landscape.

2. Offer Tax Incentives for Innovation: While expanding R&D tax credits and government-backed funding schemes can drive more venture activity, conversations with businesses, innovators and investors will help governments to re-design an environment where everyone can win.

3. Encourage Public-Private Collaboration: Corporate venture capital arms are increasingly influential. Governments should facilitate partnerships between start-ups and corporate investors.

The Future of Venture Capital in 2025 and Beyond

Despite global economic headwinds, venture capital remains a critical driver of innovation and economic growth.

Start-ups that leverage AI, demonstrate financial sustainability and build strategic partnerships will be best positioned for success. Meanwhile, governments that create favourable regulatory environments and incentivise investment will continue to attract venture capital and corporate venture capital activity.

The next wave of innovation is already taking shape. The question for investors, start-ups, and policymakers alike is: How will you position yourself for success in the evolving venture landscape?

Get in touch if your business or investment portfolio needs counsel, strategic communications support and advisory.

Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

A few days ago, PitchBook released a Q1 2025 Analyst Note, entitled: “A Lack of Pathway From US CVC Investments to an Eventual M&A,’ in which it highlighted how ‘Corporate venture capital has been an undisputed force in the US venture ecosystem’ and how in the last ten years, it has ‘has accounted for more than 46% of total VC deal value and 21% of deal count.’ Yet, the analyst note identifies that ‘despite having deployed massive capital, CVCs haven’t converted many of their portfolio companies into acquisitions.’ This is an interesting observation and one that requires some context.

Yes, corporate venture capital (CVC) plays a crucial role in funding innovation, enabling corporate leadership, and driving long-term business growth.

When you consider the innovation that we and businesses use today, venture capital companies, especially American VCs, are often recognised for the risk they took and the financial support they delivered. CVCs are less so, but they are critical and a great potential partner for start-ups and innovators.

When Did Corporate Venturing Start?

The concept of corporate ventures started in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s when companies like General Electric (GE), Xero, IBM, and DuPont launched their own ventures in the 1970s and 1980s, exploring new technologies aligned with their industries. It was during the 2010s, though, that CVCs saw a resurgence, driven by the pace of technological innovation. However, the success of startups like Silicon Valley and the need for large companies to stay competitive in an era of digital transformation led to a rise in CVCs.

Today, CVCs have become a significant force in supporting innovation, with over $100 billion deployed annually across diverse industries, from technology and life sciences to energy and consumer goods. Unlike traditional Venture Capital (VC) firms, which primarily seek financial returns, CVCs invest with both strategic and financial objectives in mind. They help companies tap into disruptive innovations, strengthen their supply chains, and foster ecosystem growth, ensuring that both the startups they back and their parent companies benefit.

Why Strategic Communications is a Game-Changer for CVC Investors

Despite accounting for 46% of total US VC deal value over the past decade, CVCs often struggle to convert investments into acquisitions.

According to PitchBook data, less than 4% of portfolio companies are eventually acquired by their corporate sponsors. This low conversion rate presents a challenge in realising the full potential of investments. This should not be seen as a negative, especially given what companies that receive investment get from CVCs in order to grow and scale.

On average, CVCs adopt medium—to long-term investment horizons, withholding periods averaging 5 to 7 years or longer, depending on strategic goals and market conditions.

One of the most overlooked areas in CVC strategy is strategic communications and stakeholder engagement.

Firms that invest in structured communications, investor relations, and strategic market positioning achieve measurably stronger financial performance, with McKinsey & Company (2020) linking such practices to 20–30% higher shareholder returns over time.

Startups prioritising clear market positioning and investor engagement secure significant valuation premiums; CB Insights (2023) highlights that strategically positioned startups in competitive sectors command valuations 25–35% above industry averages. Furthermore, corporate venture capital (CVC) programs integrating communications and regulatory alignment into their strategies demonstrate outsized success: Boston Consulting Group (2022) found these CVCs achieve double the acquisition success rates and 15–20% higher ROI, while Global Corporate Venturing (2021) attributes a 30–40% reduction in regulatory friction to proactive stakeholder engagement. This data underscores the critical role of strategic narrative and regulatory foresight in driving financial and operational outcomes.

Investing in communications de-risks and adds value to the investment and corporate investing. 

The Challenge: CVCs Are Leaving Value on the Table

Many CVC-backed startups face challenges in maximising their valuation and acquisition potential. One primary reason is high valuation gaps. PitchBook data reveals that CVC-backed startups have 2.5x higher pre-money valuations than traditional VC-backed startups. This creates acquisition barriers, as corporations find it difficult to justify the expense of integrating these high-valued startups.

Additionally, acquisition rates remain low. Many CVC-backed companies opt for IPOs or secondary exits instead of integrating into their parent organisations. This is partly due to a lack of market positioning and weak corporate visibility, which reduces their attractiveness as acquisition targets. Limited stakeholder engagement also plays a role, as weak corporate visibility impacts investor confidence, media interest, and policy engagement.

Given these challenges, strategic communications becomes an essential tool for CVCs looking to optimise returns, secure acquisitions, and strengthen investor engagement.

How Strategic Communications Unlocks Investment Value

One of the most effective ways to improve CVC outcomes is to be proactive in how a CVC positions itself, privately and publicly, through very tactical media relations, investor storytelling, and government engagement activity.

Companies that invest in communications from the early stages strengthen their market positioning, making them more attractive for both acquisitions and follow-on funding.

For example, Salesforce Ventures, the CVC arm of Salesforce, has demonstrated how communications can drive value. By consistently promoting its investments, highlighting its startup partnerships, and positioning itself as a key player in enterprise technology, Salesforce Ventures has successfully positioned its portfolio companies for exits. The CVC unit has facilitated multiple acquisitions, including its purchase of Mulesoft ($6.5B), Tableau ($15.7B), and Slack ($27.7B), each of which benefited from strong market perception and investor confidence before the acquisition.

Similarly, GV (formerly Google Ventures) has built an industry reputation by maintaining thought leadership and actively promoting its portfolio companies. GV’s investments in Verily (life sciences) and Impossible Foods (alternative protein) have been amplified by strategic storytelling, increasing valuations and driving large-scale partnerships.

The Role of CVCs in Driving Innovation and Market Success

CVCs are not just financial backers but strategic enablers of market-changing innovations. Unlike traditional VC firms, CVCs bring industry expertise, corporate networks, and operational insights that significantly impact startup growth trajectories. However, these advantages must be effectively communicated to key stakeholders—including corporate leadership, investors, and government bodies.

Investing in communications, reputation management, and stakeholder engagement ensures that portfolio companies receive the necessary visibility to attract acquisition interest. A structured stakeholder engagement strategy helps companies navigate regulatory landscapes, position themselves within industry conversations, and increase credibility in financial markets.

Key Recommendations for CVC Investors

To maximise investment returns, CVC firms should integrate strategic communications into their core investment approach. 

1. Establish a Strong CVC Brand and Thought Leadership Strategy

Developing a robust and strategic PR and media engagement plan can significantly improve market perception.

Consistently publishing investment insights, funding reports, and thought leadership content ensures that CVC-backed startups gain visibility among investors and potential acquirers.

2. Support Portfolio Companies with Strategic Communications

CVC firms should actively provide startups with branding, messaging, and reputation management resources. This enhances their ability to attract follow-on investment and strengthens acquisition interest from corporate stakeholders.

3. Align CVC Investments with Corporate Storytelling

Many parent companies struggle to see the long-term strategic alignment between their CVC investments and corporate innovation strategies. Positioning investments as part of a broader corporate narrative improves acquisition likelihood and market integration.

4. Strengthen Government & Industry Stakeholder Relationships

Engaging with policymakers, regulators, and industry bodies ensures that CVCs maintain a strong presence in the innovation ecosystem. Proactive engagement can also lead to favourable regulatory conditions, helping portfolio companies scale more effectively.

CVCs Must Invest Beyond Capital

The investment landscape is shifting, and financial capital alone is not enough. CVC investors must recognise that strategic communications, reputation management, and stakeholder engagement are critical levers for maximising return on investment and bringing innovation to market their supply-chain.

CVC firms that proactively invest in communications will see higher acquisition rates, better valuations, and stronger industry influence. Structured communications strategies lead to measurable financial outcomes.

📩 Are you a CVC investor looking to unlock greater value from your investments? Let’s discuss how strategic communications can better position you and transform your investment strategy. Get in touch today!

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Geopolitical tensions and dynamic economic shifts will increasingly influence and define the strategies of many companies and investors in 2025 and beyond.

Businesses and investors worldwide face increased uncertainty from the rise in potential trade wars that the new US administration is intent on starting, regardless of the view of many respected international economists.

All this uncertainty means that businesses need as much professional insight as possible into the impact of geopolitical and geoeconomic battles on their companies and investments, especially given the international nature of many businesses' supply chains. 

The knowledge that strategic communications, international public affairs and stakeholder engagement professionals will become indispensable for anticipating and navigating these disruptions, board members and C-suite leaders are intensifying their focus on geo-political and geoeconomic risk management.

There is no longer a need for just national lobbying. In the era we are entering, businesses and investors require people who can see how the world is connected internationally and who can offer insight into how to navigate these turbulent times. 

We are entering a world in which the expertise of strategic communicators will complement that of many businesses' general counsel.

Why Geo-political Risk Management Is a Top Priority

While geopolitical instability has been escalating for several years, especially with the looming Trump presidency, recent data underscores just how central these challenges have become.

According to the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risk Perception Survey, over 60% of executives across G20 economies named geo-political tension as one of their top three risks. Separately, Deloitte’s 2024 Global Risk Management Survey revealed that 70% of chief financial officers attributed at least one major revenue shortfall in the last 12 months to political upheavals and policy shifts.

Such pressures extend well beyond supply-chain disruptions. Whether dealing with tariffs, trade sanctions, or localised conflicts, companies face potential financial losses, brand damage, and stalled expansion. At Davos, a keyword used was ‘fragmentation,’ the breaking down of the interconnected world that gave us globalisation.

In fact, The Economist’s Impact Unit has a dedicated team studying new globalisation. This team focuses on how the ‘global order is changing, ushering in a period of multipolar politics.’

This is not the end of globalisation by any means. It is an adaption of it, a move to a more local version, created by the disruption caused by AI and other technologies and growth in emerging markets, which has impacted people and their wants and expectations.

By investing in proactive national and international public affairs, strategic communications, and risk assessment frameworks, organisations stand a significantly better chance of weathering crises and capitalising on emerging opportunities.

