Search Results

Mr. Bienvenido “Pet” Bautista, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors MANILA, Philippines — In business, integrity is easy to endorse and difficult to practice. It rarely arrives as a dramatic crossroads. More often, it appears quietly—in a boardroom discussion, in a line item on a report, in a decision that feels uncomfortable but necessary. Over the years, I have come to see that integrity is most tested when it disrupts comfort. At San Miguel Beer, I once asked the board to consider something that had not been done in more than a century—reduce prices. Tradition carries weight and history commands respect. But markets respond to reality, not legacy. What mattered was protecting the brand for the future, not preserving a record. In another chapter, at San Miguel Foods, we made the difficult decision to stop exporting prawns to Japan, even though we were the country’s largest exporter. It had long been a source of pride. Yet the business had never truly generated sustainable returns. Continuing would have meant defending prestige rather than exercising discipline. There were also moments that required stepping forward rather than stepping back. At Wyeth, launching Promil over the counter challenged established norms. Creating a market Later, at Universal Robina Corp. (URC), introducing green tea in a PET bottle meant creating a market that did not yet exist. Both carried uncertainty. But the decisions were grounded in careful judgment, not impulse. Looking back, the thread that connects these moments is not boldness or caution. It is clarity. Clarity about what was true. Clarity about what was sustainable. Clarity about what we were unwilling to compromise. Through the decades, I learned that integrity cannot reside only with the CEO. It must live in the culture. I tried to surround myself with people who understood that results matter—but how those results are achieved matters more. We invested time developing leaders who valued transparency and fairness And when integrity was clearly absent, we addressed it firmly. Talent can grow. Character must be protected. Culture is shaped not only by who you reward, but by what you consistently refuse to tolerate. I have made enough decisions to know which ones allow you to sleep peacefully years later. They are not always the easiest and rarely the most convenient. But they are the ones who safeguard trust. Growth is important. Profit is necessary. But integrity—especially when it is inconvenient—is what allows a brand and the people behind it to endure. And integrity, not applause, is the true measure of leadership. —CONTRIBUTED (The author has held top leadership roles as president of San Miguel Brewing, San Miguel Foods, Kraft Foods and PT Warner Lambert Indonesia, as well as managing director of URC. A recent recipient of the Mansmith CEO Lifetime Achievement Award, he will be sharing his insights on trust, strategy, opportunity and leadership at the 17th Mansmith Market Masters Conference on March 17, 2026. This event is open to the public.) Disclaimer: On March 1, 2026, “Integrity is inconvenient and yet essential” was published. It was authored by Mr. Bienvenido “Pet” Bautista, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

Dr. Jesus P. Estanislao, FICD Chairman Center for Excellence in Governance For national transformation to happen, individual Filipinos must be involved . As responsible citizens, each of us can make a positive difference by living our faith and core values in our everyday life and work. We must not separate what we believe from how we live. Faith and values should guide how we work, how we decide, and how we treat others—at home, at work, and in the community. When we live this way, our character is formed. And when many Filipinos do this together, the character of the nation slowly changes. As noted, this is the first essential step we must take to get us out of our current corruption crisis.   Each individual may seem small, like a stone thrown into a pond. The ripple it creates may be small. But when many stones are thrown, the ripples combine and create a strong wave. This is how we can help build Dream Philippines , the country we aspire to become by 2046 , the centennial of our independence. Still, individuals cannot do this alone.   This is where institutions  come in. Institutions are where people work and earn their living. They include businesses and corporations, government agencies and local governments, cooperatives, schools, and civil society organizations. These institutions have real influence. They can support individuals who are trying to live upright, responsible lives. This would represent the second essential step to get us out of crisis.   Institutions can do this by giving reminders, setting examples, and recognizing good behavior—what we used to call good manners and right conduct . In doing so, they help spread civic mindedness  across society. But institutions must first transform themselves.   Every institution should have a clear vision of what it wants to become in the next 3, 5, or 10 years. It must stay faithful to its mission and to its own core values. At the same time, because institutions are also citizens of the nation, their values should be consistent with our national values: maka-Diyos, maka-Tao, maka-Kalikasan, and maka-Bansa .   Values must not remain on paper. Institutions must bring them down to daily operations. This means choosing clear priorities, launching concrete initiatives, and setting performance targets for teams and units. When values guide actual decisions and outcomes, institutions become living examples for individuals to follow.   Strong institutions also reach beyond their walls. They support the families  of their employees, helping homes become real “schools of virtue.” They work with schools , helping form young people in discipline, service, and civic responsibility.They support community centers , which provide lifelong learning and guidance for personal development.   Institutions should also work together locally. By forming solidarity networks  with other organizations and local governments, they can help clean and improve communities—making them safer, more orderly, more functional, and more dignified places to live. Through transparency and cooperation, corruption can be reduced and eventually eliminated at the local level.   Beyond communities, institutions must also work together at the national level , especially to address widespread poverty.   We cannot be content with economic growth of only 5–6% per year. To lift millions of Filipinos out of poverty, we must aim higher—ideally 10–12% sustained growth  over many years. Such higher rate of economic growth, sustained over two decades, effectively brings down the level of poverty,  for good. This is ambitious, but possible if institutions act together.   This means tapping our natural resources more wisely and sustainably, investing more seriously in our human resources , and unlocking the potential of our financial and capital markets , especially to support MSMEs and cooperatives. None of this will happen by accident.   We need clear transformation roadmaps, clear priorities, concrete initiatives, assigned responsibilities, and measurable targets. Progress must be reviewed regularly, and strategies adjusted when needed.   In sum, institutions have a decisive role to play in national transformation. By observing the discipline of good governance and working together in solidarity, they can help deliver higher growth, reduce poverty, clean out corrupt practices, strengthen civic values, and deepen civic mindedness, thereby moving our country steadily toward Dream Philippines 2046 .   Manila, January 2026

Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., FICD Life Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors Industrialization is not about chasing the “latest” shiny technologies. It is about building a productive base that raises skills and incomes through the discipline of making things. In my previous article (see “Reflections on PH’s industrial decline,” 1/9/26), I discussed how we lost our lead. Today, the thesis is how we can regain our footing in a transformed global economy. Any serious attempt to restart manufacturing must move beyond rhetoric. We need a foundation—an “anchor industry”—and the household appliance is the perfect candidate to catalyze this revival. The appliance sector—refrigerators, air-conditioners, and washing machines—is a unique industrial “sweet spot.” Unlike basic assembly, world-class appliances require a robust ecosystem: reliable power, precision tool-and-die shops, chemical processing, and electronic controls. These products sit at the critical intersection of infrastructure, engineering, and consumer markets, exposing structural inefficiencies while rewarding process discipline. Historically, the Philippines was a regional leader here, but today we are heavily import-dependent. The Philippine household appliance market is valued at $1.8 billion annually. With a growing middle class and housing backlog, the market is projected to grow by 5.5 percent annually through 2028. In terms of value, 80 percent to 85 percent of major appliances sold here is captured by imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Reclaiming even 30 percent of this market would keep over P30 billion within our economy annually and create thousands of jobs. We cannot outproduce China on volume, nor displace Japan at the premium end. Our battleground is the mid-tier market. However, simple assembly—putting together imported kits—is a dead end. Our advantage lies in “Tropicalized Engineering”: Designing appliances for high humidity, intense heat, and voltage fluctuations for countries like us. By focusing on these factors, we create a niche that generic imports cannot fill. To accelerate this strategy, we need joint ventures that prioritize technology transfer, aiming for a “best of both worlds” model: South Korea’s rapid scaling and Japan’s benchmark for durability. The goal is Japan-level quality at Korea-level prices, achieved through local supplier development. Small and medium enterprises are the “vital ingredient” here. An appliance has hundreds of parts, requiring tool-and-die shops, metal stampers, and plastics processors. These SMEs form the productive core of an industrial nation. Without them, factories remain shallow assembly points that can be uprooted the moment labor costs rise. The “Tatak Pinoy” (Proudly Filipino) Act is a step forward, but intent must translate into execution. Incentives should be performance-based and SME-linked, providing fiscal support only to firms that commit to localizing at least 40 percent to 50 percent of their supply chain within a specific timeframe. Shared facilities for tooling, testing, and certification are more important than large-ticket prestige projects, as they allow shops nationwide to meet rigorous global standards. As former chair of the National Renewable Energy Board, I see an opportunity in the nexus of manufacturing and energy. Electricity prices in the Philippines are among the highest in Asia. By building a domestic appliance industry, we can lead in energy-efficient “inverter” technology tailored for our climate. High efficiency standards for local products help households lower power bills while creating a “green” barrier against low-quality, energy-hungry imports. The “China Plus One” strategy means multinationals are seeking alternative hubs to diversify risk. In the short term, this requires providing competitive, reliable power and cutting bureaucratic red tape. In the medium term, we must rebuild industrial depth—suppliers, tooling, and components. Eventually, these capabilities will “spill over”: Precision stamping for a refrigerator can be adapted for automotive parts, and electronic controllers can be used in renewable energy equipment. Industrial recovery is not about reviving failed protectionist formulas. Our neighbors have already proven that the path from student to master is through manufacturing, not just service sector growth. If we don’t integrate our SMEs, fix our power costs, and commit to an anchor industry today, we are effectively choosing a future where our children’s greatest contribution to the world is their absence from home. The window for a “third chance” is open, but it is narrowing. We must decide if we will finally be a country that builds or remains one that merely consumes. Pete Maniego is an engineer, lawyer, industry executive, former professor at the University of the Philippines College of Engineering and Ateneo School of Government, and past chair of the National Renewable Energy Board, Institute of Corporate Directors, UP Engineering Research & Development Foundation, and Energy Lawyers Association of the Philippines. Disclaimer: On January 23, 2026, “The anchor we need to rebuild our industry” was published. It was authored by Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., a life fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., FICD Life Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors When I graduated from the University of the Philippines as an engineer in 1970, the Philippines was on the verge of industrialization. Till the 1960s, we were widely regarded as Asia’s second most advanced country after Japan. Among my peers, there was little doubt we would soon join the ranks of developed nations. More than half a century later, the Philippines is still waiting. This is not nostalgia. It is a conclusion drawn from lived experience, five decades in industry, and a history we too often choose to forget. My first job was with Stanford Associates Inc., a pioneer of Philippine manufacturing. Stanford was the first semiconductor company in Southeast Asia, producing and exporting electronic components when most of the region had no such capability. Filipino engineers met international standards long before “high-tech” became a buzzword. At its peak, Stanford and its affiliates employed over 7,000 people. Yet despite its first mover advantage, Stanford did not survive. It failed not for lack of talent, but because industrial fundamentals steadily