Corporate Affairs has found policy, now it needs to find the public
Three major surveys of corporate affairs professionals paint a picture of a function in transformation. Executive search companies Ithaca Partners, Spencer Stuart, and Taylor Birchwood have all recently published research examining how corporate affairs leaders are adapting to an increasingly complex stakeholder landscape.
The findings reveal a function absorbing new responsibilities, expanding its remit, and positioning itself at the heart of corporate strategy. Yet they also expose a critical blind spot that threatens to undermine this evolution.
The statistics tell a story of consolidation and ambition. According to Ithaca's analysis of the FTSE 100, 74% of companies now house public affairs within the corporate affairs function. Additional resources are flowing into regulatory affairs, which is being blended into corporate affairs teams. Brand increasingly falls under the same umbrella, creating what researchers describe as a blurring of lines between consumer and corporate communications. Political policy ranks as the second priority for 2026 among UK respondents, behind only protecting corporate reputation.
This institutional architecture makes perfect sense. In an era of rapid regulatory change, geopolitical volatility, and stakeholder activism, companies need integrated capabilities to navigate policy risk. The traditional separation between government relations, corporate communications, and brand management created dangerous silos. Breaking them down allows organisations to speak with one voice and coordinate across multiple fronts simultaneously.
Yet there’s an essential misunderstanding here. For all the focus on political policy, regulatory affairs, and stakeholder management, these surveys reveal remarkably little attention to the force which ultimately determines whether policy campaigns succeed or fail: public opinion.
This omission reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how policy decisions are made in modern Britain. Research from the Institute for Government demonstrates that parliamentary decisions increasingly reflect public sentiment rather than expert consensus, particularly on contentious social and economic policies. When House of Lords committees recommend excluding food businesses from policy discussions based on their product portfolios, they do so because public opinion has already determined that industry input constitutes a conflict of interest. The technical merits become irrelevant once legitimacy is lost.
Corporate affairs teams investing heavily in political policy and regulatory expertise are playing an important but insufficient game. They are cultivating relationships with policymakers who cannot act without public permission. They are making evidence-based arguments to officials who must answer to constituents more concerned with perceived fairness than economic efficiency. They are treating policy as a technical exercise when it has become fundamentally political.
Consider the regulatory battles companies have lost despite deploying sophisticated public affairs capabilities. The soft drinks industry presented compelling evidence about consumer choice and regressive taxation when the sugar tax was proposed. Their arguments were technically sound. They lost because Jamie Oliver's campaign had already won the public argument that mattered in spaces far beyond formal policy debate. When HFSS advertising restrictions were introduced, food manufacturers had strong industry associations and government relationships. What they lacked was public sympathy for their concerns.
The technical arguments existed, but weren’t made in ways that were relevant to the public, and this is where the misunderstanding becomes critical. If the people care, politicians and regulators take notice. Not because public opinion is always correct or because evidence should be ignored, but because democratic systems respond to democratic pressure. Policymakers can resist industry lobbying, but they struggle to resist sustained public pressure from constituents who understand how regulations affect their lives. The realisation should be that policy success, reputation protection, and licence to operate are now downstream of belief formation.
Yet corporate affairs functions that treat public opinion as something that flows from good policy rather than something that determines whether good policy becomes achievable. The priorities identified in these surveys focus on protecting reputation, managing stakeholders, and influencing policymakers. These are necessary capabilities but they are not sufficient for companies facing regulatory threats which will make their customers poorer, restrict their choices, or damage economic growth.
These constituencies vastly outnumber the activist groups driving restrictive regulatory agendas. They have genuine interests at stake which align with business concerns about overreaching regulation. Yet they remain immobilised because corporate affairs teams haven’t made the consequences of regulation tangible and relevant to their lives. The public policy function speaks to politicians. The brand function speaks to consumers. Neither speaks to the public as citizens whose interests are affected by regulatory outcomes.
The surveys show corporate affairs embracing its expanded role at the centre of corporate strategy. The function has found policy. It has integrated brand, regulatory affairs, and stakeholder management. These are genuine achievements which position corporate affairs to navigate complexity.
But the prize for getting policy right while losing the public argument is watching your operating environment, and licence to operate, deteriorate anyway. Regulatory outcomes and political risk are increasingly determined before formal processes begin, through belief formation, moral consensus, and social legitimacy. This is fast becoming the new operating context. Corporate affairs can master policy, regulation and stakeholder engagement. But if public belief now determines which policies are politically viable, influence begins before formal advocacy does.
That requires policy expertise and public persuasion operating in sequence, not in silos.
The question is not whether corporate affairs can navigate complexity. It is whether the organisation is aligning policy strategy with the public argument early enough to shape which policies are politically survivable.
Corporate affairs teams strengthening policymaker relationships while neglecting public opinion are building impressive capabilities to fight yesterday’s battles.
The question for 2026 is whether corporate affairs leaders will recognise that protecting corporate reputation and influencing political policy both depend on something more fundamental: whether ordinary people believe your success matters to their lives. If corporate affairs does not engage earlier, broader, and on different terms, even the most sophisticated public affairs operation will remain technically strong and strategically late.If they do, the regulatory landscape becomes navigable in ways that no amount of stakeholder management alone can achieve.
The missing piece is not another function to integrate or another priority to balance. It is recognition that public opinion is the asset that unlocks every other capability corporate affairs has built. The general public should not be brought inside as an afterthought. They should be there from the start, because ultimately, they decide who wins.
