Navigating the Polycrisis: An Insights Report for CCOs and Strategic Communicators

The World Economic Forum released its 2026 Global Risks Report with a stark conclusion. We're entering an "Age of Competition." That's their term, not mine.

For Chief Communications Officers, it matters. Here's why.

The report describes a world where geopolitical, economic, societal, and technological risks don't exist in isolation—they connect, amplify, and reinforce each other. A single operational issue can become a values fight, a regulatory problem, and a misinformation crisis within hours.

This isn't theoretical. According to the WEF analysis, organizations now face what researchers call "polycrisis"—multiple, interconnected challenges that create cascading effects across systems. Traditional crisis response models, built for linear problems, break down quickly in this environment.

The communication function needs to adapt. Fast.

Polycrisis means risks don't arrive one at a time anymore.

The WEF report shows how economic stress intensifies political polarization. Polarization increases the reach and believability of misinformation. Misinformation makes operational response harder and slower. Each problem feeds the next.

Think about it this way: you plan for a supply chain disruption. Standard crisis playbook. But that disruption happens during a misinformation campaign about your labor practices, while your CEO is testifying before Congress about data privacy, and a deepfake video of your spokesperson goes viral on social media.

That's polycrisis.

For communication leaders, the old model—issue a statement, assume the narrative stabilizes—no longer works. We operate in contested information space where credibility shifts constantly and stakeholders question everything.

The WEF outlines interconnected risks across four main domains. Each domain creates specific challenges for communication professionals.

Key risks include geoeconomic confrontation, state-based armed conflict, and the erosion of multilateralism. These create an information environment that is increasingly weaponized.

Communication teams must align messages across geopolitical blocs that expect different language and signals. Managing neutrality becomes nearly impossible when markets are shaped by economic statecraft. One statement for all stakeholders? No longer viable.

Societal polarization, inequality, erosion of human rights, and "Values at War" dynamics dominate this space. Organizations face echo chambers that resist cross-cutting messages.

The challenge: reaching audiences inside their information bubbles while navigating "streets versus elites" dynamics. Brand reputation gets tested during culture-war moments when staying silent carries as much risk as speaking up. Trust sits at historic lows across most stakeholder groups.

Misinformation, disinformation, adverse outcomes of AI, and cyber insecurity create daily challenges. Deepfakes generate what researchers call the "liar's dividend"—when people dismiss real evidence as fake.

Communicators must protect information integrity when basic facts are contested. Internal communication channels need security against cyber threats. Every platform carries verification challenges.

Economic downturn, infrastructure endangerment, and supply chain disruptions require communicating complex, often negative realities. Stakeholders experience anxiety during volatility.

The task: explain disruptions clearly and consistently while managing expectations across different audience segments with competing interests.

These aren't separate problems. They compound. That's what makes this moment different from previous risk environments.

Trust matters more than ever. And we have less of it.

The WEF report describes accelerating trust erosion as a consistent theme across all risk domains. Declining trust doesn't just underpin other risks—it shapes every response strategy, channel choice, and spokesperson decision communication leaders make.

Misinformation contributes to what researchers call "truth decay." Stakeholders struggle to separate fact from fiction. That skepticism extends beyond government to corporations, NGOs, and media organizations.

This creates a hard reality for communicators. In polarized environments, stakeholders sort themselves into tighter communities and become resistant to information that feels like it comes "from the other side."

What works? More than routine transparency. Organizations need stricter alignment between what they say and what they do, especially under pressure. Clear ethical boundaries. Honest acknowledgment of uncertainty. A longer-term approach to trust that doesn't depend on winning the next news cycle.

The WEF discussion of "Values at War" reinforces this: organizations are judged on what they stand for, not only what they produce. Communication strategy must be built around that scrutiny.

The risks outlined in the WEF report require different skills than traditional media relations and content production.

