Steady advisers for an unsteady age
Realising the full potential of the general counsel in a polycrisis
Businesses now operate in an age of polycrisis, where geopolitical, socioeconomic, technological and environmental risks are increasingly interconnected and compound one another. These risks are materialising more frequently and rapidly, demanding that organisations prepare for and manage multiple crises, often with incomplete information. Protecting operations, reputation and financial performance today requires more than reacting to crises as they unfold. Organisations need a proactive approach that can anticipate and mitigate threats, as well as the right leaders and capabilities to implement the approach when crises occur. With their mandate of risk oversight, legal expertise and skills, and unique vantage point in the organisation, general counsels (GCs) are well-positioned to lead their organisation’s crisis management strategy. Many organisations have already expanded the crisis management remit of GCs. However, our research finds that organisations are yet to equip them with the resources needed to fully support that expanded role.
What our research reveals
Based on a survey of 1,100 primary legal decision-makers across North America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Asia-Pacific, we identify four areas of focus that can enable organisations to unlock the GC advantage in managing crises.
Match governance structure with GCs’ evolving crisis management remit.
GCs are increasingly entrusted to build and implement the crisis management strategy. However, their organisations’ governance structures have not always kept pace in equipping GCs with decisional capabilities that match their evolving remit. Among the organisations surveyed, the primary responsibility for deciding whether an emerging issue becomes a crisis remains spread across chief executives (44%), boards (24%), GCs (21%) and other c-suite executives (11%). More organisations should give their GCs a permanent seat at the crisis decision-making table so that they can escalate credible threats early and play a central role in shaping a proportionate crisis response.
Deploy a proactive approach to managing crises.
A crisis management strategy has become a baseline requirement for managing risk in most organisations. However, these strategies differ in their level of crisis anticipation and mitigation maturity. Fewer than a fifth of organisations deploy the most advanced proactive approach that can enable them to effectively manage crises (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The proactive approach gap
Surveyed organisations' typical approach to managing crises
Source: The Role of GCs in a polycrisis survey 2026; QC2: Which statement best reflects how your organisation typically manages emerging crisis risks? Select one. *We address issues once they escalate, with response decisions made in the moment by senior leadership. **We monitor risks, but escalation is primarily triggered when leadership determines a situation has become serious. ***We have documented escalation guidance, though decisions often require interpretation and discretion.
Invest in technology and expertise that help discern threats early and prepare for crises.
Information tools, such as an advanced tech stack and timely external expertise, are vital in helping GCs distinguish credible warning signals and assess the likelihood and severity of a crisis. Yet their use remains limited and delayed across surveyed organisations. Less than 50% deploy advanced solutions for risk scanning and crisis anticipation (Figure 2). Meanwhile more than 80% wait to access external support: either only after an initial internal assessment indicates elevated legal or reputational risk or during or post a crisis event. A proactive approach to crisis management could help narrow this tech stack gap. The survey shows that a higher-than-average share of organisations with a proactive approach deploy advanced risk scanning tools (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The tech stack gap
% deploying advanced solutions for risk scanning and crisis anticipation
Source: The Role of GCs in a polycrisis survey 2026; QC3: Which of the following technology solutions does your organisation actively use to scan for emerging risks and identify issues that may escalate into a crisis? Select all that apply. Seven of nine options displayed *49.7%: Rounded off to 50%.
Mainstream early engagement between GCs and boards on crisis decisions.
The priorities of boards and GCs are often naturally aligned within an organisation. They have a shared remit of risk oversight, focus on protecting long-term enterprise value, and preference for early crisis escalation. This creates an opportunity for even more GCs to harness the board as a strategic partner in crisis decision-making. Currently, 57% of surveyed GCs engage with their boards early enough to frame the crisis at hand and the available response options.
A stronger focus on these four areas can allow organisations to prepare for and respond to crisis events promptly and proportionately. Underestimating their impacts can pose existential threats to organisations. But overestimating them can trigger a “cry-wolf effect”, wherein repeated false alarms of an impending crisis make business functions lose trust in future warnings, leaving organisations underprepared to respond when an event actually occurs. This can also undermine GCs’ credibility, making it harder to influence critical crises decisions. The imperative for organisations to adopt a proactive crisis management strategy, and entrust their GCs to build and implement, is clear. GCs must now be equipped with the governance structure, technology and information, and board engagement needed to realise their full potential as steady advisers in an unsteady age of polycrisis.
Discover our research further
Download the full report and infographic for a deeper analysis of our key findings and research methodology. Explore our survey data, polling 1,100 global primary legal decision-makers on their organisations' crisis preparedness and how their role has evolved in shaping crisis decisions and response. The survey was conducted between March and April 2026.
