Category 'Trust'

7 Results Showing

Trust in crisis in Australia

Business and Populism, Insights, Media, Trust
2017 Edelman Trust Barometer Logo_Web_RGB-01

Australia is on the Trust precipice. Fear is driving populism and protectionism. Leadership is in crisis. Communities only listen to those who agree with them. Some politicians are advocating for closing borders and rejecting globalization. Could this signal the start of an era of Australian insularity?

As a nation, Australia prides itself on a healthy skepticism of authority, a dynamic that reflects tumultuous political play in recent years with five different leaders so far this decade.

However, despite this the disconnect between our own informed publics and the general population is stark and growing. Current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is a classic example of the success and trappings of this elite – a multi-millionaire who has risen to the most powerful seat in the country.  2016 has been marked in Australia by accusations that politicians are misusing taxpayer funds and a litany of corporate greed cases.  The responses are widely seen as mishandled by slow government response, bureaucratic commissions or inquiries with few meaningful resolutions for the voting public.

The system is broken

Set against the backdrop of recent international populist results, including Brexit and Trump, the overwhelming global sense that the system is failing is reflected in the Australian Trust findings.

When looking at the results for the general population, trust in government dropped 8 points to 37% from 45% in 2016, 10 points in the case of media (from 42% to 32%), 5 points to 52% for NGOs and 4 points to 48% for business in general.

Trust levels in Australia have also dropped among the informed public (top 25% income, university educated, actively engaged with news) and the rest of the population – a group we call the mass population – but a significant gap also remains between the two.  Although the informed public is more trusting than the rest of the population, they are becoming increasingly less trusting themselves.

Australia’s results, however, are far from anomalous. The level of trust amongst the general population globally in four key institutions – NGOs, Business, Media and Government – is at the lowest recorded level since we started collecting general population data in 2012.  The disconnect between the actions and decisions of these institutions and those affected by them is widening. Not only has trust dropped, but those surveyed have expressed a desire for greater scrutiny, regulation and taxation of business.

Fear feeds populism

Results show that of the five fears driving the embrace of populism – corruption, eroding social values, globalisation, immigration and concern over the pace of change – Australians have identified eroding social values, immigration and globalisation as key drivers for their lack of trust.

It’s no surprise that these fears have been embraced as key platforms by conservative party One Nation.  The Party, led by Senator Pauline Hanson, is becoming an increasingly visible and popular force for the disenfranchised and discontented, attracted by the Party’s commitment to anti-globalization, anti-immigration and protectionist policies.

There is a direct correlation between fear and the belief that the system is broken.  Businesses are also to blame for stoking these societal fears, simply because they appear oblivious to the context.  Automation may mean innovation to business, but to the public, it can translate to job losses and communities in decline, which exacerbates the disconnect.

News imitates fact; our echo chambers are alive and well

But a real standout this year was Australians’ loss of trust in media. Among informed publics (from a 54% trust level last year), media now sits at 40%, a whopping 14-point decline.  Among the general population, trust in media at 32% is among the lowest levels globally, 11 points below the global average of 43% and a 10 point drop from 2016.

The erosion of trust in media has been accelerated by two significant changes this year.  First is the ongoing consolidation of media in Australia, a landscape dominated by a few players (Australian media ownership, and print media in particular, is among the most concentrated in the world).  Relaxation of cross-media ownership and ongoing staffing cuts has reduced diversity in perspective, and fact checking is at the expense of speed to market.

The second is the universal proliferation of fake news on social media, compounded by the fact that many believe that results from search engines are more credible than information collated by editors or journalists….it seems algorithms are perceived to be more reliable than humans when it comes to delivering the truth.

Add to this the impact of self-referential and ‘friend-endorsed’ facts on our social media channels and we find ourselves in a perfectly formed reflective bubble where we place greater value on information from influencers (people like me) than institutions (technical experts and academics).

