Credibility Through Action: A New Role for Communicators (Part 2)

By Prof. Ioannis Ioannou

If Part 1 of this article made the case for embracing complexity, this second part explores what it means to lead through it, and why communicators must now operate at the heart of organisational strategy, not at its edges.

This is not simply about updating a playbook. It’s about a shift in mindset, away from managing the message and toward building meaning. Managing the message suggests control, polish, and containment; building meaning demands curiosity, openness, and integration. The former reacts to events; the latter shapes the organisation’s response from within.

Humanising Complexity Means Showing the Work

Complexity is not an abstract condition, it is the lived reality of transformation. Real change is rarely linear. Targets evolve as new information emerges. Timelines shift under operational pressures. Trade-offs appear between competing priorities, whether that’s balancing short-term profitability with long-term sustainability or reconciling global targets with local realities. These moments are not failures, they are features of progress.

The public understands this. Audiences do not expect perfection, but they do expect transparency. They want to know:

• What's happening behind the scenes? What obstacles have arisen, and how are they being addressed?
• Who's accountable? Are there clear leaders responsible for delivering on commitments?
• How are decisions being made? Are trade-offs acknowledged and explained in terms of their impacts on people, communities, and the planet?

When organisations answer these questions openly, they build resilience in the relationship between brand and audience. We. Communications’ 2025 Brands in Motion research shows people respond best when communications foregrounds human experiences over abstract promises. In other words, how you are pursuing your commitments matters as much as, if not more than, what you have promised.

Too often, brands communicate as though audiences will only engage with a perfect end state. But authenticity lies in showing the work: the research phases, the pilots that didn’t scale, the partnerships still under negotiation, and the internal debates over priorities. This approach transforms communications from a performance into a process. It builds a shared sense of ownership over the outcome.

Humanising complexity requires three qualities: clarity, to ensure your audience can follow the journey; empathy, to connect the organisation’s decisions to human impact; and specificity, to ground commitments in tangible action rather than rhetorical flourish. It also means acknowledging uncertainty when it exists, and being honest when ambition outpaces current capacity. This honesty, sometimes uncomfortable, is the currency of long-term trust.

When Silence Sends the Wrong Signal

In today’s tense political and economic climate, it is tempting for companies to retreat from ESG language altogether. Some have begun swapping in safer terms like “resilience” or “responsible business.” Others focus narrowly on operational performance, avoiding political implications, and try to stay out of the line of fire.

In certain contexts, a temporary reframing can be tactically wise—particularly when language itself has become politicised. But too often, this instinct to retreat sends a deeper and more damaging message: that the organisation’s purpose is negotiable, that it applies only in favourable conditions, and that leadership will remain silent when it is needed most.

‍

We.'s study found that 49% of audiences want companies to speak up about corporate values during uncertainty. 30% reject vague language about "resilience." and 17% would rather hear nothing than receive a message that feels hollow.

‍

Silence, then, is not neutral. It creates space for distrust. It allows others, competitors, critics, or misinformation campaigns, to fill the narrative vacuum. And it signals that your commitments are conditional, valid in stability but expendable in turbulence.

The harder the conversation, the greater the opportunity for differentiation. Consistency of voice and message during challenging times is a key driver of credibility, because it proves that the brand’s commitments are not just words.

A Different Kind of Leadership

Ultimately, the question for communicators is not “What should we say?” but “Who will we be?”

The role of the communicator has historically been to protect the narrative - shield leaders from controversy, soften friction, and maintain consensus. That role is now insufficient. The alternative is far more demanding: to help build the infrastructure of trust that the organisation will depend on when, not if, the next disruption comes.

This requires moving closer to decision-making. It means advising leaders before strategy is locked, ensuring that communication is not an afterthought but an integral part of the process. It involves narrating the gap between ambition and execution, helping stakeholders understand why that gap exists, what is being done to close it, and what role they themselves might play.

And crucially, it means helping leaders find their voice while the language is still forming. This is where personal credibility matters.

‍

We.'s data shows that 60% of audiences prefer to hear from an individual leader, not just a brand voice.

‍

People trust people, not abstractions.

Leadership in ESG today requires presence, courage, and consistency. Not applause, but belief. And belief is what sustains brands when the headlines fade.

Because when the next wave comes, and it will, audiences won’t seek the smoothest story. They’ll seek the one that feels real.

Be ready to speak.