Governance, culture and conduct – Lessons for all board directors

Governance, culture and conduct – Lessons for all board directors


by Karen Loon, IDP-C, IDN Board Member, Non-Executive Board Director, Chartered Accountant, Former PWC Partner 


The recent findings from the Banking Royal Commission into misconduct in the banking industry in Australia have been a strong reminder to directors in the banking industry on the importance of boards regularly assessing their organisations’ governance and culture.


Following the Global Financial Crisis (“GFC”), the banking industry has been plagued by numerous scandals and penalised, either by fines or operational risk capital charges.  Further, global organisations in non-financial sectors such as automotive and high-tech have also experienced misconduct issues which have been similarly profound.


It is evident that in many of these cases, culture, conduct and behaviours have, in large led to poor or sub-standard outcomes for customers and clients.  Often, systems and processes in place which were thought to have been adequate, were often not robust, allowing for complacency, judgement reflective of “group think”, and ultimately a poor culture.


With companies facing multiple issues such as growing their businesses, being innovative and competing against non-traditional players as a result of increased disruption, a challenge for many boards and senior management is how they manage their organisational culture as digitisation accelerates and impact their business models and strategies, as the sources and scope of conduct issues could change.





Experiences from the banking industry


Whilst the banking industry has devoted significant time and resources to understand the causes of the breakdowns of culture that contributed to the GFC, and to implement reforms to address them, unfortunately across all geographies and businesses, it has continued to be dogged by failures of corporate culture, conduct and governance.  These scandals have ranged from lapses in customer protection, to anti-money laundering deficiencies, to manipulation of market benchmark rates to rogue trading. The banking industry continues to suffer from a negative reputation, with its trust in significant need of repair.


Since the GFC, the public at large have voiced their concerns, leading to political involvement in the banking sector.  The way the political direction of the banking sector has played itself out has been through banking regulators.


As a result, in April 2018 the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”),an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system issued a toolkit that firms and global banking supervisors can use to mitigate misconduct risk.  Further, in November 2018, the Group of Thirty (“G30”) an international body of leading financiers and academics which aims to deepen understanding of economic and financial issues and to examine consequences of decisions made in the public and private sectors related to these issues, identified eight lessons and twelve recommendations to the banking community for further work and additional focus.



What is culture and conduct for a bank?

Culture is the mechanism that delivers the values and behaviours that shape conduct and contributes to creating trust in banks and a positive reputation for banks among key stakeholders, both internal and external.


Culture comprises not only of conduct and behaviours, but also a bank’s values and ethics.  It has been described as “what people do when no-one is watching”, a description which captures what might be called the “internalised or “instinctive” application of shared values and norms.

Managing culture requires an understanding of visible conduct and behaviours, as well as the complex web of influences that lie beneath them.

Whilst conduct and behaviours (what people say and do) are only the visible elements of a culture, they are directly influenced by the less tangible elements, such as the bank’s unspoken rules, ideas, norms and subconscious beliefs that lie beneath the surface.

While cultural norms and beliefs cannot easily be measured, the conduct and behaviours that the cultural norms encourage or discourage can be. Conduct can be observed, monitored, managed and incentivised.


Source – Group of Thirty (2018)


The G30 noted that regaining trust will require persistent efforts across the industry, and that bank conduct and culture is at centre of the uphill battle to retain trust.  Unfortunately, they are of the view that many banks still lack clarity on how the board will champion, oversee and monitor conduct and culture issues, and whether a single dedicated committee of the board is appropriate. 

Their key recommendations in relation to senior accountability and governance were: 

  1. The board should re-evaluate its governance structure to ensure one specific and dedicated board committee has oversight over the bank’s conduct and culture.
  2. Bank boards and senior management should work more closely with various business units and with geographical and functional heads to strengthen the quality and availability of data and insights needed to manage conduct and culture.


The G30 also made other recommendations in relation to performance management and incentives, staff development and promotions, as well as ensuring the effectiveness of the three lines of defence.



Cross-industry lessons

In its 2018 report, the G30 identified five characteristics across industries that might provide insights into characteristics that lead to greater cultural risk.

1.     Lack of diversity – which can foster groupthink cultures.

2.     Presence of dominant companies – a few large, successful players dominate these industries and may lead to deprioritising cultures.

