error
Subscriptions are not available for this site while you are logged into your current account.
close
Skip to main content

      Irish boards face the same global challenges - economic uncertainty, technological disruption, cybersecurity risk, and sustainability pressures - that dominate boardroom priorities worldwide. These issues will continue to test assumptions and demand resilience. Few business leaders have experienced the scope, complexity, and combination of risks confronting companies today.

      Disruption, volatility, and uncertainty will shape 2026 agendas and redefine governance expectations. Economic uncertainty, recession risk, the cost of capital, advances in artificial intelligence (AI), elevated cybersecurity risk, climate severity, policy gridlock, and more, will continue to add to the challenge.

      In this volatile operating environment, demands for greater disclosure and transparency, particularly around the oversight and management of the company’s strategy and risks, will continue to intensify.

      The pressure on management, boards, and governance will be significant. The board’s role in helping provide big-picture context—from business model disruption risk to the impact of AI on the workforce—will be more important than ever to the company’s decisions and direction.

      Drawing on insights from our conversations with directors and business leaders, we highlight seven issues to keep in mind as boards consider and carry out their 2026 agendas:

      • Reassess the board’s engagement in strategy

        Particularly scenario planning, agility, crisis planning, and resilience.

      • Understand the company’s AI strategy

        Understand the company’s AI strategy and related risks and opportunities and closely monitor the governance structure and talent/workforce needs around the deployment and use of the technology.

      • Data governance framework and processes

        Consider the adequacy of the company’s data governance framework and processes.

      • Cybersecurity governance framework

        Assess whether the company’s cybersecurity governance framework and processes are keeping pace.

      • Monitor preparations for sustainability

        Keep material sustainability issues embedded in risk and strategy discussions and monitor management’s preparations for sustainability reporting requirements as well as shareholder expectations.

      • Board-CEO relationship

        Sustain a healthy board-CEO relationship.

      • Risk oversight

        Revisit board and committee risk oversight responsibilities and allocation among committees.

      Eamon Dillon
      Eamon Dillon

      Partner, Board Leadership Centre Lead

      KPMG in Ireland

      Strategy

      Reassess the board’s engagement in strategy—particularly scenario planning, agility, crisis planning, and resilience

      The unprecedented combination of uncertainties, risks, and volatility call for deeper board engagement in strategy and evolving business contexts. The Trump administration’s policy positions on tariffs, trade, immigration, tax, and regulation more generally are reshaping the economic, geopolitical, and risk landscape— leading to action and reaction elsewhere around the globe. The pending and potential legal challenges to some of the administration’s actions are creating additional uncertainties.

      Adding to the complexities are continuing military conflicts, the continued shift away from convergence—on trade, capital, and labor flows—to an era increasingly defined by fragmentation, recession and inflation risks, and domestic polarisation. Risks related to cybersecurity, extreme weather, GenAI, agentic AI, and other new technologies (such as quantum computing) continue to pose major challenges for companies.

      In this environment, boards play a pivotal role by actively engaging in strategy and promoting agility and resilience. A fundamental question is how the board’s role in strategy should evolve to adopt more rigorous forward-looking governance practices. Our discussions with directors have highlighted several practices that may be helpful:

      This is never an easy undertaking, and it is particularly challenging given the transformational changes underway. Make time for the board to have meaningful “what-if” discussions in a focused and urgent way—opportunities and risks related to AI, human capital, and supply chain should be front and centre.

      Where are the company’s industry and competition headed? What might the business look and feel like in 2, 5, or 10 years?

      Robust scenario planning can help companies make informed decisions and prepare for potential disruptions. The board should help ensure that the scenario planning process is properly resourced with the right data and expertise, management maintains a broad perspective, relevant context is considered, the process remains iterative, and outside views are heard.

      No strategic plan can anticipate every risk that might hinder a company trying to achieve its strategic objectives, and adjustments to strategy may be needed as conditions change. Help management reassess the company’s processes for continually identifying the risks and opportunities posed by disruption— geopolitical, economic, technological/digital, social, and environmental—and the impact on the company’s strategy and related capital allocation decisions.

      Does management have an effective process to monitor changes in the external environment and provide early warning that adjustments to strategy might be necessary? That process should include risk management, business continuity, crisis planning, and resilience.

      It calls for frequent updating of the company’s risk profile, stress testing strategic assumptions, analysing downside scenarios, considering the interrelationship of risks, and obtaining independent third-party perspectives.

      While it is important to remain responsive to immediate, short-term risks and uncertainties, boards must help guard against short-termism. A focus on the long term is vital to organizational endurance and value creation.

      AI

      Understand the company’s AI strategy

      Understand the company’s AI strategy and related risks and opportunities, and closely monitor the governance structure and talent/workforce needs around the deployment and use of the technology

      As companies forge ahead with AI and GenAI initiatives, it’s imperative for boards to stay current on the related opportunities and risks, including how GenAI and AI agents are being deployed, and how the company is managing and mitigating the risks.

