Search Results

Corporate governance and technology in the Philippines are no longer separate conversations. AI adoption has made them a shared responsibility at the board level. Consider this common scenario among organizations: a risk committee reviews a report showing a payroll compliance penalty following a BIR audit. The issue is not fraud, but fragmented data: attendance tracked in one system, overtime managed in spreadsheets, and payroll processed on a platform that is not updated with current tax rules. Six months earlier, the board approved an AI-driven analytics strategy. But the output of that strategy is only as reliable as the data behind it. For boards setting AI readiness standards, they must assess whether their HR and payroll systems can support accurate reporting, statutory compliance, and reliable workforce data.  The Governance Gap AI Is Exposing in Philippine Companies AI and automation in HR are advancing faster than the governance systems designed to manage them. According to the KPMG Global Tech Report 2026 , while nearly 68 percent of organizations expect to scale AI across their enterprises by the end of 2026, few say they are confident their governance frameworks are ready to manage the related ethical, legal, and operational risks involved. AI adoption is growing in the Philippines , but maturity levels remain uneven, largely due to gaps in data integration and system readiness rather than lack of interest. This creates two key governance pressure points for Philippine organizations. 1. Labor and tax compliance as a board-level risk Regulatory requirements from agencies such as the BIR, SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG, and DOLE continue to evolve. When compliance data is still across multiple systems or manual processes, it’s difficult to maintain a complete and reliable audit trail, something that is increasingly important for regulators and for AI-enabled compliance tools.  When AI is applied to incomplete or inconsistent data, it often increases it, because it amplifies errors, gaps, and biases already present in the data. 2. Workforce data as a strategic asset Boards are now expected to oversee workforce metrics such as attrition, compensation, headcount costs, and productivity with the same rigor as financial data. However, without integrated and real-time HR systems, these reports are often based on delayed or fragmented information. This weakens the quality of board-level decision-making on talent and risk. In the Philippines, this is further reinforced by the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10173) , which makes organizations, and by extension their boards, accountable for how employee data is collected, stored, and processed, including when AI tools are used. These factors highlight that AI readiness is not only about adopting new technology, but ensuring the underlying HR, payroll, and workforce data infrastructure is accurate, integrated, and compliant. Why the Audit Trail Problem Is Harder Than It Looks Imagine a Philippine company using an AI-driven HR analytics system that flags a possible retention risk: engagement scores are dropping in one of its top-performing teams. The board’s people committee asks for a deeper review. But when HR starts pulling the data behind the alert (attendance, payroll changes, performance ratings) they find something familiar: the information is stored in separate systems that were never designed to work together. Each system shows only part of the picture, so there is no single, complete audit trail from end to end. AI and automation expose these gaps. And because they surface issues faster and at a larger scale, the weakness becomes more visible and harder to ignore. At that point, the issue is no longer just technical. It becomes a governance concern. The question for the board, through its audit and risk function, is whether management has put in place a system that can reliably explain and trace workforce decisions from end to end. What AI-Ready Governance Looks Like at the Board Level A well-governed Philippine company that is ready to use AI responsibly in HR and workforce management needs three core foundations in place. 1. Integrated HR and Payroll Systems with Built-In Compliance Organizations need a unified HRIS and payroll system that can consistently handle Philippine statutory requirements such as BIR tax withholding, SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG, and DOLE labor rules. Again, too often, compliance risk often comes from fragmented setups. This becomes a governance issue during audits or disputes, where companies are expected to produce complete, traceable employment and payroll records. Systems designed for the Philippine market typically emphasize end-to-end payroll computation and audit-ready outputs for this reason. 2. Real-Time Workforce Data for Board Oversight Boards need consolidated, real-time workforce data instead of periodic, manually assembled reports. Headcount, compensation, attrition, and productivity are increasingly treated as governance-level metrics alongside financial performance. When data is exported from multiple systems and stitched together in spreadsheets, reporting becomes delayed and harder to validate. A single system of record improves consistency and supports faster, more defensible board-level decisions on workforce risk and cost. 3. Locally Maintained Regulatory Updates Compliance systems must keep up with all the Philippine regulatory changes. Updates from agencies like the BIR and DOLE are not aligned to global software release cycles, and contribution rates or reporting requirements can change within a fiscal year. This is why locally built or locally maintained HR and payroll systems are commonly positioned around continuous compliance updates rather than periodic global releases. The board does not need to become a technology committee. But it does need to ask whether management has built the operational infrastructure that can withstand an audit, a regulatory inspection, or a board-level workforce risk inquiry in the AI era.  In an AI-enabled environment, fragmented or inconsistent HR data does not just reduce reporting quality; it increases governance risk, because AI outputs are only as reliable as the underlying records. Ultimately, companies that invest in an integrated, Philippine-ready HR and payroll system that unifies compliance, payroll, and workforce analytics are better positioned for AI adoption. The priority is not AI itself, but ensuring the data, audit trails, and compliance structure are complete and reliable enough for AI-driven decision-making. SaaSCon 2026: Where Philippine Business Leaders Are Benchmarking AI Readiness SaaSCon Ph 2026  brings together corporate governance and technology in the Philippines. Scheduled for May 12, 2026, the event is not a product showcase, it is a structured peer benchmarking forum where Philippine business leaders, founders of AI-native platforms, technology executives, and institutional investors compare what world-class AI-ready operations actually look like in a Philippine context. For a director or governance officer asking what AI-ready HR and workforce infrastructure should look like at their organization, SaaSCon provides the peer benchmark, not from a vendor, but from fellow enterprise operators who have already built it.  Its Enterprise Exchange track specifically explores how large Philippine organizations are redesigning operations, talent strategy, and technology architecture with AI at the core. Philippine boards cannot benchmark AI readiness against global standards alone. The compliance environment, the labor code, the data sovereignty requirements under Republic Act 10173, and the pace of regulatory change make the Philippine context specific enough that a global framework is insufficient as a governance standard.  The executives who genuinely future-proof their Philippine operations attend forums where the local benchmark is set, not only where global trends are announced. SaaSCon 2026 is that forum. The Board's Role in Getting This Right AI is already in the Philippine boardroom  through the reports boards review: HR data, workforce risk reports, and compliance dashboards. The issue is not whether to engage with AI-driven operations, but whether boards are asking the right questions about the systems behind the data. Directors need to understand what a compliant and reliable HR and workforce infrastructure looks like in a Philippine organization. They also need to check whether their organization is already operating at that level by benchmarking against peers. Governance frameworks set by the board should match the actual capability of the systems management is using. SaaSCon 2026 is one place to benchmark these practices, but the responsibility for governance starts and remains in the boardroom.

The Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) held the induction of its newly elected Trustees, Officers, Board and Program Committee Chairs, as well as new members, on January 22, 2026, at the Dusit Thani, Makati. This event formally inaugurates ICD’s newly elected leaders and welcomes new members while recognizing the contributions of outgoing officers. It highlighted ICD’s leadership transition and commitment to good corporate governance. Executive Director Catherine Jalandoni, GICD, who hosted the event, extended a warm welcome to all participants. President Tomasa H. Lipana, FICD, warmly welcomed new Trustees, Officers, Committee Chairs, and members, while recognizing the dedication of outgoing leaders. She highlighted ICD’s vital role in advancing good governance, fostering partnerships, and ensuring that institutions uphold integrity, accountability, and sustainable value for the nation. Chairperson Atty. Benedicta Du-Baladad, FICD, recognized outgoing Trustees Ms. Imelda C. Tiongson, FICD, and DICT Secretary Henry Aguda, FICD, for their dedicated service and significant contributions to ICD’s programs and governance initiatives. Inducted into the 2026 Board of Trustees and Officers of ICD are as follows: Chairman Atty. Benedicta Du-Baladad, FICD Vice Chairman Senen L. Matoto, FICD President Tomasa H. Lipana, FICD Treasurer Catherine L. Hufana-Ang, FICD Amb. Jose L. Cuisia Jr., FICD Ramoncito S. Fernandez, FICD Maria Montserrat Iturralde-Hamlin, FICD Dr. Donald Patrick L. Lim, FICD Jose Antonio T. Mapa, Jr., FICD Jonathan Juan DC. Moreno, FICD Maria Celeste S. Narciso, FICD Atty. Jose Tomas C. Syquia, FICD Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Francis Lim, FICD, delivered the induction speech for ICD’s new officers, emphasizing the continued importance of the Institute’s mission in strengthening corporate governance in the Philippines. He highlighted the legacy of Dr. Jesus Estanislao, ICD’s Founder and Chairman Emeritus, and noted that strong governance protects not only companies but also the economy, markets, and public trust. Chair Lim acknowledged improvements in the Philippines’ ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard while stressing that more work is needed to close the governance gap and ensure growth. He called on the new ICD leadership to embrace their responsibilities by moving from compliance to conviction, making tone from the top visible through board independence, and building boards that drive growth, emphasizing that strong, accountable, and independent boards attract investment and create long-term value. Dr. Estanislao reflected on the deeper purpose of corporate governance and reminded the new trustees and officers that boards shape more than just companies; they have a direct impact on the economy and society. He explained that good governance is the clearest defense against corruption, yet it requires more than merely following rules, as values must guide every decision, policy, and action. He encouraged leaders to align their companies’ values with the country’s core principles of being  maka-Diyos, maka-tao, makalikasan, and makabansa , and to translate these principles into practical actions that enhance performance and accountability. Governance, he emphasized, extends beyond institutions. By embedding these values across organizations, influencing employees, families, and communities, leaders can drive transformative outcomes, foster social responsibility, and contribute to national development. Secretary of Finance Frederick Go, in his keynote address, highlighted the government’s strong commitment to fiscal discipline, smart spending, and creating a more predictable and investor friendly business environment. He underscored that while public policy sets the foundation, sustainable economic growth ultimately depends on a capable private sector led by principled and competent boards that foster trust, manage risk, and build long term value. Secretary Go also shared key economic indicators demonstrating the resilience of the Philippine economy, citing steady GDP growth, controlled inflation, and sustained investment grade credit ratings. He outlined major reforms and initiatives to support business growth, including liberalized investment policies, expanded public private partnerships, the digitalization of tax and customs processes, and the rollout of landmark infrastructure projects. He concluded by calling on ICD leaders to serve as stewards of trust and active partners in strengthening governance, boosting investor confidence, and advancing national development. Closing the program, newly elected Trustee Maria Montserrat Iturralde-Hamlin thanked the speakers and attendees and emphasized the responsibility of ICD’s new leaders to lead with conviction, uphold accountability, and strengthen corporate governance in the Philippines. Overall, the 2026 Induction of Officers highlighted ICD’s commitment to fostering principled leaders and members who uphold strong corporate governance. The event emphasized the shared responsibility to lead with conviction, promote accountability, and help build institutions that create long-term value for both organizations and the nation.

Dr. Ramon B. Segismundo, FICD Board Trustee and Vice Chair, Thought Leadership Committee Institute of Corporate Directors Geopolitical Shocks and the New Risk Reality Before the US-Israel-Iran conflict erupted at the end of February 2026, few would have imagined that a narrow shipping corridor of only 21 kilometers wide at its narrowest point could trigger a national energy emergency in the Philippines, located 7,500 kilometers away. It is equally striking that even recent threats by the Houthis in Yemen to attack the Bab el- Mandeb Strait, the gateway to the Suez Canal, have been enough to disrupt and potentially intensify one of the most severe global economic shocks in modern history. These developments underscore a growing reality: governance is now under fire. This is not only in the Philippines, but across ASEAN, Asia, and the wider global system. This raises a critical question: How should Philippine corporations prepare for geopolitical shocks and manage the resulting poly-crisis: spanning energy security, cost of living pressures, food supply constraints, depressed demand, and rising inflation? Governance Under Fire Less than four weeks after the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes against Iran, the Institute of Corporate Directors convened a forum titled “Governance Under Fire: Preparing Philippine Corporations for Geopolitical Shocks” on March 28, from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM, at Ascott BGC. The event gathered close to 100 corporate leaders. The main speaker was Richard Heydarian, a global political scientist, public intellectual, and journalist. He has written extensively for leading global publications including The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, and The Guardian, and has appeared on major international networks such as ABC Australia, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN International, and CNBC. He has been interviewed by global figures such as Christiane Amanpour and Fareed Zakaria, and has engaged with leaders including former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. He has also exchanged views with the late US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Despite his Persian-sounding name, he is a proud Ilocano from Baguio City. The panel was equally strong, featuring: Col. Ray Powell, Director of SeaLight at Stanford University’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation with deep expertise in Indo-Pacific security and intelligence. Atty. Pete Maniego, ICD’s resident energy security expert with extensive experience at the intersection of governance, energy, and law. Nitin Goil, Singapore-based leadership advisor specializing in organizational transformation during crises and inflection points. The New World Disorder Richard Heydarian’s presentation, “New World Disorder: A Roadmap for Geopolitical Survival,” outlined key structural shifts shaping global affairs. He highlighted three key trends: Weaponized Interdependence Global trade, finance, and technology inter-nation linkages are increasingly used as “chokepoints” for strategic leverage by countries. The Collapse of Superpower Myths Conflicts such as Russia-Ukraine and US-Israel-Iran demonstrate that no power is invincible. This shift is enabled by asymmetrical warfare, where weaker actors use unconventional and indirect strategies. “Temu Warfare” The rise of low-cost, high-impact autonomous systems and technologies is lowering the barriers to entry in modern conflict. From Unipolarity to Fragmentation Heydarian concluded that geopolitics is moving away from a single dominant world order toward a fragmented, multi-actor system characterized by: A Multiplex World. Multiple overlapping centers of power will emerge, resembling a “cinema multiplex” with several concurrent theaters of influence rather than a single dominant screen. Minilateralism Small, purpose-driven coalitions will increasingly replace large multilateral institutions. This creates new opportunities for regional groupings such as ASEAN. The Rise of Middle Powers Countries that are not superpowers but still possess meaningful economic, diplomatic, or military influence will act as bridges, brokers, or stabilizers. Recent examples include Pakistan’s role in facilitating discussions involving Iran and the United States. Future scenarios discussed included the Asian Century, declining US influence, and the emergence of a more explicitly multipolar world. Leveraging Geopolitical Intelligence Geopolitical intelligence can be leveraged both at the board and senior executive levels. In the forum as panel moderator, I shared three key emerging disciplines at the board level: Strategic Optionality In stable environments, efficiency dominates decision-making. In volatile conditions, optionality becomes more important. Boards and executives should maintain multiple viable pathways to preserve flexibility as conditions evolve. Board Agility Boards must move from periodic oversight to active strategic engagement. Agile boards adapt decisions and governance practices in real time through: Short, focused meetings Real-time dashboards Scenario planning Pre-defined trigger points Empowered management operating within clear guardrails Governance Excellence Under Pressure This integrates optionality and agility while maintaining ethical willpower and integrity. It emphasizes decisive yet responsible action. The key is protecting short-term stability while shaping long-term outcomes, without compromising ethics, transparency, or governance standards. Post event, I reflected that there are at least three ways senior executives can operationalize geopolitical intelligence at a personal level: Translate intelligence into high quality decisions Avoid information overload and learn how to filter out the noise. Focus only on signals relevant to decision-making variables. Predefine how specific signals trigger specific actions under different scenarios. Act earlier than others Early action preserves optionality. In uncertainty, it is often better to be roughly right early than precisely right too late. Stay adaptive Adapt tactics while remaining anchored to core purpose and values. Build feedback loops and structured response mechanisms that allow for rapid adjustment without losing strategic alignment. Crisis Management in a Volatile Environment Various scenarios for the Philippines over the next six to twelve months continue to be assessed as this article is written. Early indicators suggest rising risks of stagflation characterized by low demand and high inflation alongside pressures across supply chains, food security, transport, and cost of living. These are compounded by ongoing energy constraints and the lingering effects of the flood control scandal. In this environment, boards and senior executives are best guided by a simple principle: prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best. The practical response lies in a relevant, continuously updated, and dynamic crisis management framework anchored on geopolitical intelligence. At its core, crisis management involves: Understanding the nature and types of current and emerging crises Identifying early warning signals Applying structured crisis frameworks and decision tools Developing agile yet disciplined response plans Strengthening leadership, governance, and communications during periods of disruption Closing Reflection In an era defined by geopolitical volatility, success will depend on the ability to convert geopolitical intelligence into high-quality decisions, act earlier than competitors, and remain adaptive in execution. As a guiding principle, we return to a simple imperative: Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best.

