“Reputation is one of the most important elements, if not the most important, in a company’s risk matrix”

To expand the debate in search of more resilient and strategic ways to face the challenges of the transformations of our time through reputation management and good governance practices, the Reputation Feed spoke with Andiara Petterle, an administration counselor who has a remarkable trajectory in the Brazilian digital scene.

With more than 25 years of experience in digital, media, technology and venture capital sectors, he currently serves as a member of the board of directors and committees of several companies, such as Cia Melhoramentos, Assaí Atacadista and Banco Sicredi, is a professor of Digital Transformation at Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance (IBGC) and is a PhD student at Business School Lausanne (Switzerland).

“If shareholders understood the size of the reputational risk and not just that of the other things they look at as a matrix, we would certainly have a very different view of risk matrix management.”

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN BRAZIL, THE USA AND THE EU AND THE NEED TO EVOLVE TOWARDS A MORE ORIENTED MODEL FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS

“As we see that an important piece of an organization’s value is its reputation, we cannot forget that our role is to protect the interest of all stakeholders, because reputation depends on all of them, not just shareholders.”

Is there an interest in expanding the scope of governance to include stakeholders, but not yet in practice? What is needed to execute and reach the level of Great Britain, for example?

We need leaders who want this to happen. To promote this change, it is essential to have leaders, board chairs and CEOs who are truly committed to this transformation. Creating an agenda that prioritizes these discussions is essential. Currently, the board agenda is strongly influenced by the board president and tends to be occupied by formal models and mandatory regulatory agendas, which end up dominating discussions. By structuring an agenda that allows more space for the exchange of ideas and debates, we can make significant progress.

What is the role of shareholders in achieving advances in the model?

Shareholders have the power to elect the board and often recommend the chairman of the board. The difference is made when shareholders choose a well-composed board and a president who supports this transformation agenda. Collaboration between the board chair and CEO is crucial for change to occur. Therefore, I am committed to positive shareholder activism, effective board leadership, and ongoing education of board members. Often, the lack of inclusion of topics such as technology, ethical issues, ESG and governance is not due to ill will, but due to lack of knowledge. Being constantly aware of changes is essential to not fall behind.

.

THE RELEVANCE OF REPUTATION MANAGEMENT FOR BUSINESS STRATEGY, MISTAKEN VIEWS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF BOARDS AND CEOS IN DIMENSIONING REPUTATIONAL RISKS

In your assessment, how strategic for business is corporate reputation for companies?

I'd like to break this answer down, first, into how I believe it should be, and then, how I see it.

1. How I understand what reputation should be for companies:

Reputation is one of the most material elements of risk mapping and is one of the most important, if not the most important, in a company's risk matrix. Reputation is no longer a secondary issue, it has to be strategic. We still can't measure it financially, but reputation is a material financial risk, directly related to the market cap and the value of the company. Perhaps reputation is one of the most difficult risks to manage, because organizations have little expertise and are increasingly vulnerable. Another very important issue is that, when the risk materializes in an accident, it happens very quickly. If shareholders understood the size of the reputational risk and not just the other things they look at as a matrix, we would certainly have a very different view of risk matrix management.

2. How I see the treatment of reputation management in companies:

Reputation often only becomes a relevant topic after a crisis. In many companies, both the board and C-suite view reputation as a crisis management issue rather than a strategic value. Crisis management occurs after the fact, focusing on mitigating the negative effects of lack or mismanagement. From the board's perspective, reputation management is simply having a process ready for when a crisis happens. The same happens at C-Level, where reputation is often treated as a marketing responsibility. However, reputation is not marketing; It is the responsibility of the CEO and a strategic attribution of the company. It manifests itself in various marketing activities, but it is built by the sum of people's reputation, the company's culture and relationships with stakeholders.

“Organizations believe that having a crisis committee represents managing reputation. Having a good crisis committee does not mean reputation management, it means that there was no reputation management, there was management of the non-management claim. I consider the way reputation management in organizations is done today to be a brutal mistake.”

