Most CEOs do not have formal security programs and most boards do not maintain oversight over C-suite security, according to a new report from compensation consulting firm Pearl Meyer.
Moreover, despite heightened fears for CEO safety and nationwide attention to the subject over the last year, most companies have not increased protocols across personal, home and cyber security, said Pearl Meyer compensation consultant Aalap Shah.
The research suggests boards may need to step up oversight in this area, he added.
About 25% of CEOs at S&P 500 firms received personal and home security benefits this year, an increase from 18% in 2024, based on another report from The Conference Board and analytics platform ESGauge.
"As of right now, we did not come across any sort of standard practice that boards would implement for CEOs," Shah said. "Executive security has become a major governance blind spot."
Fifty-eight percent of boards have no formal oversight of security for executives, according to the report. Nearly half of the boards surveyed said they receive updates about security only when issues arise, and 37% said they never receive updates at all.
For Shah, board directors should actively increase protections for executives for the benefit of the business.
"By protecting the CEO, you're protecting the value of the company and its financial stability," he said. "I think that shareholders are starting to see it as a priority and as a strategic necessity, too."
Another issue, Shah said, is that 73% of the security programs currently in place rely on informal judgment or "boards' gut instinct" rather than a structured threat assessment.
"It's something that the full board should consider and make a determination of where it should be delegated," he said. "The most likely candidate for that delegation is likely the audit committee, given that they are already looking at multiple layers of risk within the organization."
The survey gathered 258 respondents from 125 public companies, 84 private companies and 49 nonprofits between October and November. The company sizes had a revenue range or asset size from under $100 million to more than $30 billion.
Perquisite or Necessity?
The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering changes to compensation disclosure rules, and many have called on the commission to weigh whether personal security should be considered an executive perquisite for disclosure purposes.
Shah said he supports changing the classification of expenses for executive security from compensation perquisite to company expenditure.
Almost half of the board members surveyed during a recent Agenda webcast stated that their board is considering increases to perquisites. Boards are also examining how the companies they oversee compare with other companies in meeting heightened security standards not just for CEOs but also for other prominent executives who may be out front on controversial issues.
Executives are on alert following high-profile shootings that occurred last year, including the killing of UnitedHealthcare's Brian Thompson and another deadly shooting inside a Manhattan office building that houses consulting firm KPMG and investment company Blackstone.
Several large companies, including Walmart, General Motors and American Express, have disclosed new or increased security expenses from previous years.
"The message is clear that companies need to stop treating executive security as optional," Shah said.