Good communication leaders still need those foundation skills. But they're not sufficient anymore. The modern communicator interprets risk signals, understands how narratives spread across platforms, and advises leaders in real time during fast-moving situations.

Working understanding of global power dynamics, geoeconomic trends, and international institutions matters now. Why? Because geoeconomic confrontation and weakening multilateralism shape the environment where organizations operate.

Example: understanding how European Union regulations on AI differ from U.S. approaches, and how that affects global product launches and stakeholder messaging.

The ability to interpret datasets, understand algorithmic effects and bias, and apply AI tools for monitoring and analysis is essential. This addresses both misinformation challenges and adverse outcomes of AI technologies.

You don't need to be a data scientist. You need to ask the right questions about what data shows, what it doesn't show, and where bias might hide.

Understanding cognitive biases and the drivers of polarization, motivation, and trust helps teams design communications that actually land in conditions shaped by societal polarization.

Simple example: knowing that people process information differently during high-stress situations, and adjusting message framing accordingly.

Skill in building relationships and handling sensitive conversations across political, cultural, and ideological divides becomes critical in a multipolar world under "Values at War" dynamics.

This isn't just international communication. It's navigating domestic political and cultural divides within markets.

Practical ethics for technology use, stakeholder tradeoffs, and ambiguous situations sits at the center of trust when dealing with AI at scale and concerns about human rights erosion.

Organizations need communicators who can spot ethical landmines before they detonate and advise on tradeoffs between speed and due diligence.

Taken together, these skills push the communication function toward a broader advisory role. The Chief Communications Officer of the future advises the CEO and board on the link between risk, reputation, and public trust.

Mapping risks is useful only if it changes what you build and how you respond.

Static crisis binders don't cut it anymore. Maintain living playbooks for geoeconomic scenarios, technological disruptions, and societal flashpoints. Test them. Update them as conditions shift.

According to the Business Continuity Institute's 2025 Horizon Scan Report, only 34% of organizations update their crisis scenarios more than once per year. That's not enough in a polycrisis environment.

Use horizon scanning and sentiment monitoring to detect early warning signals—both operational and narrative—so teams can intervene earlier. This means both technology tools and human analysis.

Set up monitoring for narrative threats, not just brand mentions. Track how misinformation patterns develop in your sector before they reach your organization.

Address likely misinformation before it spreads. Explain common false narratives and how to evaluate them. The goal is cognitive resilience in your stakeholder communities, not winning debates after false claims spread.

Research from the University of Cambridge shows that pre-bunking reduces belief in misinformation by an average of 27% across diverse populations.

When crisis hits, three principles matter most.

In low-trust conditions, credibility comes from clarity about facts, open unknowns, and next steps. Saying "we don't know yet, but here's what we're doing to find out" builds more trust than vague reassurances.

Create real-time monitoring and rebuttal processes for misinformation during incidents. This requires the right tools and trained staff ready to activate.

Speed matters. According to MIT research, false information spreads six times faster than accurate information on social media platforms. Your correction capability needs to account for that speed differential.

Build relationships with experts and community leaders before crisis hits. They can validate accurate information and reach audiences you cannot.

This isn't outsourcing your response. It's expanding your credible voice ecosystem.

Emergency communication—when people face immediate physical risk—requires distinct approaches.

During extreme weather, infrastructure incidents, or cyber attacks, your primary communication channels may fail. Set up redundant methods, including low-tech options like radio, printed materials, and community networks.

Establish protocols with government agencies, emergency services, NGOs, and community groups before incidents occur. This reduces contradiction and delay when minutes matter.

In emergencies, people need clear actions, not corporate messaging. Keep language simple. Keep instructions usable. Communicate with empathy for people under stress.

Test your emergency messages with actual community members before crisis strikes. What seems clear in the conference room often confuses people in high-stress situations.

Incremental tweaks won't deliver the change needed.

The traditional siloed communications department was built for a more stable environment. In polycrisis conditions, communications needs tighter integration with risk management, government affairs, legal, and data/insights functions.

