There is no substitute for a culture of integrity in organizations. Compliance alone with the law is not enough. History shows that those who make a practice of skating close to the edge always wind up going over the line. A higher bar of ethics performance is necessary. That bar needs to be set and monitored in the boardroom.  ~J. Richard Finlay writing in The Globe and Mail.

Sound governance is not some abstract ideal or utopian pipe dream. Nor does it occur by accident or through sudden outbreaks of altruism. It happens when leaders lead with integrity, when directors actually direct and when stakeholders demand the highest level of ethics and accountability.  ~ J. Richard Finlay in testimony before the Standing Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, Senate of Canada.

The Finlay Centre for Corporate & Public Governance is the longest continuously cited voice on modern governance standards. Our work over the course of four decades helped to build the new paradigm of ethics and accountability by which many corporations and public institutions are judged today.

The Finlay Centre was founded by J. Richard Finlay, one of the world’s most prescient voices for sound boardroom practices, sanity in CEO pay and the ethical responsibilities of trusted leaders. He coined the term stakeholder capitalism in the 1980s.

We pioneered the attributes of environmental responsibility, social purposefulness and successful governance decades before the arrival of ESG. Today we are trying to rebuild the trust that many dubious ESG practices have shattered. 

 

We were the first to predict seismic boardroom flashpoints and downfalls and played key roles in regulatory milestones and reforms.

We’re working to advance the agenda of the new boardroom and public institution of today: diversity at the table; ethics that shine through a culture of integrity; the next chapter in stakeholder capitalism; and leadership that stands as an unrelenting champion for all stakeholders.

Our landmark work in creating what we called a culture of integrity and the ethical practices of trusted organizations has been praised, recognized and replicated around the world.

 

Our rich institutional memory, combined with a record of innovative thinking for tomorrow’s challenges, provide umatached resources to corporate and public sector players.

Trust is the asset that is unseen until it is shattered.  When crisis hits, we know a thing or two about how to rebuild trust— especially in turbulent times.

We’re still one of the world’s most recognized voices on CEO pay and the role of boards as compensation credibility gatekeepers. Somebody has to be.

Quoted on efforts to kill the Volcker Rule

And other overdue thoughts on Conrad Black’s return to Canada, Obama’s fall, RIM’s folly, Canadian healthcare death panels and the changeless universe of Wall Street

The Centre for Corporate & Public Governance was interviewed last week about the frequent behind-the-scenes efforts of the privately financed Washington-based Committee on Capital Market Regulation to turn back regulatory reforms the group thinks get in its way. The piece is by Emmy Award-winning writer Justin Rohrlich and presents a timely and detailed analysis of a too-overlooked aspect of American business.  It can be read here.

Once again, Wall Street’s memory makes an amnesiac’s recall look positively eidetic.  We had a few thoughts on the CCMR’s earlier efforts to weaken Sarbanes-Oxley legislation just months before the near collapse of the banking system.  Nobody in this group had the slightest concern at the time about excessive leverage, off-the-book transactions, credit default swaps that potentially ran into the trillions, or excessive boardroom pay scams that encouraged too many CEOs to take on too much risk.  Many boards had no idea what was happening around them.  Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns and Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers were thought of as Wall Street heroes.  Citigroup and AIG were proud supporters of the group’s efforts, then and now.

To our dismay at the time, then-treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. was known to support the early efforts of the CCMR to roll back the regulatory clock.  A few months later, he was bailing out the very companies that had been squawking about too much government in their boardrooms.

That alone should have been enough to discredit the CCMR and anything it has to say now about the so-called excesses of Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule.  As we said in the article this week: “The idea that the CCMR has anything credible to say about what is necessary to protect capitalism has got to be one of the greatest scams ever foisted on the American public.”  

