THE economy has come to the point where the military-industrial-media-entertainment network is so sophisticated that a hypermedia environment has given birth to a new preferred battlefield. This latest form of “extension of policy by all means” states the ultimate target is the mind, the cognitive reality of individuals and groups. The battlefield is six feet above the ground in the six inches between the ears. 

Cognitive warfare is the latest evolution of conflict. It is a battle space at the confluence of information warfare, propaganda, cyberspace incursions, social media, algorithms, big data and behavioural communications just to name a few. It is the latest threat that businesses within complex global supply chains need to be aware of and be able to manage. 

At the same time, the state of international relations globally has come to the point where major direct conflict may be impossible to imagine. The doctrine of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, has permeated the thinking of long-term planners, so the next option is to attack supply chains. A battle without shooting a single bullet where companies can end up the casualties of war. 

Cognitive attacks in the corporate sense of the term are effectively defined as the actions that show up as messages that negatively impact the thinking of those individuals or groups that directly or indirectly influence a business or supply chain. These communications often fall on the heads of corporate communicators but in fact, it goes deeper than the job scope and pay grade of communications teams. The importance of understanding these advanced business threats now falls on the shoulders of board members and C-suites.  

The more critical the product or service to a country’s national interest, the more likely that it will end up on the frontlines. Large companies with public ownership are particularly vulnerable to a crisis that can erode value in a matter of hours. The cost of losing a battle in a cognitive war may be directly related to the balance sheets, shareholder value, evaporated public trust or the head of the CEO. 

In Malaysia, the most evident example of a cognitive challenge would be the one facing the palm oil giants. The complexity of attacks and planning to villainise their product are in contradiction to the conventional thinking that “the campaign against palm oil” is merely the work of interest groups.  

The baseline for defence is a well regimented environmental, social, and governance programme. This will often be the preferred angle of attack, utilising local interest groups, misinformation and even fake non-governmental organisations on one hand. The other tactic, even more powerful, is the use of indisputable facts verified through credible international agencies with access to international media networks. A new breed of mercenaries exploits gaps in cybersecurity and community engagement with weaponised communications designed to bring companies to their knees. 

Corporations are in a digital arms race; many just do not realise it. Having digital arms in this case is not enough. The organisation needs leaders who understand how to use these assets within the new strategic landscape. It is therefore imperative that corporate decision-makers be aware of the threats and how they might play out. 

The cognitive battlefield is the mind – the minds of consumers, voters, policymakers, elected officials. The question remains, how long can the current batch of corporate leaders continue to bring knives to a gunfight? – July 5, 2021.

* Nordin Abdullah is founding chairman of the Malaysia Global Business Forum.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.