Leadership in crisis

Australians’ trust in business leadership, including the “c-suite”, company directors and boards, is in dramatic decline.  The credibility of CEOs as spokespeople dropped significantly, reaching a lowly 26% in 2017 (compared to 39% last year) in the case of the general population, and nine point drop to 36% in the case of the informed public.

So how do we lead from here?

When looking at the global results employees are considered the most credible spokespeople on every topic – this is the first time we have seen this result.  We are looking for spontaneous, ‘human’ spokespeople and have a thirst for information from ‘people like me’.  Business has an opportunity to embrace and empower employees to create a stronger and more authentic alignment between their brand and their corporate narrative.

Business now has a clear opportunity to rebuild trust by recognizing the need to do things differently.  We must forget the neat separation of communication and executive function.  We need a holistic approach that puts people at the center of engagement, not just as one more audience to reach.  Rebuilding trust will be driven by how authentically and effectively all institutions engage with the general population, not just the ‘target audiences’ they define as relevant to them.

Why you should be fashionably late when spending money on 'trends'

Consumer Trends & Insight, Culture, General, Innovation, Insights, Media, News, Richard Edelman, Technology, Trust
IMG_0484[1]

February, finally. Is it safe to assume you’ve read up on your fair share of 2017 trends and know what ‘25 Things your Marketing Strategy Needs in 2017’? Good, it’s time to focus on three things of actual importance. As my colleague, Steve Rubel – chief content strategist for Edelman, points out here, there are three major inversions taking place as we speak, that all marketers and communications professionals need to be aware of (or probably already know and need to take seriously). Over the next few hundred words, I’ll attempt to add a useful, local filter on influence, attention and distribution.

February, finally. Is it safe to assume you’ve read up on your fair share of 2017 trends and know what ‘25 Things your Marketing Strategy Needs in 2017’? Good, it’s time to focus on three things of actual importance. As my colleague, Steve Rubel – chief content strategist for Edelman, points out here, there are three major inversions taking place as we speak, that all marketers and communications professionals need to be aware of (or probably already know and need to take seriously). Over the next few hundred words, I’ll attempt to add a useful, local filter on influence, attention and distribution.

 

On Influence

I probably heard the word influence more times last year than I have in my entire life, albeit mostly in the context of how much ‘influence’ some influencer had. Influence, as defined by Google is, “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself”. This definition is important to keep in mind as you develop plans and / or briefs to influence your consumers in 2017. Most important to note is that influence no longer simply comes from above, but predominantly through our peers. Although this is something that most of us haven’t questioned, we’ve never understood the value or impact of peer-to-peer communications in the same way we do now.

For the purpose of keeping this article under 700 pages, I’ll spare you my entire POV on influence and focus specifically on why it’s important for influencer marketing.

  • Own your program: So, you have a list of ‘influencers’, they all have big followings, and you want to do something with them. Stop. Wrong way. Go back. This happened and failed way too many times in 2016. This year, please start with the end in mind. Think about what you’re trying to achieve, what your consumers want, what they’re talking about and with who, understand the forces (today and tomorrow) that are impacting them and your brand and design a program accordingly. Then and only then should you consider casting it with the right people. Most importantly, make it measurable – maybe even throw in an old-school feedback loop. For more information, feel free to email me: linton@edelman.com.
  • Understand the rise of micro-influencers: and know that ‘peer-to-peer’ influence is not a justification to pay a fitness blogger with 1 million followers on Instagram your entire campaign budget to post an image you have no say over. Micro-influencers are classified as social personalities with 1,000 to approx. 10,000 (100,000 in the US) followers and more often than not, have deeper engagement and therefore actual influence over their communities than ‘mass influencers’ do. Their audiences generally act with more passion as they feel a greater sense of relatability and connection to the influencer.
  • Don’t forget that ‘influencers’ are practically their own people: with their own thoughts, opinions, pens and cameras. Don’t simply think of influencers as amplifiers of your brand’s message, but don’t go letting their ‘brand’ outshine yours. Respect their creative process and relinquish some control, align on outcomes and go forth and partner with them, you may even influence someone along the way.

