There is a concept, called short-termism, which could devastate finances in the future, and has in the past devastated the millions who rely on their paycheques or pensions in the corporate world.

I recently trained a group of directors and CEOs from the banking and agricultural sectors in Texas and Arizona. We discussed mutual expectations on the part of the board and management. The following represents the output of these discussions, which could apply to a variety of boards.

Trust at the board level is necessary at three intersection points: board and CEO, board member to board member, and CEO to C-suite. Why does trust matter? Think about the transactional costs of a low-trust relationship. In low trust relationships, suspicion abounds and parties feel compelled to paper every decision and every discussion. What can boards and executives do about this? Here is some advice.

Placing a price on carbon of anywhere from $10 to $80 a tonne can have a profound effect on business planning. It can help a company cut costs, while dramatically reducing its risk and exposure to rising energy prices and a price being put on carbon. Which brings us to an important question...

Only 150 out of 1000 Canadian companies had any diversity on boards. What is the business case for diversity on boards? There is no clear evidence that diverse boards create greater shareholder value. There is, however, evidence that diverse groups make better decisions and mitigate group-think.

The management of XL Foods Inc., which has been in the news for causing the biggest beef recall in Canadian history, has not figured out the most important issue is how the company governs food safety. Neither XL foods or its parent company appear to have any independent directors, who are essential to ensuring internal management does not cut corners. No one likes to be controlled, least of which entrepreneurial employees. However, ask yourself if defective internal controls are worth the price, in terms of reputation and financial loss. It can indeed be a run on the bank if consumers don't have confidence, and it can get worse unless governance checks are put in place.

When boards engage law firms, should they use the same firm that management uses? We don't think so. Law students are taught that you cannot act for two clients whose interests are, or could be, adverse, e.g., a husband and wife in a divorce, a purchaser and vendor of a home, and so on.

Recently, there have been some examples of shareholder activism, at Yahoo, Research in Motion and CP Rail. What does not seem to dawn on people (at least not completely) is that if public company boards really understood and did their jobs, there would be no need for "shareholder empowerment." The only question in responding to a "concerned" or activist shareholder is: what is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders?

Think of it as walking into a neighbourhood leveled by a tornado. That pretty much sums up what a special type of CEO faces -- one who's been brought on after the termination or resignation of a scandal-ridden predecessor. A CEO version 2.0 has a lot to contend with in that kind of wake. Here are some tips...