This is the fourth year of our Special Advisor, Rod Cartwright’s, ground-breaking report, which essentially provides an annual summary and analysis of the most important global reports on reputation, risk and resilience. Rod’s 2026 edition covered 12 major publications – almost 850 pages of original source material – from organisations including Aon, AXA, Edelman, International SOS, Ipsos, Gallup and the World Economic Forum. You can download a copy https://www.rodcartwrightconsulting.com/what-we-think-2026 here.
On September 3rd, Rod gathered a panel of experts in the field of strategic communications to chew over his findings and not just ‘admire the problem’ but come up with advice and insights for Network members and followers. I was fortunate enough to be in the Chair for the proceedings.
We were joined by Aaron Marks, a Virginia-based specialist in threat, risk and resilience, and leading thinker on ‘The Grey Zone’; Craig Badings, Partner at SenateSHJ, originator of the Crisis 300 Index and Author of Future of Reputation 2030 – originally from South Africa, but based in Sydney; and Mary-Ann Anyikam, Head of Global Resilience at HP, based in Texas. Professor Lee Edwards, Professor of Strategic Communications and Public Engagement at the London School of Economics was looking forward to joining us, but sadly the loss of her voice prevented her attendance. Fortunately, being the Crisis Communications Network we had a plan for that!
Watch webinar: Reputation, Risk and Resilience Symposium
Rod’s tour of the risks we face and his ‘Assuming Agency’ and ‘Achieving Balance’ frameworks
Rod kicked us off with a tour of a world increasingly defined by complexity, uncertainty and “permacrisis”. In the process, he identified ten themes shaping the environment in which organisations now operate, drawn from the 2026 edition of his report, released in May.
Geopolitical and geo-economic tensions remain high on the agenda, while climate change, AI, cyber and data risks continue to evolve. Rod also highlighted two less visible but increasingly significant challenges: declining employee engagement and the growing impact of poor mental health – a combination he terms the ‘embedded psychological pandemic’. This resonated well with those attending, showing that it is a risk that needs to be right up there but seldom is. ESG and DE&I, Rod noted, have not disappeared but have changed shape and language, with significant differences between regions.
For Rod, the bigger issue is how these risks interact. Polarisation, mis- and disinformation and interconnected risks can create a “toxic cocktail”, with organisations also facing a worrying gap between recognising risks and being prepared to deal with them (the ‘awareness-preparedness’ gap’). Risks related to human beings – whether in their origins or impact – in particular, remain a blind spot.
Systems and plans matter, but lasting resilience requires organisations to build the human capability, culture and preparedness to respond effectively when crisis strikes.
His answer is ‘Assuming Agency’: taking conscious ownership, making sense of what is happening, setting clear intent, acting with empathy, engaging others and learning continuously. Rod’s central message was that resilience cannot be achieved through crisis communication alone. Systems and plans matter, but lasting resilience requires organisations to build the human capability, culture and preparedness to respond effectively when crisis strikes.
Rod also gives us an answer to the perennial question of why doesn’t comms have a seat at the top table? It’s time to break down the boardroom door and take a seat at the that very table with a chair we have brought ourselves. Today’s complex and challenging risk environment means no organisation can function without the insights the comms function can bring.
“Culture is reputation architecture” according to Craig Badings of SenateSHJ
Next up was Craig Badings from SenateSHJ. Craig’s presentation complemented Rod’s very well, putting the emphasis much more on influence, reputation and the commercial value of preparedness.
Craig challenged communicators to rethink their role: control over the message is a myth; the real opportunity lies in influencing the decisions that shape reputation. He argued that reputation is driven fundamentally by the behaviour and actions of executives, meaning communications professionals need to be influencing those decisions before a crisis occurs, rather than being brought in afterwards to manage the fallout.
…control over the message is a myth; the real opportunity lies in influencing the decisions that shape reputation.
Drawing on research from his Crisis Index 300, Craig illustrated the potential financial consequences of getting crisis preparedness wrong. Across hundreds of companies, the average crisis was associated with a one-third fall in share price and an almost two-thirds decline in earnings per share, with a significant proportion of companies failing to recover their pre-crisis share price. His message was clear: preparedness is an issue of enterprise value, not simply communications.
Craig introduced the idea of a ‘Reputation Resilience Ecosystem’, in which stakeholder intelligence is used to influence decisions, identify emerging issues and act early. For him, reputation must be embedded in leadership, culture, systems and accountability. His closing challenge was that, if reputation represents such a significant proportion of organisational value, communicators need to gain agency over it – or risk throwing value away. For me his key quote was: “Culture is reputation architecture.”
Continuity, recovery and restoration with Aaron Marks, Grey Zone thinker
Then came Aaron Marks, a leading thinker on the ‘Grey Zone’. Aaron’s central idea was that organisations often confuse recovery with restoration, while overlooking the need to deliberately maintain relationships and trust throughout the entire crisis lifecycle. For me, this is indeed an over-looked part of crisis communication and crisis management. Is getting back to ‘normal’ after a crisis a good idea if ‘normal’ caused the crisis in the first place?
