New research from Willis pointed to rising uncertainty around reputational risk among corporate decision-makers and a marked drop in appetite for additional exposure, even where potential rewards are high.
The 2026 Reputational Risk Readiness Survey Report found that organisations are less confident about how customers and other stakeholders perceive them and increasingly unclear about their most significant reputational vulnerabilities. The shift comes amid heightened geopolitical instability, more frequent cyber incidents and increasingly politicised debate around environmental, social and governance (ESG) priorities in key markets.
According to the survey, only 37% of respondents said they were aware of the key hotspots of negative sentiment around their brand, compared with 56% in 2024. That suggests many organisations are losing sight of where criticism is building until issues have already escalated.
At the same time, 56% reported a low appetite for reputation risk, up from 36% in the previous survey. Boards appear less willing to engage in activities, partnerships or public positions that could be considered controversial, even when there is a clear commercial upside.
The caution reflects the scale of potential loss. Intangible assets such as brand, data and intellectual property now account for the majority of market value in major indices, meaning reputational events can quickly erode enterprise value and increase scrutiny from investors and regulators.
The Willis research highlighted cyberattacks and social harms as leading reputational flashpoints.
Some 67% of respondents ranked cyber‑attacks among their greatest reputational concerns, reflecting the potential for AI‑enabled cybercrime, data breaches and ransomware incidents to undermine trust. High‑profile breaches in recent years have shown how quickly customer confidence and share prices can be hit once an incident becomes public, even where operational recovery is swift.
Meanwhile, 57% named social harms such as labour exploitation in the supply chain as a top reputation risk. As companies reconfigure or relocate supply chains in response to geopolitical and cost pressures, maintaining oversight of labour standards becomes more challenging, increasing the chance that abuses remain hidden until exposed by media, NGOs or regulators.
Overall, 82% of organisations placed reputation among the top three or top five risks on their risk registers, suggesting it is now considered alongside more traditional financial and operational exposures.
One of the most notable shifts in the survey is the move towards quantifying the financial impact of reputational damage. Over 30% of organisations said they now have strong capabilities to model the financial impact of reputational damage, up from 11% in 2024.
This aligns with a broader trend in which finance and corporate functions are becoming more directly involved in decisions around reputation, reframing it as an operational and financial risk rather than a branding concern. In response, insurers and intermediaries have been developing tools that use actuarial techniques, market data and sentiment indicators to estimate how often different types of reputational events may occur and how severe their impact could be, in a way comparable to catastrophe models.
Reputational risk covers are increasingly discussed in conjunction with cyber, directors’ and officers’, product recall and supply chain policies, often with pre‑ and post‑event services such as crisis communications, cyber response and stakeholder analytics attached.
The report’s findings also sit against an ESG landscape that has become more politically charged, particularly in North America. Some large corporates have adjusted how they describe ESG‑related activity, while investors, rating agencies and regulators continue to embed environmental and social factors into disclosure and governance expectations.
This raises questions over how ESG‑related reputational risk is underwritten and priced in different jurisdictions, and the potential for disputes over alleged greenwashing, misstatements or abrupt changes in public commitments.
Willis is urging organisations to treat reputation as a fully integrated enterprise risk rather than a communications issue.
"In uncertain and turbulent times, organisations who take a surface approach to reputation as a function of communication and PR may be found wanting," said David Bennett, head of reputational risk management from the Willis Direct & Facultative team. "A risk-based approach supports better decision-making about how to manage reputation and prepare for the financial and operational impacts of an adverse publicity event.”
The survey highlighted growing demand for advisory‑led solutions that link reputational risk mapping to coverage design and broader controls. Reputational fallout often arises as a secondary effect of events first insured under other lines, such as cyber incidents, regulatory investigations or environmental events, reinforcing the need for more integrated programme design.
As more corporates develop internal models to assess the financial impact of reputational events, there is likely to be greater interest in clearer triggers, more transparent measurement of loss and enhanced pre‑loss services.
The commercial opportunity sits in helping clients translate rising concern about reputation into practical governance, risk management and protection strategies that can withstand the next crisis of confidence.
