The ability of AI systems to make decisions and perform tasks, which used to be the preserve of people, raises issues and concerns about fairness, accountability and integrity. This first discussion paper for 2022 provides valuable insights into how governance professionals can advise their organisation on how to navigate the governance of AI.

Does the board act on its own and the executive team act on its own?  Can the two come together if the ingredients are there to create a third-team?  Is the third-team always there or does it only emerge when the synergy is really there?  This discussion paper explores how important it is for the Chair and the Chief Executive to create an environment where the attributes of synergy, trust and confidence emerge to take the organisation to the next level.

The Thought Leadership Committee of The Chartered Governance Institute is tasked with supporting the Institute’s mission through the preparation and dissemination of papers on governance issues which are relevant to the needs and interests of our members wherever they are based and in whatever field they are active. Against that background, I particularly welcome this paper on board gender diversity.

The concept of diversity of thought (DoT) continues to grow in prominence in governance and other group decision-making contexts. This trend is greatly encouraging. DoT holds the potential to improve both the composition of boards, by bringing together different perspectives, and the way that boards address complex challenges and opportunities.

Join the global live webinar discussion: 'Do we really need to meet? Learning from a pandemic' June 2nd. Hear from leading governance professionals across the world about the challenges of holding public meetings during the current pandemic. Watch on-demand

In this latest governance thought leadership article, the focus is on the need for enhanced individual director accountability. Individual director accountability is the next frontier of where good governance needs to direct its time and attention. This article is a must-read for constructive perspectives on addressing this important topic within the context of the boardroom.

The benefits to an organisation that embarks on the journey to prepare an integrated report cannot be overstated. In the beginning, it can be a long journey as it requires a holistic approach, bringing together contributions from all aspects of an organisation to provide a clear understanding of its overall strategy, governance, performance and prospects.

In the world of corporate governance, more is not always better. Are we approaching an era of ‘peak governance’? Corporate governance, said to have evolved from the publication of the Cadbury Report in 1992 has essentially focused on the governance of listed companies, with good governance the price for the privilege of access to public investors. Since the Cadbury Report, there has been an ongoing increase in the reach of legislators and regulators into the workings of the governance of listed companies, whilst at the same time a significant diminution of the role of such companies in the wider economy.

Taking minutes of meetings is administrative good practice. It creates a record of what has been agreed, and by whom, and of what is to be done, by when and by whom. For such a pivotal aspect of the administration of business of all kinds, it is surprising there was relatively little formal guidance on how minute taking might most effectively be done and, moreover, on changes in practice that have developed over time.

Who would have thought that technology would have disrupted the role of a company secretary that goes back well over 100 years? Who would have thought that one day a robot would be sitting in the boardroom making decisions? Those thoughts are now real and the disruption that we have seen in so many aspects of our daily lives is now with us in our professional lives.

The future of the annual general meeting (AGM) has been a focus of some concern, as declining attendance and voting at AGMs globally has led to questions about whether they are fit for purpose in the 21st century. The Thought Leadership Committee (TLC) of The Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA) has prepared this paper and a descriptive video summarising the issues at stake for the various ICSA divisions globally to raise any potential concerns and highlight best practice solutions over time.

In the last few years many jurisdictions have introduced formal codes of conduct for investors, sometimes known as Responsible Investment or Stewardship Codes. Others have introduced specific pieces of legislation — directed at both issuers and investors — and some have left it to the market to determine the framework for better engagement. The Institute sees continuous improvement in shareholder engagement as in the public interest. Along with assistance from colleagues at the OECD we wanted to document current engagement practices and see if any conclusions could be drawn that could contribute to public policy recommendations on how to promote an effective dialogue between investors, particularly institutional ones, and issuers.