Recently, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) released its updated enterprise risk management (ERM) framework for public exposure and comment. Why is it important for directors to heed and apply these updates to their work? What follows is a summary of five important insights for directors to implement in the boardroom from the revised framework.
1. Identifying risks to the execution of the strategy is not enough. Many organizations focus on identifying risks that might affect the execution of the chosen strategy. The process of identifying these risks is an inherently good exercise. However, COSO asserts that “risks to the strategy” are only one dimension of strategic risk. There are two additional dimensions to applying ERM in strategy setting that can significantly affect an enterprise’s risk profile.
The “possibility of strategy not aligning” with an organization’s mission, vision, and core values, which define what the organization is trying to achieve and how it intends to conduct business. Directors should ensure that the company doesn’t put into play a misaligned strategy that increases the possibility that the organization may run askew of its mission and vision, even if that strategy is successfully executed.
The “implications from the strategy.” COSO states: “When management develops a strategy and works through alternatives with the board, they make decisions on the tradeoffs inherent in the strategy. Each alternative strategy has its own risk profile—these are the implications from the strategy.” When overseeing the strategy-setting process, directors need to consider how the strategy works in tandem with the organization’s risk appetite, and how it will drive behavior across the organization in setting objectives, allocating resources, and making key decisions.
In summary, the updated COSO framework asserts that all three dimensions need to be considered as part of the strategy-setting process. Failure to address all three could result in unintended consequences that lead to missed opportunities or loss of enterprise value.
2. Recognizing and acting on market opportunities and emerging risks on a timely basis is a differentiating skill. COSO asserts that an organization can be viable in the long term only if it is able to anticipate and respond to change—not only to survive, but also to evolve. Enterprise resilience, or the ability to function as an early mover, is an indispensable characteristic in an uncertain business environment. Therefore, corporate strategies must accommodate uncertainty while staying true to the organization’s mission. Organizations need to exhibit traits that drive an effective response to change, including agile decision-making, the ability to respond in a cohesive manner, the adaptive capacity to reorganize, and high levels of trust and collaboration among stakeholders.
3. Strengthening risk governance and culture sets the right tone. Effective risk governance sets the tone for the organization and reinforces the importance of, and establishes oversight responsibilities for, ERM. In this context, culture pertains to ethical values and responsible business behaviors, particularly those reflected in decision-making. COSO asserts that several principles drive the risk governance and culture needed to lay a strong foundation for effective ERM:
fostering effective board risk oversight;
recognizing the risk profile introduced by the operating model;
encouraging risk awareness;
demonstrating commitment to integrity and ethics;
establishing accountability for ERM; and
attracting, developing, and retaining talented individuals.
Whether an organization considers itself risk averse, risk neutral, or risk aggressive, COSO suggests that it should encourage a risk-aware culture. A culture in alignment with COSO’s revised principles is characterized by strong leadership, a participative management style, accountability for actions and results, embedding risk in decision-making processes, and open and positive risk dialogues.
4. Advancing the risk appetite dialogue adds value to the strategy-setting process. The institution’s risk appetite statement is considered during the strategy-setting process, communicated by management, embraced by the board, and integrated across the organization. Risk appetite is shaped by the enterprise’s mission, vision, and core values, and considers its risk profile, risk capacity, risk capability, and maturity, culture, and business context.
To be useful, risk appetite must be driven down from the board and executives into the organization. To that end, COSO defines the “acceptable variation in performance” (sometimes referred to as risk tolerance) as the range of acceptable outcomes related to achieving a specific business objective. While risk appetite is broad, acceptable variation in performance is tactical and operational. Acceptable variation in performance relates risk appetite to specific business objectives and provides measures that can identify when risks to the achievement of those objectives emerge. Operating within acceptable parameters of variation in performance provides management with greater confidence that the entity remains within its risk appetite; in turn, this provides a higher degree of comfort that the entity will achieve its business objectives in a manner consistent with its mission, vision, and core values.
