Reputation: The Missing Layer of Digital Resilience in Brazil
When Crisis Becomes the Story
-
October 05, 2026
-
As organizations in Brazil strengthen their cybersecurity, data governance and artificial intelligence (“AI”) capabilities, one lesson stands out: digital risk extends well beyond technology systems. Cyber incidents frequently unfold in public view, exposing technical vulnerabilities alongside weaknesses in governance, decision-making, stakeholder engagement and organizational coordination.
The Digital Risks Index, published by the Markets, Innovation & Technology Institute (“MiTi”) and sponsored by FTI Consulting, assigns Brazil an overall digital maturity score of 58%, reflecting meaningful progress toward maturity while highlighting continued exposure across cybersecurity, data governance and AI governance.1 While organizations in Brazil improved their cybersecurity maturity by five percentage points year over year, the research continues to identify gaps in governance structures, operational execution, accountability and oversight.2
Throughout this article series, we have examined these gaps through the lens of incident response and AI governance. Reputation deserves equal attention. Cyber incidents frequently create operational, regulatory and financial consequences, but they can also undermine stakeholder trust and confidence long after the immediate disruption has ended. Yet many response programs, crisis exercises and governance discussions continue to give limited attention to stakeholder engagement and crisis communications. Organizations recognize the consequences of reputational harm, but cyber incidents are still commonly managed largely as technical, legal or compliance matters.
The Hidden Vulnerability: Organizational Silos
A consistent theme emerges throughout the MiTi findings: responsibility for digital risk remains distributed across specialized functions that often operate independently. Cybersecurity teams focus on threat detection and containment. Legal teams manage regulatory obligations. Privacy professionals oversee compliance requirements. Executive leadership concentrates on operational continuity and business performance. What is often missing is a coordinated framework that connects these functions before an incident occurs.
Many organizations dedicate substantial effort to technical controls but spend less time preparing for stakeholder engagement during a crisis. Brazilian companies appear to have an intermediate maturity in this area, with about 30% of respondents conducting regular training or structured simulations for cyber incidents.3 Even when exercises occur, though, communications functions often participate late in the process or remain outside the exercise altogether. The result is an organization that may understand how to respond technically but lacks experience managing the institutional consequences that follow.
Why Communications is More Than Public Relations
One of the most persistent misconceptions surrounding cyber incident planning is viewing communications through a public relations lens alone. During a cyber crisis, communications encompasses executive decision-making, employee coordination, customer engagement, regulatory interactions, investor relations, business partner outreach and media management. Each of these stakeholder groups may require different information, view risk differently or expect a different response timeline.
Recent incidents involving companies connected to Brazil’s Pix payments ecosystem illustrate this complexity. In one case, the reported compromise of privileged credentials ultimately affected infrastructure supporting multiple financial institutions, triggering regulatory intervention from the Central Bank and requiring coordinated engagement with regulators, clients, law enforcement and the media.4 Such cases highlight how cyber incidents can quickly extend beyond the affected organization, necessitating coordinated responses across regulators, business partners and other affected institutions, while ensuring that each stakeholder receives timely, consistent and relevant information.
Regulatory scrutiny can also continue long after the initial incident. In July 2026, Brazil’s data protection authority opened a sanctioning proceeding against a health institute following a 2025 ransomware attack affecting approximately 500,000 patient records, including sensitive health data.5 The case highlighted potential gaps in security measures, data protection governance and communication with affected individuals, reflecting regulators’ growing scrutiny of organizations’ cybersecurity frameworks.
Communications is a business discipline, not simply a public relations function. Decisions made by technical, legal and executive teams shape how customers, regulators, investors, business partners and the overall public assess the organization. Companies that communicate clearly and demonstrate control are often better positioned to maintain stakeholder confidence during an incident and avoid longer-lasting consequences.
Recent studies confirm these challenges have become particularly relevant as organizations face a growing number of supply chain attacks and threats targeting critical infrastructure.6 Such incidents often involve a diverse range of stakeholders, making effective crisis management and coordinated communications especially challenging. Yet preparedness efforts still tend to focus primarily on technical and compliance considerations, creating a gap between awareness of reputational risk and the ability to manage it effectively when an event occurs.
Reputation is Everyone’s Responsibility
Across the Digital Risks Index, governance emerges as an important component of organizational maturity.7 The same principle applies to reputational risk.
