by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
GRC Professional : GRC Autumn 2012
in THe oFFice 34 GRC Professional • Autumn 2012 Martin lawrence, from governance advisers ownership Matters, says the proposed new laws should harmonise how liability is deter mined. “There is a pressure to make directors ultimately responsible for corporate wrongdoings – but you don’t want them to become terrified about being liable, you want them to take risks, but be held accountable when they are acting negligently or fraudulently.” Quinn says this debate has sparked questions around the real role and responsibilities of boards. “We have to look at the role of the board versus management. are we imposing so much responsibility on boards that rather than focusing on strategy they are becoming too involved in management? This is not necessarily healthy because board members need to be a little bit distant. in the centro case, the board papers contained a huge amount of detail and within that detail the directors were required to pick up the accounting distinction between current and non- current liabilities. Being a director should not be a full- time job – so it’s about getting a balance right. “Boards need to be actively engaged in how material is presented to them and the time they have to review it, so that they can identify the key issues that need their attention. There’s no doubt the skill level required of board members is now higher than in the past.” Do boards need a refresh? indeed, there has been a recent push around not just directors’ skills, but the need for increased Boards need to be actively engaged in how material is presented to them and the time they have to review it, so that they can identify the key issues that need their attention. diversity at board level and there are signs things are beginning to change. The australian council of superannuation investors’ october 2011 report, Board composition and non-executive director pay in the Top 100 companies: 2010 shows a slight increase in female representation on boards, with the proportion of female directors in the top 100 companies growing from 11.1 per cent in 2009 to 12.2 per cent in 2010. But progress remains slow, with women accounting for only eight per cent of top 100 directors and 9.2 per cent of all directorships in 2001. in terms of generational diversity, the news is not as good – the non-executive director pool continued to age in 2010, with the average age of a non-executive director increasing from 60.5 years in 2009 to 60.8 in 2010. This was the fifth consecutive year the average non-executive director age has increased – in 2001 the average non-executive director was 58.6 years old. in terms of how compliance and risk officers should engage with board members in light of these issues, Johnson says it’s impor tant compliance and risk staff understand dir ectors’ obligations, but take a well-balanced approach in how they engage. “don’t go to the boar d with a list of 400 different things that need to be ticked off. You need a risk-weighted commercial approach to the way you engage,” he says. ••• 6% 70+ » MalE dIRECtoR dIStRIButIoN By aGE 40-49 50-59 60-69 8% 33% 53% 2% 70+ 40-49 50-59 60-69 21% 55% 22% » FEMalE dIRECtoR dIStRIButIoN By aGE
GRC Summer 2012
GRC Winter 2012