There are many open questions about whether corporate purpose should have instrumental or moral foundations, how to put boundaries around who counts as a stakeholder and how engagement can lead to the fair distribution of value. We are in the midst of a great burgeoning of experimentation in both research and practice to continue to answer these questions. The agenda is ambitious — and necessarily so. Purpose-driven leadership is not just for CEOs. It is going to take each and every one of us — in our roles as practitioners, stakeholders and academics — to transform our own practices and seek the radical transformations that have the potential to save our society and our planet. Make no mistake: Progress depends upon it.

In the face of climate change, rising economic inequality, systemic racism and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is once again time for a new set of guidelines. While the 1994 guidelines — which concern best practices around board independence and oversight — continue to be relevant, they served the governance needs of the 1990s. Two-and-a-half decades later, we ask, Where is the leadership in a world in crisis? The guidelines we have developed in response to this question are based on the principle that companies must account for the interests of all stakeholders — what we call 360º governance. Canada must upgrade its corporate standards or risk being left behind.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted more than ever the corporate world’s role in addressing social issues. And beyond that, regulators, institutional investors, consumers and workers are intensifying their attention to climate risk, systemic racism, women’s economic inclusion and Indigenous rights, among other challenges of our century. Governance and other reforms to address these challenges are speeding ahead in countries around the world, and Canada risks being left behind.

In the face of climate change, rising economic inequality, systemic racism and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is time for a new set of governance guidelines. We ask now, “Where are the directors in a world in crisis?” The guidelines are based on the principle that companies must account for the interests of all stakeholders that surround them (hence, 360º Governance): (1) Corporate Purpose (2) The Board’s Duty (3) The Definition of Stakeholders (4) The Rights of Indigenous Peoples (5) Reporting on Stakeholder Impact (6) The Formation of a Stakeholder Committee (7) Addressing Stakeholder Conflicts (8) Executive Compensation Policies (9) Board Refreshment (10) Board Diversity (11) Organizational Diversity (12) Climate Change (13) Corporate Activism It also lists a number of resources for anybody looking to upgrade their board governance.

The year 2020 has shown us, perhaps more than ever, the truth of the phrase "if you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything." It's as true for companies as it is for ourselves. But, company health is not just financial. Increasingly, research shows that company resilience in the face of shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic is as much about trust as anything else: Trust in the eyes of customers, employees, regulators and other stakeholders who are important to a company's success. Trust-building - whether you call it corporate social responsibility or stakeholder management - has always been the smart thing to do, and even more so now.

In moments of crisis, companies quickly shift their attention to survival. The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. Under these circumstances, businesses are scrambling to cope with employee safety and enforced shutdowns, among many other challenges. So it may seem misguided to focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) now. But, in fact, there might be no better time. Resolving these trade-offs can be a source of innovation.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest health and economic crises in more than a century. Policymakers and business leaders are struggling to figure out how we can get the economy back on track while at the same time keeping people safe. While we once had thought that the pandemic would be the great leveler because viruses don't see wealth or gender or race, it turns out that, in fact, COVID-19 has laid bare the economic and social inequalities in our society. In Canada, the people most likely to be affected by both the economic downturn and the threat of illness are those at the bottom of the income ladder, particularly women, Indigenous people and racialized minorities.

In 2019, the Business Roundtable repudiated the primacy of the shareholder and says that corporate leaders should “deliver value” to all stakeholders. So far, though, business schools — the place where many future leaders are trained — are failing to respond meaningfully. Some schools are revamping their ethics courses or adding a social entrepreneurship track in their program. But we would be hard-pressed to find any school really reinventing itself to face up to the social crises and the appropriately increased expectations of leaders.

“Build back better” is an expression coined by a UN task force charged with coming up with improved disaster-recovery plans. For them, building back better meant using recovery after calamities—they were thinking of earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes—to restore equitable social systems, revitalize livelihoods, and protect the environment. Don’t just rebuild houses—install clean water systems. Don’t just improve early warning systems— create safer roads and dwellings. For us in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, build back better means making good on the commitments to stakeholders that everyone was so eagerly talking about last year.

Australia's apocalyptic bush fires make the dystopian future of "Mad Max" look tame. The World Economic Forum recently reported that it will take another 100 years to achieve gender equality at the current pace of progress. Garbage patches twice the size of Texas have accumulated in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, wreaking havoc on ocean food chains that reach all of the way to human consumption. Corporations are implicated in it all. That isn't company bashing. It's just a reality.

Trade-offs, conflicts, and challenges, however, can be the source of innovation and transformation. Companies can develop explicit and coherent plans for addressing the tensions created by trade-offs. The stories of two large, well-known organizations, Walmart and Nike (as well as Levi Strauss & Co., mentioned below), show the ways that well-known organizations with varied stakeholders manage trade-offs. This is not to glorify or vilify them, but simply to show how frequently interests and agendas can conflict and highlight the kinds of difficult decisions that arise most often in today’s globalized economy. Coping with stakeholder trade-offs forced Nike to come up with less toxic glues and more environmentally friendly materials for its shoes and Walmart to pressure suppliers to change both products and their packaging to reduce waste and the environmental effects of shipping.

Today we’re facing a whole slew of social, economic and environmental crises—gun violence, climate change, gender inequality, job dislocation, food insecurity, plastic pollution and the opioid epidemic, to name just a few. The responses from governments are often inadequate. Indeed, the problems are so complex that no single sector can address these challenges alone. Policies may not go far enough, or simply cannot address the entire issue. And, as we are seeing in the United States, governments may actually be pulling back on regulations meant to address these crises. What’s interesting is how often corporations are stepping in to fill the void.