The 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer is the firm's 11th annual trust and credibility survey. The survey was produced by research firm StrategyOne and consisted of 30-minute telephone interviews conducted from October 11-November 28, 2010, with the exception of France and Germany, fielded January 3-13, 2011. The 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer survey sampled 5,075 informed publics, including 200 in Canada in two age groups (25-34 and 35-64) in 23 countries. All informed publics met the following criteria: college-educated, household income in the top quartile for their age in their country, read or watch business/news media at least several times a week, follow public policy issues in the news at least several times a week. For more information, contact: Heather Conway, CEO, Edelman Canada 416-979-3310 / heather.conway@edelman.com
2. Business and Government: Trust Stabilizes Globally
In a year marred by corporate crises and financial turmoil for European governments, the 2011 Edelman
Trust Barometer finds trust in business and government markedly resilient and sees a shifting centre of
gravity. Trust in NGOs, “the fifth estate” in global governance, stays strong.
In this year’s Barometer, a three-part
Figure 1: Emerging markets dominate as “business trusters;”
picture emerges of trusters, neutrals,
and distrusters of business and gov- Canada remains neutral
ernment (figures 1 and 2). Countries
How much do you trust business to do what is right?
including Canada that are hover-
ing in the 50 per cent range, so
Trusters Neutral Distrusters
called “neutrals,” occupy a middle 100
ground as the divide widens between +19
90
trusters (over 60 per cent, includ-
80
ing Brazil and China) and distrusters 81%
+12 +12 -8
(under 50 per cent, including the U.S., 70
70%
U.K., France, and Russia). 60 67%
64% 62%
62% 61%
50 59% 57%
54% 54%
The United States, which last year en- 53% 52% 48% 49%
40 50% 46%
joyed an 18-point spike in trust in busi- 44% 42%
40% 41%
30 36%
ness, saw an eight-point drop, placing
the world’s largest economic power 20
within five points of last-place Russia. 10
Trust in government tumbled in the 0
U.S., where the two political parties Brazil India Italy China Japan Germany Canada France U.S. U.K. Russia
were at loggerheads (see page 4 for
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
more on the U.S.).
Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest; Informed publics ages 25 to 64
By contrast, Canada continues
to enjoy stable levels of trust in
both business and government,
Figure 2: China and Brazil drive rise in trust in government; Canada on par
a finding that’s consistent with the with Japan
fact that Canada was less affected by
the economic downturn than many How much do you trust government to do what is right?
other countries.
Trusters Neutral Distrusters
100
In the early years of the Barometer, +14 +46
90
trust in business and government 88%
80 85%
tended to move in opposition. In-
creased trust in one was met by de- 70 74%
-10
-6
creased trust in the other. We generally 60
now see the two moving in tandem, 50
an important step as the expecta- 51% 49% 52% 49%
40 43% 45% 43% 44% 46% 43%
tion is for the world’s two dominant 42% 43%
39% 38% 40% 38% 39%
30 36% 33%
institutions to work together.
20
10
0
China Brazil Japan Canada France Italy India U.K. U.S. Russia Germany
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest; Informed publics ages 25 to 64
2 2011 EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER
3. Trust in Banks Plunges in Most of the West but
Remains Stable in Canada; Technology Holds
Firm in Top Spot
Technology, which is in the No. 1 spot Figure 3: Banks in Canada maintain consistent trust levels before and
globally for the third straight year, is
now followed by automotive and tele- after world financial crisis; automotive climbs across the globe
communications. In Canada, brewing
and spirits hold the second spot at How much do you trust the following industries to do what is right?