5. Monitoring what really matters is essential to effective ERM. The organization monitors risk management performance and how well the components of ERM function over time, in view of any substantial changes in the external or internal environment. If not considered on a timely basis, change can either create significant performance gaps vis-à-vis competitors or can invalidate the critical assumptions underlying the strategy. Monitoring of substantial changes is built into business processes in the ordinary course of running the business and conducted on a real-time basis. As ERM is integrated across the organization, the embedding of continuous evaluations can systematically assist leadership with identifying process improvements.
Following are some suggested questions that boards may consider, based on the risks inherent in the entity’s operations:
Is the board satisfied that the organization is adaptive to change, and that management is considering the effects of volatility, complexity, and uncertainty in the marketplace when evaluating alternative strategies and executing the current strategy?
Should management consider the principles supporting effective implementation of ERM, as set forth by COSO, to ascertain whether improvements are needed to the enterprise’s risk management capabilities?
Jim DeLoach is managing director with Protiviti, a global consulting firm.
The dust settled recently on another chapter of the Target Corp. data breach litigation. Although the five shareholder derivative lawsuits filed against Target’s officers and directors have been dismissed, they underscore the critical oversight function played by corporate directors when it comes to keeping an organization’s cyber defenses up to par. While the ink isn’t quite dry on the court papers, it’s time to start reflecting on the lessons of the skirmish.
In the midst of the 2013 holiday shopping season, news leaked that hackers had installed malware on Target’s credit card payment system and lifted the credit card information of more than 70 million shoppers. That’s almost 30 percent of the adult population in the U.S.
Predictably, litigation was filed, regulatory and congressional investigations commenced, and heads rolled. Banks, shareholders, and customers all filed lawsuits against the company. Target’s CEO was shown the door.
And Target’s directors and officers were caught in the crossfire. In a series of derivative lawsuits, shareholders claimed that the retailer’s board and C-suite violated their fiduciary duties by not providing proper oversight for the company’s information security program, not making prompt and accurate public disclosures about the breach, and ignoring red flags that Target’s IT systems were vulnerable to attack.
The four derivative cases filed in federal court were consolidated (one derivative lawsuit remained in state court) and Target’s board formed a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate the shareholders’ accusations. The SLC was vested with “complete power and authority” to investigate and make all decisions concerning the derivative lawsuits, including what action, if any, would be “in Target’s best interests.” Target did not appoint sitting independent directors but retained two independent experts with no ties to the company—a retired judge and a law professor. The SLC conducted a 21-month investigation with the help of independent counsel, interviewing 68 witnesses, reviewing several hundred thousand documents, and retaining the assistance of independent forensics and governance experts.
On March 30, 2016, the SLC issued a 91-page report, concluding that it would not be in Target’s best interest to pursue claims against the officers and directors and that it would seek the dismissal of all derivative suits.
Minnesota law, where Target is headquartered, provides broad deference to an SLC. Neither judges nor plaintiffs’ are permitted to second-guess the SLC members’ conclusions so long as the committee’s members are independent and the SLC’s investigative process is ‘adequate, appropriate and pursued in good faith.” By these standards, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Magnuson recently dismissed the derivative cases with the “non-objection” of the shareholders, subject to their lawyers’ right to petition the court for legal fees.
Target isn’t the only data-breach-related derivative case filed by shareholders against corporate officers and directors. Wyndham Worldwide Corp.’s leadership faced derivative claims relating to three separate data breaches at the company’s resort properties. After protracted litigation, the derivative claims were dismissed in October 2014, in large measure because Wyndham board’s was fully engaged on data security issues and was already at work bolstering the company’s cybersecurity defenses when the derivative suit was filed. A data-breach-related derivative action was also filed against the directors and officers of Home Depot, which remains pending.
Despite the differences between the Target and Wyndham derivative suits, both cases contain important lessons for corporate executives and sitting board members.
Treat data security as more than “just an IT issue.” Boards must be engaged on data security issues and have the ability to ask the right questions and assess the answers. Board members don’t know what they can’t see. Developing expertise in data security isn’t the objective; rather, it’s for directors to exercise their oversight function. Board members can get cybersecurity training and engage outside technical and legal advisors to assist them in protecting their organizations from data breaches.