Which Companies Need to Invest in Strategic Communications?

Global Technology Conglomerates

Tech companies operating multiple data centres worldwide and relying on a maze of international regulations can be particularly vulnerable. Policy shifts around data sovereignty or cybersecurity measures can dramatically affect these companies’ bottom lines and market access.

Looking at the rise of AI and GenAI, we are already seeing a different set of values in how nations and markets are looking to regulate this technology.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are each shaping AI regulation with a mix of domestic oversight and global influence strategies. The EU’s AI Act, finalised in early 2024, is the world’s most comprehensive AI law, categorising AI systems by risk levels and imposing strict obligations on high-risk applications, particularly in biometric surveillance and critical infrastructure. By contrast, the US delegating responsibility more to the companies themselves and so pursues a more sector-specific and innovation-friendly approach. While the Biden administration focused on safety, national security, and voluntary industry commitments, the Trump presidency is looking to punish countries and markets that penalise American tech companies.

Meanwhile, the UK is positioning itself as a flexible regulator, advocating a “pro-innovation” approach that relies on existing legal frameworks rather than, for the time being, creating a single AI law.

Despite differing regulatory styles, all three are increasingly exporting their AI governance models globally. The EU’s AI Act has already influenced policymakers in Japan, Canada, and Latin America, while the US is leveraging its AI safety principles in diplomatic and trade discussions. The UK’s AI Safety Summit in 2023 served as a platform to build international consensus on AI risks and guardrails, particularly around advanced foundation models. As AI regulation evolves, these leading economies are using their regulatory weight and diplomatic channels to ensure their AI principles—whether focused on safety, ethics, or market-led flexibility—become the dominant global standards.

Venture Capital and Corporate Venture Capital Firms

Investors increasingly manage global portfolios with stakes in technology, life sciences, and fintech ventures. These firms must stay ahead of rapidly evolving regulations—from data privacy laws in Europe to emerging tech governance in Asia—to safeguard the value of their investments.

Corporate venturing companies can benefit from the expertise and influence network that their parent companies have if they have a global presence. Leveraging this knowledge and the insight of an external strategic adviser can help reduce the risk of a company that they are investing in struggling to enter a new market.

Mid-sized Companies with Global Ambitions

Businesses that are expanding overseas or contemplating partnerships abroad face the same set of complexities but often lack the in-house capabilities to manage them.

Their survival and opportunities for growth can hinge on being able to connect with partners and stakeholders that can help them navigate international regulatory environments, changing their positioning statements in order to access growth international markets.

For companies of these sizes, if they receive investment from VCs or CVCs, it is the geo-political expertise that parent companies have that can help them navigate different legal jurisdictions. 

Who Provides Effective Geo-political Risk Counsel?

In-house Public Affairs and Communications Teams

Larger organisations often maintain internal departments dedicated to public affairs, strategic communications, and government relations. These teams benefit from direct contact with the executive suite, a deep understanding of company culture, and existing relationships with influential stakeholders.

When geo-political risks spike, internal teams can swiftly coordinate cross-functional responses, aligning communications, legal, and operational strategies.

The rise of the partnered approach between a firm's General Counsel, who often has a legal background and a strategic communications advisor can provide the C-suite and Board with the necessary insight to make strategic decisions and help them navigate a growing fragmented trading environment.

Independent Specialist Advisers

For specialised insights, external consultants and advisers can offer strategic direction, regional expertise, and a broad network of government, media, and community contacts.

Venture capital firms, for instance, frequently retain boutique consultancies with deep knowledge of fintech regulations in emerging markets. Independent advisers also bring an outside perspective, helping boards and C-suites avoid insular thinking and group bias.

The Power of Research, Influence, and Intelligence

Robust Research and Real-time Monitoring

Staying ahead of abrupt policy shifts calls for continuous data collection and analysis. McKinsey’s 2024 Emerging Markets Risk & Opportunity Insights reported that companies with “mature” risk intelligence teams were 55% more likely to respond effectively to sudden regulatory changes than those without comparable capabilities.

Influence and Policymaker Engagement

Lobbying and relationship-building with policymakers are crucial, especially for tech and manufacturing firms.

Effective peer-to-peer stakeholder engagement strategies go beyond crisis management; they inform legislators about the broader economic and social value of a company’s operations, potentially reducing the scope for damaging regulations. For this, there is a clear need to understand how civil servants think and work.

Insight-Driven Corporate Strategy

The final step involves translating geopolitical intelligence into actionable plans. Whether diversifying supply chains, selecting a new market, or cultivating partnerships that mitigate exposure, strategic communications counsel ensures these decisions are communicated convincingly to investors, customers, and, critically to employees.

The Lasting Value of Strategic Communications Investment

Research demonstrates that organisations prioritising geo-political risk analysis and communication strategies outperform their peers in both resilience and growth.

By cultivating in-house expertise or bringing in specialists, companies can:

• Enhance Operational Stability: Mitigate disruptions from tariffs, conflicts, or policy reversals.

• Protect and Elevate Brand Reputation: Demonstrate foresight and agility, instilling confidence in stakeholders and, importantly, regulators.

• Seize New Growth Opportunities: Identify untapped markets or niches that competitors avoid due to perceived risks.

From Risk to Resilience

Geo-political and geoeconomic challenges show no sign of abating; if anything, they are likely to become more regular and complex.

In this environment, corporate boards and investors should view strategic communications and political risk advisory as a non-negotiable part of their organisational architecture. Whether relying on in-house teams or tapping into external expertise, a well-resourced approach to intelligence, lobbying, and stakeholder engagement is key to safeguarding growth and reputation.

By taking the long view, integrating geopolitical and geoeconomic risk analysis into core strategies, and staying connected with policymakers and global thought leaders, companies and investors of all sizes and sectors can convert uncertainty into a catalyst for innovation and expansion.

When managed skillfully, geo-political risk becomes more than a challenge—it becomes an avenue to shape the future of business on a global stage.

Get in touch if your business or investment portfolio needs counsel, strategic communications support and advisory.

Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

This morning, the UK Government held its first call with public affairs and communications professionals, in a strategy that aims to position it as open for listening and engaging with the business and investment community.

The strategy is a step forward and one that signals a commitment to transparency and collaboration, showing that the government values the insights of business leaders and policy influencers.

By opening the floor to discussion, the government acknowledges the need for shared responsibility in economic progress and aims to align its policies with industry realities. It recognises that growth can only be delivered by working collaboratively with the private sector.

This strategy, though, comes with inherent risks. Public forums invite scrutiny, and businesses will be watching to see whether this level of engagement translates into meaningful policy actions or remains merely a performative exercise.

Yet, as a consultant working in strategy and stakeholder engagement, I am pleased that the government is signaling that it has an open door.

The government must ensure that its words and promises materialise into real regulatory improvements and investment incentives; otherwise, businesses may grow sceptical of such engagements.

Despite these risks, this initiative is a notable move towards a more consultative approach to economic policy-making. If executed well, it can foster a more business-friendly regulatory environment.

Eight years as a specialist within the UK Government have taught me that while engaging with businesses and stakeholders outside of the government in the UK and overseas is critical, equally important is connecting the dots and making sure that the government collaborates with itself and is supported financially in the current spending review and with external expertise. The civil service needs confidence, support, and a clear vision of the practical outcome that gives it purpose and the ability to collaborate better for growth.

Here is a summary of the readout from the call with Lord Livermore hosted by James Carroll.

The UK’s Growth Mission: Why Stakeholder Engagement Matters  

Economic growth is the UK government’s top priority, as reaffirmed by Lord Spencer Livermore in the call that got over 700 communications and public affairs professionals. Lord Livermore stated that this mission, however, cannot be achieved in isolation—growth is driven by business, not government.

Effective stakeholder engagement and strategic collaboration will be crucial for policymakers crafting pro-business reforms and companies looking to shape a regulatory and investment environment that fosters stability, certainty, and expansion.

This is why government engagement matters more than ever: businesses must help steer the narrative and influence policy decisions that impact their future.

The UK’s Three-Pillar Growth Strategy  

Lord Livermore outlined the UK government’s clear framework to drive economic expansion, which is built upon three fundamental pillars:

1. Stability: The Foundation for Growth  

• The budget focused on stabilising public finances, recognising that economic certainty is essential for investment.

• Record levels of R&D funding and capital allowances were safeguarded, ensuring businesses have long-term clarity on taxation and incentives.

• A corporate tax roadmap was introduced, capping corporation tax at 25% for the duration of the current Parliament.

2. Reform: Removing Barriers to Growth

• The Infrastructure and Planning Bill will be fast-tracked to remove delays in major projects, including clean energy developments and housing.

• The government is currently engaging regulators in a deregulatory push to eliminate red tape that stifles business expansion.

• New sectoral industrial strategies will highlight opportunities for investment and reduce regulatory obstacles.

• Brexit-related trade barriers are being reassessed, with a renewed focus on strengthening ties with the EU, US, and China.

3. Investment: Driving Business-Led Expansion

• The expansion of offshore wind by 16GW will align with the UK’s clean energy transition.

• The third runway at Heathrow to improve global trade connectivity, with planning consent targeted by the end of this Parliament.

• The Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor is designed to become Europe’s Silicon Valley (can we please stop calling and comparing what we are trying to build to Silicon Valley?!).

• A National Wealth Fund to help de-risk private sector investments in emerging industries.

Summary Of Key Announcements and Business Implications

Lord Livermore talked about The Chancellor’s latest speech, which introduced a series of significant economic policies designed to unlock long-term growth opportunities. Among the most notable:

• £100 billion in capital investment over the next five years, to be allocated through the Spending Review.

• Small business support, including an increase in the Employment Allowance and improved public sector procurement access.

• Pension fund reforms to unlock greater domestic investment in high-growth industries.

• Ten-Year Infrastructure Strategy, providing long-term certainty for businesses and investors. 

The Question and Answers From Lord Livermore

1. Planning and Infrastructure Changes

• Question (Simon): How quickly will planning regime changes and infrastructure bill reforms take effect?

• A (Lord Livermore): The government is prioritising fast-track planning for major projects, including clean energy infrastructure. The Infrastructure and Planning Bill will be accelerated through Parliament with a “sizable majority” in the House of Commons.

2. Project Pipeline for Private Investment

• Question (Lee): Will the government create a clear pipeline for projects with mixed public-private financing?

• Answer: Yes. Three key strategies will signal investment priorities:

• Industrial Strategy: Identifies key high-growth sectors.