Atty. Euney Marie Mata-Perez, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors IT is Women’s Month, and we call for more women to join the boards of directors of companies nationwide. Gender diversity is an economic and governance imperative, not a slogan or a compliance check box. It has been recognized that having a board diversity policy is a move to avoid groupthink and ensure that optimal decision-making is achieved. The Philippines has been recognized as a global leader in gender equality. It is back into the top 20, climbing five places to rank 20th out of 148 countries in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report released in June 2025. With an overall gender parity score of 78.1 percent, a 0.2-point improvement from 77.9 percent in 2024, the Philippines reasserts its leadership as Asia’s most gender-equal country, ranking third in the East Asia and the Pacific region, behind New Zealand and Australia. ( https://pcw.gov.ph/ph-reclaims-spot-in-global-top-20-remains-asias-leader-in-gender-equality/ ). However, there is still a need to increase women representation in Philippine corporate boards. It has been reported that only 10.33 percent of directors in publicly listed companies (PLC) are women from August 2025 to February 2026. This number was already a substantial improvement (more than double) from the 4.99 percent from August 2024 to August 2025. The NOWCD, or NextGen Organization of Women Corporate Directors, founded in 2021, aims to increase female representation in company boards. It seeks to leverage strategic partnerships to increase the number of women sitting in Philippine boardrooms to 30 percent by 2030.The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) supports board diversity. At NOWCD’s general membership meeting on Feb. 16, SEC Chairman Francis Lim spoke on and affirmed the agency’s commitment to gender diversity and its support to increase more women in boards. In this regard, Lim cited the following SEC issuances and initiatives:SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) 19, Series of 2016 (SEC MC 19 on the Code of Corporate Governance for PLCs), promotes gender diversity as part of stronger corporate governance and market sustainability of PLCs. Section 1.4 of SEC MC 19 recommends that PLC boards adopt a policy on diversity. This policy is not limited to gender diversity. It also includes diversity in age, ethnicity, culture, skills, competence and knowledge. A good example given is to increase the number of female directors, including female independent directors. – Pursuant to SEC MC 09, Series of 2019, which sets out the Guidelines on the Issuance of Social Bonds under the Asean Social Bonds Standards in the Philippines, bonds have been issued to support women. ASA Philippines’ (2023) first Gender Bond in 2023 raised funds for gender-focused microfinance for women-led enterprises, and City Savings Bank’s Social Bond (2024) sought expansion of credit access for women in low- and lower-middle-income segments for enterprise development and income augmentation. – The SEC has also given Gender and Development Awards recognizing and advancing gender-inclusive leadership since 2022, honoring organizations that strengthen women’s representation at the board level and individuals who champion sustainability with a clear social and inclusion dimension. The Malaysian example However, the country has yet to legislate or mandatorily require, or even strongly recommend, more women representation in boards. We hope to follow Malaysia where all Bursa Malaysia-listed companies are required to have at least one female director on their boards. Also, the updated Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance 2021 recommends that boards comprise at least 30 percent women directors. Various organizations in Malaysia have thus launched initiatives like the Board-Ready Women Program to provide training, networking and skill development for aspiring female board members, and the creation of a registry to connect qualified women with companies seeking board members. In any case, NOWCD, along with its partners, such as the Institute of Corporate Directors, are launching programs and forums that will help encourage women to become corporate directors, and to make them ready or prepared for the job. This is consistent with NOWCD’s mission to foster a powerful and trusted community of women corporate directors, with the goal of increasing representation of women in leadership positions of public and/or private company boards and inspire visionary boards nationwide. Disclaimer: On March 5, 2026, “More women must join company boards” was published. It was authored by Atty. Euney Marie Mata-Perez, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. You can read the original article through this link:

Ms. Chiqui Escareal-G, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors The boardroom case for International Women’s Day’s theme ‘Give to Gain’ If the name International Women’s Day (IWD) almost made you click away — good. You are exactly who needs to read this. Not because of optics. And not merely because the World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap Report 2025” puts the timeline to closing the gender gap at 123 years globally — longer still for South Asia — a figure that should unsettle any strategist in the room. But because the framework Josiah Go and I have been developing around the Trust Economy Flywheel reframes this conversation entirely. What presents itself as a gender issue is, at its core, a governance one. IWD 2026’s global theme, “Give to Gain,” says it plainly. Strip away the ceremony and what remains is a compounding strategic advantage that most organizations are forfeiting right now. TRUST ECONOMY FLYWHEEL AND COMPETENCIES The Trust Economy Flywheel is a framework for rebuilding moral leadership and brand integrity, rooted in the Filipino cultural interplay of loob (inner integrity) and labas (outward expression). It begins where most strategies refuse to start: inside. Loob rests on three disciplines: humility or stewardship — being self-aware that you hold trust on behalf of others, not for yourself; cultural literacy — understanding values like hiya, delicadeza, and utang na loob (shame, propriety, and debt of gratitude) — not as liabilities but as moral compasses; and empathy, not sympathy that observes, but presence that participates and listens without assumption. Transparency is the bridge — making intentions and reasoning visible as decisions are made, building trust into systems rather than personalities. It connects inner integrity to outer credibility. Labas is where trust becomes visible: through authenticity (coherence between message and messenger), consistency (reliability in the ordinary, not just in crisis), and accountability (the courage to repair rather than spin). Trust is proven in how we repair when we fall short. Here is the IWD connection that rarely gets said plainly: women have been practicing this flywheel for generations — in households, communities, and organizations — often without the title or budget to match. Stewardship. Cultural navigation. Empathetic leadership. Showing up when it is not rewarded. These are not soft skills. These are the precise competencies the Trust Economy demands. McKinsey’s “Diversity Matters Even More” (2023) found companies in the top quartile for board-gender diversity are 27% more likely to outperform financially, and that the business case has more than doubled over the past decade. The IFC found female-led SMEs in Southeast Asia are twice as likely to adopt digital tools when given access to capital and training (IFC, 2023). The flywheel spins faster with the people who already know how to build trust from the inside out. INOY CULTURE AS FLYWHEEL’S MORAL ENGINE The idea of Kapwa, formalized by psychologist Virgilio Enriquez in Sikolohiyang Pilipino (1994), describes the self as inherently shared with others. Your success and mine are the same variable. It gives the Trust Economy Flywheel its moral engine: when you lead from loob with genuine regard for the other, trust is not manufactured. It is recognized. The haligi ng tahanan (pillar of the home) was historically a woman not because men were absent, but because women were doing the invisible architecture of community trust. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam confirms this at scale: high social capital communities consistently outperform on economic and social metrics. Scale that to a company, or a country, and the math gets compelling fast. GOOD INTENTIONS ARE THE FLOOR, NOT CEILING Here is the uncomfortable truth decades of data have been quietly telling us: we have known about women’s contributions to performance, innovation, and trust-building for a very long time. The business case is not new. And yet the needle moves with frustrating slowness. Why? Because we have been relying too heavily on goodwill. In a MAP Insights piece I published in January, I argued that inclusion stalls not because leaders do not care, but because systems are not designed to consistently translate commitment into results. Good intentions, such as mentoring, sponsoring, and modeling inclusive behavior, matter. But they are fragile, fading under economic pressure or leadership transition. A culture built on goodwill is only ever one reorganization away from regression. Power in organizations shows up in allocation: who controls large budgets, who is placed in roles with significant operational exposure, who is trusted with turnaround assignments, and who is given room to recover when things go wrong. Representation at the top is not the same as access to where enterprise-defining decisions are made. That gap, i.e., between visible inclusion and structural power, is where the needle stops. Good intentions opened the conversation. Governance is what closes the gap. THE GIVE TO GAIN THESIS, PLAINLY The UN Women’s Gender Snapshot 2025 projects that investing in women could add $4 trillion to the global economy by 2030 — and $342 trillion cumulatively by 2050. The World Bank is equally stark: closing the gender gap in labor force participation alone could deliver a 20% increase in GDP per capita on average. These are not distant projections. They are the cost of what we are forfeiting right now. Kapwa, the Filipino understanding that your flourishing and mine are inseparable, is the moral foundation of the Trust Economy. The flywheel only reaches full velocity when those who have been practicing loob-driven leadership all along are given the platform, authority, and resources to lead at scale. That requires a deliberate choice: give access, give credit, and embed both in governance. When diversity is designed into how decisions are made and not just who sits at the table — the loob deepens, transparency becomes structural, and labas stops being performance and starts being proof. That is when the Trust Economy Flywheel stops being a framework on a slide and becomes the engine of your organization. When the flywheel turns that way, “Give to Gain” stops being a theme and becomes a strategy you can measure. Disclaimer: On March 10, 2026, “The Trust Economy Flywheel: A governance imperative” was published. It was authored by Ms. Chiqui Escareal-G, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. Read the original article through this link:

