Societal Resilience in the Age of Cognitive Warfare: The Role of Commercial Organisations

In an era defined by unprecedented digital connectivity, commercial organisations are no longer insulated from geopolitical tensions, cyber-enabled conflict, or sophisticated manipulation operations. The evolution of warfare into the cognitive domain — where perception, trust and decision-making are the battlegrounds — compels every institution, from multinational corporations to small enterprises, to re-evaluate their role in national security. Safeguarding democratic societies and economic infrastructure from cognitive threats demands a whole-of-society effort, one in which commercial organisations must be active, capable participants. In order to make an effective contribution, businesses should develop security-mindedness, embed vigilance and foster a resilient organisational culture, to protect themselves while contributing to the wider social fabric.

Cognitive warfare represents a new frontier in conflict, one in which the objective is not necessarily the destruction of physical assets but the degradation of human and automated cognition. It seeks to erode trust, disrupt sensemaking and fragment societal cohesion. While these tactics have historical roots in psychological and information operations, today’s cognitive operations are supercharged by artificial intelligence, algorithmic targeting and ubiquitous digital platforms. Adversaries exploit the information environment to insert doubt, manipulate behaviours and paralyse decision-making across sectors and populations. As NATO observes, cognitive warfare functions across peace, crisis and war , blending psychology, data science and neurotechnology to achieve strategic effects.

Commercial enterprises are both targets and amplifiers in this contested space. Critical industries, from finance and telecommunications to healthcare and logistics, form the digital and psychological terrain over which cognitive warfare is fought. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrated this vividly. Deepfakes, false narratives and reflexive control techniques were employed to shape perceptions of legitimacy, morale and momentum. These operations did not target governments alone, but aimed to confuse civilian populations and mislead global markets. Private sector actors have a decisive role to play in countering disinformation, maintaining communications and enabling open-source intelligence. Given this, the first imperative for commercial organisations is to cultivate security-mindedness as a core leadership and governance responsibility.

Although security has traditionally been confined to IT or compliance departments, in the cognitive domain, security has become a cultural imperative, helping to set shared values, disciplines and behaviours that prioritise vigilance, critical thinking and responsibility. Boards and executives must treat cognitive resilience as a strategic risk category. Just as financial integrity and sustainability are embedded into governance codes, so too must resilience against information manipulation and trust erosion become standard practice. Leadership must begin by understanding the threat landscape and recognise that cognitive warfare encompasses everything from malign influence operations and synthetic media to social engineering, micro-targeted persuasion and data poisoning. These threats often bypass firewalls and endpoint protections, exploiting instead the innate vulnerabilities of the human mind: attention fatigue, heuristic bias, fear conditioning. A manipulated image, a convincingly spoofed email, or a fabricated tweet can cascade through supply chains, destabilise investor confidence, or provoke consumer backlash. Training in cyber hygiene is no longer sufficient, what is required is a posture of continuous cognitive vigilance, reinforced by leadership modelling and cross-functional coordination.

Second, organisations must invest in capabilities that preserve the integrity of their narratives and media artefacts. As generative AI enables convincing deepfakes, manipulated audio and counterfeit digital documents, commercial brands become potential vectors for disinformation. Whether it is a forged press release, a fabricated video of a CEO, or a falsified invoice in a procurement system, authenticity becomes a frontline defence. Organisations must adopt cryptographic signing of official communications, digital watermarking of assets and the consistent use of verified channels. Internally, employees should be equipped with protocols for authenticating content and escalating suspected manipulations. These measures align with emerging government guidance and are increasingly being adopted in finance, law and high-assurance sectors.

Third, cognitive threat intelligence must become a routine component of organisational security operations. Just as cybersecurity teams scan for malware and intrusions, they must now monitor for indicators of narrative manipulation, disinformation campaigns and coordinated inauthentic behaviour. Tools exist to identify social botnets, detect synthetic media and trace the provenance of viral content, but their effectiveness depends on skilled analysts and institutional awareness. Organisations should designate roles for cognitive threat monitoring and participate in public–private intelligence exchange. National agencies such as the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre encourage this cooperation, offering alerts, indicators and context that can enable early mitigation of reputational or behavioural attacks.

