Board composition and skills
Skills, experience, independence and diversity against the organisation's strategy and risks, and the gaps that matter.
A board that approved something it should have challenged rarely lacked a policy. It lacked the right information, the right questions or the right dynamics in the room. An independent evaluation looks at how your board actually works and what would make it work better.
An independent evaluation of your board, its committees and, if you choose, individual directors. We combine questionnaires, confidential interviews, a review of board papers and minutes, and observation of meetings, and report on how effectively the board oversees strategy, risk, investment and management.
The Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance expects boards to undertake a formal and objective annual evaluation, and large companies to engage an independent expert to facilitate it at least every three years. GLCs and statutory bodies face growing expectations of the same discipline. Beyond compliance, an honest evaluation is how a board finds out whether it is really challenging management, especially on investments and major payments, before an auditor or regulator draws that conclusion for it.
Scoped to what your board wants to learn, from a full independent evaluation to a focused review of one area such as investment oversight.
Skills, experience, independence and diversity against the organisation's strategy and risks, and the gaps that matter.
Agendas, papers, time allocation, the quality and timeliness of information and whether the board sees what it needs to decide well.
How the board handles investments, capital projects, related-party matters and reserved decisions, including whether the right approvals are obtained.
The work of the audit, risk, nomination and remuneration, and investment committees, and how they report to the board.
Challenge, openness, the relationship with management and the chair's leadership, drawn from confidential interviews.
Optional peer and self assessment of individual directors, handled confidentially with the chair.
Supports the MCCG expectation for large companies to use an independent expert at least every three years, with a report you can reference in your corporate governance disclosures.
Directors say to an independent evaluator what they will not say in the boardroom.
Recommendations focus on where oversight matters most: investment, risk and management accountability.
Findings translate into practical changes to composition, process and director development.
An independent evaluation signals to shareholders, ministries and regulators that the board takes its effectiveness seriously.
Where something has gone wrong, an evaluation shows what needs to change in the board itself, not only in management.
Agreeing objectives, scope, individual evaluation and confidentiality rules.
Board and committee papers, minutes, charters and terms of reference.
Tailored questionnaires for directors and key executives.
Confidential interviews and observation of at least one board meeting.
Findings discussed with the chair before the board sees them.
Presenting findings to the board and agreeing an action plan.
Findings and recommendations on composition, process, oversight and dynamics.
Current skills against needs, with gaps for the nomination committee.
Effectiveness of each committee with recommendations.
Confidential feedback to directors where individual evaluation is in scope.
Agreed changes with owners and timing.
Input for the corporate governance report on the evaluation undertaken.
We do not resell products, so nothing here is shaped by a vendor margin. The recommendation is whatever your risk and your budget actually justify, including telling you that you do not need the engagement yet.
Findings come with a sequence, an owner and a realistic effort estimate, sized to the team you have rather than the team a framework assumes. A report that cannot be acted on is an expense, not a control.
Our people have carried the obligation internally, not only audited it. That shows up in what we consider proportionate, and in how much documentation we think you genuinely need.
Work is grounded in Malaysian law and regulator expectation, from the PDPA and the Cyber Security Act 2024 to Bursa, BNM and SC requirements, rather than translated from a European or American template.
Where an engagement includes training, the training component is structured to be HRD Corp SBL-Khas claimable, which changes what the programme costs you in practice.
Under the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance, boards are expected to evaluate themselves annually, and large companies are expected to use an independent expert at least every three years. The Code works on an apply or explain basis, so companies that depart must explain why in their disclosures.
Individual feedback goes only to the director concerned and the chair, under the confidentiality rules agreed at scoping.
Usually yes, with the board's agreement. Observation shows how discussion, challenge and decision-making actually work.
Yes. The method adapts to boards whose members are appointed by ministers or shareholders, and to the approvals and oversight those boards carry.
Typically six to ten weeks from scoping to the board session, depending on the board's size and the scope.
Board and committee papers and minutes for the review period, charters and terms of reference, and help scheduling interviews.
Tell us the size of your board, its committees and whether individual evaluation is in scope. We will come back with an approach and a fixed quotation.