turned against manufacturing. Power became expensive and unreliable. Export support was weak. Supplier ecosystems never fully formed. Above all, industrial policy lacked focus. As Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia relentlessly strengthened infrastructure and export discipline, the Philippines stood still. Unable to move up the value chair, the company eventually closed—taking with it not just jobs, but accumulated skills and technological learning. In the 1970s, the Philippines was a regional hub for multinationals. Appliances, electronics, motors, and metal parts were made here. Foreign firms came not merely for labor, but for capability. I visited Thailand in 1973. Bangkok’s international airport was then noticeably smaller than the Manila International Airport. Few would have predicted that within a generation, Thailand would become a leading manufacturing hub—while the Philippines steadily deindustrialized. In 1984 when I visited China, there were no skyscrapers, no luxury cars, no limousines—only bicycles. Manufacturing was basic, and China was just beginning to open itself to the world. Today, it is one of the world’s most formidable industrial powers. While visiting South Korea in 1994, senior executives from major steel, shipbuilding, and petrochemical companies told me something unexpected. After the Korean War, they and many of their engineers and managers had trained in the Philippines. The usual explanations—corruption, politics, missed opportunities—are real but incomplete. What we truly lost was industrial momentum. Manufacturing depends on ecosystems: reliable power, skilled workers, supplier networks, export discipline, and policy continuity over decades. We once had these. But we failed to protect them. As factories closed, skills atrophied and investment declined. The tragedy is not that we tried and failed. It is that we stopped trying. There are exceptions. At Armscor, where I served as executive vice president and director for over a decade, sustained investment in production capability and export orientation turned a Philippine firm into the world’s largest producer of M-1911 pattern pistols. It succeeded not because conditions were ideal, but because manufacturing fundamentals were given utmost importance. These lessons matter today. Deglobalization is now a reality. The pandemic exposed the fragility of long supply chains, while United States President Donald Trump’s tariff war undermined faith in stable trade rules. Companies are now prioritizing resilience, shorter supply chains, and politically reliable locations. This shift creates opportunity—but only for countries prepared to manufacture. Labor sent abroad earns remittances. Labor harnessed at home builds factories, skills, and national resilience. We missed the 1970s. We half-missed the 1990s. The current global supply chain restructuring may be our last chance to become a producer rather than a perpetual consumer. Manufacturing will not return through rhetoric. Government must treat infrastructure—especially power—as industrial backbone. The private sector must accept exports as discipline, not aspiration. Education must align skills with production realities. Above all, policy must be consistent enough for factories to survive political cycles. We have already lost half a century. Another decade of business as usual will lock in dependence and erase the remnants of our industrial capability. History shows such windows do not reopen easily. If we do not act now, there may be no third chance. Pete Maniego is an industrial engineer, lawyer, and former industry executive. He was a faculty member at the University of the Philippines College of Engineering and Ateneo School of Government, and previously chaired the National Renewable Energy Board, Institute of Corporate Directors, UP Engineering Research & Development Foundation, and Energy Lawyers Association of the Philippines. Disclaimer: On January 9, 2026, “Reflections on PH’s industrial decline” was published. It was authored by Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., a life fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

Dr. Jesus P. Estanislao, FICD Chairman Center for Excellence in Governance Live the core values—daily. The four national values— maka-Diyos, maka-Tao, maka-Kalikasan, maka-Bansa —must guide everyday decisions and actions, at home, at work, and in the community. They must be lived and observed, not just recited. Enlist institutions to support values-based living and working. Institutions must actively help individuals align their daily work and behavior with the national core values. Align institutional values with national values. Institutions adopt their own values but deliberately connect them with the national core values, so both reinforce character, citizenship, and social responsibility. Build transformation agendas on shared values. Using these values as foundation, institutions define a clear vision, set priorities, forge strong work teams to deliver pre-set performance, and cascade values down to every unit and individual. Spread values beyond the workplace. Institutions extend values formation to families, schools, and communities through proactive social outreach and partnerships. Form solidarity networks for social inclusion. Institutions work together to provide skills, work values, and opportunities to marginalized groups, helping them escape poverty and regain dignity. Strengthen local governance through partnerships. Solidarity networks collaborate with LGUs to improve public services, ensure clean and efficient processes, and promote orderly, productive communities using modern practices and technology. Coordinate national action on natural resources. A national solidarity network aligns government, business, and civil society to maximize value from land, water, marine, forest, and mineral resources—targeting faster economic growth. Unlock the full value of human resources. Another national network coordinates education, labor, and skills development to treat human capital as a single strategic asset that drives long-term growth of the economy. Deepen financial inclusion and capital markets. Strengthen financial literacy and broaden access to credit, bonds, and equity—especially for MSMEs—so finance becomes a true engine of inclusive growth. Manila, January 2026