      The risks posed by GenAI are significant and include inaccurate data and results, cybersecurity risks, data privacy and security risks, compliance with domestic and global AI-specific laws and regulations, intellectual property risks, and reputational risks.

      To address these risks, companies and boards have focused on the guardrails and governance policies for the development, deployment, and use of GenAI. The deployment of GenAI has also prompted companies to take a hard look at the quality of the company’s data and data governance practices, as achieving the hoped-for productivity and efficiency improvements with AI depends on the quality of the company’s data, and how it is processed, stored, and protected.

      As companies begin to deploy AI agents, it is essential that they reassess and, as appropriate, modify their AI and data-related governance policies and guardrails to address the evolving and unique risks posed by AI agents. These are primarily risks posed by AI agents’ autonomous decision-making and operational integration. The adequacy of human-on-the-loop oversight is a key area of focus.

      In addition to being vital for competitive advantage, the successful deployment of GenAI with strong governance and risk management is a prerequisite enabler for the more complex deployment of autonomous AI agents.

      Addressing GenAI foundational adoption issues, particularly risk management and trust, is essential. The board should understand the company’s strategy to generate returns on GenAI investments and monitor the trajectory of deployment as well as management’s governance structure for GenAI deployment and use, including risk management and mitigation. The board should also understand how the company is ensuring the quality and accuracy of GenAI output.

      In addition to projected productivity benefits, deploying more autonomous AI agents is the building block for deploying more complex agentic AI. Staged deployment of AI agents enables companies to gain operational familiarity and establish the necessary data and governance frameworks to better position the company to handle more complex, adaptive, and autonomous AI capabilities.

      Wherever the company is on its AI journey, ROI is essential. To maximise ROI and increase productivity, many companies are taking a “first principles” approach— recognising that GenAI and AI agents provide an opportunity to rethink processes from the ground up, rather than making existing processes slightly more efficient and/or cost effective. For more, see AI: Looking for ROI, moving toward agency.

      Achieving the transformational benefits of the adoption of GenAI and AI agents at scale hinges on placing people at the core of adoption—prioritising change management, workforce empowerment, skills development, and cultural transformation. What skills are necessary in an agentic AI and GenAI world?

      How does the company keep employees engaged through the transition, minimise their concerns regarding being replaced, and mitigate the risk of “de-skilling”? Fundamentally changing what people do every day and how they work requires leadership.

      Ongoing board education on AI in all its forms is essential. In addition to reports from management, many directors shared that they attend outside education programmes and their boards receive updates from third-party experts and that they seek individual training, often incorporating the use of GenAI into their daily lives.

      Data governance

      Consider the adequacy of the company’s data governance framework and processes

      The explosive growth in the use of AI is prompting more rigorous assessments of companies’ data governance framework and processes. Companies usually design data governance frameworks suited to their industry and specific needs, but several established frameworks are available for consideration.

      The frameworks vary in many respects, but generally focus on data quality, data privacy and security, data stewardship, and data management. In its oversight of data governance, the board should insist on a robust data governance framework that:

      • Makes clear what data is being collected, how it is stored, managed, and used, and who makes decisions regarding these issues,
      • Identifies which business leaders are responsible for data governance across the enterprise, including the roles of the chief information officer, chief information security officer, and chief compliance officer (or those performing similar functions), and
      • Determines which vendors and third parties may have access to company data and their obligations to protect it.

      Boards should also consider whether the company’s data governance framework supports the company’s strategy and whether the framework is properly aligned with the company’s separate, but interrelated, AI governance framework and processes.

      Cybersecurity

      Assess whether the company’s cybersecurity governance framework and processes are keeping pace

      While management teams and boards have devoted substantial time and attention to addressing increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, companies must continue to upgrade their defenses against fast-moving AI-driven and quantum computing threats.

      The risk of data breaches and malware attacks, including ransomware, data corruption, and model poisoning, continues to mount, with AI enabling cybercriminals to scale their attacks in terms of speed, volume, variety, and sophistication. Quantum computing may pose an even greater threat because its breakthrough computational capabilities could undermine the encryption methods that secure today’s digital information.

      For many companies, it may be helpful to have a board committee with the requisite skills and expertise assume a role in the oversight of cybersecurity. More importantly, given the advances in AI-driven and quantum computing risks, boards should ensure that they have the relevant expertise, obtain that expertise through outside advisors, and/or consider the use of an advisory board to enable them to probe these issues more deeply with management.

      To assess the company’s preparations to address these threats, boards should ask for regular briefings on:

      • How management is ensuring that the company’s cyber defenses are staying ahead of AI-enabled attack trends, such as deepfakes and autonomously generated phishing campaigns
      • The robustness of management’s cyber response plans. Recognising that it isn’t possible to stop all attacks, a focus on resilience is essential
      • The state of the company’s readiness against quantum computing risks.

      Special attention should be paid to “harvest now, decrypt later” attack scenarios and the company’s plans to transition to quantum-resistant encryption before quantum computing reaches a critical threshold.

