Insights

Let’s be honest: governance doesn’t usually make hearts race. The word alone can drain the excitement out of a meeting faster than a surprise PowerPoint. For years, governance has been typecast as the corporate hall monitor—clipboard in hand, ready to say, “No, you can’t do that.” But in the age of AI, that old stereotype doesn’t work anymore. Governance has gone through its own transformation, like a quiet glow-up. Today, it’s not about slowing innovation down; it’s about keeping it human. In fact, governance has become the new empathy.

In this article, Norman Marks reflects on a recent exchange sparked by Alex Sidorenko’s thinking on risk and decision-making, exploring where they strongly align and where a critical distinction emerges around the concept of uncertainty. While agreeing that risk management should move beyond static risk lists and toward enabling better decisions, Marks challenges how the term “uncertainty” is often understood and applied in practice. The result is a pragmatic reframing of risk conversations—one grounded in real managerial decision-making rather than abstract definitions or theoretical precision.

In my earlier piece, Risk Management Is Not a SOX Coloring Book: A Call for Risk Management as a Strategic Discipline, I argued that decades of Sarbanes-Oxley gravity have quietly reshaped how organizations understand risk—narrowing it into a compliance exercise defined by documentation, evidence trails, and audit satisfaction. That article challenged the idea that shaded boxes and completed control matrices equate to managing uncertainty. This follow-up goes a step further. It explores what risk management looks like once we finally put the coloring book down.

For a long time, ESG risk in the supply chain was treated as something adjacent to the business rather than integral to it. A matter of policy statements, supplier codes of conduct, and questionnaires circulated once a year, often completed quickly and filed away quietly. The appearance of diligence was usually sufficient. Oversight, such as it was, could be delegated.

In the digital age, brand reputation is more vulnerable than ever. Viral misinformation—false or misleading information rapidly spread via social media, news outlets, or messaging platforms—poses a significant threat to companies of all sizes and industries. Even unintentional misrepresentations can erode consumer trust, trigger regulatory scrutiny, and lead to long-term financial and reputational damage. Brands that fail to monitor, anticipate, and respond to misinformation risk amplified negative impacts. This report examines the mechanisms of viral misinformation, its impact on brand perception, and strategies to protect corporate reputation in 2025 and beyond.

Earlier this week, I shared a brief post on social media reflecting on a question that has stayed with me throughout my career, "How can we evaluate effectiveness without first being clear about purpose?" The post pointed to a deeper issue that deserves more careful treatment. Whenever I am asked to assess effectiveness, I start in the same place. Before looking at structure, process, or performance, I ask a simple question, "What is the purpose of what I am being asked to assess?"

A week after publishing my first reflections on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026, I find myself returning to the same unease that prompted that first piece—not because the report needs more explanation, but because the initial reaction to it already feels familiar.