By: Dr. Erika Fille T. Legara, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in everyday business tools, boards of directors face a subtle but critical governance challenge. AI is no longer confined to bespoke systems or advanced analytics platforms. Today, even commonly used applications, such as productivity software, enterprise systems, and customer platforms, come with AI-enabled capabilities by default. This reality requires boards to recalibrate their perspective. AI should no longer be viewed solely as a standalone technology initiative, but as a capability layer  increasingly woven into core business processes and decision-making. Consequently, AI governance is no longer about overseeing a few “AI projects,” but about ensuring that AI-enabled decisions across the organization remain aligned with strategy, risk appetite, and ethical standards. Much like financial stewardship, effective AI oversight demands clarity, accountability, and proportionality. Boards must therefore shape their expectations of management accordingly. A well-governed organization treats AI as both a strategic enabler and a governance concern . Management’s role then is twofold; that is, to leverage AI in pursuit of enterprise objectives, while acting as stewards of the risks that accompany automation, data-driven decisions, and algorithmic scale. Regardless of formal structure or title, those accountable for AI must be both strategist and steward, translating AI capabilities into business value, and governance principles into operational discipline. Outlined below are key areas where boards should focus their oversight. 1. A Clear Definition of What Constitutes an AI System Boards should expect management to articulate what the organization considers an “AI system” for governance purposes. As AI capabilities are increasingly embedded in standard software, not all AI warrants the same level of oversight. A practical approach distinguishes between embedded or low-risk AI features  and material AI systems . Embedded or low-risk AI features are typically bundled into commonly used tools and support routine tasks. Examples include AI-assisted spelling or document summarization in productivity software, automated meeting transcription, email prioritization, or basic chatbots that route customer inquiries without making binding decisions. These features generally enhance efficiency and user experience and can often be governed through existing IT, procurement, and data policies. By contrast, material AI systems influence consequential decisions or outcomes. Examples include AI used in credit approval, pricing, fraud detection, hiring or performance evaluation, customer eligibility, underwriting, claims assessment, or predictive models that materially affect financial forecasts or risk exposure. These systems introduce financial, regulatory, ethical, or reputational risk and therefore require stronger controls, clearer accountability, and board-level visibility. This distinction enables boards to focus governance efforts where they matter most, without impeding operational efficiency or innovation. 2. AI Strategy as a Guide for Technology, Data, and Capability Investments Boards should expect AI initiatives, whether embedded or stand-alone, to be explicitly linked to enterprise strategy, not only in intent but also in investment implications. A clear AI strategy serves as a critical guide for technology and capital allocation decisions, ensuring that investments are coherent rather than opportunistic. Management should be able to explain how AI ambitions translate into concrete requirements for enterprise data platforms, system architecture, and enabling infrastructure. This includes clarity on data availability and quality, integration across core systems, architectural choices that allow AI systems to be scaled and governed, and decisions around cloud, on-premise, or hybrid environments. Equally important, boards should look for alignment between AI strategy and capability development. This includes investments in talent, operating models, governance processes, and decision workflows necessary to use AI responsibly and effectively. AI value is realized not through tools alone, but through organizations prepared to absorb, trust, and act on AI-enabled insights. Without a clear AI strategy, technology investments risk becoming fragmented, duplicative, or misaligned with business priorities. With it, boards gain confidence that data, platforms, and capabilities are being built deliberately to support both innovation and control. 3. Governance Structures, Accountability, and Decision Rights Boards should expect clarity on how AI-related decisions are governed, escalated, and owned. This includes clear accountability for AI strategy, deployment, and ongoing oversight, regardless of formal titles or organizational design. In practice, governance gaps often surface through unintended consequences. For example, an AI-enabled pricing or eligibility system may unintentionally disadvantage certain customer groups, triggering reputational or regulatory concerns without any explicit change in board-approved policy. Similarly, AI-supported hiring or performance evaluation tools may introduce bias into people decisions, despite being perceived as objective or neutral. These outcomes rarely stem from malicious intent. More often, they reflect unclear decision rights, insufficient oversight, or assumptions that embedded AI tools fall outside formal governance. Not all organizations require a dedicated AI governance council. For larger or more complex enterprises, a cross-functional council may help coordinate strategy, risk, ethics, and compliance. For smaller organizations, existing structures, such as audit, risk, or technology committees, may be sufficient. What matters is not the structure itself, but the clarity of decision rights, escalation paths, and accountability. Boards should be able to answer a simple question: When an AI-enabled decision produces unintended consequences, who is accountable. And how does the issue reach the board? 4. Risk Management, Assurance, and Board Oversight Boards should expect AI risks to be identified, assessed, and managed with the same rigor applied to other model-driven and judgment-intensive systems. This includes governance frameworks covering data quality, assumptions, human oversight, third-party dependencies, bias and fairness, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. A useful reference point for many boards is how Expected Credit Loss (ECL) models are governed. While ECL models are not AI systems, boards are familiar with the discipline applied to their oversight: clear ownership, documented assumptions, model validation, stress testing, management overlays, and regular challenge by audit and risk committees. Similarly, material AI systems should be subject to defined approval processes, ongoing monitoring, and independent review. Boards should expect visibility into how AI models are performing, what assumptions they rely on, how exceptions are handled, and how outcomes are tested against real-world results. Internal audit, risk management, and compliance functions should be equipped to review AI controls and escalate concerns appropriately. As with ECL, complexity should not reduce scrutiny; rather, it should increase the level of governance and assurance applied. As AI becomes a pervasive feature of modern organizations, governance maturity, not technological sophistication, will distinguish responsible adopters from risky ones. Management may deploy AI capabilities and committees may oversee specific risks, but ultimate accountability remains with the board of directors. In an environment where AI is increasingly everywhere, informed and proportionate oversight is no longer optional. It is a core duty of good governance.