Finally, I’ve listened to and read quite a few interesting perspectives on influence and influencer marketing, but none more so than this Digiday Podcast where Brian Morrissey talks with Digiday managing editor, Shareen Pathak and senior reporter, Sahil Patel on the ‘influencer bubble’ and the prediction that it just might burst this year. That’s not to say there isn’t a place for brands to work with independent third parties that genuinely impact the decisions their consumers make, just that in 2017, some things need to change. Give it a listen.

 

On Attention

Today, consumers are paying more attention to their limited attention and don’t just want to give it up to any ol’ brand, for any ol’ reason. Here are some things to think about if you want my attention:

  • We’re over gimmicks: Whether you’re a Pokemon GO fan or not, you can’t deny that in 2016, augmented reality was brought to the masses. In the same way, there were also great developments in VR, livestreaming and other immersive technology that made ‘shiny new gadgets’ more accessible than ever. I could sit here and throw out a load of stats and info about video consumption and all the coolest tech that we can expect, but what’s more important is what that means for consumers – access. Not only do they have access to great content that is being produced by all the biggest and best brands, but they have access to the equipment to make content (almost as good, if not better) themselves. And it’s this access in 2017 that means you need to start to think more practically about the application of new tech and the opportunity it offers to connect and interact with your consumers in new and useful ways. Think purpose and story first and make them some content they just can’t refuse; that either adds value to their lives or at the very least, their newsfeeds.
  • A good story isn’t told by robots and algorithms: Last year, there seemed to be a growing focus – almost obsession – with using the latest tech and tools rather than achieving business or marketing objectives. This year, it’s important to be careful not to focus too much on the tools, and think story / purpose / objective first. A bot might be an important component to a campaign, but it shouldn’t dictate it. We’re communications professionals, professional tellers of great stories, let’s not forget that every time some new technology is released or Facebook and Google get creative with math.
  • Respect access to their attention. They expect you to: Consider that your consumers expect brands to respect their attention, so don’t get too caught up in playing with tech for tech’s sake. It’s not so much that attention spans are getting shorter, but consumers are getting less forgiving of brands or waste their time and exploit their attention. Don’t be that brand.

 

On Distribution

Like anything, content doesn’t exist in a build-it-and-they-will-come type scenario. Almost more important than the story you must tell is how and where it’s found; and with the collision of technology and media, we see greater importance and power in the hands of platforms. Here’s what’s important to know when thinking about distribution:

  • Even the media is on social: Trust in media is at an all-time low, as it struggles to create the agenda. Here, Richard Edelman sums up the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer findings and impact well:

“the media, the vaunted Fourth Estate in global governance, plunged in trust this year, distrusted in more than 80 percent of the countries we survey, to a level near government. Media is now seen to be politicized, unable to meet its reporting obligations due to economic pressures, and following social media rather than creating the agenda. Donald Trump circumvents mainstream media with his Twitter account, in this way seeming more genuine, approachable and responsive. Technology has allowed the creation of media echo chambers, so that a person can reinforce, rather than debate, viewpoints. In fact, 59 percent of respondents would believe a search engine over a human editor. It is a world of self-reference, as respondents are nearly four times more likely to ignore information that supports a position that they do not believe in.”

  • Community matters: What’s important to note about the above is that as trust in media declines, trust in community and actual ‘people like me’ continues to rise. And as marketers, it’s important to consider your consumers and their community in every interaction. Remember that social networks are open to institutions of all shapes and sizes but fundamentally exist to connect people. For this reason, when thinking about distribution, it’s critical to consider how your community may respond to any brand communication and whether there is (or should be) an opportunity for them to interact (or react).
  • Distribution is not amplification, it’s about planning: As easy as it can be, it’s important not to treat distribution as an afterthought, but start to consider it at the very outset of campaign planning. Thinking about distribution from the very beginning is critical for delivering good and effective ideas. Note: this is not a trend, it’s best practice.

