This chapter examines how well you understand and manage the broader ecosystem around the company: regulators, policymakers, NGOs, communities, media, and other influential stakeholders. Boards expect CEOs to anticipate how these actors can affect the firm’s license to operate, reputation, and strategic options—not just react when issues arise. The skills here test whether you can map and prioritize stakeholders, build constructive relationships, and integrate external realities into strategy and risk management. In short, this chapter helps you assess whether you can lead the company in a way that is resilient, respected, and well-positioned in its external environment.
13.1 Mapping and prioritizing key external stakeholders (regulators, NGOs, media, communities)
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to map and prioritize key external stakeholders, they are looking for evidence that the person understands who really matters outside the firm and why. They want to see that the candidate has built a structured view of regulators, policymakers, NGOs, media, communities, and other influencers, and classified them by relevance, influence, and potential impact on the business. They also look for a track record of using that stakeholder map to guide where to invest time and relationship-building, rather than responding ad hoc to whoever shouts loudest. Ultimately, they want someone who can navigate the external landscape with intention, seeing issues and opportunities early because they know who is out there and what they care about.
Open-ended question
“Describe how you have identified, mapped, and prioritized key external stakeholders for a business or major initiative—who you identified as most critical (regulators, NGOs, media, communities, others), how you assessed their interests and influence, how this mapping changed your engagement strategy, and what impact it had on outcomes or risk.”
Rubric – 13.1 Mapping and prioritizing key external stakeholders (regulators, NGOs, media, communities)
Nascent
- Has not led a structured effort to map external stakeholders; engagement has been largely reactive to specific issues or inbound requests.
- Understanding of external stakeholders is informal and fragmented, based on individual contacts rather than a systematic view of institutions and influencers.
- Cannot point to a documented or commonly shared stakeholder map that distinguishes high-priority stakeholders from peripheral ones.
- External issues (e.g., regulatory queries, community concerns, media interest) have sometimes come as surprises without clear ownership or plan.
Developing
- Has participated in or supported stakeholder mapping for specific projects or markets (e.g., permitting process, new site, policy issue).
- Can describe how they categorized some stakeholders by their influence and interest, though the framework and follow-through were limited in scope or time.
- Has used basic stakeholder mapping to inform engagement plans in at least one case, with some positive impact on relationships or risk mitigation.
- Stakeholder views are considered in planning, but the process remains episodic and often driven by corporate affairs, legal, or external consultants.
CEO-Ready
- Has led the development and maintenance of a structured stakeholder map for a significant business or enterprise, covering key regulators, policymakers, NGOs, media, and communities.
- Can demonstrate how this mapping influenced where leadership time and resources were focused, including which relationships they personally prioritized.
- Regularly reviews and updates stakeholder assessments (influence, attitude, issues, potential impact) and uses them in risk, strategy, and communication planning.
- Track record shows fewer “surprise” external issues and more proactive engagement with the most consequential stakeholders.
Distinctive
- Has repeatedly used stakeholder mapping and prioritization to navigate complex external environments (e.g., multi-country regulation, major community sensitivities, activist NGO campaigns) with superior outcomes.
- Can point to major strategic moves (e.g., market entries, closures, large projects, policy changes) where careful stakeholder mapping clearly underpinned license-to-operate and reputational success.
- Their stakeholder mapping and prioritization approaches have been adopted as standard practice in other parts of the organization or in later roles.
- Across roles or companies, is known for having an unusually clear, nuanced grasp of the external landscape and for engaging the right stakeholders early enough to shape, rather than just endure, the context.
13.2 Government and regulatory strategy, including advocacy where appropriate
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to drive government and regulatory strategy, including advocacy where appropriate, they are looking for evidence that this person can shape, not just suffer, the regulatory environment. They want to see a track record of understanding relevant policy and regulatory trends, anticipating their impact, and building constructive relationships with key authorities and policymakers. They also look for proof that the candidate has engaged in responsible advocacy—directly or via industry bodies—when rules or interpretations materially affected the business, while maintaining high ethical standards. Ultimately, they want someone who can protect and enhance the company’s license to operate and influence its regulatory context without creating reputational or compliance risk.
Open-ended question
“Tell us about situations where you have had to develop and execute a government or regulatory strategy for your business—what specific regulatory or policy issues you faced, how you engaged with regulators and policymakers (including any advocacy), what choices you made about when to push, when to adapt, and what impact your approach had on regulatory outcomes, business performance, and reputation.”
Rubric – 13.2 Government and regulatory strategy, including advocacy where appropriate
Nascent
- Has had limited direct involvement with regulators, policymakers, or government bodies; most contact has been managed by legal, compliance, or external affairs.
- Regulatory changes and policy shifts have mostly been treated as external constraints to respond to after the fact, rather than as issues to anticipate or shape.
- Cannot point to a structured government or regulatory strategy for their business or major initiatives.
- Advocacy efforts (if any) were ad hoc, informal, or outsourced, with little personal engagement or oversight.
Developing
- Has participated in some regulatory or policy-related engagements (e.g., consultations, industry forums, meetings with regulators) around specific issues.