Dr. Carlos P. Gatmaitan, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors More than a venue where securities are traded, the PSE represents a national governance infrastructure in the capital market. It converts savings into productive enterprise, compels disclosure discipline, and determines whether domestic capital stays within the economy or migrates abroad. Economies with deep exchanges develop a middle class and diversified corporate sector. Economies without them remain bank-dependent and concentrated. Governance therefore exists not only at the level of listed companies but at the level of the exchange itself. The exchange governs trust — and trust governs liquidity. This article serves as a prelude to a forthcoming strategic discussion on strengthening the Philippine capital market over the next three years. The largest exchanges — the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, the London Stock Exchange, and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing — now operate as publicly listed corporations while simultaneously exercising quasi-regulatory authority. Their governance challenge is structural: they must expand revenues while regulating the very firms that generate those revenues. The scale explains the stakes. The United States equity market alone exceeds $40 trillion in market capitalization, with average daily turnover often above $450 billion. At this magnitude, governance risks shift from individual corporate failure to systemic financial stability. Market surveillance systems, consolidated audit trails, and clearinghouse risk management are therefore board-level concerns. Technology has intensified the challenge. High-frequency trading and algorithmic execution fragment liquidity and raise fairness concerns. Cybersecurity similarly becomes a financial-stability issue — a trading outage can disrupt payment systems, derivatives positions, and pension portfolios worldwide. The lesson from mature markets is clear: commercialization without governance destroys credibility, but governance without competitiveness drives listings elsewhere. Successful exchanges manage both simultaneously. ASEAN exchanges confront a different question: credibility before scale. Across the six major regional bourses — Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines — there are now more than 4,500 listed companies and a combined equity market capitalization of roughly $3-3.5 trillion. Approximate current profiles: Indonesia (IDX): ~900+ listed companies; market cap about $850-900 billion Singapore (SGX): ~600-650 listed companies; market cap about $750-800 billion Thailand (SET): ~800+ listed companies; market cap about $550-600 billion Malaysia (Bursa Malaysia): ~1,000+ listed companies; market cap about $450-500 billion Vietnam (HoSE & HNX): ~700+ listed companies; market cap about $250-300 billion Singapore demonstrates governance-led capital attraction through disclosure discipline and investor protection. Indonesia and Vietnam have expanded participation through retail access and digital onboarding. Malaysia and Thailand strengthened corporate governance codes and sustainability reporting. The regional lesson is consistent: liquidity is a governance outcome, not a technological one. The Philippine Stock Exchange The Philippine Stock Exchange presents a structural paradox. The country enjoys favorable demographics, sustained economic growth, and large entrepreneurial conglomerates. Yet capital market depth remains limited relative to its neighbors. The PSE’s total market capitalization is approximately $250-270 billion, with roughly 270 listed companies and average daily trading value typically near P5-7 billion (about $90-130 million) — significantly lower than regional peers. The issue simply resonates around market participation and confidence. Corporations still rely heavily on bank financing rather than equity markets. Listing is often perceived as regulatory exposure rather than strategic capital formation. Institutional investors, meanwhile, require liquidity before allocating capital. Without investors liquidity cannot expand; without liquidity investors do not enter. This circular constraint is fundamentally a governance problem. The exchange must therefore act both as regulator and market architect — ensuring predictable enforcement, credible disclosures, and accessible listing pathways. Top Governance Challenges of PSE Market liquidity constraints: daily trading only about P5-7B versus regional peers often exceeding $1-3 billion equivalent Limited listed companies: ~270 issuers compared with ~600-1,000 in major ASEAN exchanges Inconsistent disclosure quality and minority shareholder protection concerns Listing accessibility, cost efficiency, and regulatory complexity Limited institutional and foreign investor participation For the Philippines, strengthening the exchange is not merely financial reform — it is national economic development policy. Disclaimer: On February 23, 2026, “PSE and the governance of capital formation” was published. It was authored by Dr. Carlos P. Gatmaitan, a fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. Read the original article through this link:

Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., FICD Life Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors The Philippines aims to raise manufacturing’s share of gross domestic product (GDP) to 20 percent by 2030, as outlined in the National Economic and Development Authority’s Philippine Development Plan 2023–2028. Achieving this will require better infrastructure, reliable power supply, and consistent policies. Yet one often overlooked factor could prove decisive—the composition of the boardrooms of our leading banks. Manufacturing accounts for only 13.7 percent of Philippine GDP, according to World Bank data for 2024. This lags well behind Association of Southeast Asian Nations or Asean neighbors: Malaysia at 23.1 percent, Vietnam at 24.9 percent, Thailand at 25.2 percent, and Indonesia at 18.8 percent. Closing this gap will require more than mobilizing capital—it will require confidence in financing complex industrial projects beyond the familiar terrain of real estate lending or trade finance. That confidence often takes shape in the bank boardroom. Bank boards determine how capital flows across the economy: which sectors receive long-term financing, how much risk institutions accept, and how patiently they can wait for returns. These decisions are not purely financial. They are also industrial—and they benefit from the perspective of directors who have built and operated real enterprises. The Philippines aims to raise manufacturing’s share of gross domestic product (GDP) to 20 percent by 2030, as outlined in the National Economic and Development Authority’s Philippine Development Plan 2023–2028. Achieving this will require better infrastructure, reliable power supply, and consistent policies. Yet one often overlooked factor could prove decisive—the composition of the boardrooms of our leading banks. Manufacturing accounts for only 13.7 percent of Philippine GDP, according to World Bank data for 2024. This lags well behind Association of Southeast Asian Nations or Asean neighbors: Malaysia at 23.1 percent, Vietnam at 24.9 percent, Thailand at 25.2 percent, and Indonesia at 18.8 percent. Closing this gap will require more than mobilizing capital—it will require confidence in financing complex industrial projects beyond the familiar terrain of real estate lending or trade finance. That confidence often takes shape in the bank boardroom. Bank boards determine how capital flows across the economy: which sectors receive long-term financing, how much risk institutions accept, and how patiently they can wait for returns. These decisions are not purely financial. They are also industrial—and they benefit from the perspective of directors who have built and operated real enterprises. In my more than 50 years of dealing with banks on industrial projects in the Philippines and United States, I have seen how discussions change when such expertise is present. The questions become sharper and more informed—probing process yields, technological advantages, market positioning, and operational capability rather than focusing solely on collaterals and firm supply agreements. Manufacturing investments operate on a different horizon from property loans or trade financing. A new electronics line or steel mill may take five to 10 years to generate strong returns, with much of its value embedded in technology, efficiency, and market position—intangibles that rarely appear clearly in financial statements For banks, this is not simply a national development issue. Industrial background on boards can strengthen risk evaluation and portfolio quality. Directors who understand manufacturing operations, supply chains, and technology cycles are better able to distinguish viable projects from weak ones. In that sense, stronger industrial representation in bank governance is not about encouraging riskier lending—it is about enabling smarter lending. Industrial economies recognized this long ago. Japan’s Keiretsu banks integrate 25 percent directors with industrial pedigrees. South Korea’s Chaebol-affiliated banks maintain about 30 percent industrial representation. Germany’s two-tier system ensures approximately 35 percent engineering and technical share. Singapore and Taiwan maintain 22 to 28 percent technical and industrial allocation, supporting export-driven manufacturing growth. Citibank under former CEO John Reed recruited engineers, recognizing finance as fundamentally a systems discipline. Encouraging such experience need not rely on heavy mandates. The BSP already enforces fit-and-proper standards as well as mandates diversity and independent directors under Republic Act No. 8791 and its circulars. A similar policy nudge—encouraging 20 to 25 percent representation from technical and industrial experts—could ensure such perspectives are consistently present in bank governance. Infrastructure reforms and policy stability will create opportunities. But whether those opportunities translate into factories and productive industries will ultimately depend on the decisions made in bank boardrooms. Disclaimer: On March 20, 2026, “To build PH industry, strengthen bank boards” 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:

