Visit our mobile site

The Globe and Mail

Jump to main navigation
Jump to main content

News Search
Search Stock Quotes
Search The Web
Search People at canada411.ca
Search Businesses at yellowpages.ca
Search Jobs at eluta.ca
402709 01: Stadium employees remove letters from one of the Enron Field signs March 21, 2002 in Houston, TX. The Houston Astros paid $2.1 million to get back the naming rights to their stadium from collasped energy trader Enron. - Ten years after its collapse into scandal, the real legacy of Enron lies in the less visible reforms, which have fundamentally changed how companies operate, business leaders say. CEOs rely on boards far more in strategic planning, directors are more demanding in their oversight, and companies increasingly consider broader questions of governance in their social and environmental decisions. | James Nielsen/Getty Images

Ten years after its collapse into scandal, the real legacy of Enron lies in the less visible reforms, which have fundamentally changed how companies operate, business leaders say. CEOs rely on boards far more in strategic planning, directors are more demanding in their oversight, and companies increasingly consider broader questions of governance in their social and environmental decisions.

402709 01: Stadium employees remove letters from one of the Enron Field signs March 21, 2002 in Houston, TX. The Houston Astros paid $2.1 million to get back the naming rights to their stadium from collasped energy trader Enron. - Ten years after its collapse into scandal, the real legacy of Enron lies in the less visible reforms, which have fundamentally changed how companies operate, business leaders say. CEOs rely on boards far more in strategic planning, directors are more demanding in their oversight, and companies increasingly consider broader questions of governance in their social and environmental decisions. | James Nielsen/Getty Images
Enlarge this image

Board Games: Corporate Canada sees a quiet revolution in governance

From Monday's Globe and Mail

“If I had to use one term to characterize boards 15 to 20 years ago, that would be ‘passive,’” says corporate director Peter Dey, who drafted the first board governance guidelines for the Toronto Stock Exchange in the 1990s.

“Today in my experience, they are very engaged … A lot of boards were constituted with people connected to the CEO and they felt beholden to the CEO. It made it difficult for them to challenge what management wanted to do. That, in my experience, has completely changed.”

After 10 years of measuring governance practices at Canada’s largest companies, The Globe and Mail’s own data clearly show that boards are more independent than they were a decade ago. So, too, are their audit and compensation committees, where much of the hard work is done in keeping CEOs accountable. (Slideshow: A decade of Board Games)

While 43 per cent of companies had directors connected to management on their audit committees in 2002 – using the Globe’s strict definition of independence – just 10 per cent fall in that group today.

When the Globe started Board Games, more than half of companies (58 per cent) had related directors on their compensation committees; in many cases, a CEO’s close friend influenced the size of his paycheque. That number is down to 23 per cent now. While CEOs often sat on their own audit and compensation committees in 2002, that practice has since been banned.

Nevertheless, no governance reform can change the fact boards are not equally competent, says Toronto-Dominion Bank chairman Brian Levitt.

The best 15 per cent of boards did well before Enron and would have done well without any reforms, he says. The 70 per cent in the middle have benefitted most from the governance revolution, and the 15 per cent at the bottom are unchanged.

“It hasn’t made boards that are hopeless workable,” Mr. Levitt says. “And it hasn’t made boards that were very good better.”

See the rankings: Board Games 2011 corporate governance rankings

Take our survey: Poll: How does corporate governance inform your investment decisions?