Dr. Jesus P. Estanislao, FICD Chairman Center for Excellence in Governance Our country is going through a serious crisis. The corruption scandals that have come to light did not happen overnight. They revealed deep and long-standing problems—not only in government systems, but also in how we, as a people, have allowed those systems to weaken. Many Filipinos are rightly angry. We hear loud calls to “jail the corrupt,” and these calls must continue. The outrage must be strong enough to be impossible to ignore. Justice must be served. But shouting slogans is not enough. Many groups are now proposing concrete actions: an anti-dynasty law, reforms to the 1987 Constitution, and renewed voter education so Filipinos can make better choices in future elections. These efforts are welcome. If pursued seriously and consistently, they can improve our political system. Still, we must admit a hard truth: jailing the corrupt is only the first step . It does not automatically fix a broken system. If we do not change the system itself, corruption will simply return—just as it has in the past. This means we need a systemic reset . We need to address corruption at its roots, not just its symptoms. And the most effective antidote to corruption is good governance . Corruption and governance are two sides of the same coin: when governance is weak, corruption thrives; when governance is strong, corruption has no place to hide.   Ideally, this kind of reform should be led from the top. But today, many of those in positions of power are themselves implicated in the problem. This makes it difficult to expect strong moral leadership from government alone.   When government fails to lead, citizens must step up .   This is why the idea of a national multi-sector governance council  matters. Such a council—made up of respected, non-partisan citizens from different sectors—can help guide a long-term national transformation. It can coordinate efforts across government, business, civil society, and communities. This is not about politics. It is about responsible citizenship.   Where do we begin?   We begin by calling on ordinary Filipinos who feel lost, betrayed, and discouraged. The call is simple but demanding: be part of the solution . Live by the core values our laws already recognize— maka-Diyos, maka-Tao, maka-Kalikasan, at maka-Bansa .   These values must stop being mere words recited in ceremonies. They must shape how we live, work, and relate to others every day—at home, in offices, in schools, and in our communities. Our values and our daily actions must become one .   Institutions do have a crucial role to play in promoting the observance of core values, Companies, government agencies, cooperatives, schools, and civil society organizations must pursue their own transformation programs, grounded in values . As they form employees and leaders, they must connect institutional values with national values. This is what the crisis demands of every institution today.   In cascading values, institutions then work on their internal operating system, so they meet performance targets that are set to transform them over a few years. This is how institutions become stronger: solid, financially viable, and sustainable over many years.   Strong institutions then reach outward—to families, schools, and community centers—helping form responsible citizens over a lifetime. In doing so, institutions themselves become governance assets  for their communities, industries, and the nation.   And when institutions work together in solidarity, real change happens: Communities become cleaner, safer, and more resilient. Industries become more efficient, transparent, and productive. The nation becomes better equipped to fight poverty, corruption, and civic apathy.   To succeed, we must focus on three national priorities:   1.    Social equity  – giving the poor real opportunities to rise permanently out of poverty. 2.    Productivity  – fixing broken processes, using technology wisely, and removing corruption-prone bottlenecks. 3.    Growth  – unlocking the full value of our natural, human, and financial resources.   This crisis should not paralyze us. It should push us to act. Even without ideal national leadership, we can move forward—through values-driven institutions, citizen solidarity, and coordinated governance.   If we do this together, we can turn today’s crisis into an opportunity for laying the foundation for our Dream Philippines , as we journey toward 2046 , the centennial of our independence as a Republic.   Manila, January 2026

By: Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., FICD Life Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors In the 1960s and 1970s, as Asia pursued industrialization, the Philippines supplied skilled professionals to the region. Filipino engineers contributed to South Korea’s infrastructure projects, while accountants, supervisors, and managers filled essential roles in firms across Southeast Asia. Our export of competence supported regional economic expansion. This history underscores a stark contrast with today’s challenges. Successful manufacturing economies adhered to a fundamental principle: skills development precedes industrial growth. Proficiency in mathematics, science, and technical problem-solving laid the groundwork for factories, exports, and value chains. Where such foundations were absent, industrial progress stalled. The Philippines now faces this reality as competitors advance and international assessments highlight persistent deficiencies. The data are unequivocal. In the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa), 15-year-old Filipino students scored 355 in mathematics—117 points below the OECD average of 472—and 373 in science, against 485. Only 16 percent achieved basic mathematics ability, placing the country near the bottom among 81 participants. Department of Education (DepEd) figures from 2023 indicate that just 28 percent of senior high school students demonstrate mathematics mastery, with fewer than 25 percent enrolling in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) strands. These shortcomings constrain economic potential. Despite Philippine Economic Zone Authority approvals of P260.89 billion in 2025, investments targeting semiconductors, electronics, electric vehicles, and advanced materials, high-value manufacturing advances slowly. The lack of qualified personnel impedes the transition from assembly to innovation-driven production. International examples illustrate the pattern. Vietnam improved its Pisa mathematics performance and now anticipates electronics exports exceeding $140 billion in 2025, contributing to total exports over $370 billion. Germany maintains manufacturing leadership through rigorous mathematics education and apprenticeship systems. Japan integrated scientific principles and quality control into workforce training. South Korea aligned higher education in science and technology with industrial needs, while China set