Only 24% of people globally regard business leaders as trustworthy, according to the latest Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Index, while just 23% trust AI chatbots. As organisations accelerate AI adoption and workplace transformation, the findings raise a bigger question – how can leaders successfully navigate change if people have limited trust in both those leading it and the technologies increasingly shaping their lives?
Trust in business leaders remains relatively low worldwide, according to new research from Ipsos, highlighting the credibility challenge facing organisations as they navigate rapid technological, economic and workplace change. The Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Index 2026, based on 23,537 adults across 31 countries, found that just 24% regard business leaders as trustworthy.
Business leaders record a net trust score of -8, meaning more people regard them as untrustworthy than trustworthy, and rank 13th out of the 22 groups included in the Index. By comparison, doctors remain the world’s most trusted profession, with 58% describing them as trustworthy, followed closely by scientists at 57% and teachers at 53%. In all but four countries surveyed, those three professions occupy the top three positions.
The findings suggest that while trust is far from disappearing, it remains concentrated around professions associated with expertise, evidence and public service rather than corporate or political leadership. And as organisations increasingly turn to artificial intelligence to reshape work, Ipsos has added a new dimension to that trust debate.
AI AND TRUST RANKINGS
For the first time, Ipsos asked respondents whether they trust AI chatbots. Only 23% globally regard AI chatbots as trustworthy, while 40% consider them untrustworthy, producing a substantial trust deficit. In nine countries, a majority actively distrust AI chatbots. Ipsos said all nine are either European or English-speaking, highlighting particularly strong scepticism towards AI in those markets. Interestingly, the people behind much of the technology fare better.
Around 31% trust tech entrepreneurs, compared with 25% who distrust them. That places tech entrepreneurs ninth out of the 22 groups in the Index and ahead of business leaders overall. However, the picture changes sharply in the United States, home to many of the world’s most prominent technology companies and founders.
Only 22% of Americans regard tech entrepreneurs as trustworthy, while 38% consider them untrustworthy. The contrast highlights an important point: technological innovation does not necessarily translate into trust in either the technology itself or the people building it.
WORKPLACE TRUST MATTERS
Commenting on why Ipsos introduced AI into the Index this year, Kelly Beaver, Global CEO of Ipsos, said: “We wanted to bring in some of today’s discourse around where technology is heading into this year’s study.”
She noted that although AI chatbots do not perform particularly strongly in the rankings, they still sit ahead of some groups traditionally regarded with the greatest scepticism, including advertising executives, influencers and politicians. That matters for businesses as AI moves rapidly from experimentation into recruitment, reporting, productivity, customer service, decision-making and everyday knowledge work.
As recently reported, organisations with trustworthy AI practices are 15 times more likely to see strong ROI. The findings show that governance, data quality, explainability and accountability increasingly shape both business performance and trust.
PEOPLE TRUST EACH OTHER MORE THAN BUSINESSES
One of the more revealing findings is that people appear to place greater confidence in ordinary citizens than in many institutional figures. Across the 31 countries surveyed, 34% regard the average person in their country as trustworthy, compared with 18% who say they are untrustworthy.
That puts the average person ahead of business leaders, government officials, journalists, bankers, AI chatbots and politicians in the trust rankings. Only Türkiye, Hungary and Japan are more likely to regard the average citizen as untrustworthy than trustworthy.
At the bottom of the global rankings sit politicians, social media influencers and advertising executives. Only 13% trust politicians, while 14% trust social media influencers and 15% trust advertising executives. There is also a notable generational divide around influencers, with 17% of Gen Z trusting social media influencers compared with just 7% of Baby Boomers.
Commenting on the wider findings on LinkedIn, Beaver said the latest Index provides “some great talking points” while revealing “some deeper truths that require further investigation and careful thought from all of us.” However, she cautioned against interpreting the findings as evidence of a wholesale collapse in trust.
Beaver warned against quickly moving into a “trust levels are plummeting around the world” narrative, pointing out that trust levels tend to be relatively stable from year to year. Indeed, aggregate trust across the professions Ipsos has consistently tracked now stands at a higher level than when the research series began in 2018.
FALLING TRUST IN BUSINESS LEADERS
The leadership trust challenge is even more pronounced in Great Britain. Just 17% of Britons regard business leaders as trustworthy, while only 15% trust AI chatbots.
By comparison, 64% trust doctors and 61% trust scientists, underlining the continued strength of confidence in medical and scientific expertise. AI chatbots perform poorly, but remarkably still sit slightly ahead of politicians. Only 11% of Britons regard politicians as trustworthy, while 67% consider them untrustworthy. Half of Britons consider AI chatbots untrustworthy.
