Stop Telling Me to "Build Trust": Why Crisis Communication's Favorite Mantra Is Broken

The crisis communication field's obsession with "building trust" is fundamentally flawed. Here's why:

By Philippe Borremans, Crisis, Risk and Emergency Communication Consultant at RiskComms FZCO and publisher of the Wag The Dog Newsletter, 2025

Walk into any crisis communication conference. Open any textbook. Read any best-practice guide. The answer is always the same: build trust.

It's become a mantra. A magic spell we chant at every conference, in every strategic plan, on every crisis checklist. Build trust. Maintain trust. Repair trust.

But here's my controversial take: trust cannot be the universal cornerstone of good crisis, risk, and emergency communication. Our obsessive focus on it is actually making us worse communicators, not better.

When a crisis hits, what's the first thing every consultant tells you? Build trust. As if trust were a simple on/off switch. As if it meant the same thing to everyone. As if you could manufacture it with the right combination of transparency, empathy, and carefully crafted messaging.

But trust isn't simple.

Research by Emma Engdahl and Rolf Lidskog (2012) in Public Understanding of Science demolishes the idea that trust is a rational, cognitive calculation. Their study demonstrates that trust is emotional, relational, and deeply asymmetrical—you cannot logic someone into trusting you, nor can you information-deficit-model your way to trust.

Yet that's exactly what most crisis communication frameworks assume: if we just provide more information, better information, clearer information, trust will automatically follow. It won't.

Source: Engdahl, E., & Lidskog, R. (2012). Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512460953

Peter Sandman's groundbreaking research offers a different lens entirely. His formula, Risk = Hazard + Outrage, distinguishes between actual danger (hazard) and public concern (outrage).

When Sandman analyzed these dimensions, he found something remarkable: risks ranked by how many people they kill versus how much they upset people show a correlation of only 0.2, meaning the risks that kill us and the risks that scare us are almost completely different lists.

This isn't public ignorance. It's a definitional difference. Experts focus on hazard. The public focuses on a broader constellation of concerns: fairness, control, voluntariness, moral violations.

Peter Sandman identified twelve components of outrage—and trust is just one of them. Number eleven, to be precise.

The twelve factors include:

When we obsess over trust-building, we ignore the other eleven factors. We see outraged communities and assume "they don't trust us enough." We launch transparency campaigns. We demonstrate our credibility. And the outrage persists—because the real problem isn't trust.

Peter Sandman argues that the low correlation between hazard and outrage isn't a perception problem to be fixed—it's a definitional difference to be respected. Both hazard and outrage are real, measurable, manageable, and part of risk.

Source: Snow, E. (2024). Top 12 Barriers to Effective Outrage Management (Kelly Parkinson and Peter Sandman column). https://www.psandman.com/col/Barriers.htm

It's that we've imposed an unfair risk, taken away community control, or violated moral norms.

No. And this is where the trust-centric approach reveals its fundamental Western bias.

The trust-centric approach to crisis communication reflects individualistic cultures where trust extends broadly to strangers and institutions, where direct communication is valued, where authority is questioned rather than assumed. But that's not how trust works everywhere.

In Japan, research by Katharina Barkley (2020) found that Western crisis communication theories were only partially applicable. Barkley's study in the Public Relations Review revealed that the Western focus on individual responsibility and causality didn't translate effectively to collectivist cultural contexts where different trust mechanisms operate.

In collectivist cultures, trust operates within narrow circles: family, close community, established relationships. A message from an unknown "expert" that would build trust in New York might be met with deep suspicion in Tokyo or Istanbul.

Source: Barkley, K. (2020). Does one size fit all? The applicability of situational crisis communication theory in the Japanese context. Public Relations Review, 46(3), 101911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101911

Individualism vs. Collectivism
In individualistic societies, trust radiates outward to strangers. In collectivist ones, it's concentrated inward to in-groups. Your universal trust-building message? It's not universal at all.

Power Distance
High power-distance cultures accept hierarchy differently than low power-distance ones. The communication strategies that work in egalitarian Scandinavia can backfire spectacularly in contexts where indirect communication and deference to authority are the norm.

High-Context vs. Low-Context
In low-context cultures, we trust explicit facts and direct arguments. In high-context cultures, trust is built through relationships, loyalty, demonstrated over time. You can't shortcut that with a well-crafted press release.

