Latest news with #InstituteofDirectors
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Stop being honorary, become accountable stewards: Sebi chief to directors
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has urged corporate boards to rethink their functioning, warning against treating governance as a box-ticking compliance exercise. Speaking at the 2025 Annual Directors' Conclave organised by the Institute of Directors, Sebi Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey said independent directors can no longer be 'honorary appointees' or 'friendly critics' — they must evolve into active stewards of accountability. 'Governance should not be a checklist, but should be treated as breathing value,' Pandey said. He noted that while boards often spend significant time poring over compliance packs, they rarely debate signals about organisational culture. 'Independent directors may have a seat at the table — but are they truly being heard, or merely counted? We have diversity on paper, but do we have diversity of thought?' he asked. Pandey flagged the growing gap between how companies operate and how boards oversee them — citing examples such as start-ups going public with soaring valuations but no profit history, or AI models making pricing and hiring decisions. 'Markets are no longer driven purely by financials. Stakeholders now ask: What do you stand for? What are you doing for the planet, for your people and for the public trust?' he said, urging boards to have deeper conversations around succession planning and whistle-blower trends. The Sebi chief pressed for diversification in independent director appointments — across experience, sectors and demographics — backed by ongoing orientation on AI governance, cyber threats and ESG disclosures. 'Independent directors must feel free to dissent. To question, if the information is not robust,' Pandey said. He also advocated adopting digital tools to strengthen governance. 'Today's boards can and should demand real-time dashboards that provide meaningful insights — not just volumes of PDF reports. Imagine dashboards that track red-flag employee exits, whistle-blower complaints, ESG trends or vendor concentration risks — and bring them to the board's attention before they hit the news,' he said. The board as a 'team of navigators' Using a maritime analogy, Pandey likened companies to ships with the CEO as captain and the board as compass: '…But imagine that ship not steered by one captain, but a team of navigators — each with different instruments, different vantage points, and a shared duty to keep the journey safe, legal and honourable. That team is the board,' he said. Over the years, Pandey noted, Sebi has 'progressively deepened' its corporate governance framework, detailing requirements for board composition, independence and the operation of key committees — including audit, nomination and remuneration, and risk management.
Spectator
4 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
Letters: What Trump has got right
Trumped up charges Sir: I am a huge admirer of Max Hastings, whose contribution to our knowledge and understanding of global conflict is unparalleled. However, his passionate condemnation of Donald Trump is typical of the one-eyed liberal Weltanschauung that will continue to drive people both here and further afield into the arms of populist administrations ('The indignity of Trump', 2 August). Yes, Trump is horribly flawed, personally, politically and economically. However, he was democratically elected by voters who felt ignored and let down by the ruling liberal elite. For balance, we might remember that he is delivering upon his manifesto promises, unlike our government: illegal immigrants are being removed wholesale; the global economy is being rebalanced to fairer levels; stock markets are at or near record highs, the left-wing mainstream media is being reined in; huge government waste is being slashed; virtue-signalling chat-show hosts are being cancelled; and Canada is being targeted largely because it has failed to halt the flow of deadly fentanyl across the border. I have been in the States a lot recently and, far from it having become 'an uglier place', it still seems full of polite, respectful, energetic and optimistic go-getters. If only our limp, directionless government listened and delivered to such a degree, we might regain some of our national pride and positivity. David Edwards Norton-sub-Hamdon, Somerset Business experience Sir: It was interesting to read about Varun Chandra, the most important business adviser to Sir Keir Starmer ('Starmer's business whisperer', 2 August). He clearly has huge charm and a sound networking skill set, but disappointingly it appears he too has never actually run a business. If he had, surely he would have advised the PM before the last Budget that SMEs, the heartbeat of the economy, are particularly susceptible to economic shockwaves. The sudden and unexpected significant increase in business taxes last October in a fragile economy can perhaps be viewed as the Starmer government's biggest mistake so far, underpinning many of the economic woes that we all face. The latest Institute of Directors business survey indicates that business confidence is on the floor and, with the Employment Rights Bill yet to have an impact and with another Budget fast approaching, surely the PM and the Chancellor must ensure they have sound advice from someone who has actually run a business, before policy is announced? Networking ability has its place, but the government and the UK cannot afford any more economic missteps. Andrew Haynes London SW6 Bestselling smut Sir: As an English teacher, I have followed the decline in undergraduate English literature enrolment in recent years with dismay. It is unsurprising, though, when my pupils' idea of literature consists of bestselling smut ('Losing the plot', 2 August). I imagine university modules covering the satirical