“Managing reputation and building reputation must be among the main tasks of preserving and generating value for the company, as well as ensuring that there is no fraud in the finances, because it is the creation of real value or the depredation of real value for the shareholder.”

And in the United States, how is corporate reputation management handled in organizations?

As there are many more companies listed in the United States and Europe, a reputational crisis melts the value of a company on the stock exchange. In Brazil, we have very few listed companies and few practical experiences of what an organizational meltdown is. In Europe, with more regulation and a much more present culture of ethics, reputational cases are much smaller, but, of course, we have cases like Credit Suisse and Wiredcard, which are crises in organizations that have become major reputational crises. Even due to the scale, in the United States, there is more discipline and capacity to manage reputation. Furthermore, boycotts and more overt social reactions, such as Me Too and Black Lives Matter, have made the concern more tangible.

RISKS TO CORPORATE REPUTATION, DEEPFAKES MADE WITH AI AND THE URGENCY TO ACCEPT THAT THE THREAT IS REAL AND IMMEDIATE

Are organizations prepared for the challenges and reputational risks that arise at an accelerated pace with transformations?

With the advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), one of the biggest reputational risks that all companies will face is that of deepfakes – a technique that allows you to alter videos, photos and audios with the help of AI. This risk is already a reality. For example, an employee at a company in Asia was tricked by a deepfake into believing he was on a video conference with his boss and transferred a large amount of money to fraudsters. Imagine a crisis caused by a fake video of a CEO harassing a female employee, created by competitors or disgruntled former employees. How can companies protect themselves? We still don't have a definitive answer, but it is crucial to recognize that this is already possible today, and this discussion is not yet happening. Anyone can use deepfakes against individuals or organizations at any time, so we cannot afford to ignore this threat.

“Every video you make for a podcast that is on YouTube today can simply become the basis for any deepfake video. With your voice, with your face, with your mannerisms. How do you protect the company's leaders in this aspect? How do you protect, for example, fake evidence, in a way that is almost impossible to examine? This becomes a crisis. I wouldn’t sleep today if I were CEO of a company.”

So, in relation to reputational risks, should leaders and companies be more concerned about deepfakes than more common issues such as mistaken or malicious placements that can reverberate negatively on social networks?

There are two different types of risks. The first is the risk that we can control, dependent on good human decisions, such as employees who do not know how to position themselves or poor marketing decisions. In these cases, if you do everything right, the results will be positive; If you make mistakes, the results will be negative. They are known and manageable: hiring more competent marketing professionals, being more sensitive to the needs of customers and stakeholders, and thinking carefully before launching any positioning. There are ways to improve this aspect.
The second type of risk is more complex, as it does not just depend on good decisions or the right people. It is an external risk that remains yours, because it directly affects your company's image and reputation. This risk is not real in the traditional sense, but its impact is. With the growth of social networks and generational changes, these risks intensify. What worries me most is the lack of control over them. Deepfakes, for example, are an indifferent threat to the fact that you are doing everything right. It is no longer a question of creating processes to ensure good behavior. Organizations and their leaders still do not fully understand the scale of this problem, and we do not yet have an effective process to manage this risk.

So, what are the paths to be taken by boards and managers to mitigate these risks and face the challenges?

It is necessary to create a muscle of constant reinvention for whatever comes, as we will always be behind in relation to these advances. There is no finish line where you cut the ribbon. We need to get out of the inertia of saying: 'this won't reach me, this won't reach me'. We, as leadership on boards, and all C-Levels must be prepared to have this muscle for what we don't know, the muscle of constant reinvention.

So how can boards of directors build the muscle for constant reinvention?