When we say "build trust" as if it's a universal principle, we're imposing a culturally specific framework and calling it best practice. That's not just ineffective. It's arrogant.

Yes. Here's something the trust evangelists don't want to talk about: trust can be dangerous.

Research by Zachary Neal, Kimberley Shockley, and Oliver Schilke (2015) reveals what they call the "dark side" of institutional trust. Their study published in Springer EBooks demonstrates that excessive trust—whether fostered by slick PR campaigns or by our own cognitive biases—makes us vulnerable by removing necessary safeguards and stopping us from asking critical questions.

Source: Neal, Z., Shockley, E., & Schilke, O. (2015). The "Dark Side" of Institutional Trust. Springer EBooks, 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_10

Every major corporate scandal happened in part because someone trusted too much. Every regulatory capture. Every crisis that "nobody saw coming."

The goal shouldn't be to maximize trust at all costs. It should be to cultivate the appropriate level of trust—warranted by actual trustworthiness.

Address the actual sources of outrage, not just the trust deficit.

Share decision-making. Let communities monitor risks themselves.

Peter Sandman has a brilliant metaphor for this: imagine slicing a roast with one hand on the meat and one hand holding the knife. Notice how close your hand gets to the blade. Now give someone else the knife. Your hand pulls way back instantly.

The risk hasn't changed—but who controls the knife changes everything.

In most risk controversies, communities hold the meat while companies hold the knife, waving it around saying "It's safe!" You cannot disempower people and reassure them simultaneously.

Organizations try to do exactly this: "This is our decision, we're the experts, butt out"—followed by "Don't worry, trust us." The reassurance gets lost in the outrage provoked by the disempowerment.

Peter Sandman calls this "wallowing in your prior misbehavior."

When Florida's phosphate industry finally stopped skirting the ugliness issue, their spokesperson began speeches with: "We are strip miners in the Garden of Eden."

Honest acknowledgment reduces outrage faster than defensive reassurance ever could.

Ensure the people bearing risks also receive benefits, or negotiate compensation. Respect moral boundaries. Accept zero pollution as your goal even when you can't reach it.

Trust cannot be the universal cornerstone. It's too variable, too culturally contingent, too fraught with paradoxes.

We need a more complex foundation built on four pillars:

Credibility is about being accurate, transparent, and willing to acknowledge uncertainty. It's cognitive, not emotional. You don't have to like an organization for it to be credible. You just have to believe it knows what it's talking about and won't lie to you.

As Jesper Falkheimer argues in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (2021), legitimacy means your actions align with socially constructed norms and values—an organization can be legitimate without being loved, it just needs to be seen as rightfully occupying its role.

Source: Falkheimer, J. (2021). Legitimacy Strategies and Crisis Communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1567

Fairness is about process and distribution. Even when people disagree with a decision, they're more likely to accept it if the process was fair, if they were heard, if burdens and benefits are distributed justly.

Not just trust. All twelve of them. Control. Fairness. Voluntariness. Detectability. Familiarity. Moral relevance.

These aren't soft issues that can be ignored while you focus on "the real problem." These are the real problem.

You can be credible without being trusted. You can maintain legitimacy while making unpopular decisions. You can demonstrate fairness in the midst of chaos. You can address outrage factors even when trust is absent.

That's harder work than chanting the trust mantra. It requires more nuance, more humility, more willingness to share control.

But it's also more honest. And it's more likely to work.

The trust mantra persists because it allows us to avoid harder questions.

It frames communication as a problem of us: if only we communicate better, if only we're more transparent, if only we build more trust, everything will be fine. But sometimes the problem isn't communication. Sometimes organizations aren't trustworthy. Sometimes the system itself is unfair. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for distrust.

And no amount of strategic communication can paper over that reality.

The trust obsession also lets us avoid confronting the Western-centricity of our field. It's easier to keep repeating "build trust" than to acknowledge that our theories don't travel well, that our best practices are culturally specific, that effective communication looks different in different contexts.

And finally, focusing on trust lets us ignore what Peter Sandman has been trying to tell us for forty years: the low correlation between hazard and outrage is not a perception problem to be fixed. It's a definitional difference to be respected.

The public isn't wrong to care about control, fairness, voluntariness, and all the other outrage factors. The experts are wrong to dismiss them.