58 per cent, and food and beverage
along with retail are tied for third at Banks Technology Auto
56 per cent. The starkest contrast, how- 100 +12 +21 93% 93%
ever, is between technology and banks 90% 98%
90 87% +7 85%
(figure 3). The dramatic three-year drop 83% 82% 80%
in trust in banks in the West keeps this 80 78% 77% 78%
-46 73% 73%
industry stuck at the bottom in global in- 71% 69% 70%68%
70 75%
dustry rankings. By contrast, Canadian -30
banks have enjoyed year-over-year 60 53%
51% 52%
+17 51%
49% 48%
stability, with virtually no change in 50 46%
trust from 2008 to 2011. 42%
40
32%
All four BRIC countries have gained 30 25%
trust as headquarter countries for global
20 16%
companies (figure 4). The trust comes
mainly from fellow emerging markets, in- 10
dicating that the BRIC strategy to target 0
emerging economies is producing results. China India U.S. U.K. Canada China India U.S. U.K. Canada China India U.S. U.K. Canada
However, when compared to Ger-
many and Canada, longtime leaders 2008 2011 2008 2011 2009 2011
in the most-trusted-headquarter-
country category, the BRICs still have Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest; Informed publics ages 25 to 64
a ways to go to be considered reliable
business hubs. Figure 4: Trust in BRIC-based Figure 5: Trust in NGOs on par with
In 16 of the 23 countries surveyed, NGOs companies rises; Canadian- business in emerging markets;
are as or more trusted than business – headquartered companies In Canada, trust in NGOs exceeds
especially in Canada, where informed
publics trust NGOs much more than maintain high levels of trust trust in business
business (72 per cent vs. 50 per cent). How much do you trust global How much do you trust business to
In fact, trust in NGOs jumped from companies headquartered in the do what is right? How much do you
58 per cent to 72 per cent from 2010
following countries to do what is right? trust NGOs to do what is right?
to 2011; NGOs were the only institu-
100 100
tion to experience such a significant
change in trust this year in Canada. 90 90
This rise may be attributed to a percep- 80 80
75%76% 76%75%
tion of NGOs as a stable force amidst 81% 80%
corporate and government crises both 70
+4 +3 70
+5 72%
at home and abroad, and reflects global 60 +5 60
findings that show a strong need for cor- 61% 63%
50 50 55% 55%
porations to create shareholder value in 40% 39% 42% 50%
39% 48%
a way that aligns with society’s interests. 40 36% 34% 35% 40 46%
30%
30 30
Historically trusted most in developed
markets, NGOs continue to gain trust in 20 20
emerging markets (figure 5). In Brazil and 10 10
China, where NGOs are on par with busi-
0 0
ness, higher economic levels come with
Germany Canada Brazil India China Russia Brazil China U.S. U.K./Fr/Ger Canada
a greater concern for environmental re-
sponsibility, education, and public health, 2010 2011 2010 2011 Business NGOs
the very province of NGOs. Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest; Informed publics ages 25 to 64
3
4. The United States: The Stark Exception
In a reversal of last year’s Figure 6: In U.S., 2011 decline mirrors 2008-2009 drop; only country
uptick, the U.S. suffers an to see trust fall in all four institutions
across-the-board tumble, with
declines in all four institutions. Trust in institutions: 2008-2011
70
The downturn in trust in the U.S. in 65 63% 63%
2010 echoed the drop that resulted 60
from the worldwide financial crisis. Worldwide
54%
55 59% nancial crisis 55%
While not as steep a decline, the
country lost half the gains it earned 50
46% 45% 46%
back in 2009 (figure 6). 45 46%
Several explanations emerge for the 40 43% 36% 40%
grim U.S. picture: the prolonged 35
31% 38%
fighting between business and
30
government; unemployment rates— 30% 27%
not the full recovery the country 25
expected; and the nation’s spot as the 20
epicentre of many of the headline crises Jan 2008 Jan 2009 Jan 2010 Jan 2011
of 2010, including the oil spill, product
recalls, and the SEC investigation of Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest NGOs Business Government Media
Goldman Sachs. Informed publics ages 25 to 64
A four-year view paints a bleaker picture
according to the Trust Barometer
Index, in which each country’s score
is an average of its trust in business, Trust Barometer Index U.S. drops while Brazil rises in composite scoring
government, NGOs, and media. The
U.S., fourth from the top in trust in
2008, sinks to the bottom this year, 2008 2011
barely above the U.K. and Russia.
