The Weakest Link Series

ADMA’s “Am I the weakest link: Privacy edition” explores the idea that the privacy data chain is made up of six main parties – the marketer, the consumer, the platform, the agency, the government, and the board – all with the potential to be ‘the weakest link’. However, each of these parties contribute in different ways to the standard of data practices in Australia’s economy. Can we really point the finger at any one party?
In this article series, we will deep dive into each of the links in the chain, assess the areas for improvement and how marketers can help strengthen the chain overall through their own roles.

The Board

The role the board plays in the data privacy chain is a critical one. As the governing body responsible for setting organisational direction and holding executive teams accountable, the board is uniquely positioned to influence how privacy is prioritised, funded, and enforced. Yet despite this authority, many boards remain a passive or under-informed participant in the data privacy conversation.

That’s why in this article we will explore three key weaknesses the board contributes to the data privacy chain: limited data literacy, prioritising short-term profit over long-term trust, and a misguided focus on security over privacy. Each of these weaknesses has ramifications for the organisation and below we’ll explore how to address them.

Limited data literacy at board level

At the core of the board’s weakness is a gap in digital and data fluency. While many directors bring deep experience in finance, law, or operations, comparatively few have extensive backgrounds in data governance or privacy regulation. This gap limits meaningful engagement with data risks and reduces boardroom influence over one of the most high-stakes issues in the modern economy.

As data privacy regulation evolves rapidly and becomes increasingly punitive (such as penalties of 30% of turnover under the Privacy Act), boards can no longer afford to treat privacy as a technical issue best left to IT or legal teams. Directors must be capable of asking the right questions, interpreting privacy risk in commercial terms, and demanding clarity around data practices across the business.

Improving board-level data literacy isn’t just about ticking the compliance box. It’s about understanding that a data strategy has a fundamental place in the overall business strategy. Organisations should consider board training sessions, briefings from privacy officers, and bringing on directors with specific data expertise to bridge the gap.

Prioritising growth and shareholder returns over long-term trust

Boards are charged with delivering value. However, when this value is measured narrowly through short-term revenue growth, shareholder returns, and market expansion, privacy can become collateral damage. Whether it’s green-lighting aggressive data collection strategies or approving marketing initiatives that push ethical boundaries, board decisions often fail to weigh privacy risk against short-term gain.

The reality is that privacy is a trust issue, and trust, once lost, is innately difficult to regain. Consumers are increasingly privacy-conscious, regulators are increasingly active, and privacy breaches are not just legal events but are reputation-shattering headlines.

Boards must stop viewing privacy as a compliance cost and start recognising it as a strategic asset. Just as environmental and socially responsible metrics like carbon footprints, diversity, and community impact have reshaped investment thinking, privacy should also be treated as a core business pillar that is critical to consumer loyalty and competitive differentiation.

Boards should push management teams to present data strategies with trust metrics, not just performance metrics. They should question: how are we protecting our customers’ data? Are we being fair and reasonable in our practices? And most critically: if this decision were on the front page tomorrow, would we still make it?

Misguided focus on security over privacy

Boards are increasingly aware of cyber threats. They receive updates on ransomware, review penetration testing reports, and sign off on cybersecurity budgets. But while cyber is on the radar, privacy often is not. Too often, boards conflate privacy with security and assume that if data is protected from external attack, it is being handled responsibly. However, privacy and security, while related, are not the same thing.

As explored in our article on data privacy vs data security, protecting data from bad actors is not the same as using data ethically, transparently, and in line with consumer expectations. A company can be highly secure and still fall short on privacy if it over-collects, fails to obtain proper consent, or uses personal data in ways that aren’t fair or reasonable.

Many boards still lack regular reporting on privacy metrics, don’t receive incident simulations that factor in privacy failures, and rarely ask how personal information is being collected, shared, or deleted. When privacy is only reviewed annually – or worse, only after a breach – it signals a fundamental gap in governance.

Boards must expand their oversight from “is our data safe?” to “are we using data responsibly?” That means regular briefings on privacy compliance, integrating privacy into risk frameworks, and elevating accountability to the executive level. Because privacy breaches are no longer just technical failures, they are reputational and regulatory events and increasingly are treated as board-level failures.

Strengthening the board link

Boards are uniquely positioned to set the tone for an organisation’s approach to privacy. But they must move beyond passive oversight into active governance. That means lifting digital fluency, shifting focus beyond security to include true privacy oversight, and embedding trust into strategic decision-making.

For marketers, this is a call to elevate the privacy conversation internally. Advocate for privacy to be seen not just as legal hygiene, but as a growth enabler, a reputation defender, and a key ingredient of consumer trust. Marketers are often closer to the data and the customer than anyone else in the business, and are uniquely positioned to raise awareness around how data is being collected, used, and perceived. By championing ethical data practices and clearly articulating privacy risks and expectations, marketers can influence leadership to treat privacy as a strategic imperative.

With that kind of internal advocacy, the board can move from passive observer to privacy champion and ensure that organisational data practices are not just legally compliant, but also trusted, ethical, and future-fit. Because at the end of the day, if the top of the organisation fails to lead on privacy through strategy and sustained investment, the rest of the organisation will be unable to prioritise this critical issue and growth driver.
 

Want to sharpen your privacy and compliance skills?

Check out our regulatory course offering with a range of options to suit your needs. From our online short courses to our more comprehensive Privacy and Compliance for Marketers course, ADMA has your regulatory upskilling needs sorted.

To explore the full Weakest Link series, click here.