Government ministers also score poorly, with 62% regarded as untrustworthy, compared with only 12% who trust them. Social media influencers attract similarly low levels of confidence, with just 11% trusted and 64% considered untrustworthy.
RELIABLE SOURCES MATTER
Trinh Tu, CEO of Ipsos UK and Ireland, said the comparison raises a bigger question about where people increasingly turn for information and advice: “It raises a bigger question about where people look for reliable information, advice and answers, and what they expect from the institutions and technologies increasingly shaping our lives.”
Tu stressed that the finding should not be interpreted as strong confidence in AI. “The striking point is not that people trust AI chatbots. Most do not. It is that a technology many people remain deeply sceptical about still ranks slightly ahead of politicians on trust.”
That distinction matters. AI has not suddenly become highly trusted. Rather, confidence in some traditional sources of authority is sufficiently low that a relatively new and widely questioned technology can now rank alongside – or above – them. For employers and business leaders, this means they need to ensure employees can access reliable information, understand how organisations make decisions and know which sources to trust when change is underway.
HOW TRUST VARIES WORLDWIDE
The global averages also mask significant geographical differences. Ipsos’ Global Trustworthiness Country Index shows a clear tendency towards higher trust scores across parts of Asia-Pacific. India records the highest overall score at +20, followed by Malaysia at +16, Thailand at +15, Singapore at +12 and Indonesia at +9. Thailand’s results confirm the same top-five order, while Ipsos’ global analysis notes that New Zealand ranks eighth.
Europe presents a much more divided picture. The Netherlands and Sweden both record +6, placing them among Europe’s more trusting markets, while Poland and Romania sit at the bottom of the entire 31-country ranking at -17. Great Britain records an overall trust score of -3, placing it in the lower half of the table, while the United States scores -5.
Latin America presents another distinct pattern. Every Latin American country included in the study records a negative overall trust score, including Argentina at -12 and Peru and Chile at -13. Yet low institutional trust does not necessarily mean people distrust each other.
LOCAL AND GLOBAL TRUST CHALLENGES
Across every Latin American country surveyed, respondents remain more likely to regard the average person in their country as trustworthy than untrustworthy. Ipsos also found that, globally, twice as many people trust the average citizen as distrust them. Attitudes towards AI show another pronounced divide. The nine countries where a majority distrust AI chatbots are all either European or English-speaking.
In Britain, only 15% trust AI chatbots and half regard them as untrustworthy. By contrast, 35% of people in Thailand trust AI chatbots, while 47% trust technology entrepreneurs. The United States presents another striking contrast. Although tech entrepreneurs are more trusted than business leaders globally, only 22% of Americans trust them, against 38% who regard them as untrustworthy.
There are also revealing country-specific differences at the bottom of the rankings. While politicians, influencers and advertising executives attract the lowest levels of trust globally, police are among the most distrusted groups in Indonesia and South Africa, while bankers appear among the bottom three in Hungary and Singapore.
These differences matter for multinational employers. Trust cannot be treated as a universal constant. The same leadership message, AI system or transformation programme may be received very differently depending on local attitudes towards institutions, technology and authority. For global businesses, trust increasingly becomes a local as well as a global leadership challenge.
HOW TECH CHANGES TRUST CONVERSATIONS
Ipsos’ decision to include AI chatbots and tech entrepreneurs for the first time reflects how dramatically technology is changing the trust landscape. AI chatbots, tech entrepreneurs and personal trainers were the three new groups added to the Index this year. Employees are increasingly being asked to use AI systems they may not fully understand, while businesses are moving quickly to capture potential productivity gains.
Yet recent evidence suggests adoption is moving faster than governance. As reported earlier this month, one in four executives said AI errors had already reached boards or external audiences. The same research found 84% of executives were at least somewhat confident in AI-generated output without human review, despite just 11% believing their organisation’s data quality was sufficient for AI use.
The issue is not only insufficient trust. Misplaced or excessive trust can create risks too. Employees who automatically accept an AI-generated answer may be just as problematic as those who refuse to use the technology at all.
Responsible AI therefore requires something more sophisticated than encouraging people simply to trust or distrust AI. It requires calibrated trust: enough confidence to use it productively, combined with sufficient knowledge, scrutiny and human judgement to challenge it when necessary.
WHY TRUST MATTERS MORE IN AI WORLD
Trust has always mattered to leadership, but AI raises the stakes. Employees are no longer simply being asked to trust the judgement of senior leaders and managers. They are increasingly being asked to trust systems that may help determine how work is allocated, which candidates are shortlisted, how performance is assessed, what information reaches customers and potentially how jobs themselves change.