3.     High dependency on specialised skill sets

4.     Misaligned incentives

5.     Ineffective leadership and management skills

Source – Group of Thirty (2018)



Lessons for all board directors

A key responsibility of the board is to set the right tone from the top – to provide direction to their organisations regarding the culture that is expected of staff in pursuit of its organisational goals. Directors need to continually look for better ways to monitor corporate culture, understand potential cultural risks, and address problems, if any before they get out of control. 

In the new world, where trust inequality remains high, and where millennials customers and employees are becoming increasingly more influential, a focus on organisational values, culture and conduct will become increasingly more important.

Based on the lessons learnt from the banking industry, some of the questions which all boards should be asking themselves are:


Questions for directors to ask and “how to avoid being bamboozled by the executive”


1.     Does the board have the right skills and capability for culture oversight?

2.     Is the board clear in its governance structure which committee(s) have oversight over culture and conduct matters?  Where there is overlap between multiple board committees, is there sufficient communication amongst the committees in place to ensure alignment on priorities and initiatives?

3.     Are culture and conduct incorporated into board agendas, and are initiatives and processes benchmarked against other players on a regular basis?

4.     Does the board periodically review how conduct breaches are dealt with?

5.     Does the board have the right non-financial risk data and insights to assess the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the company’s culture and its governance, identify problems with the culture and governance, deal with problems, and determine whether the changes it has made have been effective.  Does the data cover conduct (for example, fraud, mis selling, employee behaviour negatively impacting customers etc), cyber and technology, operational and regulatory/compliance risks?

6.     Is the board a conduit of direct access for escalation and whistleblowing?

7.     Are the board’s discussions focused on not only existing but emerging risks?

8.     Is the board as a whole devoting sufficient time to culture and conduct matters?

9.     Does the board visit functions and business units to allow them a first-hand observation of the behavioural atmosphere?

10.  Is the board satisfied with the tone set by the CEO and senior management to help ensure the culture fits with the organisation’s strategic direction and plans?

11.  Does the board believe that the current culture and values espoused by the board the best ones for the organisation now and in the foreseeable future?


1.     Does the company have robust and relevant structures, policies and processes in place to identify and report departures from desired behaviours and conduct (such as dashboard information, customer complaints and whistleblowing activities)? How does it verify that it does?

2.     Does the company have sufficient and capable resources applied to the identification, reporting and management of non-financial risks that the board and senior management are applying proper oversight over.

3.     Does the board believe that the company’s processes in relation to performance management and incentives, staff development and promotions, and the effectiveness of the three lines of defence (including scope of internal audit) meet the new higher expectations?  Does consequence management need enhancement?  Are risk and customer objectives appropriately reflected in remuneration outcomes?

4.     Does internal audit’s scope cover culture?  Do they have the right skills and resources to provide insight?

5.     Are the company’s metrics forward looking, relevant, effective, and aligned to reporting to identify emerging risks and manage conduct processes?






With increasing focus by companies beyond transactional metrics towards customer (and other stakeholder) outcomes, and broadening of definitions of misconduct from intentional foul play to potential unintended consequences, effective board oversight is needed to ensure that the embedding and sustaining of the desired culture will remain a permanent feature of doing business.  This will become increasingly more important as businesses respond to market dynamics that require speed, agility and responsiveness, and as stakeholder views and expectations evolve.  Increasingly, companies will need to prioritise people, both their customers and their employees.


Ultimately, the test of an effective board and organisational culture is the creation of value over time.  A positive culture can help ensure a company is best able to build sustainable value in the future.


Written by Karen Loon (IDP-C 2019), a former Partner and Banking and Capital Markets Leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers (Singapore).

Thanks to Peter Nathanial, Co-director, INSEAD Modern Governance in Banking Programme, for input and guidance on this blog post. 




PricewaterhouseCoopers (2019), Impacts on Boards and Non-executive directors: Themes from the Royal Commission Final Report.  Retrieved from 

Schroeder, G. (2018, November), 5 key culture questions for boards, Company Director, 34 (10), 34-35.  Retrieved from 

The Group of Thirty (2018), Banking Conduct and Culture: A Permanent Mindset Change.  Retrieved from

A Step Change in Diversity Perspective: The shifting sands of diversity

by Helen Pitcher OBE, Chairman of Advanced Boardroom Excellence Ltd and President of the INSEAD Directors Network, and Ludo Van der Heyden, Chaired Professor of Corporate Governance at INSEAD.

