Key Points

• Geopolitical volatility is driving demand for dedicated board‑level expertise, yet the effectiveness of a CGO depends on the quality and maturity of the private‑sector intelligence they rely on.
• Private‑sector intelligence is expanding but remains a developing craft, lacking standardization, shared ethics, and a unified body of knowledge—making external expertise and intelligence networks critical force multipliers.
• High‑quality intelligence reduces uncertainty and positions companies ahead of events, enabling smarter decisions, tighter alignment between business and risk teams, and meaningful spillover benefits for workforce safety and preparedness.

Mark Rickli, Head of Global and Emerging Risks at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, believes companies must account for the growing impact of geopolitics on business operations. He writes in Global Security Barometer 2025, an exploration of challenges facing the security services industry and global security, that unstable international situations directly influence business activities. To Rickli, it’s a call to action.

“The proliferations of risks for companies in a growing polarized world requires the appointment of a dedicated board member, the Chief Geopolitical Officer (CGO), that can understand how geopolitical developments will affect the companies and therefore defuse any potential risks,” he explains.

There is a question, however, as to how ready the marketplace is to meet demand. A CGOs strategic decisions are only as good as the private sector security intelligence he relies upon, and developing a team of intelligence officers is complicated, as it is a developing field that lacks standardization and a body of knowledge.

Growing, But Still Nascent

The burgeoning importance of private sector intelligence is reflected in its gradual progress toward professionalization, according to a recent Harvard study. In response to an uncertain global operating environment, companies are increasingly investing in intelligence, which is contributing to growth in the transnational private sector intelligence community.

“Over the past two decades, intelligence tradecraft has rapidly expanded in the private sector, focusing on both security risk mitigation and facilitating business decision-making. A robust transnational community of private sector intelligence practitioners has emerged,” the study concludes (“Private sector intelligence: on the long path of professionalization,” Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 37 No.3, 2022).

But although there are now experts in the field, it’s still a work-in-progress. It lacks a common code of ethics, body of knowledge and knowledge advancement, training and education, and certification and licensing. For end-users, this complicates hiring and assessing candidate backgrounds, training, and skills.

“Private sector intelligence is on the path to professionalization, but the road is a long one,” according to the Harvard study, and “currently exhibits several indicators of being more of a ‘craft’ than a profession. A key indicator is reliance on ‘the skill of the individual practitioner’ rather than leveraging a robust body of existing knowledge and educating new practitioners from this accepted set of standards.”

Private sector intelligence ... exhibits several indicators of being more of a ‘craft’ than a profession.

In practical terms, this means corporate CGOs might do better to rely on external firms for whom security is their core business, rather than trying to develop an in-house security intelligence team. And even if companies have an internal intelligence team, it’s probably necessary to tap into external intelligence groups or intelligence counterparts at other organizations to “fill the void.”

Because standardization and a body of knowledge have yet to emerge, organizations may choose to rely on external firms for whom security is their core business, rather than trying to develop an in-house security intelligence team. But even if companies hire internal intelligence officers, it is typically necessary to tap into external security expertise to “fill the void” and reach out to outisde experts, as working within a complex web of intelligence networks acts as a force multiplier for an organization and is perhaps the best way to learn that a problem event may be on the horizon.

Unlocking Operational Value

There are significant advantages for companies that successfully meet the challenge.  Obtaining quality intelligence related to risk and security, which supports strategic decision-making, positions organizations ahead of events. When intelligence reduces an organization’s uncertainty, even by a small margin, its leaders have more time to plan, communicate, and prepare the organization, which has significant value.

Case in point. The Harvard study, by the program coordinator at the Intelligence Project at the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, cites an example of an energy company exploring new market entry in Nigeria to illustrate how intelligence benefits business.

Challenge: Energy company executives are excited at the potential of a new market but are worried about corruption, kidnapping, pipeline tapping, piracy, and Boko Haram. They want to enter the market but are unsure what actions are appropriate.

Solution: The company obtains an intelligence assessment that examines which threats would translate into real risks for the company, considering its prospective vulnerabilities and the likely impact. It learns that Boko Haram would pose a credible threat to operations planned in Borno state, but not the Niger Delta, where more pressing concerns would be pipeline tapping, kidnapping, and piracy. Armed with intelligence, company executives proceed to make smarter decisions to guide their entry into the market.

At a 2022 conference of US retail companies, Ryan Long, director of global intelligence for McDonald’s, said there is no harder question to answer than the one that matters most: namely, “What’s going to happen next?”

Security intelligence can’t offer a crystal ball, but it can help position a company upstream of fast-moving events. “It all comes down to being in a position where you are trying to proactively answer questions rather than reacting to events—that is not the state you want to be in,” he said.

It all comes down to being in a position where you are trying to proactively answer questions rather than reacting to events—that is not the state you want to be in.

As companies look to build or benefit from intelligence capabilities, what should they keep in mind?

1. Focus on what matters most. Businesses possess an infinite ability to gather information about potential events that could disrupt a company’s operations, but more information doesn’t necessarily get a company any closer to preparing for them. “We can spend all our time searching, and searching, and searching instead of focusing on developments that could impact our organizations,” Long warned. Narrowing information sources to the most valuable and strategic use of search tools can help keep intelligence-gathering focused and avoid what he called ‘the collector’s trap.’

2. Close the business-security intelligence gap. For intelligence to function as a valuable early warning system, intelligence analysts need to be as well-versed about an organization’s myriad component parts as they are about the risk environment, because it is that understanding that allows an intelligence team to contextualize risk information for the business and discard the noise. When companies outsource risk intelligence monitoring and analysis, they must collaborate closely with provider partners to ensure they have the necessary understanding of the business and to always keep them informed about where assets and personnel are located.  

3. Appreciate security intelligence’s spillover benefits. Security intelligence programs can’t always accurately predict events, but they have value beyond just prediction. Importantly, they demonstrate to workers that that their safety is a priority worth investing in. Additionally, Long says there is value in gaining an understanding of potential future events even if details may be unclear. It is much better for an organization to get a warning that something could happen and being able to prepare a little than to be blindsided by events, he said.