.svg)
This article was originally published on Law360.
With over 70 national elections in 2024, involving almost half the global population, 2025 looks set to be a period of transition from campaigning to policymaking.[1] We are already seeing a wave of populist policies, set by new administrations emboldened by their new mandates. It will be divisive, and at a time when media has never been more democratized or vulnerable to manipulation, the implications for companies navigating these headwinds will be significant.
This view is echoed by business leaders. Geopolitical uncertainty was perceived as the biggest short-term threat to global business for the third year running, according to research published in July 2024 by Oxford University's Saïd Business School.[2] Similar sentiment emerged from a recent survey of U.K. chief financial officers by Deloitte LLP, reported in October,[3] and was echoed in Mckinsey & Co.'s research in November, where business leaders saw geopolitical tensions as the biggest risk to economic growth.[4] In these times of geopolitical flux, it is the general counsel who is expected to stay one step ahead, provide nuanced advice amid instability and protect the organization from risk — all the while maintaining business as usual in a world of information overload. While companies may not always be directly affected by geopolitical events, they can often get caught in the crosswinds of geopolitical issues and become so-called collateral damage. The good news is that many of the crises arising from geopolitical forces are very navigable. If GCs can ignore the noise and focus on just two simple questions, they can take steps to avoid and mitigate the impact of these forces on their reputation. These questions are: What are people saying about your company, and what is your company saying?
The Information Ecosystem
From news coverage to citizen journalism, i.e., the collection, reporting and dissemination of news or information by the general public, plus social media, we are inundated with data. The democratization of disseminating information at scale provides an opportunity that many have taken advantage of, especially when it comes to political agendas. Actors now have the means to shape the narrative, influence public opinion, and in turn, affect election outcomes — thereby influencing geopolitics. To avoid this, GCs should ensure they are fully aware of information produced by and about their organization or investments, working fast to address any reporting that is clearly biased or agenda driven. Historically, these issues were felt more acutely in the oil and gas or mining industries, because their activities relate to politically sensitive issues that affect communities and drive activism. Now, however, they are felt more broadly by companies across all sectors, whether it is finance or fashion. Juliet Young When it comes to protecting companies against this landscape, the key is early detection and action.
What Are People Saying About Your Company?
There are two lenses that GCs need to look through. The first is focusing on what is being said online by others about their company and C-suite. Geopolitical events and sensitivities can be a catalyst for bad actors to spread disinformation about companies and their senior people. A campaign can start with something small and seemingly insignificant. Tracking public submissions to authorities or petitions, and following their trajectory on social media — even tracking the use of the company logo by third parties — can be instructive. GCs should be aware of who is speaking on their behalf, and where their companies are mentioned and by whom. Scanning for seeds of discontent before it becomes a media story will put an organization ahead of any reputation crisis.Another emerging threat is so-called "pay to play," or junk news. Junk news sites allow actors who have a particular agenda to pay to play, or pay to publish, particularly in jurisdictions with more lax defamation laws. Examples are Thailand, Africa and the U.S.This is fertile ground for disinformation about businesses and their leaders that can be placed easily and cheaply by adversaries. This low-quality information source has the potential to severely affect business operations and reputations, especially in times of geopolitical flux."Pay to play" sites, or junk news can masquerade quite convincingly as mainstream news. Many of them are designed to look and feel like major national press outlets, with similar mastheads in almost identical typefaces and real journalist profiles with photos and biographies. The relationship between these junk news outlets and social media is mutually reinforcing.
Polluting the Information Supply Chain
Aside from these unreliable junk news outlets informing public opinion — and by extension, reputation — they can also influence key stakeholders and financing, polluting the information supply chain.Articles from junk news publications may get picked up by compliance databases, which may affect due diligence reports and assessments. As a result, these junk news articles can have a significant impact on business decisions, harnessing geopolitical issues to their advantage.In our experience, many of these articles originate from publications based in Southeast Asia and India. But it is not only an issue for emerging markets: One of the most prevalent jurisdictions for fake news, junk news and pay to play is the U.S., because of First Amendment rights. This is an issue that is not likely to diminish in light of the recent announcements by social media platforms.[5]The key point is that GCs need to know what is being said about their company in mainstream media, social media, and on so-called junk news sites. They need to take robust action where there are grounds to do so, removing information and thinking laterally about how to do that. While a company might feel there is little that can be done about a sustained bot attack on a platform such as X (formerly Twitter), in our experience it is possible to have these posts removed. However, this sort of action does not work in isolation. It must be coupled with a clear rebuttal and ideally a communications strategy, because even when inaccurate content is removed, the reputational damage is often already done, altering audiences' perceptions of the company or individual as a result. It is therefore vital to combine any content removal with strategic communications to ensure key audiences understand the company's true position and stating their value in the jurisdiction.
What Is Your Company Saying?
The second area of focus for GCs is the macro geopolitical picture, and how that affects what the company, including its C-suite and senior people, is saying and doing. It is not only corporate and brand communications that need to be sense-checked against the backdrop of geopolitics: C-suites and senior leaders should check any commentary they will be putting out that could be received negatively in the context of world events particularly on social media.
How GCs Can Stay Ahead
Although it may seem that the speed and development of technology poses nothing but risk in light of geopolitics, there is also a positive side. While the opportunities to spread fake news fast are increasing, the tools to analyze reach, influence and credibility are also developing at pace. There are sophisticated methods for assessing this information and reporting quickly to clients. Rather than simply summarizing the news, these processes can assist with analyzing what it means and what they should do about it. For issues that cross a tolerance threshold, there is often plenty of scope to take action to protect the business, whether the attacks occur in foreign media, social media or the blogosphere. Persistence and ingenuity are key, but they achieve results. For example, one tactic is to engage with X through the medium of video to debunk a false allegation, rather than send a five-page legal letter. This can lead to the speedy removal of content.While at first glance many reputational issues might seem severe, or even existential for a business, in many cases they are not. Proper analysis may reveal that reporting on an issue is taking place in an echo chamber, or that nobody from the mainstream press or policymakers is picking it up. It is just as important to know when to ignore something or when to refrain from responding, which may make matters worse.
Top Tips for GCs
While communications and reputation risk may not be the preserve of the GC, given the legal ramifications, this is a boardroom issue in which GCs should take an interest: Focus on what is being said about the company and by the company. Corporates are as likely to face a backlash by an ill-judged statement, comment or action that is perceived to be out of step with current values or geopolitical circumstances. Companies do not have to suffer unwarranted reputational attacks. There is plenty that can be done to rebalance the narrative, confront inaccuracies and remove fake content. New threats have also given rise to novel and innovative ways of addressing these challenges. Juliet Young is a partner at Schillings International LLP. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] How the world voted in 2024 | Elections News | Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/12/30/how-the-world-voted-in2024.
[2] Geopolitical risks continue to top list of perceived threats to business; https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/news/geopolitical-risks-continue-top-list-perceivedthreats-business-according-professionals-new-report-finds.
[3] Geopolitics remain the biggest risk to business for UK CFOs | Deloitte UK: https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/about/press-room/geopolitics-remain-the-biggest-riskto-business-for-uk-cfos.html.
[4] A proactive approach to navigating geopolitics is essential to thrive | McKinsey: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/geopolitics/our-insights/a-proactiveapproach-to-navigating-geopolitics-is-essential-to-thrive.
[5] Meta to get rid of factcheckers and recommend more political content | Meta | The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/07/meta-facebookinstagram-threads-mark-zuckerberg-remove-fact-checkers-recommend-political-content.
