In 2025, artificial intelligence sits at the centre of growing global divides. Across economies and generations, engagement with AI is revealing widening gaps in trust, understanding, and opportunity.

Chinese AI trust landscape
The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer Flash Poll: Trust and Artificial Intelligence at a Crossroads reveals that respondents in Mainland China demonstrates high trust in AI compared to developed markets, including the US, UK, Brazil and Germany.

87 per cent of Chinese respondents say they trust AI, a figure that increased by 9 per cent   between November 2023 and October 2025. This compares with trust levels of 32 per cent in the US, 36 per cent in the UK, and 39 per cent in Germany.

Strong embrace of AI adoption
High trust in AI among Chinese respondents also translates into their everyday use. 60 per cent of Chinese employees use AI weekly or more, while 49 per cent say they embrace its growing use, compared with just 18 per cent who reject it.

Acceptance is particularly strong in sectors shaping future growth. 43 per cent of financial services workers and 55 per cent of technology sector employees report embracing AI in their work, highlighting how quickly the technology is becoming embedded in professional life.

Optimism over fear of disruption 
Unlike Western markets, where AI is often framed as a threat, Chinese respondents remain broadly optimistic. At least 67 per cent believe generative AI will help rather than harm society, including in areas such as climate change, work life, mental health, social cohesion, and economic equity.

Fear of economic displacement is notably low. Only 26 per cent worry that people like them will be left behind by AI, the lowest level among all surveyed markets. Even among lower-income respondents, concern rises to just 36 per cent.

A broad ecosystem of trust
Mainland China’s confidence in AI extends across all categories of AI communicators. 87 per cent trust 'people like themselves' to speak truthfully about AI, 88 per cent trust friends and family, and 85 per cent trust coworkers.

Trust in institutions and authority figures is similarly high, including 87 per cent for scientists and AI researchers, 83 per cent for CEOs, and 84 per cent for journalists and technology influencers.

More than 70 per cent of respondents are comfortable with their employer's use of AI - the highest rate amongst countries surveyed, while 60 per cent are comfortable with the media's AI usage.

Trust issues outweigh other barriers
Despite high overall trust, some barriers to AI adoption exist in Mainland China. Among infrequent users, 43 per cent cite trust concerns such as data protection, 28 per cent worry about how data will be protected, and 19 per cent are concerned about how their data will be used. Issues of motivation and access affect 40 per cent, while discomfort with technology is cited by just 15 per cent.

However these barriers are significantly lower than in Western markets, where 55 to 70 per cent of infrequent users identify trust as the main obstacle to AI adoption.

Ultimately, the Edelman Flash Poll highlights a simple point: trust shapes adoption. Mainland China’s high public confidence supports faster and broader use of AI, while lower trust in Western markets aligns with a more cautious pace. These differences underline how public attitudes influence the trajectory of technological change across regions.

PROI has released their latest report, "Beyond ESG: Global perspectives on communicating impact". With insights from 11 global communications agencies, the report highlights key trends shaping how ESG and purpose will be communicated in 2026.

Ted Deutsch, Executive Managing Director of RF|Binder and Chair of PROI's ESG Working Group, said: "While certain markets are shying away from acronyms and terms that are seen as overly political, this PROI report confirms that companies are still focused on driving change through sustainability, corporate culture and good governance. The challenge now lies in communicating this with authenticity."

ESG across the regions
ESG maturity differs widely by region. Markets such as Australia, Switzerland, and the Middle East operate in relatively advanced regulatory environments. In Australia especially, Paula Cowan, Managing Director at ImpactInstitute, described ESG as no longer a "nice to have," but rather a licence to operate.

Meanwhile, countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic are experiencing signs of ESG fatigue. As Dirk Aarts, CEO of 24/7 Communication, observed in Poland: "...enthusiasm has cooled. Many businesses now treat ESG chiefly as a regulatory requirement rather than a reputational advantage."

In Thailand, ESG is viewed as central to long-term competitiveness, economic resilience, and access to global markets. Whereas in Ukraine, ESG is shaped by wartime realities and EU integration, with social impact and resilience taking precedence.

Despite their differences, one thing stays consistent: stakeholder expectations are converging. The report highlights how companies are increasingly expected to demonstrate real progress and credible outcomes rather than just showing intent.

Global pressures driving change
It was reported that every region, in one way or another, was being impacted by global forces reshaping their ESG communications. Regulatory alignment stood out as a major driver, particularly around mandates by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and other international disclosure frameworks.

Trade-related mechanisms, such as the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, have resulted in a push for ESG adoption in export-oriented economies like Thailand. Chelsea King, Head of PR Operations and Editorial Director Midas PR, explained: "This creates direct financial pressure and has spurred Thailand’s domestic carbon tax and mandatory reporting efforts."

