Sunday, October 25, 2026
Sunday, October 25, 2026
Philippe Borremans:
The Illusion of Readiness: Why Speed Without Strategy is the New Crisis Risk
The 2026 landscape for crisis communication is defined by a paradox: we are faster at generating messages than ever, yet we are rarely less prepared for the complexity of the modern stakeholder. As organisations integrate artificial intelligence, a gap is opening between technical efficiency and genuine resonance.
Data from the 2026 Crisis Communication Trend Report (N=102) reveals a profession in transition. While AI adoption is accelerating, the foundational elements of crisis resilience—integration, deep-fake protocols, and stakeholder tailoring—remain inconsistent. To survive the next two years, leaders must move beyond the “speed trap” and focus on the structural gaps that AI cannot bridge.
The AI Adoption Curve: High Interest, Low Integration
Organisations are experimenting with AI rather than embedding it. On a scale of 1 to 5, the average adoption score for AI in crisis activities is 2.6 (n=102). This shows that while the “hype cycle” is active, most teams remain in the pilot phase.
The primary use cases are predictable: rapid message drafting and real-time translation. These tools provide an advantage in the “golden hour” of a crisis, but this speed is a double-edged sword. When teams use AI to produce faster outputs, they often sacrifice the nuance required for high-stakes situations. The report (n=102) shows that the biggest barrier to adoption is not the technology, but a lack of internal expertise and concerns over data privacy.
The Capability Gap: Where the Shield is Thinnest
The most concerning findings relate to what organisations are neglecting. Despite the rise of synthetic media, 61.8% of organisations (n=102) lack a formal protocol for managing deep-fakes or AI-generated misinformation. In an era where a single “shallow-fake” can impact market value in minutes, this is a systemic vulnerability.
This lack of preparation extends to internal silos. The integration of crisis plans with other critical functions is mediocre. On a 1–5 scale (n=102), integration with Cybersecurity/IT scores 3.2, while Legal/Compliance sits at 3.5. Human Resources, the function responsible for employees, trails at 3.1 (n=102). These scores indicate that crisis communication is still treated as a “bolt-on” activity rather than a core business function.
The Tailoring Deficit: A Standard Practice That Isn’t Standard
Survey responses suggest that tailoring crisis messaging for diverse and vulnerable populations is uneven. When asked, “To what extent do you tailor your crisis messaging for diverse and vulnerable populations (e.g., based on language, risk perception, culture, accessibility needs)?” (n=78), the results were:
Fewer than half of respondents (43.6%) perform this task often or as standard practice (n=78). In a crisis, “vulnerable” describes anyone whose ability to receive or act on information is compromised. If we only tailor messaging “sometimes,” we choose which stakeholders to leave behind. AI can handle the mechanics of translation, but the strategic mandate to prioritise these groups must come from leadership.
The Skills Mismatch: Training for the Wrong Issue
The report highlights a disconnect between current skills and future needs. While 45.1% of respondents (n=102) identify “AI-powered sentiment analysis” as a top investment priority, the human skills required to interpret that data are lagging. The most cited skill gap is “data literacy and AI tool management,” yet only 22.5% of organisations (n=102) have a dedicated budget for AI training.
We are investing in the engine of crisis response without training the drivers. This leads to a reliance on generic outputs that fail to account for the specific cultural and emotional context of a crisis.
The Bottom Line for 2026
The next two years will separate the organisations that are merely “fast” from those that are truly “resilient.” Efficiency is now a commodity; any competitor with a subscription can generate a press release in seconds. The real competitive advantage in 2026 lies in the areas AI cannot automate: the ethical judgment to prioritise vulnerable groups, the political will to break down internal silos, and the technical foresight to build deepfake defences.
Speed is no longer a strategy. If your crisis response is fast but fails to reach the people who need it most, you haven’t managed the crisis, you’ve simply accelerated the fallout.
+++
AI use disclaimer: this article was developed with the assistance of AI to support research and ensure linguistic precision for a non-native English-speaking author.
+++
Philippe Borremans is the Managing Director of RiskComms and a strategic adviser in crisis, risk, and emergency communication. Over a 25-year career, he has supported crisis efforts for the World Health Organization, European Union agencies, and global corporations including IBM, FedEx, and P&G. A former President of the International Public Relations Association (IPRA), Philippe is the author of Mastering Crisis Communication with ChatGPT and works with organisations worldwide to build real-world resilience.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/philippeborremans/
The data in this article is drawn from The 2026 Crisis, Emergency, and Risk Communication Trends Report. Conducted in late 2025, the study gathered insights from 102 senior professionals across diverse sectors, including professional services (37%), government (21%), and education (7%). Using a mixed-methods approach, the report identifies the critical gaps in AI readiness, functional integration, and stakeholder trust that will define the profession through 2026. Findings are reported using the relevant n value for each question to ensure statistical transparency.
Full report download: https://www.riskcomms.com/f/the-2026-crisis-emergency-and-risk-communication-trends-report
© 2026 Stratpair Ltd., trading as Strategic. Registered in Ireland: 747736
