You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Governance Working Group’ tag.
> Posted by Bob Bragar, Principal, Strategies for Impact Investors
The Investing in Inclusive Finance program at the Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion explores the practices of investors in inclusive finance. Across areas including risk, governance, stakeholder alignment, and fund management, this blog series highlights what’s being done to help the industry better utilize private capital to develop financial institutions that incorporate social aims.
The following is the second of two posts in which Bob Bragar discusses some of the unique governance challenges faced by microfinance institutions, as explored through a governance workshop that Bob chaired at European Microfinance Week in November 2013. In this post, workshop panelists Matthias Adler, Principal Economist, KfW and N. Srinivasan, an independent director at Equitas Bank in India, discuss the importance of their positions for effective microfinance governance. To access the first post, click here.
Institutional microfinance investors have a special role to play in maintaining good governance in an MFI, and this can take unexpected turns.
Matthias Adler from KfW spoke about the special concerns that his institution has. KfW is a major German public sector investor that is required by law to have board representation in the institutions in which it invests. As a result, KfW has developed special practices to strengthen the quality of their widespread board participation.
In particular, KfW has developed rules to create strict “Chinese walls” (information barriers) between their board members and the investment staff at KfW. Why? Because they are very aware of the potential for conflicts of interests between a board member’s duty to look (only and foremost) after the interests of the MFI, and the interests of individual investors. They make sure that a KfW board member will not return to headquarters and report on an MFI board meeting to his colleagues. In KfW’s view, this practice increases transparency and reduces the potential for distrust on the part of the MFI’s management. Management may need to obtain guidance from its board without always speaking directly to the investors. And if management is less forthcoming, the board cannot do its job.
While this concern is not exclusive to MFI investors, in the small world of microfinance, with its limited number of players, the concerns are all the greater.
KfW, as a leading microfinance investor, also wants to ensure that boards of directors have all of the skills they need. So KfW helps boards with needed training.
In the final presentation, N. Srinivasan, an independent board member of Equitas Bank in India, spoke persuasively about the value of truly independent directors who balance the needs of all MFI stakeholders.
> Posted by Bob Bragar, Principal, Strategies for Impact Investors
The Investing in Inclusive Finance program at the Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion explores the practices of investors in inclusive finance. Across areas including risk, governance, stakeholder alignment, and fund management, this blog series highlights what’s being done to help the industry better utilize private capital to develop financial institutions that incorporate social aims.
The following is the first of two posts in which Bob Bragar discusses some of the unique governance challenges faced by microfinance institutions. The posts examine governance through the guidance of three experienced board members. This post shares the experience of Tamar Lebanidze as Constanta Foundation, an NGO she founded, underwent the change to become Constanta Bank, a regulated bank. To access the second post, click here.
“I don’t see why we have to reinvent the wheel. Good governance practices for microfinance institutions are just the same as for any other business. Why should we spend so much time talking about ‘MFI governance’ when there is so much information already available about good governance?”
This question was raised during a recent meeting of the Center for Financial Inclusion’s Governance Working Group, of which I am a member. The question really surprised me. I had always assumed that governance for microfinance institutions was special. It is not exactly the same as good governance practices in other businesses because microfinance is not the same as other businesses. Even so, it’s a good question. It got me thinking.
Of course, many good governance practices are the same from sector to sector. Running an enterprise well involves challenges that are not specific to the product or service the enterprise produces. Any institution can suffer if the board functions badly, risks are not managed, or management lacks transparency. And there is a lot of good work that is already out there on the role of key stakeholders to maintain good governance in financial services and other industries.
So why do we bother to re-think these issues for microfinance? Because microfinance is a more complex business than most. Going beyond just earning profits, the double or triple bottom line that we ask MFIs to achieve makes success, and therefore governance, very complex. Moreover, microfinance’s particular history of migration from NGOs to semi-regulated financial institutions to formal banks adds challenges to achieving good governance. The stew thickens when we bring multicultural perspectives to MFI boards through the presence of international investors from various countries.
> Posted by Deborah Drake and Andrea Horak, Vice President/Program Manager and Program Coordinator, Investing in Inclusive Finance, CFI
The Investing in Inclusive Finance program at the Center for Financial Inclusion at Accion explores the practices of investors in inclusive finance. Across areas including risk, governance, stakeholder alignment, and fund management, this blog series highlights what’s being done to help the industry better utilize private capital to develop financial institutions that incorporate social aims.
With good governance a top priority for investors, donors, and regulators, it’s time to ask exactly what good governance looks like. A recent debate about the Anglo-American (shareholder) versus the European (stakeholder) models of governance set out to answer that question. The Governance Working Group (GWG), a 25-member group of microfinance professionals focused on governance, hosted by CFI, sponsored a webinar to discuss the characteristics of the two models and their implications for microfinance institutions, equity funds, and clients.
Lauren Burnhill of One Planet Ventures started off the debate by describing the model of single tier governance commonly used in the U.K. and U.S. In this model, each company has a single board that includes both executive directors, who are employed by the company or have significant ties to its corporate management, and non-executive directors who have no direct relationship with the company or its management. The company CEO may serve as chair of the corporate board, in which case a great deal of power is invested in that board position. The overarching duty of the board is to protect the interests of shareholders. In this model, particular importance is given to the protection of minority shareholder rights.
Facebook
Twitter
Recent Comments