Aaron challenged the conventional approach to crisis recovery, arguing that organisations too often declare a crisis ‘over’ when they have simply stabilised the situation. Drawing on his experience in consequence management and his background in emergency healthcare, he distinguished between continuity, recovery and restoration. Continuity means keeping the organisation functioning during disruption (or as Aaron said: “Keeping the lights on when bad things happen”); recovery is ending the immediate crisis and returning to a workable state; restoration goes further, addressing the vulnerabilities that caused the crisis and building back stronger.
…recovery is ending the immediate crisis and returning to a workable state; restoration goes further, addressing the vulnerabilities that caused the crisis and building back stronger.
Aaron’s key warning was that organisations can successfully navigate all three stages and still be “bleeding trust” if they fail to actively manage relationships. He argued that relationship continuity should run throughout the entire crisis lifecycle, alongside continuity, recovery and restoration, rather than being treated as a final step. Customers, partners, employees and regulators will not necessarily give an organisation “grace” simply because it is experiencing a crisis.
His practical challenge to communicators was to give relationship continuity its own owner, measures and checkpoints, focusing on stakeholder behaviour rather than sentiment. His closing message was powerful: stabilisation brings relief; true restoration means fixing the problems that created the crisis in the first place. So, we have accountability for crisis management (hopefully!), but we now also need accountability and responsibility for restoration.
“Preparedness is not prediction” according to Mary-Ann Anyikam of HP
Then followed a presentation from Mary-Ann Anyikam, Head of Global Resilience at HP that I can barely capture in words! You will have to watch the YouTube video on the CIPR’s channel (INSERT LINK) to experience a delivery that I can only describe as mesmerising.
Mary-Ann added another important dimension to the discussion, shifting the focus from simply surviving disruption to building the confidence and capability to act through uncertainty. She offered us another wonderful quote: “Preparedness is not prediction.”
Mary-Ann challenged the traditional defensive view of resilience, arguing that it should not simply protect organisations from what might go wrong, but also give them the strength and confidence to consider and pursue what might go right. Drawing on her experience leading enterprise resilience at HP across more than 170 countries, she argued that resilience is fundamentally about decision readiness, rather than prediction or control. Organisations cannot predict every disruption, but they can build the capacity to recognise change, bring the right perspectives together and make decisions with incomplete information.
She highlighted HP’s tiered crisis management structure, which enables decisions to be made as close to an issue as appropriate, while providing mechanisms for escalation. Crucially, teams bring together different functions – including communications, legal, finance and business leaders – because disruptions rarely affect just one part of an organisation.
Mary-Ann also stressed the importance of governance and scenario exercises in challenging assumptions before a crisis occurs. A good exercise should expose weaknesses, unclear authority or dependencies, rather than simply prove that a plan works.
A good [scenario] exercise should expose weaknesses, unclear authority or dependencies, rather than simply prove that a plan works.
Her central message was that mature resilience means holding competing priorities in balance, making deliberate choices despite uncertainty, and creating an organisation that has options when circumstances change. Ultimately, resilience should provide not just protection, but the confidence to pursue opportunity. It is a familiar theme to the Network, fundamental to Rod’s approach and one always worth repeating: that a crisis is an inflection point and presents opportunity as much as threat.
Professor Lee Edwards of the LSE reminds us of the wider societal context of crisis response
Professor Lee Edwards was due to bring the presentations to a close but was unable to do so due to the loss of her voice. Fortunately (well we are crisis communicators!), she had her remarks drafted well in advance, so I was able to deliver a summary of them.
At the Network we have always sought to bring the world of academia and practice on crisis communications together so it we were excited to have Professor Edwards from the LSE on board for this event.
For those of you that have studied crisis communications you may have come across academics such as Coombs, Benoit and Fearn-Banks. These academics would be asking questions such as “how does crisis communications best protect the organisation and help develop resilience?”. Professor Edwards brings a more critical perspective to the discussion, asking not simply how organisations can become resilient, but whose resilience they are trying to protect and whether stakeholders have agency in the process.
Building on the themes of agency and balance from Rod’s report, Professor Edwards argued that organisations cannot control the geopolitical, economic, climate or technological forces around them, but they can influence how people experience those forces and how effectively they respond.
She argued that resilience is not simply a property of organisational systems, but a relationship between organisations and the people affected by their decisions. Staff, customers and communities can emerge from a crisis unheard, depleted or harmed, even when the organisation itself remains operationally intact. This creates a critical challenge for communicators: engagement, empathy and consultation must mean more than managing reputational risk; they must be reflected in organisational behaviour, governance and accountability.
Communicators, as “boundary spanners” between organisations and society, have a vital role in ensuring organisations listen, understand and act.
She highlighted the paradoxes organisations face – protecting continuity while recognising harm, acting quickly while understanding complexity, and exercising agency without taking away the agency of others. Her examples of cyber and geo-economic risks illustrated how the same disruption can have profoundly different consequences for organisations and stakeholders.
Her central message was that relationships are fundamental to resilience. Communicators, as “boundary spanners” between organisations and society, have a vital role in ensuring organisations listen, understand and act. When organisations look outward and genuinely engage with stakeholders, they can better understand what matters to others – and, ultimately, what matters to themselves.
We finished the session concluding that our experiment with a two-hour symposium format worked well. The feedback on all channels has been exceptional and a session NPS of 69 is more than decent. We would like to thank our wonderful panel for their insights, expertise, experience and erudition. Here’s to next year.
Author: Chris Tucker, Co-Chair, CIPR Crisis Communications Network
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.