Equally strong

It turns out not everyone has been persuaded by Donald Trump’s MAGA-led war against DEI.

The Financial Times reports this week that most businesses in Europe and the UK have ignored the Trump executive order to banish DEI from Federal agencies—and it seems investors are backing them.

The FT quotes Kimberley Lewis, head of active ownership at Schroders. “Companies and investors in Europe have, in large [part], remained committed to corporate DEI programmes.

“The extent to which DEI has become embedded within European and UK corporate governance best practice suggests that there’s unlikely to be a row back from DEI as an important corporate value.”

Of course, the UK’s governance code is a ‘comply or explain’ model and Board Agenda wonders how many companies relish the idea of potentially offering a public explanation of why they’ve ditched DEI.

Norway or the highway?

Elon Musk has been trolled by the Norwegians! In the Tesla CEO’s quest for gargantuan, never-before-seen-or-imagined, humility-absent pay levels, the Norway Government Pension Fund Global has said it won’t back him in a shareholder vote that due Thursday.

Frankly, it’s not hard to see why. Musk is looking for $1 trillion, while the pension is worth about £1.7 trillion — covering an entire nation’s pension fund.

The fund, it has to be said, also voted against Musk’s previous vertigo-inducing pay day of £56 billion.

The Times cites the pension fund manager saying: “While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total of the award, dilution and lack of mitigation of key person risk.”

The vote went Musk’s way. One may dismiss the Norwegians but they hold the world’s biggest pension fund and it helps set an investor tone worldwide. Even if it’s a frosty one.

A letter to SIDs

What does the Post Office inquiry tell us about senior independent directors? Chris Haynes, founder of CMH Consulting, has been sorting through the possibilities.

In short, Haynes wonders if the inquiry suggests the SID’s role should be parcel-sized rather than a diminutive letter. Or to put it another way, should it be broader than the definition in the UK Corporate Governance Code?

Haynes’ argument is that there are opportunities for SIDs to work closely with general counsel, a key figure in gauging a company’s legal position (quite pertinent to the Post Office case). Some do this already, but it’s not an express part of the SID’s job description.

Haynes concludes: “A recurring theme from the Post Office inquiry was that the board and senior executives pursued an overly legalistic approach; that there was insufficient consideration of the bigger picture.

“The same could be said about the role of the SID. It has become too narrowly drawn and, arguably, misses the bigger picture.” A message that needs posting far and wide.