For years, organisations have treated reputation as something that could be shaped through messaging, positioning and carefully managed communications. Increasingly, however, stakeholders are judging brands by something more difficult to curate: organisational behaviour.
Brands are no longer judged primarily by what they say – they are judged by whether what they do aligns with the values they publicly champion. This means trust cannot be built through messaging alone. It must be reinforced through behavioural consistency.
Let’s face it: most corporates have similar values—integrity, innovation, collaboration, accountability… The differentiator is rarely the values themselves, but whether stakeholders believe the organisation consistently acts in accordance with them.
Practice what you preach
Reputational inconsistency is not just a communications problem. In some sectors, insurers and risk advisors warn it can create broader commercial, governance and reputational risks, particularly for organisations whose value rests heavily on intangible assets such as expertise, brand equity or audience relationships.
The scrutiny of stated values and organisational conduct is particularly intense in professional services, where firms are often advising clients on governance, ethics, social license and professional conduct while facing growing examination of their own practices and performance.
PwC Australia built its reputation around trust, ethics and stewardship. Yet the 2023 tax leaks scandal significantly damaged stakeholder confidence because the behaviour in question appeared fundamentally inconsistent with the firm’s stated values and public positioning. The reputational impact extended well beyond the original issue, triggering broader scrutiny around governance, culture and accountability within the professional services sector.
KPMG Australia is now facing a major governance and ethics scandal following whistleblower allegations that confidential client information obtained through audit and advisory relationships was improperly accessed and used to help the firm pursue and win audit mandates with other organisations. At its core, the issue is not simply the alleged misuse of confidential information; it is whether a professional services firm can maintain trust when concerns about conflicts, independence and client confidentiality are not addressed with sufficient rigour once raised internally.
In other cases, stakeholder trust deteriorates when organisational behaviour appears inconsistent with long-established brand identity and public positioning.
Qantas experienced significant reputational pressure following a series of customer, regulatory and governance controversies that many stakeholders perceived to be inconsistent with the airline’s long-standing “Spirit of Australia” positioning and reputation for customer trust. The issue was not a single communications failure, but a broader perception that behaviour had drifted from stakeholder expectations and brand identity.
The 2023 outage which left more than 10 million customers without phone and internet for up to 14 hours, including just over 2,000 customers who were unable to dial triple zero, has resulted in Optus being crowned Australia’s most distrusted brand, according to the latest Roy Morgan Risk Monitor. The resulting reputational damage illustrates how operational failures can quickly become brand failures when stakeholders perceive a disconnect between service expectations and organisational performance.
When actions speak louder than words
Reputation is also influenced by how organisations adapt their values and priorities over time. While some reputational challenges arise from perceived inconsistency, others emerge when stakeholders interpret changes in values, language or organisational priorities as signals of a broader cultural shift.
Recent reactions to AI-generated marketing campaigns illustrate the same principle. Earlier this year, Gucci faced criticism after using AI-generated imagery to promote its show at Milan Fashion Week. Critics questioned whether the use of synthetic content aligned with the luxury brand’s long-standing emphasis on creativity, craftsmanship and artistic expression. The controversy highlighted that stakeholder concerns are often less about the technology itself and more about whether its use appears consistent with the brand’s identity and values.
As generative AI becomes more embedded in marketing and communications strategies, companies are discovering how quickly stakeholder backlash can escalate when campaigns appear inconsistent with brand identity, values or audience expectations.
In sectors such as professional services, the consequences may extend well beyond reputational discomfort. Where controversy affects stakeholder confidence, commercial performance or market valuation, the issue can quickly move from the communications team to executive leadership, boards and risk committees.
This evolution reflects a broader shift in how brands are assessed. Stakeholders—including customers, employees, investors, regulators and business partners—now expect alignment between:
- stated values
- leadership behaviour
- company culture
- governance practices and
- commercial decision-making.
Where inconsistencies emerge, trust can deteriorate rapidly
For marketing and communications professionals, this changes the nature of brand management considerably. Reputation cannot be shaped by campaigns, positioning statements and visual identity systems alone. Increasingly, brand strength reflects organisational behaviour and the confidence stakeholders place in the institution behind the brand.
In many respects, the role of marketing is now less about persuasion and more about credibility. That means organisations must simultaneously communicate and operationalise their values because today’s stakeholders are asking both what a brand stands for and whether the entity behind it genuinely stands by it.
As reputation becomes intertwined with governance and risk, boards and executives will take a greater interest in how it is managed because they now have a direct stake in whether organisational behaviour aligns with stakeholder expectations. Reputation is becoming a real-time reflection of organisational behaviour.
