November Newsletter

The Monthly Newsletter of the Caribbean Institute of Directors.
- November Newsletter

This newsletter’s Table of Contents is as follows:

1.    a. Next please! Directors want to see turnover, but boards aren’t planning for it
       b. On shaky ground—overseeing crisis from the boardroom
2.   ‘Return on Purpose’: Shareholders are no longer #1
3.    When You Should Just Say No To A Board Seat!
4.    WORLD OF GOVERNANCE RESEARCH: 3 interesting findings
       a. Beware the finance guy!
       b. Zombie invasion stalks US boardrooms
       c. Companies increase board evaluation disclosures, survey finds

1. Next Please! Directors want to see turnover, but boards aren’t planning for it.

Next Please! Directors want to see turnover, but boards aren’t planning for it.

For the second year in a row, almost half of directors (49%) say at least one fellow board member should be replaced. Twenty-one percent say that two or more directors should go. But when it comes to succession planning, only about half of directors (49%) say a succession plan is shared with the full board. And 10% say their board doesn’t have any succession plan at all. Without a vision for their own future, it becomes that much more unrealistic to expect boards to effectively lead long-term change.

On shaky ground—overseeing crisis from the boardroom

As the world faces a global public health crisis and its economic fallout, only 37% of directors said their board fully understands their company’s crisis management plan. While boards give management high marks for their pandemic response, directors need to ensure that positive outlook isn’t masking potential blind spots. Boards should take the time to revisit crisis plans and revise in light of what worked—and what didn’t.

Source: PWC 2020 Survey

2. ‘Return on Purpose’: Shareholders are no longer #1

The role of the corporation in society is under review. The paradigm that corporations are run solely in the interests of shareholders, which has defined a generation of management practice, is being contested. The emerging paradigm references “stakeholders” as the broader group that managers should consider in decision-making. Such a transition is full of complexities for chief executives, investors and policy makers.
To study the impact of purpose on performance, a new analysis has been conducted on how corporate purpose relates to company financial performance, market valuation and shareholder value creation. The analysis highlights how effective investment in corporate purpose can deliver value to both stakeholders and shareholders. THREE KEY FINDINGS:
  1. Companies that scored high on corporate purpose metrics outperformed their low-scoring counterparts on common measures of financial performance, market valuation and shareholder value creation.
  2. The COVID crisis provided another important insight: the valuation and value creation advantage for companies scoring high on corporate purpose widened, sometimes materially, as the crisis developed and progressed.
  3. The average EBITDA valuation multiple earned by High Purpose brands is over 4 turns higher than that of Low Purpose brands. If sustained over time, this means High Purpose brands would double their market value over 4x faster than Low Purpose brands.

Source: Harvard Law

3. When You Should Just Say No To A Board Seat!

Andrea Bonime-Blanc had earned a solid reputation as an international corporate lawyer at Cleary Gottlieb when she joined her first board of directors. It was an honor to have been asked, and she felt a kinship with the organization’s mission. She quickly accepted the offer, but over time learned that her decision was hasty.
“Looking back, the board had all the hallmarks of mediocre governance,” says Bonime-Blanc, who would later spend two decades as a C-Suite corporate executive at Bertelsmann, Verint, and PSEG, while simultaneously serving on a handful of other for-profit and nonprofit boards.
For one thing, the board was composed entirely of men twice her age, several of them retired. Some members worked hard while others coasted, just showing up, “if they did at all,” she says. “Whatever the chair and vice-chair wanted, it was rubberstamped. I didn’t know much about governance at the time, but it seemed odd that there were no minutes and no formal elections, just new members who would suddenly pop up from time to time, handpicked by the chair.”
While there were bylaws, no one looked at them, she adds. “Meetings had the appearance of a board discussion, but there wasn’t much, if any, governance infrastructure underneath.”
“As I understood more about effective board governance, I kept trying to resign but they wouldn’t let me,” she says. “Finally, I simply tendered my resignation. I just had to escape. The board was on a fast train to nowhere.”
Bad boards are nothing new, with some spectacular failures over the years (just type “worst corporate boards” into a search engine and take your pick). Looking back, many ill-fated board members blame their egos for overriding their better senses. As one director put it, “I was so honored to be asked, I forgot to do a reality check.”
Neglecting to perform due diligence into a board can result in the miserable experiences Bonime-Blanc endured, and far worse. Some directors have found it difficult to rub off the reputational tarnish of an in-the-news bad board, while others were ensnared in derivative shareholder class action litigation for allegedly failing their fiduciary duties. Had they dug beneath the surface, they might have discovered the harbingers of a bad board.
“Nobody willingly wants to join a bad board,” says Anna C. Catalano, an independent board director at several public companies and privately held corporations, including audit firm Willis Towers Watson and polymer manufacturer Kraton Corporation. “As a candidate, the only way for you to avoid this fate is due diligence.”

Source: Corporate Board Member

4. WORLD OF GOVERNANCE RESEARCH: 3 interesting findings

a. Beware the finance guy!

Firms with the highest number of executives having financial backgrounds are those least likely to be innovative. Researchers say such companies tend to have more financial assets, fewer fixed assets and spend less on R&D. Strong corporate governance minimizes the negative effect.

Source: Corporate Secretary

b. Zombie invasion stalks US boardrooms

US companies such as Netflix are increasingly defying votes from shareholders to remove directors from their boards, which critics say points to lax corporate governance rules in the US versus other developed markets.

Four years ago, 40 people at Russell 3000 companies continued to serve in board director roles after a majority of shareholders voted against them. This year, 54 board members are considered “zombie” directors — individuals who have failed to win majority support from investors, according to a report by MSCI based on 2,313 companies. In 2019, the zombie total was 53 in the Russell 3000 index, according to the Council of Institutional Investors, the highest level since at least 2014.

The numbers of zombie directors tend to increase with strong stock market performance, said Ric Marshall, executive director of MSCI’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) research.

Zombie directors are “red flags for investors to dig a little further into these companies,” Mr Marshall said.

Source: Financial Times

c. Companies increase board evaluation disclosures, survey finds

Major US companies are increasingly focusing on board and director evaluations and reporting around those efforts, according to a new survey. Fifty-three percent of Fortune 100 firms now disclose topics covered in board evaluations. And almost half (48 percent) this year disclosed that they conducted individual director evaluations in addition to board and committee evaluations, up from 24 percent in 2018 and 39 percent last year. While board and committee evaluations have long been required of all public companies listed on the [NYSE] and are a best practice for all public companies, this growing momentum around individual-level assessments is new.

Source: EY Center for Board Matters

Share:

More Posts