Why greater stakeholder influence on board agendas is a good thing
Debbie Morrison • February 1, 2023

The world of business is changing rapidly.

New technologies like AI and machine learning are transforming the way we do everything from driving cars to delivering goods. And while these technologies will make our lives better, they also have the potential to create challenges for business leaders who don't understand them well enough or don't have time to learn them. 


So how do we prepare our companies and ourselves for this new era?


By ensuring that people with different perspectives are involved in decision-making processes at the very beginning of the innovation cycle—when key decisions about process change and technology adoption are made—we can ensure that these decisions reflect not just what's possible now but what may be possible in ten years' time when these technologies become more commonplace.



Today’s board directors must wrestle with an ever-expanding array of complex, strategic issues.

As you know, today’s business environment is changing at lightning speed. From new technologies and shifting consumer preferences to global economic forces, the board director must be continually proactive in addressing the challenges of operating the business. In addition, increasing shareholder activism has led to a greater expectation on boards to be visionary and strategic in their thinking.


The need for creative thinking becomes even more pressing as boards are expected to have more diverse skills than ever before—skills that are not necessarily related directly with operations or finance but rather with strategy, globalization and innovation. This means that investment decisions cannot rely only on financial projections but must take into account broader stakeholder viewpoints as well.



Those issues are getting more complex

We’re seeing a number of trends that are increasing the complexity and importance of board agendas:

  • The number of issues that boards need to discuss is increasing. This includes, for instance, the amount of money being raised by start-ups, or the increase in mergers and acquisitions.
  • The complexity of those issues is increasing. For example, there are more data sources than ever before; different stakeholders have different opinions on what data matters most; and so on.
  • The importance of the issues is increasing because they will impact the success (or failure) of your organisation in new ways going forward - whether it's your ability to scale operations or hire top talent.


Board directors are becoming more diverse, but not fast enough.

Greater diversity on boards is a good thing. The percentage of public companies with female directors has doubled in the last 10 years, but it's still far lower than one would hope—just 19% of board seats are held by women.


But gender is just one dimension of diversity. You also want to make sure that your board has members from different industries and geographies; people who understand the latest technology trends or who have experience in emerging markets; and those with different backgrounds, such as consumers rather than employees or shareholders.


These diverse viewpoints can help companies identify new opportunities, create innovative products and services for customers, improve their supply chains and harness new sources of funding (such as through crowdfunding). In short: Diversity can help companies thrive in an increasingly complex world where competition is fierce​.



Directors and CEOs need a new way to work together.

We believe that the current model of shareholder primacy and corporate governance is broken. It's time for directors and CEOs to change their approach.


New models of working are based on a premise of shared leadership between the board and management. This requires both parties to reframe their thinking about governance, which has much broader implications than simply making room for more discussion at the board level.

Key elements include:

  • Greater stakeholder influence over agenda items (e.g., environmental issues)
  • Larger budgets devoted to non-financial performance metrics (e.g., employee satisfaction)



Frameworks for collaboration between boards and executive teams.

There are a number of frameworks that have emerged to formalise collaboration between boards and executive teams. The most prominent is the Non-Executive Directors' Report (NED), developed by the UK Corporate Governance Code Committee in 2006. The NED aims to ensure that non-executive directors are involved in strategic decision-making and provide a link between the board and its external stakeholders.


The US Council of Institutional Investors (CII) also developed a framework for shareholder engagement that encourages greater engagement with institutional shareholders through an annual meeting review process. This helps build relationships with investors before proxy voting season begins, so companies can address their concerns before they have any impact on voting results at annual general meetings.


There are many more governance frameworks but ultimately, it is the responsibility of non-executive directors to ensure that communication channels between the board and executive teams are functioning effectively. 



Board Composition is a critical factor in effective stakeholder governance

A board should be made up of directors that have broad experience and understand the role of directors. This is achieved through a number of methods including inviting people to join the board who bring with them different experiences and skills, encouraging intergenerational breadth on the board, ensuring there are relevant stakeholder groups represented in order to achieve diverse insights into how to make strategic decisions based on broader perspectives.


To identify particular stakeholder expertise, boards may wish to consider using an organisation's skills matrix. Having an extensive induction process that includes education on key stakeholders is a critical step (this could include site visits or briefings on the organisation’s impact on the community). Ongoing education on particular stakeholder issues is also essential in enabling boards to better understand and address stakeholder priorities.