• National Wealth Fund: Helps de-risk private investments in areas like clean energy.

• 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy: Aligns major projects with private sector investment.

3. Encouraging Risk-Taking and Entrepreneurial Culture

• Question (Karen): How can the UK rekindle its risk appetite and entrepreneurial culture?

• A: Stability is key for businesses to take risks. The government extended Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Venture Capital Trust (VCT) incentives for 10 years to support start-ups.

4. Supporting Small Businesses

• Question (Laura): What can be done to boost confidence among the smallest businesses?

• Answer:

• National Insurance Employment Allowance doubled to £10,500.

• Procurement reforms to improve small business access to public contracts.

• A new Small Business Strategy to be published later this year.

5. Responding to Business Criticism

• Question (James): Some businesses are critical of the government’s economic handling. How can firms that want to promote a positive UK narrative work with the government?

• Answer: The government encourages businesses to highlight opportunities rather than economic challenges. Groups like the CBI, IoD, and British Chambers of Commerce responded positively to the Chancellor’s speech, reinforcing confidence.

6. Spending Review’s Role in Growth Strategy

• Question (Susan): How critical is the spending review in delivering growth?

• Answer: The review will allocate £100 billion in new capital investment over five years, funding infrastructure, industrial strategy initiatives, and clean energy projects.

7. Addressing Global Economic Headwinds

• Question (Hayley): How can the UK navigate global economic challenges?

• Answer:

• Economic stability and resilience are crucial.

• Strengthening trade ties with the EU, US, and China will help offset global uncertainty.

Newsworthy Quotes from Lord Livermore  

• “Growth is our number one mission, and we recognise that business—not government—drives wealth creation.”

• “We are determined to draw a line under the instability of the past 14 years and create a stable foundation for economic growth.”  

• “Planning is the number one barrier to growth—fixing it is our top priority.”  

• “We need to instil confidence in businesses by removing barriers, ensuring access to finance, and providing regulatory certainty.”  

Does the UK Need a More Risk-Friendly Culture?

One of the most thought-provoking questions raised during the Q&A session was: “How can the UK rekindle its risk appetite and entrepreneurial culture to drive growth? Lord Livermore acknowledged that while the UK is a great place to start a business, scaling up remains challenging. The government has extended the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Venture Capital Trust (VCT) tax incentives for another decade, but there is an urgent need to foster a culture that encourages calculated risk-taking. Greater policy stability and improved access to finance are key components in creating an environment where innovation thrives.

Strategic Implications for Businesses and Investors  

The government’s engagement with businesses signals an opportunity for proactive involvement in shaping policies that matter. Here’s what business leaders should consider:

• Policy Advocacy Matters: Companies and investors should actively engage with government consultations to ensure their interests are reflected in policy decisions.

• Regulatory Changes Are Coming: Businesses should prepare for reforms in planning laws, financial regulations, and sectoral strategies that will impact operations and investment flows.

• Trade Relationships Will Evolve: As the UK resets its post-Brexit strategy, firms with international operations should monitor upcoming trade negotiations.

What Comes Next?  

The UK’s economic strategy is ambitious, but its success will depend on how well businesses and policymakers collaborate to implement these initiatives.

For companies, now is the time to engage with the government, participate in consultations, and advocate for policies that support long-term investment and growth. The UK government's message is clear: growth is a shared mission, and businesses are at the heart of making it happen.

Get in touch if your business or investment portfolio needs counsel, strategic communications support and advisory.

Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Deepseek AI has landed and disrupted BigTech’s current iron grip on AI and GenAI and how businesses worldwide see, perceive and use it.

For the past year, the established narrative has been that AI is just a game for Big Tech. It is centralised and the only option for companies that want to unlock the value of their data. Open source is seen as limited in scope and innovation. This view is very wrong.

Thanks to Deepseek and its R1 model’s impact, we now see a disrupted artificial environment ready to challenge companies like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini, Anthropic’s Claude, Meta’s Llama, and Mistral.

Yet, this disruption, while it creates and unlocks many opportunities, also poses technical and reputational risks.

Make no mistake: The narrative has changed, and Big Tech will work hard to challenge it to maintain the necessary control and sell its LLM to governments and companies.

Open-source alternatives like Deepseek now offer the market alternatives, highlighting that AI isn’t just a tool that can be built and used by enterprise-sized organisations.

This disruption will turbo-charge the development, adoption and usage of AI.

Worth listening to this Bloomberg In The City Podcast for great insight.

How Deepseek has disrupted the AI narrative and landscape

Until a few weeks ago, the AI and GenAI landscape and narrative were all about AI being a game only for BigTech—OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta. These companies controlled the majority of cutting-edge AI research, applications and the necessary computing power, creating a perception that only entities with deep pockets, substantial venture backers, and massive computational infrastructure could meaningfully participate in AI innovation and deliver change and transformation to businesses.

The control that these companies had enabled them to keep clients locked into ecosystems like Azure, Google Cloud, or OpenAI’s API services.

Challenges and Disruptions Posed by Open-Source LLMs

Open-source LLMs are democratising access to advanced AI capabilities, enabling a broader spectrum of organisations to develop and deploy sophisticated AI applications.

For example, DeepSeek’s R1 model has demonstrated performance on par with leading proprietary models and was created at a fraction of the cost and computational resources. This, of course, was only possible because of how Deepseek used the established model to train its own.

In a post on LinkedIn, Reuven Cohen gives a great description, highlighting how:

1. DeepSeek’s efficiency breakthrough dramatically lowers AI development costs

2. Open-source innovation lowers barriers and disrupts market power

3. Their thinking and strategy is potentially disrupting this AI industry, creating a threat to  to Nvidia’s dominance

Equally, Jan Beranek, whom I met and spoke with last week makes some great points on how open source is delivering great innovation.

Kevin Buehler, a Senior Partner at McKinsey, a former client and a leader in this space shares some comments on Dario Amodei’s shared views.

Deepseek has forced established AI companies to reassess their strategies, focusing on efficiency and innovation rather than sheer computational power. This has affected the valuation of companies like NVIDIA.

However, the rise of open-source LLMs has also introduced several challenges that companies large and small need to consider:

• Intellectual Property and Data Security: These models' open-source nature increases the risk of intellectual property theft and misuse, an issue for every data owner. Open source also enables the creation of potential applications for malicious activities.

• Market Volatility: The rapid adoption of open-source models has led to significant market fluctuations. Following DeepSeek’s R1 release, major tech companies experienced substantial valuation declines, with NVIDIA losing nearly $600 billion in market value in a single day. Not just that, but investors will ask more questions about the associated costs of delivering AI solutions.

• The location where their data is hosted and associated risks: Have you read the T&Cs of each GenAI or AI platform? You should. Reading the terms and conditions, something that sadly too many ignore gives you an idea of what you give up for the efficiency and cost-benefit you gain. For Deepseek, data is held in China. Not just that, but concerning any dispute, Deepseek states that “the establishment, execution, interpretation, and resolution of disputes under these Terms shall be governed by the laws of the People's Republic of China in the mainland.” In the current geopolitical world that we live in, this is a factor that companies will need to factor in.

Risks and Opportunities for Companies and Governments

Open-source LLMs, though, present huge opportunities that require careful consideration:

• Regulatory Challenges: Governments must navigate the complex task of regulating AI to ensure safety and ethical standards without stifling innovation. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, establishes a comprehensive legal framework for AI systems, categorising them by risk levels and imposing corresponding obligations. Meanwhile, the US currently lacks a federal AI law, instead relying on voluntary commitments from AI companies and sector-specific guidelines.

• Economic Opportunities: Open-source LLMs can drive economic growth by lowering barriers to entry, fostering innovation, and enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to leverage AI capabilities. IBM’s 2024 study found that 51% of businesses using open-source tools reported positive returns on investment, compared to 41% of those not utilising such tools. 

How Governments, Businesses and Investors Can Navigate the AI Ecosystem

The global AI landscape is defined by distinct geopolitical zones, each adopting a unique approach to AI regulation, development, and deployment.

In the United States, AI innovation is primarily driven by the private sector, benefiting from a relatively hands-off regulatory environment that encourages rapid technological advancement. They focus on innovation at pace because of the quarterly cycles businesses and investors work to. China, in contrast, operates within a state-controlled AI ecosystem, where significant government investment and oversight shape the direction of AI research and application. Meanwhile, Europe and the United Kingdom prioritise ethical AI, implementing stringent data protection laws and comprehensive regulatory frameworks to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability.

The rest of the world—particularly emerging markets—is leveraging and looking to adopt open-source AI to reduce reliance on foreign technology, foster domestic innovation, and drive economic growth. These diverse approaches highlight AI's growing regionalisation and the need for businesses and governments to develop strategies tailored to each geopolitical landscape.

Understanding these regional differences is critical for companies seeking expansion, policymakers aiming to regulate AI effectively, and investors looking to capitalise on and support the global AI boom.

To effectively navigate the evolving AI landscape, the following strategies are recommended:

For Governments:

• Develop Adaptive Regulatory Frameworks: Establish policies that balance innovation with ethical considerations, ensuring that AI development aligns with societal values and safety standards.

• Invest in AI Literacy and Workforce Development: Implement educational initiatives to establish in the workforce the necessary skills for the AI-driven economy that will take control of the global economy. Continuous learning and adaptation are a must now, with governments needing to incentivise businesses to help the workforce become more productive through access to AI. We need to see AI not as technology efficiency - technology will take my job, but more as technology that will help me improve.

• Promote International Collaboration: Engage in global partnerships to harmonise AI regulations and share best practices, facilitating a cohesive approach to AI governance. Geopolitically, we see emerging markets come together as a block and trust specific economic entities more than others.

For Businesses:

• Embrace Open-Source Collaboration: Leverage open-source LLMs to enhance innovation, reduce costs, and avoid vendor lock-in while contributing to the open-source community to foster goodwill and shared advancement. Don’t just think of your organisation's data; instead, audit and identify data across your supply chain and environment. Collaboration can improve how services and products can be created, delivered, and bought.

• Implement Robust Data Governance: Establish comprehensive data management policies to ensure security, privacy, and compliance with evolving regulations, thereby building trust with stakeholders. Don’t just think of this from a legal point of view but from a trust and reputation perspective. Where there is trust, companies can increase adoption and the value of their own companies. Transparency, communications and stakeholder engagement are critical here. When I worked within the Department for International Trade’s (Department for Business and Trade now) Digital, Data and Technology Directorate, we focused monthly on publishing data on engagement on the trade platforms our teams built. Our departmental statistics team continuously verified this data. Nothing was published without their sign-off.

