Why trust is the new currency in the Philippines

Across Manila, Jakarta and Kathmandu, one force is reshaping markets: public outrage, not just at corrupt politicians, but also at ‘nepo baby’ influencers, entrenched institutions and once-untouchable brands.

In today’s hyperconnected world, trust isn’t given, it’s earned. Lose it, and you lose customers.

Scandals involving misused funds, political favoritism and influencer complicity aren’t just headlines; they’re changing how Filipinos and Southeast Asians choose who and what to support.

Trust is no longer a marketing value.

In the Philippines, it has become the operating currency of business.

Consumers are discerning, watching your values, partners, how you treat employees and how you respond in crises.

In a culture where bayanihan (community support), pakikisama (social harmony) and utang na loob (debt of gratitude) run deep, brands that break these social codes don’t just lose market share, they may never recover.

But building trust is more complex than a checklist of values. 

It demands a shift in power dynamics, long-term commitment beyond headlines and ethical courage rooted in culture, not hidden behind it.

Political: Silence is complicity

Political volatility is the new normal. Billions in flood control funds were misused, stirring public fury.

Celebrities tied to political clans caught in scandals are reputation risks brands cannot ignore. Damage isn’t always visible, but savvy companies know these links quietly erode trust.

Brands must ask: Who do we give power to? Partnerships and public stances now shape your brand’s trustworthiness. Silence in moments of injustice is complicity, an active decision to lose trust.

It’s not enough to avoid controversy. Brands must actively choose where to stand and understand that inaction speaks as loudly as action.

In a country where political and social networks are tightly woven, failing to address uncomfortable truths risks long-term damage to brand credibility.

Economic: Resilience meets impatience

Domestic demand and infrastructure investments remain strong, but cracks are showing.

Power outages, flooding, inconsistent internet and poor roads disrupt businesses and frustrate consumers. Customers want brands to own up fast when things go wrong. Silence kills trust.

Apologies after the fact won’t cut it anymore. Crisis sensitivity and operational empathy are competitive edges. But beyond reaction, brands must build trust into the operating system, ensuring resilience is baked into every process.

Consider how local communities often bear the brunt of infrastructure failures and climate risks.

Brands that invest in community resilience programs or collaborate with local governments are not only doing good, they’re signaling shared responsibility, which builds deep trust.

Social: Gen Z calls the shots

The median Filipino is 26 years old.

This Gen Z cohort, raised amid political drama, climate disasters and social activism, demands honesty, representation and real impact.

They seek accountability, consistency and courage.

Yet, in an age of outrage and fleeting attention, brands must build trust that lasts longer than headlines. Outrage is loud but temporary; long-term trust requires institutionalized integrity, not just reactive messaging.

This means embedding accountability into governance, investing in transparent communication channels and authentically engaging with communities, not just during crises, but daily.

Technological: Build trust, not tricks

Artificial intelligence, automation, and personalization grow, but so does digital distrust. Fake reviews, deepfakes, and misinformation make consumers skeptical by default.

Use technology to enhance real experiences, not just cut costs. Invest in privacy, ethical data use and digital inclusion. Transparency around AI and clear privacy policies build trust faster than flashy tech.

Philippine brands must avoid the temptation to use technology as a gimmick. Instead, technology should be a tool for inclusion and empowerment, especially in underserved areas where digital trust is fragile.

Legal: Compliance is just the baseline

New rules on digital taxation and data protection pile up. Following the law is expected, but not enough.

Trust grows in grey areas, where brands choose openness, care and accountability over technicality. Brands must move beyond compliance toward genuine empathy and proactive transparency.

For example, brands that openly share how they safeguard customer data or involve consumers in feedback loops build far stronger trust than those that only meet minimum legal standards.

Environmental: Walk the talk

The Philippines faces climate disasters head-on. Vague sustainability programs won’t cut it.

Consumers want measurable action: renewable energy, clean water, disaster preparedness. Environmental trust isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s survival.

Brands that lead on environment aren’t just ticking boxes, they’re demonstrating shared risk and shared responsibility.

Because climate change hits the Philippines hard and often, brands that overlook their environmental responsibility risk losing the trust and support they need to stay in business.

Cultural: The heartbeat of trust

Various forces filter through deeply ingrained cultural lenses.

Pakikisama demands social harmony but can silence conflict. Utang na loob builds loyalty but can blur professional lines. Hiya fosters respect but can delay urgent transparency.

Cultural literacy requires brands to navigate these values with courage, not hide behind them. Ethical leadership rooted in local culture is key to unlocking emotional loyalty.

In a society where relationships matter more than contracts, brands must embody cultural values authentically while challenging the norms that allow opacity or excuses.

The Trust Economy: Principles that power the flywheel

The trust economy is a market where people buy based on trust, not just need. Value shifts from reach and price to reputation, accountability and cultural fit.

Here are seven core principles, interconnected like a flywheel, each fueling the next:

Humility–Invitational Mindset: Genuine openness to learn and grow, without getting defensive when challenged. But it’s not just about listening politely or saying “we’re humble.”

It goes deeper: it means actually sharing power and influence with the communities or people you serve, inviting their voices into decisions and respecting their role.

