Earlier this month, Robert Pozen, senior lecturer at Harvard Business School contended that a simple reliance on board term limits as an evaluation tool of corporate performance is based on "faulty logic".[1]
Concerns around extended tenure of directors typically include anxieties over compromised director independence and the development of a friendliness with management.
According to Spencer Stuart, the average tenure of directors in Canada rose from eight years in 2009 to nine years in 2014.
Mr. Pozen, however, highlights the disconnect in assuming that "lengthy director service means cozy relationships with management". He notes the high rate of turnover amongst executive ranks as a mitigating factor against the establishment of cozy relations. He also points to a study conducted by the University of New South Wales which defines an "experienced director" as one with more than fifteen years of service on a board. The study concludes that experienced directors add value and are more likely to attend board meetings and contribute as members of board committees.
Along a similar vein, Canada's Institute of Corporate Directors (the ICD) identifies board composition and renewal as vital to understanding board performance, but moves beyond a simple calculation of term limits to a framework aimed at building a renewal process that increases accountability and achieves the right mix of skills and experience for long-term effectiveness.
In its publication, Beyond Term Limits: Using Performance Management to Guide Board Renewal, the ICD states that "voluntary term limits have their place and can act as a backstop against excessive tenure lengths, which can lead to the perception of eroding independence. They may also provide some predictability around director position openings. However, mandatory limits could also be counter-productive to the good governance of Canadian organizations."
Both the ICD and Mr. Pozen suggest that an active evaluation of board and individual director performance based on skills, company needs and industry norms should be the primary factors in assessing board composition, rather than a reliance on mechanistic term limits. As summarized by the ICD, "[w]hile term limits can be a supporting mechanism, relying solely on them to renew the board is insufficient and may be counterproductive to good corporate governance."
[1] Robert Pozen's post was based on an article by Mr. Pozen and Theresa Hamacher originally published in the Financial Times.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members ('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