But in a world where memories are considered non-performing assets and rarely accorded any importance at all, the CCMR and its likes appear to have no difficulty in raising money in order to blunt the regulatory reforms of the government that saved capitalism from itself.  The spirit of E. Merrick Dodd Jr., who made a similar observation after the economic collapse that followed the Great Depression, would not be surprised.

 * * *

We have been less than regular in our comments and reporting of events that shape the accountability of leaders, the responsibilities of capitalism and the madness that continues to infect the boardroom on the subject of CEO compensation.  Life- changing events have a tendency to rudely interrupt even the most important of debates, and I must confess there have been a few in my family to deal with over the past 18 months. We may fool ourselves that we sit in the saddle able to command our direction and destination, but it is the horses of fate that are often in control of where we wind up, as any family suddenly faced with a medical trauma surely knows.  Such events tend to concentrate the mind on the preciousness of life.  Unfortunately, that appreciation is not as universally held in the health care system as one might think.  For while they were a concoction of anti-Obama forces during the great health care reform debate in the United States a few years ago, the shocking reality is that in Canada’s often praised but entirely unaccountable medical system, the specter of death panels, and a bias against what are seen as too costly efforts to prolong the life of the elderly, even for those with a chance of recovering, has now arrived. Extricating an elderly parent from the jaws of certain hospital death, whether from neglect or a predisposition by medical professionals to end that life, can be just as traumatic and debilitating to a family as the injury that put them there.

Further thoughts on this third rail of the Canadian health care system will ensue.

 * * *

For all the pain felt mostly on Main Street and in the dire state of the U.S. deficit, but apparently long since forgotten on Wall Street, the aftermath of the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression has changed very little in American business.  Wall Street and big bankers have conveniently forgotten about the missteps that brought the financial system to the brink of collapse.  Boards continue to be out of touch with what is happening around them and still show up with the water hose long after the fire has erupted, as recent events at companies like Chesapeake Energy, CP, and Yahoo confirm.  Citigroup remains an under-five-dollar-stock, when you strip away its reverse one-for-ten split.  Bank of America seems headed in that direction, too. Lobbyists still make millions in their insidious attempts to skirt reforms and undercut measures to save the middle class.  CEO pay soars without any connection to performance or to the independent thinking of fully engaged directors.  And in the White House, the greatest hope for change in the way Washington works since FDR has permitted a sequence of blunders and mishandled events (support for an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts while failing to champion Simpson-Bowles, to cite just two) to tarnish that promise to the point where the presidential podium seems destined once again to become an institution of, by and for the billionaire class.  Barack Obama’s uncertain future in the face of a querulous electorate is all the more bewildering given that Republican contenders for their party’s presidential nomination have unleashed the most divisive assault against good judgment and common sense since the short- lived Know-Nothing party of the mid-19th century.  Not even the most recent Republican circus-like spectacle was sufficient to give the White House an edge, so bad has been its handling of major issues and how it has allowed them to be misperceived in a regressive sea of billionaire-supported super PACs.

Elsewhere, investors, along with once starry-eyed analysts who were too long prepared to give a pass to the governance failures and shortcomings of Canadian- headquartered Research In Motion, have at last been jolted by the carnage we predicted.   Company co-founder and long-time co-CEO and co-board chair (the titles alone reflected the dysfunctionality of the boardroom) Jim Balsillie, is gone.   The devastation wrought by years of board neglect will take much longer to fade away, if it ever does.  There is hope, however, in what Bill Ackman managed to pull off in awakening investors at CP and prompting them to replace a dozy, imperious board with a strategy that might add value, which is precisely what most boards should do but don’t.  There is little to take hope from in the Facebook IPO fiasco or the ceremonial (and that’s all it is) board that Mark Zuckerberg put together.