Key questions for the board to ask:

· Does the board regularly review the effectiveness of the organisation’s stakeholder governance vision/strategy?

· What independent, external data speaks to the organisation’s relations and stakeholder impact?

· Should the board engage an external party to assess the state of our stakeholder relations?



Boards should focus on the future of their business and industry.

Many companies focus their board agendas on compliance and governance – both of which are important, but boards should spend time exploring the future of their business and industry.


Traditionally, the core responsibilities of corporate boards include governance and risk oversight. However, there are many other things that influence an organisation’s success: stakeholders like shareholders (who own shares), employees (who provide labour or services), customers (who buy goods or services), suppliers or vendors (who sell products to the company) and communities (where businesses operate) are increasingly shaping board agendas through the decisions they are making such as; resignations, purchasing preferences and trade terms.



Direct engagement with customers

Boards also benefit from engaging directly with customers. This form of engagement humanises issues and can remind a board and an organisation of its core purpose. This does not need to happen all the time, but there can be a high return on investment when it does.

Some organisations begin their board meetings with a client story, or a client appearing before the board to share his or her experience with the organisation. This helps keep board members focused on meeting the needs of customers, and reminds them of the organisation's impact.



Customer advocates

In the financial services and energy sectors, customer advocates that report directly to the board or management are increasingly common. Whilst these interactions need not be regular but can provide boards invaluable intel. Advocates who work at the coalface and are often aware of systemic issues that could have significant reputational repercussions long before senior management.



Direct employee-board engagement

A complete picture of workplace culture can be gained through employee surveys, ‘town hall’ meetings, site visits and floor-walks. However, boards should also establish regular and independent opportunities for engagement with employees that enable the employee's own lens on culture, inclusion and safety issues.


It is important for directors to stay informed about the day-to-day operations of an organisation. One effective way to do this is by inviting employees to present and respond to questions about operational issues, projects, and initiatives at board meetings.


The above frameworks and tools are designed to help boards and executive teams work together to develop a shared understanding of the business and its future. They can be used in different ways, from providing a framework for conversations between directors and executives to supporting collaboration between different groups within an organisation. But their purpose is always the same: ensuring that boards and executives work together effectively so that they’re able to tackle today’s complex issues (and tomorrow's) more effectively.

By John Elliott June 26, 2025
You don’t hear about it on the nightly news. There’s no breaking story. No panic. No protests. Just rows of vegetables being pulled out of the ground with no plan to replant. Just farmers who no longer believe there’s a future for them here. Just quiet decisions — to sell, to walk away, to stop. And if you ask around the industry, they’ll tell you the same thing: It’s not just one bad season. It’s a slow death by a thousand margins. 1 in 3 growers are preparing to leaveIn September 2024, AUSVEG released a national sentiment report with a statistic that should have set off alarms in every capital city: 34% of Australian vegetable growers were considering exiting the industry in the next 12 months. Another one-third said they’d leave if offered a fair price for their farm. Source: AUSVEG Industry Sentiment Report 2024 (PDF) These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. These are real decisions, already in motion. For many, it’s not about profitability anymore, it’s about survival. This isn’t burnout. It’s entrapment. Behind the numbers are people whose entire identity is tied to a profession that no longer feeds them. Many are asset-rich but cash-poor. They own the land. But the land owns them back. Selling means walking away from decades of history. Staying means bleeding capital, month by month, in a system where working harder delivers less. Every year, input costs rise, fuel, fertiliser, compliance. But the farmgate price doesn’t move. Or worse, it drops. Retail World Magazine reports that even though national vegetable production increased 3% in 2023–24, the total farmgate value fell by $140 million. Growers produced more and earned less. That’s not a market. That’s a trap. What no one wants to say aloud The truth is this: many growers are only staying because they can’t leave. If you’re deep in debt, if your farm is tied to multi-generational ownership, if you’ve invested everything in equipment, infrastructure, or land access, walking away isn’t easy. It’s a last resort. So instead, you stay. You cut your hours. Delay maintenance. Avoid upgrades. Cancel the next round of planting. You wait for something to shift, interest rates, weather, prices and you pretend that waiting is strategy. According to the latest fruitnet.com survey, over 50% of vegetable growers say they’re financially worse off than a year ago. And nearly 40% expect conditions to deteriorate further. This isn’t about optimism or resilience. It’s about dignity and the quiet erosion of it. Supermarkets won’t save them, and they never planned to In the current model, supermarket pricing doesn’t reflect real-world farm economics. Retailers demand year-round consistency, aesthetic perfection, and lower prices. They don’t absorb rising input costs, they externalise them. They offer promotions funded not by their marketing budgets, but by the growers’ margins. Farmers take the risk. Retailers take the profit. And because the power imbalance is so deeply entrenched, there’s no real negotiation, just quiet coercion dressed up as "category planning." Let’s talk about what’s actually broken This isn’t just a market failure. It’s a policy failure. Australia’s horticulture system has been built on: Decades of deregulated wholesale markets Lack of collective bargaining power for growers Retailer consolidation that has created a virtual duopoly Export-focused incentives that bypass smaller domestic producers There’s no meaningful floor price for key produce lines. No national enforcement of fair dealing. No public database that links supermarket shelf price to farmgate return. Which means growers, like James, can be driven into loss-making supply contracts without ever seeing the true economics of their product downstream. But the real silence? It’s from consumers. Here’s what no one wants to admit: We say we care about “buying local.” We say we value the farmer’s role. We share those viral posts about strawberries going unsold or milk prices being unfair. And then we complain about a $4 lettuce. We opt for the cheapest bag of carrots. We walk past the "imperfect" produce bin. We frown at the cost of organic and click “Add to Cart” on whatever’s half price. We’re not just bystanders. We’re part of the equation. What happens when the growers go? At first, very little. Supermarkets will find substitutes. Importers will fill gaps. Large agribusinesses will expand into spaces vacated by smaller players. Prices will stay low, until they don’t. But over time, we’ll notice: Produce that travels further and lasts less. Fewer independent growers at farmer’s markets. Entire regions losing their growing identity. National food security becoming a campaign promise instead of a reality. And when the climate throws something serious at us, drought, flood, global supply shock, we’ll realise how little resilience we’ve preserved. So what do we do? We start by telling the truth. Australia is not food secure. Not if 1 in 3 growers are planning to exit. The market isn’t working. Not when prices rise at the shelf and fall at the farmgate. The solution isn’t scale. It’s fairness, visibility, and rebalancing power. That means: Mandating cost-reflective contracts between retailers and suppliers Enabling collective bargaining rights for growers Building transparent data systems linking production costs to consumer prices Introducing transition finance for smaller producers navigating reform and climate pressure And holding supermarkets publicly accountable for margin extraction But more than anything, it means recognising what we’re losing, before it's gone. Final word If you ate a vegetable today, it likely came from someone who’s considered giving up in the past year. Not because they don’t care. But because caring doesn’t pay. This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about sovereignty, over what we eat, how we grow it, and who gets to stay in the system.  Because the next time you see rows of green stretching to the horizon, you might want to ask: How many of these fields are already planning their last harvest?
By John Elliott June 20, 2025
If you're leading an FMCG or food manufacturing business right now, you're probably still talking about growth. Your board might be chasing headcount approvals. Your marketing team’s pitching a new brand campaign. Your category team’s assuming spend will bounce. But your customer? They’ve already moved on. Quietly. Like they always do. The illusion of resilience FMCG has always felt protected, “essential” by nature. People still eat, wash, shop. It’s easy to assume downturns pass around us, not through us. But this isn’t 2020. Recessions in 2025 won’t look like lockdowns. They’ll look like volume drops that no promo can fix. Shrinking margins on products that no longer carry their premium. Quiet shelf deletions you weren’t warned about. The data’s already there. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, consumer spending is slowing in real terms , even as inflation eases. The Reserve Bank confirmed in May: household consumption remains subdued amid weak real income growth . And over 80% of Australians have cut back on discretionary food spending , according to Finder. They’re still shopping, just not like they used to. A managing director at a national food manufacturer told me recently: “We won a new product listing in April. By July, it was marked for deletion. The velocity wasn’t there, but neither was the shopper. We’d forecasted like 2022 never ended. Rookie mistake.” That one stuck with me. Because I’ve heard it before, just in different words.