To transform situational awareness into preparedness, companies must integrate cognitive disruption scenarios into red-teaming and crisis simulation exercises. Traditional incident response often focuses on technical breaches or service outages. Yet crises increasingly begin with, or are compounded by, perception manipulation. How would a company respond if a deepfake video of its CEO went viral before market open? What if a coordinated campaign cast doubt on the safety of a pharmaceutical product or the ethical sourcing of materials? Red-teamers should design and execute adversarial scenarios that stress-test leadership communication, public affairs agility and decision-making under ambiguity. These simulations help uncover gaps, clarify roles and rehearse psychologically informed responses.

Beyond internal defence, commercial organisations bear civic responsibility in bolstering public trust and societal resilience. In the realm of cognitive warfare, public confidence in institutions, processes and truth is a strategic asset. Companies can counter the fog of manipulation by embodying transparency, verifying content and through maintaining open communication. For instance, when misinformation arises, timely correction accompanied by evidence can be more effective than silence or deflection. Collaborative efforts between businesses and civil society, such as cross-sector initiatives to debunk falsehoods or promote media literacy , can expand the information immune system of a democratic society.

The role of technology platforms is particularly consequential. Algorithms that prioritise engagement often reward polarisation, outrage and velocity over accuracy. Platform governance, content moderation policies and data access protocols are not merely technical concerns, but are levers of democratic health. Tech firms must commit to ethical design and transparent enforcement of content standards. At the same time, regulators must articulate clear frameworks that balance freedom of expression with protection against manipulation and harm. A resilient information ecosystem depends on mutual accountability between states, platforms, users and commercial partners.

Crucially, cognitive warfare does not operate solely through top-down campaigns. Peer influence, network effects and localised narratives play significant roles. A manipulated customer review, a viral rumour in a workplace chat, or a doctored supplier rating can all create cumulative distortions in perception and decision-making. Thus, organisations must foster cognitive hygiene across their ecosystems. Initiatives might include training employees in media literacy, encouraging critical evaluation of digital content and providing toolkits for verifying online sources. A workforce capable of interrogating information is less susceptible to manipulation and more capable of adaptive response.

There is also a compelling economic rationale for commercial engagement in cognitive resilience. Trust is an intangible yet critical asset, but once eroded by scandal, disinformation, or perceived obfuscation, it is difficult and costly to rebuild. Organisations perceived as evasive or reactive suffer disproportionate reputational damage. Conversely, firms that act swiftly, transparently and with integrity during cognitive incidents often emerge with enhanced credibility. In a trust-based economy, resilience and authenticity are competitive advantages. Additionally, proactive resilience measures can improve investor confidence, reduce regulatory exposure, and support customer retention.

Governments must support this posture shift by developing clear, actionable standards for cognitive defence. While cyber resilience guidance is now mature, cognitive resilience remains fragmented and informal. Voluntary codes of conduct, shared simulation frameworks and designated contact points for threat coordination can empower private sector actors. Clarity on reporting obligations and reassurance that transparency will be met with support rather than sanction is critical. Over time, government and industry should co-develop metrics for societal cognitive resilience, including trust in information, speed of recovery from narrative attacks and systemic adaptability. Ultimately, cognitive warfare targets the fabric of trust between people, institutions and shared realities. It thrives on ambiguity, division and confusion. A resilient society is one in which trust is robust but not naïve, one in which individuals are equipped to navigate complexity, organisations act with integrity and institutions are transparent and adaptive. Commercial organisations are not peripheral to this goal. They are both stewards and beneficiaries of societal trust. Their choices in governance, communication and technology have ripple effects across the public sphere.

Cognitive warfare is not a distant or hypothetical threat. It is a present and evolving reality that engages every node in the modern information ecosystem. Commercial organisations must move beyond reactive security and embrace a proactive, principled approach to cognitive resilience. This includes embedding vigilance in culture, investing in authentication, participating in collective intelligence and modelling transparent leadership. As adversaries seek to divide, deceive and destabilise, our best defence is cohesion, clarity and conviction. In this fight for the integrity of thought and truth, we all have a role to play. Businesses are not just targets but are protectors of the society on which they depend.