A company can insure its buildings, audit its finances, test its cybersecurity, and model the impact of a recession.
Reputation is harder.
It can deteriorate in hours, spread across platforms the company does not control, and continue affecting decisions long after the original event has faded from the news.
Scott Keever believes that is why reputation risk is beginning to move beyond the communications department.
The founder of Reputation Pros has spent years working with executives, entrepreneurs and public-facing individuals whose search results can influence business relationships, hiring decisions, partnerships and public trust.
Increasingly, he says, the problems arriving at his firm are not simply public relations issues.
They are business risks.
A negative story involving a CEO can affect a company’s recruiting.
An executive controversy can complicate fundraising.
A founder’s digital footprint can influence potential partners before a meeting.
And in founder-led companies, the line between the individual's reputation and the organization's reputation can be almost impossible to separate.
“Boards are accustomed to thinking about financial risk, legal risk and cybersecurity risk,” Keever says. “Reputation belongs in that same conversation because the consequences increasingly show up in the same places.”
The relationship between corporate reputation and executive reputation has changed significantly over the past decade.
Executives were once comparatively anonymous outside their industries.
Social media, search engines, and founder-driven business culture have changed that.
Today, a CEO may have a public profile nearly as visible as the company they lead.
Investors follow executives on social media.
Employees evaluate leadership before accepting jobs.
Journalists examine founders’ histories.
Potential customers search the people behind the businesses they are considering.
And increasingly, artificial intelligence systems summarize executives and companies together.
The result is a reputational connection that companies cannot easily turn off.
Keever sees this most clearly in founder-led businesses.
When a founder is closely associated with the brand, a personal controversy rarely remains personal.
Search the company and the founder appears.
Search the founder and the company appears.
One reputation becomes part of the other.
That creates a form of concentration risk that many businesses rarely measure.
Companies have always understood that scandals can hurt sales.
The modern version of reputation risk is broader.
It can affect access to capital, customer acquisition, employee retention, partnerships, and even transaction activity.
A private equity firm conducting diligence on a founder does not rely solely on audited financial statements.
Neither does a potential board member, senior executive, or strategic partner.
They search.
What they find may not determine the decision, but it becomes part of it.
Keever describes this as the informal layer of due diligence.
The official process may include financial reviews, background checks, and legal documentation.
The unofficial process happens in a browser.
That matters because search results rarely come with context.
An old lawsuit can sit beside a current executive biography.
A controversy from a decade earlier may outrank more recent accomplishments.
An allegation can remain highly visible even after public attention disappears.
The algorithm does not necessarily know which information best represents the person today.
It knows which information appears authoritative and relevant.
That difference is where reputation becomes a governance issue.
Boards usually become involved in reputation after something has already happened.
A story breaks.
A social-media post begins circulating.
A lawsuit becomes public.
A customer issue escalates.
Leadership convenes.
Lawyers are called.
Communications teams draft a response.
Keever believes that sequence is increasingly outdated.
The most important reputational decisions may occur years before the crisis.
How much authoritative information already exists about the CEO?
What appears when someone searches the executive team?
Are biographies accurate and consistent?
Does the company have credible third-party coverage?
Are important executives associated online with their actual areas of expertise?
Are there unresolved inaccuracies that could become amplified later?
Does the organization know how artificial intelligence systems describe its leadership?
Those questions rarely appear on traditional risk registers.
Keever expects that to change.
“You cannot build a credible digital history overnight,” he says. “The time to establish one is before you need it.”
The concept resembles cybersecurity.
Companies do not wait for a breach before deciding whether passwords, backups, and incident-response procedures matter.
They build systems in advance.
Keever argues reputation should be approached similarly.
That does not mean attempting to manufacture positive coverage or bury legitimate criticism.
It means establishing what he describes as reputation resilience.
An executive with a substantial, accurate and authoritative digital footprint gives search engines more context than one whose online presence consists of a company biography and a LinkedIn page.
If negative news appears, the story becomes part of an existing record rather than the record itself.
The distinction can become critical.