If you only remember three things in 2017, remember these:

  • Want to create good content that is both entertaining and useful? Think a little differently and make use of the tech available to you – but don’t let the tech lead your story, it should play the supporting role – your consumers expect it if you want their attention.
  • Got a good story? Think about how and where your audience will hear it – and who they’ll hear it from. They trust their peers (and maybe even your staff) more than they trust the media, so think people and channel when thinking through distribution.
  • People are no longer influenced from above. So consider micro-influencers and don’t get caught up in the mass-influencer bubble.

Finally, I’ve been writing this article for longer than I really should’ve been. Every time I read an article or listened to a podcast that mentioned marketing and / or media, I’d change my mind or tweak my point of view on something. In 2017 (and every year) I encourage you to do the same. This is the year of greater access to tech, greater strength in community and the greatest decline of trust in media. Brands, marketers, agency people, anyone who reads this, this year, be curious and keep an open mind, but always keep your eyes on the prize.

An Implosion of Trust

Business and Populism, Insights, Richard Edelman, Trust
An-Implosion-of-Trust

It has been a year of unimaginable upheaval. The incumbent party or elected head of state in five of the top 10 global economies (Brazil, Italy, South Korea, U.K., U.S.) has been deposed or defeated. Populist candidates are leading or growing in strength in upcoming elections in France and Germany. The U.K. voted to exit the European Union. There have been violent terrorist acts in Belgium, France, Germany, and the U.S., plus the never-ending tragedy in Syria. Bribery has been exposed at some of Brazil’s leading companies, with CEOs sent to jail. An American unicorn health diagnostics start-up with a sterling board of directors and huge private financing was found to have falsified its clinical trials. The release of the Panama Papers proved tax evasion on a global scale by business moguls and superstar athletes alike. The mainstream media lost audience as its advertising melted away and it confronted the spectre of fake news.

It has been a year of unimaginable upheaval. The incumbent party or elected head of state in five of the top 10 global economies (Brazil, Italy, South Korea, U.K., U.S.) has been deposed or defeated. Populist candidates are leading or growing in strength in upcoming elections in France and Germany. The U.K. voted to exit the European Union. There have been violent terrorist acts in Belgium, France, Germany, and the U.S., plus the never-ending tragedy in Syria. Bribery has been exposed at some of Brazil’s leading companies, with CEOs sent to jail. An American unicorn health diagnostics start-up with a sterling board of directors and huge private financing was found to have falsified its clinical trials. The release of the Panama Papers proved tax evasion on a global scale by business moguls and superstar athletes alike. The mainstream media lost audience as its advertising melted away and it confronted the spectre of fake news.

The 2017 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER finds that two-thirds of the countries we survey are now “distrusters” (under 50 percent trust in the mainstream institutions of business, government, media and NGOs to do what is right), up from just over half in 2016. This is a profound crisis in trust that has its origins in the Great Recession of 2008. The aftershocks from the stunning meltdown of the global economy are still being felt today, with consequences yet unknown.

Like the second and third waves of a tsunami, ongoing globalization and technological change are now further weakening people’s trust in global institutions, which they believe have failed to protect them from the negative effects of these forces. The celebrated benefits of free trade — affordable products for mass consumption and the raising of a billion people out of poverty — have suddenly been supplanted by concerns about the outsourcing of jobs to lower-cost markets. The impact of automation is being felt, especially in lower-skilled jobs, as driverless trucks and retail stores without cashiers become reality.

We have moved beyond the point of trust being simply a key factor in product purchase or selection of employment opportunity; it is now the deciding factor in whether a society can function. As trust in institutions erodes, the basic assumptions of fairness, shared values and equal opportunity traditionally upheld by “the system” are no longer taken for granted. We observe deep disillusion on both the left and the right, who share opposition to globalization, innovation, deregulation, and multinational institutions. There is growing despair about the future, a lack of confidence in the possibility of a better life for one’s family. The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer finds that only 15 percent of the general population believe the present system is working, while 53 percent do not and 32 percent are uncertain.