up technical institutes and shared research facilities prior to value chain advancement. In each instance, STEM capabilities preceded industrial success. Current geopolitical shifts and technological demands—electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and clean energy—accelerate supply chain reconfiguration. Vietnam, India, and Indonesia capture greater manufacturing shares, while the Philippines risks further marginalization. National policies, including the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act and the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, demonstrate commitment, yet execution requires skilled human capital. The World Bank emphasizes that without substantial STEM improvements by 2030, the country faces entrapment in low-wage services. DepEd holds primary responsibility, now bolstered by the 2026 national budget of P1.015 trillion—finally meeting the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s 6 percent of gross domestic product benchmark. This allocation reflects a substantial increase from 2025 levels and should prioritize STEM transformation through enhanced teacher training, computerization for digital learning, and new classroom construction tailored for science and math labs. The Commission on Higher Education should mandate industry immersions for engineering and technology programs. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority must expand equipment-intensive training in partnership with manufacturers, targeting 1 million certified technicians by 2028. State universities and research institutions should establish shared facilities for testing, calibration, and prototyping to support small and medium enterprises. Policy measures—scholarships, enrollment incentives, and rigorous qualification standards—can double STEM participation to 50 percent by 2030. The Philippines once provided competent workers for Asia’s industries. That legacy demands urgent action today. Without immediate, resolute investment in STEM skills, no sustainable industry can take root—and every delay will irreversibly jeopardize the nation’s economic future, ceding ground forever to competitors who acted decisively. Pete Maniego is an engineer, lawyer, and economist. He was a former professor at the University of the Philippines college of engineering and the Ateneo School of Government, past chair of the National Renewable Energy Board, the Institute of Corporate Directors, the UP Engineering Research & Development Foundation, and the Energy Lawyers Association of the Philippines. Disclaimer: On January 16, 2026, “No skills, no industry” was published. It was authored by Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

Dear ICD Members,   Greetings!   The ICD Board of Trustees, in its special meeting on 30 January 2026, has unanimously approved the appointment of Dr. Ramon Segismundo  to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former Trustee Jose Antonio T. Mapa, Jr. Dr. Segismundo will serve the remaining term until 2027. Attached is the formal letter of appointment for your reference.   We extend our sincere gratitude to Mr. Mapa for his dedicated service and invaluable contributions to the Institute during his tenure. His efforts have been instrumental in advancing the organization’s mission, and we deeply appreciate his commitment to strengthening corporate governance.   Please join us in welcoming Dr. Segismundo and expressing confidence in his stewardship to ICD’s vision and initiatives. As a distinguished leader with extensive experience in human resources, corporate strategy, governance, and organizational transformation, we are certain that his insights and leadership will help drive the organization forward.   We kindly ask for your support for Dr. Segismundo as he continues to serve in this role. We look forward to his expertise in fostering excellence in corporate governance and promoting sustainable practices.   Sincerely, The ICD Team

By: Ms. Ma. Aurora “Boots” D. Geotina-Garcia, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors Women entrepreneurs have been flourishing in the Philippines. They continue to be innovative, resourceful, and able to break barriers. However, numerous challenges still stand in the way: digitalization, access to funds and markets, and multiple other hindrances. Data from the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) in 2025 shows that 66% of MSMEs and 62% of newly registered Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) businesses are owned by women. While the contributions of Filipina entrepreneurs have been recognized, women’s participation in the Philippine economy should be examined more broadly as not all women are entrepreneurs. Women in the informal sector It is estimated that 70% of Filipinos work in the informal sector with a disproportionate amount being women. The informal sector is wide, ranging from small home businesses, contractual jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors, and other under-developed sectors of the economy. Women make up a significant portion of this informal workforce, often working in unstable and low-paying jobs without any legal protections or social security as their work does not give them access to fair wages, benefits, or job security. Despite their hard work and contributions to the economy, they do not receive even a minimum amount of care or social and legal protection. Lack of data and the lack of attention given by lawmakers deny women their basic rights as workers. Nonetheless, they continue to work and contribute to the economy; without benefiting from the fruits of their labor. Women professionals  In 2024, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reported that one million women entered the workforce, driven by the growth of the digital economy and emerging sectors. Women reach higher levels of education, such that the share of male and female employment in high-skilled jobs is almost equal. The services sector, made up of education, human health and social work, are dominated by women. Women are nurses, doctors, lawyers, and teachers, among many other professions.   Apart from women’s participation in the domestic workforce, women Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) also contribute significantly. 