On the other hand, Canada climbs Global — Global 55
to 5th spot, up from 7th in 2008. Mexico 69 Brazil 80
The BRICs hew closer to their 2008 China 62 China 73
rankings, with the exception of Brazil, India 60 Mexico 69
which climbs sharply. U.S. 53 India 56
Japan 50 Canada 55
But if American business is largely not S. Korea 50 S. Korea 53
trusted by Americans, the opposite Canada 48 Japan 51
appears to be the case for American Brazil 48 France 50
business abroad. Continuing a trend France 44 Germany 44
we have seen in recent years, trust U.K. 43 U.S. 42
in U.S.-based multinationals moved Germany 36 U.K. 40
up in many markets, including China Russia 36 Russia 40
(+15), Brazil (+16), India (+16), and
Indonesia (+16), possibly a halo
effect of President Obama’s good
standing abroad. Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest; Informed publics ages 25 to 64
Composite score is an average of a country’s trust in business, government, NGOs, and media
4 2011 EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER
5. Credentials Count More Than Ever
Trust in experts rises—and after years of being at or near the bottom, CEOs see increase in credibility.
Trust in credentialed spokespeople is cent of Canadian informed pub- In the wake of last year’s global
higher this year, signaling a desire for lics say CEOs are credible spokes- crises, the Barometer posed a series of
authority and accountability — a likely people for a company, a 10-point questions about who should speak for
result of the skepticism wrought by increase over 2009. a company in a challenging time.
last year’s string of corporate crises.
In Canada, 99 per cent of in- By contrast, a “person like me” “Multiple voices” is the first conclusion
formed publics find academics and dropped significantly, falling from the drawn, as CEOs, third parties, com-
experts — long the front runners — top four to the bottom two, virtually pany chairmen, government officials
“extremely,” “very,” or “some- swapping spots with the CEO. This and technical experts all have a role
what” credible. may be a result of changing attitudes to play when a company confronts a
about what constitutes “a person crisis. In the case of a product
For the first time, the Barometer like me,” rather than an indication of recall, the technical expert and the
asked about the credibility of a com- a significant decrease in the actual CEO are the preferred spokespeo-
pany’s technical expert who is, in credibility of peer-to-peer communica- ple in Canada (35 per cent for both).
turn, deemed “somewhat,” “very,” or tion. With some estimates indicating In Canada, in a situation where the
“extremely credible” by a majority in that the average Facebook user does local community has been dam-
Canada (95 per cent). not know one-fifth of the 500 people aged, more people want to hear
typically listed as friends on his or her from the CEO (50 per cent) than they
CEOs are now considered more page, it is reasonable to ask whether do a third-party representative (15
credible spokespeople, a shift from the meaning of the word “friend”— and per cent), government official (12 per
two years ago when they sat at the by association “a person like me”— cent), or company technical expert
bottom (figure 7). Eighty-nine per has become devalued. (12 per cent).
Figure 7: CEOs rise in trust in authority, but “person like me” drops amid flight to credentialed spokespeople
If you heard information about a company from one of these people, how credible would that information be?
2009 2011
Academic/expert 98% Academic/expert 99%
Financial/industry analyst 96% Technical expert in company 95%
NGO representative 94%
NGO representative 95%
Regular employee 91%
Person like yourself 91%
CEO 89%
Regular employee 89%
Government of cial 89%
Government of cial 88% Financial/industry analyst 88%
CEO 79% Person like yourself 80%
Informed publics ages 25 to 64 in Canada
“Extremely credible,” “very credible” and “somewhat credible” responses only
5
6. Surround Sound Needed in Time of Skepticism
A jumbled media landscape and Figure 8: Developed markets more distrustful of media though trust in media
the domino effect of corporate in Canada remains steady with an upward trend
and government crises have How much do you trust media to do what is right?
increased skepticism in some Trusters Neutral Distrusters
100
Western nations. +17
90 +19
80
80%
While trust in media as an institu- 70 73%
tion inched up globally, it remained 60
+12 -11
63%
54% 58% -9
steady in Canada and declined 50
50% 48% 45% 45% 45%
significantly in the U.S. and the U.K. 40
38% 39% 37% 37% 37% 38%
36% 36% 38%
(figure 8). As in 2009, Canadians 30
31%
20 27%
need to hear something between 22%
10
three and five times to believe it
0
(figure 9). But in the U.S. and the U.K.,
China Brazil India Japan Canada France Italy Germany Russia U.S. U.K.
approximately one-quarter say they
2010 2011 2011 2010 2011
need to hear something six or more
times to believe it, twice as many as Responses 6-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest; Informed publics ages 25 to 64
two years ago.