Ms. Maria Montserrat Iturralde-Hamlin, FICD Supervising Trustee and Chairperson  Board Diversity and Inclusion Committee The spirit of Women’s Month soared to new heights on March 26, 2026, as the Institute of Corporate Directors' Board Diversity Committee and the NextGen Organization of Women Corporate Directors (NOWCD) co-hosted a powerful event: “How Women Leaders Influence and Effect Change in Our Country.” Conceived just a month prior—a true passion project hatched by Atty. Euney Marie Mata Perez, FICD, Debbie Namalata, and I—the forum brought together five extraordinary women. These phenomenal leaders, hailing from the fields of military, energy, policy, governance, and aesthetics, shared their journeys of impact. Debbie beautifully set the stage by grounding our conversation with compelling statistics on the state of women’s participation in business, covering the triumphs, the challenges, and the potential yet to be unlocked. It was an honor for Euney and me to co-moderate the heart-to-heart discussion that followed, as each panelist shared her incredible life story. Five women. Five completely different stories. Yet, they are all connected by a single, powerful trait: the unyielding grit that allowed them to conquer every challenge. Julie Abad ’s excellence shines in both high-level government service and academic leadership. Despite her youth, the Executive Director of the FEU Public Policy Center and the Philippine Business Coalition for Women Empowerment is actively shaping public policy and championing good governance. She credits her success to the phenomenal role models in her life: her mother, former Presidential Management Staff Dina Razon-Abad, and her aunt, the renowned visual artist Pacita Abad. Coming from a political family, Commissioner Atty. Geraldine Marie “Gigi” Berberabe-Martinez  of the Governance Commission for GOCCs was already excelling in politics and had even earned a prestigious Galing Pook Award for Balayan. However, a mother’s love is a force that supersedes all else. She chose to become a full-time stay-at-home mom to dedicate herself to caring for her specially-abled child. Later, when the opportunity arose to serve the country as a GCG Commissioner, she embraced the chance to continue her parents’ legacy of public service. Dr. Vicki Belo, M.D. , a household name in medical aesthetics, bravely shared the root of her entrepreneurial drive. As a young child, bullying led her to feel unloved, unwanted, and fixated on feeling "fat, ugly, and adopted." This early trauma ignited her lifelong mission to ensure every woman has the power to feel beautiful. She pursued dermatology, studied relentlessly here and in Thailand, and specialized in cosmetic surgery. Inspired by the advent of lasers, she became a true pioneer, bringing the technology to the Philippines and establishing her first 40 sqm clinic with just two machines. Her groundbreaking spirit and marketing genius revolutionized the Philippine aesthetic industry, transforming the Belo Medical Group into the powerhouse it is today. Col. Francel Margareth Padilla , Spokesperson of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, initially faced resistance after her father's death when her brothers tried to dissuade her from studying at the Philippine Military Academy. Her defiant response? She cut off her waist-long hair and entered PMA, excelling both in school and in the military. Her exceptional performance led to special assignments, including serving on the security detail for the Pope, the Spanish Queen, and the head of the Korean delegation during APEC. Life dealt a major blow with the sudden death of her pilot husband in the plane crash that also killed Archie King, leaving her with two young children. Seeking a fresh start, she applied for a scholarship in Australia. General Brawner eventually chose her as the AFP Spokesperson, and despite having zero prior experience, she discovered a profound truth: she could not only do the job exceptionally well, but she loved every minute of it. Energy maven Ruth Yu Owen , President of Upgrade Energy Philippines and Chair of the Management Association of the Philippines Energy Committee, humbly admits she started life poor, but that never stopped her from dreaming big. When her father could no longer afford their education, an aunt stepped in—a moment of grace that allowed Ruth to continue her studies. She took on humble jobs, worked incredibly hard, and vividly recalls hanging onto the "estribo" (running board) of the bus, rain or shine, just to ensure she was on time for work. When she was fired from a job and faced a crossroads, she decided to forge her own path as a tech entrepreneur, diving into the renewable energy industry. She shared the exhilarating ups and downs of that journey, crediting her education with ultimately breaking the cycle of poverty. Truth be told, I resonated deeply with Ruth’s story. I, too, grew up poor after my father’s death when I was only ten, leaving my Spanish mother with five children. We relied on scholarships to get through school, and I also experienced running after the jeepney or bus and hanging onto the "estribo" just to be punctual for work. My own journey involved working my way up to associate publisher, only to be dismissed by new owners. It was that moment that launched me into entrepreneurship, leading me to set up TeamAsia 33 years ago in Hong Kong. We truly are kindred spirits! When asked how women can collectively help curb graft and corruption, alleviate poverty, and address the current national crisis, the panelists delivered a resounding message: it starts at home, with values, and with personal example. Gigi Basco Berberabe-Martinez emphasized that living one's values of integrity in an environment where graft and corruption thrive can be a lonely and unpopular path. Yet, she has never wavered, consistently saying "no" despite pressure, because it is simply the right thing to do. Julia Abad highlighted the importance of celebrating the fact that not everyone in government is dishonest. We have many honest, trustworthy public servants who deserve recognition. This underscores a crucial call to action: we must educate our countrymen to vote for capable and honest candidates to lead our nation. Dr. Vikki Belo inspired guests to “always trust in God’s plan,” as He lights the way forward. She ended with a powerful reminder for all women to support each other. She passionately lamented her own experiences of women being the first to tear other women down, declaring: "This needs to stop." This highlights something I’ve always espoused: when women unite and support one another, truly great things happen. It was an absolutely wonderful and profoundly inspiring forum! The guests left with hearts full from the powerful stories they heard. A huge thank you to Sharon Dayoan for KPMG’s generous sponsorship of the beautiful venue and delicious snacks; to Debbie Namalata’s sister for the thoughtful Ginger Farm giveaways for our guests and speakers; and to the ever-supportive ICD team led by Catz Jalandoni and Nelljay Kahlil Tuppal! Our speakers loved our gift of tongue-in-cheek Pinoy fans and gamely posed for a picture with them.  Our gratitude also goes to ICD Chair Atty. Benedicta Du-Baladad and NOWCD Chair Boots Garcia for sharing their insightful views on the critical importance of women leaders. And finally, congratulations to my brilliant co-conspirators, Atty. Euney and Debbie Namalata, for conceptualizing and flawlessly organizing this impactful event. You rock! Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Facebook  on March 29, 2026. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10238246759762208&id=1061739478&mibextid=wwXIfr&rdid=prf9PJIZmFo76Q0m#

Dr. Vaughn F. Montes, FICD Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors Mr. Kenneth Vicarl M. Lagera, AICD Associate Institute of Corporate Directors MANILA, Philippines  — In a major push to modernize the country’s financial landscape, Dr. Jesus P. Estanislao, Chairman Emeritus of the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), led a high-level delegation to meet with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Governor and Monetary Board Chairman Eli Remolona Jr. on March 23, 2026. The meeting served as a critical platform for the Capital Markets Transformation Roadmap Initiative (CMTRI) to present a strategic blueprint aimed at reversing decades of underdevelopment in the Philippine capital markets. The meeting focused on a comprehensive strategy to transform the Philippine capital markets from a regional laggard into a robust engine for economic growth. Joining Governor Remolona were top central bank officials: Deputy Governor Lyn Javier, Monetary Board Members Rosalia De Leon and Romeo Bernardo, and Senior Assistant Governor Edna Villa. Dr. Jesus P. Estanislao convened the CMTRI working group in response to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Review of the Philippine Capital Market in 2024, which highlighted the low ranking of the Philippines relative to peer countries in terms of governance, capital markets activity and efficiency, and mobilizing external financing for non-financial corporations. Supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the CMTRI represents a strategic alliance between the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX), the Capital Markets Development Foundation, Inc. (CMDFI), and the Center for Research and Communication (CRC) at the University of Asia & the Pacific (UA&P). The CMTRI is powered by a knowledgeable team of professionals from each participating organization. From ICD, this includes Chair Atty. Benedicta Du-Baladad; President Tomasa Lipana; Vice Chair Senen Matoto, who leads the CMTRI; and Teaching Fellow and former Trustee Dr. Vaughn Montes. Other key leaders include CMDFI President Eduardo Francisco, past FINEX President Santiago Dumlao, Jr., FINEX Board Director Paolo Azurin, FINEX member Andre Ramirez, and past CRC President Dr. Winston Padojinog. Administrative support is provided by ICD member Kenneth Lagera, who serves as secretariat of the CMTRI. A Vision for Governance and Market Trust The OECD report highlighted issues in governance that hinder investor confidence in domestic capital markets, such as the role of independent directors, protection of minority stakeholders, and overall shareholder governance. ICD, as a leading proponent of good corporate governance, is uniquely positioned to support regulatory authorities and financial industry associations in pushing for governance reforms required to strengthen capital markets. Drawing from Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with issuers, intermediaries, and investors in 2025, the CMTRI presented a series of high-level reform pillars to the BSP. These include modernizing retirement savings by operationalizing the ecosystem for Personal Equity and Retirement Account (PERA) investment products, which would transform the national banking network into a platform for capital market growth. The group presented options to encourage higher secondary market trading and advocated the adoption of a more market-promoting, full-disclosure regulatory regime, as provided in the Securities Regulation Code R.A. 8799, as opposed to a merit-based regime.  