Political dynamics also play a significant role, with the U.S. becoming the focal point of ESG politicisation, influencing corporate behaviour across multiple markets. This has contributed to more cautious language globally. For example, in Canada, "...U.S. discourse has influenced Canadian corporate leaders to reconsider how explicitly they use the 'ESG' label," said Kimberly Cohen, CEO of Brown & Cohen.

At the same time, global enforcement action against greenwashing is increasing in Canada, as well as other markets such as Australia, Switzerland, and the UK, reinforcing a shift toward proof-based communication.

Language and framing
The report outlined a clear global trend: the declining use of the acronyms "ESG" and "DEI" in public-facing communications. While these terms remain common in investor, regulatory, and technical contexts, organisations are shifting toward simpler and less politicised language, such as "sustainability," "responsible business," "resilience," and "impact."

Kimberly noted that in Canada, these acronyms are increasingly being broken down into their component parts, whereas in Poland, Dirk explained that the narrative now focuses on health, quality of life, and local community impact - moving away from war language, such as "fighting climate change," toward tangible well-being. This shift doesn't reflect a divergence from ESG principles, but rather as an effort to improve clarity, reduce political risk, and connect more directly with local audiences.

Across several regions, including Canada, the UK, the U.S., Thailand, and the Middle East, an increase in social initiatives continues, but under different labels, such as workforce development, inclusion and belonging, human capital management, and community impact.

Communications challenges
Across all regions, communications leaders are reported to have been facing similar challenges, particularly in balancing ambition with credibility. Stakeholders expect companies to act, but are increasingly rejecting vague or exaggerated claims. Greenwashing, social-washing, and "greenhushing" - deliberately under-communicating progress, which is reported to be rising in Australia - are recurring risks.

Another challenge is internal alignment. ESG data and narratives often sit across multiple functions at an organisation, and when teams are not aligned, messaging can become inconsistent or fragmented, resulting in a lack of trust. In sensitive contexts, such as in Ukraine or politically polarised markets like the U.S. and UK, audiences are sceptical and quick to point out inauthenticity.

Looking ahead
Contributors generally predict that over the next two to three years, ESG communications are expected to become more integrated with financial reporting and core business strategy. Many regions anticipate stricter disclosure requirements, greater use of assurance, and increased focus on governance as the foundation for environmental and social credibility.

Media scrutiny is also intensifying. Investigative reporting on ESG claims is growing, while routine sustainability announcements receive less attention unless backed by data or clear outcomes. At the same time, there is continued demand for accessible explanations, case studies, and stories that demonstrate how ESG efforts deliver tangible benefits to communities, employees, and economies.

Practical guidance for communications professionals
Based on insights across all 11 markets, some common practical guidance include:

• Lead with evidence: Anchor claims in data, defined methodologies, and disclosures, with assurance.
• Adapt language and be precise: Localise messaging and ensure clear messaging that resonates with target audiences, while avoiding unnecessary jargon.
• Show progress over time: Share interim milestones and regular updates to demonstrate momentum and avoid greenwashing or greenhushing.
• Integrate ESG into the business narrative: Position environmental, social, and governance efforts as part of core strategy and operations, rather than a standalone initiative globally.

Find the full report, including in-depth insights for each region, here.

• Retail: The most negative sentiment overall, driven by the direct consumer impact of breaches, sensitive customer data, and operational disruption.
• Technology: The most visible sector in cybersecurity discourse, where recurring attacks and regulatory fallout continue to erode trust in digital infrastructure.
• Telecommunications: Among the hardest-hit sectors, affected by repeated attacks and legacy breaches resurfacing on the dark web, raising national security concerns.
• Financial services: Sustained negative sentiment linked to high-profile breaches, customer data exposure, and significant crypto-related losses.
• Healthcare: Persistent distrust driven by repeated breaches involving patient and billing data, alongside heightened scrutiny of AI-related data risks.
• Automotive: Negative sentiment following ransomware attacks that disrupted dealer operations and raised concerns about digital resilience in increasingly connected vehicles.

• Cyber risk is board-level risk: It must be managed as a cross-functional priority, not solely as a technical or compliance issue.
• Integrated response drives resilience: Organisations that align IT, legal, communications, and executive leadership with clear escalation protocols and stakeholder-specific strategies are better positioned to protect trust and reputation.
• Proactive oversight is essential: Scenario planning, continuous monitoring, and treating incidents as reputational challenges enable faster, more effective responses.
• Leadership visibility matters: Transparent, decisive, and timely action by executives is the most critical factor in stabilising stakeholder confidence and reinforcing organisational credibility.