Posts Tagged ‘Risk Oversight’

Who Is Trying to Eat Your Lunch?

May 2nd, 2013 | By

Last year, NACD launched its fourth Advisory Council on Risk Oversight—the first of our councils not dedicated to a specific key board committee. In fact, less than 10 percent of public companies even have a committee dedicated to risk oversight. This advisory council was formed as the result of a simple observation: the responsibility of risk oversight has expanded significantly in the last several years. This council is not lacking for discussion topics—the nature of potential risks to an organization is evolving seemingly by the day. Directors need to know the strategies in place to not only mitigate but capitalize on the risks currently facing the company, and those predicted to present challenges in the future.

But that just accounts for what is on the board’s radar. At the second meeting of NACD’s Advisory Council on Risk Oversight held in collaboration with PwC and Gibson Dunn, the discussion went beyond current and predicted risks to the challenges of disruptive technologies and innovation. Increasingly, the most severe shocks have been largely unpredictable: extreme weather, the confluence of multiple events, or innovation that upturns the industry. As one delegate observed: “We haven’t spent much time on the [risk of] ‘I will eat your lunch with a completely different approach.’ Companies don’t sit down and think about who is going to attack from a completely different angle.”

In their oversight capacity, directors cannot constantly monitor the more detailed aspects of the business. Nor can “you anticipate what you don’t know.” Nevertheless, several delegates suggested that the appropriate risk oversight processes in place, coupled with a resilient culture that efficiently reports risks up to the board, can support directors in mitigating known and unknown risks. The meeting, captured in the 2013 Advisory Council on Risk Oversight Summary of Proceedings, focused on areas critical to effective risk oversight processes. These include:

  • Board processes and people. It is critical that the board not only has the right talent, but engages it fully. Directors should have a “real and thorough” understanding of the business to be able to effectively discuss both strategy and risk with management.
  • Recognizing asymmetric information risk. While the board has to be comfortable with the reality of information asymmetry, directors should establish tolerance levels for the level of asymmetric risk they are willing to bear, and look for signs of when this risk has become too high.
  • Engaging with management involved in risk reporting. For companies with a chief risk officer (CRO), that person can keep an “inventory” of risks throughout the organization. Additionally, directors can ask internal audit to identify what it believes will be “hot-button” risk areas.
  • Linking strategy to risk. The board’s oversight of risk should begin with an assessment of the company’s strategy and its inherent risks, which necessitates understanding and agreeing on the risk appetite, or the amount of risk the company is willing to accept.
  • Allocating the work of risk oversight. The significant increase in risks facing the board necessitates defining who will act as an “air traffic controller”—allocating risk oversight responsibilities.

Leading practices for risk oversight—including allocation of work and the development of a risk strategy document—will continue to be the focus points not only for this advisory council but also NACD’s Directorship 2020 initiative. To download the full summary of proceedings, click here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Risk Management | No Comments »

Combatting Information Asymmetry

December 13th, 2012 | By

At any NACD education program, the discussion of directorship as a part-time profession with full-time risks is bound to arise. Yet following any corporate crisis, the question is always asked: “Where was the board?” Outside of the C-suite and boardroom, many perceive that directors should be able to foresee and avoid a crisis before it strikes.

This perception is misguided for several reasons. As a result of legislative and regulatory activity, since the 1960s corporate boards have become increasingly independent of management. Although legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank mandated independence at specific committees, this has extended to the entire board. Today, most publicly held company boards comprise a majority of independent directors, and often the CEO is the only executive director.[1]

The development of independent boards is not negative. In fact, it ensures that the board can effectively carry out its mission and responsibilities, and fairly hold management accountable to shareholders. However, there are a few consequences when directors are selected entirely for independence. Directorship, as noted above, is a part-time role. Inherently, directors rely on senior management for information necessary to carry out their oversight responsibilities. When outside directors are chosen for lack of ties to the corporation, they do not necessarily bring knowledge of the business or industry. Therefore, the benefit created by adding an independent director is largely tempered, as this outsider is reliant on the CEO for the information necessary to his or her oversight role.

To combat this risk of asymmetric information, NACD partnered with McGladrey to host four small gatherings of executives and directors in an effort to find ways of improving the communication and relationships between the board and C-suite. From these gatherings, the Bridging Effectiveness Gaps: A Candid Look at Board Practices white paper was created. As Bridging the Effectiveness Gaps notes, broadly, these gaps were found in the areas of strategy and risk, executive compensation, CEO succession planning, and board evaluations. By convening management and directors from different companies, the meetings fostered candid and open conversation regarding areas where communication tends to break down. However, where communication was generally the root of the problem, it was also the solution.

This report is available as a complimentary white paper on NACD’s Board Leaders’ Briefing Center.


[1] According to the 2012 Spencer Stuart U.S. Board Index.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Looking Down the Road: Governance Challenges of the Future

August 30th, 2012 | By

Reflecting on the second anniversary of the passing of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, the business media were quick to notice regulatory agencies’ slow pace in putting the mandates into effect. For the past two years, directors have waited for the numerous rules on corporate governance as promulgated by the landmark legislation to become final.

Although regulators are not nearly finished with the resulting rules from Dodd-Frank, the role of the boardroom is to provide oversight while considering the challenges coming around the corner. Directors must monitor current corporate performance with an eye on the company’s long-term strategy.

NACD’s latest publication, Governance Challenges–2012 and Beyond, offers a forward-looking perspective on the priority topics dominating boardroom discussion. Governance Challenges–2012 and Beyond features current guidance and thought leadership from six of NACD’s Strategic Content Partners, on issues ranging from executive compensation and director liability to risk oversight and board effectiveness.

Here are just a few highlights:

  • Mastering CEO succession planning from Heidrick and Struggles, CEO succession is critical to the long-term success of any company. Today, full board engagement is necessary for proper management of the leadership pipeline. That means ongoing boardroom involvement to ensure that succession plans can be readily adapted to changing circumstances, with a particular eye toward both predictable and unpredictable leadership disruption. Among other practicable suggestions, the report suggests mock board meetings to identify CEO successors and strategies to ease the transition.
  • Do financial statements and disclosures tell the company’s whole story? According to KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute, this question has become more important than ever, given the call for greater transparency from regulators and investors. In disclosures, directors should go beyond what is required to address expectations and provide a clearer context for the decisions made. To assist in this process, the board may choose to enlist the management-level disclosure committee.
  • Understanding the drivers of the business. In this section, Marsh and McLennan Companies continues this discussion originally visited in 2010 by the Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Performance Metrics. To effectively identify and mitigate risks, it is critical that directors understand what drives profit and growth throughout the organization. While directors often receive an abundance of data on performance, they are less likely to receive information on the paths that lead to profit or loss. As Marsh & McLennan suggests, the board needs information on the trajectory of the enterprise if they are to serve as a strategic asset.

Legislators, regulators and shareholders have had greater influence on the boardroom than ever before. With insights and practical guidance from the nation’s leading boardroom experts, Governance Challenges–2012 and Beyond is an essential resource for directors who understand the need to stay ahead of the curve.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Corporate Governance, Director Education, Inside NACD | No Comments »

« Older Entries