Furthermore, the initiative seeks to reduce market frictions by removing tax-related disincentives and streamlining the onboarding process. The CMTRI identified reforms to increase the supply of and demand for capital markets instruments and encourage greater diversity in the credit ratings of issuers in the market.    Collaborative Dialogue and Regulatory Insights During the meeting, BSP leadership welcomed the initiative as a vital step, acknowledging an implied duty to improve capital markets while noting the history of past roadmaps that failed to gain traction. The discussion touched upon the potential for regional harmonization through the cross-listing of shares and the importance of collaborative reform between the BSP and SEC. Participants emphasized the need for a targeted approach, suggesting that the initiative focus on a small number of high-impact reforms. There was also a strong call for market education to assure investors that mid-tier issues are viable and to promote specialized instruments like Sukuk bonds.  Dr. Estanislao explained that the ultimate objective of CMTRI is to deepen the domestic capital market and support investment and broader economic development.

Atty. Pedro H. Maniego Jr., FICD Life Fellow Institute of Corporate Directors Industrial revival breaks down when small and medium enterprises are treated as secondary players. Governments announce industrial parks, court investors, and count large factories—but without SMEs embedded from the start, manufacturing does not compound. It stalls. This is the failure behind repeated industrial disappointments, and it will recur unless SMEs are treated as indispensable rather than auxiliary. SMEs account for more than 99 percent of Philippine enterprises, generate 62 percent of employment, and contribute about 36 percent of gross value added. Yet in manufacturing, their role remains limited. Studies have shown that SMEs contribute only about 20 percent of manufacturing value added, with large firms capturing nearly 80 percent. That imbalance has persisted across decades. Other Asian economies are markedly different. Across Southeast Asia, SMEs account for 40 to 57 percent of gross domestic product. In Singapore, SMEs generate 44 percent of value added. In Indonesia, they make up more than half of GDP. The difference is not enterprise density—the Philippines has that—but whether SMEs are systematically connected to industrial production. Large firms dominate policy considerations, but SMEs determine whether industrialization actually works. They supply components, fabricate tooling, maintain equipment, and solve production problems that don’t appear in feasibility studies. When SMEs are peripheral, manufacturing becomes import-dependent, slow to adapt, and highly vulnerable to shocks. Taiwan’s success rested on thousands of SMEs absorbing technology and responding quickly to demand from lead firms. Philippine strategies, by contrast, often assumed that once large plants were established, suppliers would emerge on their own. They rarely did. Appliance manufacturing exposes this weakness with particular clarity. No appliance sector survives on assembly alone. Tool-and-die shops, metal stampers, plastics molders, component suppliers, maintenance services, and testing facilities are essential—and most of them are SMEs. However, Philippine companies continue to import even basic stamped parts and plastic components that could be produced locally. When ancillary firms are absent or underdeveloped, costs rise, lead times stretch, and design adaptation becomes difficult. Factories may operate, but they never mature. To be fair, government has continually tried. The Department of Trade and Industry has expanded Negosyo Centers, MSME financing, and export training. The Department of Science and Technology’s Small Enterprise Technology Upgrading Program has helped firms acquire equipment and improve quality. Department of Energy programs have supported energy efficiency and technology adoption. Nongovernment organizations and foundations have also provided mentoring and management support to thousands of entrepreneurs. But these initiatives remain fragmented. Training without contracts, supplier fairs without sourcing commitments, and financing without long-term demand do not change industrial structure. SMEs cannot develop on goodwill alone. Shared industrial infrastructure is equally critical. Advanced tooling, testing, and certification are beyond the reach of most SMEs. These are public goods and must be run professionally, tied to real production needs. Financing must also match production reality. Short-term loans do not build capability. Financing linked to equipment upgrades, supplier relationships, and export participation does. SMEs must be exposed to export-linked discipline. Supplying exporters forces compliance with global standards, documentation, reliability, and cost control. Domestic markets rarely impose these pressures. Countries that succeeded did not pit large firms against SMEs; they compelled them to grow together. South Korea embedded SMEs into supply chains and enforced performance, rather than treating them as protected dependents. If SMEs remain peripheral, appliance —and any future anchor industry—will remain fragile. If SMEs are deliberately integrated, industrial revival gains depth, resilience, and staying power. Industrialization could not be sustained by a few flagship plants. It is sustained by thousands of smaller firms climbing the value chain—one contract, one capability, one export link at a time. Pete Maniego is an engineer, lawyer, economist, and past chair of the National Renewable Energy Board, Institute of Corporate Directors, University of the Philippines Engineering Research & Development Foundation, and Energy Lawyers Association of the Philippines. Disclaimer: On February 06, 2026, “Why industrial revival fails without SMEs” 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: https://opinion.inquirer.net/189513/why-industrial-revival-fails-without-smes

Mr. Jonas Marie A. Dumdum, AICD Vice Chairperson, Sustainability Committee Institute of Corporate Directors Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities Are Now a Leadership Test The starting point for understanding where Philippine boards stand on climate governance is not a regulatory deadline or a global framework. It is the evidence of what Philippine organizations are currently doing, and not yet doing, when it comes to managing climate-related risks and opportunities in practice. A 2025 survey by Willis, ICD Philippines, and GRI provides that evidence. The progress is glaring as 45 percent of respondents rated their governance bodies as well-equipped to oversee climate-related risks, 51 percent rated their organizations highly on understanding climate impacts on their business models, and 49 percent indicated that climate considerations are embedded in strategy and risk management. These numbers reflect a business community that has begun to move, and the direction of travel is encouraging. However, the gaps that sit alongside this progress are equally telling, and for board directors, they are the more urgent story. Sixty-seven percent of respondents have not quantified the financial impact of climate-related risks. Among those with climate risks in their ERM frameworks, 90 percent address physical risks while only 58 percent address transition risks and 33 percent address liability risks, precisely the categories generating the most immediate regulatory and legal exposure under the new disclosure requirements. Only 42 percent confirmed having insurance coverage for climate-related risks, in a country consistently ranked among the most climate-vulnerable in the world. Taken together, these findings point to organizations that are aware of climate risk but have not yet built the governance structures to manage it with the depth and rigor that the current environment demands. These gaps become even more striking when set against what Philippine business leaders themselves have been signaling through three consecutive years (2024-2026) of the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Executive Opinion Survey for the Philippines, under bigger Global Risks Report. The EOS does not measure what organizations are doing about climate risk but shares what business leaders perceive as the most pressing risks to their operating environment. And what it reveals, year after year, is a risk perception that is running well ahead of the governance readiness that the Willis survey documents. In 2024, extreme weather events ranked first among economy and society risks for the Philippines, accompanied by energy supply shortages, inflation, and infectious diseases. The dominance of physical climate risks in that year's rankings aligns precisely with the Willis survey finding that 90 percent of organizations with climate risks in their ERM frameworks focus primarily on physical