Back to Global Corporate Governance Trends for 2026
Dutch boards are placing people at the core of their oversight philosophy and are more socially accountable than they were even a few years ago. This extends far beyond meeting diversity requirements—it’s about designing boardrooms and leadership pipelines that meaningfully influence how decisions are made and how culture develops.
A new generation of directors is already beginning to shift the tone by spurring more candid, interactive discussions to fuel a constructive dialogue with management. With talent strategy firmly incorporated into the agenda, boards increasingly want to engage directly with rising leaders, assessing their cultural fit and understanding whether potential successors can carry the organization through periods of transformation. In 2026, boards can expect to see succession planning become less a theoretical pipeline exercise and more a personal, relational and behavioral assessment.
This people-first emphasis extends to board composition and functioning. Gender balance has largely been achieved in Dutch boardrooms, so the debate now shifts to qualitative diversity, including differences in experience, mindset, international exposure and problem-solving styles. Directors increasingly prioritize psychological safety to unlock a safe space to challenge assumptions, voice dissent and surface difficult issues. The most effective chairs will play a crucial dual role in building trust while preserving strategic clarity.
Alongside these shifts, Dutch boards are reflecting on whether the governance structure itself enables the depth of strategic dialogue modern complexity demands. The traditional two-tier Rijnlands model, with its strict separation between management and oversight supervision, remains a cornerstone of Dutch governance. Yet directors increasingly recognize that today’s geopolitical, technological and societal dynamics may call for closer integration between executives and non-executives. This has prompted renewed interest in elements of the UK-style one-tier model, particularly the presence of an independent chair and the more direct strategic engagement it enables. The intent is not to abandon the Dutch stakeholder tradition but to modernize governance so boards remain agile, well-informed and capable of navigating rapid and uncertain change.
Geopolitics has become a permanent item on the board agenda. As global power balances shift, Dutch companies see supply chains, capital flows and regulatory regimes becoming less predictable. Given the large number of Dutch companies deeply embedded in international markets, geopolitical risk is directly affecting daily operations, growth strategies and investment decisions.
The result is a broadening definition of risk itself. Boards are looking beyond financial and operational stability to include culture, reputation, leadership continuity and long-term organizational resilience. Scenario thinking, stress testing and the anticipation of “low-likelihood, high-impact” events are becoming standard governance responsibilities. This means boards will be increasingly expected to proactively interpret the world, not simply respond to it.
Previously privatized tasks returned to government oversight or renewed regulation, particularly in the financial sector and public services. This shift from private to public leads to increased regulation, public accountability, and more complex governance structures that require closer collaboration between government, business, and society.
As with other European neighbors, ESG remains firmly entrenched in Dutch governance, but the focus is shifting from ambition to impact. European regulation, particularly the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), requires companies to quantify, prioritize and substantiate their sustainability commitments. This level of scrutiny is pushing boards to increasingly concentrate on actions that create value rather than those that merely increase reporting volume.
For the Netherlands, ESG is also a competitiveness question. The country’s attractiveness to international talent and capital increasingly depends on companies’ reputations, how responsibly they operate and how clearly they communicate their societal contributions. With businesses facing a complex regulatory landscape and rising political expectations, boards feel more pressure to balance long-term sustainability goals with short-term economic headwinds.
Technology—AI in particular—is reshaping both strategy and governance. Boards increasingly recognize that AI is not solely an IT topic but a strategic and ethical one that affects business models, decision-making processes, workforce dynamics and even the distribution of power within organizations.
Forward-looking boards are exploring how AI can better support oversight and meeting functionality—for example, by synthesizing board materials or surfacing key themes. There are still concerns about data quality, auditability, bias, and accountability. Because of this, many boards stay careful and open, but not fully convinced. In 2026, boards should expect to face an important challenge: how to use the opportunities of digital transformation while at the same time controlling the risks.
These developments are coinciding with a broader professionalization of Dutch boardrooms that seeks to keep pace with the external environment. Boards are increasingly introducing thematic deep-dives, structured learning sessions and more specialized committees, such as transformation, resilience and/or technology. Corporate secretaries and chairs will likely be asked to play a leading role in orchestrating these processes.
en
Login