• Engage in Transparent Communication: Clearly articulate AI strategies, capabilities, and limitations to stakeholders, fostering trust and managing expectations. Building trust takes time, but it helps deliver innovation, build reputation, and unlock growth.

For Investors:

• Assess Technological Viability: Evaluate the potential of open-source LLMs to disrupt existing business models and identify investment opportunities in companies effectively leveraging these technologies. Ensure your investment teams are constantly plugged into the networks where innovation happens. Think strategically and look at the possibilities and the potential to disrupt. Equally, look at what strategy and communications support new AI companies seeking investment for growth. Tactical communications are, for now, strategic counsel and communications, which help reduce and manage risk while adding value. 

• Monitor Regulatory Developments: Stay informed about global AI regulatory changes to assess their impact on investments and adjust strategies accordingly. The world economy is splitting into regions, yet the technology that connects us can still be global. Ensuring that innovation in one market can deliver value in another requires a regulatory understanding of that environment and jurisdiction.

• Diversify Investment Portfolios: To mitigate market volatility and technological disruption risks, consider investing in various AI applications and industries, as well as the associated companies and sectors that support the growth of AI companies, such as energy.

Conclusion

The ascent of open-source LLMs like DeepSeek’s R1 signifies a pivotal shift in the AI industry, presenting challenges and opportunities.

Governments, businesses, and investors can harness the transformative potential of open-source AI while mitigating associated risks by developing adaptive policies, embracing collaborative innovation, and engaging in transparent stakeholder communication. This balanced, strategic, entrepreneurial approach will be crucial in navigating the complex and evolving AI landscape, ensuring sustainable growth and ethical advancement.

The Stargate Project, a $500 billion, four-year initiative spearheaded by the United States government, represents a transformative moment in artificial intelligence (AI) development. With SoftBank and OpenAI as lead partners, supported by Microsoft, NVIDIA, Arm, and Oracle, this ambitious project aims to establish and position the U.S. as the global leader in AI infrastructure and innovation.

The project, which was announced yesterday, is already underway in Texas, with additional sites under evaluation.

Stargate’s scale and ambition provide a platform to turbo-charge innovation across industries and geographies, offering opportunities for businesses, universities, governments, and investors while raising important strategic considerations.

The Potential to Turbo-Charge Innovation

Stargate’s focus on cutting-edge AI infrastructure offers unprecedented opportunities to accelerate technological progress.

Industries ranging from healthcare to manufacturing stand to benefit immensely. In healthcare, faster AI processing capabilities will enable breakthroughs in drug discovery and personalised medicine, while optimising diagnostics and patient care.

Founder of Google-owned Isomorphic Labs, Sir Demis Hassabis, said at the World Economic Forum yesterday in Davos, “We’re looking at oncology, cardiovascular, neurodegeneration, all the big disease areas, and I think by the end of this year, we’ll have our first drug.”

The energy sector will leverage AI-powered models to enhance renewable energy systems, improve grid efficiency, and reduce costs. Energy-focused start-ups will also see the opportunity to work with AI infrastructure companies, given the level of energy that AI compute platforms requires.

Manufacturing will experience a revolution in production processes, with AI enabling smarter, predictive maintenance and optimised supply chains.

Finance, similarly, will see enhanced capabilities in fraud detection, real-time risk analysis, and personalised financial services. Retail and e-commerce will thrive through AI-driven customer insights, enabling hyper-personalised experiences and dynamic pricing strategies.

Stargate is not just an infrastructure project; it’s an engine for innovation, offering companies the resources to experiment, iterate, and scale at an unprecedented pace. Start-ups and established firms alike will find see greater opportunities to create and deploy new products, services, and business models that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.

The Role of Universities in Driving Progress

Universities in the U.S., UK, and beyond have a critical role to play in realising the full potential of the Stargate Project. By leveraging the infrastructure and partnerships offered by Stargate, universities can expand their research capabilities, particularly in areas like generative AI, robotics, and ethical AI frameworks.

Collaboration between universities and industry partners will help accelerate the development and commercialisation of these technologies. Investing and partnering universities that specialise in either associated AI infrastructure research or subjects that will be transformed by AI has the potential to deliver great results.

Technology transfer offices within universities have an unparalleled opportunity to turn cutting-edge research into viable businesses. For example, spin-out companies focused on AI applications in biotech, fintech, and clean energy could attract significant funding from venture capitalists and corporate investors. By redesigning innovation ecosystems, universities can act as incubators for the next generation of AI solutions.

Internationally, universities can engage in collaborative research to pool expertise and resources. For example, here in the universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Southampton, Imperial and others are already leading the way in how they position themselves.

In Germany, TU Munich is already leading in smart manufacturing while Singapore’s universities, such as the National University of Singapore (NUS), could collaborate on AI for urban planning and governance. Japan is also a country that is leading the way in innovation in academia, with Kyoto University specialising in a range of science and engineering research areas, which support the countries Society 5.0 strategy.

Balancing Regulation and Growth

Regulation will play a pivotal role in shaping the outcomes of the Stargate Project.

Governments must be pragmatic and adopt an entrepreneurial mindset, working collaboratively in an agile way to craft policies that balance the need for rapid innovation with the imperative to support businesses while safeguarding citizens.

International cooperation is essential to ensure consistent and ethical AI governance. While the public see the benefit and value that AI can deliver, they are equally cautious on the impact it can have. How AI initiatives are communicated to the public and wider stakeholders will either make or break how this transformational technology will be adopted. Here in the UK, DSIT, in December 2024 published it’s ‘Public attitudes to data and AI: Tracker survey (Wave 4) report,’ which is wort ha read.

Global standards for AI ethics, including transparency, fairness, and accountability, must guide the development and deployment of AI technologies.

Regulations should also address critical issues like data privacy, cyber risks, and the equitable distribution of AI benefits. Frameworks like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) offer valuable insights but need to evolve to meet the demands of emerging AI applications.

Governments must also focus on incentivising innovation through tax credits, grants, and public-private partnerships. By fostering a supportive policy environment, countries can attract investment, drive economic growth, and ensure that the benefits of AI are widely distributed.

Opportunities for Investors

The Stargate Project offers unparalleled opportunities for investors across venture capital, corporate venture capital, private equity, and family offices.

Investors must focus on sectors directly aligned with Stargate’s priorities, such as advanced semiconductors, renewable energy, and cybersecurity. Amazon, Google and Microsft, one of project Stargate partners, are already investing in Nuclear in order to ‘provide the emissions-free electricity needed to run artificial intelligence and other businesses.’ Companies and university spin outs specialising in clean energy will see great opportunities. One example is Tokamak Energy, a fusion power company based near Oxford, which in November 2024 raised $125 million to accelerate ambitious plans to commercialise fusion energy and grow its transformative high temperature superconducting (HTS) technology solution.

Venture capitalists should prioritise early-stage companies innovating in edge computing, AI-powered diagnostics, and climate modelling.

Corporate venture capital arms have a unique role in targeting businesses that complement their parent companies’ strategic goals, such as renewable energy providers or next-generation AI tools.

Private equity firms, meanwhile, can identify mid-sized companies poised for growth due to Stargate’s infrastructure, particularly in the hardware and energy sectors.

Family offices, often seeking diversified portfolios, can invest in funds or projects that support AI’s broader ecosystem.

By aligning their investments with Stargate’s trajectory, investors can not only achieve strong financial returns but also contribute to shaping the future of AI and economies worldwide.

Strategic Communications and Stakeholder Engagement

Effective communications and engagement strategies are essential for governments, businesses, and universities aiming to align with Stargate.

Governments must lead with clear, consistent messaging that highlights the societal and economic benefits of AI adoption. Public campaigns can build awareness and support for AI initiatives, while bilateral engagements with Stargate stakeholders can secure partnerships and funding. Collaboration will be a key to unlock value, growth and positive transformation.

Businesses should craft narratives that align with Stargate’s objectives and showcase their contributions to innovation and societal progress.

Some top-line initial recommendations include the need for sophisticated communications strategies to ensure alignment with Stargate’s goals, including:

1. Clear Messaging: Highlight how AI adoption benefits society, including job creation, improved healthcare, and environmental impact.

2. Stakeholder Mapping: Identify and prioritise key partners (e.g., OpenAI, SoftBank) and tailor engagement plans accordingly.

Communications and engagement needs to focus on the following timeframes:

• Short-Term: Build awareness and articulate national AI goals.

• Mid-Term: Showcase successful collaborations with Stargate.

• Long-Term: Establish a leadership narrative in AI innovation.

Proactive participation in trade bodies and industry associations can amplify their voices and influence policy debates. But, as I said, what is needed is entrepenerial mindset across all decison-making stages. Leaders and their teams need to better understand the concept of risk and the value and return that risk-taking can deliver, which I’ve written about before.

Universities must invest time to engage stakeholders and positioning themselves as critical research and talent hubs. They should develop targeted outreach strategies to attract AI-focused students and researchers while fostering relationships with Stargate partners.

Global Collaboration for Equitable Growth

International alignment will be critical to unlocking Stargate's full potential.

Countries like the UK, Germany, and Japan must deepen their ties with Stargate stakeholders and leverage their unique strengths to complement the initiative.

But, an important point, it is worth looking at the partners that are not part of the announcement and look at what their response to this announcement will be. Startgate is the first initiative to which there will be counter initiatives in the US and internationally.

Collaborative efforts in R&D, infrastructure development, and talent training will ensure that the benefits of AI are widely shared.

Data-sharing agreements, harmonised privacy standards, and international regulatory frameworks will be essential to fostering trust and enabling cross-border collaboration.

By working together, countries can mitigate risks and ensure that AI’s transformative potential is realised in a way that benefits all.

Shaping a Collaborative Future for AI Innovation

The Stargate Project represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redefine AI’s role in global progress. By embracing collaborative innovation, aligning policies, and investing strategically, governments, businesses, and universities can harness AI's transformative potential to create a future that benefits all.

This initiative is not just about infrastructure; it’s about creating an ecosystem that fosters creativity, drives economic growth, and addresses the world’s most pressing challenges. To succeed, stakeholders must act boldly, communicate effectively, and work together across borders and sectors.

The era of AI-driven innovation is here. How we navigate it will shape the future of our societies, economies, and industries. It’s time to engage, collaborate, and lead.

