In my previous piece, Why Boards Still Don’t Ask the Hard Questions About Mission-Critical Risk, I explored why so few boards demand reporting on the risks and uncertainties that threaten an organization’s most important objectives. Like that piece, this one began with a social media post that sparked a strong reaction, because it points to a governance reality many know but rarely admit.
In a recent post, I posed a question that I believe cuts to the heart of modern risk governance: why haven’t most boards asked for reports on risk and uncertainty linked to the mission critical objectives that ultimately define whether organizations succeed or fail?
Mercer Super, one of Australia’s largest superannuation funds, is facing fresh legal trouble after the corporate regulator accused it of a pattern of systemic failures, the kind that can quietly erode trust in a sector meant to safeguard Australians’ retirement savings.
If there’s one thing regulators don’t like, it’s being ignored. And in Hong Kong, if you try to duck the calls of the market watchdogs, they’ll make sure everyone knows.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has launched a public consultation on proposed revisions to its Guidelines on internal governance under the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD), reflecting recent legislative changes and evolving supervisory priorities. The consultation, which runs until 5 October 2025, is limited to the proposed amendments and invites feedback from stakeholders across the financial sector.
South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) recently announced that all companies listed on the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) will be required to submit corporate governance reports starting in 2026.
In this article, Tim Leech expands on a recent post he shared in the LinkedIn discussion group Objective Centric Risk & Uncertainty Management to explore a fundamental, and often overlooked, question in modern governance: Do boards actually agree on their purpose? Drawing on decades of research and a collaborative analysis with ChatGPT, Leech argues that the staggering cost of governance failures may stem from one core issue, there is no consensus on the very purpose of corporate governance itself.