Perspective: How Trust And Reputation Were Brokered In Davos

(MENAFN- PRovoke) The week before world leaders and leading figures from business and industry gathered at Davos, the World Economic Forum released its Global Risks Report for 2026, identifying as a key finding that“a contested multipolar landscape is emerging where confrontation is replacing collaboration, and trust – the currency of cooperation – is losing its value.”

It set a sobering precursor for the five-day annual meeting that followed, where discussions on key themes such as artificial intelligence (AI), Africa's trade and investment prospects, climate change and mitigation, and shifting geo-economic dynamics revealed how leaders are navigating and communicating around uncertainty.

What became clear was that these conversations consistently pointed to reputation as a central strategic theme in today's fragmented world. And from a reputation management perspective, WEF showed that influence is built as much through credible narratives and ethical signals as through financial prowess, with communication strategy, once considered peripheral, now central to leadership practices.

One of the clearest reputational fault lines at WEF emerged around artificial intelligence, which sparked both enthusiasm about its economic potential and unease about the challenges it poses. Governments and companies alike are grappling with questions of who sets the rules and how accountability is exercised.

The reputational issue at the centre of these debates was, again, trust. Organisations that position AI primarily as a tool for efficiency or profit risk appearing detached from its broader social implications, while those that foreground responsibility, through transparency and human oversight, are better positioned to build credibility. The distinction is not in the technology itself, but in how it is communicated.

Effective reputation management here demands a proactive communication strategy that clarifies not only what systems do, but also why they exist, who they benefit, and how risks are being addressed. Failing to communicate, or resorting to technical jargon, creates a vacuum that is readily filled by fear and misinformation, which is why many organisations are now openly acknowledging uncertainties and presenting AI governance as a continuous, collective process rather than a completed solution.

The same reputational dynamics surfaced in how Africa featured in the week's discussions. The continent has arguably gained a more prominent voice within the global dialogue, which is emblematic of its changing global status, spurred by demographics, resources, digital adoption, and geopolitical positioning. From a reputational standpoint, however, the real challenge is in showcasing the positive policy measures now emerging that enable significant economic opportunity.

Historically, narratives about Africa have swung between crisis and opportunity, often constructed by stakeholders outside the continent. Today, both investors and governments face significant reputational risk if their engagement is perceived as extractive, opportunistic, or superficial. For example, announcements of large-scale investments carry little weight unless they translate into local value creation and equitable partnerships anchored in long-term development.

Communication strategies therefore need to shift from promotion toward genuine participation. Strong reputational standing accrues to those who amplify African voices, share ownership of narratives, and communicate impact in human rather than purely financial terms. Here, consistency, especially in balancing rhetoric and reality, is becoming an absolute requirement.

Underpinning many of these discussions was a deeper question about global cooperation. Over the course of the week, it became evident that the world is transitioning from broad globalisation to what can be termed“selective interdependence.” Trade blocs are becoming more defined, with geopolitical tension pushing changes in supply chains and economic decision-making. In such an environment, reputation serves as a critical signalling mechanism.

The reputations of countries and corporations will be assessed less on performance alone and more on their alignment with values, alliances, and perceived reliability. Where neutrality was once a safe reputational stance, it has become increasingly difficult to sustain. Communication strategies must therefore balance clarity with adaptability, ensuring leaders articulate guiding principles even as tactics shift.

This is significant because reputation directly impacts access, whether to markets, partnerships, talent, and even diplomatic goodwill. In a period of fragmentation, trust will be the lubricant that reduces friction and enables productive engagement.

What cuts across all of these reputational dynamics is the growing importance of perception. From observing discussions at WEF, it became clear that reputation is now shaped in real time. A contemporary communication strategy must therefore be anticipatory, addressing concerns before they escalate; coherent, ensuring alignment between words, actions, and policies; human-centred, translating complex issues into relatable impact; and dialogic, listening as much as broadcasting.

According to the WEF Global Risks Report, reputational risk is“set to become more central to corporate risk management as policies and actions are realigned in the face of powerful pressures at times pulling in divergent directions between societies and governments.”

Reputation management can therefore no longer be defensive or reactive; it must be an integral part of the communication strategy from the outset. It is foundational infrastructure.

Forward-thinking leaders will invest as much in communication as in capital, and as much in building trust as in developing technology. Those who fail to do so may find that in a rapidly realigning world, the costliest mistake is not in making errors but in being misunderstood.

Ultimately, the discussions that took place at Davos are good reminders that the future will be defined not only by what we build, but by the stories we tell about our motivations and the beneficiaries of our efforts.

Daniel Munslow is managing executive of group communications for African financial services company Absa Group.

Note: This article reflects the views of the author and is published as part of PRovoke Media's opinion section. It does not necessarily represent the views of PRovoke Media or its editorial team. We welcome a range of perspectives and invite readers to submit thoughtful responses or counterpoints for consideration to [email protected].

MENAFN29012026000219011063ID1110670425