A Review of Director Commitments Policies, 2023 to 2024
In recent years, director commitments policies have become more prevalent at U.S.-based companies. Director commitments policies can reduce risks stemming from potentially overcommitted directors, facilitate active board refreshment and ensure that a board engages in thoughtful dialogue around director time commitments. Many institutional investors are incorporating director commitments policies into their evaluation of directors and proxy voting […]
Samuel Nolledo is a Research Analyst, Sarah Wenger is Senior Analyst, and Aaron Wendt is Director of U.S. Governance Policy at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on a Glass Lewis memorandum by Mr. Nolledo, Ms. Wenger, Mr. Wendt, and Dimitri Zagoroff.
In recent years, director commitments policies have become more prevalent at U.S.-based companies. Director commitments policies can reduce risks stemming from potentially overcommitted directors, facilitate active board refreshment and ensure that a board engages in thoughtful dialogue around director time commitments. Many institutional investors are incorporating director commitments policies into their evaluation of directors and proxy voting guidelines, and in response companies are increasingly implementing them.
In this post, we follow up on our prior analysis with a review of the increased adoption of director commitments policies over the past year and the evolution of their design and disclosure.
