A crisis of trust — what the Edelman Trust Barometer tells us about Australian society

A photograph of protestors at an anti-vax March, Melbourne, Victoria, 2022.

The question of trust is not something we typically talk about unless we perceive there to be a crisis.

As the philosopher Onora O’Neill observed in her 2002 BBC Reith Lectures, “Trust … is hard earned and easily dissipated. It is valuable social capital and not to be squandered”  (O’Neill, 2010, pp. 6-7). O’Neill also noted a tendency to talk up evidence of a “crisis of trust”, observing that citizens generally accept their everyday interactions with institutions and professions.

The economist Keneth Arrow described trust as an “invisible institution”, noting that:

It saves a lot of trouble to have a fair degree of reliance on other people’s word. Unfortunately, this is not a commodity which can be bought very easily. If you have to buy it, you already have some doubts about what you’ve bought (Arrow, 2013, p. 23).

The communications scholar Bernd Blöbaum has pointed out that “trust is not visible and thus difficult to describe. Perhaps it is detectable in a close relationship—but often only when it is in danger of fading away. Trust exists, so it is something tangible. But at the same time trust remains abstract” (Blöbaum, 2021, p. 3). The paradox of trust is that “we only realize it was there when it erodes, dries up or turns into distrust … We apparently become more conscious of trust when trust itself becomes less present” (Blöbaum, 2021, p. 4).

Evidence of a crisis of trust

While there are attributes to trust surveys that mean that we need to exercise some caution in applying them, there is nonetheless considerable evidence of a decline in trust in social institutions overall.

The 2021 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee’s report, Nationhood, national identity and democracy observed that declining trust in political institutions was a factor in declining confidence in Australian democracy, with the percentage of those indicating dissatisfaction in Australian democracy increasing from 14 per cent in 2017 to 41 per cent in 2019 (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee, 2020, p. 128).

Trust in the Australian Federal government has fallen since 2020, with only 37% of Australians surveyed by the ANU Centre for Social Policy Research in 2024 expressing confidence in the Federal government, although 64% were satisfied with Australian democracy overall.

These are clearly international trends, as identified in the 2024 OECD Survey of Trust in Public Institutions, which found that more people across OECD countries had low or no trust in government (44%) than high or moderately high trust (39%).

Data ranks Australian’s trust in government against an average of OECD countries. Source: OECD, 2024.

Edelman Trust Barometer

The public relations firm Edelman has undertaken its Edelman Trust Barometer studies since 2000.

Initially prompted by the “Battle of Seattle” protests against the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1999, the Edelman Trust Barometer is now a 28-country survey with over 33,000 respondents worldwide. The Edelman Trust Barometer studies the influence of trust across society — in government, media, business, and NGOs — to shape conversation, premised upon the notion that an organisation’s ability to succeed or fail is defined by trust in their mission and leadership.

Reviewing its work over 20 years, the Edelman: 20 Years of Trust analysis commented upon five megatrends that have become apparent in its work:

1. There is a significant divide within societies around trust, based around education and income. Those with higher levels of income and education – perhaps the “winners” from economic globalisation – are a lot more trusting of the institutions of business, government, the media and NGOs than those with lower levels of income and education.
2. Trust in business is generally higher than trust in government, although this is not necessarily true of all areas of business.
3. There has been a long-term “assault on truth” that occurs primarily through social media. The growth of misinformation, conspiracy theories and “fake news” has occurred in a context where trust in mainstream media has been declining, and where the most influential traditional media outlets are increasingly only available on a user-pays basis.
4. The rise of social media also means that trust is increasingly networked and is often acquired outside of the traditional sources of authoritative information.
5. Fear has been displacing optimism, particularly in the economically developed liberal democracies. The sources of fear include institutional corruption, the impact of globalisation, the pace of social change, eroding social values, and concerns about large-scale immigration. Countries with an above average belief that “the system is failing” are predominately liberal democracies and include Australia.

There is a strong fear of corruption among countries with the highest percentage of people who fear the system is failing. Source: Edelman 2025.

2025 Edelman Trust Barometer Australia: trust & the crisis of grievance

The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer Australia found a small decline in net trust in Australia, from 51% in 2024 to 49% in 2025.

Of the four types of institutions that are studies, NGOs are the most trusted (53%) and media are the least trusted (37%). There was a notable decline in trust of business, from 60% in 2024 to 48% in 2025. Among the factors that are generating mistrust in business are concerns about job security arising from international trade conflicts (51%), economic recession (51%) and automation (48%).

The report is subtitled Trust and the Crisis of Grievance, with grievance referring to a sense that the system no longer favours the vast majority and is purposefully skewed to favour the rich.

Approximately 21% of Australians hold a high sense of grievance, and 41% hold a moderate sense of grievance, with 38% having a low sense of grievance.

Aspects of this crisis of grievance include:

• Strong perceptions that governments, business leaders and journalists lie or exaggerate to serve their own ends.
• A lack of optimism for the next generation.
• Significant growth in the fear of being discriminated against, from 42% to 50%, with the largest increases being among women (+14%), 18–34-year-olds (+14%), those aged 55 and over (+13%) and those on higher incomes (+12%).
• A sense that society is becoming more unequal.
• Significant support, especially among those aged 18-34, for what Edelman terms “hostile activism” to drive change. This may include attacking people online, intentionally spreading disinformation, threatening or committing violence, and damaging public or private property.