Get in touch if your business or investments need counsel and strategic communications support and advisory. Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Today’s Edelman Trust Barometer 2025 delivers critical insights into the world's trust deficit. This report follows up on and confirms the findings from the World Economic Forum’s Risk Report for 2025, which confirms the growing risks the world is experiencing and how people are reacting to and shaping their views and opinions.

Edelman’s report offers actionable pathways for businesses, governments, and investors to navigate the fractured landscape in which we live and work.

Businesses and governments must work hard to regain trust and rebuild their reputations. This work needs to involve more than communications; it must involve actionable strategic decisions that improve the quality of people’s lives worldwide.

Edelman’s Key Findings: Trust Under Pressure

A Crisis of Grievance

The Edelman report identifies a “crisis of grievance,” with 61% of respondents expressing moderate to high dissatisfaction with institutions. This issue is not new but has been growing for a number of years. It stems from widespread perceptions that the actions of businesses and governments disproportionately benefit elites while neglecting broader societal needs and communities.

Trust inequality persists and has entrenched itself, with low-income groups showing significantly lower trust levels than high-income groups. For instance, the trust gap between these groups exceeds 20 points in some nations, deepening societal divisions.

Business Remains the Most Trusted Institution

Yet, despite these challenges and the world's current situation, business is the most trusted institution, with 62% trust globally. This positions the private sector as a pivotal force in rebuilding societal confidence.

Notably, respondents increasingly see businesses as ethical, marking a 19-point improvement in perceived business ethics since 2020.

However, trust is fragile and varies by region. For example, business trust in high-income countries like Japan (39%) and the UK (43%) lags far behind emerging markets such as India (75%).

Misinformation Undermines Trust

A stark 70% of respondents worry about being misled by business or government leaders. Moreover, 67% believe news organisations prioritise ideology over public interest, amplifying mistrust in media. These findings underscore the corrosive impact of misinformation on societal trust and push people onto alternative platforms from where they get their news and are at greater risk of the misinformation they want to avoid.

Strategic Recommendations for Rebuilding Trust

For Businesses: Lead with Purpose

Businesses are uniquely positioned to address the grievances that people across society have. To rebuild trust, the report suggests that they must:

Take Responsibility for Societal Issues

Edelman reveals that 73% of respondents believe CEOs are justified in addressing societal challenges if their actions create meaningful change.

To demonstrate their commitment to the public good, companies should focus on climate change, misinformation, and workforce reskilling.

Businesses face a challenge balancing returns on investment and addressing climate change, issues that should not be mutually exclusive.

Invest in Workforce Development

Economic insecurity drives grievance, with 85% of respondents expecting businesses to provide reskilling opportunities for employees.

Upskilling, especially given the disruption that AI will cause across certain labour market disciplines, can reduce mistrust. Prioritising fair wages, training, and job security can help.

Fight Misinformation

Misinformation poses a key threat to businesses' reputations and their perceptions.

Businesses must actively counter misinformation by collaborating with trusted partners and ensuring clear, factual communication with stakeholders. Proactively addressing false narratives can prevent reputational harm.

For Governments: Restore Legitimacy

The Edelman report finds government trust stagnating at 52%, with grievances linked to perceived inequality and inefficiency.

To rebuild confidence, governments must:

Deliver Tangible Benefits

Policies that improve quality of life, address affordability concerns, and invest in public infrastructure can bridge trust deficits. These policies are actionable, and people can see and experience them beyond headlines and announcements.

Partner with Business

Public-private partnerships are critical for tackling complex issues like climate change, misinformation, and unemployment. Joint initiatives and ventures can enhance credibility and deliver visible results.

Learning from the private sector can deliver efficiencies and improve how policies are rolled out into actions that deliver change that the public can experience.

For Investors: Prioritise Reputational Capital

Investors wield significant influence over corporate strategy.

Edelman highlights the growing expectation that investors focus on ethical practices and stakeholder impact:

Support ESG Initiatives

While some leaders are retreating from ESG and other ethical initiatives, prioritising investments in companies that align with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles builds trust with both stakeholders and the public.

Engage with Local Communities

Investments that demonstrate tangible benefits for communities, such as job creation and infrastructure development, can reduce grievances and foster goodwill.

Again, action over announcements is what will give people trust and confidence.

The Misinformation Challenge

Edelman’s findings on misinformation highlight its power and influence on eroding trust across institutions. With 70% of respondents expressing concern about being misled and 67% doubting the neutrality of news organisations, misinformation presents a systemic risk.

To combat this:

• Businesses and governments must prioritise transparency and factual accuracy in their communications.

• Media organisations should adopt stricter editorial standards to regain public confidence. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism report examined this issue in more detail.

Turning Insights into Action

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer underscores a critical truth: trust is not granted; it is earned through action and leant to organisations by people and other stakeholders.

Businesses, governments, and investors must work collaboratively to address societal grievances, combat misinformation, and rebuild reputational capital.

By focusing on transparency, fairness, and shared value creation, institutions can restore trust and unlock opportunities for sustainable growth. In a world rife with challenges, trust remains the foundation for progress.

Get in touch if your business or investments need counsel and strategic communications support and advisory. Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my  LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Today, TikTok has gone dark in the  U.S., sparking widespread controversy over the impact of how  U.S. lawmakers have treated this Chinese-owned company compared to  U.S. digital and social media companies.

Critics argue that the ban on TikTok, while framed as a measure to protect national security, is a calculated move by competitors and lobbyists to stifle competition and protect their social media ecosystem controlled by American giants like Meta and others.

So, let’s examine how TikTok has grown, examine the accusations levelled against it, compare its data practices with those of U.S. competitors, and explore how lobbying efforts leveraged and influenced  U.S. lawmakers’ limited technological expertise to promote a compelling—and potentially strategic—narrative that TikTok is a strategic threat to the U.S.

TikTok: From China To The World

Owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, TikTok launched internationally in 2016 and swiftly secured a massive user base. By 2025, it boasted over 170 million users in the U.S.

However, its Chinese ownership raised alarms among U.S. officials who feared the Chinese government could access American users’ data, posing a ‘national security threat.’

These concerns led to legislative actions, including the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which mandated ByteDance to divest its ownership of TikTok or face a ban in the U.S.

How TikTok Became the Fastest Growing Social Media Platform in the U.S.

TikTok’s adoption in the United States has been nothing short of meteoric, setting a new benchmark for social media growth. It achieved this after merging with Musical.ly in 2018 and giving it the necessary traction, through which it could leverage an established user base with its unique algorithm to attract millions of new users.

By the end of 2018, TikTok had been downloaded over 80 million times in the U.S., topping the Apple App Store’s download charts in Q4.

The platform’s ability to quickly personalise content and spark viral trends made it a favourite among Gen Z and millennials. This positioning of the platform as a cultural phenomenon raised concern among incumbent  U.S. social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 further accelerated TikTok’s growth, as lockdowns drove users to explore new forms of entertainment.

By mid-2020, the platform had reached 100 million monthly active users in the U.S. alone, doubling its user base in less than a year.

By the start of this year, TikTok’s U.S. user base surpassed 170 million, making it a dominant player across all age demographics.

Its unparalleled adoption has revolutionised how people consume and create content, triggering scrutiny from competitors and policymakers concerned about its influence and Chinese ownership.

TikTok’s Data Practices vs. U.S. Social Media Giants

TikTok’s data collection practices are ‘similar’ to most social media platforms. It gathers:

• User behaviour data (likes, shares, watch time).

• Device information (IP address, operating system).

• Location data (when permissions are granted).

• Content creation details (e.g., videos, comments).

Critics have argued that ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok raises concerns about Chinese government access. The platform denies sharing data with any government.

To counter that perception, TikTok launched Project Texas in 2022, a US$1.5 billion initiative to safeguard American user data and address U.S. national security concerns.

The project involves routing all U.S. user data through Oracle’s cloud infrastructure, ensuring that the data remains stored and managed on U.S. soil under the oversight of an American company.

The company also established an independent subsidiary, TikTok U.S. Data Security (USDS), to oversee compliance and implement security protocols aimed at limiting ByteDance’s access to U.S. data and addressing fears of potential ‘interference by the Chinese government.’

Yet, despite these measures, sceptics continued to argue that the project does not entirely mitigate perceived risks, reflecting broader geopolitical tensions and competitive dynamics in the tech industry.

How U.S. Platforms Collect and Use Data

Platforms like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Google (YouTube), and Snap (Snapchat) collect similar, if not more extensive, user data, including:

• Cross-app tracking to monitor user activity across different platforms and websites.

• Highly detailed ad profiling to target individuals with precision.

Meta has faced significant legal scrutiny in the U.S. and the UK for its role in data misuse during elections. Most notably, it was involved in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Facebook user data was improperly accessed to influence voter behaviour. The company has been fined and criticised for failing to protect user data and allowing targeted political ads that spread disinformation.

Similarly, Twitter, particularly under Elon Musk’s ownership, has faced widespread criticism for relaxing content moderation policies that amplified the spread of misinformation and disinformation campaigns on the platform, especially during major political events and crises.

Meta and Google have been sued and fined multiple times for breaching privacy laws. Yet, they have not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny regarding national security or its influence on users.

Key Difference: The argument against TikTok hinges not on the volume of data collected but on the potential for the Chinese government to access it. However, no concrete evidence of misuse by TikTok has been presented, making the case speculative and about perception.

The Narrative Used Against TikTok and Its Impact

The most effective narrative pushed against TikTok was rooted in national security—a concern guaranteed to resonate with lawmakers and the public. Since 2018, TikTok has been framed as a national security threat.

The key elements of this narrative included:

• Suggesting TikTok could be used for espionage, with the Chinese government accessing user data.

• Claiming the platform could influence U.S. public opinion by amplifying or suppressing specific content, including during elections.

• Highlighting viral trends as evidence of harm to society, even when those trends originated elsewhere.

Exploiting Lawmakers’ Lack of Tech Expertise

Lobbyists capitalised on the fact that many lawmakers lack deep technological expertise. By presenting TikTok’s risks in broad, fear-inducing terms, they successfully avoided nuanced discussions of:

• How TikTok’s data practices compare to U.S. platforms.

• The technical feasibility of the claims (e.g., whether the Chinese government could realistically use TikTok for large-scale surveillance).

• TikTok has implemented safeguards to address these concerns.

Lawmakers, faced with a “national security” argument, were more likely to err on the side of caution, even without concrete evidence.

Equally, making TikTok into the villain enabled US competitors to distract away from the issues facing their entities relating to misinformation and hate content.