genius of Eliot or Austen seem unappealing to prospective students who are hooked on grotesquely eroticised Narnia. In the classroom, out of desperation, I am often tempted to endorse the fifth 'right' in Daniel Pennac's creed: 'to read anything'. However, Lara Brown is right to label romantasy as 'literature taken to its lowest form'. I ought to condemn rather than condone recommendations of Cloisters of Carnality or Lust in His Lair. Sam Finniear Guildford, Surrey Christian England Sir: Mary Wakefield's brilliant article last week was sincere and heartwarming, and I hope that Danny Kruger's address in the Commons is seen by Conservatives countrywide ('The prophet Daniel', 2 August). Christianity has defined the spiritual life, identity and culture of England. It retains all that is good, worthwhile and honourable. Alan M. Varley Crowborough, East Sussex God's wonderful railways Sir: The priestly blessing of a signal box described by Matthew Parris ('A glimpse of the essence of Englishness', 2 August) illustrates the long affinity between the Church of England and the nation's railways. This is exemplified in the career of Eric Treacy, Bishop of Wakefield from 1968 to 1976 and for more than 40 years one of Britain's leading photographers of steam locomotives. He is famous particularly for his stirring studies of Sir William Stanier's streamlined Pacifics as they emerged in the 1930s. He died of a heart attack in May 1978 on Appleby station while awaiting the arrival of Evening Star, the last steam engine built for British Railways. A plaque pays tribute to a 'railway photographer, pastor to railwaymen, lover of life and railways'. Christopher Gray Oxford Birder he wrote Sir: Birding and bird-watching are different activities (Real Life, 26 July). Bird-watching is passive and is about enjoying birds wherever they may show up. Birding is active and involves going out to look for them, particularly the less-often-seen ones. The next step on this path is 'twitching', where a tick for one's life-list might involve frantic effort and expense. Bird-watchers might enjoy the sights and sounds of birds in their gardens or local park; birders make specific trips to special sites carrying expensive optics. Far from being a lefty invention, 'birding' is the preferred term of the more dedicated, optically endowed and knowledgeable individuals, to distinguish themselves both from the everyday punters and the demented twitchers. Martin Skinner Tunbridge Wells, Kent Write to us letters@
Telegraph
02-08-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour's love affair with business has descended into a messy divorce
Labour's first year in office was like the debut of a bad movie franchise. A long, hot summer of uncertainty followed by a 'shoot 'em up' Budget tax raid. Now despite poor reviews for the original, the producers seem determined to unleash a sequel. We learned this week that, ahead of an autumn Budget, business confidence in the UK is the lowest since records began, confirmed by the Institute of Directors. What started as Labour's love story in opposition has become near all-out war on business in government. The battle between the subtleties of what it takes to foster enterprises and the deployed prejudices of Labour student union politicians, is not a fair fight: taxes, borrowing and regulatory burdens on business are all going the wrong way. Business confidence may be just another number in the long parade of economic indicators heading in the wrong direction but, unlike others, it is forward-looking. It is business confidence that decides if there will be a job available for those collecting their degrees in the next few weeks. And it is business confidence that will be signing – or not signing – that order for winter stock or the Christmas advertising spend next week. What we need is a government that makes it easier, not harder, for businesses to operate – that is the prerequisite for growth in the UK. Conservatives at least understand this, even if too many actions in government deviated from the authentically Conservative beliefs Kemi Badenoch has recently reasserted. For the many senior Conservatives with deep business experience, this is intuitive. Instead, Labour has done everything in its power from the outset to do the exact opposite. The manifesto-breaking National Insurance jobs tax, for example, is laser-focused on raising unemployment while costing £25bn a year. Or take the family business death tax. Family businesses employ nearly 16 million people in the UK. They are now being de-incentivised to line the Treasury coffers, driving up their costs and making them less competitive than foreign competitors or even private equity-owned businesses which don't face the same odious tax. Many of these long-standing family businesses with deep community roots face having to let go the very people to whom they've previously given opportunities. Completing the hat-trick of economic horrors is the 300-page job-killing employment bill – which does the exact opposite of what it says on the tin. Set to bite later this year, this £5bn-a-year burden sets loose the unions who bankroll the Labour Party and buries bosses in red tape. Primed to unleash waves of strikes and crush anyone who dares to grow here in the UK, it will turn employing staff from a minor headache to a raging migraine. Of late, Labour have been trying to gaslight us into believing that everything is fine. Clinging selectively to any cherry-picked data outlier to assert a parallel universe to the one the Institute of Directors or CBI reports. The Chancellor celebrates a minuscule 0.1pc rise in GDP like a Lionesses' win one day while ignoring the cacophony of warnings from those on the frontline such as UKHospitality or the British Retail Consortium. This approach treats businesses like fools, and it never works. To create confidence you need consistency, and business rumbled some time ago that this Government is