2023 PSA statistics show that of the 2.16 million OFWs, 1.20 million were women. Women make up a large number of the OFW populations, still dominating in the services sector. This number equates to larger remittances to the Philippines, supporting their families and boosting the economy. Women in the C-Suite Workplace gender equality is necessary as the inclusion of women in decision-making positions demonstrates good governance and innovation. Gender equality and diversity in the workplace poses numerous benefits for individual companies, society, and the economy. Two organizations I lead, the Philippine Women’s Economic Network (PhilWEN) and the Philippine Business Coalition for Women Empowerment (PBCWE), published the Census on Women in Executive Leadership Teams (ELTs) in Philippine Publicly Listed Companies (PLCs), which looked at women’s corporate leadership. The census showed that women’s participation and representation is improving; 2022 statistics reveal that 13% of CEOs in Philippine PLCs were women; women hold 22% of board seats; women make up 40% of the ELTs in Philippine PLCs in 2022. These data prove that the visibility and decision-making power of women in the corporate sector is steadily on the rise. While not as quantifiable, women having such influence in corporations in the Philippines attests to their roles in and contributions to the Philippine economy. Barriers to Participation Numerous barriers for working women remain: discrimination, lack of access to skills training, existing wage gaps, care responsibilities, and societal beliefs and attitudes towards working women. Women want to work and continue to fight for the ability to work and be properly compensated for it. The sustained barriers for women in the work force are often overlooked, thus preventing their greater economic participation and their potential contribution. One key burden is unpaid care work which women have to perform in addition to the work they do to gain income. A 2025 study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) concluded that unpaid housework negatively impacts the economy, owing to women being prevented from economic participation because of care work. Women typically tend to outperform men in housework and often cite that as the reason they cannot seek employment. When they do get employed, they receive lower pay due to their marital status, in comparison to their married male counterparts. Patriarchal and social constructs contribute to women being forced to do unpaid care work, making unpaid care work a norm. Uplifting Women, Uplifting the Nation Women want to work and continue to fight for the ability to work and be properly compensated. Women should not be boxed into certain roles. Economic participation beyond entrepreneurship, and the recognition of women’s roles and challenges is a step forward in empowering women. The challenges for women’s participation in the economy seem insurmountable, but the simple acknowledgement that these issues exist can light the spark to create change. The entirety of women’s economic empowerment should be a priority. We can focus on policies and programs that boost economic participation, such as improving the rights of workers in the informal sector through the passage of the Magna Carta for Workers in the Informal Economy, providing alternatives for care work, and addressing gendered social norms that affect women’s participation in the economy. We must ensure that women across all sectors are given the support they need. Women already make significant contributions, which can be improved to not only boost the economy but also to support and protect women. Support for women means that their children, families, and communities are equally supported. It is imperative that women who represent almost 50% of our population are prioritized—after all, nations that uplift their women uplift the whole nation. (The author is a member of the MAP Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee and MAP Education Committee She is Founding Chair and President of PhilWEN and Chair of the Governing Council of PBCWE. She is the first female Chair of the Bases Conversion & Development Authority (BCDA).  She is President of Mageo Consulting Inc., a company providing corporate finance advisory services. Feedback at < map@map.org.ph > and < magg@mageo.net >.) Disclaimer: On December 16, 2025, “Women are not just Entrepreneurs” was published. It was authored by Ms. Ma. Aurora “Boots” D. Geotina-Garcia, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

By: Mr. Senen L. Matoto, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors Ever since the flood control project scam and the accompanying unconscionable display of extravagance of illegally acquired wealth by the culprits — the so-called public servants elected to serve the people — and their evil accomplices exploded in the consciousness of the Filipino people, the mood of the country has turned understandably foul. The people are thirsting for blood and rightful revenge while businesses have considerably slowed as all are watching and holding their collective breath for what other bad news still awaits us. And along with this dismal mindset, the financial markets have similarly plunged into an endless abyss of pessimism and investor scorn as erstwhile bright GDP growth estimates clouded by the continuing geopolitical and economic turmoil overseas have dimmed as well. The latest World Bank estimate of our 2025 GDP growth rate is now down to 5.1 percent from its previous rosier forecast of 5.3 percent, which was already lower compared to 2024’s growth of 5.7 percent and considerably much lower than the Philippine government’s target of 5.5 to 6.5 percent. The country’s ultimate guardian of financial stability, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, projects a much lower growth rate of 3.8 percent for the fourth quarter due to the market’s concerns of even a much wider web of corruption in the various agencies of the government. The Philippine Stock Exchange Index, the bellwether of the capital market’s sentiments, continues to linger a shade below 6,000 compared to previous highs in 2024 of about 7,200 to 7,500. So what can be done to reverse this dismal trend? An advocacy group — composed of the Institute of Corporate Directors, Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, Capital Markets Development Foundation, and the Center for Research and Communication initiated by Dr. Jesus Estanislao to promote the capital market in light of the OECD’s Philippine Capital Market review recommendations — has embarked on a journey, with the cooperation of key capital market stakeholders, to create a roadmap that hopefully could finally reverse this seemingly intractable trend of great starts followed inevitably by speed bumps, causing an endless cycle of pullbacks to progress, and consequently finding ourselves at the tailend compared to our regional neighbors in terms of investor sentiments. After a series of consultations with the players in the capital market, the group’s next steps are further consultative meetings but this time with the regulators and possibly legislators to present the findings and recommendations classified as to the urgency of the reforms needed. Sharing below the gist of the most urgent concerns to tackle based on the consultative meetings. To increase the supply of capital market issues which are critical to ensure a wider selection of choices of companies and industry sectors in order to attract institutional and retail investors. A limited number of issuers typically go hand in hand with a lower market volume turnover resulting in a