
Reporting Lines for the Company Secretary
This article outlines common reporting lines and related issues for company secretaries and invites comments and feedback from directors, company secretaries and any other interested stakeholders.
We all know and recognise that the role of the company secretary has changed over time, and has moved from just being the keeper of corporate records and minute taker, to becoming the chief governance officer, with all of the additional responsibilities and intersections with other executives that entails (whilst still doing the basics, now in a highly digital environment, which requires a bunch of new skills in itself!).
In this modern era of changing roles and skillsets it would be very interesting to know … “what do boards really want from the company secretary?” [NB Just the CoSec role, not dual roles.]
It could be (for example*):
* These examples are neither exhaustive nor necessarily mutually exclusive. It should also be noted that these examples are not intended to suggest that the company secretary would not work co-operatively and collaboratively with management or create an adversarial situation – although recognising that robust conversations may take place from time to time. Prevailing circumstances will also clearly have an impact on what the board wants from the secretary.
There is also a view among many directors that part of the role of the company secretary is to help keep them ‘out of trouble’, including by assisting them in complying with their director’s duties (in various ways – e.g. providing reminders and regulatory updates).
Not surprisingly, the preferred model or standard of governance1 (plastic, bronze, silver, gold, platinum) chosen by the board will be a very significant factor in determining what the board wants from the company secretary.
In addition, it should be noted that reporting lines (e.g. to the chair and/or CEO, or to another senior executive) will often have a major bearing on what the company secretary does day-to-day, noting that some chairs are very active in relation to corporate governance – particularly where they want to adopt things successfully used in outside organisations. Personalities of individuals are another significant influence.
Side Note
In recent times, we have also witnessed the emergence of the additional requirement for the possession of a strong working knowledge and skills in the IT-based systems which facilitate company secretarial practice (such as entity management, document lodgement platforms, meeting management, board portals, online meeting platforms, and online surveys). Query what changes (in terms of expectations) will attend this seismic shift in capability / practice.
1 The desired model of governance drives the organisation’s choices of governance systems, policies and procedures, etc., and the workload and expectations of the company secretary. The terms ‘light touch’ and ‘gold standard’ are often used for the two ends of the governance continuum.
This article outlines common reporting lines and related issues for company secretaries and invites comments and feedback from directors, company secretaries and any other interested stakeholders.
This article outlines the requirements for, and merits of, conducting periodic external (independent) governance reviews by an experienced external consultant. Here, it is suggested that independent governance reviews should be undertaken periodically - around every 3 years - as a matter of good corporate governance.
Law makers, regulators and courts will face many challenges in applying existing laws, rules and regulations to the use of AI in business, including in the context of directors’ duties, although not forgetting the many other areas that have and will be significantly impacted by AI. This short article seeks to explore and outline several key factors that ought to be considered by all such bodies and authorities in response to the rapid adoption and use of AI by organisations, potentially as part of a broader law reform program. Understandably, it will take some time for laws, rules and regulations to catch up and sensibly respond to technological innovation in this area – to protect the genuine interests of relevant stakeholders, but without stifling innovation.