anything but consistent. They see what I see, and what Telegraph readers see: an underqualified Chancellor completely out of her depth who is more interested in feeding the public spending furnaces than taking tough decisions for the British economy. In possibly the largest brain-drain in history, many of those who can are voting with their feet and leaving for more hospitable countries. Last summer was already a write off after Rachel Reeves spent it trash-talking our own economy and having the longest run in to a Budget for decades. What will this years sequel look like? We can only guess. Perhaps 'A Nightmare on Downing Street' could be its working title? As a responsible Opposition, we want the Government to do what is in the national interest. If Reeves wants to stop the rot, she should pursue radical cuts in spending to shrink taxes and the welfare state. We, like many, would support this. Unfortunately, we know not to hold our breath. Socialists will do what they have always done – continue to smash businesses with higher taxes, higher energy costs and more trade union-sponsored red tape. The result of all this is that confidence will be subdued and decisions put on hold, followed by another painful Budget with the Chancellor pulling the only lever she knows how: higher taxes. We've seen this socialist movie before. Only the names have been changed. The title of this sequel to the first dreadful attempt of a year ago? Less Mission: Impossible, more Mission: Impoverish.
Telegraph
02-08-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Reeves must break her manifesto pledge to save Britain from ruin
UK business leaders are perennially a gloomy lot, but it takes a special kind of disenchantment to make them quite as gloomy as they are now. According to the latest survey by the Institute of Directors, they are gloomier than they were even after the Brexit referendum, the onset of the pandemic, and the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. The main cause of that gloom is easily diagnosed; above all it is the near certainty of further tax rises in the autumn Budget three months from now. This hangs like a sword of Damocles over all gainful activity, with consumers already tightening their belts and firms delaying investment decisions until they know just what's coming down the road at them. Granted, you wouldn't think this on reading the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest assessment of the UK economy, published a week ago. This said that economic recovery was already well under way, with growth projected at 1.2pc for 2025 before gaining further momentum next year. Moreover, said the IMF, the Government's 'fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability'. This they most certainly do not, as anyone with half an eye on what's really going on in the UK economy would know. The IMF has a habit of being overly generous to key member states, and this would appear to be a case in point. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, might have written the report herself. The reality is a great deal different. The Chancellor's tears in the House of Commons just days after the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under her by abandoning £5bn of welfare cuts told their own story of the pressure she's under, whatever the ultimate cause. Sadly, the Labour leadership has no one to blame but itself. There have been two key errors in policy. First was the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation, including value added tax, income tax and National Insurance. Second was a set of fiscal rules which though they initially allowed a considerable loosening in borrowing constraints now act like a pro-cyclical straitjacket which is forcing the Government into growth destructive measures. The Chancellor calls herself an economist, but it is clear that she doesn't properly understand the often pernicious way in which public policy interacts with commercial and consumer behaviour – or if she does, she seems to have decided to deliberately ignore it. The root of the problem is the rule that obliges the Government to balance the books on day-to-day spending in five years' time. Nobody knows what the situation might look like five years from now; your guess is as good as mine. But the rules nevertheless require the Office for Budget Responsibility to project five years into the future and adjudicate on whether the rule is met or not. The last time the OBR passed judgment, Reeves was given the thumbs-up, but only by the narrowest of margins. Things have deteriorated a lot since then, making it highly likely that the rule will be broken when the OBR next adjudicates. The obvious solution is for the Government to grit its teeth and make meaningful cuts in public spending. Sadly, this does not seem to be an option with the present lot. Despite a huge majority, Downing Street repeatedly caves at the first sign of rebellion. Large scale cuts in spending might in any case further entrench today's economic stagnation. With the big sources of taxation ruled out, Reeves is instead left casting around in the foothills of the tax system for revenue that might fill the gap. Her problem is that virtually all such options tend to evoke strong behavioural responses and therefore end up raising far less money than static costing suggests. Many of them also tend to be growth destructive, witness the exodus of non-doms and millionaires since the last tax-raising Budget. Reeves says she is strongly focused on growth in all she does, yet she has locked herself into a set of fiscal rules which oblige her to do the exact opposite. I imagine that she will continue trying to paper over the cracks in the autumn Budget with lots of itsy-bitsy revenue-raising measures which further discourage wealth creation. Her rules are non-negotiable, she insists, making it hard to see how she can credibly wriggle out of them. Presumably it would be a resigning issue. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Truss debacle is that it has made her successors almost completely beholden to the bond markets. Their terror is in some respects justified; lack of progress towards meeting the balanced budget rule is already causing distress in the gilts in the market, where yields have risen sharply and are now the highest in the G7 – higher even than the US, where fiscal profligacy has run riot, and higher than both France and Italy, both of which have larger debt burdens than the UK. Credit risk is becoming a real issue for investors in UK gilts, adding further to the Government's already crushing debt servicing costs. These are forecast to be more than 8pc of all public spending this financial year, making them bigger than the Government's entire capital spending budget. The Bank of England might mitigate the consequent waste of public money by discontinuing its ruinous programme of quantitative tightening. To be still selling off the stockpile of gilts accumulated during the era of quantitative easing looks hard to justify in current circumstances. But it wouldn't be enough to make any more than a marginal difference. When it comes to fiscal consolidation, the Government has shown itself incapable of sticking to its guns on at least three occasions now – once with the winter fuel allowance and then twice with welfare cuts. This has undermined confidence in Downing Street's commitment to almost any form of fiscal correction, with announced initiatives quickly reversed in the face of backbench pressure. The sensible thing for Reeves to do would be to abandon the current mishmash of fiscal rules, and replace them with a single, easily understood commitment to limiting the rise in overall spending to less than the rate of economic growth, subject to the operation of automatic stabilisers at times of economic contraction. She should also break the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation. Cuts to National Insurance by the last government were always unaffordable given the already perilous state of the books. This could still be used as political cover for reversing them or raising one of the other big sources of tax. These two measures combined would give the markets greater confidence in fiscal sustainability, and thereby take the pressure off bond yields. This would in turn reduce debt-servicing costs, and once wealth creators were certain they are no longer a target, potentially create a virtuous circle of growth and improvement in the public finances. Will the Chancellor take my advice? Don't hold your breath.
The National
01-08-2025
- Business
- The National
Erin Brockovich joins forces with Scottish university to launch course
The Institute of Directors (IoD) has collaborated with the University of St Andrews Business School on a new qualification - the Global Certificate in Company Direction; a course designed for "leaders who want to achieve long-term success and lasting impact". Keynote speakers include environmental activist Erin Brockovich. READ MORE: University releases statement after rector launches legal action amid Gaza row Brockovich became globally-recognised after an Oscar-winning movie charted her journey as a paralegal, whistleblower and activist after she uncovered groundwater contamination in Hinkley, California, which caused cancer and other serious ailments. She settled a lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for $333 million in 1996. Julia Roberts (centre) playing Erin Brockovich (Image: Vue Cinema) A description of the course states: "In a world where one wrong move can go viral - governance is not an option, it is an integral and imperative skill needed to run companies in today's ever changing business environment. "From environmental crises and global conflict to fast-moving tech, AI advances and boardroom accountability, this programme tackles real-life complex business issues head on, equipping candidates with the tools needed to drive forward successful organisations." Other high-profile speakers, include: Phillips O'Brien, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews, who will discuss geopolitics, whilst sharing insight into the skills required to anticipate risks, drive stability and seize opportunities against the backdrop of Brexit, trade-wars, and an unpredictable geopolitical climate. Dr Erin Young who will provide a masterclass on how AI is changing business and how to protect companies in the face of constant innovation. Chair of the Institute of Directors, John Browett and CEO and inspirational speaker, Hamish Taylor who'll cover innovation and global leadership. Commenting on the collaboration, Professor Mark Brewer, dean of the University of St Andrews business school, said: 'In a landscape defined by geopolitical uncertainty, technological disruption and an accelerating climate crisis, board directors must cultivate both agility and integrity. "The Global Certificate in Company Direction unites the interdisciplinary expertise of the University of St Andrews Business School with the IoD's governance expertise, equipping current and future leaders with the critical thinking, collaborative networks and practical tools to navigate complexity and drive sustainable impact.' READ MORE: Meet the 21-year-old asylum seeker who has earned a spot at top Scottish art school Jonathan Geldart, director general of the IoD added: 'The IoD and the University of St Andrews offers a programme that combines 732 years of learning and leadership. This programme provides valuable insights and proven strategies that have endured over time. Both prestigious organisations honour their rich heritage while looking to the future by empowering the next generation of leaders.' Upon completion, graduates will receive an official IoD Global Certificate, join the University of St Andrews Business School's alumni network, and be invited to a graduation ceremony celebration in London.
