Leadership of health industry companies should consider the 2026 edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer an important resource on the concept of “trust,” a key intangible corporate asset. This, especially as trust increasingly impacts a company’s relationship with its workforce and its consumer/patient base.
Edelman is a leading international global strategic communications firm. It has prepared the online “Trust Barometer” survey report 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 principal focus of the Barometer is to measure the influence of trust among major institutions.
This year’s edition reflects what Edelman’s Chair Richard Edelman describes as “clarion call” for business to pro-actively respond to what the survey results describe as an alarming year-over-year descent in trust levels from polarization (i.e., belief that our country is divided and those divisions are entrenched); to grievance and hostile activism (i.e., resentment toward a system that’s triggered against you); and now to insularity (i.e., the reluctance to trust anyone who’s different from you; “I am unwilling to cooperate with or be with people whose views on sources of information and background are different than my own”).
Reflective of that descent, the 2026 edition of the Barometer documents three disturbing trends: a lack of belief in facts and the rise of disinformation; mass class divide, which has doubled in the last decade; and a terrible loss of optimism – only 15% of respondents in developed countries believe their families will be better off in the next generation. These should be disturbing findings for the leadership teams of companies heavily connected to their workforce and consumer base, such as in health care.
“Trust” can be an elusive concept to board members and executives alike who seek to monitor it in the performance of their respective duties. Edelman has historically defined it as “a set of beliefs regarding a company, held by an individual.” In that regard, trust serves as “an enduring personal orientation towards a company that is manifest in a willingness to take a meaningful risk on the company.” This, whether through trusting it with personal expenditures, entrusting it with the success of an important event or relying on it for an element of personal safety. Edleman goes on to note that trust grows or erodes only within the context of a personal, first-hand relationship between an individual and a brand.
“Trust” differs from “reputation” in that the latter is considered a social construct rather than a set of beliefs. Reputation represents how a critical mass of people perceive or characterize a company. Unlike trust, it does not depend upon a personal, first-hand relationship between the person and the company, nor upon an actual experience with its products. Rather, Edelman notes, it reflects “consumers’ accumulated opinions, perceptions, and attitudes towards a company.” These are important, if common sense oriented, distinctions for health care leaders to note.
Mr. Edelman cites three reasons why the “descent to insularity” should matter to business. First, with the rise of nationalism (as an element of insularity), a domestic business brand is significantly more trusted than a multinational brand. This means, of course, that it may be more difficult for some companies to “sell” in key markets. Second, the rise in insularity creates dysfunction in the workplace. This, particularly as people increasingly don’t want to work with those whose views are different than their own – a substantial workforce concern, particularly in a volatile political environment. Third, insularity manifests itself in a material rejection of innovation; the Barometer observes “that by a ratio of two to one” in certain developed countries, people are rejecting artificial intelligence or are otherwise significantly threatened by it. This is of obvious concern given the broad application of AI in the health care sector and the workforce displacement caused by that application.
The Barometer views the practice of “trust brokering” – the ability of institutions to bring parties of different views together – as the best way to counter the descent into insularity. Trust brokering is defined by Edelman as “a set of practices and behaviors that counters insularity by facilitating trust across differences. It achieves this by surfacing the common interests of insulated parties and translates their needs, goals, and realities for one another, trusted by each stakeholder group facing a common problem.”
The Barometer views business and employers as having a high degree of trust with employees. As a result, a company and its leadership are well-positioned to play a significant role in addressing the crisis of insularity. The Barometer offers several suggestions on how corporate leadership may work to address insularity within the workforce. These include practices that would (i) bring employees into the workplace to interact with people who are different than them; (ii) partner with unexpected organizations to initiate cross-cultural or cross-political conversations; (iii) promote a shared identity and culture so that employees are reminded of what unites them rather than divides them; (iv) build teams that will require people with different values to work together to succeed; and (v) provide mandatory employee training for engaging in constructive dialogue amid conflict. There are other methods, as experienced human capital advisors may identify. There are signs that employees may be receptive to such suggestions.
There’s little question that health care leaders – directors and executives alike – aren’t looking for new problems to confront. The current list is more than enough. And that may especially be the case with respect to diffuse and confusing concepts of trust and insularity. But the Edelman Trust Barometer carries with it a substantial amount of credibility; its 2025 identification of a “grievance society” and a related level of hostile activism were confirmed by all too many unfortunate newsworthy events.
And then there’s the more substantive factor that the Barometer’s focus directly relates to two intangible corporate assets for which the board and executive leadership have shared oversight/operational responsibility: trust and human capital. For these and other reasons, a review of the Barometer’s findings may be a valuable use of time by the board, its human capital committee, and perhaps the CEO, COO, and the senior executive responsible for human capital.
About the Author
Mr. Peregrine is a Fellow of both the American Health Law Association and the American College of Governance Counsel.
