When companies decide to say nothing
The USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations‘ 2026 Global Communication Report is the most useful data I’ve read this year on when organisations speak out and when they don’t.
The latest USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations’ 2026 Global Communication Report is called A Quiet Shift. The title tells the story.
In 2023, nine in ten public relations practitioners surveyed by USC said companies have a responsibility to advocate for social issues that are not directly relevant to the business. This year, the figure is 55%.
You can trace this retrenchment from the death of George Floyd in 2020 through to President Trump’s return to the White House. Communications teams built infrastructure to decide when to take a stance. We worked with NewsWhip to understand this management process in 2024. That infrastructure now exists to justify silence.
Corporate purpose has been silenced
The USC Annenberg team commissioned Cometrics to analyse C-suite social media posts before and after the November 2024 US election: LGBTQ+ content is down 77%. Apprenticeship programmes down 52%. Net zero down 44%. Greenhouse gases down 50%. AI and agents are up 75%. Cyber security up 29%.
The volume of communication hasn’t changed, but the content certainly has.
Meltwater‘s analysis of coverage of Fortune 50 companies tells the same story over a longer window.
AI coverage up 98%. Net zero down 53%. Renewable energy down 25%. LGBTQ+ down 70%. The exception is diversity and equality, where coverage is up 32% because the framing has shifted to backlash, rollback and litigation.
This is a complete reversal of corporate positioning in three years.
The function is more central even as it becomes less stable
Three findings sit at the centre of the report.
The importance of the communications function rises with the societal temperature. This is consistent with my own research and with what I see in advisory work. Risk creates demand for professional advisory support.
The offence-defence split is now visible in the data. 46% say a good defence is the best offence. 38% say the reverse. Agencies skew offensive. In-house teams carry the risk and choose caution.
The third finding is perhaps the most uncomfortable. Two-thirds of in-house respondents expect their communications function to be restructured in the near future. The function is more central than ever, but also unstable.
The report is US-centric and too comfortable with silence
I have two pieces of pushback on the report.
It’s not a global report. 82% of respondents work for organisations operating in the US, where the polarisation drivers the report identifies are instantly recognisable.
But the UK is in a different political situation. So is most of Europe. The retreat from purpose has played out here too, but more quietly.
The framing of silence as a strategy is the bigger problem. 41% of respondents agree that silence can be the best communication strategy. The figure rises to 52% in-house.
The report quotes a CCO approvingly: “Some of the wisest counsel anyone can offer a CEO is to say nothing.” I’ve offered that advice myself. It is sometimes right. It is also a convenient way to dodge an issue when you’re being asked to do something hard.
Further reading
This essay was originally posted on my Substack. The Wadds Inc. newsletter is read by more than 5,000 communications and public relations practitioners. We take a slower, critical perspective on the research, evidence and developments shaping the field.