In a changing world, with pressures at global, regional and local levels, the motivations of companies are in the mix.  These changes range from a rapidly increasing complexity of the business environment, through to heightened consumer ethical awareness, to a fracturing political landscape.

In this maelstrom of change for companies, there are more and more examples of individual and company role models, who are doing the ‘right’ things at Board level. By ‘right’ we mean moving with the times and reflecting a changing society with emerging values.

Increasingly, companies across the business landscape are recognising the need to measure up to the standards of their customers, consumers, societies and environments in which they operate. These challenges lead companies to be pulled by both global and local demands.  That some are moving faster than others is inevitable, and also a consequence of competitive pressures that call for differentiation.  But the pressure is on, especially in business with a ‘risk’ exposure to the values of the millennium generation that is even greater than the tension widely felt in politics.

This pressure on businesses goes way beyond a mere focus on gender and minority diversity, it confronts businesses with the case of ‘civil society’ and the need to state themselves clearly in the civil society.  It is a human question, and answers based only on simple profit computations will not satisfy the audience in this case.  The question calls for a statement of values and a recognition of the responsibility to respond to perspectives broader than individual motivations and myopic self-interest.

While there are and will be many rear-guard actions seeking to sustain the ‘privileges’ of greed and self-interest, the world is, as a result of the globalisation that technology has allowed and made inevitable, becoming closer knit, more informed and more aware of the many faces and forces of diversity. Citizens are naturally looking to governments (local, national and global) and increasingly companies to take collective responsibility to actively maintain their society, their employees and their planet, which is also our planet. In contrast perhaps to governments, there are fewer and fewer hiding places for errant behaviour of individuals and companies. The ‘call-out’ on social and broadcast media is swift and relentless, as the business world becomes more and more transparent. Ironically for many of the social media companies this has also cast a spotlight on their own dysfunctional behaviour. In the UK the recent movement of and investment funds out of the ‘cocoon’ of FTSE regulated governance to off-shore and less transparent jurisdictions has caused a front-page ‘outrage’ that speaks volumes of this new transparency requirement of “the people.”

As the waves of the financial crisis continue to ripple across the ‘pond’, the position of individuals as arbiters of ‘The System’ is seen as increasingly arcane, with the realisation that while the ‘heroes’ of the entrepreneurial world gain the ‘publicity’ for their ‘good, bad and the downright ugly behaviour’, it is the majority of society that overwhelmingly ‘own’ these businesses through their individual savings, their pension funds, and also, for the most fortunate, their sovereign funds.

In sum, there is an increasing focus on the contextual nature of our companies and their position in society regarding the balance of “people, planet and profit” as a priority. The ‘force field’ for these changes comes from a number of convergent pressures; the philosophies of a new ‘brand’ of millennium entrepreneurs, the increasing recognition that employee engagement and sustainability are linked, additionally, the emerging political agenda of worker-owner representatives, and the need for a tax system responsive to the majority and not the 1% is growing in many countries.  Single issue pressure groups focusing on gender, environment, ethical supply-chains etc. all add to a consistent, if not increasing pressure for change.

In this post financial crisis era, and also because of it, the ‘people’ movement has found voice. Politicians, in their eagerness to lead, are responding to these ‘voices’ by reflecting them and also by subsuming them into their emerging philosophies, from the ‘Green’ movement to the rising calls for employee representation on Boards. Unlike politicians who are regularly renewed when not thrashed out, most companies do not feel they have this luxury, nor do they wish to embrace seductive but risky and ultimately deceiving populism.  They are thus called out to respond, and the place for that debate, both for legal and effectiveness reasons, is the Board.


When we look at our companies’ Boards, they typically reflect astonishingly narrow strata of our society: typically male, typically male accountants, typically ‘aged’, typically technophobes and typically wealthy. This is compounded by the even narrower frame of reference of our typical Chairman, who as leaders of our companies and Boards, are almost exclusively male.


As we look to the present and future, we need Boards and companies that are able to respond to the shifting landscape of society and the breadth of strategic challenges and perspectives faced.  ‘The people’ will indeed increasingly look at boards as they should, namely as the place where the corporation defines and assumes its place in society.  This in turn requires a deep and hard look at the true diversity of our Boards.

