June, 2026.- In periods of geopolitical and economic volatility, reputation is sometimes the only asset that appreciates under pressure. Alice Lamb believes this—and she also believes that too many corporate leaders still misunderstand how communications should function.
Lamb, Senior Vice President Corporate Team at The PHA Group, has spent her career at the intersection of corporate reputation, risk anticipation, and sustainability. She holds a qualification in Sustainable Business Management from Cambridge, which shapes her first question when a client wants to “tell their sustainability story”: it is not about narrative. It is about operational change. If the scale of vision and a clear pathway toward measurable transformation in supply chain, procurement, product, and governance are not present, the client is not ready. Audiences are increasingly literate and skeptical. They can tell the difference between progress and positioning very quickly.
The biggest misconception Lamb sees among corporate leaders is that communications is still a downstream function—something to deploy once decisions have already been made. In reality, she argues, communications is a strategic discipline that should be factored into decisions from the outset. Treating communications as reactive means constantly managing consequences rather than influencing outcomes. The most effective leadership teams embed communications into risk assessment, policy, and commercial strategy.
In this interview, Lamb discusses the early warning signs most corporate teams ignore until it is too late—often internal factors like misalignment between leadership, legal, operations, and communications. She compares FMCG brands (where issues escalate quickly due to scale) with service brands (where reputation risk is more episodic but deeper). She shares what she learned about scrutiny from the public sector: that it is a constant, not an exception. And she names the force corporate leaders most often claim to prioritize but abandon under pressure: transparency. When organizations feel exposed, the instinct is to narrow the narrative. In practice, that undermines trust further.
This is a conversation about trust, accountability, and why transparency must be a discipline, not a slogan.
1. The Corporate Communications Landscape: George Coleman noted that C-suite executives are grappling with geopolitical instability, conflict, and economic turmoil. In this environment, what is the single biggest misconception corporate leaders have about how communications should function?
The biggest misconception some leaders have is that communications is still a downstream function, something you should deploy once decisions have already been made. In reality, communications is a strategic discipline that should be factored into those decisions from the outset.
In periods of geopolitical and economic volatility, reputation can sometimes be the only asset that appreciates under pressure. Treating communications as reactive means you are constantly managing consequences rather than influencing outcomes. The most effective leadership teams embed communications into risk assessment, policy, and commercial strategy, because how you act and how that action is understood in the court of public opinion are now inseparable.
2. Sustainability as a Corporate Discipline: You’ve qualified in Sustainable Business Management through Cambridge. When a client approaches you wanting to “tell their sustainability story,” what’s the first question you ask to determine if they’re ready?
There is a tendency to approach sustainability as a narrative challenge rather than an operational one so my first questions when getting under the skin of a sustainability brief are always centre around change. If the scale of vision is there and clear pathway towards measurable transformation around core areas such as supply chain, procurement, product and governance then the client is ready.
Audiences are increasingly literate and sceptical. They can tell the difference between progress and positioning very quickly. At a basic level the role of communications is simply to translate genuine change into something credible, evidenced and proportionate. I always aim to get clients thinking more deeply about precompetitive collaboration and opportunities for more radical evolution in their business models whenever I can as I firmly believe that once the world wakes up to the real world climate crisis that’s coming the retribution directed towards businesses who did not act or dragged their feet will be ferocious.
3. Anticipating Risk vs. Reacting to Crisis: You specialize in helping clients “anticipate risk and counter misinformation.” What’s the one early warning sign that most corporate teams ignore until it’s too late?
While staying ahead of external triggers and societal shifts is a huge part of effective risk management it is often the internal factors that are ignored until it’s too late.
Action can remain untaken when leadership, legal, operations and communications are misaligned on risk or there is a lack of trust. Symptoms of these issues, such as hesitation, hedging language, and siloed decision-making can be the difference between containing an issue and it becoming external.
4. FMCG + Reputation: Your portfolio includes Suntory, So Energy, and Virgin Experience Days. Is corporate reputation fundamentally different for FMCG brands than for service brands? What carries over, and what doesn’t?
There are always exceptions to the rule but the core principles of reputation are consistent, it is the speed and exposure levels that differ.
FMCG brands operate at the intersection of daily consumer behaviour and mass scrutiny. Issues escalate quickly because scale is built into the business model. Service brands, by contrast, tend to experience more episodic reputation risk, but with greater depth when it occurs.
What carries across both is the requirement for clarity and consistency, about what you stand for, how you behave in the face of political, economic or social pressure and how decisions are made.
5. The Public Sector Lens: You’ve worked across both public and private sectors. What did you learn about corporate communications from government that the private sector still hasn’t absorbed?
The public sector has a far more mature understanding of scrutiny as a constant, not an exception.
In government, communications is intrinsically linked to accountability. Decisions are made with the expectation they will be challenged, by media, stakeholders, or Parliament. It’s that discipline that shapes both their decision making and their articulation.
The private sector still too often treats scrutiny as a situational risk, rather than a structural reality. As expectations around transparency rise not only through tighter regulation but via civil society that mindset must shift. The organisations adapting the quickest are the ones that build communications thinking into governance, not just external messaging.
6. Trust, Transparency, and Scrutiny: You said these three forces are “firmly in focus.” Which one do corporate leaders most often say they prioritize but actually neglect when pressure hits?
Transparency is the one most often claimed and most frequently abandoned under pressure.
When organisations feel exposed, the instinct is to narrow the narrative, control information, and reduce perceived risk. In practice, that often undermines trust further and accelerates scrutiny.
Transparency doesn’t mean sharing everything indiscriminately. It means being clear, consistent, and proportionate about what you can say, and why. The organisations that maintain trust are the ones that hold their nerve and treat transparency as a discipline, not a slogan.