What has been interesting to see is how ‘free speech’, as defined in the US, can be weaponised to influence audiences on American social media platforms, but it is not allowed on a foreign platform.

Lobbyists and Competitors: A Strategic Alliance

The Washington Post reported how Meta ‘paid GOP firm to malign TikTok.’ Lobbyists representing U.S. tech companies were instrumental in amplifying these national security threat narratives. The campaigns they ran benefited from the following:

• Simplified messaging that made TikTok’s risks sound unique and alarming.

• A focus on patriotism, casting the issue as a choice between American values and foreign interference.

• Public relations efforts to tie TikTok to harmful societal trends and incidents.

How TikTok’s Competitors Benefited from the Ban

What Meta, YouTube, Snapchat are hoping to gain from ‘TikTok going dark’ is an exodus from TikTok and a move onto their platforms.

Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat stand to gain the most from TikTok’s absence. The platform’s ban means:

• Greater ad revenue as brands redirect their budgets to these platforms.

• An influx of TikTok influencers and their audiences.

• Reduced competitive pressure, allowing them to maintain dominant positions without the need for innovation.

This is not yet happening, with many users moving to Chinese-owned Red Note.

Cloud Providers and Data Services

U.S.-based data providers like Oracle, Amazon Web Services, and Google Cloud will also benefit as companies and governments prioritise “domestic” data storage solutions.

Political Stakeholders and Advocacy Groups

The ban allows U.S. lawmakers to claim a win in protecting citizens from foreign threats, bolstering their political and ‘America First’ narratives.

Advocacy groups lobbying against TikTok also gain prominence and funding.

Economic Fallout from TikTok’s Ban

Since 2020, social selling on Instagram and TikTok has experienced significant growth, transforming how consumers discover and purchase products online.

87% of buyers now believe that social media helps them make shopping decisions, and 66% of customers are more likely to purchase after seeing others’ social media posts. This shift has led to social selling generating 45% more opportunities than traditional sales channels, with 78% of salespeople who use social selling outperforming their peers.

TikTok has been at the forefront of this evolution, particularly with the introduction of TikTok Shop, which seamlessly integrates social media and e-commerce. This feature lets users purchase products directly through videos, live streams, and influencer content. In 2024, TikTok Shop’s gross sales topped $1 billion monthly since July, indicating the platform’s significant impact on social commerce.

Additionally, TikTok’s popularity among Gen Z shoppers and its investments in live shopping has contributed to the platform’s role in driving U.S. social commerce sales, which are projected to surpass $100 billion by 2025.

Creators and small businesses that rely on TikTok for income and exposure now face significant disruptions:

• Creators lose a platform optimised for organic growth and engagement.

• Small businesses that use TikTok’s cost-effective advertising tools may struggle to reach younger audiences on more expensive platforms like Meta.

Ripple Effects on the Economy

TikTok’s creator economy contributes billions to U.S. economic activity. Its ban will:

• Impact adjacent industries such as influencer marketing agencies, digital product developers, and e-commerce platforms.

• Reduce competition, potentially leading to higher advertising costs for businesses.

A Broader Issue: Data Sovereignty and Corporate Influence

The TikTok saga underscores deeper issues about data sovereignty and corporate influence:

• Data Privacy Legislation: The lack of consistent regulations leaves gaps that disproportionately target foreign companies while allowing U.S. entities to operate with impunity. This is an example of the ‘America First’ mindset supporting American companies.

• Corporate Power: TikTok’s case illustrates how U.S. companies can influence public narratives to suppress competition.

A Convenient Scapegoat in a Competitive Landscape

When compared to the influence and threats that American digital and social media companies pose to users of their respective platforms, the TikTok ban appears to be less about genuine national security threats and more about protecting U.S. corporate interests under the guise of patriotism.

Social media companies' influence over users through the amplifying of misinformation or hate content makes this an issue for everyone. It can only be resolved by improving awareness of how content and narratives online can be promoted to influence opinions and perceptions.

The real losers are the creators, businesses, and audiences who rely on TikTok for innovation, income, and engagement.

@shou.time Our response to the Supreme Court decision @TikTok ♬ original sound - Shou

If the U.S. wants to address these challenges meaningfully, it must adopt comprehensive data privacy laws that apply universally—domestic or foreign—and avoid allowing lobbying efforts to dictate policy. But, given the influence and ability that social media has a whole to influence opinion, and because of the coming ecosystem that we are going to be entering, this in unlikely to happen.

Policymakers and industry leaders must advocate for balanced regulations that protect data privacy without stifling competition. Only then can we build a fair and secure digital economy.

Get in touch if your business or investments need counsel and strategic communications support and advisory. Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Embarking on the entrepreneurial journey demands more than a solid grasp of business theories. Recent research underscores that while competencies in business planning, marketing, and financial management are foundational, they alone don’t equip entrepreneurs to navigate the complexities of today’s dynamic markets. A study published in The Conversation reveals that co-working spaces serve as collaborative ecosystems where entrepreneurs exchange knowledge, foster innovation, and build resilience through shared experiences.

This collaborative learning environment highlights the necessity for entrepreneurs and their investors to leverage a critical yet often underemphasised asset: strategic communication and stakeholder engagement.

Strategic Communication: A Core Business Asset

Viewing communication merely as an operational task involving press releases or social media updates is a misconception. Strategic communication is integral to shaping a company’s identity, building its reputation, and uniting stakeholders under a shared vision. For instance, Airbnb is renowned for transparent and engaging communication with investors. It consistently provides detailed updates on financial performance and strategic initiatives, building trust and aligning investors with the company’s long-term objectives. 

Establishing clear and consistent communication from the outset lays a foundation of trust and credibility for start-ups. This transparency encourages employees to commit to the mission, customers to become brand advocates, and investors to provide sustained support.

Stakeholder Engagement: Driving Sustainable Growth

Engaging stakeholders—including employees, customers, partners, and investors—proactively creates avenues for valuable feedback, collaboration, and strategic alignment.

Effective stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of successful change management. Case studies demonstrate that aligning diverse stakeholder interests and building trust through strategic engagement can significantly enhance the effectiveness of transformation initiatives. 

Start-ups prioritising stakeholder engagement from the beginning are better positioned to overcome challenges, attract investment, and achieve sustainable growth. Research by the Project Management Institute indicates that effective stakeholder engagement is a key driver of project success, emphasising the importance of identifying and engaging stakeholders to meet their expectations and achieve project objectives. Meanwhile, McKinsey found that approximately 50% of a company’s value is often concentrated in just 15-20 key roles, highlighting the importance of identifying and engaging critical stakeholders to capture this value.

Investors: Enhancing Value Through Communication Strategies

Advocating for start-ups to adopt strategic communication and stakeholder engagement practices yields substantial benefits for investors.

Transparent and proactive communication enables investors to make informed decisions and fosters an environment of trust. Successful start-ups have demonstrated that effective investor communication can significantly impact growth and development. This is confirmed by a 2020 study by Cornell University, which looked at ‘the impact of social media presence and board member composition on new venture success (pre-Elon Musk takeover of Twitter!).’

Private and public-facing communications strategies and activities support future funding rounds and enhance the start-up’s reputation for reliability and professionalism, distinguishing it in competitive markets.

Challenging Traditional Views of Communication

There is an outdated perception of communication as merely a marketing or PR function. This needs reevaluating.

In today’s business environment, communication is a strategic driver that integrates a start-up’s mission, vision, and values with stakeholder actions and decisions.

Effective and strategic communications help build trust and collaboration among stakeholders, which is crucial for the success of transformation projects. This is the private work beyond media releases, public-facing events, and announcements.

In sectors where trust and reputation are critical—such as technology, finance, and healthcare—strategic communication directly influences valuation, competitive positioning, and long-term success.

Recommendations for Entrepreneurs and Investors

1. Integrate Communication into Core Strategy: Incorporate strategic communication into your business plan from the outset to ensure alignment with your mission and growth objectives. And make sure that the founders and their team are aware of the value that this delivers to their venture.

2. Engage Stakeholders Proactively: Maintain transparent, two-way communication with employees, customers, and investors to build trust and gather valuable insights.

3. Use Collaborative Networks: Leverage co-working spaces in the early days and engage in opportunities that foster relationships that deliver valuable insight that drive innovation and strengthen your support system.

4. Prioritise Investor Relations: Investors should encourage start-ups to establish robust communication frameworks - it’s not just the capital, it is the strategic advisory that helps a company grow, as these directly impact the success of future funding rounds.

Laying the Groundwork for Success

Entrepreneurship transcends theoretical knowledge; it is a practical, interconnected ambition that relies on strategic thinking and robust relationships. It is more than just risk-taking. Disrupting a market or business sector needs communications to help secure success.

For start-ups and their investors, embracing strategic communication and stakeholder engagement is not optional—it is fundamental to growth, resilience, and success.

By embedding these elements into the core of your business or investment, entrepreneurs can unlock new opportunities, and investors can ensure their investments yield meaningful and sustainable returns.

Get in touch if your business or investments need counsel and strategic communications support and advisory. Strategic communication and stakeholder engagement are central to my expertise, and I’m here to share knowledge or explore potential collaborations.

Please comment, share or subscribe to my LinkedIn Reputation Matters newsletter. Or connect with me on LinkedIn.

Business as usual is no longer an option.

Leaders can navigate these turbulent times by refining communication strategies and strengthening stakeholder engagement with transparency, confidence, and purpose.

Understanding the Risks: Challenges in a Polarised World

The risks identified in the report are deeply interconnected. Societal polarisation, disinformation, and protectionist policies feed into one another, creating cascading challenges. For businesses, governments, and investors, these risks manifest in several ways:

1. Geopolitical Tensions and Trade Barriers

Governments are implementing protectionist measures, such as tariffs and investment restrictions, to protect domestic interests. This disrupts global trade and complicates industries reliant on cross-border collaboration.

2. Misinformation and Disinformation

Disinformation campaigns, often aimed at institutions or brands, distort narratives, destabilise societies, and erode consumer trust. This can harm the reputations of businesses, particularly in industries focused on sustainability or technology.

Misinformation and disinformation have emerged as critical global challenges. 86% of individuals worldwide report encounters with fake news. In the United Kingdom alone, over 90% of people say they have faced online misinformation, underscoring its sweeping prevalence. Social media platforms, with a staggering 4.9 billion users globally, remain at the heart of this crisis, serving as powerful conduits for the spread of false information.

The consequences extend far beyond individual deception. The economic toll is significant, with misinformation disrupting financial markets, skewing investor decisions, and inflating healthcare costs by propagating unreliable medical advice.

