Global Corporate Governance Trends for 2026

Converging forces of economic volatility, technological disruption, and geopolitical realignment are putting significant pressure on companies, their executives, and their non-executive leaders (board members).

To help demystify a complicated landscape, RRA combines the expertise and experience of its leadership advisors with detailed, confidential discussions with leading governance experts each year to help organizations stay at or ahead of critical trends. With many thanks to those thought leaders, hailing from across 17 geographies, we are pleased to share the eleventh edition of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Global Corporate Governance Trends.

Corporate governance is inherently local; shaped by divergent legal, regulatory, and other requirements and norms. However, we identified five trends that cut across borders and will affect board agendas and discussions in 2026.

1. Implications of AI adoption and maturation take center stage

Artificial intelligence is everywhere. You will notice that every country and regional report highlights the growing importance of artificial intelligence. What varies by market is not whether boards should engage, but how far along they are in building effective oversight.

Across the globe, boards are increasingly expected to demonstrate baseline AI literacy to capitalize on the significant opportunities while avoiding or mitigating material risks. Some of this work will be mandated – in many European markets, significant legal and regulatory requirements will become effective this year. But even where the legal environment is less prescriptive, boards are enhancing their own capabilities, from adding AI-related experience as a target for director recruiting to providing more comprehensive education and training for their directors.

This education is both in overseeing the wide range of industry and company specific applications of AI, but also in understanding how best to incorporate AI tools into the work of the board itself. Our Australian authors note the use of board-specific AI agents, and our German colleagues cite regulatory guidance that notes, “the more capable AI systems become, the more necessary it becomes for them to be included among the supervisory board’s responsibilities.” Recent research from Wharton and INSEAD found that AI directors were more effective than human ones on eight important criteria of success, suggesting that the use of AI support for boards may be worth considering outside of Germany as well.

The practical implication for boards everywhere is clear: technology oversight can no longer be delegated or episodic. Directors are expected to engage continuously, ask informed questions, and ensure that AI risks and opportunities are integrated into company strategy and board operations.

Questions for boards and executives

• Do we, as a board, understand where AI is actually being used in the business today—and where it could materially affect risk, compliance, or competitive position tomorrow? How do we think about potential liabilities, given different regulatory approaches across different countries or the EU?
• Are we confident that management’s AI governance frameworks would stand up to regulatory, investor, or public scrutiny following an incident?
• Are we investing enough in director education and external expertise so that AI discussions are valuable, not merely symbolic?

2. Board refreshment and evaluation processes are expanding

The focus on board composition is also intensifying—including director skills, refreshment, and evaluation. Each country report addresses, in some form, the question of whether boards are equipped for the challenges ahead.

In some markets, such as the United States, this is driven primarily by shareholders. The US report points to increasing scrutiny of director tenure, skills disclosure, and individual accountability, with risks that investors do not support director nominees (and may support activist ones). Boards are responding with more detailed skills matrices, enhanced disclosure at the individual director level, and a greater willingness to refresh composition proactively rather than defensively. In Japan, the focus has been on increasing the number of highly qualified independent directors to boardrooms.

Similar dynamics appear elsewhere, though the drivers differ. In Italy and other parts of continental Europe, regulatory expectations and governance codes are pushing boards toward more formalized evaluations and clearer articulation of director competencies. And internal stakeholders are driving a push in several markets, including Canada and Mexico, to enhance succession and recruiting practices at the private, family-owned companies that are so important to those economies.

This attention to board quality also creates pressure to improve how boards and others assess that quality. Across markets, board and individual director evaluations are becoming more rigorous and more frequent, with increasing use of external facilitators and a shift away from purely collegial, high-level reviews in Brazil, Italy, and Singapore, much like we have previously noted in the United States.

Questions for boards and executives

• If we were designing our board today, what backgrounds, skills, and experiences would we prioritize? Does that vision reflect the realities of our board today – and if not, how will we bridge the gap?
• Are our board and individual director evaluations producing concrete changes, or merely confirming that “things are working”? Do we have the courage to make the changes to improve our board’s effectiveness?
• Do we have credible, time-bound succession plans for both board leadership and the CEO, tested against plausible disruption scenarios?

3. Shareholder scrutiny – and activism – are on the rise

Another consistent theme is heightened external scrutiny of boards. Shareholders are increasingly demanding more from their boards and directors. Some authors note proactive work to get ahead of shareholder questions while others cite increasing numbers of “vote no” campaigns.

In the United States and Japan, this shareholder scrutiny included significant levels of shareholder activism. The 56 campaigns in Japan in 2025 were an all-time high and accounted for roughly 50% of campaigns from outside the US, while the 141 US campaigns were just shy of an all-time high.

Boards across geographies are becoming more proactive in stress-testing governance vulnerabilities, engaging earlier with key shareholders, and addressing potential weaknesses in oversight, disclosure, or composition before they become flashpoints (and responding when they do).

Questions for boards and executives

• Where are we most vulnerable to targeted shareholder scrutiny—collectively or individually?
• If our company’s performance is lagging, have we applied an investor’s perspective, dispassionately reviewing our performance compared to peers and asking what should be done differently?
• How does the board stay informed about investor preferences and our company’s engagement with active, passive, and activist shareholders?
• Does the board understand its role and responsibilities if we do face a shareholder demand, activist or otherwise?

4. Sustainability and ESG efforts are more pragmatic

Sustainability and ESG remain prominent across most jurisdictions. Outside of the United States, sustainability is a central board-level issue, but the focus of those board discussions is changing. Many reports note a transition from broad commitments and narrative disclosure toward oversight of implementation and reporting efforts.

