Boards Are Leaving CEOs Vulnerable: New Survey Finds Most Firms Lack Formal Security Plans

Most companies admit they aren’t prepared to protect their top leader

A new survey from executive compensation adviser Pearl Meyer warns that many public and private companies are not ready for threats aimed at their chief executives. The headline finding is simple: most organizations do not have a formal program focused on CEO security. That shortfall matters because threats to a CEO — from doxxing and ransomware to physical attacks and sudden reputational crises — can quickly ripple through a company and hit its share price, staffing and strategic plans.

The survey arrives as threats to senior leaders have become more visible and disruptive. While the release stops short of saying how often serious incidents occur, it stresses that boards and management teams are increasingly talking about risks beyond the office: social media smear campaigns, targeted cyberattacks, doxxing of family members and the safety of in-person events. For investors, the takeaway is plain: a leader who is distracted, sidelined or forced to step down suddenly creates real business and governance risk.

Who answered the survey and what they reported

Pearl Meyer surveyed corporate leaders and board members from a mix of public and private firms. Respondents included HR and compensation executives, board members and C-suite leaders — the people who would know whether a company has formal plans to protect executives.

Rather than offering a long academic breakdown, the survey focuses on gaps. A majority of respondents said their organizations lack a documented program that combines physical security, digital protections and reputation planning specifically for the CEO. Respondents highlighted three weak spots most often: physical safety at events and home, digital risks such as targeted phishing or doxxing, and preparedness for sudden reputational hits that demand fast public responses.

The release also includes a number of direct observations from participating executives, who described security planning as “ad hoc” or “reactive.” That language underlines the report’s central claim: companies are often improvising after an incident instead of preventing it or rehearsing a controlled response.

Why this matters to shareholders and the market

A CEO is not just a public face; they are a decision-maker whose absence or distraction can stall deals, delay reporting, and unsettle staff and customers. For investors, gaps in CEO security show up as governance and continuity risks. If a board has no plan to protect leadership, that may signal broader weaknesses in risk management.

Market reactions to executive disruption are already well understood: abrupt CEO departures or messy successions can trigger sharp stock moves and higher borrowing costs. Even when no departure happens, a high-profile security incident that reveals poor preparedness can damage brand value and customer trust. Investors should therefore watch for signs that boards are treating executive security as part of enterprise risk — not just a facilities or IT issue.

On the governance side, the survey suggests investors and proxy advisers may start asking whether boards have oversight of executive safety, whether succession plans account for sudden incapacity, and whether companies disclose relevant policies. Firms that demonstrate formal planning and regular testing will likely look less risky than peers that offer only vague reassurances.

What boards should do — and how investors might respond

Experts often point to a few practical moves boards can adopt quickly. These include creating a written CEO security plan that covers physical protection, cyber-hardening of personal accounts, media training for rapid reputational responses, and a clear emergency succession protocol. Regular tabletop exercises that simulate a crisis help turn plans into muscle memory.

Budgeting matters: boards should ensure security gets a dedicated line item and a named executive responsible for coordination across facilities, IT and communications. For investors and stewardship teams, the checklist is simple: look for board-level oversight, documented plans, and evidence of testing. Firms that disclose these elements may be judged more resilient; those that do not could face tougher questions during proxy season.

Where this fits in a bigger trend — and what to watch next

The Pearl Meyer survey sits alongside a rising tide of corporate incidents that blur the lines between physical and digital safety. Regulators are also paying more attention to operational resilience and executive succession planning. Expect boards to face more scrutiny in upcoming proxy seasons, and watch for moves such as updated disclosure guidance or shareholder proposals asking for greater transparency about executive security and continuity plans.

What to watch next: companies that begin to publish clear policies, boards that add security expertise, and any regulatory nudges that raise the bar for disclosure. For now, the survey’s blunt message is clear: many firms are flying without a safety net for their top leaders — and investors should treat that gap as a genuine governance risk.

Sources

• prnewswire.com