      Sustainability

      Keep material sustainability issues embedded in risk and strategy discussions, and monitor management’s preparations for sustainability reporting requirements as well as shareholder expectations.

      Companies’ approaches to human capital management, environmental, and sustainability issues are widely seen as essential to business success and longterm value creation by certain stakeholders, including investors, ratings firms, activists, employees, customers, and regulators. However, pushback against these issues has caused many companies to reassess those initiatives.

      Several fundamental questions are essential in boardroom conversations about sustainability:

      • Which sustainability issues are material or of strategic significance to the company?

        The sustainability issues of importance will vary by company and industry. Relevant issues may include physical risk associated with climate change, business model risk and opportunity associated with the energy transition, and labour, diversity, and safety issues associated with the workforce and the supply chain.

        Those companies doing business in the EU and within the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive will also need to assess “double materiality,” i.e., material risks to the business and material risks to the community and planet associated with the company’s operations.

        The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board categories identifying material issues by industry—and the International Sustainability Standards Board’s proposed amendments to the SASB standards—are a good place to start. Each company should engage in its own materiality assessment frequently enough to keep it fresh and relevant. 

      • Embedding sustainability into business activities

        How is the company addressing sustainability issues strategically and embedding them into core business activities (strategy, operations, risk management, incentives, and corporate culture) to drive long-term performance?

      • Enterprise-wide buy-in

        Is there a clear commitment from the C-suite and enterprise-wide buy-in?

      • Company communications

        In internal and external communications, does the company explain why sustainability issues are materially or strategically important?

      Management’s efforts to prepare for state and global regulatory mandates for climate and sustainability disclosure remain an important area of board focus and oversight. Even without the SEC’s climate rule, many companies will be subject to California, EU, and other mandatory reporting regimes. See On the 2026 audit committee agenda for more details.

      Board-CEO relationship

      Sustain a healthy board-CEO relationship.

      Achieving a “healthy tension” in the boardroom—where the board is advising the CEO and management team while maintaining objectivity, independence, and skepticism—isn’t easy. Striking this balance has become more challenging and more important given the tremendous pressure on boards and CEOs to deliver results.

      Our discussions with directors about the keys to maintaining a healthy board–CEO relationship revealed three areas of focus:

      The starting point for an effective and high-value CEO–board relationship is full, open, transparent communication in both directions. The CEO sets the tone for management’s engagement with the board and committee leaders. The board should expect no surprises from management, and management should expect no surprises from the board.

      Setting the expectation that the board’s job extends beyond compliance and monitoring is essential. Boards can best serve this role when they are composed of directors with diverse experience and backgrounds who have experience dealing with crises, disruption, technological change, and activism.

      CEO turnover, particularly when unexpected, poses a significant risk of disruption to the business. Key questions for the board are whether its CEO succession planning process is sufficiently robust for various scenarios of CEO departures, and is evolving to identify the CEO skills, traits, characteristics, and experience necessary to lead the company today, and whether the company is maintaining a robust talent pipeline.

      Risk oversight

      Revisit board and committee risk oversight responsibilities and allocation among committees.

      Refining board and committee risk oversight responsibilities requires diligence. The increasing complexity and fusion of risks requires a holistic approach to risk management and oversight.

      Investors, regulators, rating firms, and other stakeholders expect high-quality disclosures—particularly on climate, cybersecurity, AI, human capital, consumer trends, and sustainability risks— about how boards and their committees oversee the management of these risks.

      The challenges for boards:

      • Enterprise risk management processes

        Continue to monitor the adequacy of management’s enterprise risk management processes. Management should maintain an up-to-date inventory and analysis of the company’s critical risks and how those risks are being managed and mitigated, and management and the board should have a common view of the company’s key risks. 

      • Delineate responsibility

        Clearly delineate the risk oversight responsibilities of the board and each standing committee, identify any overlap, and implement a committee structure and governance processes that facilitate information sharing and coordination among committees and with the full board.

      Essential to effectively managing a company’s risks is maintaining critical alignment—of strategy, goals, risks, internal controls, performance metrics and incentives. The full board and each standing committee should play a role in helping to ensure that—from top to bottom—management’s strategy, goals, objectives, and incentives are properly aligned, performance is rigorously monitored, and that the culture the company has is the one it desires.
       
      Carrying out the board’s 2026 agenda will be a significant oversight challenge. Having the right board leadership, composition, and committee structure— together with ongoing director education and rigorous board, committee, and individual director evaluations—will be essential to meeting the challenge.

      Get in touch

      If you’d like to find out more about the support offered by the Board Leadership Centre we’d be delighted to hear from you. 

      Eamon Dillon
      Eamon Dillon

      Partner, Board Leadership Centre Lead

      KPMG in Ireland

      Supporting your non-executive career
      Read more from the BLC

      Read more from the Board Leadership Centre

      Something went wrong

      Oops!! Something went wrong, please try again