According to Forbes, businesses today face a dramatically expanded risk landscape where geopolitical crises like the Russia-Ukraine conflict intersect with advanced technologies like AI. Companies are increasingly discussing the need for a senior risk management role called the Geopolitical Risk Officer, but current definitions of this position lack sufficient emphasis on technical fluency. The role requires someone who can unite technical and non-technical stakeholders while tracking everything from cloud security risks to AI data ingestion threats. The normalization of cyber-attacks in hybrid warfare means businesses face collateral damage even without physical presence in conflict zones. Meanwhile, generative AI enables convincing deepfakes that can deceive organizations, and companies must navigate complex regulatory environments across jurisdictions.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The missing technical piece
Here’s the thing that most companies get wrong about risk management today. They’re treating geopolitical risk and technical risk as separate problems. But they’re completely intertwined now. When your data lives in the cloud, when AI models might be ingesting your corporate secrets, when deepfakes can impersonate your CEO – these aren’t just IT problems. They’re geopolitical threats with technical execution.
The article makes a crucial point about technical fluency. You can’t have someone in this role who just understands politics or international relations. They need to speak cloud security, AI training data vulnerabilities, and quantum computing implications. Basically, if your risk officer can’t have a meaningful conversation with your CTO about data localization laws and their technical implementation, they’re not qualified for the job.
More than just risk prevention
What’s really interesting is how this role evolves beyond traditional risk management. The GRO isn’t just there to prevent bad things from happening. They’re supposed to identify opportunities too. Think about it – if you can operate safely in regions where your competitors can’t, that’s a competitive advantage. If you become known as the company that handles geopolitical and technical risks better than anyone else, that enhances your reputation across the board.
But finding these people is incredibly difficult. The ideal candidate needs national security experience, technical depth, business strategy understanding, and diplomatic skills. That’s basically asking for a unicorn. And as the article notes, outsourcing this role rarely works because you need someone who knows your company’s deepest secrets and strategic direction.
The ultimate connector
One of the most valuable aspects of this role is what the article calls the “convening” function. Right now, risk management is typically scattered across IT, legal, security, and compliance teams. They might meet occasionally in risk committee meetings, but there’s no structured way for them to regularly connect and share insights. The GRO becomes that central point where all these threads come together.
And honestly, that might be worth the investment alone. How many companies have suffered breaches or compliance failures because the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing? When your legal team understands a new regulatory requirement but your IT team doesn’t understand the technical implications – or vice versa – that’s where things fall apart.
The challenge, of course, is that this role requires someone who can speak all these languages fluently. They need to translate technical risks into business impacts that the C-suite understands, while also explaining strategic business decisions to technical teams in terms of risk implications. It’s a tough balancing act, but for companies operating in today’s complex global environment, it might be essential for survival.
