In the current era of geopolitical turbulence, digital disruption, and mounting stakeholder expectations, corporate boards are under more scrutiny, and more pressure, than ever - yet not every board is rising to the challenge. The difference between those that lead (rather than react) often comes down to choices about structure, mindset, and partnerships.
Below are five emerging practices that distinguish high-performing boards in 2025 and the implications for CEOs, board chairs, and investors seeking durable governance.
1. Prioritising “Board Fitness” and real engagement time
Boards today are expected to do more than rubber-stamp strategy - they must act as though they’re a living muscle, not an archive and that requires greater time commitment and sharper focus.
- According to the 2025 NACD Trends & Priorities Survey, nearly 74% of directors say the number of issues each director monitors has increased, and 73% say agenda complexity has expanded. nacdonline.org
- Average annual time commitment for independent directors is approaching ~300 hours which is a noticeable rise compared to a decade ago. nacdonline.org
- As several NEDs note, boards are under pressure to elevate standards, requiring “more specialised experience” and deeper engagement and not simply oversight at a distance.
High-impact boards are responding by:
- Setting fewer, but higher-value, agenda items (fewer votes, more strategic discussion)
- Creating “board prework” rituals (e.g. data dashboards, scenario rehearsals)
- Instituting formal quarterly board retreats (away from the “meeting room” mindset)
- Rotating meeting formats (field visits, peer panels, investor Q&A formats)
In other words: clarity in agenda → depth in discussion → speed in decisions.
2. Reframing risk and ESG as growth levers, not compliance burdens
Risk and ESG are no longer “nice to have”, they are fiduciary imperatives., but boards tending to them as checklists or post-mortems are falling behind.
- The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 spotlights persistent systemic risks: climate, cyber, supply chain shocks, and social instability. Harvard Law Forum
- At the same time, NEDs note that boards are recalibrating ESG oversight: rather than box-ticking, the trend is toward nuanced, integrated frameworks that link environmental/social topics to business value.
- Cybersecurity, in particular, is migrating from an IT topic to a board-level theme with disclosures under stricter regimes (for example under SEC rules) demanding granularity from boards. Harvard Law Forum
Boards doing it well now:
- Embed ESG/risk into strategy committees rather than silo them under audit or legal
- Use dynamic, forward-looking risk dashboards (not static heat maps)
- Hold “deep dives” each year on one emerging risk (e.g. AI, climate, geopolitics)
- Demand accountability by linking executive compensation to risk/ESG outcomes
Boards must be architects of resilience, not mere examiners of past performance.
3. Elevating succession planning from “box-checking” to strategic continuity
One of the clearest markers of governance robustness is how a board handles leadership transitions and not only when crisis strikes.
- Many NEDs see CEO succession and executive transitions as growing board priorities globally in 2025.
- The view of boards as passive overseers is giving way to boards as architects of succession pathways, investing in internal talent, scenario planning, and independent transition support.
- Boards are seeking to shift from reactive escalations (when a CEO exits abruptly) to deliberate long-lead planning.
Best practice boards now:
- Maintain a rolling 3–5 year “ready bench” of internal leaders (with developmental exposures)
- Commission independent evaluations and transition stress tests
- Retain transition advisors or mentors for incoming executives during onboarding
- Engage investors proactively during transition phases to prevent market surprises
Strong succession planning is not a “nice to have”, it is a signal to the market of the board’s confidence and preparedness.
4. Skill-based board renewal & future-ready composition
The skillsets boards require are evolving faster than terms expire. In 2025, many boards are rethinking how to refresh composition, not just diversity quotas.
- In the NACD survey, 67% of respondents said their board would likely seek individuals with specific domain expertise (rather than generalist leadership background) in upcoming director searches. nacdonline.org
- Boards are widening their aperture: expertise in areas such as AI/ML, data ethics, sustainability, digital business models, and geopolitical risk is increasingly valued.
- At the same time, boards are mindful of tenure/balance: preserving institutional knowledge while introducing new voices.
Top boards now practice:
- Skills-mapping exercises every 1–2 years (overlaying business strategy with board competencies)
- Staggered refreshment policies (rather than wholesale turnover)
- Nontraditional director profiles (e.g. former regulators, data scientists, founders)
- “Shadow director” or associate roles grooming next-generation non-execs
Renewal is not just about optics, it’s about equipping the board for the next disruption.
5. Partnering with external expertise and upgrading advisory architecture
No board is omniscient. The boundary between curiosity and competence increasingly lies in the quality of external partnerships and advisory design.
- According to Protiviti’s 2025 Global Board Governance Survey, only 15% of organisations self-identify as “disruptors” in their sector; the rest see disruption as a looming threat. Protiviti
- Many boards are now using AI-enabled governance platforms to assist with agenda prep, risk scanning, document analytics, and board workflows. Diligent
- The distinction between smart and laggard boards is increasingly the use of governance-enhancing tools, not simple portals. Diligent+1
Boards that lead:
- Commission independent reviews of board practices (e.g. peer benchmarking, 360 evaluations)
- Bring in “board associates” (junior observers or future directors) to bring fresh perspective
- Use scenario-based simulations with third-party experts to stress-test decisions
- Engage boutique firms or executive search houses (like Friisberg) for discrete mandates (board refreshment, succession, advisory design)
These boards view external advisory not as a cost centre, but a force multiplier.
Conclusion: governance treadmill to governance distinction
The gap between high-functioning and legacy boards is widening, not because the challenges differ, but because the response does. Great boards in 2025:
- Selectivity over volume (agenda discipline)
- Integration over isolation (strategy + ESG + risk)
- Proactivity over reactivity (succession, oversight)
- Evolution over stasis (skills refresh)
- Partnership over ego (leveraging external insight)
If your board is ready to leap from compliance mode to leadership mode, Friisberg can help design that path. Whether it's structuring a future-fit advisory model, sourcing domain-expert non-executives, or coaching boards to sharpen technique and orientation, partnering with the right advisor is the multiplier that turns governance intent into governance impact.
Questions for reflection (or for your board’s next session):
- Has your board ever worked “backwards” from a 2030 scenario: what does your composition and agenda look like then?
- Which single agenda item over the next 12 months would benefit from bringing in external, a-level advisory thinking?
- Where does your board’s advisory boundary end, and where should it start?