Both hazard and outrage are real. Both are measurable. Both are manageable. Both are part of risk.

In crisis communication, treating outrage as seriously as hazard might be the only thing that actually works.

No. Trust is one of twelve outrage factors that matter during crises. The problem isn't that trust is irrelevant—it's that we've made it the only focus when it should be one consideration among many. Organizations should still work on being trustworthy, but they must simultaneously address control, fairness, voluntariness, and the other outrage factors.

Track multiple metrics beyond trust surveys: Are you giving communities meaningful control over decisions? Are processes perceived as fair? Do people feel they chose to accept the risk voluntarily? Monitor complaints about fairness, control, and moral concerns—not just trust levels. Peter Sandman's twelve outrage factors provide a comprehensive framework for measurement.

Yes, but differently. If your organization has violated trust through past behavior, acknowledge it explicitly. Don't ask for trust you haven't earned. Instead, focus on demonstrable credibility (factual accuracy), procedural fairness, and giving stakeholders real control. As of 2025, audiences increasingly value transparency about limitations over false reassurance.

Absolutely. In emergencies, time pressure is intense, but the principles remain valid. You can provide clear, credible information without claiming trust you haven't built. Focus on actionable guidance, transparent uncertainty, and giving people maximum control over their own safety decisions. Emergency communication actually benefits from dropping trust rhetoric in favor of practical credibility.

Start by abandoning the assumption that direct, individualistic, low-power-distance communication works everywhere. Research the specific cultural context: Is it collectivist or individualist? High or low power distance? High or low context? Adapt your messengers (in-group trusted figures work better in collectivist cultures), your message structure (indirect vs. direct), and your expectations about how trust operates in that context.

Credibility is cognitive and earned through demonstrated accuracy, transparency, and expertise. Trust is emotional and relational. You can have credibility without trust—a hostile journalist might find your data credible even while distrusting your motives. In crisis communication, prioritize credibility because it's more achievable and less culturally variable than trust.

When a manufacturing plant faces community opposition, the traditional approach is: "Let us show you we're trustworthy through transparency." The outrage-focused approach is: "Let's create a community monitoring committee with real power to shut us down if we violate standards" (control), "Let's ensure profits benefit the community through local hiring and revenue sharing" (fairness), and "Let's acknowledge our past failures openly" (honesty). These address root causes, not just perception.

Reframe it. Explain that building genuine trustworthiness requires addressing the underlying concerns: control, fairness, voluntary participation, and moral acceptability. Show them Peter Sandman's research on the twelve outrage factors and the 0.2 correlation between hazard and outrage. Frame your approach as "building the foundation that makes trust possible" rather than directly opposing their request.

As of 2025, approximately 73% of searches happen outside traditional Google search, with AI platforms like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews dominating information discovery. This means crisis communicators must optimize content for AI citation by providing clear, evidence-backed, quotable insights rather than just SEO keywords. The shift rewards substantive expertise over marketing tactics.

Visit Peter Sandman's website at psandman.com, which contains decades of practical risk communication guidance. His column "Top 12 Barriers to Effective Outrage Management" (co-written with Kelly Parkinson) provides actionable strategies. For academic grounding, read the research papers cited throughout this article, particularly Engdahl & Lidskog (2012) on trust's emotional nature.

In crisis communication, the comfortable lie is that better communication alone can solve the problem. The uncomfortable truth is that sometimes the problem isn't communication at all.

Sometimes organizations genuinely aren't trustworthy and no communication strategy can fix that. Sometimes the system itself is broken. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for distrust that should be respected, not overcome.

The most effective crisis communication in 2025 starts with acknowledging this reality—then building something better than trust: credibility, legitimacy, fairness, and genuine responsiveness to the concerns that actually drive outrage.

That's the foundation that lasts.

About the Author
Philippe Borremans is a crisis, risk and emergency communication expert and publisher of the Wag The Dog newsletter. With extensive experience across international crisis scenarios, Philippe challenges conventional wisdom in the field and advocates for evidence-based, culturally-aware crisis communication strategies. Connect on LinkedIn or visit www.wagthedog.io.

Last Updated: November 2025 | For weekly updated on risk, crisis and emergency communication, subscribe at www.wagthedog.io