Also in Canada, the dark prince of the Canadian establishment, Conrad M. Black, has returned.  His reentry to the country whose citizenship he renounced to accept a British peerage (evocative of Sir Thomas More’s plaintive inquiry to a chief witness in his prosecution, “but for Wales?”, in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons), only hours after his release from the U.S. penal system, stunned many observers and immigration lawyers who claimed that such a deal would not be available to anyone else.  I do not begrudge Mr. Black’s return to Don Mills, a childhood haunt we both shared.  What I do take issue with is the special treatment hatched behind closed doors that has all the earmarks of Canada’s elite, including at least two former prime ministers and a string of A-list partygoers, going to bat for Mr. Black by influencing the Harper government to pull strings that are invisible, and most definitely unreachable, to anyone else. 

But then special treatment and a lifetime of doors opened expressly for him have been the recurring landmarks of Mr. Black’s public and business life.  He still holds the various national honors bestowed upon him which were revoked for other (actual) Canadian citizens when they fell into the criminal abyss.  Special parking spaces in the often busy nearby York Mills Shopping Centre surely cannot be far behind for his lordship.  In fact, Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood, one of Mr. Black’s newly recruited fans, might put her own talents to good use by inveigling, through poetry or other literate means, the City of Toronto to establish a special lordship-only lane that would permit Mr. Black to motor briskly without undue delay along Bayview Avenue for those quick shopping errands he missed doing for the past few years.  Once the special express train of privileges and exemptions gets rolling in Canada, where half of the legislative branch of the federal government is still appointed by the imperial wave of a prime ministerial hand with not a whit of public input, there is no stopping it.

Still, my 90-year-old mother, who always had a corner on the family’s supply of sympathy for Mr. Black (fortunately for him she did not see Mr. Black’s recent performance with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge), and whose survival from an incredible array of medical blunders and the arrogance of an astonishing assemblage of unaccountable actors in the Canadian health care system could only have been produced by Divine intervention, is heartened to know that Mr. Black will finally get to enjoy his August by a Don Mills ravine.  At this point, that’s good enough for me.  Like the Canadian author Barbara Gowdy who made it famous, and Mr. Black, I, too, participated in its wonders and delights for many years with friends sadly lost to the mists of the retreating years and still not recoverable by the famous Facebook time machine. 

Mr. Black has paid his formal debt to U.S. society.  Civil servants often easily manipulated at the behest of their political masters, along with the rich and powerful, may have skirted the rules to allow a preferred outcome in Mr. Black’s case.  And further explanations and inquiries are surely appropriate in a land where the rule of law, and not the power of individuals, is supposed to be the defining principle of its civil society.  But at least for this summer, Mr. Black should have his chance to gaze upon the woods from his baronial mansion and to ponder the freedom of the foxes at dusk and how their survival still depends, as it forever has, upon the cunning of their instincts and the swiftness of their mind.

* * *

Our rambling journey from the White House and Wall Street to Don Mills and Canadian health care death panels barely scratches the surface of thoughts unvoiced on these pages over the past many months.  No mention has been made of Irish Setters (a rescue joined our family not long ago); the Titanic; Davos and the G8 (two modern day hubris-afflicted and overrated Titanics of another kind), the Great Pyramids of Giza, which can never be overrated; Jazz and the unique vocal stylings of Stacey Kent; Oliver Jones, who somehow manages to put more piano notes in a song than even another favorite, Oscar Peterson; the magical clarinet tones of the great Artie Shaw; Muskoka sunsets; the 1960 World Series;  Clare Island salmon; the Susan Hampshire rose; and any movie written by Robert Bolt and directed by David Lean. 

 

These and other favorite topics will have to await another day.

Quoted in Maclean’s Magazine on RIM

Recent changes only confirm that the  company  remains in denial

We are quoted in this week’s cover story of Maclean’s on the RIM fiasco. Regular readers will know that Finlay ON Governance has been on this story for several years and has long predicted the kind of stock meltdown and leadership turmoil that has rocked the company.  The co-founders’ decision to step aside from the co-CEO slot, but not out of the boardroom, and the appointment of an insider to CEO with an old-guard director moving up as chair of the board, do not change our views.

