For a long time, ESG risk in the supply chain was treated as something adjacent to the business rather than integral to it. A matter of policy statements, supplier codes of conduct, and questionnaires circulated once a year, often completed quickly and filed away quietly. The appearance of diligence was usually sufficient. Oversight, such as it was, could be delegated.
In the digital age, brand reputation is more vulnerable than ever. Viral misinformation—false or misleading information rapidly spread via social media, news outlets, or messaging platforms—poses a significant threat to companies of all sizes and industries. Even unintentional misrepresentations can erode consumer trust, trigger regulatory scrutiny, and lead to long-term financial and reputational damage. Brands that fail to monitor, anticipate, and respond to misinformation risk amplified negative impacts. This report examines the mechanisms of viral misinformation, its impact on brand perception, and strategies to protect corporate reputation in 2025 and beyond.
Earlier this week, I shared a brief post on social media reflecting on a question that has stayed with me throughout my career, "How can we evaluate effectiveness without first being clear about purpose?" The post pointed to a deeper issue that deserves more careful treatment. Whenever I am asked to assess effectiveness, I start in the same place. Before looking at structure, process, or performance, I ask a simple question, "What is the purpose of what I am being asked to assess?"
A week after publishing my first reflections on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026, I find myself returning to the same unease that prompted that first piece—not because the report needs more explanation, but because the initial reaction to it already feels familiar.
Video games were once a hobby defined by premium products. Consoles often cost several hundred dollars, and games themselves were priced around $60 for most of the last two decades. Purchasing a console and building a collection of games was an intentional act. A console is no small purchase, especially for a young audience or the generous parent. The purchase of individual games was typically a decision informed by quality and value from a discerning consumer.
In this article, Norman Marks reflects on a handful of recent and not-so-recent pieces that, taken together, offer a revealing snapshot of where internal audit is headed and where it may be at risk of losing its way. Drawing on insights from industry leaders, consultants, and former global audit officials, Marks contrasts the profession’s growing ambition around agility, insight, and relevance with an increasingly prescriptive standards environment that threatens creativity, judgment, and imagination. The result is both a cautious critique and a hopeful argument for an internal audit function that stays forward-looking, tailored to the business, and grounded in professional judgment rather than rigid process.
In 2025, the balance between risk and reward became materially more consequential. Advances in AI, rising expectations for operational resilience, and intensifying regulatory scrutiny reshaped executive agendas and exposed the limits of reactive risk management. Some organizations adapted quickly, using governance, risk, compliance, ethics, and learning to move faster with confidence. Others struggled to keep pace.