When a general counsel steps aside: what Carlsberg tells us

An important chapter in the legal history of the Carlsberg Group is coming to a close. Ulrik Andersen (pictured), the long-standing group general counsel of the Danish beverage giant, has announced his decision to step back after almost thirty years with the company and 25 years at the helm of its legal and compliance function.

The announcement was made by Andersen himself in a Linkedin post, in which he explained that, as he approaches the age of 63, he wishes to “slow the pace” as he looks towards the next phase of his professional life. In his message, the lawyer also highlighted the strong bond he has built with the company over time: a career marked by continuity, trust and the opportunity to work closely with international teams on some of the most significant transactions in the group’s history.

Andersen’s departure will not be abrupt. He will remain in charge of legal and compliance until a new general counsel is appointed, which is expected in the second half of the year.

The career of Ulrik Andersen

Andersen joined Carlsberg in 1998 as an international lawyer, initially focusing on M&A transactions. Two years later, he was appointed Group General Counsel, a role he has held from 2001 to the present day, accompanying Carlsberg’s transformation from a largely regional player into a global group.

Prior to joining the company, he gained experience in private practice, first in London at Holman Fenwick Willan and subsequently in Copenhagen at Dragsted.

The role of legal in Carlsberg’s history

Among the most significant milestones of Andersen’s tenure are the merger with Orkla’s beverage business in 2001, the acquisition of Scottish & Newcastle in 2008 and, more recently, that of Britvic in 2024. These were transactions that required a legal function capable not only of managing risk, but also of actively supporting the group’s growth strategy.

It is therefore no coincidence that Carlsberg has asked Andersen to continue working with the company as a special legal adviser, thereby retaining within the organisation a body of knowledge that would be difficult to replicate.

So, what does Andersen’s departure teach us?

Ulrik Andersen’s exit is not merely the conclusion of a long and successful career. It also tells us something broader about the role of the group general counsel in large global organisations.

First, in a market where general counsel turnover is often rapid, Andersen’s career shows how stable legal leadership can accompany – rather than hinder – profound business transformation. Mergers, acquisitions and global reorganisations were managed without disruption at the top of the legal function, strengthening its credibility.

Second, Andersen’s career suggests that the most meaningful contribution of a general counsel lies not only in the deals they sign, but in the gradual construction of a robust decision-making framework, capable of withstanding crises, expansion and shifts in strategy.

It also shows that succession is an integral part of leadership. The fact that Andersen will remain in post until his successor is appointed, and may continue as a special legal adviser, points to a conscious approach to succession planning. This is not a “breakaway” exit, but an orderly transition that protects the company. A similar pattern, albeit in different forms, can also be seen overseas. In the United States, Constellation Brands has announced the retirement of its long-standing chief legal officer Jim Bourdeau, with a clearly defined succession entrusted to an internal candidate, Jeff LaBarge. Here too, the message is clear: legal is a function that cannot afford leadership vacuums.

Finally, there is one further lesson between the lines: models like this only work where the legal function is truly integrated into the business. How many companies are genuinely preparing the future of their legal function, and how many will limit themselves to firefighting only when change becomes unavoidable? Without the trust of top management and without a recognised strategic role, such long-term leadership would risk becoming self-referential. At Carlsberg, evidently, this was not the case.