The lack of societal and institutional safeguards provides fertile ground for populist movements fueled by fear. Corruption and globalization are the top two issues for the general population, with two-thirds of the public concerned and nearly a third deeply worried about these economic factors. But there also is a deep unease about issues related to personal safety or family life, including erosion of social values, immigration and rapid pace of change. Countries that combine a lack of faith in the system with deep societal fears, such as France, Italy, South Africa, the United States, and Mexico, are electing or moving towards populist candidates.

These macro trends are causing destabilizing aftershocks, with important negative consequences for trust:

First, the trust collapse has moved beyond a simple “class vs. mass” problem to a systemic threat. More than three-quarters of respondents among both informed and general populations agree that the system is biased against regular people and favors the rich and powerful. Although we have reached unprecedented trust gaps between the informed public and the mass population averaging nearly 20 points in the U.S., U.K. and France (and gaps of 10 or more points in strong economies such as India and China), the waves of anger are now lapping at even the top rungs. Close to half of the “informed public” — adults 25-64 with a college education, in the top 25 percent of income, and consume large amounts of media — have lost faith in the system.

Second, there is a lack of belief in leaders, who damage the stature of their institutions. We now observe a huge divide between the modest trust in institutions of business and government and a pitifully low level of confidence in their leaders. Over two-thirds of the general population do not have confidence that current leaders can address their country’s challenges. The credibility of CEOs fell by 12 points this year to 37 percent globally; in Japan, it is 18 percent. Government officials and regulators are the least credible spokespeople, at 29 percent credibility. “A person like yourself” is now as credible as an academic or technical expert, and far more credible than a CEO or government official, implying that the primary axis of communications is now horizontal or peer-to-peer, evidence of dispersion of authority to friends and family.

Third, we’ve registered the demise of government as an effective force in leading change. From an exalted position as savior in the wake of the financial crisis, government is viewed today as incompetent, corrupt and divided, the least trusted global institution at 41 percent. The drop in government trust began five years ago in developed markets, with the inability of the European Union to fashion a compromise on loans to Greece and Portugal, plus the budget impasse in Washington, D.C. In developing markets such as Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, trust in government collapsed in the past four years in the wake of scandals; in Brazil, it slid from 36 percent in 2013 to 24 percent in 2017. Trust in government is now as much as 43 points below that of business in developing markets; in developed markets, it’s 25 points lower.

Fourth, the media, the vaunted Fourth Estate in global governance, plunged in trust this year, distrusted in more than 80 percent of the countries we survey, to a level near government. Media is now seen to be politicized, unable to meet its reporting obligations due to economic pressures, and following social media rather than creating the agenda. Donald Trump circumvents mainstream media with his Twitter account, in this way seeming more genuine, approachable and responsive. Technology has allowed the creation of media echo chambers, so that a person can reinforce, rather than debate, viewpoints. In fact, 59 percent of respondents would believe a search engine over a human editor. It is a world of self-reference, as respondents are nearly four times more likely to ignore information that supports a position that they do not believe in.

Business has much to fear in the present context. Nearly one in two of the general population agree that free trade agreements hurt a country’s workers, while 72 percent favor government protection of jobs and local industries, even if it means a slower-growth economy. Populist-fueled government could implement harsh regulation of specific industries such as manufacturing and technology, and a ban on immigration, even of skilled workers. There could be industrial policy aimed at supporting strategic sectors, from tariffs on imported products to negotiations aimed at preventing outsourcing of jobs. It would be the greatest folly for CEOs to press populist leaders for less regulation— particularly in the environmental arena. Fifty-two percent of the general population say a company’s effort to protect and improve the environment is important for building their trust.