Cultural Literacy–Respectful Connection: Deep understanding of audience context, values, and language. But also the courage to challenge cultural norms that may hinder transparency or accountability.

Empathy–Emotional Alignment: Responding to real needs with compassion, not assumptions. Requires continuous effort and presence, not one-off gestures.

Transparency–Meaningful Honesty: Open communication that reduces fear, confusion and speculation. It must be consistent and proactive, not reactive PR.

Authenticity–Grounded Identity: Consistency across time and touchpoints. Brands must resist becoming mere messaging machines and instead embody true values daily.

Consistency–Reliability Over Time: Actions must repeatedly match words. Trust is built in the invisible, everyday moments, not just big announcements.

Accountability–Worth Believing: Owning mistakes, upholding integrity and being investable long term. Trust requires brands to be vulnerable and willing to change.

These principles work as an interdependent flywheel, each one powers the next, creating self-sustaining momentum. Humility is not just the start, it’s the ongoing fuel.

Trust is not a strategy. It is the operating system

In the Philippines, where betrayal cuts deep and loyalty lasts decades, trust is not a metric. It is how you run your business.

Brands that treat trust as a side effect chase recovery. Brands that embed trust as core infrastructure lead. This means building systems and cultures that live these values daily, with measurable accountability.

Because in a trust economy, every signal matters. Every silence is a statement. Every decision a deposit or withdrawal.

The brands that win in the Philippines won’t be the loudest or flashiest. They will be the clearest, most consistent and most human.

Trust is the future, not just a value, but the foundation. The question is: are we ready to build it boldly, deeply and for the long haul?

Source: Inquirer

Human performance in focus: What business leaders in the Philippines need to know

Business leaders in the Philippines are currently facing a critical gap. While most recognize the urgent need to adapt to the changing world of work, only a few believe that their organizations are responding effectively. The cost of inaction? A potential decline in productivity, trust, innovation and long-term resilience.

This insight comes from Deloitte’s 2025 Global Human Capital Trends study entitled “Unleashing Human Performance in a Boundaryless World,” which drew responses from over 13,000 voices across 93 countries, including 2,000 executives. Each year, the report offers a pulse check on how organizations are evolving and this year’s findings challenge leaders to rethink how they unlock human potential amid rising complexity. 

The modern workplace isn’t about choosing sides — it’s about balancing tensions: automation vs augmentation, agility vs stability and control vs empowerment. These aren’t problems to solve, but they’re dynamics to design around. True human performance doesn’t ask leaders to choose between business and people, it asks them to build systems that serve both.

Deloitte has identified three dimensions of human performance: work, workforce and organization and culture. These three elements present key areas where organizations must make strategic choices to unlock both human and business outcomes. 

The study presented the first dimension as rethinking work. Leaders around the world have overwhelmingly agreed that balancing stability and agility — or what Deloitte calls “stagility” — is essential in their operations. However, the challenges in achieving this are coming from the inside and not the outside. Internal blockers like outdated structures and varying leadership perspectives have hindered companies from focusing on what creates value rather than what just fills time. 

To move forward, businesses must shift from task-based roles to outcome-driven work, meaning their focus should be on empowering employees to redesign their workflows using AI and embracing flexible, skill-based models that adapt to change.

Simplification is another blind spot. Globally, 41 percent of work time is spent on low-value tasks, but the rise of new technologies poses opportunities to eliminate low-value tasks. Tech and data can be used to identify inefficiencies, and redesign processes with employee input. The “slack” or freed up time from the integration of tech to systems should be embraced as this is not a waste but a space for creativity, which could be a game-changer for the organization.

The second dimension is evolving the workforce, coming from findings that highlight the widening of the experience gap. Filipino companies struggle to find experienced hires while new workers struggle to gain experience — especially as AI takes over many entry-level tasks. This leads to a development vacuum or the growing difference between the skills and experience organizations need and what workers actually have.

The fix isn’t just more training, it’s rethinking how experiences should be built.

Apprenticeships, hands-on learning and AI-powered development tools can help bridge the gap. Work should be designed with career paths in mind, not just immediate outputs.

There’s also the digital employee value proposition (EVP) or the concept that tackles why and how people choose their employers in the AI era. As the technology transforms work, employees want more meaning, clarity, and support. Transparency about AI’s role and designing EVP strategies that help people thrive alongside machines — not compete with them — is essential.

Tech investment is another area where intent and impact don’t align. In the Philippines, only 4 percent of leaders believe their tech investments are delivering human value and it’s high time to redefine success metrics to include well-being, engagement and growth, not just efficiency.

Finally, the third identified dimension is rebuilding organizations for performance. Motivation is personal. Data can help decode what drives each employee — whether it’s recognition, autonomy, or purpose — and tailor experiences for them accordingly.

Performance management also needs a reset. Workers don’t trust traditional systems to measure their true value and there is a necessity to move from rigid reviews to daily coaching, meaningful feedback and enabling conditions for success.

The manager’s role is ripe for reinvention. With AI handling more admin and analysis, managers must focus on developing people, solving problems and guiding transformation. They need to be equipped not just to oversee tasks, but to coach, collaborate and catalyze agility. These are not just soft skills; these are hard currency in today’s world.