Keever’s 2026 research into executive search results found that 78 percent of executives studied had negative coverage appear on the first page of Google within 72 hours of adverse press.
More strikingly, 62 percent still had negative coverage visible on Page 1 more than a year later.
The findings suggest that a crisis's reputational impact can persist far beyond the crisis-management window.
A board may deal with the immediate event for several weeks.
Google may continue presenting it to stakeholders for years.
Corporate communications teams control many of the channels through which companies communicate.
They control the corporate website.
They control press releases.
They control investor presentations.
They control official social accounts.
They do not control the first page of Google.
That page may contain news articles, review sites, social profiles, court documents, competitor commentary, and years-old reporting.
Yet it is often the first thing a stakeholder sees.
Keever believes boards should think about that search page almost like an external version of the company’s investor materials.
The organization does not own it.
But it can still influence perceptions of the organization.
The same increasingly applies to AI.
A stakeholder may no longer search through ten links individually.
They may simply ask an AI system:
What controversies has this CEO been involved in?
Is this management team credible?
What is this company known for?
Are there risks associated with this founder?
The answers can synthesize information from multiple sources into a single narrative.
That gives digital reputation another dimension.
Companies are not only dealing with what information exists.
They are dealing with how machines interpret it.
One reason reputation risk often falls between departments is fragmented responsibility.
The communications team handles press.
Marketing manages brand visibility.
Legal handles litigation.
Human resources manages executive conduct.
Cybersecurity handles data breaches.
Investor relations handles shareholders.
The board oversees risk.
A significant reputation issue can involve all of them simultaneously.
Keever sees that fragmentation as one of the industry’s biggest challenges.
No single department necessarily owns the executive’s digital reputation.
Yet everyone can experience the consequences when it deteriorates.
That is especially true when an issue involves the CEO.
A communications department may respond publicly, but it cannot solve a governance problem.
Legal may manage exposure, but a favorable legal outcome does not automatically change Google results.
Marketing can publish content, but company-controlled messaging has limited credibility during a crisis.
Boards therefore need to think beyond crisis communications.
The broader question is whether the organization understands its reputational exposure before something happens.
The issue becomes particularly acute in companies built around highly visible founders.
Modern business culture has rewarded executives for becoming public personalities.
Founders host podcasts.
They publish newsletters.
They speak at conferences.
They build large social followings.
They become the face of the company.
That visibility can create enormous value.
It can also create enormous dependency.
If customers are buying into the founder as much as the product, damage to the founder can become damage to the business.
Keever believes companies need to recognize both sides.
The founder can be one of the organization’s most valuable reputational assets.
The founder can also become one of its largest reputational liabilities.
The difference often depends on how resilient that reputation was before it was tested.
Boards prefer risks they can measure.
Reputation resists simple measurement.
No universally accepted reputation score compares to a credit rating.
But Keever believes companies can still monitor indicators.
Executive search results can be tracked over time.
Media sentiment can be studied.
AI-generated descriptions can be periodically reviewed.
Search visibility can be measured.
Review patterns can be analyzed.
The strength of executive digital footprints can be compared.
Negative-result persistence can be benchmarked.
None of those measures provides a complete picture.
Together, they provide more than intuition.
Keever believes this is where the industry is heading.
The question is no longer whether reputation matters.
Boards already know that.
The challenge is determining how to monitor it, who should own it, and when leadership should intervene.
Reputational crises have always been capable of damaging businesses.
What has changed is their persistence.
A newspaper once disappeared from a newsstand the next morning.
A television segment aired and was replaced by another.
Today, the story remains searchable.
A potential investor can rediscover it years later.
It can appear during an executive search.
It can resurface during litigation.
It can be summarized by an AI system for someone who never saw the original reporting.
The crisis can effectively restart every time someone searches.
That is why Keever believes reputation is becoming a governance issue rather than simply a communications issue.
Boards are ultimately responsible for protecting enterprise value.
Increasingly, a portion of that value exists in something difficult to control but impossible to ignore:
what the world finds when it searches the people running the company.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here