For businesses, the stakes are equally high—targeted disinformation campaigns can tarnish reputations, erode consumer confidence, and inflict severe revenue losses. For governments and wider society, the impact is no less troubling. Misinformation erodes democratic institutions, deepens social divides, and undermines public trust in governance.

3. Polarisation of Public Opinion

Rising societal divides, influenced by misinformation, complicate policymaking, hinder regulatory consensus, and create unstable investment climates. This polarisation makes it harder for governments and businesses to align on critical issues like climate change and technological innovation.

Why Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Are Essential

Managing these interconnected risks requires more than operational agility—clear communication, strategic foresight, and stakeholder collaborative relationships.

Trust and transparency are vital in an age of misinformation. Businesses and governments must rethink their communication strategies to build credibility, foster alignment, and combat the influence of false narratives.

Strategic Recommendations for Leaders

To navigate global risks effectively, leaders should adopt the following strategies:

1. Align Communication with Strategic Objectives

Clear and consistent messaging is critical in a fragmented world.

• To build public trust, governments must ensure that policy communications are coherent across departments and agencies.

• Businesses should proactively counter disinformation with transparency and credibility. For example, a technology firm accused of unethical practices could address concerns through third-party audits, transparent reporting, and campaigns that showcase responsible innovation.

2. Invest in Multisector Coalitions

Collaboration is key to addressing shared challenges.

• Governments and businesses should improve their engagement with civil society, academia, and international organisations to combat misinformation and strengthen ethical communication.

• Industry-wide initiatives, such as AI-driven tools to detect false narratives, can mitigate the spread of disinformation. Advertisers and their agencies significantly influence social media platforms like Meta, which amplify misleading content. They need to be aware of and leverage their power and influence, individually and collectively, to demand greater accountability because of the risk that misinformation poses by association to their companies and brands. By lobbying for stricter content moderation and transparency, advertisers can push platforms to align with societal expectations and reduce risks to brands and consumers.

3. Build Resilient Supply Chains

Geopolitical tensions and protectionism emphasise the need for supply chain diversification.

• Businesses should map vulnerabilities, diversify sourcing strategies, and establish regional partnerships.

• Engaging with governments and trade organisations can secure support for these adjustments.

4. Strengthen Scenario Planning

Effective risk management begins with foresight.

• Organisations must incorporate geopolitical and societal risks into strategic planning.

• Scenario exercises—such as assessing the impact of trade restrictions, cyber threats, or disinformation campaigns—can prepare leaders to act decisively and communicate with their audiences to position them as being proactive in how they trade.

5. Foster Stakeholder Trust

Trust underpins resilience in a polarised world.

• Governments can reinforce public confidence through accountability and transparency.

• Businesses can build loyalty by prioritising ethical practices, community engagement, and ESG-focused initiatives.

Opportunities in a Fragmented World

Despite the challenges, businesses and governments that adapt can seize significant opportunities:

• Companies that prioritise sustainability and ethical operations will attract ESG-conscious investors.

• Cybersecurity and data analytics firms are poised for growth as organisations invest in countering misinformation and protecting critical infrastructure.

• Regional trade alliances championed by governments can drive investment and bolster economic resilience.

Thriving Through Strategic Action

The Global Risks Report 2025 calls for leaders to act decisively and collaboratively. By adopting forward-looking strategies, strengthening communication, and fostering trust, organisations can mitigate risks and position themselves as leaders in a fragmented world.

As the global landscape evolves, success will favour those who adapt with purpose, build coalitions, and communicate transparently. Businesses, governments, and investors can thrive in complexity by turning risk into opportunity and uncertainty into strength.

Let’s start the conversation. If you want to explore how strategic communications and stakeholder engagement can support your goals, contact us today.

The UK stands on the brink of a technological revolution with its AI Opportunities Action Plan. Designed to position the nation as a global leader in artificial intelligence, the plan outlines a bold roadmap for economic growth, innovation, and societal transformation. However, achieving this vision requires more than infrastructure and talent investment. It demands a cultural transformation of the UK — a shift from being shy and cautious to a mindset that embraces innovation, experimentation, and calculated risk-taking.

To deliver growth to everybody, a cultural transformation is going to be critical. By fostering trust, collaboration, and proactive engagement with AI, the UK can unlock an additional £400 billion in economic growth by 2030 and lead the global race in innovation.

Why the UK Needs a Culture of Innovation to Lead in AI

The UK has an enviable foundation in artificial intelligence. Home to global AI leaders such as DeepMind and ARM, the country ranks third in the world for AI market size.

Its universities produce cutting-edge research supported by tech transfer teams, and the country’s regulatory leadership in AI safety has set global standards. However, these strengths are underutilised due to a deeply ingrained cultural hesitancy. Even our companies are reluctant to invest directly or through a corporate venture capital company in the many opportunities that we create.

Statistics highlight the challenge: only 15% of UK businesses have adopted AI, compared to 31% in the US.

Public scepticism is another barrier, with 60% of citizens expressing concerns about AI’s impact on jobs and privacy. Without addressing these cultural factors, the UK risks falling behind more proactive nations such as the US, China, and Singapore.

What are industry leaders saying about the AI Opportunities Plan?

UK Prime Minster Keir Starmer has appointed Matt Clifford as an adviser to support in the delivery of this transformational AI Action Plan.

In a LinkedIn post to coincide with the publishing of the plan, Clifford says that, "AI is the single most powerful lever we have to achieve this. But we need to act boldly and we need to act now. That’s what the Action Plan is about."

As Matt notes, the response to date has been overwhelmingly positive.

Brent Hoberman announced today the 'launch of the London AI Hub, in partnership with Techspace.'

Keith Strier, SVP for AI Markets at AMD, formerly from NVIDA, was direct in his praise, saying, “UK for the Win!”

Meanwhile for Chief Scientific Adviser at The Department for Business and Trade, Dr Mike Short CBE FREng FIET FBCS FITP, highlights that the "plan to points to a more strategic and comprehensive plan towards implementation than previous UK attempts by government." Rightly so, Mike wants "to see more AI scale up options to ensure this works well internationally and collaboratively."

While Gerard Grech makes some great observations in the reply to his LinkedIn post about the difficulty of securing the opportunities. But the government is seeing AI as 'cutting across all areas.'

How can we establish a risk-taking culture that helps unlock growth 

For the UK to lead in AI, it must shed its legacy of risk aversion and build a culture that rewards experimentation and innovation. This shift requires strategic policy changes, fiscal incentives, and a concerted effort to influence how the public and businesses see risk and reward.

Fostering a Pro-Innovation Mindset

The UK needs a cultural reset that positions risk-taking as a path to opportunity.

Government leaders must champion this mindset by consistently framing innovation and experimentation as not just national priorities but part of our historic DNA.

Businesses should follow suit, embedding innovation into their strategies and empowering teams to experiment without fear of failure.

Public procurement can be catalytic here. By prioritising innovative solutions in government contracts, the public sector can set an example and create a market for AI products that inspires industry confidence.

Create a UK corporate venture capital ecosystem

The UK is filled with opportunities, whether from academic tech transfer teams or from founders, UK or international, who base themselves across the UK to build transformational businesses. Yet, the investment that they need comes from venture capital companies, many of which are overseas.

The UK needs to incentivise corporates to create their own corporate venture units, through which they can invest in new transformational technology that can support their growth and that of their supply chains.

Incentivising AI Adoption and Experimentation

Financial incentives are critical to encouraging businesses to adopt AI. Enhancing R&D tax credits to specifically include AI projects and offering grants for SMEs and start-ups in AI-focused sectors would lower the barriers to experimentation.

Additionally, the government could establish AI Growth Zones with streamlined planning processes, infrastructure development subsidies, and company tax relief.

These zones should target underdeveloped regions to drive economic regeneration and bridge geographic disparities in AI adoption.

Addressing Public Concerns with Transparency

Building trust is essential for widespread AI adoption. Clear, transparent communication must address public concerns about ethics, privacy, and job displacement.

Governments and businesses alike should commit to ethical AI practices with regulatory frameworks that ensure accountability and fairness.

Establishing an independent AI ethics board to oversee major projects would further reassure the public. Meanwhile, public education campaigns showcasing AI's tangible benefits—such as faster healthcare diagnoses or improved public transportation—can demystify the technology and build confidence.

Investing in Education and Skills Development

A skilled workforce is the backbone of an AI-powered economy.

The UK must increase its investment in AI education, creating pathways from primary schools to postgraduate programmes. A flagship scholarship programme, modelled after the Rhodes or Fulbright scholarships, would attract top talent to the UK and reinforce its global reputation for innovation.

To help workers adapt to AI-augmented roles, lifelong learning initiatives and vocational training must be expanded beyond formal education. Collaboration with businesses is essential to ensure these programmes align with industry needs.

Building a Narrative for AI Adoption and Growth

Strategic communications will be critical to enabling this cultural shift. The UK must craft a unifying narrative that positions AI as a force for good, highlighting its potential to create jobs, improve public services, and drive economic growth.

Businesses and government leaders should use media, industry events, and digital platforms to communicate success stories that resonate with both stakeholders and the public. For example, showcasing AI-driven solutions that reduce NHS waiting times or enable carbon-neutral manufacturing could inspire confidence and enthusiasm.

Transparency should underpin these efforts. The UK can build credibility and trust by openly discussing the challenges and risks of AI adoption alongside its benefits. Engaging with diverse voices—including ethicists, industry experts, and community leaders—will further strengthen this narrative.

How Businesses and Investors Can Lead the AI Revolution

Senior leaders and investors have a pivotal role in driving this cultural transformation.

Businesses must integrate AI into their operations, not as an afterthought but as a core capability. Leadership teams should prioritise upskilling their workforce and fostering a culture of innovation that encourages experimentation and tolerates failure.

Collaboration is equally vital. By partnering with government initiatives such as AI Growth Zones or contributing to shared data ecosystems, businesses can help accelerate AI development while gaining early access to cutting-edge technologies. Investors, meanwhile, should focus on high-potential start-ups in sectors ripe for AI disruption, such as healthcare, advanced manufacturing, and financial services.

The Role of Government in Leading by Example

The government must demonstrate its commitment to AI adoption by integrating the technology into public services. From piloting AI in healthcare diagnostics to streamlining transportation systems, these initiatives will improve service delivery and showcase AI’s potential to the broader public.

To further signal its commitment, the government should use its purchasing power to drive demand for AI solutions, offering contracts to innovative businesses and setting benchmarks for ethical and effective AI use.

