The board’s priorities for 2024 are not the only areas of risk and opportunity that boards will need to address this year. There are other business imperatives to consider in the year ahead.
Keeping pace with regulatory developments
Regulatory changes pose significant risks, and the pace of change is quickening, especially in election years in the US, Mexico and elsewhere. Companies can prepare in advance for anticipated changes, such as the expected rollout by the SEC of rulemaking governing disclosures. The SEC has finalized requirements for cybersecurity risk governance disclosures (via EY US), while disclosure rules on climate-related (via EY US) and other ESG matters (e.g., board diversity, human capital) still are pending. Boards also need to be aware that the global sustainability reporting landscape is shifting toward regulatory mandates that will impact many companies in the Americas, with examples like California’s (via EY US) climate disclosure laws, the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (via EY US), the International Sustainability Standards Board's first two disclosure standards, and Brazil’s mandating sustainability disclosures based on those standards. Policymakers are also urgently developing regulations for AI, and an evolving geopolitical landscape is driving a number of policies to which companies must adapt (e.g., US-China trade and investment restrictions). Boards can narrow management focus on relevant regulatory developments, oversee management’s actions and advocate for a harmonized global approach.
Guiding political considerations
Political risks jumped up the board agenda this year, driven by a dynamic geopolitical outlook as well as country-specific developments. Domestic and international political issues continue to pose significant risks to the operational and strategic objectives for many companies. Mexico and the US will hold presidential elections in 2024, the outcomes of which may lead to significant policy and regulatory changes domestically and impact each country’s relationship with others across the globe.
Active conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East, are likely to continue and will disrupt parts of global supply chains and the energy market. Further, many firms find that they must strike a delicate balance in the ways in which they support or speak out against domestic and global political events, as parts of their employee and customer bases may hold contrary beliefs. At the same time, we see two themes that are likely to dominate geopolitics. The first is a continued dispersion of geopolitical power, which is restructuring globalization into more regionalized blocs and alliances. Some of this is evident in the move some corporations have taken to nearshore supply chains closer to core markets. The second is policymakers’ prioritization of national security over pure economic considerations. This is evident in the move to more substantial industrial policy that boosts selected domestic industries or excludes international rivals. These themes are particularly relevant for multinational companies doing business in China and navigating related geopolitical complexities and restrictive investment and trade policies. Boards can guide management to proactively consider how political developments may affect growth opportunities, the supply chain, strategic options and stakeholder expectations.
Overseeing supply chains as strategic assets
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chains have been increasingly viewed as strategic assets that companies can use to help achieve near-term and long-term strategic objectives. Many companies have initiated a shift away from viewing supply chains as a pure cost center to one of resiliency. Traditionally, parts of the supply chains have been viewed as discrete pillars – end customer, distribution, storage, and order management, for example. However, given the emerging strategic view of supply chains and the ability to digitally integrate end-to-end processes, many leading companies are starting to take a more holistic ecosystem approach to managing their supply chain, all while ensuring that supply can keep up with demand.
Boards can work with their management teams to govern an integrated supply chain approach from strategy to cost to resiliency. From this perspective, organizations may be able to take greater advantage of their supplier networks to help achieve strategic goals, improve resilience during crises and provide greater transparency to stakeholders.
Addressing climate change and environmental stewardship
With just six years to meet the Paris Agreement target of halving greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2030, swift action from companies will need to continue. Stakeholders, including investors, will closely monitor companies’ progress in meeting short-term emissions reduction targets and will also scrutinize their climate transition plans for evidence of tangible strategies. Investors are also looking beyond target setting and expect companies to transform for a new economy. This entails building resilience to different climate scenarios, conducting quantitative physical climate risk assessments and engaging in partnerships and investments to scale climate solutions. Stakeholders are also interested in how companies are identifying and addressing their dependencies and impact on biodiversity and nature.
Boards should build their competency around the material climate- and nature-related risks and opportunities across the organization’s value chain. They can challenge how these factors inform the company’s strategy and work toward integrating climate and nature considerations into decision-making processes.
Across these additional priorities, boards act as stewards of the long term and provide effective challenge to management.