Business leaders in New England are cautiously optimistic about the local and national economies, according to a new survey conducted by the National Association of Corporate Directors New England Chapter (NACD New England). Seventy-eight percent of the boardroom directors and other business leaders surveyed believe that the U.S. economy will recover either significantly or slightly within the next 12 to 24 months. Only five percent believe the economy will worsen, and 16 percent expect it to remain the same.NACD New England’s 2009 Leadership Survey on Economic & Corporate Governance Trends surveyed 145 business leaders who serve on corporate or non-profit boards or hold other leadership positions at New England companies regarding the economy, as well as corporate governance issues including risk management, government oversight and boardroom diversity.”NACD members represent some of the region’s most influential business leaders, and they are optimistic about the national economy,” said NACD New England Chapter President William A. Earon. “Even more encouraging, the prevailing sentiment is that New England’s economy is stronger and will recover from the recession faster than the nation’s as a whole. These findings have positive implications for everyone who lives or does business in our region.”Sixty-three percent of the survey respondents believe the New England economy is stronger than the national economy, as opposed to 20 percent who see little difference between the two and 11 percent who feel the national economy is stronger than the economy in the region.The survey respondents also expect New England to recover from the recession before the rest of the country. Forty-two percent believe the New England economy will recover faster than the national economy, while an additional 34 percent expect the two economies to recover at the same pace. Just 15 percent see New England lagging the national economy in recovering from the recession.”These leaders who have a close pulse on business in this region seem confident in the New England economy’s ability to rebound from this recession,” said Ronald Skates, former president and CEO of Data General Corp. and a member of the NACD New England Chapter’s Board of Directors.The survey also produced findings in the areas of risk management, government oversight and boardroom diversity which suggest that New England’s business community is seriously confronting some of today’s most critical issues in corporate governance.Risk Management a Hot-Button TopicSurvey respondents highlighted the importance of risk management, as 52 percent said it is either the top priority or one of the top priorities of their boards. Forty percent said that risk management is important but not a top priority, while only seven percent said risk management is not a priority at all.When directors were asked for their opinions on federal regulation of corporate risk management, their responses were split. Forty- three percent think the U.S. government should regulate risk management, similar to how the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulates accounting. But 41 percent believe government regulation is not necessary. Sixteen percent do not know or are not sure.Risk management was also listed as the leading concern for the audit committees of corporate boards of directors. When asked to list the top two challenges facing audit committees, 48 percent of the respondents cited an inadequate risk management program as the leading challenge.”These results show that Board members are very aware of the importance of managing risk at the Board level,” said Skates. “Though there is not a majority view in this survey that Boards are ready for regulation of risk management, it is good to see that Boards want to make managing risk a priority.”Mixed Support for Government Involvement, RegulationThe survey revealed mixed sentiment regarding how much power government should have in regulating the corporate sector, particularly in light of recent federal bailouts in the automotive and financial services industries.While 59 percent of respondents said they believe the economic stimulus package signed into law by President Obama will have a positive impact on the U.S. economy, only 25 percent said they believe that, given the current state of the global economy, the government should intervene in business.That sentiment was different when the questions focused on companies participating in the TARP. Eighty-eight percent of the directors surveyed believe the government should have a say regarding executive compensation at companies that received government bailout money as part of TARP. Of that 88 percent, 52 percent believe the government should have input but not control over executive salaries at companies receiving TARP funds. Thirty-four percent think the government should have both input and control.Diverse Skills Critical for a Successful BoardThe ability to assemble a board that possesses diverse skills is important to New England directors. An overwhelming 84 percent of the survey respondents see a need for boards to increase the focus they place on candidates’ skill sets and experience when selecting board nominees.Thirty-five percent of the survey respondents said that their boards are already comprised of individuals with diverse backgrounds. Fifty-two percent said their Boards are somewhat diverse, though most members have skill sets similar to those of their representative industries. Only 12 percent of respondents do not consider their boards to be diverse.About the SurveyThe NACD New England 2009 Leadership Survey on Economic & Corporate Governance trends surveyed 145 local members of public, private and non-profit boards. Each respondent was asked a total of 19 questions about the economy and