A Call to Action for Business, Government, and Society

The AI Opportunities Action Plan provides a robust framework for the UK’s leadership in AI, but it cannot succeed without a cultural transformation. By fostering a culture of innovation, trust, and collaboration, the UK can unlock AI’s full potential to drive growth, create jobs, and enhance societal well-being.

For senior business leaders, investors, and policymakers, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to align with a national vision that prioritises boldness and creativity. By embracing risk, investing in talent and technology, and building trust with the public, the UK can secure its place as a global leader in the AI-driven future.

The new AI Opportunities Action Plan is a step in the right direction. But critically, it needs support to get the UK to buy into it. The wrong culture can hinder unlocking the growth that the government has identified.

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism released its latest report, ‘Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions for 2025,’ this week.

The findings share insight into how the media continues to evolve and its impact on everyone who relies on it to engage, influence, and communicate. Reaching audiences whose media consumption habits have changed over the last ten years is becoming increasingly complex. New technology is disrupting not just the platforms but also the habits and levels of trust of audiences.

Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2025

Generative AI, social media influencers, and algorithm-driven platforms are increasingly shaping public discourse today and challenging traditional fact-based journalism.

Leaders in business and government worldwide, as well as start-up founders who want to grow their digital products, need to understand the market today and the media consumption habits of the audiences they want to engage with and have conversations with.

The changing landscape requires a strategic rethink of building and managing reputations effectively.

Having read the report, I outline the key trends reshaping media globally, highlight their impact on trust and stakeholder engagement, and provide actionable recommendations to help organisations maintain relevance, credibility, and influence in this evolving environment.

The Changing Media Ecosystem: Challenges and Opportunities for Businesses and Governments

The 2025 Journalism and Technology Trends Report by the Reuters Institute reveals an increasingly fragmented and volatile media landscape shaped by the rapid evolution of generative AI, the dominance of platform algorithms, and shifting audience behaviours. These changes create significant challenges but also present opportunities for businesses, governments, and their advisors in strategy, communications, and stakeholder engagement.

Sadly, journalism faces growing threats from political polarisation, economic instability, and a decline in public trust. Only 41% of media leaders surveyed expressed optimism about journalism’s future, a sharp decline from prior years. At the same time, reliance on traditional platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) continues to plummet while new AI-powered platforms and influencers dominate audience attention.

For governments and businesses seeking to build trust, communicate effectively, and promote policies, these shifts necessitate new strategies to engage audiences across diverse and evolving channels whose trust in so-called traditional storytellers is at an all-time low.

Global Dynamics: The Role of Media in a Polarised World

The report highlights the global dimension of these challenges. In countries like Brazil and Romania, social media influencers and populist politicians bypass traditional media to engage directly with citizens. For example, Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu’s TikTok-driven campaign resonated with younger voters, bypassing conventional media outlets. This reflects a broader trend where audiences—especially under-30s—consume news through non-traditional channels, often from influencers rather than institutional journalists.

For governments, this raises the stakes for transparent communication and proactive engagement. The undermining of traditional journalism, coupled with politically charged platforms, poses risks to the dissemination of accurate information. Businesses, particularly those operating in highly regulated or international markets, must navigate an environment where misinformation can escalate reputational risks and destabilise stakeholder trust.

According to last year’s Edelman’s Trust Report, trust in governments, businesses, and media has significantly declined over the past decade. In the UK, only 27% of respondents trusted the government, marking a historic low, while trust in businesses stood at just 45%, placing them in the “distrust” category. Media fares even worse, with only 31% expressing confidence, ranking the UK last among 28 surveyed countries. These trends highlight growing scepticism towards traditional institutions, driven by transparency, accountability, and misinformation concerns.

The Rise of AI and the New Content Ecosystem

Generative AI is reshaping how audiences access information. AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity integrate real-time news aggregation, providing concise summaries with minimal engagement with original publishers. While this may increase convenience for consumers, it challenges traditional media's visibility and monetisation models.

According to the report, 74% of media executives worry about declining referral traffic from search engines. This concern is heightened by AI’s potential to replace click-through links with integrated answers.

For example, in April 2024, the Financial Times entered into a strategic partnership and licensing agreement with OpenAI. This collaboration allows OpenAI to incorporate FT’s attributed content into its AI models, enhancing ChatGPT’s responses with select summaries, quotes, and links to FT journalism. The partnership also focuses on developing new AI products and features tailored for FT readers.

A month later, in May 2024, News Corp, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, signed a deal with OpenAI to integrate its news content into AI platforms. Vox Media and The Atlantic also entered into licensing agreements with OpenAI, permitting the use of their content to train AI models and enhance the quality of AI-generated responses. In September, Condé Nast, owner of publications such as The New Yorker and Vogue, signed a multi-year agreement with OpenAI. 

For businesses and international governments, who historically rely on traditional news outlets through which to communicate, this shift requires a reassessment of how they distribute their messages.

Strategies must focus on embedding key content directly into AI-supported platforms while ensuring accuracy and narrative control. While, companies are also adopting AI tools, the focus must also be on the content that each company has in terms of comms and storytelling that allows it to also compete in terms of output from questions that people, professionals and policy people use whether they are using Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or any other. Start-ups will need to compete here in how they present and disrupt the presence that enterprise companies will gain because of the data that they have to train respective Large Language Models.

Collaborative approaches, such as licensing agreements with AI platforms, may offer opportunities for trusted organisations to amplify their influence in the evolving ecosystem.

The Influence Economy: Shifting Public Trust

Trust is becoming increasingly decentralised, with influencers and creators often eclipsing traditional media in audience loyalty.

In the US, over 37% of under-30s now rely on influencers for political news, a phenomenon mirrored globally. This shift is not without risks; while some influencers bring fresh perspectives, others lack journalistic rigour, potentially propagating misinformation. For example, findings show that 62% of surveyed influencers admit they do not verify the content's accuracy.

Engaging in this ‘creator economy’ demands a delicate balance for businesses and governments. Partnering with credible influencers who align with organisational values can amplify messages while mitigating reputational risks.

Sharing without varying information comes with its risks for content creators and influencers. Many might make money now, but trust can quickly disappear.

For example, government agencies promoting public health campaigns or businesses launching sustainability initiatives can benefit from the authenticity influencers offer, provided they are carefully vetted.

Strategic Recommendations for Building Trust and Reputation in 2025

1. Adopt a Multi-Platform, Audience-Centric Approach

The fragmentation of media means audiences are spread across platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and WhatsApp.

Businesses and governments must meet their stakeholders where they are by diversifying content formats, including short-form videos, podcasts, and multilingual AI-generated summaries.

Scandinavian publishers are already integrating podcasts into subscription packages, which has created enhanced audience loyalty. Governments could replicate such models, delivering policy briefings or public service announcements via accessible and engaging formats.

Invest in Trustworthy Narratives Amid Misinformation

Political and economic polarisation demands proactive reputation management.

Businesses and governments must double down on transparency, using independent verification and partnerships with trusted outlets to counter misinformation.

In Australia, the introduction of news bargaining codes ensured platform accountability and provided financial support to struggling publishers. Governments elsewhere can adopt similar measures to sustain a healthy media ecosystem.

Leverage AI Responsibly

AI tools can enhance engagement but must be used carefully to avoid diluting organisational credibility.

Businesses should explore partnerships with AI platforms offering visibility for credible content while maintaining editorial control.

Governments, especially those in public health or education, can leverage AI chatbots and summarisation tools to enhance citizen engagement.

The UK Government’s Department for Business and Trade Digital, Data and Technology (DDaT), whom I supported for three years between 2016 and 2019, already uses AI for its service and product design and delivery.

Navigate the Creator Economy with Precision

Influencers are an essential bridge to younger audiences but require careful selection.

Businesses in highly regulated industries, like finance or pharmaceuticals, should prioritise collaborations with influencers known for their subject-matter expertise and adherence to ethical standards.

These influencers know that their audiences and community rely on them because of their knowledge, expertise and trust. Their business relies on their reputation.

Strengthen Resilience Against Platform Dependencies

Platforms remain volatile, with sentiment towards Facebook and X deteriorating sharply among publishers, especially since Elon Musk took over X (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg announced the ending of fact-checking. While these are critical issues, the number of bots ‘cooking’ engagement metrics must be a concern for those with an organic presence or who spend advertising money on these platforms.

Instead of over-relying on third-party platforms, organisations must build direct relationships with their audiences. Investment in owned channels, such as bespoke apps or subscription-based newsletters, will future-proof engagement.

Rather than go it alone, businesses should look at platforms and channels, and aggregators that audiences use to avoid creating additional fatigue amongst your stakeholders.

Strategic Communications and Stakeholder Engagement: Key Takeaways

The findings highlight the importance of integrated, flexible approaches for strategy, communications, and stakeholder engagement advisers. Advisers must guide clients to:

• Engage Stakeholders Beyond Traditional Media: Emphasise influencer partnerships, AI platforms, and community-driven engagement to amplify messages.

• Protect Reputation Through Scenario Planning: Develop robust crisis management frameworks to address risks from misinformation and AI-driven content disruption.

• Advocate for Fair Policies: Support initiatives like collective licensing deals to ensure a level playing field for small publishers, fostering a diverse and trustworthy media ecosystem.

• Localise Strategies for International Contexts: Tailor communications to regional media dynamics. For example, direct social media campaigns in regions like Latin America may be more impactful than traditional PR strategies.

Preparing for 2025 and Beyond

The evolving media landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for organisations seeking to communicate effectively and protect their reputations.

By embracing technological innovation, prioritising authenticity, and fostering resilience against misinformation, businesses and governments can position themselves as trusted voices in an increasingly fragmented world.

The imperative for advisers is clear: stay ahead of trends, adapt strategies for a global context, and help clients navigate complexity confidently. As media evolves, those who proactively engage with its changes will build trust, protect reputation, and influence public discourse.

It is our job to rebuild the trust between our audiences, stakeholders and ourselves. And that will require sharing some hard truths internally. The media and communications landscape has changed and leaders need to be aware of that if they are to deliver growth.

With strategic thinking by businesses and governments, societies can benefit from the technology coming to market.

Senior business leaders and government officials must create an environment in which technology benefits everyone and in which people are supported in developing the necessary skills for the future.

The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 sheds light on a significant shift: while technical skills remain foundational, the growing importance of interpersonal abilities — such as communication, leadership, and emotional intelligence — cannot be overstated.