Written by Kirk Kardashian
July 13, 2026
BlackRock didn’t start out to confuse anyone.
The firm has long positioned itself as a leader in sustainable investing, with CEO Larry Fink insisting in his annual letter that ESG considerations are central to its long-term value. But as political pressure increased and customer expectations changed, BlackRock adjusted its language, placing greater emphasis on fiduciary responsibility and investor choice.
Personally, these messages were defensible. Overall, they told a less consistent story. Critics accused the company of greenwashing. ESG advocates have retreated. Internally, even employees were left to interpret exactly what had changed.
(Left) Paul Argenti, Tuck Professor of Corporate Communication. and (right) Mark Desjardins, Tuck Professor of Strategy and Paul E. Lazer T’73 Faculty Fellow. |Photo credit: Laura DeCapua
This is the contradiction at the heart of modern corporate communication. Companies need to adjust what they say to investors, employees, customers and regulators. But the more customized those messages are, the harder it is to add them together to maintain a coherent whole.
Paul Argenti has been following this issue for years. Through his research and advisory work, he has observed how easily fragmented messages can be sent within large organizations, where marketing, investor relations, the CEO’s office, and more all communicate in parallel, often without complete visibility of each other.
Marc Desjardins has experienced the same problems from the outside and the inside. In our research on shareholder activism, we have found that even subtle inconsistencies in how companies describe their strategies can raise red flags, leading investors to question their credibility and push for change.
Both parties have come to believe that most communication breakdowns are not strategic failures. They are a failure of coordination. In global organizations, teams are spread across functions and geographies, making it difficult to stay aligned. “When you have people all over the world, it’s pretty difficult,” Argenti said. “Adjustment doesn’t happen on its own.”
Investor, employee, and customer messages should emphasize different elements, but all should map to the same underlying priorities. If each viewer receives a radically different story, coordination is already broken.
At the same time, the stakes have risen. Investors, analysts, and media routinely triangulate earnings calls, press releases, speeches, and social channels. When messages are inconsistent, trust and value are lost.
AI now offers a way to manage this complexity by providing a holistic view rather than replacing human judgment. No executive or team can track every message a company generates, but AI can analyze and compare communications across channels and show where messages are starting to flow.
The goal is consistency, not uniformity. That is, the ability to tailor messages to different audiences without contradicting the core narrative. “The Benefits of AI in Corporate Communications” will be published in a paper scheduled for publication in 2016. Management business reviewDesJardine and Argenti argue that this type of coordination is a strategic capability that not only solves communication problems but also provides real benefits.
Companies had no control over how their messages were received, only how clearly and consistently they were communicated. Today, that communication is becoming increasingly difficult. Message volume has exploded, audiences have grown, and gaps in what companies are saying in different places are easier to spot than ever before. Companies that get this right not only avoid failure; Build trust with investors, employees and the market.