Evaluate board information flow on cybersecurity issues. How are board members kept up-to-date on data security issues? Are regular briefings held with the chief information officer (CIO) to discuss cybersecurity safeguards, internal controls, and budgets? Boards might also consider appointing special committees and special legal counsel charged with data security oversight.
Prepare for cyberattacks in advance. Boards should ask tough questions about their organization’s state of preparedness to respond to all aspects of a cyber-attack, from reputational risk to regulatory implications. Get your house in order now, and not during or after an attack. Not surprisingly, multiple studies—including the Ponemon Institute’s 2016 Cost of Data Breach Study—suggest that there is a correlation between an organization’s up-front spending on cybersecurity preparation and the ultimate downstream costs of responding to a breach.
Decide whether and when to investigate data breaches. Before hackers strike, boards must decide whether and when to proactively investigate the breach, wait to see if lawsuits are filed, or wait to see if regulators take notice. Regardless, boards should be prepared to make this difficult decision, which will establish the tone of the company’s relationship with customers, shareholders, law enforcement, regulators, and the press.
Develop a flexible cyber-risk management framework. Cyber-risk oversight isn’t a one-time endeavor, nor is there a one-size-fits-all solution. The threat environment is constantly changing and depends, in part, on a company’s sector, profile, and type of information collected and stored. While cyber-criminals swiped credit card data in the Target and Wyndham cases, the threat environment has escalated to holding organizations hostage for ransomware payments and stealing industrial secrets.
Cybercrime is scary and unpredictable. It poses risks to a company’s brand, reputation, and bottom line. Board members are on the hot seat, vested with the opportunity and responsibility to oversee cybersecurity and protect the company they serve.
Craig A. Newman is a litigation partner in Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and chair of the firm’s Privacy and Data Security practice. He represents public and private companies, professional service firms, nonprofits institutions and their boards in litigation, governance and data security matters. Mr. Newman, a former journalist, has served as general counsel of both a media and technology consortium and private equity firm.
The most powerful names in U.S. business have published guidance on Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance (Commonsense Principles) to provide a framework to improve corporate governance and make it more long-term–oriented. Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, Laurence D. Fink of BlackRock, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and others have outlined principles covering nine broad categories of governance issues that, while nonbinding, will likely spark an important dialogue in boardrooms. Eight of the categories have direct and far-reaching implications for boards, while the final group of principles relates to the role asset managers play in the governance arena. What makes this announcement unique is the unified position these leaders have taken behind one set of commonsense principles.
At the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), an organization that is advancing exemplary leadership among our community of 17,000 director members, our position is clear: We agree with many of the principles outlined and we can help boards implement effective governance practices. In fact, the Commonsense Principles reinforce the Key Agreed Principles to Strengthen Corporate Governance for U.S. Publicly Traded Companies that we introduced a few years ago.
While recognizing that the principles are not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that practices will likely differ based on size, industry, and specific company, we’ve included a practical list of next steps below that boards can take to implement the principles.
The Case for Improved Governance
Key drivers behind the 50+ nonbinding principles are the decline in the number of publicly traded firms, with many highly performing private companies delaying initial public offerings (IPOs), essentially reducing available investment opportunities; the current lack of trust between shareholders, boards, and management teams; concerns about the dominance of short-termism in the management of companies; and the complexity of current corporate governance rules.
The Commonsense Principles identify several areas for improvement:
Board agendas should include a focus on major strategic issues (including material mergers and acquisitions and major capital commitments) and long-term strategy, ensuring thorough consideration of operational and financial plans, quantitative and qualitative key performance indicators, and assessment of organic and inorganic growth, among other issues. A company should not feel obligated to provide earnings guidance, the business leaders suggest, and should determine whether providing earnings guidance for the company’s shareholders does more harm than good. Companies should frame their required quarterly reporting in the broader context of their articulated strategy and provide an outlook, as appropriate, for trends and metrics that reflect progress (or lack of progress) on long-term goals.