The Maclean’s piece presents a good overview of some of the failures but is a little short on the root cause, which we have long contended is RIM’s dysfunctional system of corporate governance.  Here are some further thoughts on that subject and why the recent management changes are unlikely to produce the results investors would like.

The fact that RIM’s top management and board could take so long to come up with so little just shows how far out of touch they remain.  It’s obvious that Balsillie and Lazaridis wanted their guy in the top spot and do not grasp why shareholders were looking for more than a marionette whose strings they can pull any time.

What is really alarming is that independent directors think this will work, when a clean break with a strong new CEO at the helm, plus a fresh outsider as board chair  — unaccompanied by RIM’s bulging baggage of failures — should have been brought in.  Of course, any new CEO worthy of the title would have insisted that Balsillie and Lazaridis depart the board, as was the case at Yahoo recently.  It will take a few more tries, and several new shocks, before the company actually gets it right  — if it ever does.

Separation complexes are unfortunate in dogs.  They are a disaster in company founders who can no longer read the market or the wishes of their investors.  The new insider CEO is not the solution.  Nor is the appointment of Barbara Stymiest as the so-called “independent” board chair.  We were among the first — and long before it became fashionable — to openly call for this kind of change.  But putting a long-time enabler of RIM’s governance problems in charge of the board is a little like promoting a sleeping sentry to captain of the guards.

RIM’s boardroom is located in Waterloo, Ontario, but as far as investors are concerned, these changes only confirm that it remains firmly footed in denial.

HP’s Board Leaps Backwards — Again

Another costly blunder from corporate America’s most dysfunctional, discredited and disdained board

HP’s board took another gigantic jump backward today.  It’s not so much that it fired one CEO and hired another.  People have come to expect that on a regular basis from what has become corporate America’s most dysfunctional, discredited and disdained board.

It is the shell game involving HP’s chairman that should prompt eyebrows to be raised even higher.  Ray Lane was the board’s non-executive chairman and played the largest role in the appointment of Meg Whitman as new CEO.  Now, he’s jumped inside, this time to become executive chairman of the board, with a much bigger payday as part of the deal.  We are unaware of any comparable situation where two outside directors suddenly have become insiders, one as CEO and one as head of the board she reports to.  Is this marriage of convenience the main reason why there was no full search for a new CEO?  Is it just one more sign of a cozy club mentality at work in a boardroom where accountability has been the missing voice?  We think so.

We also believe it is a further step in the wrong direction for the board to think that a lead director, yet to be appointed, will be able to provide the necessary focus for checks and balances that is so important to its fiduciary responsibility.  No lead director has ever prevented disaster from occurring in any major company.  It is bad corporate governance, pure and simple. For a company whose most costly product has been disaster, with billions in shareholder value wiped out over the past year alone, HP’s board obviously still does not get the fundamentals of how to execute on its significant responsibilities.

HP’s formula for a turnaround must include the highest standards of corporate governance, not the lowest. The rather large shell game it engaged in by turning a so-called non-executive chairman into an insider as part of the package that brought its newest CEO into the room shows that it does not even know where the switch is to turn that process on.

RIM Needs a New OS — for its Boardroom

The game has changed.  RIM’s management has not.  Neither has its board.

Today’s latest (20 percent) plunge in the stock of Canadian based Research In Motion, this time because the company missed about every expected metric for the quarter, re-confirms that RIM needs a new operating system for its boardroom.  It is the board, with a its succession of lame directors, that has permitted a culture of smugness, distraction and disconnection to cloud the judgment and performance of top management, and has too long tolerated a disingenuous streak in the way the co-founders deal with adversity.  This is what has led to RIM’s fall from glory and the devastation of its stock.  Management was playing its own game and setting its own rules.  It thought success would continue indefinitely and the market would defer endlessly to its much-trumpeted wisdom.

