The issue at Campbell’s is neither one of compliance nor enterprise risk management, but rather one of reputation risk governance. The question is therefore how did reputation resilience become so impaired that that one-year old stupid comment by an allegedly impaired senior executive, then into his 5th month of employment, exposed weak governance, reputation risk management, and reputation crisis management?
The shifting landscape of social and cultural norms have made reputation risk—which threatens liquidity—more prevalent, costly to firms, and personal to corporate leadership. Risk professionals are now describing reputation risk as a threat to resilience rather than a PR problem. Communications executives are using new reputation risk governance and management intelligence tools, and both the American Law Institute and the DCRO Risk Governance Institute are recommending reputation insurance for companies and their boards.
Personal attacks on directors are now a governance weapon – amplified by activists, media, and social platforms. Traditional protections (proxy advisors, board slates, collegiality) are eroding. Reputational harm can drive board turnover, litigation, and long-term career damage. Emerging responses: (1) Hazard pay for directors; (2) Reputation insurance alongside D&O coverage. Oversight of reputational risk is mission-critical. Boards must exercise foresight: how is reputational risk being integrated into risk management, who is responsible, and how is the company mitigating it?
Reputation risk management and governance with insurance is now a best practice recommended by governance and legal authorities.
Sophisticated prospective/captive owners intent on launching a captive, or jumpstarting an expanded remit for an existing captive, may successfully overcome corporate inertia with a parametric cover for reputation risk. Reputation insurance is now a recommended best practice—Principle #9—for Reputation Risk Governance according to recently released landmark guidelines from the DCRO Institute. Reputation insurance and insurers are also recognized for their value in reducing compliance risk in America Law Institute’s March 2025 release of Principles of the Law, Compliance and Enforcement for Organizations.
The Guiding Principles from the DCRO Institute is a governance tool—for directors navigating complexity, convergence, and scrutiny. More than crisis management, these principles are a call to clarity—to governing reputation as both a mission-critical asset and a potential source of material risk. These Principles help directors avoid claims of culpability from activists, institutional investors and litigators that can create costly personal reputation losses that are not covered by D&O liability insurance.
Reputation Metrics Linked to Board-Level KPIs. Firms are … managing (reputation) as a measurable enterprise risk.
PR nightmares mount for Pirates, who can’t win — on or off the field. […] Chatter about the team on social media might be loud, but that does not necessarily make it a concern, according to Nir Kossovsky, CEO of Steel City Re, a Pittsburgh-based reputation risk management and insurance firm. […] When a team’s reputation takes a grave hit, Mr. Kossovsky said, relationships with all stakeholders are at risk. The city or state could roll back any tax benefits or waivers they offer the franchise. The Pittsburgh Sports and Exhibition Authority, which collects $100,000 in base rent from the Pirates for PNC Park each year, could raise that rent or amend the lease. Vendors could pull out of contracts. Loans could become more expensive.
There are 45 companies (combined value $10 trillion) on the MAGA anti-DEI hit list.“The worst thing that can happen to a company is: You’re still on that list, but you’ve lost all your good faith and credibility with folks on the other side of these issues.” We call this situation a reputation crisis and a clear need for reputation insurance.
As SEC sees it, we live in a Manichean world where allies are pliant, and anyone who is anything else, is an activist. No more engagement to offer a gentle nudge. “Investors that threaten to vote against directors’ reelection if the company is not aligned with their stewardship policies or views on environmental, social or governance issues will not be considered passive and must instead file a Schedule 13D as activists, according to a new compliance and disclosure interpretation released by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance this week.
Great companies with the most sophisticated boards will sometimes disappoint stakeholders. In our increasingly chaotic economic and political business environment, some customers, employees, regulators or investors will feel betrayed and act. This class action was filed against Target and thirteen of its Directors. In May 2023, Target faced immense customer backlash to its ambitious LGBT- “Pride Month” marketing and sales campaign, one of its featured ESG/DEI initiatives. […] The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Target failed to warn investors of risks associated with its mandates regarding its ESG/DEI initiatives and that this deceit, through misleading statements in the Company’s public filings, caused Target’s investors to purchase Target stock at artificially inflated prices and to unknowingly support Target’s Board and management in their misuse of investor funds to serve political and social goals.