30 Years of Governance - Innovative governance as a tool for business opportunities

Putting forward the question: does governance need reinvention, or simply adjustment? 

Innovation is not a single tool to be activated at the press of a button, it is a continuous cultivation of trust, fuelled by dialogue, constructive feedback, and transparency. Sometimes, a small change can have a disproportionate impact: a meeting held outside the usual boardroom, or around a shared meal, can give a spark to a more authentic exchange and bring new, fresh ideas. Rethinking board composition helps in that regard too, younger directors often challenge long-standing patterns and introduce a fresh wave of energy. Innovation, by nature, disturbs comfort zones, it compels organisations to experiment, to cross boundaries, and to rediscover their own creative potential. 

But concretely, which forms of innovation show the most promise today? 

Mature companies can draw inspiration from “smart” governance practices seen in startups and scale-ups. These include longer-term ownership structures, share-based remuneration, insider-heavy boards balanced by independent chairs, and clearer mandates with exit strategies. Such models help streamline information and cultivate long-term thinking, an essential aspect in volatile environments. 

As volatility increases and stakeholder expectations grow, governance faces a new set of possibilities. Shadow boards, advisory boards, and stakeholder consultation mechanisms can inject new life into decision-making, offering a dynamic counterpoint to governance’s traditional image. 

Technology, too, plays an undeniable role. Artificial intelligence stands out as the topic of the moment, and rightly so. Integrating technological tools falls within the board’s duty of care when they enhance efficiency, improve documentation, or inspire new strategic options. Boards are experimenting with AI tools to support documentation and trend scanning, though caution remains around reliability and data protection. The board’s responsibility lies in ensuring that such tools are applied thoughtfully, aligned with purpose, and grounded in value creation. Decision-making remains, and must remain, a human, collegial act. 

Importantly, innovation does not manifest identically across organisations. Just as governance frameworks vary, one size does not fit all. 

In traditional firms, innovation often means rethinking board dynamics and composition. Including younger executives in board debates, reframing non-executive directors as active ambassadors, and aligning CEO-board-employee culture are key levers. Family firms promote innovation by building trust, supported by mechanisms such as family charters, systematic evaluations, and annual retreats dedicated to long-term strategic vision, which are essential for aligning interests.

How can best practices translate across such different contexts? 

In family firms, the integration of younger generations often proves a delicate but decisive task. Shadow boards can serve as a bridge, allowing next-generation members to experience the company’s strategic vision early on, and to internalise how family culture translates into business purpose. Traditional companies, meanwhile, face another challenge: introducing innovation into long-established models. It is not about abandoning the familiar but transforming “business as usual” into “business as possible”, embracing disruption as a path toward learning and resilience in geopolitical uncertainty. 

There is no universal formula, the real magic happens inside the boardroom, when directors feel safe to challenge, when they ask the insightful or uncomfortable questions that move reflection forward. 

At first, innovation may seem burdensome, even vague, when written on a board agenda. But its essence lies precisely in that space, between uncertainty, discomfort, and curiosity. 

Resilience requires more than procedures, it demands a mix of technological assistance, human judgment, and cultural maturity. Boards can adopt risk frameworks from the financial sector, integrate real-time communication protocols, and embrace stakeholder inclusion to navigate systemic shocks. 

Can we expect boards to be prepared for unforeseeable events? Are clear guidelines and procedures enough to support boards in this goal?