When this happens, Russian businesses usually make the same strategic mistake: PR and marketing budgets are the first to be cut. Decision-makers sometimes think that in a storm, they need to save "hardware" and logistics, and issues of reputation, trust, and public presence can wait. However, in 2026, such a strategy is a path to disaster.
Reputation is the "glue" that prevents a business from falling apart in conditions of uncertainty
Today, geopolitical uncertainty has reached record levels in recent decades. Businesses are forced to communicate in an environment of "permanent crisis," where any action or inaction leads to a reputational crisis — which, in turn, increases damage to the business. This results in a chain: "reputational crisis -> business damage -> another reputational crisis."
At our agency, we often have to convince clients that in such a configuration, communications do not become strategic — they have long been so. The only question is whether the company uses this tool systematically or limits itself to situational support.
If you manage a business, ask yourself a few questions:
● Do I have a communication strategy? How do my clients even find out about my company — and how can I influence that?
● Do I know what people think about my brand (or me personally — if you are developing a personal brand) today — and what they should think in a year? What am I doing to make that happen?
● If a reputational crisis happens tomorrow, what will I do within my authority? Will I be able to assemble a working group, approve an official position, and develop a response plan? Or at least find the phone number of professionals I can call in such a situation?
If the answer to two or more of these is "No," you need to seriously address your communication strategy. Because when the external environment becomes hostile (which, unfortunately, has happened too often in the Russian market in recent years), it is the accumulated "trust capital" that allows you to retain clients, partners, and, most importantly, employees. If a company remains silent when something bad is happening around it, the vacuum is filled with rumors and panic. Reputation is a measurable asset that determines stakeholders' willingness to give a business "the right to make mistakes."
Expert data confirms my thesis: according to the global Edelman Trust Barometer report, amidst a general crisis of institutions, business remains the only pillar of stability, trusted by 62% of respondents. At the same time, RepTrak studies directly link reputational scores to business results: a high level of trust is critically important for partners' willingness to invest in a company and defend it in times of crisis.
Classical management models are no longer sufficient
In the conditions of 2025–2026, old management models, based on linear logic and the personal experience of leaders, no longer work. We have moved from an era of stability to an era of cascading crises, where one geopolitical event instantly triggers a chain reaction in cybersecurity and operations. To survive, companies must implement data-driven and predictive analytics approaches. Monitoring systems help teams quickly assemble crisis response strategies and working groups, containing a crisis before it becomes irreversible.
When clients approach us with requests to neutralize reputational negativity, we always ask them for the results of past media monitoring. And we often encounter the answer: "We don't monitor anything; no one writes about our company anyway." Reality too often proves the opposite: they do write, and quite a lot. In many client cases of serious reputational negativity, it could have been avoided by timely tracking information triggers after the first media publications: before they became a scandal.
To avoid such situations, ask yourself:
● Do I know what the media writes about my business — and do they write at all?
● If something bad happens, can I urgently contact journalists and convey the company's official position to the public?
● Do I have competitors willing to spend money on an organized reputational campaign against me?
● And what will I do if such a campaign occurs?
Reputation is the main asset in dialogue with the state and regulators
In 2026, GR (Government Relations) becomes an integral part of reputation management. In conditions of sanctions regimes and a highly legalized media environment, businesses cannot exist in isolation from the state context. Working on reputation during a crisis is not only about working with clients but also about forming the image of a responsible player in the eyes of regulators. Companies with a transparent reputation and clearly built communications have a much greater chance of constructive dialogue with authorities, receiving support, or protecting their interests when legislation changes.
The Economist Impact report shows the scale of the problem: 76% of executives have already faced supply chain disruptions due to political shifts. In response, 71% of companies have accelerated the adoption of AI for risk analysis. Russian practice confirms the effectiveness of this path: the implementation of AI systems at MTS increased contract processing productivity by 1.5 times, and Sberbank saves up to 85 million rubles annually thanks to algorithmic risk monitoring.
But AI is not a panacea: political risks can sometimes be too unpredictable even for neural networks. After all, they are trained on past data and are unable to predict changes in the "rules of the game" themselves.
To understand what this means, we can ask the client a simple question: "Mentally go back 3, 4, 5 years and imagine you were shown today's news summary. Would you believe in its reality?" The answer is almost always: "No." Now imagine how unpredictable the future can be. And GR risks, unfortunately, play a significant role in it: according to the autumn report from Riskonnect (a leading global provider of business risk assessment solutions), political risk is now among the top three corporate threats worldwide: 97% of risk managers report its impact on business.
The era where business was guided solely by economic expediency (price/quality/logistics) is ending. An era of economics where politics is paramount is replacing it.
The battle for reputation moves into the zone of "narrative intelligence" and strategic leadership
Today, the main threat to reputation is not a bad customer review, but coordinated information attacks and disinformation (so-called "narrative attacks"). This refers to situations where competitors or other interested parties deliberately target a business's weak points (or information triggers), forming a negative context through commissioned videos, "seeding" on social networks, and media publications. In these conditions, the role of the Chief Communications Officer (CCO) on the board of directors changes radically. They become a strategic advisor responsible for the security of meanings and protection against such "narrative attacks." Communication departments are involved in discussing deals, entering new markets, transformational projects, and anti-crisis scenarios. This is not so much due to an expansion of their powers as to the need to consider reputational, regulatory, and public factors at the planning stage.
Another risk comes from transnational digital platforms, which today independently regulate the public space. Content moderation policies, algorithmic ranking, and restrictions on advertising tools create an environment that businesses must navigate independently — and often this environment is governed not by local laws, but by the laws of the country where the headquarters are located. This is not about business illusions or "over-insurance": for the second year in a row, the list of global IT risks is topped by deepfake hoaxes based on generative AI. Decisions are made under the pressure of geopolitical factors, platform censorship, and the demands of "new ethics."
The World Economic Forum (WEF) names disinformation and narrative attacks as the number one risk globally for the coming years. Against this backdrop, according to the Weber Shandwick & Gravity report, CEO trust in communication directors has grown in 52% of companies. However, AI remains a "weak link": only 44% of communicators are confident that their leadership can adequately explain AI transformation to stakeholders.
It is important that this picture is seen similarly from all sides of the communication market: both PR specialists and media representatives. Every year, AKOS (Association of Communication Consulting Companies) conducts a media trends study based on a survey of PR specialists and journalists. The 2025 study placed the chaotic nature of media consumption, the crisis of trust and quality, as well as the "legalization" of the controlled media environment, self-censorship, and the routinization of AI in first place. All of this fits well into the framework of the trends I described above and once again confirms: the role of reputational communications is growing.
Conclusion
The instability of recent years proves that communications are not an auxiliary service, but the core of corporate governance. Businesses that continue to perceive PR as an expense item that can be "cut" at any moment risk finding that at a critical moment, they have no tools left to protect and adapt their business to the new reality.
In 2026, reputation management plays the role of a connecting element between a company's strategy and its external environment: partners, regulators, employees, and society. Moreover, this is not only about supporting already made decisions but also about assessing possible reactions and risks before their implementation. The communication function must take its place at the core of corporate governance, ensuring predictability and business sustainability in a complex environment.
Andrey Ermoshkin,
Executive Director of the communication group "R.I.M. – INTERIUM"