Why the profession needs to move beyond opinion and build the case with evidence.
One of the longest-running debates in Corporate Communications is whether the function should report directly to the Chief Executive Officer.
Recently, a communication leader in the US reignited this discussion in his thoughtful LinkedIn article, “When Corporate Communications Doesn’t Report to the CEO.” It is an important conversation because reporting structures influence not only how communication is perceived, but also the value it can create for an organisation.
Yet, after decades of debating this issue, I believe we are asking the wrong question.
Instead of asking:
“Should Corporate Communications report to the CEO?”
perhaps we should ask:
“What does the evidence tell us about where Corporate Communications creates the greatest organisational value?”
As communication professionals, we routinely encourage leaders to make evidence-based decisions. We advocate for research, stakeholder insights and data before organisations launch products, implement change or respond to crises.
Shouldn’t we apply the same standard when making the case for our own profession?
Opinion is plentiful. Evidence is becoming stronger.
The encouraging news is that we no longer have to rely solely on anecdotal experience or organisational preferences.
Over the past three decades, academic research, industry reports and organisational studies have collectively built a compelling body of evidence explaining when Corporate Communications has the greatest strategic impact.
While no single study concludes that every communication function should report to the CEO, multiple independent research streams consistently point in the same direction: communication creates the greatest enterprise value when it has direct strategic influence, early involvement in decision-making and access to executive leadership.
Let’s examine what the research tells us.
1. Strategic influence begins with a seat at the decision-making table
One of the most influential bodies of research in public relations and corporate communication is the Excellence Study, led by Professor James E. Grunig and colleagues.
Conducted across more than 300 organisations, the research introduced the concept of the “dominant coalition”: the group of senior leaders responsible for shaping organisational strategy.
The central finding remains remarkably relevant today.
Communication functions are most effective when they participate in strategic decision-making rather than simply implementing decisions that have already been made.
In other words, communication creates greater value when it helps shape strategy rather than merely communicating it.
A useful overview of the Excellence Study can be found here:
This distinction is significant.
It suggests that the real issue is not organisational hierarchy. It is organisational influence.
2. Organisations are increasingly repositioning Corporate Communications
Research also suggests that organisations themselves are changing how they position Corporate Communications.
Edelman’s Future of Corporate Communications study found that communication leaders are increasingly expected to advise CEOs on enterprise strategy, stakeholder trust, corporate reputation, employee engagement and societal issues rather than simply managing media relations.
The report also highlights growing investment in analytics, reputation measurement and communication technology, reflecting the function’s expanding strategic responsibilities.
Read the report:
Similarly, recent survey findings reported by Axios indicate a substantial increase in Chief Communications Officers reporting directly to CEOs, while reporting to Chief Marketing Officers has declined considerably.
Read the Axios article:
These findings are important.
They do not prove that CEO reporting automatically produces better organisational performance.
However, they do suggest that many organisations increasingly view Corporate Communications as an enterprise leadership capability rather than a functional support service.
3. Communication priorities change depending on where the function sits
Reporting lines inevitably shape priorities.
This does not mean one reporting structure is universally right and another is wrong.
Rather, every reporting relationship influences the lens through which communication is viewed.
| Reporting Structure | Primary Focus | Potential Implications |
| CEO | Enterprise strategy, reputation, stakeholder trust, long-term value | Enables integrated stakeholder management, strategic counsel and faster executive decision-making. |
| Marketing | Brand, campaigns, customer acquisition and commercial growth | Strong customer focus, but investor, regulatory, community and public affairs priorities may receive less attention. |
| Human Resources | Employee experience, culture, engagement and organisational capability | Internal communication often flourishes, while external reputation and public policy engagement may become secondary. |
| Legal | Governance, compliance and risk mitigation | Strong regulatory discipline, but communication may become cautious, reactive and less agile during crises. |
| Project Management Office | Programme delivery, implementation and milestones | Communication supports project execution but may be viewed as a temporary delivery function rather than an ongoing strategic capability. |
Each structure reflects organisational priorities.
The important question is whether those priorities align with the increasingly enterprise-wide responsibilities expected of Corporate Communications.
4. Information loses value as it travels
Another reason reporting structures matter comes from organisational behaviour research.
Information changes as it moves through management layers.
Messages become interpreted, summarised, delayed or filtered.
This is rarely intentional.
It is simply how organisations function.
For Corporate Communications, however, this creates an important challenge.
Communication leaders are responsible for providing objective counsel on stakeholder expectations, reputation, emerging issues and public sentiment.
The greater the organisational distance between the communication leader and the CEO, the greater the potential for delays or unintended filtering.
During a crisis, regulatory change or reputational issue, those delays can significantly affect organisational responsiveness.
This is one reason why many organisations increasingly expect communication leaders to participate directly in executive decision-making.
5. Reputation has become an enterprise asset
The communication profession has evolved dramatically over the past two decades.
Today’s communication leaders advise on matters including:
- CEO reputation
- employee trust
- investor confidence
- ESG communication
- government relations
- stakeholder engagement
- corporate purpose
- organisational change
- crisis preparedness
- social licence to operate
These responsibilities extend well beyond traditional marketing or internal communication.
Research from the USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations has consistently documented this shift, highlighting the growing role of communicators as strategic advisers navigating increasingly complex stakeholder environments.
Explore the Global Communication Reports:
As organisational reputation becomes a board-level concern, communication naturally becomes more closely aligned with enterprise leadership.
6. Reporting to the CEO is not the objective
This is perhaps the most important point.
Too often our profession frames the discussion as though reporting directly to the CEO is the ultimate goal.
I disagree.
Reporting to the CEO should never be viewed as a badge of status.
Nor is it a guarantee of strategic influence.
Communication functions can report to CEOs and still operate tactically.
Conversely, some communication leaders reporting elsewhere exercise considerable influence because they have earned organisational trust and consistently demonstrate business value.
The reporting line is therefore an outcome, not the cause.
Organisations tend to position communication closer to the CEO when they recognise its strategic contribution to enterprise performance.
The conversation should therefore begin with value, not hierarchy.
A challenge for our profession
Perhaps it is time for Corporate Communications to change how it advocates for itself.
Instead of saying:
“Corporate Communications should report to the CEO.”
we might instead ask:
- What evidence supports that recommendation?
- Which organisational outcomes improve when communication has direct executive access?
- How does the reporting structure influence stakeholder trust, strategic alignment and decision quality?
- Under what organisational circumstances might another reporting line be appropriate?
Those are stronger executive conversations.
They invite discussion rather than debate.
More importantly, they reflect the standards we expect of every other business function.
Final thoughts
The profession has made remarkable progress over the past three decades.
Corporate Communications is increasingly recognised as a strategic function responsible for helping organisations navigate complexity, build trust and protect reputation.
That progress should also influence how we advocate for ourselves.
If we expect CEOs and Boards to make evidence-based decisions, then our recommendations should be grounded in evidence rather than assumption.
Fortunately, the research base is stronger today than it has ever been.
The challenge is no longer finding evidence.
It is using it to elevate the conversation.