The game has changed.  RIM’s management has not.  BlackBerrys are out.  Apples are in.  The kids decide what’s hip and everybody wants to be cool.  Holding up a new Playbook is the definition of uncool.  Launching it in the summer is the definition of stupidity.   Only grandiose egos, too used to everyone genuflecting to their brilliance, could come up with this foolishness.

Long before it became popular, in the wake of the billions of dollars in company value that have been obliterated, we lamented the weaknesses of RIM’s governance practices .  We predicted further casualties from a board mentality where management is effectively accountable to itself and still allows a regime involving co-this and co-that at the top that would not be tolerated in any mature, self-respecting company, let alone one that is experiencing something of a freefall in its shares. The stock is down more than 60 percent this year.  No significant change in management, or the board for that matter, has been forthcoming.

RIM’s problems will not end until the board steps up, key management actors are forced to step down and a new culture of accountability is rebooted in RIM’s boardroom.

News Corp Scandal Shows The High Cost of Ethical Folly — Once More

The purest treasure mortal times afford is spotless reputation.

Shakespeare, King Richard II

Two universal facts remain unchanged in the News Corporation saga of serial hacking and management misjudgments:  First, a company with a weak ethical culture, no matter how successful financially, will never fully survive the winds of public outrage when it flounders upon the shoals of moral misdeeds.  Secondly, it is the board of directors that must ultimately ensure that there is a culture of ethics that is unswervingly heeded and vigorously enforced in any major publicly traded corporation.   Given recent events, it is doubtful that News Corp’s board fully grasps its role as an ethical steward for the company.  Since eight out of 17 directors are insiders and family members, Rupert Murdoch holds the posts of CEO and board chair and the board itself met on only six occasions in 2010 (the last year for which such figures were reported) it is very unlikely that News Corp’s board understands its other duties as well.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Sir Roderick Eddington, the company’s most senior independent voice and so-called lead director, has not offered a word to shareholders or the public on the calamity facing News Corp.  In this kind of family dominated operation, the surprise would be that the board might exercise some independent thinking and step up to the plate which shareholders actually expect directors to occasionally grace. No company could possibly have a genuine culture of ethics and still find itself in such a state of public odium.  No serious board or senior management team could have allowed the warning signs that were evident years ago on this subject go unheeded.  It is particularly troublesome that James Murdoch, the so-called heir apparent, was prominent among that senior management group.  These are all signs that ethics was the missing voice in the News Corp boardroom.

This is a scene that has been played out in the great corporate fiascos of the past 100 years, from the demise of Penn Central Railroad and Barings to the collapse of Hollinger and Livent.  One might have thought a lesson would have been learned from the disintegration of Robert Maxwell’s media empire some years ago, which foundered in an ocean of corruption and deceit.  (Mr. Maxwell actually did drown at sea.)  But the only lasting lesson to be learned from these kinds of situations is that the lessons of the past are never remembered by those who need to remember them.

For more than four decades, I have been writing, commenting and advising on what I have called the high cost of ethical folly.  One of those articles from the past is reprised below. In these tragedies, which are always avoidable, the cast of actors  may change but their lines of feeble defense and mock surprise at the scandals that unfold on their watch remain immutable, as does the ultimate carnage of players and others at the end.  I have spent many a frustrating time over the years with skeptical boards and CEOs, trying to counsel a greater commitment to ethical issues only to see later that their blindness, indifference and arrogance has landed them in a very thick ethical soup.

What is amazing is that for all the progress there has been in the corporate world during this period, for all the sophisticated MBA programs and record levels of pay for CEOs and directors, not to mention the abundance of painful examples of moral failure, these silent ethical sentries of the boardroom are still tolerated.

Why?  Some thoughts, below, of more than a decade ago may still be valid.