We are in treacherous seas, without the firm moorings of a reliable government able to set easily understandable guideposts. We have lost the objectivity and shared experience of media as a watchdog on institutions. Non-governmental organizations are focused on issues of the most vulnerable but are ineffective advocates for the dispossessed middle class. Business needs to play the role of the solid retaining wall that stops the uncontrollable storm surge, to fill the void left by the other three institutions in global governance.

Institutions must move beyond their traditional roles of business as actor and innovator; governments as referee and regulator; media as watchdog; and NGOs as social conscience. The new president of the United States is inserting himself directly into business decision-making, recently strong-arming an automaker to keep its manufacturing jobs in the country. Business must get out in front and become an effective advocate on policy, moving away from lobbying toward direct public discourse that provides context on trade, immigration and innovation, outlining both benefits and disadvantages. Company-owned social media channels should supplement mainstream media to educate and to encourage dialogue. Business should provide citizens with platforms that invite them to help shape policy —  giving them a positive outlet for their views and fears.

The growing storm of distrust is powerful and unpredictable. Trust in institutions has evaporated to such an extent that falsehood can be misconstrued as fact, strength as intelligence, and self-interest as social compact. This has been a slow-motion meltdown, an angry delayed recognition of permanent decline in economic and social status by those who have not kept pace with globalization and dramatic technological change. If faith in the system continues to fall, rising populist movements could wreak unimaginable havoc, with resurgent nationalism and divisive rhetoric moving to dangerous policies. The onus is now on business, the one institution that retains some trust with those skeptical about the system, to prove that it is possible to act in the interest of shareholders and society alike. Free markets can succeed for all if business works with the people, not just sells to them.

Richard Edelman is president and CEO.

What It Will Really Take To Rebuild Our Trust in CEOs. Take a stand.

Australian Business, Insights, Reputation, Trust
CEO Trust Web Image

This year’s Trust Barometer, our firm’s annual survey, sheds surprising light on how CEOs are perceived as change agents, and suggests that a new model of CEO leadership is emerging – provided CEOs take specific actions. While most CEOs believe that their duty is to centre their communications on the operational and financial aspects of a company, today 78 percent of Australians say that a CEO should be personally visible in discussing societal issues and 74 percent expressed the importance of CEOs communicating about the future of their industry.

This year’s Trust Barometer, our firm’s annual survey, sheds surprising light on how CEOs are perceived as change agents, and suggests that a new model of CEO leadership is emerging – provided CEOs take specific actions.

The Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that the Australian general population trusts business as an institution more than it trusts its leaders.  A majority of survey respondents view business as the institution most capable of keeping pace with the changing demands of the global economy (compared to government, NGOs and media), yet almost two thirds of the people surveyed in Australia (39 percent) do not trust CEOs to do what is right.

This trust gap is partially explained by a misalignment between what CEOs have traditionally needed to focus on – near-term gains – and what people now expect them to care about and act on, which is long-term solutions. For instance, in Australia, most say that CEOs focus too much on short-term financial results (72 percent) and lobbying (49 percent), and not enough on job creation (60 percent) or positive long-term impact (60 percent).

Further, there is a sense that CEOs are unrelatable (64 percent agree), perhaps fuelled in part because they are seen as being paid too much in relation to everyone else (67 percent agree) and because people are looking for leaders to share more openly about their personal values (79 percent).

But there’s a deeper change in play. While most CEOs believe that their duty is to centre their communications on the operational and financial aspects of a company, today 78 percent of Australian say that a CEO should be personally visible in discussing societal issues and 74 percent expressed the importance of CEOs communicating about the future of their industry.

With expectations for business higher than trust in CEOs, there’s a clear need for more engaged and purpose-driven leadership to bridge this critical trust gap.

 

A New Leadership Model: The Engaged CEO

To understand the shifting expectation of business and its leaders, it’s helpful to trace how the public persona of the CEO has changed over the past few decades.

