Corporate Board Member

Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping how boards access information, evaluate risk, and guide strategy, but its role in the boardroom is still taking shape in practice. For Jeanne Beliveau-Dunn, an independent director at Columbus McKinnon, Edison International and Crewdle, the shift is less about adopting flashy new tools and more about embedding AI into the core disciplines of governance: oversight, risk management, and long-term value creation.

As proxy season winds down, it appears that support for anti-DEI shareholder resolutions is losing steam. For the second year in a row, most of the anti-DEI resolutions that reached a shareholder vote were soundly defeated. While there remain proposals that will be voted on over the next few months, board members should be aware that the threat of anti-DEI shareholder pressure is trending downward.

In 2018, Tesla’s board granted Elon Musk a $2.3 billion stock-option package contingent on a 12x increase in market capitalization over 10 years. The award was either the boldest pay-for-performance design in modern corporate history or the most egregious governance failure of its era, depending on your view. Either way, it changed the conversation. In the years since, more than 50 large public company boards have approved similar though smaller grants.

The headlines are impossible to ignore. Cutting-edge AI labs and others are competing aggressively for a relatively small pool of elite AI researchers, with reports of compensation packages measured in tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Those stories are real. But they may be causing boards, executives and compensation committees to ask the wrong question.

On May 19, 2026, the SEC proposed sweeping changes to public company reporting requirements, intended to reduce compliance costs and encourage broader participation in U.S. public markets. While much attention has focused on scaled disclosure obligations and reduced regulatory burdens, the proposal may have more significant implications for executive compensation governance.

Compensation Committees are navigating an increasingly complex landscape. Investor expectations continue to evolve, economic and policy uncertainty are complicating performance assessments, and boards are being asked to oversee a broader range of talent, workforce, and governance issues that can ultimately influence executive pay outcomes.

John F. Brock, lead independent director of Royal Caribbean Group, has been named Corporate Board Member’s eighth annual Director of the Year, presented in partnership with AlixPartners. Brock was recognized by a distinguished panel of public company board members for his role in providing independent governance stability during one of the most significant corporate recoveries in recent memory.

In under three years, BP has cycled through three CEOs and three chairmen. The latest jolt came this spring, when—only weeks after a new CEO arrived—the board abruptly removed its chairman, pointing to serious concerns about governance, oversight and conduct. The departing chairman rejects that account, saying he was let go without warning, and disputes the characterization of how he worked.

Investor protection is a key focus for audit committees, fueled by high-quality audits that support reliable information for decision-making. As the PCAOB shapes its 2026-2030 strategic priorities, audit committees have the opportunity to share views about how the regulator can enhance committee oversight and help promote continued audit quality.

Public company boards are accelerating their focus on AI, and governance expectations are evolving with them. Findings from the CAQ show 90 percent of S&P 500 companies mentioned AI-related information in their 2024 10-K. As adoption of the technology continues, investors and regulators are paying closer attention to how oversight is structured—with audit committees often at the center.