risks. Philippine business leaders were flagging physical climate impacts as their most immediate concern, and their organizations were, to their credit, responding to that signal. Yet, the EOS data from 2024 also showed energy supply shortages as a top-ranked risk, a signal of emerging transition risk exposure rooted in the country's energy infrastructure vulnerabilities that the Willis survey suggests most organizations have not yet translated into transition risk management. Only 58 percent of respondents addressed transition risks in their ERM frameworks, despite their own leaders identifying energy supply and infrastructure fragility as a primary concern. By 2025, the EOS risk profile had shifted toward economic and social stress, with unemployment, food supply instability, and cost-of-living pressures moving to the foreground. This shift is not a departure from climate risk but provided a deeper focus of it. Food supply instability in a country as agriculturally exposed as the Philippines is inseparable from the effects of changing rainfall patterns, intensifying typhoons, and rising temperatures on crop yields and supply chains. The economic stress that Philippine business leaders flagged in 2025 is, in significant part, the downstream consequence of physical climate impacts working their way through labor markets, commodity prices, and household purchasing power. And yet the Willis survey found that 67 percent of organizations had not quantified the financial impact of climate-related risks. Business leaders were already experiencing climate risk as an economic and financial reality in 2025, but most of their organizations had no financial framework to measure or manage it. By 2026, the picture had evolved further. Misinformation, adverse outcomes of AI technologies, and persistent lack of economic opportunity entered the top risk rankings alongside climate-related exposures. These may appear unrelated to climate at first reading, but they are not. Misinformation increasingly shapes how climate-related risks are perceived and acted upon at the policy and corporate level. The lack of economic opportunity is directly tied to the vulnerability of communities and industries to climate disruption. And the governance failures embedded in these risks, including weak institutional responses and fragmented climate adaptation, are precisely the conditions under which physical and transition climate risks become most financially damaging for businesses. The emergence of these risks in 2026 reflects something the Willis survey also show that organizations which treat climate governance as a narrow compliance function, rather than an enterprise-wide strategic priority, are more exposed to indirect consequences of climate disruption than those that manage it with genuine depth. Read together, the Willis survey and the Executive Opinion Survey tell a coherent and urgent story. Philippine business leaders have spent three years signaling, through their own risk perceptions, that climate-related disruptions are translating into financial, economic, and governance consequences across their operating environment. And the Willis survey shows that the internal governance structures of most Philippine organizations have not kept pace with what their own leaders already sense. The gap between risk perception and governance readiness is not a technical problem. It is a leadership gap, and it sits squarely at the board level. This is also an opportunity, and it is one that will not remain open indefinitely. Philippine companies that build credible, board-level climate governance now will be better positioned to retain multinational clients, access sustainability-linked financing, attract institutional investors, and navigate the regulatory environment with confidence rather than anxiety. The social dimensions of climate risk add further weight to this urgency. In a country where climate disruptions already translate into lost livelihoods, displaced communities, food insecurity, and deepening inequality, the organizations that treat climate governance seriously are also the ones that will build stronger relationships with the communities they operate in, the workforces they depend on, and the regulators and policymakers who are increasingly scrutinizing corporate responses to climate-related social impacts. The organizations that move decisively are not simply managing risk. They are building the kind of institutional credibility, social trust, and long-term resilience that creates durable competitive advantage. Early movers will shape the standards, the relationships, and the market positions that late movers will struggle to replicate. The window to lead rather than follow is open. It is narrowing, however, and the pace at which it closes will be set not by the organizations that are watching, but by those that are already moving. Why Boards Are Accountable and Why the Pressure Is Already Here SEC Memorandum Circular 16-2025, issued on 23 December 2025, represents a decisive shift in Philippine corporate reporting. Through this circular, the SEC has adopted PFRS S1 on General Sustainability Disclosures and S2 on Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities. Sustainability-related risks and opportunities are now regulated, investor-focused, and financially material information that must be governed, managed, disclosed, and assured with rigor comparable to financial reporting. The Memorandum Circular uses a three-tier structure: Tier 1 companies exceeding PHP 50 billion in market capitalization adopt the new standards starting FY 2026, Tier 2 follows in FY 2027, and Tier 3, which includes smaller PLCs and large non-listed entities with revenues exceeding PHP 15 billion, begins in FY 2028. All sustainability reports must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors prior to issuance. Directors who sign off on climate disclosures without adequate understanding of their company's physical and transition risk exposures carry personal liability for material omissions or misstatements. According to a 2025 report by the Grantham Research Institute, approximately 20 percent of roughly 3,000 global climate litigation cases specifically targeted companies, their directors, or their officers. This is no longer a distant prospect for Philippine boardrooms. The pressure is not coming from regulation alone. The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive requires large EU-based companies to report on Scope 3 emissions across their entire value chains. Philippine exporters, manufacturers, and service providers supplying EU-based multinationals are already receiving sustainability questionnaires, supplier audits, and carbon disclosure requests as a direct consequence. The way Philippine companies export their goods in the coming years will increasingly depend on how seriously decarbonization is being treated at the organizational level. From the financial system, BSP Circular 1128 requires banks to integrate environmental and social risk management into credit processes, while BSP Circular 1149 requires a Sustainable Finance Taxonomy to guide project financing decisions. Climate action is becoming a determinant of access to capital, not just a governance consideration. For companies linked to global value chains, the window for a gradual and internally-driven transition is narrowing. What Boards and Leaders Need to Do Now Though climate action in Philippine businesses has started among several PLCs, expanding the conversation from compliance to actions that lead to genuine impact is becoming more urgent regardless of company size. What is needed is a structured transition from reactive compliance to active stewardship, built on a coherent governance architecture anchored on two functions that sit most squarely within the board's direct responsibility. Oversight is where board-level accountability is most directly tested. Boards must be able to answer who holds the highest responsibility for overseeing the organization's climate-related impacts, what active steps are being taken to provide that oversight, and how the board is driving a decarbonization agenda forward. This means directors must be sufficiently informed about physical and transition risk exposures, able to evaluate management's claims about climate performance rather than simply receive and note them and empowered to challenge and redirect the organization's approach when the evidence warrants it. Directors, executives, and senior managers who cannot speak to these questions with substance are not simply underprepared. They are personally accountable for what they approve and what they miss. Understanding what climate disclosure frameworks require of the governing body is an essential starting point for building that preparedness. These frameworks organize what boards are expected to oversee across governance, strategy, risk management, and performance tracking. For directors exercising oversight, the governance dimension is the most immediately relevant, covering how climate responsibilities are assigned, embedded, and exercised at the board level. But effective oversight cannot stop there. Directors must be sufficiently familiar with the strategic dimensions of climate disclosure to understand and interrogate what management is reporting about the effects of climate-related risks and opportunities on the organization, including how those effects flow through the business model and supply chain, the overall company strategy, financials and cash flows, and the organization's resilience under different climate scenarios. These are not technical matters that boards can safely delegate without understanding. They are the substance of what directors are ultimately responsible for when they put their names to a sustainability report. In practical terms, this means boards should conduct a structured self-assessment of their current climate governance capability, mapping what they know, what they are being told by management, and where the gaps are. Directors should request that climate-related risks be presented in board meetings not as standalone sustainability updates, but as items with direct financial, operational, and strategic implications. Board agenda items on climate should be framed around questions that matter to governance: What is our exposure to physical risks in the next three to five years? How would a carbon pricing policy or an accelerated energy transition affect our business model? What are our