Organizations with stronger governance establish clear connections across functions well in advance of an incident. Cybersecurity leaders maintain visibility into stakeholder concerns. Legal teams understand potential reputational implications of regulatory decisions. Communications professionals develop familiarity with incident response processes and technical realities. Executive leaders establish governance structures, accountability mechanisms and decision-making authority.
These connections become particularly important during the first days of a cyber incident, especially considering 45% of respondents conduct no incident response training or simulations at all.8 In such environments, uncertainty around stakeholder communications can quickly compound the operational impact of an incident.
The research also suggests that digital risk governance has yet to become fully embedded at the highest levels of many organizations in Brazil. Only 22% of respondents report that cybersecurity investment decisions are made jointly across functions with board oversight, while most organizations continue to rely on technology or finance-led decision-making structures.9 This governance model can make it more difficult to align cybersecurity, legal, compliance, communications and business priorities before a crisis occurs.
Without established coordination mechanisms, organizations may struggle with conflicting messages, delayed decisions, inconsistent disclosures and internal confusion during the period when credibility matters most.
For business leaders seeking to strengthen organizational readiness, four priorities stand out:
- Bring communications into the response process. Include communications teams in cyber crisis simulations, tabletop exercises and incident response planning so they understand operational realities when an incident unfolds.
- Establish clear decision rights. Define who has authority for key decisions, stakeholder communications and regulatory engagement before an incident creates time pressure and uncertainty.
- Break down functional silos. Establish coordination mechanisms among cybersecurity, legal, compliance, privacy and communications teams to support a more unified response.
- Plan for key audiences. Develop communications frameworks for regulators, employees, customers, investors and business partners to improve consistency and credibility during a crisis.
From Cybersecurity to Organizational Trust
Several findings from the Digital Risks Index help explain why reputational risk deserves greater attention within Brazilian organizations. While cybersecurity maturity has improved to 58%, significant preparedness gaps remain. More than half of respondents operate without a dedicated chief information security officer, highlighting ongoing governance and leadership challenges.10
The consequences of these preparedness gaps often extend well beyond an incident itself. Customers may reconsider relationships with the organization, business partners may introduce additional oversight requirements, regulators may apply greater scrutiny to future compliance efforts and media coverage may continue long after systems have been restored. In this environment, stakeholder confidence is just as important to protect as the underlying technology infrastructure.
Protecting Trust Before the Crisis
Across cybersecurity, data governance and AI, the MiTi research reflects a market that is making progress but continuing to face operational and governance challenges. The findings also point to a common truth: organizations devote significant attention to preventing incidents and managing compliance obligations, but stakeholder trust receives far less attention before a crisis occurs.
Yet trust can be one of the most difficult assets to restore once it has been damaged. Technology systems can be repaired. Business operations can be stabilized. Regulatory issues can be addressed. Rebuilding confidence among customers, employees, investors, business partners and regulators is often a longer and less predictable process.
For many organizations, strengthening resilience will require a broader view of digital risk. Effective preparedness depends on whether organizations have established the governance structures, cross-functional coordination mechanisms and communications capabilities necessary to respond with clarity and credibility when an incident occurs.
Stakeholders rarely judge an organization solely on whether an incident occurred. Rather, they evaluate how leadership responds, how information is communicated and whether the organization demonstrates transparency, accountability and control throughout the process.
In that sense, reputation becomes another measure of organizational readiness, built through preparation, coordination and trust before it is ever put to the test.
Footnotes:
1: Unless otherwise indicated, the data cited in this article is drawn from MiTi’s 2025 research report on digital risks, an annual assessment of cybersecurity, data governance and AI maturity among Brazilian organizations, sponsored in part by FTI Consulting. See Cornacchione, E., et al., “Digital Risks 2025,” Markets, Innovation & Technology Institute (6 May 2026).
2: MiTi, supra note 1.
3: Id.
4: Campos, Álvaro, “New hacker attack on Pix raises alarm in Brazil’s financial system,” Valor International (2 Sept. 2025).
5: Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados, Press Release, “ANPD initiates sanctioning process against OS for failing to protect the data of 500,000 patients” (7 Aug. 2026).
6: “Cyberattacks on the supply chain have doubled in the last year, generating global losses of US$53.2 billion,” Cipher (2026).
7: MiTi, supra note 1.
8: Id.
9: Id.
10: Id.
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, Inc., its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.
Related Insights
Related Information
Published
October 05, 2026
Key Contacts
Managing Director, Head of Brazil Strategic Communications
Senior Director