relatively shallow secondary market turning off foreign investors, in particular, whose trades are relatively large amounts. Currently, the PSE lags way behind our regional neighbors in the number of listed companies. Only a handful of blue chip issues which are primarily part of conglomerates dominate the local market in terms of market valuation and turnover. We have 283 compared to Hong Kong’s 2,414, Singapore’s 425, Indonesia’s 825, Malaysia’s 963, and the 402 of Vietnam, the rising star and apparent favorite of foreign investors of late. And for foreign investors who are equally concerned with an orderly exit strategy if needed, a market with a low turnover could easily distort the true intrinsic value of their investments. The protracted regulatory underwriting process and higher cost to list and trade compared to the relative ease, speed, and lower cost of bank financing, particularly for blue chips, and ripe for listing matured second liners. The whole cycle from origination to eventual public offering can easily take a minimum of nine months to one and a half years and can increase the cost of funding by as much as 500 basis points. In sum, the concerns center primarily on regulations, processes, liquidity, and taxes which upon completion of the meetings with the regulators and hopefully with some agreed resolutions and timelines, as envisioned, will be shared finally in a general assembly of key market participants. An underlying concern above all that is unfortunately beyond the control of the regulators and market players, no matter what the resolutions are, is the macro, overarching view of the troubling political situation in the Philippines and how it can be resolved. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. Merry Christmas to all! Until next week… OBF! Disclaimer: On December 23, 2025, “Revving up our capital markets” was published. It was authored by Mr. Senen L. Matoto, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

By: Dr. Carlos P. Gatmaitan, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors The Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) frequently features “Finance for Directors,” facilitated by fantastic fellows in finance, Freddie Atienza and Freddie Reyes (sorry, word play intended) — both seasoned experts from the institute covering decades of practical experience in world-renowned corporations. This may have been my third time to participate, and it seems to get better over time as the duo applies a Harvard-style Socratic approach among participants who in turn gave fresh insights to what may be deemed as standard topic. Quite necessary to be updated these days. Boards must shape up their oversight of their chief financial officer (CFO). So, what key points should a CFO present in the eyes of a board director? A high-performing CFO, being the board’s compass in navigating the company’s financial health, risk posture and long-term value creation. In good governance, the board’s expectations from the CFO are not limited to accuracy of numbers — they extend to foresight, accountability, and transparency. THE CFO IS BOTH A STRATEGIST AND A STEWARD, responsible for transforming financial data into insight and guiding the board toward sound, risk-aware decisions that safeguard shareholders’ interests. With reference to the presentations of Mr. Atienza and Mr. Reyes of the ICD, here are a few key points: 1. Strategic and Analytical Reporting The board expects the CFO to present reports that go beyond compliance. A board-level CFO report should frame financial performance in the context of strategy — covering key initiatives, capital investments, and corporate valuation. The CFO must interpret the results of strategic projects by linking them to profitability, risk-adjusted returns, and sustainable value creation. The audit and risk committees, in particular, rely on the CFO’s independent and data-driven analyses to validate the integrity of financial statements, ensure adequate internal controls, and assess capital efficiency. 2. Budget Forecasting, Monitoring and Recommendations A well-governed organization demands disciplined forecasting. The CFO must oversee a rolling budget system that integrates departmental inputs and reflects current market and operational realities. Forecast variances — both favorable and adverse — should be explained with actionable recommendations. A good CFO anticipates issues and acts on them, rather than react. 3. Frequency and Content of Board and Committee Reports Effective financial governance depends on consistent, timely communication. The CFO should deliver comprehensive reports to the audit and risk committees at least two weeks before the board meeting. Committee reports should include summary dashboards of financial performance, major variances, liquidity positions, and significant accounting judgments. 4. Key Ratios, Findings and Policies Key ratios should be assessed. Some include: 1. Efficiency ratios such as return on equity (ROE), a primary measure of shareholder value 2. Liquidity ratios to determine short-term ability to cover expenses. 3. Leverage ratios to determine debt levels. 4. Profitability ratios to reflect operational efficiency 5. Activity ratios to assess effective inventory management The CFO should present these and when necessary, recommend board-approved financial policies — covering capital structure parameters, liquidity thresholds, and investment return criteria. 5. Interpretation of Financial Statements and Key Notes The CFO’s interpretation of the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement must clarify not just what happened but why it happened. The board must be guided through how operational trends affect margins, how depreciation policies impact asset values, and how cash flow patterns reveal liquidity stress or investment opportunities. Explanatory notes — on contingent liabilities, asset impairments, and related-party transactions — should always be discussed in the context of governance transparency and ethical compliance 6. Internal and External Audit Responsibilities Good governance depends on a robust relationship between the CFO, internal audit and the audit committee. The CFO must respect the independence of internal audit while ensuring full cooperation and timely remediation of findings. Accountability includes monitoring the implementation of internal audit recommendations and reporting progress to the committee. A CFO is the guardian of financial integrity and the architect of sustainable shareholder value. ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THROUGH THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS AND ACCOUNTABLE IF NOT ACHIEVED. Disclaimer: On November 2, 2025, “A board’s expectations from a CFO: Best practices in good governance” was published. It was authored by Dr. Carlos P. Gatmaitan, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors and senior partner of CGA. You can read the original article through this link: