BACK TO ARTICLES
Seven Reasons Independent Boards Still Fail: And Why 2026 Is About to Expose Them
As Romania navigates the 2026 reporting cycle and moves closer to OECD standards, the debate over board independence often misses the most critical factor: ownership concentration. In a market where a single dominant shareholder—whether the State or a founding family—holds the reins, corporate governance operates under a materially different job description than in Western dispersed-ownership models.
Beyond Independence: Why Ownership Concentration Dictates Boardroom Behavior
Under the revised Bucharest Stock Exchange Corporate Governance Code, this is the first reporting year in which listed companies must show compliance for the 2025 financial year, just as Romania pushes for OECD accession and capital markets attract record listings. The Code raises the independence bar: at least a third of board members independent, tougher criteria for audit committees, a stronger push for an independent chair.
On paper, governance is about to look better than ever. The uncomfortable question is whether it will work better.
Because here is what three decades of global governance reform keep proving, and what Romanian boards are about to discover for themselves: loading a board with independent directors does not guarantee a board that performs. Sometimes it barely moves the needle. Sometimes it backfires.
Call it the paradox of board independence. The mechanism built to fix governance can just as easily disguise its failure.
Why this should worry you, not just regulators
If you sit on a board, advise one, invest behind one, or design governance policy for one, this paradox is now your problem. A board can tick every independence box the new Code requires and still wave through a flawed strategy, miss a fraud, or defer to a dominant CEO. Compliance will say the governance is sound. The numbers may say otherwise.
That gap between looking independent and acting independent is where boards get into trouble, and it's widening just as scrutiny on Romanian and CEE corporate governance intensifies.
1. Independence is bought at the price of knowledge
Independent directors are independent largely because they're outsiders. That's the point, and the problem. The further removed someone is from the business, the less they understand its operations, its culture, and its competitive pressures.
A non-executive can be flawlessly independent and still not understand the company well enough to ask the right question. Meanwhile, the long-serving insider who understands the risk usually isn't independent enough to say so out loud.
As boards now face AI adoption, cybersecurity exposure, geopolitical risk and sustainability reporting demands, that knowledge gap is no longer a minor inconvenience. It's the difference between oversight and theatre.
2. Formal independence and real independence are not the same thing
A director can satisfy every box in Annex 1 of the new BVB Code, no employment ties, no family connections, no financial relationships, and still never challenge a powerful CEO or a dominant shareholder in the room.
Formal independence is a credentials check. Substantive independence is a behaviour: the willingness to disagree, in the room, when it costs something to do so. Boardroom deference, reputational caution and the social cost of being “difficult” routinely beat regulatory criteria. Enron's board was independent enough on paper. It still didn't stop Enron.
3. Outsiders get outside information
Independent directors are deliberately kept at arm's length from day-to-day operations, which means they depend on management to tell them what's going on. The information that reaches the board is filtered through the people the board is supposed to be checking.
That's the trap: directors are expected to challenge management while relying on management for the material needed to do the challenging. Independence without information access is independence in name only.
4. Ownership structure can override every governance rule
Much of the independence model assumes dispersed shareholders and a powerful, self-interested management team to keep in check. CEE markets, including Romania's, frequently look nothing like that. Family-controlled groups, founder-led firms and state-influenced enterprises concentrate real power with a controlling shareholder, not the management team.
An independent director walking into that boardroom isn't primarily checking executives, they're negotiating influence against an owner who can outvote, outlast and, in practice, often out-decide them. Kakabadse research across emerging markets consistently finds that adding independent directors does little to shift outcomes when a dominant shareholder is already calling the strategy. Romania's push toward OECD-aligned governance will not, on its own, change that calculus.
5. Independence ratios are easy to measure, and that's the trap
Regulators, raters and the market all gravitate to what's countable: the percentage of independent directors, audit committee composition, board size. None of that is wrong to measure. But composition metrics reward boards for looking right, not for deciding well.
A 2021 Henley Business School study of Bucharest Stock Exchange-listed companies, led by later Professor Andrew Kakabdse found a 10% rise in independent board representation associated with roughly a 0.9 percentage-point increase in return on equity, a real but modest effect, nowhere near enough to justify treating independence ratios as a proxy for governance quality on their own.
6. Groupthink wears an independence badge too
A board stacked with technically independent directors who all defer to the same dominant personality, share the same blind spots, or simply prefer consensus to friction is not a well-governed board, it's a well-credentialed one. Diversity of background, expertise and willingness to dissent does more for decision quality than another independent director who agrees with everyone in the room.
7. Boards are rewarded for compliance, not judgment
The incentives across regulators, codes and investor scorecards still point toward structural box-ticking: independence ratios, committee composition, disclosure formats. None of this measure whether a board actually caught the risk that mattered, asked the question no one wanted to ask, or stopped a bad deal before it happened. Romania's revised Code raises the compliance bar considerably. It does not, by itself, raise the judgment bar.
Fiduciary Duty: What boards should be building
None of this is an argument against independent directors. It's an argument against mistaking the credential for the contribution.
The independent directors who genuinely change outcomes do one thing well: constructive challenge. They build enough trust with management to be heard and keep enough distance to say the uncomfortable thing anyway. That combination, not the proportion on the board roster, is what regulators, investors and boards themselves should be evaluating.
For boards entering 2026's first compliance cycle, the practical checklist looks less like a compliance form and more like an honest audit:
- Do independent directors understand the business well enough to challenge it, or only well enough to approve it?
- Is independence behavioural, or just biographical?
- Where does board information come from, and who controls it?
- Who really holds power in this company, and does the board's structure reflect that, or pretend it doesn't exist?
Board Evaluation: Measuring What Matters in Concentrated Structures
A board full of independent directors is not the same thing as an independent board. Romania's 2026 reporting cycle will produce plenty of boards that pass the independence test on paper. The ones worth watching are the few that pass it in the room, when it costs someone something to disagree.
Professor Nada Kakabadse, Henley Busienss School
Facebook
Linkedin
Recommended articles
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Digital Transformation & AI Governance
Digital Transformation & AI Governance
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Future of Boards & NED Careers
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Digital Transformation & AI Governance
ESG & Risk Oversight
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Digital Transformation & AI Governance
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Future of Boards & NED Careers
Future of Boards & NED Careers
ESG & Risk Oversight
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Future of Boards & NED Careers
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Governance & Board Effectiveness
Future of Boards & NED Careers
Leadership, Boardroom Dynamics & Crisis Response
Future of Boards & NED Careers
