Australian companies are navigating the reputational risks of AI adoption in their organisations. Based on Medianet’s 2025 report, The AI Tightrope: Balancing AI, Reputation and Workforce Impact, we examine how media narratives, public sentiment and union influence are shaping corporate reputation, and what communication leaders must do to stay transparent, credible and trusted.
Between January and August 2025, Medianet’s insights team analysed approximately 39,000 print/online items and 2,500 social posts (totalling 50,000+ items) across Australian channels. The findings highlight a clear divide:
71% of media coverage from outlets such as The Australian and Australian Financial Review framed AI as a driver of productivity, innovation and economic growth.
By contrast, 64% of social media posts from Australian accounts expressed negative sentiment, often linking AI to job insecurity, poor customer service via chatbots and demands for tighter regulation.
This divergence underscores a reputational tightrope for corporate leaders: while journalists highlight AI’s potential, employees and the wider public are more likely to see risk than reward.
The report also found that positive narratives centred on productivity, innovation and economic growth outweigh negative ones, but unfavourable themes such as job cuts, redundancies and workforce displacement still carried significant weight. Some coverage even linked AI to copyright disputes and environmental costs, reinforcing that media sentiment is not uniformly positive.
The leading reputational risk for Australian companies adopting AI is inconsistent or opaque communication about job cuts and workforce impact. Without transparency, organisations risk being framed as prioritising profit over people — a perception that feeds cynicism and anxiety online.
The report found that when efficiency is the goal, the narrative must focus on reinvesting in new skills, retraining the workforce and creating higher-value roles, rather than simply reducing headcount. Where executives authentically communicated these efforts, negative sentiment was significantly contained, as seen in Commonwealth Bank’s coverage of its Seattle Tech Hub, which was framed as supporting staff through transformation.
By contrast, where companies downplayed or denied the connection between AI and job losses — as seen in Telstra’s early messaging — the vacuum was filled by unions and media framing the story as a profit-over-people issue, amplifying distrust and negative coverage.
“Without a positive vision for the future of its workforce, a company can be seen as prioritising profit over people, which feeds cynical and anxious narratives on social media channels.”
Corporate leaders are central to how AI adoption is reported. The report details that when Commonwealth Bank CEO Matt Comyn has consistently framed AI as an opportunity, citing improvements such as reduced fraud and faster service times. His proactive thought leadership at summits and in interviews positioned CBA as a technology leader.
But when the bank admitted to premature job cuts linked to AI call-centre automation, it was Comyn’s frank acknowledgement and emphasis on reskilling that helped neutralise backlash.
Telstra, by contrast, became a cautionary tale. After initially downplaying the link between AI adoption and redundancies, the company faced union criticism and negative headlines. The mixed messaging created a credibility gap, eroding trust with both employees and the public.
To maintain trust and reputation, CEOs must lead with transparency, accountability and a clear workforce plan. The narrative should focus on reinvesting in new skills, retraining staff, and creating higher-value roles, not just reducing headcount.
CBA’s coverage of its Seattle Tech Hub, framed around supporting staff through transformation, demonstrates that this strategy works.
“Companies must anticipate and manage the perspectives of stakeholders, including unions, and articulate a clear ‘why’ behind any workforce changes, focusing on reskilling and higher-value roles rather than just headcount reduction.” — Jacquie Hanna, Head of Insights at Medianet Insights
The lesson? Consistent, transparent storytelling helps organisations maintain trust even during disruption.
One of the report’s most highlight-worthy findings is the rise of unions as power players in the AI debate. Media mentions of union commentary around AI surged 265% between May and June 2025, giving groups like the Financial Services Union and Professionals Australia new visibility in sectors where they traditionally had less influence.
Unions have successfully framed themselves as defenders of workers against corporate cost-cutting, often using emotive language that resonates strongly with the public. For companies, this means unions must be treated not as peripheral commentators but as central stakeholders in the conversation.
The experiences of CBA and Telstra show how transparency and consistency define reputational outcomes during AI-driven change.
CBA: Managing backlash through transparency
CBA’s CEO Matt Comyn positioned himself early as a national voice on AI, linking technology to tangible benefits — a 50% drop in scam losses, 30% fewer fraud reports, and 40% shorter call-centre waits. When the bank confirmed job cuts tied to call-centre automation in July 2025, it became the first major Australian company to do so. Despite short-term criticism, Comyn’s openness — including admitting the rollout was premature and rehiring affected staff — helped neutralise backlash. The Seattle Tech Hub and retraining initiatives reinforced CBA’s long-term commitment to reskilling rather than reduction.
Telstra: When mixed messaging backfires
Telstra’s 18-month AI program initially attracted positive attention for its partnership with Accenture and new AI hub. But repeated denials linking job cuts to automation undermined credibility.
By mid-2025, the Communications Workers Union’s consistent framing of Telstra’s actions as “the worst way to introduce new technology” dominated headlines. The company’s later admission that AI played a role, and the launch of a reskilling academy, came too late to restore trust. As the report notes, “Telstra’s AI narrative on job cuts crumbled due to inconsistent messaging, creating a credibility gap.”
Takeaway:
Early acknowledgement, open dialogue and a visible plan for workforce transition preserve trust. Mixed or delayed messaging lets others — especially unions — control the story.
“AI has become as much a reputation story as a technology story,” notes Amrita Sidhu, Managing Director at Medianet. “Our research shows corporate leaders are driving optimism in the headlines, but public cynicism is growing louder online. Navigating this gap is now a frontline issue for communication and corporate affairs professionals.”
The report offers the following strategic recommendations for corporate and communication professionals:
For communication and corporate affairs professionals, the findings highlight a growing risk: AI announcements that are not accompanied by a clear “why” and a credible workforce plan can damage trust.
Thought leadership, transparency and proactive stakeholder engagement are now as critical as the technology itself.
Download the full report here.
Join our Leadership in the Loop series — an exclusive invite-only event for corporate affairs leaders exploring reputation at the intersection of technology, communication and leadership. Join the waitlist here.