While gender diversity continues at a pace that brings a fresher perspective to our Boards, it does not by itself go far enough. We need a dramatic revision of how we view diversity on Boards, so as to not merely replace male accountants with female accountants. The breadth of diversity on Boards needs a radical transformation to become an active chamber for perspective, debate, discussion and challenge. The competencies and capabilities on our Boards need to range far and wide, beyond the narrow financial oversight of ‘do the numbers add up’, to an external engagement with our customers, employees and society as a whole. While there are a number of exemplar companies that characterise this ‘modern’ board philosophy – and much can be learned from them – they are still in the minority.

We need a diversity of thinking on our Boards that brings a breadth and depth of corporate, functional, cultural, employee, shareholder, environmental and society perspectives. This should be driven by a primacy to facilitate, discuss debate, develop and challenge ideas and strategic intent, and assume the decision and direction ultimately chosen.  It is what we might call the diversity premium generated by boards for the companies in their care.

This diversity will continue to prove elusive if we merely look for like for like replacements. We need a mechanism to empower our Nominations Committees to think outside the box. A greater perspective on diversity of thinking and experience is needed enabled by the gender diversity that is now largely accepted.


In practical board terms diversity represents a competition between a narrowness of expertise and viewpoint to achieve financial oversight and a breadth of expertise to achieve strategic oversight. Historically, the emphasis has been on financial expertise, the board’s first language, duly reinforced by the financial crisis which indeed required boards to ‘carefully check the numbers’.

This view rests on the assumption that the financial crisis as a failure of financial understanding, whereas the reality – as identified in numerous reports and books, from the Davies Report onwards – puts the ‘blame’ squarely on Board conduct, and more specifically on behavioural deficiencies of Boards in lacking debate, discussion and challenge of the gaps between the operational performance of companies and their strategic intent. Psychologically, the skills of detailed financial analysis are rarely combined with those yielding a good strategic perspective.  Indeed, a number of the most widely used psychological recruitments tools regards these as contra indicators.  Diversity again is the answer here.


Board Perspective Competing knowledge and expertise




We need a better focus on the diversity of Boards that takes us beyond the gender viewpoint into a true diversity of thinking and insight. While additional criteria might be seen as seeking further qualification to ‘block’ more female appointments to Boards, the motivation for gender balance of Board laid in the requirement for much wider perspectives on the skills, expertise and viewpoints of candidates to support much grander diversity of thought and debate, resulting in a step wise improvement in Board effectiveness.   While the research is still emerging, the increase of female Board members is seen as having indeed introduced greater diversity to our Boards.

We now need an approach that builds on the existing research and that encourages us to think outside a mechanistic and historical review of Board capabilities, going beyond talking about board diversity as assembling people with different skills and profiles.  Time has come to look at diversity in another way:  the diversity within each director.

A more detailed look within the profile of each director has several benefits.  It reduces the “labelling” or “boxing in” of a director to a single dimension – be it gender, professional, industrial, cultural, or representing ownership – that is pernicious and generally (and rightfully) experienced by directors as negative (e.g. she is our “female” or “minority” director). It stresses the value of directors as contributing a broad portfolio of talents, skills and experiences to the Board. The essential role of the Board is to bring a “balance” of multiple interests and viewpoints. This role is more effectively played by individuals capable of multiple viewpoints and insights. Board dynamics are substantially helped by board members reaching out to others and challenging colleagues with skill and competence on the other side of the argument. It reduces the chances of particular directors exercising their power by virtue of their monopoly on a particular attribute or of the board functioning as a group of silos, board members exercising their views in their silos, and not contributing outside of their silo.

In management the concept of the T-shaped managers is seen as effective, a concept presented by Morten T. Hansen, in his book entitled Collaboration (Harvard Business School Press, 2009).  It suggests a core strength, the trunk of the T, with a breadth, the top of the T, to collaborate more effectively with colleagues and facilitate the exchange and furthering of ideas requiring not only a common language, but beyond a common understanding of what the words mean and stand for.

We can also learn from the insights that have emerged from the decision making and behaviour literatures (e.g. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013) well summarized by Anaïs Nin as ‘we see the world as we are, and not as it really is’. The role of the board is to come to a collective view on issues hopefully ‘as they are,’ and on the risks that particular views may actually be wrong. Individual biases are pervasive roadblocks to excellent board discussion and effective conclusion of these discussions. One-minded individuals may be good for focused execution, but as board members such individuals are generally quite difficult to engage in discussions, have difficulties joining other viewpoints and rarely enrich collective debates that go in directions opposite to their own thinking, let alone admit that they were wrong and happily join the other side. In closing, let us remind ourselves that ‘experts’ are often wrong, be it in economic, military or medical forecasting.