To promote more effective governance, it is essential to integrate different generations on boards and value diverse perspectives. At 45 years old, I am part of a generation that grew up with the invention of the internet, providing a unique understanding of digital transformation. We have been actively participating in this process since our 20s, but our perspective may be limited regarding the future of companies.
There are generations that have never lived without cell phones and the internet, and others that are already familiar with emerging technologies such as virtual reality (VR). Each generation brings a distinct and valuable perspective on the use and impact of technology. Therefore, I strongly recommend the inclusion of younger members, in their 30s, on boards of directors. This age diversity would not only enrich strategic discussions, but also ensure a more comprehensive and innovative approach, capable of better anticipating and responding to rapid market changes.

BIG ISSUES THAT IMPACT SOCIETY, SUCH AS THE EFFECTS OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS, AND THE ROLE OF COMPANIES AND LEADERSHIP

“It is no longer possible, it is no longer acceptable, it is no longer the company’s choice to engage or not.”

In situations of great impact on society, such as those caused by the extreme effects of climate change, phenomena that are expected to occur increasingly globally, what is the role of business leaders and organizations?

Customers and employees today expect companies to actively engage in social and environmental issues. The decision about which causes to engage in should be guided by the impact they have on the lives of employees and end customers. If an issue affects the lives of employees or customers, it becomes the company's responsibility. Inaction can result in negative reactions such as boycotts, cancellations and reputational damage. Therefore, it is crucial that companies choose relevant causes and act proactively to avoid these problems.

THE SHY ADVANCE OF FEMALE REPRESENTATION ON BOARDS AND IN COMPANY MANAGEMENT, CRITICISM OF THE LACK OF WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE AND PERSONAL EFFORTS AND RESIGNATIONS TO OCCUPY SPACE

What is your assessment of the participation/representation of women in management and on company boards in Brazil?

There is a regulatory issue that is advancing, but there is still a lack of understanding about the importance of diversity for stakeholders. In the European Union, by the end of the first half of 2026, all listed companies must have at least 40% of women on their non-executive boards or 33% of all board positions held by the underrepresented sex. In California, legislation requires that 50% board members be women, highlighting the importance of representation proportionate to women's role as consumers and decision makers, not just for financial impact, but for justice and equity. In Brazil, from July 2025, the “practice or explain”, from CVM/B3, which provides for at least one woman and one more diversity member on the boards of listed companies. However, many companies are likely to explain their absence by citing a lack of qualified female candidates. This justification is unfounded, as there are many highly qualified women ready to take on these roles, as evidenced by the membership lists of the WCD (Women Corporate Directors).

“California law requires 50% of board members to be women, reflecting the importance of representation as women make up 50% of consumers and purchasing decisions. This measure is not just about increasing company profits, but about ensuring fair and equitable representation. The inclusion of women on boards will not compromise the quality of these institutions. It is crucial to encourage discussions and promote awareness about the importance of representation for all stakeholders.”

Do women need to do more to have more visibility to get to the hiring tables for C-Level positions and increase their representation on boards of directors?

The lack of diversity on boards is not a problem caused by women. It is an issue that falls to shareholders and boards of directors. It's not about women's lack of visibility, competence or networking. The problem lies in the decision of shareholders and board presidents to promote this diversity. To make a difference, shareholders can be more proactive in board composition, and board chairs must intentionally seek greater diversity in their choices.

You have a career as an entrepreneur and also an executive and sought your position as a counselor. How was this journey? What waivers did you have to make?

I've had to dedicate myself much more than average throughout my life, investing intensely in quality and hours of work to reach the spaces I occupy. This included studying and preparing considerably more. Many women also experience this reality, because, to belong, we need to try harder. This effort comes with sacrifices, such as less leisure, health care and time with family. However, we all have 24 hours in a day and, since the start of the climate crisis in Rio Grande do Sul, I have dedicated my free time to the movement Beyond – @beyond.globalmovemnt a non-profit initiative to pool resources and create scalable strategic actions. This volunteering is a fundamental part of my life, reflecting my belief in the importance of leadership and support in these moments.