- Can point to at least one case where they helped shape a response to proposed regulations or policy changes, leading to some adjustment in requirements or timing.
- Has begun to build relationships with relevant government or regulatory stakeholders, but interactions are still relatively infrequent or issue-driven.
- Demonstrates growing awareness of when advocacy is appropriate and how to coordinate with legal, compliance, and industry bodies, though approach is still maturing.
CEO-Ready
- Has led or co-led a government/regulatory strategy for a substantial business or enterprise, covering both risk management and proactive engagement.
- Can demonstrate specific examples where early, structured engagement with regulators or policymakers influenced outcomes (e.g., implementation details, phase-in periods, interpretation, or new opportunities) in ways beneficial to the business and compliant with rules.
- Regularly uses monitoring of regulatory and policy developments to inform strategy, investment, and risk decisions, not just compliance workplans.
- Is viewed by legal, compliance, and external affairs teams as a strong partner who understands the stakes, sets clear positions, and engages personally when it matters.
Distinctive
- Has navigated complex regulatory or political environments (possibly across multiple jurisdictions) in ways that significantly reduced risk or opened strategic opportunities for the company.
- Can point to major policy or regulatory outcomes—often via thoughtful advocacy or coalition-building—where the company’s voice, guided by them, had a material influence consistent with ethical and transparency standards.
- Has built trusted relationships with key regulators, policymakers, and industry bodies, such that the company is seen as a credible, constructive contributor to policy discussions.
- Across roles or organizations, is recognized as a leader who combines sharp regulatory insight, strategic advocacy, and strong ethics to shape a more favorable and predictable operating environment.
13.3 Oversight of corporate affairs, media relations, and public narrative
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s oversight of corporate affairs, media relations, and the public narrative, they are looking for evidence that this person can deliberately shape how the organization shows up in the world. They want to see a track record of setting clear narrative priorities, aligning corporate affairs and communications to strategy, and ensuring that media interactions and public statements reinforce—not contradict—the company’s brand, values, and positioning. They also look for proof that the candidate has managed sensitive issues and high-visibility moments without creating unnecessary reputational risk. Ultimately, they want someone who can guide the overall story the company tells externally and ensure it is coherent, credible, and well-executed across channels and spokespeople.
Open-ended question
“Describe how you have overseen corporate affairs and media relations for a business—what you defined as the core public narrative, how you worked with communications and business leaders to align messages and spokespeople, how you handled any sensitive or high-profile media situations, and what impact this had on reputation, stakeholder perception, and strategic objectives.”
Rubric – 13.3 Oversight of corporate affairs, media relations, and public narrative
Nascent
- Has had limited involvement in corporate affairs or media relations beyond being briefed or occasionally quoted in press releases.
- Public narrative about the business in their remit has largely been shaped by others (e.g., comms team, external agencies) with little strategic input from them.
- Few examples where they engaged directly with media, editorial boards, or key external influencers in a planned way.
- Has not yet had responsibility for overseeing a coordinated narrative across multiple channels (press, speeches, digital, reports).
Developing
- Has participated in developing messaging for specific announcements, campaigns, or issues, often in collaboration with corporate affairs or PR.
- Can point to a few instances where they adjusted or approved key messages to better align with strategy or mitigate risk.
- Has had some exposure to media interviews or public statements and has received feedback to improve clarity, tone, or alignment.
- Oversight of the narrative is still event-based or reactive rather than guided by a long-term, enterprise-level communications plan.
CEO-Ready
- Has had clear accountability for the overall external narrative of a business or enterprise, working closely with the head of corporate affairs/communications.
- Can demonstrate that key messages across media interactions, press releases, speeches, and digital channels were aligned to strategy and brand positioning over time.
- Has successfully overseen communications for sensitive or high-profile situations (e.g., restructurings, crises, major deals) with controlled risk and preserved or improved trust.
- Is seen internally and by agency/communications partners as the ultimate owner of “what story we tell” and how it is told across major external platforms.
Distinctive
- Has materially elevated the company’s public narrative and reputation through a coherent, sustained communications strategy tightly linked to strategic moves.
- Can point to high-impact moments—thought-leadership campaigns, major speeches, media series, narrative resets—where their oversight clearly shifted how the company is perceived.
- Has built a corporate affairs and media model that is proactive rather than reactive, with strong relationships to key journalists, platforms, and influencers.
- Across roles or companies, is known for orchestrating external narratives that are distinctive, credible, and strategically powerful, making communications a genuine competitive asset.
13.4 Crisis communication and reputation management in sensitive situations
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability in crisis communication and reputation management, they are looking for how this person shows up when things go genuinely wrong. They want to see a track record of handling sensitive situations—such as safety incidents, product failures, investigations, layoffs, or public criticism—with timely, accurate, and empathetic communication. They also look for evidence that the candidate can coordinate legal, communications, operations, and leadership teams so that messages are consistent, responsible, and aligned with action. Ultimately, they want someone who has already demonstrated they can protect (and, where possible, strengthen) trust with employees, customers, regulators, and the public in moments of high risk.