 

BUSINESS ETHICS IS NOT A ‘SOFT’ ISSUE, IT’S A MATTER OF SURVIVAL: Until boards and management become serious about ethics there will be more Barings

J. Richard Finlay

11 March 1995

The Financial Post

(Copyright J. Richard Finlay)

What several European revolutions, two world wars and numerous depressions could not do to London’s Barings Bank in more than 200 years, one28-year-old employee accomplished with a few computer key strokes. And the bank collapsed.

Such is the high cost of ethical folly in the ’90s. It is a lesson that has been demonstrated before by companies such as Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.,which could not survive the fallout from its conviction for securities fraud and the $600-million fine levied against it in the 1980s. Prudential Securities is still reeling from the estimated $1.4 billion in penalties and restitution costs arising from wrongdoings in its limited partnerships. Kidder, Peabody & Co.recently disappeared after a scandal involving phantom profits and lax accountability. And then there are the Canadian cases of Standard Trustco and the Northland Bank that were seized by regulators, leaving a trail of questions about ethics and accountability practices in their wake. Ethical concerns also have been raised in connection with the collapse of Confederation Life last summer.

What these examples demonstrate is that ethics, far from being the esoteric ”soft” issue many in business think it to be, is about as bottom-line focused as you can get. It is a key to survival in a financial world that depends more and more upon confidence and accountability as the twin pillars of success.

There is, however, no great surprise in the fact that these kinds of disasters continue to surface with predictable regularity. The real surprise is that there aren’t more of them. The structure of many companies almost invites such catastrophe. Most organizations have very weak codes of ethics that are poorly supervised and almost never audited. If the same approach were taken to financial performance, investors would desert the company in droves.

Short-term thinking, often prompted by the lure of quick profit, is another cause of ethical folly. In the case of Barings, management was alerted months ago to the inadequacies of its oversight systems. But management chose to ignore that advice, presumably because everyone seemed to benefit from the system as it was. ”Why fix something when it’s not broken?” is a bromide that many advocates of strengthened corporate ethics systems hear time and again. Ethics also gets short shrift because it is easy to ignore. Slap the pre-packaged code of ethics into the employee manual and you create the impression of an ethically sensitive organization. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Prudential Securities and Kidder, Peabody each had a code of ethics. But without a strategy for embedding ethics into the culture of the organization, without a commitment to making it an overriding component in every decision of the organization, a code of ethics is little more than window dressing.

Ethical performance doesn’t just happen. Like product quality, customer satisfaction, competitiveness and any other important ingredient of success, the ethical performance of a company needs to be managed. It requires clear goals, the understanding and involvement of employees, continuous training, regular evaluation, periodic auditing and, most of all, the commitment of top management.

It is this latter category that is so often the missing – and fatal – component in the ethical equation of organizations. Unless senior management is fully dedicated to ensuring the highest standards of ethical performance, and incorporates compliance and supervision practices into the structure of the organization, ethics will never move from theory to reality. In this connection, the role of the board of directors is paramount.

The board is ultimately responsible for preserving the integrity and the continuation of the organization. But too few boards have ethics committees or make regular examinations of the ethics practices of their organizations. Does the company have an ethics training program and hold ethics seminars?

Should an ethics ombudsman or external ethics counsellor be hired? Is there an adequate whistle-blower policy? Can outside members of the board be reached independent of top management?  Many scandals have developed because initial problems were covered up by management. As author Peter Drucker has noted, the board was always the last group to hear of trouble in the great business catastrophes of the 20th century. This latest disaster shows that many boards are still in the dark over such issues.

As the Barings saga unfolds, it will doubtless reveal the existence of warning signs that should have been heeded by management and the board, weaknesses in the bank’s accountability structure that no prudent firm should tolerate and excesses in behavior of the offending trader that should have sent up red flags everywhere. And people will say, as they always do in such cases, how could that have happened? The answer is that until boards and top management become serious about business ethics, and realize that it is survival ethics, such catastrophes cannot but continue to occur.

(Ed. note) J. Richard Finlay heads a Toronto-based management consulting firm specializing in ethics and governance issues.