In 2025 we are likely to see a continuation of the same issues afflicting companies in 2023-24:
Boards will need to be mindful of these when setting strategy and approving ‘defining moment’ transactions.
References
https://www.diligent.com/en-au/resources/blog/corporate-governance-trends
General Disclaimer:
The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.
No person(s) should act, or refrain from acting, solely on the basis of the material contained on this website. Your access of this website, and any use that you may make of the information on it, is not intended to create, and your use does not constitute, a contractual relationship of any kind.
All material published by Governance in Action Pty Ltd on its website remains its property, with copyright attached, and all rights are reserved.
The objective is not “less governance”. It is better governance architecture: make routine conformance systematic so scarce board time is available for the questions, choices and judgements that matter most.
Governance frameworks can look impressive on paper. The more important question is whether they work in practice. This article examines governance audits as evidence-based assessments of the design, operation and outcomes of an organisation’s governance arrangements. It considers why governance assurance is more formalised and visible in the Australian public sector, why private-sector organisations often perform equivalent work under different labels, and what boards can learn from each approach. It also explores appropriate audit scope, culture and behavioural evidence, review frequency, the role of internal and external reviewers, and the opportunities and risks associated with using AI. The central message is simple: good governance assurance should go beyond confirming that policies, charters and controls exist. It should test whether they are understood, used, effective and capable of identifying and correcting governance weaknesses before they become larger problems.
Boards need more than a rear-view mirror. Lagging indicators such as breaches, losses, incidents and missed targets remain essential for accountability, but well-designed leading indicators can provide earlier warning of changing risk, culture, capability and control conditions. This article examines what lead and lag indicators actually mean in corporate governance, why the same measure can sometimes be both, and why “leading” should not automatically be equated with “predictive”. It proposes a practical indicator framework across strategy, risk and compliance, culture, WHS, board effectiveness, internal audit, technology, data, customers and third parties. It also considers how big data, analytics and AI can strengthen governance – provided boards first address data quality, privacy, context and assurance. The objective is not perfect prediction, but earlier recognition, better questions and better-informed board decisions.