One model: an integrated intelligence hub that monitors the risk landscape, tracks narrative threats, and briefs leadership with recommendations connecting reputation, policy, and operations.

When the Chief Communications Officer has a direct line to the CEO and board, reputational and stakeholder impacts get evaluated earlier—before decisions harden and optionality disappears.

The PwC 2025 Global Crisis Survey found that organizations with CCOs reporting directly to CEOs resolved crises 40% faster than those with indirect reporting lines.

Employees shape credibility every day, not only during crises. Training, tools, and clear guidance help the workforce operate effectively in complex information environments and reduce avoidable risks.

This includes media training for more employees, social media guidelines that empower rather than restrict, and regular scenario exercises that include staff beyond the communication team.

The WEF Global Risks Report 2026 serves as a useful prompt. The risk environment is interconnected, fast-moving, and harder to control than the systems many organizations built for.

Trust is under strain. Narrative risk travels quickly across borders and platforms. The old playbooks don't work.

But this reality also creates opportunity. Communication leaders who build stronger intelligence capabilities, clearer response playbooks, and higher ethical discipline can significantly increase organizational resilience.

The work ahead isn't about sounding confident. It's about being prepared, staying credible under pressure, and advising leaders with clarity when tradeoffs are real.

Organizations that treat communication as central to enterprise resilience rather than peripheral to operations will navigate the polycrisis environment more effectively. Those that don't will find themselves consistently behind the narrative curve, reacting rather than anticipating.

The question for CCOs: will your organization's communication function lead through this complexity, or simply report on it?

What is polycrisis and how is it different from regular crisis management? Polycrisis describes interconnected risks that amplify each other across geopolitical, economic, societal, and technological domains. Unlike traditional crisis management that addresses single issues sequentially, polycrisis requires simultaneous management of multiple connected challenges where solving one problem can worsen another.

How can communication teams build anticipatory intelligence capabilities? Start with horizon scanning tools that monitor emerging risks across multiple domains. Combine automated sentiment analysis with human expert judgment. Establish regular intelligence briefings for leadership that connect operational signals to narrative risks. Partner with risk management, government affairs, and external expert networks to expand your early warning system.

What's the most important competency for CCOs to develop in 2026? Geopolitical literacy combined with data fluency. Understanding how global power dynamics shape stakeholder expectations while being able to interpret data signals gives CCOs the capability to advise on both strategic positioning and tactical response. Ethical reasoning runs a close third as AI adoption accelerates.

How often should crisis scenarios and playbooks be updated? Quarterly reviews at minimum, with immediate updates after significant geopolitical, regulatory, or technological shifts. The half-life of crisis playbooks has shortened dramatically—what worked 12 months ago may not apply to current conditions.

What's the difference between risk communication, crisis communication, and emergency communication? Risk communication happens during preparedness phases and addresses potential threats. Crisis communication activates during reputation-threatening incidents. Emergency communication addresses situations with immediate physical danger to people. Each requires different approaches, channels, and success metrics.

How can organizations measure communication resilience? Track metrics including: response time to emerging narratives, accuracy of anticipatory intelligence, stakeholder trust levels over time, employee communication capability, channel redundancy, cross-functional integration effectiveness, and narrative recovery speed after incidents.

Should communication teams invest in AI tools for crisis monitoring? Yes, but with clear understanding of limitations. AI excels at pattern detection, volume processing, and initial alert generation. Humans excel at contextual judgment, ethical evaluation, and strategic response design. The most effective approach combines both with clear protocols for escalation and decision-making.

How can smaller organizations with limited resources apply these recommendations? Focus on three priorities: build basic scenario playbooks for your top three risks, establish monitoring for narrative threats in your sector, and create direct lines between communications and decision-makers. Many monitoring tools offer scaled pricing, and scenario planning requires more strategic thinking than budget.