By Adrian Cropley OAM

Two years ago, when we launched the first Responsible AI in PR and Communication Management Survey, we were asking a fairly simple question: is our profession actually using AI, and do we have any guardrails around it? This year, with the Reimagining Tomorrow 2026 report, we can finally do something we could not do before. We can compare two consecutive years of global data, drawn from 536 communication professionals across six regions, and see where the needle is genuinely moving and where it is not.

So what changed between 2025 and 2026? Quite a lot. Most of it is encouraging.

The shifts worth celebrating

Adoption is now close to universal. Some 95.9% of organizations permit AI, up from 91.0% a year ago. But adoption was never the interesting story. The more telling movement is happening in governance, confidence and communication.

Responsible AI frameworks have grown from 39.4% to 47.0%, a gain of more than seven percentage points in a single year and the most significant structural governance improvement in the data. Ethical confidence has surged: the share of professionals who feel very confident in evaluating the ethical implications of AI rose from 26.2% to 38.8%, the largest single jump we measured. We are also talking to our stakeholders more. Communication about an organization’s responsible AI approach climbed from 49.8% to 64.5%, while communication about AI governance structures rose from 35.6% to 51.1%. Involvement in developing responsible AI guidelines has moved from 41.4% to 57.3%, meaning more than half of us now have a hand in shaping the rules.

That is real momentum in a short period. So we should pause and acknowledge it. But here is the question that keeps me up at night.

The gap between involvement and influence

“Stepping forward into the conversation is not the same as stepping up to lead it.”  Prof. Justin Green, President and CEO, Global Alliance, writing in Reimagining Tomorrow 2026

Justin Green puts it perfectly in the report. If involvement has climbed to 57.3%, why are only 8.6% of us actually leading formal responsible AI structures? We are increasingly in the room. We are not yet at the head of the table. Visibility, as I keep reminding colleagues, is not the same as influence.

There are three numbers in the 2026 data that should give every one of us pause. One in four organizations, 25.4%, use AI but disclose it to no one, not employees, not clients, not the public. One in five, 20.3%, has no formal accountability for AI ethics at all, with a further group unsure who holds it. Agentic AI, systems that can act, respond and publish on an organization’s behalf, is already in use or being piloted in 30.9% of organizations, even though it is the most underserved governance domain we measured.

So we have a profession that is more confident, more involved and more vocal with stakeholders, while disclosure, accountability and agentic oversight are racing ahead of our readiness. That is the gap between adoption and accountability. Closing it is, I would argue, the defining professional opportunity of the next two years.

Why this lands on our desks

Why does any of this belong to the communication function specifically? Because the 2026 research, for the first time, looked at AI and reputation directly. AI is now seen as a reputational opportunity by 60.3% of respondents, while 56.1% say it has increased their organization’s reputational risk exposure. Reputation and trust are our currency. If AI governance is, at its heart, about trust, transparency, disclosure and accountability, then who is better placed to lead on those dimensions than us?

I want to acknowledge my co-researcher on this work, Bonnie Caver of Reputation Lighthouse. Bonnie championed the case for this year’s survey to examine reputation directly for the first time, drawing on her deep expertise at the intersection of AI, trust and organizational credibility. It proved to be one of the most revealing additions to the 2026 research, and the profession is better informed for it.

What we are asking of our member associations

This is where I want to speak directly to our Global Alliance member associations, because the report sets out clear calls to action and three of them matter most to me.

Keep our standards moving. The addition of agentic AI, disclosure and accountability to this year’s survey reflects how quickly the scope of responsible AI is expanding. Our Guiding Principles for Ethical and Responsible AI, and frameworks such as the Venice Pledge, work best as living documents. The annual survey is one of several inputs that can help keep them current as the evidence evolves.

Help the profession build agentic AI governance expertise. This is the most underserved area in the data, and our member associations are precisely the bodies that can turn that gap into training, shared frameworks and practical resources.

Finally, make the case for communication’s formal role in responsible AI leadership. Not to own governance outright, that territory is already contested by IT, legal and compliance, but to own the responsible AI dimensions that give governance its human and reputational integrity: transparency, disclosure, stakeholder trust and ethical communication.

To the communication profession

If you are reading this from within the communication profession, here is my question for you: what would it take to move from involvement to influence this year? The report offers a few starting points. Lead on disclosure, because with one in four organizations disclosing nothing, building a plain-language disclosure practice is the most immediate and non-negotiable contribution you can make. Claim leadership on the responsible AI dimensions of governance and make that case in business terms at the governance table. Treat the accuracy of AI-generated content as a first-order reputational risk that you own, not a technical issue you assume someone else is checking.

The real question

The headline of this year’s report is that the profession is moving. Not swiftly, and not uniformly, but moving. The question is no longer whether we will adopt AI, because we already have. The question is whether we will lead on its responsible use, or watch others define the terms for us.

I would genuinely love to know where you sit. Are you seeing the same shift from adoption to accountability inside your own organization? Where are you stuck?

I’d encourage you to read the full Reimagining Tomorrow 2026 report, see how your region and your own practice compare, and choose a single call to action to act on this quarter. If each of us moves one number, the profession moves with us.

Get the report here https://www.globalalliancepr.org/reimagining-tomorrow-2026

Get in touch https://www.linkedin.com/in/cropleycommunications/

Adrian Cropley OAM is Board Director, Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management; co-founder Centre for Strategic Communication Excellence; co-researcher and co-author, Reimagining Tomorrow 2026