If the answer is no, there could be a reputation risk management gap in your business.
Quite often we see accountability for reputation risk is diffused across departments and lines of business because, "everyone is responsible for protecting the company's reputation". This is true because the decisions that impact reputation are often decentralized to different business lines and market leaders. But it also begs the question of who is actively monitoring and managing reputation risk in a wholistic way?
And how does the Board and CEO ensure there is a consistent reputation risk appetite being applied across different markets and product lines? The truth is, there is often a gap due to a lack of a framework and data to help executives proper manage this aspect of risk management.
In some cases, the Communications department plays this role but they often do this work under the radar and without the right tools and resources. From the Comms department, a lot of work is being delivered that is not recognized in a systematic way. This makes it difficult for communications executives to advocate for the necessary budget and support to deliver an effective reputation management program because they struggle to prove the value they are offering.
From the CRO vantage point, you could be leaving value on the table because you are not capturing the breadth of work being invested in reputation management to asses if you are over or under investing. Also lacking a consistent framework to evaluate that risk can leave company's vulnerable as different risk appetites and perspectives take hold.
A closer kinship between Communications and Risk can fill the reputation gap that many companies currently have. It can also shift the reputation management discussion from a what happened already to a proactive what could happen mindset. This transition from reactive to proactive reputation management is necessary in our globalized and connected world when news travels fast.
Comments