I was reading an article: Strengthening corporate governance through board-level consultants.
There are some companies under attack for issues of board composition and board activism. Board composition concerns address the mix of internal versus external directors and the competence of board members.
The activism addresses concerns that focus on the responsiveness of boards to corporate issues that range from inactive to reactive to proactive.
Which do you think would be the best? Theory suggests outside members should be more independent and have other points of interest and income. To me there are pro and cons to both. But I favor toward the theory side. Then I think if you are getting an income then you would be apt to make sure corporate governance is ethical and follow the guidelines. Then you have others that abuse it. Also what do you think about consultants?