largest customers and lenders expecting from us on decarbonization, and are we currently able to meet those expectations? Where board-level knowledge is insufficient to engage with these questions meaningfully, directors should actively seek to build fluency on physical and transition risk concepts, scenario analysis methodologies, and the disclosure expectations that investors and regulators are increasingly applying to boards. This is not a matter of professional development alone. It is a matter of being able to exercise genuine, informed oversight over one of the most financially consequential risk areas on the board agenda. Boards should also review their committee structures to ensure climate governance is not confined to a sustainability committee. The questions that climate raises, including which assets are exposed, what contingent liabilities exist, and how capital should be allocated considering transition scenarios, are questions for the audit committee, the risk committee, and the strategy committee respectively. Directors sitting on these committees should be asking climate-related questions as a matter of routine, not as a special agenda item reserved for annual sustainability reviews. Management translates board-level intent into organizational accountability. Senior leadership must be accountable for managing climate-related impacts in practice, with clear metrics and targets underpinning the delivery of decarbonization commitments. Climate performance must be treated with the same institutional seriousness as financial performance, incorporated into executive evaluations, embedded across finance, risk, and operations functions, and reported to the board through structured and regular reporting lines. Making clearer the ownership of decisions, aligning sustainability performance with financial planning, and strengthening credibility with investors and lenders are outcomes that flow directly from effective management-level accountability on climate. For management, the climate disclosure framework provides a practical map of the work that needs to be done across the organization. It requires management to address the effects of climate-related risks and opportunities across the business model and supply chain, to reflect those effects in overall company strategy, to quantify their financial and cash flow implications, and to demonstrate how the organization's strategy holds up under different climate scenarios. Beyond strategy, management must also demonstrate structured processes for identifying, assessing, and managing both climate-related risks and opportunities, and show how these processes are woven into the organization's overall approach to enterprise risk. Performance metrics and time-bound targets close the loop, requiring management to demonstrate measurable progress rather than stated intent. This means that management's role in climate governance is not confined to producing a report. It requires building the internal systems, data infrastructure, cross-functional processes, and accountability mechanisms that make credible disclosure possible and that would withstand scrutiny from investors, lenders, clients, and external reviewers. Executives should establish a cross-functional working group spanning risk, finance, operations, sustainability, and strategy, tasked with translating the organization's climate-related risk and opportunity profile into measurable targets and action plans. These targets should be specific and time-bound, covering areas such as emissions reduction trajectories where applicable, capital expenditure allocations toward resilience or low-carbon investments, energy intensity improvements, and supply chain decarbonization milestones tied to customer and lender expectations. Vague commitments will not satisfy the scrutiny that the current reporting environment demands, and they will not hold up when investors, clients, and external reviewers begin asking detailed questions about progress and accountability. Management should also initiate cross-functional discussions on the financial implications of climate-related risks, specifically connecting physical and transition risk scenarios to cash flow projections, asset valuations, insurance adequacy, and cost of capital. Organizations that can demonstrate this connection clearly, including through scenario analysis and quantitative risk assessments, will be better positioned to engage with sustainability-linked financing, negotiate favorable terms with insurers and lenders, and communicate credible transition narratives to investors and regulators. Those that cannot do so will find themselves at an increasing disadvantage as capital markets progressively incorporate climate performance into credit assessments and pricing decisions. The management function also has an important organizational culture dimension. Senior leaders set the tone for how climate risk is perceived and prioritized throughout an organization. Where CEOs and senior executives treat climate as a compliance obligation managed by a sustainability team, that signal cascades downward, and climate considerations remain peripheral to core business decisions. Where senior leaders treat climate as a strategic priority with real financial and competitive implications, climate thinking begins to inform procurement decisions, capital budgeting, product development, and client relationship management in ways that build genuine organizational resilience. Building that culture is itself a leadership responsibility, and it begins with the signals that senior executives send through their own engagement with climate governance. The Moment to Act Is Now Philippine boards have both the opportunity and the obligation to lead this transition. The regulatory floor is set. Personal attestation is required, disclosure deadlines are approaching tier by tier, and the liability landscape is shifting. The external market is already signaling its expectations through supplier audits, credit conditions, and investor scrutiny. Waiting for full regulatory clarity or for the domestic conversation to mature further is no longer a viable position for companies with significant market exposure. What the Executive Opinion Survey has shown over three consecutive years is that Philippine business leaders already sense the direction of travel. They see climate-related disruptions translating into economic stress, social instability, and governance failures. What has not yet caught up is the governance architecture needed to respond to what they already perceive. The gap between risk awareness and governance readiness is precisely where the leadership test lies, and it is a gap that boards have both the authority and the responsibility to close. The immediate priority for every board is clarity on who is responsible for climate oversight, what the organization's actual risk exposure is, and whether the current governance structure is equipped to manage it. Directors who can answer these questions with confidence, who can engage management substantively on decarbonization pathways and transition risks, and who ensure that climate considerations are embedded in audit, risk, and strategy decisions, are the directors who will be positioned to create long-term value rather than simply manage near-term compliance. ICD’s Sustainability Committee calls on board directors across all sectors and company sizes to take this step. Climate stewardship is not a higher standard reserved for the largest or most internationally exposed companies. It is the standard that sound governance now requires of all Philippine boards, and the time to demonstrate it is now. Access the full report here:  https://tinyurl.com/ICDclimaterisks References Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2021) Circular No. 1128: Guidelines on Environmental and Social Risk Management (ESRM) for Banks. Manila: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2023) Circular No. 1149: Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidance. Manila: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Dumdum, J.M. (2026) Making Way for the New Sustainability Disclosure Requirements in the Philippines: Adapting to Achieve Creating Shared Stakeholder Value. Manila: Nomura Research Institute Singapore Pte Ltd Manila Branch. European Commission (2022) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): Directive 2022/2464/EU. Brussels: European Commission. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (2025) Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Institute of Corporate Directors Philippines, Willis and Global Reporting Initiative (2025) Managing Climate-Related Risks Survey Report (Philippines). Manila: Willis Towers Watson.

01 April 2026 Dear ICD Members,   On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Ms. Maria Remedios “Mardi” Mapa-Suplido  as the new Executive Director of the Institute of Corporate Directors, effective 01 April 2026.   Mardi brings over 35 years of leadership experience in the development sector, with extensive experience in leading development programs and initiatives. She most recently served as Chief Operating Officer of Aboitiz Foundation and previously led Habitat for Humanity Philippines as CEO. Her career also includes key leadership roles with Build Change and The Fred Hollows Foundation.   A committed advocate of good governance, Mardi has served in both national and local government, including as Chairperson of the National Youth Commission, Provincial Board Member of Negros Occidental, and Director at the Office of the Presidential Adviser for the Peace Process. She has likewise contributed to various governance and development organizations as a board leader and trustee.   With Mardi’s depth of experience in leadership, governance, and development, we are confident she will lead ICD in further advancing corporate governance in the Philippines and strengthening the ICD community.   We also extend our sincere appreciation to Ms. Catherine Denise “Catz” S. Jalandoni for her leadership and contributions to ICD. Her efforts have helped strengthen the Institute’s programs and engagement with members and partners.   Please join us in welcoming Ms. Maria Remedios “Mardi” Mapa-Suplido to the ICD team. We look forward to her leadership in further advancing ICD’s mission. Sincerely,  Atty. Benedicta Du-Baladad, FICD Chairman of the Board You may reach out to Ms. Mardi Mapa-Suplido through her email address at mmapa-suplido@icd.ph .