A decline in trust in government has lead to an increase in “hostile activism”. Source: Edelman 2025.

Why does this matter?

In considering why levels of trust and governance matter, one should first note the concept of social capital. Authors such as Adam Seligman, Robert Putnam and Francis Fukuyama have argued that there is a positive relationship between a strong civil society, high levels of social trust and economic prosperity, as values of altruism, reciprocity and commitment to social institutions generate a positive feedback loop.

There has of course been much to challenge this rosy conception of social capital over the last three decades, and it is also notable that its intrinsic connection to liberal democracy has been contested, most notably in the case of China.

Trust also matters as it provides a necessary pre-condition for institutional reform. The OECD has observed that there is a connection between levels of trust in national governments and public institutions and the capacity of those institutions to address complex policy challenges.

The Grattan Institute has argued that perceived policy gridlock over the last decade has been both cause and consequence of declining trust in government, media and the public service, leading to missed opportunities to build economic prosperity, address common challenges, and better promote intergenerational equity (Daley, 2021).

With regards to science and technology, the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer identifies rising levels of grievance with a trust penalty where those with higher levels of grievance are more likely to view changes initiated by business or governments with a greater degree of suspicion.

• Trust in artificial intelligence being likely to be of benefit is much lower among those with a higher level of grievance (13%) than those with a low sense of grievance (37%).
• The level of trust in CEOs is also much lower for those with a high level of grievance (17%) than those with a low level of grievance (60%).

Scientists are among those who are most trusted in Australia, along with teachers and people the respondents identify as “like them” — neighbours, community groups, etc.

The most trusted industry sectors are healthcare and education, with social media being the least trusted by a considerable margin. It is also notable that while there is distrust of mainstream media and journalists, they are twice as trusted as information sources than social media.

The question of information integrity, and fact-based dialogue, is therefore tied to the sustainability of conventional forms of professionally produced media, as well as measures to address misinformation on social media.

Trust & expertise

The issues raised about trust and grievance by Edelman and other cited studies reach both backwards and forwards for science and technology in Australia. In The Crisis of Expertise, Gil Eyal notes that talking about trust is the inverse of talking about expertise. As he puts it:

“If only we knew what expertise is”, one says, “we would know whom to trust.”

“If only we knew what trust is”, its mirror image counters, “we would know how to communicate and signal expertise.” (Eyal, 2019, p. 43).

The broader point is that societies characterised by low levels of trust and high levels of grievance are unlikely to exempt science and scientific expertise from the sorts of concerns they raise about politicians, business leaders and journalists.

The balance between appropriate skepticism and wholesale distrust can be a difficult one, but the claims of expertise do not in themselves resolve the issue.

As Eyal observes “the real question is not why do people mistrust experts, but why would they ever trust them to begin with?” (Eyal, 2019, p. 43).

Addressing that question provides an important source of common ground between the scientific and humanities, arts and social sciences communities.

Tune in to Time for Trust

ARC Laureate Professor Terry Flew FAHA hosts the new podcast Time for Trust, which explores what can be done to rebuild the public’s trust in our most vital institutions. Available to stream here or on Acast. Time for Trust is a joint initiative by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney, and the Australian Research Council.

References cited

• Allen, D. (2025, April 15). America and its Universities Need a New Social Contract. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/stem-academia-universities-citizenship-civics/682384/
• Arrow, K. J. (2013). The Limits of Organization (5th ed.). W. W. Norton & Co.
• Barbalet, J. (2019). Trust: Condition of action or condition of appraisal? International Sociology, 34(1), 83–98.
• Blobaum, B. (2021). Some Thoughts on the Nature of Trust: Concept, Models and Theory. In Trust and Communication: Findings and Implications of Trust Research (pp. 3–28). Springer.
• Brown, W. (2023). Nihilistic Times: Thinking with Max Weber. Harvard University Press.
• Daley, J. (2021). Gridlock: Removing Barriers to Policy Reform. Grattan Institute.
• Eyal, G. (2019). The Crisis of Expertise. Polity.
• Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Penguin Books.
• Karp, P. (2024, December 4). Confidence in federal Labor at Morrison 2022 election loss levels, poll shows. Guardian Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/04/confidence-in-federal-labor-at-morrison-2022-election-loss-levels-poll-shows?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• OECD. (2024). OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: BUILDING TRUST IN A COMPLEX POLICY ENVIRONMENT. OECD Publishing.
• O’Neill, O. (2010). A Question of Trust. Cambridge University Press.
• Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
• Seligman, A. (1995). Animadversions upon Civil Society and Civic Virtue in the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century. In Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison (pp. 200–223). Polity Press.
• Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee. (2020). Inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy: Discussion Paper. The Senate. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Nationhood/Discussion_paper

The post A crisis of trust — what the Edelman Trust Barometer tells us about Australian society appeared first on Australian Academy of the Humanities.