Are we entering what may be called the “end of the feel-good era” in corporate communication and public affairs?

The alignment of socially popular causes has offered reputational upside with minimal scrutiny for many companies up until now, even political parties.

However, recent national elections in Australia and abroad have shown that stakeholders now demand substance over symbolism—and consistency over convenience.

This has been highlighted in climate change debate, the energy debate, the closing the gap debate and the most recent diversity, equity and inclusion debate.

At the heart of this challenge lies a fundamental tension for corporate communication and public affairs - should companies and political parties lead with values or follow prevailing public sentiment?

When communication is guided primarily by social media narratives or transient community views—whether broad or narrow—it risks becoming inconsistent, performative, or even contradictory.

Worse, it may erode employee trust and confuse customers and other stakeholders about what the company or political party actually stands for.

This is not to say that companies and parties should be impervious to public sentiment. But rather than chasing every headline or hashtag, effective strategic communication should be grounded in a structured issue classification and response system.

To manage this complexity, companies should implement an Issue Prioritisation Framework, assigning each issue a level of strategic relevance and reputational risk.

This framework enables communication leaders to distinguish between momentary noise and long-term relevance.

More importantly, it helps organisations avoid the trap of responding too quickly to minor, short-lived controversies while neglecting more substantial, value-driven commitments.

In many respects, the phrase “be careful what you wish for, because you will get it” is particularly relevant here. To avoid falling into this trap, the most effective communication strategy is one grounded in principled consistency.

This means having the courage to say, “This is who we are. These are our values. We will stand by them—regardless of shifting public sentiment.”

It also means respectfully engaging dissenting views, not by mimicking them, but by explaining your position with transparency and humility.

Organisations that stand firm on their values—while applying structured prioritisation and thoughtful monitoring—are better positioned to maintain both internal cohesion and external respect.

Communication, then, becomes not just a reactive function, but a proactive guardian of corporate identity in a world that often asks companies and political parties to trade values for popularity.

The noise will continue. The headlines will change. But values, when clearly communicated and authentically held, can endure.

For more on an Issues Prioritisation Framework contact RMA.