In some countries, 2026’s sustainability focus is one of reframing. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and the Nordics, for example, are moving from compliance to business impact, despite growing regulatory challenges that threaten to displace attention on creating value. Mandatory regimes—such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and alignment with IFRS sustainability standards—require significant attention to achieve regulatory compliance. Yet while important, this should not be mistaken for the ultimate goal. As our Dutch colleagues write, the level of regulatory scrutiny puts pressure on boards to “concentrate on actions that materially create value, rather than activities that merely increase reporting volume.”

These global efforts also underscore an important reality for companies located elsewhere, including the United States: sustainability requirements imposed abroad increasingly shape enterprise-wide systems, controls, and reporting, whether sustainability is a favored or disfavored subject at home.

The global takeaway is that ESG is no longer about signaling. Boards are expected to drive and oversee sustainability efforts that are credible, measurable, and aligned with business objectives, while also meeting rising disclosure and assurance expectations.

Questions for boards and executives

• Which sustainability issues are truly material to our strategy and financial performance—and which ones are consuming time without clear impact?
• Are our ESG disclosures supported by the same level of rigor, controls, and assurance as our financial reporting?
• How are sustainability considerations actually influencing capital allocation, risk appetite, and long-term strategic decisions?

5. Geopolitical risk and resilience will remain on board agendas

Mounting geopolitical uncertainty and the economic volatility are testing organizations in unfamiliar and persistent ways. The United States’ influence in upending trade and other relationships continues to cause ripple effects and has forced companies everywhere to rethink their risk frameworks and fortify organizational resilience.

Japanese boards and German audit and risk committees alike are drilling down on geopolitical scenario planning, regulatory mapping exercises, enterprise-wide stress testing, and more cybersecurity preparedness. Other European nations are planning for the shifting positions between the US and China, while Mexico is sharpening its focus on geopolitical positioning to attract and retain global investors.

These topics must find space in crowded board agendas and be addressed not as one-offs but folded into strategic planning and risk discussions. In particular, we hear appreciation from boards whose leaders arrange sophisticated scenario planning exercises to help make these abstract concepts come to life and help prepare the board for the unexpected.

Questions for boards and executives

• Which geopolitical assumptions underpin our current strategy—and how confident are we that they will remain relevant over the next three to five years?
• Have we meaningfully stress-tested our supply chains, market exposures, and operating model against adverse geopolitical scenarios? Are we challenging ourselves to look at scenarios that were once thought to be highly unlikely, given the significant shifts that are taking place now?
• Where can we deploy scenario response exercises to build comfort and competence on the risks facing our organization?

What this means for boards globally

Taken together, these trends point to a common conclusion across markets: the role of the board is becoming more demanding, more technical, and more visible.

Directors are expected to engage deeply on complex issues, demonstrate relevant skills, and exercise judgment under heightened scrutiny. Boards should ask themselves how their agendas need to change and whether they need to increase meeting time and/or frequency to effectively oversee the increased demands of boards? While the answer may not require greater time commitments, historical agenda patterns may not address the new and changing expectations for boards.

While the regulatory and cultural context still matters, the convergence of these themes suggests that boards can learn meaningfully from practices in other jurisdictions. The most effective boards are those that treat governance not as a compliance exercise, but as a dynamic capability—continuously refreshed, strategically aligned, and responsive to an increasingly complex global environment.

Lead Authors

Rich Fields leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. He is based in Boston.
Rusty O’Kelley III co-leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Global Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Miami.
Melissa Martin is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. She is based in Atlanta.
Erin Lehr is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Commercial Strategy & Insights team. She is based in Chicago.

Regional Authors

Australia
Nick Fletcher is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Melbourne.

Belgium
Katrien Demeester is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Brussels.
Filiep Deforche is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Brussels.
Sara Vermeir is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Brussels.

Brazil
Jacques Sarfatti is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Sao Paulo.
Aline Larangeira is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Sao Paulo.
Vitoria Roque is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory research team. She is based in Sao Paulo.

Canada
Shawn Cooper is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Toronto.
Trevor Gooden is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory research team. He is based in Toronto.

France
Marc Sangle-Ferriere co-leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice in Europe. He is based in Paris.
Paul Jaeger is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Paris.
Julie Rullier leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Paris office and is a member of the Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Paris.
Louise Belloin is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. She is based in Paris.

Germany
Jens-Thomas Pietralla co-leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Global Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Munich.
Tobias Blickle is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Munich.

Hong Kong and China
Caris Wong is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Hong Kong.

India
Sanjay Kapoor is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in New Delhi.

Italy
Maria Grazia Buttiglieri is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Milan.
Michele Celada is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Milan.
Michelle Mion is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Milan.
Stefano Valvano is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Milan.

Japan
Keijiro Ohata is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Tokyo.
Hiroyasu Takano is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Tokyo.

Mexico
Francisco Ruiz-Maza is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Mexico.
Sandra Muriel is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory research team. She is based in Mexico.

The Netherlands
Miranda Bender is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Amsterdam.
Katja Kok is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in Amsterdam.

The Nordics
Tommi Lankila is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Helsinki.
Mikko Nieminen is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Helsinki.
Micha Rosenthal is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Stockholm.
Harald Kringlebotn is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Oslo.

Singapore
Euan Kenworthy is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board & CEO Advisory Partners and the Industrial & Natural Resources sector. He is based in Singapore.

Spain
Ramon Gomez de Olea is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in Madrid.

United Kingdom
Jennifer O’Connell leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Global Legal, Regulatory, and Compliance Practice and is a member of the Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in London.
Alison Huntington is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Commercial Strategy & Insights team. She is based in London.
Steve McCord is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. He is based in London.

United States
Rich Fields leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. He is based in Boston.
Amy Sampson is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. She is based in Boston.
Andrew Miao is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. He is based in Stamford.
Phoenix Forester is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board Effectiveness practice. He is based in Boston.