Corporate Governance, Trust and the ‘Crisis of Insularity’

An important new survey encourages corporate boards to address rising signs of insularity within elements of its consumer base and society at large. In this context, “insularity” is described as a reluctance to trust anyone or anything “different from me.” It is thus a condition that can have an enormous influence on business, and institutional strategy and performance – especially in the context of today’s highly polarized public discourse.

That’s the main message from the 2026 edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer (“Barometer”) (2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report), a widely respected global measurement of social trust in institutions. And it is a particularly important message for corporate governance and its duty to preserve external and internal trust in the company, and its vision and values.

Edelman has prepared its online “Trust Barometer” survey on an annual basis for over 25 years. The Barometer reflects the input of over 33,000 respondents from 28 countries (including the United States). The focus of the Barometer is to measure the influence of trust among major institutions. As such, the Barometer has become a notable “trust” resource for corporate boards across borders and industry sectors, as they evaluate their strategies, corporate purposes, and civic/social engagement. This, as consumer trust is increasingly recognized as a significant – if intangible – asset for most business organizations.

This year’s Barometer identifies intensifying economic anxiety, geopolitical tension, and technological disruption as forces that are moving people from shared systems and public discourse into narrower circles of perceived safety. This, in turn, is creating an insular mindset fueled by grievance and pessimism. The resulting fragmentation creates barriers for institutions such as governments and media to achieve desired levels of trust with their respective constituencies. More specifically, an insular trust mindset is viewed by the Barometer as contributing to slower economic growth, increased workplace conflict, and loss of productivity – trends that the government and commerce alike have a strong interest in mitigating.

Notably, the Barometer identifies business and employers as the institutions best positioned to address the perceived social shift towards insularity. Governing boards are thus encouraged to lead their companies towards embracing the role of “trust brokers” amidst this increasingly fragmented global society.

As outlined by the Barometer, corporate trust brokering is considered to be both a strategy and a skill set, which can be executed by both individuals and institutions. It begins with an acknowledgment and acceptance of differences; “engaging people where they are rather than trying to change them.” It proceeds to focus on progress through conflict-resolution efforts and interacting with people who hold different values, rather than taking sides. The expectation is that by “listening without judgment and translating realities,” divides between people, and between people and the institutions that serve them, can be bridged more effectively.

The Barometer identifies several different trust/brokering mechanisms for business organizations:

1. Businesses are encouraged to “Showcase Best Practices for Trust Brokering.” Elements of this recommended practice include bringing employees into the workplace to interact with people different from them and partnering with “unexpected organizations” to initiate cross-cultural or cross-political conversations.

   When responding to a “highly divisive social issue” (perhaps such as current national issues of volatility), businesses may be able to earn trust by any of: encouraging people to cooperate on finding solutions without taking a side, supporting the position that is true to their values, supporting the position of the workforce, and not taking any public position on the issue.

2. Employers are encouraged to “Scale Trust Brokering Across the Workforce.” Elements of this recommended practice include promoting a shared identity and culture so that employees are reminded of what unites them rather than divides them; building teams that will require people with different values to work together to succeed; and providing mandatory employee training to engage in constructive dialogue amid conflict.
3. CEOs are encouraged to “Lead By Example.” Elements of this recommended practice include: ensuring that they consult people with different values and backgrounds when making business decisions, and constructively engaging with groups who criticize or distrust the company.

In this regard, boards should consider “trust” as a concept separate and distinct from “reputation.” Both are valued attributes of an effective enterprise. But degrees of “trust” are typically generated by internal and external perceptions of organizational ethics, integrity, and corporate responsibility. Degrees of “reputation,” on the other hand, are typically generated by perceptions of the quality of a company’s goods and services, the success of its corporate strategies and initiatives, and its overall public image. Organizational “trust” may have a significant impact on organizational “reputation,” but the opposite is not always automatic.

The Edelman Barometer doesn’t have the force of law, the significance of “best practices,” or the influence of governance principles. It speaks broadly to business enterprises, not to individual industry sectors. It is global in scope, rather than focused solely on the United States. And the effectiveness of its suggestions and recommendations will likely vary depending on organizational facts and circumstances.

Yet its fundamental message on the importance of trust as an intangible corporate asset is universal in its application, and confirms its positioning on the board’s agenda. Trust is, in essence, a governance concern, not simply another human capital challenge. The “trust brokering” suggestion is particularly relevant given the current debate on whether companies should exercise a “corporate social voice” – and if so, under what circumstances. But at the very least, the message commends to boards of directors a greater degree of consideration of how the concept of “trust” is applied to a business, as well as how that trust is earned, preserved – and lost.