Understanding the 2026 Risk Landscape

Jared Nelson

A year ago, I penned a column in O’Dwyer’s previewing the reputational minefield that global companies would navigate in 2025. In particular, the column predicted that complex risk would be defined by an increasingly polarized world, an artificial intelligence arms race, new geopolitical conflicts and flashpoints, looming trade wars and increasingly sophisticated cyber threats fueled by AI.

Indeed, those risks proved pervasive throughout the year and have since evolved in ways that will reshape the threat landscape for multinationals in 2026, as familiar challenges sharpen and new ones emerge. These forces are not only shaping corporate strategy; they’re also increasing the likelihood, scale and speed of crises that communications leaders must anticipate and manage. The key question now is how organizations will stay ahead of this accelerating risk landscape.

Brands’ issue discipline will be tested

President Trump’s first year in office has seen the complete rewiring of established norms for how businesses engage, both directly and indirectly, to shape policy and stay in the administration’s good graces. Global Fortune 500 brands—including all of Big Tech, much of Big Pharma, most big banks, automakers and more—have found a winning formula for shaping Trump administration policy: donate money, invest in the U.S. economy and avoid commentary on any issues that aren’t core to the business. In President Trump’s first term, when corporate America acted as a bulwark to the administration’s policies on immigration, DEI and healthcare, this formula would have ignited significant backlash from media and left-leaning stakeholders. In his second term, this playbook is the status quo, and similar backlash has been muted.

Will the pendulum swing back in 2026? Probably not, but pressure on brands to speak out will likely ratchet up as the midterms loom large and the Trump administration becomes further emboldened to protect its congressional majorities; as the Supreme Court rules on cases that could directly impact global companies and their employees; and as the administration appoints a new Fed Chair who could have a significant impact on the U.S. economy.

Strong scenario planning and coordination across the C-suite, communications and public affairs functions will be critical in continuing to navigate “no-win” situations that will continue presenting themselves in 2026.

Fragmented and insufficient AI regulation leaves a void

The surge in deployment and monetization of AI technologies across the broader economy will continue at a breakneck pace in 2026, as total global spending on AI is expected to exceed $2 trillion. With the U.S., China and other leading economies all competing to win the AI race, there appears to be very little progress—or appetite—in these countries for codifying guardrails that protect our society from unintended negative outcomes. Even Europe, which early on stated its intention to be a responsible actor in regulating AI, appears to be retreating over fears that it could scare away investment from Big Tech.

As public policy lags behind rapidly accelerating AI innovation and applications, companies face a new mandate to act as responsible stewards of the technology. Organizations and industries must self-police and build their own standards for safe, ethical use of AI—before a crisis forces them to. The companies that win trust in this environment will be those that step up to develop strong internal safeguards and craft carefully considered rollout plans that highlight their commitment to ethical use and prepare for AI-specific failure scenarios.

Employee angst at an all-time high

Gone are the days of quiet quitting and employee empowerment that were hallmarks of the post-COVID boom. Job postings are down across nearly every sector, layoffs are way up and fewer people are quitting their jobs for fear they won’t find another. The frozen job market compounds pervasive concerns about the impact of AI on jobs, as 71 percent of Americans fear AI-driven permanent job loss. A number of large U.S. companies have cited AI-fueled efficiencies as a rationale for layoffs, with many others signaling that AI will reduce or transform their workforce in the coming years.

Anxiety about job security can reduce productivity, hurt morale and cause employees to look for more “AI-secure” roles elsewhere. It’s therefore critical that employers communicate clearly and consistently about how they’re investing in AI, how roles will change or evolve because of it and how employees can grow with the technology. To demystify AI applications and reduce fear, companies must continually celebrate early wins for AI integration, highlighting real stories of employees using AI to work faster or smarter. And they should continually demonstrate how adopting AI will not just improve operational efficiencies but also improve each employee’s productivity and value. To make this happen, internal communications, HR and legal teams must operate in lockstep to ensure messages are transparent, empathetic and consistent.

Continued merging of economic and geopolitical strategy

With the fate of the Trump administration’s tariffs still to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and a President who is prone to renege on trade agreements at the speed of a tweet, it’s likely that trade policy will continue to be volatile in 2026. Additionally, as economic policy continues to be viewed through the lens of national security, companies in essential sectors—such as AI, semiconductors, biotech, quantum and minerals—will remain exposed to the intensifying competition with China. Regardless of industry, multinationals that rely on the Chinese market can expect more scrutiny from regulators, investors and other audiences on where they source materials, where they manufacture, the extent of their overall exposure to China, as well as cyber and IP risk.

To manage reputation effectively in competing markets, communications teams must prepare dual messaging strategies—one for U.S. stakeholders and another for foreign governments and global consumers. As part of this exercise, teams should identify topics where U.S. and non-U.S. expectations overlap (i.e., commitment to doing right by customers, product quality, innovation, jobs, etc.) and where they diverge (i.e., AI governance, manufacturing/sourcing, national security restraints), noting where messaging should be bespoke to each market. The goal is not to deliver different truths, but to understand different audiences and prevent misinterpretation from becoming a crisis multiplier.

The CCO’s role will continue to expand

Last year, I predicted that 2025 would cement the CCO as the organization’s chief problem solver, helping their companies align strategy to values and manage “jump ball” issues that pose reputational risk to the business. As Axios reported recently, this shift has been reflected in the growing title and responsibilities of many CCO+ or chief brand officers. In the year ahead, I expect the CCO role to be further elevated as strategic risk integrators—the executive best positioned to see across functions, understand how different risks are linked and guide leadership through a landscape that’s shifting faster than ever.

***

Jared Nelson, an Associate Partner at DGA Group, specializes in crisis management and geopolitical risk. He has led high-stakes responses for companies of all sizes facing data breaches, product recalls, executive transitions, misconduct allegations and workplace safety-related emergencies.