Open-ended question
“Tell us about one or two significant crises or highly sensitive situations you have led through from a communication and reputation standpoint—what happened, what role you personally played in shaping and delivering the internal and external communications, how you balanced legal, commercial, and ethical considerations, and what the short- and long-term effects were on stakeholder trust and the organization’s reputation.”
Rubric – 13.4 Crisis communication and reputation management in sensitive situations
Nascent
- Has had limited direct responsibility for crisis communication; most involvement has been as a recipient of talking points or directives from others.
- In prior crises or sensitive issues, communication from their area was largely reactive, delayed, or inconsistent, with little proactive framing or stakeholder outreach.
- Few examples where they personally engaged with media, regulators, or key customers during a crisis in a visible leadership role.
- Post-crisis reviews, where they occurred, focused mainly on operational fixes rather than learning about communication and reputation impacts.
Developing
- Has been involved in at least one significant incident or sensitive issue, contributing to messaging and internal/external communication planning.
- Can point to situations where they helped improve clarity, tone, or empathy in crisis communications, even if execution was uneven.
- Has started to coordinate with legal, communications, and operational leaders to balance transparency, liability, and stakeholder needs.
- Shows learning from missteps (e.g., over-reassurance, too little detail, slow response) and can describe how they would handle similar events differently now.
CEO-Ready
- Has led communication for multiple crises or highly sensitive situations affecting a business, taking visible ownership of messaging and stakeholder engagement.
- Can demonstrate that internal and external communications were timely, honest, and aligned with actions taken, limiting reputational damage or helping to restore trust.
- Has established or followed structured crisis communication protocols (war rooms, spokespeople, approval processes, Q&As) and improved them based on experience.
- Feedback from Boards, employees, key customers, or partners indicates confidence in how they handled sensitive issues and represented the organization under pressure.
Distinctive
- Has led organizations through severe or multi-dimensional crises (e.g., fatalities, major product failures, data breaches, public scandals) in ways that ultimately strengthened trust and reputation.
- Can point to cases where their communication choices—speed, candor, accountability, empathy—were widely recognized as exemplary by stakeholders, media, or industry observers.
- Has institutionalized robust crisis communication and reputation management capabilities (playbooks, training, governance) that continue to serve the organization after their tenure.
- Across roles or companies, is known for being the person you want in front of stakeholders during the toughest moments, turning potential reputational disasters into demonstrations of the organization’s values and reliability.
13.5 Corporate citizenship, community engagement, and social impact strategy
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to lead corporate citizenship, community engagement, and social impact strategy, they are looking for more than philanthropic activity on the side. They want to see a track record of identifying the social and community issues most connected to the company’s footprint and capabilities, and then building programs that create real impact while reinforcing strategy, brand, and talent value proposition. They also look for evidence of disciplined governance, partnerships, and measurement—so efforts are not just “feel-good,” but credible and sustainable. Ultimately, they want someone who treats social impact as part of long-term value creation and license to operate, not as a disconnected CSR add-on.
Open-ended question
“Describe how you have defined and led a corporate citizenship, community engagement, or social impact strategy—what issues or communities you focused on and why, how you designed and governed programs or partnerships, how you connected them to the business and its people, and what evidence you have of sustained impact for both the community and the organization.”
Rubric – 13.5 Corporate citizenship, community engagement, and social impact strategy
Nascent
- Has supported ad hoc charitable or community activities (e.g., donations, volunteer days) largely driven by others, without a clear strategic lens.
- Cannot point to a defined social impact or community engagement strategy for their area, beyond general statements about “giving back.”
- Impact of activities is not measured or reviewed; efforts are primarily symbolic or episodic.
- Limited direct engagement with community leaders, NGOs, or social partners in a structured, ongoing way.
Developing
- Has helped shape or refine community or social initiatives around specific themes (e.g., education, environment, local employment).
- Can point to at least one program or partnership where there was a deliberate attempt to align community benefit with business strengths (e.g., skills, products, expertise).
- Has begun to define basic objectives and metrics for social impact activities, though tracking and evaluation are still limited.
- Engagement with community and social partners is growing but remains somewhat fragmented and personality- or event-driven.
CEO-Ready
- Has led a coherent corporate citizenship or social impact strategy for a significant business or enterprise, focused on a small number of material themes.
- Can demonstrate multi-year programs or partnerships that create visible benefits for communities (or society) and also support strategic goals (e.g., talent attraction, reputation, market development, risk mitigation).
- Has put governance and measurement in place—clear ownership, goals, and reporting for key initiatives, sometimes aligned with ESG frameworks.
- Is recognized internally and by external partners as someone who takes community and social impact seriously and integrates it into how the company operates and shows up locally/globally.
Distinctive
- Has driven corporate citizenship and social impact efforts that became a distinctive part of the company’s identity and competitive differentiation.
- Can point to initiatives that achieved scale and durability (e.g., long-term community partnerships, flagship programs, systemic impact in a focus area) and are seen as reference cases in or beyond the sector.
- Has successfully mobilized employees, partners, and sometimes customers around social impact efforts, creating meaningful engagement and pride.
- Across roles or organizations, it is known for using the company’s assets—people, products, platforms—to deliver social value in ways that also strengthen long-term business value and license to operate.