In many cases, employees cannot independently inspect those systems or fully understand how they reach their conclusions. That makes trust in leadership more important, not less. Leaders increasingly need to demonstrate not only that technology works, but that it is being used fairly, transparently and with appropriate safeguards.
This is particularly important when AI contributes to decisions affecting recruitment, promotion, performance, pay or redundancy. Workplace culture also matters.
AI TRANSPARENCY
As Fair Play Talks has explored, AI transparency depends heavily on psychological safety in the workplace. Policies that demand disclosure are unlikely to work if employers blame or penalise employees for explaining how they use AI.
Another recent study found 42% of Gen Z workers use AI without their employer’s knowledge, illustrating how unclear expectations can encourage shadow AI and make effective governance harder.
HOW LEADERS CAN BUILD TRUST
The Ipsos figures demonstrate the scale of the trust challenge, but trust cannot be rebuilt through communications alone. It has to be demonstrated through leadership behaviour and organisational systems.
Explain decisions rather than simply announce them
Employees need to understand why change is happening, how decisions were reached and what the consequences may be. With AI, that means explaining why particular systems are being introduced, which tasks they will affect, what information they use and where human oversight remains. Leaders should also be clear about what reskilling will be available, how employee data will be protected and how productivity gains will be shared.
Make accountability visible
Employees need to know who remains responsible when AI contributes to a decision. Technology should not create an accountability vacuum in which difficult outcomes are simply attributed to “the algorithm”. Clear human responsibility is especially important where decisions affect people’s careers or livelihoods.
Give employees a meaningful voice
Trust is harder to build when decisions are developed behind closed doors and communicated only once they are final. Employees often understand practical workplace risks and unintended consequences that senior decision-makers may miss. Involving workers, employee representatives and employee networks in AI implementation can improve decisions while showing employees that organisations are making change with them, not to them.
Create psychological safety
Employees should feel able to question an AI recommendation, challenge a conclusion or raise concerns without fearing that doing so will damage their standing. If organisations want transparency around AI use, they also need cultures where honesty is safer than silence.
Acknowledge uncertainty
Leaders do not need to claim certainty about technology that is evolving rapidly. Trust can be strengthened when leaders distinguish clearly between what is known, what remains uncertain and what might cause an organisation to change direction. Acknowledging uncertainty is not the same as lacking a plan. It can demonstrate that leaders understand the limits of their knowledge.
Measure trust alongside adoption and productivity
Organisations already track AI uptake, efficiency gains and cost savings. They should also assess whether employees trust the systems they introduce, understand how they govern them and believe the resulting decisions are fair. Organisations should increasingly treat trust as a business indicator in its own right.
TRUST CAN DETERMINE WHETHER AI DELIVERS VALUE
There is also a growing commercial argument for taking trust seriously. Recent research found that organisations with strong trustworthy AI practices were 15 times more likely to report strong or high AI ROI. That suggests responsible AI need not be a brake on innovation. Done well, it may help make innovation sustainable.
Poor trust can create resistance, hidden AI use, duplicated work, additional checking and reputational risk. But too much trust can be equally dangerous if employees stop checking outputs or assume machines are more accurate than they actually are. The challenge for leaders is therefore not simply to make people trust AI. It is to create the conditions for people to trust it appropriately.
TRUST, TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY
Ipsos’ findings do not support a simple narrative that global trust is collapsing. As Kelly Beaver highlighted, the long-term data show considerable stability. The more revealing story may be where trust sits.
People continue to place high levels of confidence in doctors, scientists and teachers, while trust in business leaders remains considerably lower. And AI now enters that environment with a substantial trust deficit of its own.
As technology plays a greater role in shaping decisions, information and work, leaders increasingly need to earn confidence in two things simultaneously: their own judgement and the systems they are asking people to rely on.
That will require transparency, accountability, evidence, employee voice and meaningful human oversight. Because in an increasingly AI-driven workplace, trust may become one of the most valuable forms of organisational capital leaders possess.
Check out the full Ipsos Global Trustworthy Index 2026 here.
RELATED ARTICLES
Organisations with strong AI governance, data quality, explainability and accountability are 15 times more likely to report strong returns from artificial intelligence investments, according to new global research.
Despite 84% of executives expressing confidence in AI-generated output without human review, just 11% believe their organisation’s data quality is sufficient for AI use, exposing a potentially dangerous gap between confidence, governance and reality.
Why responsible AI governance must protect workers from blame while helping organisations build trust, accountability and responsible AI governance.
Half of Gen Z workers feel guilty using AI and more than four in 10 are using it without their employer’s knowledge.