Back in the 1980s and ‘90s, business leaders could engender attention both for their thriving businesses and their status as pop culture icons. And while the current popularity of Donald Trump in the United States might suggest otherwise, the era of the celebrity CEO essentially ended with the recession of 2008-2009.

Faced with growing government regulation and activist investors, CEOs went underground and turned “invisible.” Instead of being present at public-facing activities or weighing in on the issues of the day, chief executives put their heads down and turned inward, focusing solely on increasing revenues and decreasing costs.

It’s not surprising, then, that today 39 percent of Australian Trust Barometer respondents said that they cannot name any CEOs.

The time has come for the invisibility cloak to come off because expectations of business and its leaders are changing. People now expect CEOs to re-balance their attention to near-term gains with action on long-term solutions.

The call for CEOs today to be not just present on the business side, but also to be visible, real and human on the public side is driving the need for what we call Engaged Leadership.

How can a CEO heed the call?

Meeting Great Expectations

If you are a CEO, shareholders may evaluate you based on your balance sheet. But a broader range of stakeholders shape their opinions and decide whether they trust you through four lenses: your actions; your perceived values; how you treat employees (and what they say about you); and how you engage with the community. People told us that the most important attributes to build trust are around “leading integrity” and there are several ways to communicate integrity to key audiences:

Be visible. Your stakeholders fully expect to hear from you frequently and openly about your dual mandate of earning profits and providing societal benefits. Speak beyond spreadsheets and address industry trends and social purpose. According to Australian respondents, 74 percent expressed the importance of CEOs being personally visible in communicating about the future of an industry.

Take a stand. Be purpose-driven and have a point of view on how your company and industry contributes to society in positive ways. Eight in ten Aussies (78 percent) feel CEOs should be personally visible in addressing societal issues like income inequality.

Tell your story. Be open and share your story in a way that is personal, honest and relatable. According to Australian respondents, the following types of information are important to building trust in a CEO: personal values (77 percent); obstacles overcome (63 percent); personal success story (60 percent); education and how it shaped you (53 percent).

Put employees first. Engage employees directly and frequently. Let them serve as your ambassadors and advocates to help tell and humanize the company’s story. Eighty-one percent of Australian respondents agree that employees are a CEO’s most important audience, even more so than investors and analysts.

Make yourself accessible. Express your values and purpose through direct engagement with stakeholders. Fifty-six percent of Australian respondents expressed the importance of placing the customer ahead of profits, and with an increasing number of communications channels there is a wide variety of ways to engage.

The survey does reveal a direct link between CEO awareness and CEO trust. There was a staggering 24 point rise in trust in CEOs when Australian respondents could name CEOs (63 percent of those who could name two or more CEOs said they trusted CEOs). So if they know you, they are more likely to trust you. 

A Meaningful Opportunity

Recently, several global CEOs have stepped forward on a range of important industry and social issues. Mark Zuckerberg (the only CEO who achieved double-digit recall globally in the Trust Barometer) consistently shares a mix of content and commentary across personal, company and industry interests.

These global CEOs know that finding the right balance between attention to financial progress and advancing the societal good truly matters because it has a real impact on business. The Barometer shows that 42 percent of Australians attribute a business’ contribution to the greater good as the reason that their trust in business has grown. Conversely, of those respondents whose trust in business decreased, half cited a business’s failure to contribute to the greater good as the main driver.

CEOs have an incredible opportunity to build and strengthen relationships by carrying themselves and communicating in a way that is transparent and open. As the data indicates, business leadership as usual won’t cut it in today’s world. The remit is now broader, not unlike what citizens expect of a presidential candidate or other major government leader.

But change does not begin and end with the CEO. As Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, noted, “As CEO, I see my role ultimately to be chief curator of culture. Without the right culture, transformation is impossible.” But only an Engaged Leader can create a culture of integrity, setting the right tone through their actions, values, purpose, and employee advocacy.

View the global findings of our Trust Barometer CEO Supplement here: Trust and the CEO

Please update your browser.

This website requires Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Internet Explorer 9+