Building on these ideas, and on the work that has characterised effective collaboration amongst managers, there is a benefit from seeking Board directors that are not just T-shaped, but in fact “triple PI” (like the Greek letter ‘π’) or “PI-cubed”.

This view seeks to articulate a broader perspective in the diversity debate concerning Board directors. It seeks to ‘benchmark’ directors on multiple perspectives and ‘drive’ their recruitment against those multiple perspectives, increasing the chances that they might be able to see things both from inside-out and outside-in. These perspectives are:

◼ A FUNCTIONAL ‘PI’, would reduce the bias that comes from being grounded and shaped in one function, valuing directors having at least one other functional strength (e.g. CFO with strong marketing experience). Such a director would more easily provide perspectives not simply emanating from a particular bias rooted in one functional background or expertise.

◼  A Business-industry ‘PI’ would bring a perspective from across differing business sectors and industries, for example mobile phone to banking, music business to mass engagement businesses.

◼ A Cultural-National ‘PI’, the perspective from different cultures and nationalities, again provides a richness of diverse perspective and insight, beyond a particular context or stereotype.  Here again the ‘Pi’ dimension is particularly valuable as culture is more easily recognized from a distance and through contrast.


Triple "PI"



Such a language, if applied, would provide Boards with a rich set of desirable characteristics:

◼ Members would make different and multiple contributions in the skills /experience /competence matrix;

◼ There would be more overlap amongst board members than would appear from the traditional skills matrix;

◼ It would make members appear as composed of a number of ‘slices’ or ‘skills’ – recognizing that board members are both more unique and more diverse than they might be led to appear by traditional methods;

◼ Avoids labelling (like female or digital director) and invites the exploration of the diversity within each board member;

◼ It gives an edge to people who contribute in multiple ways for they can contribute meaningfully to many discussions and through a multiplicity of viewpoints;

◼ It also lays to rest the argument for a “female” director – for when the “female” column is empty the female candidate deserves to be identified first (in terms of bringing value through literally “filling” a hole (or empty column);

◼ It would also allow a better justification of a director appointment in a GM meeting where directors are presented to shareholders (changes the nature of the discussion, by making it more analytical, objective, and rich in nuance and true diversity).


The main point of the argument is that we need to seek diversity in Board members in many more dimensions than is the case for functional executives.  It therefore also reminds us that superb but one-dimensional executives do not necessarily make for great Board directors, and that further benchmarking and discussion is needed in such cases.

As the global and also European economic sands shift, the need for a grander vision from the ‘collective’ Board community becomes stronger. The need to build diverse Boards that see beyond the myopic short termism and create profitable, socially aware and people focused businesses has never been greater.

Boards that espouse diversity as part of the solution will do better facing the complexities and turbulences the companies in their care currently face.  People and societies demand a more engaged and human business community. The Board population will continue to change with newer, younger more ‘millennial’ viewpoints emerging. As the population of Chairman moves on to a more diverse, more female and more environmentally and socially conscious cadre, this diversity will translate to more strategically expansive and engaged Boards, effectively collaborating to meet the increasingly difficult challenges ahead.


Article written by Helen Pitcher OBE, Chairman of Advanced Boardroom Excellence Ltd and President of the INSEAD Directors Network, and Ludo Van der Heyden, Chaired Professor of Corporate Governance at INSEAD, originally published at “Advanced Boardroom Excellence blog

26 New International Board Appointments of IDN Members

IDN Members Board & Corporate Governance Positions Announcement 2Q – 2019 

Recognising INSEADs International Directors´ Network, IDN  members and the strength of the network, we are proud to share our members recent appointments of board and corporate governance positions.

IDN members has been appointed to 26 new board positions in 16 countries, summing up to 180 position announcements since 2017.

The IDN network facilitates contacts, shares insights and experiences on international board topics and promotes excellence in corporate governance. 

IDN is one of the globally leading professional networks of International Board Directors. The IDN Network holds more than thirteen hundred board qualified members, of which 677 has become certified IDP-C / IDBP-C.

Full membership is open to all INSEAD Alumni with appropriate directorship experience and is automatic for Certified Directors (IDP-C) from INSEADs International Directors Program (IDP).