issues surrounding boardroom leadership.For full survey results and for ready-to-use graphics, please contact Jim Connelly at 617- 861-3654 or via email at [email protected](link sends e-mail).About the National Association of Corporate DirectorsThe National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is a not-for-profit membership organization devoted exclusively to improving director and board effectiveness in fulfilling their obligation to ensure shareholder and stakeholder value. Founded in 1977, NACD conducts educational programs and standard- setting research and provides information and guidance on a variety of board governance issues and practices. NACD’s 10,000 director members comprise both individual directors and entire boards ranging from the Fortune 100 to smaller public, private, and closely held companies. NACD distributes NACD Directorship magazine and provides governance information online at www.nacdonline.org(link is external).Source: NACD. BOSTON – July 6, 2009 –
Share Related Articles Submit GVC hires ‘comms pro’ Tessa Curtis to re-energise media profile August 25, 2020 StumbleUpon Share Premier League looks to broadcast every behind-closed-door fixture August 28, 2020 Senet Australia appoints Paul Newsom as new client advisory lead August 27, 2020 “There is no ‘esports consumer.’ It’s much wider than that, with there being CS:GO consumers, DOTA consumers and so on” stated Adam Savinson of Win Technologies – Betway Group as Betting on Esports 2017 got underway.Discussing who an esport consumer is Mr Savinson added: “You need to know to cater for their own communities, with esports being different to how traditional sports are treated. They’re used to having dedicated news portals, unlike football fans who’d look on the BBC where it’s listed alongside basketball.”With a distinct disparity between esports and traditional sports highlighted, Rahul Sood from Unikrn elaborated: “Working with Tabcorp they bring in the traditional sport experience to us.” “We see esports has a much younger median age compared to the average MLB consumer, which is 51, and the average PGA consumer, 64. Every day one MLB or PGA punter dies and two esports ones are born”Growth is also key in any sector and Michael Doyle of PVP.me explained the necessity from which it is to do so in the correct manner: “A lot of companies come in wanting to make a quick buck. “The esports audience can see that a mile off and will avoid it. You need to build with the community, show them you’re here to grow with them. Unikrn and Betway have done this well through their content. The consumers always want more.”Another way with which to grow could be through the use of ambassadors and sponsorships, with Scott Burton of ESP saying: “There are some people we wouldn’t touch. You need to do research to determine who’s right for your brand before just jumping in based on follower numbers. “I don’t see much difference between esports and traditional sports ambassadors though”. Something Viktor Wanli of Kinguin didn’t wholeheartedly agree with, before explaining his own approach: “We look to see how we can work with their audience after a sponsorship, with constant community engagement”.Cycling became the focus of a sponsorship based discussion; the advantages of aligning yourself with a current team or creating your own organisation the focal point.Malph Minns, of Strive Sponsorship, has previously worked with Team Sky and on the issue he had this to say: “With Team Sky, it was difficult to for some brands to understand how they might get cut through in a relationship with us, having a media owner and big brand like Sky also sponsoring the team.“We worked hard to show how this could be done and how they would actually benefit from this relationship, not hinder their return on investment and we were keen for brands to be involved, not just for the sponsorship income, but for their related activations to help grow the media footprint and profile of the team – thus increasing value further.”Wanli offered a different perspective, however, with his Kinguin company instead running their own team: “We see it better to run our own brand, as the community connect better that way.” There are of course difficulties with esports, something Suraj Gosai of Blinkpool explained: “We’ve been working with the UK Gambling Commission closely in order to get our license, as it’s a different format to most other bookmakers. We have to explain in detail to them because we’re first to the market.”Adding about how his company’s model differs: “After listening to those coming from a traditional background and losing money, we felt it was better to develop a way for people to bet against each other, rather than the house.”Building on this through his cycling experience, Minns said: “Lots of money came into cycling after Team Sky’s success and the resultant growth of the sport in the UK, but a number of companies made poor sponsorship decisions on the basis of not understanding the sport and audience, not getting great advice and some rights holders not having the right experience in place to service them adequately. “Their pull out came alongside a ‘Cycling doesn’t work’ tag when in fact a confluence of failures was to blame.“Esports rights holders need to take time to properly understand non-endemics requirements and what success looks like, as well as have the team capable of delivering this, to ensure something similar doesn’t occur.”Whereas Mr Savinson simply stated: “Throwing money at esports is bad. You need to develop what works and what doesn’t, and that includes working with communities to come in”. In spite of this panellists were asked for their opinion on the growth of esports in the next five years, with estimates ranging from anything between double to ten times.