Mariana Peneva, director of content and advisory at IRG, presented this session on the role of the board in stakeholder value creation. It draws on the Impact Study and reports each finding as a gap between overperformers and underperformers.
The framing is that stakeholder interests now compete, that stakeholders are louder and more demanding, and that the C-suite and board treat this as a top priority while lacking a practical roadmap.
Key findings
- The widest gaps are about seeing stakeholders at all. Ninety percent of overperformers treat stakeholder value creation as an opportunity against 50 percent of underperformers, and understanding stakeholders splits 75 percent against 17 percent.
- Engaging stakeholders shows the largest gap in the deck, at 63 percent against 10 percent.
- Time horizon separates the two groups sharply. Long term focus runs at 80 percent against 25 percent.
- Purpose is where the gap is most extreme. Seventy-one percent of overperformers say purpose guides all strategic decision-making, against 7 percent of underperformers.
- Collaboration is the exception to the pattern. Industry collaboration runs at 70 and 73 percent and NGO collaboration at 48 and 54 percent, with the underperformer figure the higher of the two in both cases.
What the study rests on
The evidence base is more than 450 vision interviews, a quantitative online survey of more than 750 respondents covering board and six C-suite functions, and a social AI hypertrend study of 120,000 sources across 52 markets with nine country deep-dives.
Among the interviewees named are Ed Freeman, Mark Kramer, Patricia Nzolantino, and Jeremy Grantham. IRG’s own thought leadership line is given as the Growth Study and the Impact Study, running from 2010 to 2024.
The deck states that the business case does not need remaking, pointing to the correlation between revenue growth and stakeholder value creation.
Ground and reimagine
The first move is to ground the company in a human first view, which the study breaks into stakeholder understanding and stakeholder engagement. A materiality matrix is used as the tool for understanding, with Unilever cited as the source.
The second move is to reimagine the emerging future and the company’s aspirational role in it. That requires zooming out to a long term focus and an aligned vision of the emerging future rather than a dystopian one.
The deck is explicit about what the aspirational role is not. It has to be rooted in company DNA, and it is not a marketing communication tactic or a new advertising campaign.
Focus and organize
Focus means a holistic strategy and transformative change: prioritizing stakeholders, defining strategy with all of them, and addressing short term issues in the context of the long term. Defining a value creation strategy across all stakeholders splits 72 percent against 9 percent.
The deck also names something rarely asked of boards: the courage to define what to stop.
Organizing means systemic change and interdependence. Driving systemic change to create stakeholder value runs at 69 percent against 10 percent, and working interdependently across functions and departments at 66 percent against 8 percent.
Beyond the company walls, government and public institutions collaboration runs at 67 percent against 48 percent.
Unleash, and the board’s own part
The last move is to unleash the organization through role modelling, using the Da Vinci growth leader profile as the reference for leadership behavior.
The board’s part was worked on directly at the summit. Pre-summit working groups drew in more than twenty board directors, and a panel included Lara Lee, Diane Hessan, Libby Sartain, and Teresa Sebastian.
Scope and limitations
The percentage pairs are presented without base sizes on the individual slides, and the collaboration figures do not follow the overperformer pattern that the rest of the deck reports.
Source
This page summarises Role of the Board in Stakeholder Value Creation, by Mariana Peneva, 8th October 2024.