Considering these dimensions when forming a framework for one’s organization aids in managing the tensions between short-term results and long-term value. They drive leaders towards a reimagined workplace, one where performance management isn’t just traditional, but geared towards implementing efficiency-boosting practices directly into daily work life. 

The path forward lies in rebalancing work, workforce and workplace, not by solving tensions, but by embracing them. When we do, we don’t just optimize performance — we unleash human potential.

In a boundaryless world, that may be the most powerful advantage of all. 

Source: Manila Times

Preserving cultural history amid urban growth

Metro Manila’s urban identity is often associated with its density, skyline, and the relentless churn of new developments. Within this region, the City of Manila, as one of the most populous urban areas in the world, is a bustling hub of trade and commerce, but one inarguably possessed of an old-world soul.

Based on numbers alone, from the data gathered by the City of Manila, the district of Sta. Ana has the most heritage sites in the country with 88, followed by the districts of San Nicolas and Malate with 78 and 55, respectively.

Under the Philippine Registry of Heritage, formerly known as the Philippine Registry of Cultural Property or PRECUP, cultural properties are categorized into several types based on how they are recognized and declared.

Cultural properties included in this registry fall under several formal classifications, each carrying distinct legal protections and historical significance, as determined by national and local cultural agencies.

At the highest level of designation are National Cultural Treasures, which are unique cultural properties found within the Philippines that possess outstanding historical, cultural, artistic, or scientific value. Also of national importance are Important Cultural Properties, which refer to cultural properties recognized for their exceptional cultural, artistic, and historical significance to the country.

Under the purview of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines are additional heritage classifications, including National Historical Shrines, which are hallowed sites revered for their deep historical and often sacred associations; National Historical Landmarks, which are places or structures directly associated with significant historical events or achievements; and National Historical Monuments, which are physical commemorations of important historical figures or moments.

At the international level, UNESCO World Heritage Sites are cultural or natural properties located in the Philippines that have been inscribed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for their outstanding universal value to humanity.

Apart from formally declared properties, the law also recognizes a broader group known as Presumed Important Cultural Properties. These are cultural assets that have not been officially declared under any of the above categories but possess the essential characteristics of an Important Cultural Property.

Finally, there are Local Important Cultural Properties, which are identified and declared by local government units through their respective Sanggunian via ordinance, executive order, or resolution. These are properties of specific cultural, historical, or symbolic value to the local communities in which they are located, and their recognition plays a crucial role in strengthening local heritage protection and awareness.

Together, these classifications aim to preserve the Philippines’ rich and diverse cultural legacy, ensuring that historical memory and artistic achievement remain embedded within both national consciousness and local identity.

And Manila, a city older than the country itself, plays host to many of them.

Preservation as progress

The Philippines has a robust legal framework for cultural preservation. Republic Act 10066, or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, mandates protection for structures at least 50 years old and classifies them as Important Cultural Properties (ICPs) or Heritage Houses.

Updates to this law, including RA 11961 passed in 2023, introduced a three-tier classification system for cultural properties, allowing tailored conservation standards for Grades I to III.

Despite this, legal protection often lacks teeth. There have been plenty of reports over the years that have pointed out the law’s weak enforcement towards the preservation of Manila’s cultural heritage. Property owners frequently alter or demolish historically significant buildings without proper permits or oversight, such as the Sta. Cruz building in Escolta that was demolished surreptitiously amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, or the demolition of the Sanchez House on Bilibid Viejo Street in Quiapo.

Such events have been the source of countless controversies about Philippine heritage, and yet what’s often missing from the debate is this: heritage need not be an obstacle to urban development. In fact, it can be a catalyst for sustainable growth.

A recent Asia-Pacific study using Manila as a case study found that integrating heritage into urban planning can boost local tourism, community resilience, and economic diversity.

The study, titled “Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries: A Case of Balancing Cultural Heritage Preservation and Tourism in Manila, Philippines” and published in the Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, found that cities that balance conservation with modernization like Kyoto, George Town, or Singapore’s Chinatown demonstrate that “a sustainable urban revitalization program can effectively promote a creative economy that can generate employment opportunities and improve the existing economic conditions, especially for low-income citizens who are part of the city’s humanscape.”

In Manila, this is already happening in pockets. The Goldenberg Mansion in Malacañang complex, a Moorish-revival home built in the 1870s, was recently restored and reopened as a cultural center in 2023. Escolta’s First United Building has been repurposed into a creative hub for local entrepreneurs.

Grassroots movements are also gaining momentum. Organizations like Renacimiento Manila are spearheading public campaigns, walking tours, and digital awareness drives to build civic pride and policy pressure.

Manila today stands at a crossroads between its storied past and its visions of the future. One prioritizes verticality, volume, and economic scale; the other values continuity, character, and cultural capital.

But these visions need not be mutually exclusive. Preserving heritage does not mean freezing the city in amber. The numerous heritage sites in the city prove that Manila is a living vessel of collective memory. And what is a nation but a shared memory?

Source: Business World