Figure 9: Repetition enhances credibility
In Canada, search engines rank
No. 1 as the place people go first 10+ times Once
Twice
11% 2%
for information about a company, 8%
followed by online news sources, and How many times in general do
you need to hear something 6-9 times
print (figure 10). Their second stop 13%
is both on the screen as well to tra- about a specific company to
ditional print media, with 23 per cent believe that the information
saying they go to both newspapers or is likely to be true?
3 times
magazines and online news sources, 33%
which do include the Web versions of Informed publics ages 25 to 64
3 to 5 times
traditional media like newspapers and in Canada 4-5 times 65%
32%
television. Thirty three per cent of
informed publics in Canada say
they trust magazines or business
magazines a great deal, followed Figure 10: Search engines “go-to” source; online news second
by 27 per cent who say the same for
newspapers. Where do you generally go first for news about a company? Then where do you go?
The data portray a savvy consumer First Source Second Source
who turns first to search engines to see
what is available on the topic of inter- Online search engine 34% Online news sources 23%
est, and who then seeks out traditional Online news sources 19% Print (newspapers/magazines) 23%
media to confirm or expand on what
he or she has learned. Information Print (newspapers/magazines) 15% Online search engine 19%
ubiquity has changed the playbook for Company website 11% Company website 15%
corporate communications, the data
Friends and family 11% Broadcast (radio/TV) 10%
suggest, signaling to companies that
they cannot simply be present with Broadcast (radio/TV) 7% Friends and family 7%
their messages, but rather must be
Social media 2% Social media 4%
omnipresent through an approach that
encompasses mainstream, new, so-
Informed publics ages 25 to 64 in Canada
cial, and owned media.
6 2011 EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER
7. Trust Is a Protective Agent
Trust has tangible value. Companies that are distrusted and facing an onslaught of negative news will
have a harder time changing opinion after the storm than they would if they were trusted at the outset.
This year’s Barometer explored wheth- Figure 11: Quality, transparency, trust, and employee welfare most
er trust can diminish the impact bad
important to corporate reputation
news has on a company. The answer
is yes (figure 12). In Canada, 63 per How important are these factors to corporate reputation?
cent will believe negative informa-
tion about a company they do not
trust after hearing it just once or
Transparent and honest business practices 83%
twice. When a company is trusted,
however, only 22 per cent will believe High quality products or services 81%
negative news about it after hearing Company I can trust 78%
the news once or twice. The same
Treats employees well 72%
holds true for positive information, with
far fewer believing good news about Good corporate citizen 68%
a distrusted company. These findings
Communicates frequently 63%
send a strong signal that corporate
leaders would be well advised to cre- Prices fairly 52%
ate a trust foundation so that positive Widely admired leadership 50%
information has an echo chamber in
Innovator 49%
which to resonate.
Financial returns 38%
The most important corporate reputa-
tion factors remain quality products,
transparency, trustworthiness, and Responses 8-9 only on 1-9 scale; 9=highest. Informed publics ages 25 to 64 in Canada
employee welfare, while a company’s
financial performance sits at the bot-
tom along with being an innovator
(figure 11).
Figure 12: Trust protects reputation
When a company is distrusted When a company is trusted
63% will believe
negative information
after hearing it 1-2 times 40%
57%
will believe
need to hear positive
positive information
information 3-5 times to
beleive it
after hearing it 1-2 times
will believe
positive information
7% after hearing it 1-2 times 22%
will believe
negative information
after hearing it 1-2 times
Informed publics ages 25 to 64 in Canada
7