When the truth is not enough: building trust in times of polarization (and not getting canceled in the attempt)

This article supports companies in the energy sector to compete where communication passivity erodes reputation, offering a practical, updated, and evidence-based kit.

The problem: when facts are not enough

Between 2019 and the onset of the pandemic, a company in the extractive sector faced a major challenge: 14% of the coverage about its brand contained unfounded claims. They were not marginal portals, but key national and regional media. Within that 14%: 29% was narrative reinforcement of myths, 35% was weaponization of the myth as a direct attack, and 36% was reactive denials from the company. The conversation was anchored to the framework of myths.

The company was losing control of the conversation. That is the ground where the battle for reputation is fought today. The evidence is clear: falsehoods tend to travel farther, faster, and penetrate deeper than the truth ((Vosoughi et al. in ‘The spread of true and false news online’). The language of attack is the best predictor of virality (Rathje et al. in ‘Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media’). Fighting lies with truths is little more than a fight between a tiger and a tied-up donkey.

This article supports companies in the energy sector to compete where communication passivity erodes reputation, offering a practical, updated, and evidence-based kit. The mission, which seems impossible, is to make the truth audible and protect the development ecosystem so that energy continues to translate into progress.

The uncomfortable truth about the truth

It doesn't matter if misinformation hits a government, a celebrity, or a hydrocarbon sector company: it is common for executives to feel the pressure (sometimes the compulsion) to go out and correct or clarify. It is an understandable intuition, but correction starts at a disadvantage.

On social media, falsehood travels farther, faster, and deeper than the truth (Vosoughi et al.), and the language that targets the “other” is the greatest driver of virality (Rathje et al.). I wish it were as simple as clarifying and that's it.

In an environment of dizzying information circulation, limited editorial resources, and intertwined interests, audiences tend to privilege intense content that reinforces their beliefs and expands negative judgments about the “other,” because it confirms their own version of the world. In that context, attempts at correction (messages designed to combat fake news, misinformation, and manipulation) often have modest effects, limited emotional reach, and sometimes counterproductive outcomes (Hart & Nisbet, 2012; Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021; Taber & Lodge, 2006). So, what to do?

Prebunking: vaccinate before the lie circulates

Inoculation (prebunking) is the strategy of vaccinating the audience before a falsehood circulates, teaching them how manipulation tactics operate. It works like explaining the magic trick before the show: if people recognize the procedure (impersonation of “experts,” incendiary language, conspiracy theories, etc.), the “trick” loses power when they see it in real life.
Evidence shows that focusing on techniques generates protection against manipulation, even across a wide range of topics, and improves the detection of misleading messages, reducing their credibility and the intention to share them (Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021).

Two complementary tactics to prebunking with evidence of impact are active inoculation and informed reasonable doubt about the source.

Active inoculation consists of developing workshops or simulations in which the audience itself practices manipulation techniques before encountering them in their daily lives. This approach (tested in games like Bad News and Harmony Square) reduces the credibility of false pieces and improves confidence in one's correct judgments. Paradoxically, teaching to manipulate is the most effective vaccine against manipulation.

In turn, informed reasonable doubt consists of training the audience to question the intentions and motivations of the original sources of false or inaccurate information. It is not about blindly discrediting, but about developing critical thinking about who benefits when a certain narrative circulates. This approach improves the audience's ability to evaluate content without automatically accepting it.

Inoculation and its complementary tactics are not the only tools available to companies and their reputational management teams. Polarization environments, such as those offered by election periods or debates on fracking and energy transition, invite the search for alternative paths to compete in a hostile environment with narratives that have some chance of success.

Building bridges from biases

In sensitive topics, no one is a blank slate. People seek what confirms their beliefs (confirmation bias), refute what contradicts them, and choose like-minded sources. Communication should not confront biases; it should connect from their recognition. Bias is not the wall; it is the bridge.

How to build that bridge? Through audience research that identifies what values, concerns, and mental frameworks already exist in the target audiences. For example, if a community is concerned about water, the message about an exploration project should not start by talking about royalties or jobs, but should directly address how water sources will be protected. Connect first with the real concern, then present the proposal.

Qualitative research (focus groups, in-depth interviews), quantitative (representative surveys), and experimental (A/B testing of messages) are the engineering to build that bridge. It is about understanding the emotional and cognitive starting point of the audience to design communication that can truly be heard.

In sensitive topics, no one is a blank slate. People seek what confirms their beliefs (confirmation bias), refute what contradicts them, and choose like-minded sources.

Emotional connection from the narrative

Emotional connection is not achieved with “message houses” or with “talking points” synthesized into a slogan. Emotional connection arises from the metaphorical framework of the narrative (like in fairy tales) that turns the audience into co-protagonists of the story the company wants to tell.

Let's think about a gasification project in a rural area. Corporate language would say: “We will implement natural gas infrastructure that will benefit X households.” Narrative language would say: “Maria will no longer have to get up at 4 am to light the wood stove. Her daughter will be able to study without coughing from the smoke. That is the difference that natural gas makes.”.

The first is information. The second is a story where the audience can see themselves reflected. Corporate and institutional language is the worst enemy of that path: it needs rehabilitation. Organizations must regain the ability to tell human stories, with real characters, tangible conflicts, and concrete resolutions. That is what is remembered, shared, and believed.

Corporate and institutional language is the worst enemy of that path: it needs rehabilitation. Organizations must regain the ability to tell human stories, with real characters, tangible conflicts, and concrete resolutions. That is what is remembered, shared, and believed.

Empowering spokespersons

Literature in behavioral sciences and meta-analyses of reputational studies conducted by Búho Clarity for Leaders show that people believe more in “who says it” than in “what is said.” If the messenger is not trustworthy, the data and the story are lost.

A press release signed by the Communications area has less credibility than the testimony of a field worker, a community leader, or a technician speaking from their direct experience. These alternative spokespersons can be more effective than an institutional brand, especially in contexts of distrust.

Forming and accrediting these spokespersons is a powerful way to multiply the connection points with the organization's value ecosystem. This involves: identifying natural spokespersons (employees, contractors, beneficiaries of social projects), training them in key messages without robotizing them, and giving them legitimate spaces to express themselves (local media, community forums, social networks). Authenticity is not manufactured, it is facilitated.

From theory to practice: a measurable system

Turning these ideas into team habits requires measurement and discipline. Inoculation, understanding of audiences, spokespersons with legitimacy, and emotional narrative gain traction when integrated into a system that allows monitoring their effectiveness.

A reputational dashboard should track: emerging rumors (early detection of false narratives), effectiveness of inoculation tactics (improvement in detection of manipulation by audiences), communication satisfaction (perceived credibility of the spokespersons), and reach of own narratives versus criticisms.

With a short pilot, it is tested, learned, and scaled. The implementation of these strategies is not an abstract exercise, it is an iterative process that requires technical support, team training, and continuous adjustment based on evidence.

Energy companies that manage to institutionalize these approaches will be better prepared to navigate polarization with a cool head and measurable results, protecting their reputation while building real bridges with their stakeholders.