Every board needs a strong leader who is independent of management, the principles emphasize. The board’s independent directors usually are in the best position to evaluate whether the roles of chair and CEO should be separate or combined, and if the board decides on a combined role, it is essential that the board have a strong lead independent director with clearly defined authorities and responsibilities.
Diverse boards make better decisions, so every board should have members with complementary and diverse skills, backgrounds, and experiences. It’s also important to balance the wisdom and judgment that accompany experience and tenure with the need for the fresh thinking and perspectives that new board members can bring.
In financial reporting, the use of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) should not be obscured by the use of non-GAAP metrics.
Action Steps for Directors
You and your board/company may consider taking certain steps:
Review the principles in detail and benchmark your current governance approach against them.
Determine if identified differences are areas ripe for further discussion and possible change.
Engage your largest investors to get their take on the principles and how they plan to use them when assessing corporate governance effectiveness.
NACD Alignment With Commonsense Principles
Below I’ve highlighted just a few examples of how NACD aligns with the most significant principles. I have included links to NACD reports that can help boards make the Commonsense Principles common practice.
Focus on Long-Term Value Creation
The principles advocate for the creation of long-term shareholder value. Our guidance to members over the past several years has skewed unabashedly toward boards prioritizing long-term value creation. In fact, our 2015 Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on the Board and Long-Term Value Creation emphasizes the need for directors to align short-term goals—and executive compensation—with long-term strategy. The report provides tools and practical recommendations including, among others, the following:
Boards should consider recommending a move away from quarterly earnings guidance in favor of broader guidance parameters tied to long-term performance and strategic objectives.
The board’s CEO selection and evaluation processes should include an assessment of the extent to which he or she can be an effective advocate for the firm’s long-term strategy.
The nominating and governance committee should approach board composition and succession planning with long-term needs in mind, based on the director skills that will be most relevant to the company’s strategy in three, five, or more years.
Role of the Lead Director
The role of the lead independent director emerged as another key area where board effectiveness can improve. We at NACD believe that the lead independent director should spearhead efforts to intensify the board’s efficacy by identifying and addressing weaknesses in process and individual director performance. An effective lead independent director should be able to provide criticism that is both respectful and objective, and be able to ensure every director’s voice is heard. To put it simply, the lead independent director should bring out the very best in the board. Our NACD Blue Ribbon Commission Report on the Effective Lead Director provides practical guidance on how to do that.
Board Composition and Diversity
Public-company boards should have a diverse and complimentary mix of backgrounds, experiences, and skills, according to the Commonsense Principles. While this is an area in which we’ve not seen much movement—aside from a slight increase in gender diversity, with 79 percent of NACD survey respondents reporting they have at least one woman director on their board compared with 77 percent in 2014—our Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on the Diverse Board: Moving From Interest to Action provides very practical advice and tools, including a board-level discussion guide on diversity, that can help boards make diverse board composition a priority. Additional information can be found in NACD’s Board Diversity Resource Center.
Non-GAAP Financial Metrics
The use of non-GAAP metrics in financial reporting has been widely scrutinized by regulators. Mary Jo White, chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stated last December that non-GAAP metrics deserve “close attention, both to make sure that our current rules are being followed and to ask whether they are sufficiently robust in light of current market practices.” NACD’s Audit Committee Chair Advisory Council, a prestigious group of Fortune 500 committee chairs, met a few months ago to discuss the use of non-GAAP metrics. The council made an important recommendation:
From a governance perspective, audit committees should ensure that there are adequate controls in place to help mitigate the risk of management bias in measuring and reporting non-GAAP measures, and that these controls are frequently assessed.
Our resources and messaging have always been—and will continue to be—shaped by directors who actively contribute to better board-governance practice. As the largest gathering of directors in the United States, NACD’s 2016 Global Board Leaders’ Summit will convene some of the best minds in governance to continue the dialogue on how boards can adopt leading practices. We believe in and strongly support good corporate governance and will continue to provide resources to help directors effectively oversee U.S. businesses. For more information on the governance principles NACD has established, please review our Key Agreed Principles to Strengthen Corporate Governance for U.S. Publicly Traded Companies.