Communicating ethics and risk in the age of GenAI

I moved into corporate communications at Novartis following a restructuring, stepping into a role supporting the Ethics, Risk and Compliance function. It was my first role focused purely on corporate communications, and I was told quite directly that one of the reasons I’d been selected was to bring a more creative perspective into a space often perceived as dry. It wasn’t dry at all. It was some of the most serious and thoughtful work happening anywhere in the organisation.

Making ethics usable

What stood out very quickly was the seriousness with which ethics, risk and compliance are treated. In a large, complex organisation, that level of attention isn’t incidental, it’s designed, resourced and embedded into how decisions are made every day.

Working closely with colleagues across the function, and in particular with Klaus Moosmayer, I saw first-hand the level of rigour applied to questions of behaviour, judgement and accountability. This wasn’t about messaging for its own sake, it was about helping people understand what to do when situations are unclear, pressured or not entirely black and white.

At that scale, the role of the function becomes very clear. It’s not abstract governance, it’s about protecting the company, the people working within it and, ultimately, the patients it serves.

The challenge for communications wasn’t to simplify the substance, it was to make it usable.

Frameworks like the Code of Ethics and initiatives such as “Doing Business Ethically” carry real weight, but they only work if people can recognise themselves in them. That means moving beyond formal language and into something more practical, something that helps people navigate everyday decisions rather than simply acknowledge a set of principles.

Communicating at scale

Part of that responsibility was scale. These weren’t targeted campaigns or optional reads, they were communications going out to more than 100,000 people. Writing at that scale brings a particular kind of weight, because you’re not just informing, you’re setting tone, expectation and, in some cases, behaviour.

There’s also a certain thrill in it. The idea that something you’ve written or shaped will land across that many people, in that many contexts, and still needs to make sense, is both demanding and oddly energising.

Alongside written communications, I worked on a series of films with senior leaders, capturing their perspectives on what it means to do business ethically in practice. These weren’t scripted endorsements, but more candid reflections, designed to make the principles feel real, human and anchored in leadership behaviour.

When GenAI arrived

When GenAI entered everyday working life in 2023, it added a new layer to all of this.

The speed, fluency and apparent confidence of these tools created a sense of capability that often ran ahead of judgement. The risks weren’t abstract or theoretical, they were immediate and behavioural. People could produce convincing outputs quickly, without always interrogating their accuracy, their source or their appropriateness. The failure modes were familiar very quickly, confident but incorrect summaries, invented references, or content that looked finished long before it had been properly checked.

Alongside that, there were more practical concerns around data. In the rush to experiment, it’s easy to forget that what you put into a model doesn’t just disappear. Guardrails weren’t about slowing people down, they were about making sure curiosity didn’t quietly turn into exposure.

There were also questions around usage. In a large organisation, it’s not just about what the tools can do, but which ones you should be using. Encouraging experimentation had to sit alongside clear guidance to use approved, secure environments, rather than defaulting to public tools that weren’t designed for that context.

What became clear very quickly is that this wasn’t just a technology or policy question. It was a communications challenge.

Policies can define what’s allowed, but on their own they don’t shape how people think.

From policy to behaviour

That’s where communications comes in. The role is to translate principles into situations people recognise. To make risks visible without becoming alarmist. To give people language they can use when they’re unsure, and examples that feel grounded in real work rather than abstract scenarios.

It also means acknowledging something more subtle. GenAI doesn’t just introduce new risks, it changes behaviour. It creates a sense of completion before scrutiny has taken place. It encourages speed over reflection. It can make unfinished thinking look finished.

Good communication in this context isn’t about adding more information, it’s about helping people keep their judgement switched on.

What it became

The role itself had a natural arc. A significant part of the work was tied to the refresh and rollout of the Code of Ethics and the “Doing Business Ethically” framework. Once those were launched and embedded, the core communications challenge had largely been delivered, and the role came to a natural conclusion.

That mattered. It wasn’t an open-ended content role, it was anchored in a specific organisational moment, translating a set of principles into something people could actually understand and use.

A communications problem first

GenAI has accelerated many aspects of work, particularly in communications and content creation. But it has also made judgement more important, not less.

For organisations, that means creating environments where people can experiment safely, supported by clear guardrails and practical guidance, rather than leaving individuals to figure it out on their own.

For communications, it means recognising that this isn’t a side topic. Responsible GenAI use, like ethics more broadly, can’t be bolted on after the fact. It needs to be part of how people are introduced to their work, how they make decisions, and how they understand their responsibilities.

The technology will continue to evolve quickly. The need for clear thinking, good judgement and responsible communication won’t.

Looking back, that experience also shaped how I approached the work that followed, including being a leader on the Eurovision sponsorship. The discipline of thinking carefully about risk, clarity and behaviour sat alongside the creative side of the work, particularly in moments where visibility is high and judgement matters as much as the idea itself.

It also clarified a harder truth. These functions are designed to protect the organisation, and understanding how they operate is an important part of working within a large company. Speaking up plays an important role, and is most effective when done with clarity and good judgement.