INSEAD Corporate Governance Centre, ICGC, a close partner to IDN, undertakes cutting-edge research and teaching tailored to the needs of boards and international directors. ICGC fosters a global dialogue on the challenges of corporate governance and leadership in an international context.

IDN Members New Board & Corporate Governance Positions

IDN members – Certified IDP-C Board Directors 

Doris Albisser – June 2019 – Chairman at SOS Children’s Villages Switzerland (NGO, Switzerland)

Carsten Bennike – April 2019 – Non-Executive Chair at Noreco A/S (Private, HQ Denmark)

João Bento – May 2019 – CEO & Board Member at CTT Portugal Post(Listed, HQ Portugal)

Bas Boots – December 2018 – Member Supervisory Board – Brightlands Agrifood Vetntures (Private, HQ Netherlands) 

Katia Ciesielska – February 2019 – Non-Executive Board Director at CCA Life Settlements (ManCo, Luxembourg)

Magali Depras – September 2018 – Board Member, Member of Governance Committee at Les Grands Ballets Canadiens (NGO, HQ Canada) & June 2019 – Board Member at Canadian Plastic Industry Association (NGO, HQ Canada)

Irina Frolova – May 2019 – Member of Supervisory Boardat HZPC Holding B.V. (Private, HQ Netherlands)  and at ATC Europe B.V. (Private, HQ Netherlands)   

Daniel Frutig – March 2019 – Member of the Board of Directors at Zehnder Group AG(Listed, HQ Switzerland)

Alison Gaines – January 2019 – Member Asia-Pacific & the Middle East and Chair of its Nomination & Governance Committee; Member, Global Nomination & Governance Committee at AESC (Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants), (Professional Association, HQ USA)

Luigi Passamonti – May 2019 – Board Member and Treasurer at European Cyclists’ Federation (NGO, HQ Belgium)

Susana Gomez Smith – March 2019 – Non-Executive Board Director, Member Remuneration and Nomination Co at Leonteq (Listed, HQ Switzerland)

Irek Kulka – March 2019 – Independent Non-Executive Board Member, Chairman of Audit Committee at Enea SA (Listed, HQ Poland) 

Marcia De Wachter – May 2019 – Non-Executive Board Member, Member Audit Committee, Chair of Committee for Conflict of Interestat Lease Invest Reit of Ackermans & van Haaren Group(Listed, HQ Belgium)

Kimberly Wiehl – May 2019 – Board Director at American Arbitration Association (Professional Body, HQ USA)

Konstantinos Yazitzoglou – April 2019 – Board Member at Hellenic Management Association(Non Profit, HQ Greece)

IDN Members – Board Directors 

Dimitri Chichlo – June 2019  – Non-Executive Independant Board Director at Ukreximbank (State-owned, HQ Ukraine) 

Jack Clemons – January 2018 – Non-Executive Board member at DKSH Holding AG (Listed, HQ Switzerland) 

Marko Cosic – January 2018 – Board Member at HEP Group (Government, HQ Croatia) 

Susanne Hannestad – April 2019 – Non-Executive Board Director at Crunchfish AB (Listed, HQ Sweden) 

Roland Krueger – January 2019 – Member of the Board & Executive Director Board Member at Dyson Manufacturing Holdings (Private, HQ Singapore) 

Roy Ling – February 2019 – Lead Independent Director at Debao Development Company Ltd (Listed, HQ Singapore) 

Victor Ong – June 2019 – Board Member at CFA Society of Singapore (Non Profit, HQ Singapore)

Gang Wu – April 2019 – Independent Director at Ashurst LLP (Private, HQ UK)

Previous board position announcements by shared by IDN;

February 2019November 2018  July 2018  April 2018  January 2018   October 2017

On behalf of the INSEAD International Directors’ Network Board,

Liselotte Engstam,
IDN Board Member, Chair Communication Committee
[email protected]

For more information about: 
INSEAD Directors’ Network:
INSEADs Corporate Governance Programmes:

For organisations interested in partnering with IDN, please contact IDN President, Helen Pitcher OBE, at [email protected]

For head hunters interested in finding international board members focused on staying up to date with latest board and governance insights, please contact Mary Francia via [email protected]

For interested parties follow our IDN blogsharing insights on current governance topics, and follow our social media accounts,  IDN at LinkedIn  and @InseadIDN at Twitter, regularly sharing relevant board content.