Plans by banking giant Barclays to place its pension fund with the investment bank, rather than the retail arm has not gone down well with critics fearing that in the event of the unprotected part of the bank collapsing, staff pensions may be imperiled.

It’s an issue that highlights the increasing number of predicaments facing finance directors, who in the past could concentrate on ensuring the best possible financial outcome from any given strategy and rewarding shareholders for their support.

Now the wider stakeholder community – including staff, unions, pressure groups, regulators, politicians – are becoming increasingly vociferous through social media when they sense a negative outcome affecting themselves or the environment.

For example, seeking the lowest possible taxation won’t go unnoticed by those concerned by the moral implications of tax avoidance – and ultimately a blow to the corporate’s reputation could follow.

Or consider what payment terms should a company agree with its suppliers – is it consistent with the terms agreed with customers, or is there a disconnect that may be spotted? Could that also result in a negative image for the company?

In the digital age, strategic decision-making needs to be mindful of the consequences of not getting it right. Reputational damage can be quickly followed by value destruction, be it in the form of share price erosion for public companies – so decisions need to address the expectations of both shareholders and the wider stakeholder community.

It’s vital for FDs and other senior leaders to recognise that their organisations exist in an ecosystem that rewards good decision-making (often nuanced), but penalises poor judgement more rapidly than ever before.