There is a moment in a business's journey when the founder remains its greatest source of value — and at the same time begins to become its greatest systemic risk.

Not because they lack ability.

But because the company now generates more critical decisions, more interdependencies, greater financial exposure and more points of risk than one person or a small, closed circle of colleagues can safely process.

This is precisely where the real need for a Board of Directors begins.

Not as a status symbol.
Not as a parade of well-known names.
Not as a mechanism for producing minutes for GEMI.

But as an architecture for better judgment.

The right question, therefore, is not:

“Above what turnover should we have a Board of Directors?”

The right question is:

“How expensive has it become to make critical decisions without sufficient challenge, evidence, oversight and accountability?”

When the potential cost of a misguided investment, poor financing, a shareholder conflict, a failed succession or a delayed strategic choice far exceeds the annual cost of a serious board, the discussion is no longer about bureaucracy.

It is about business protection and acceleration.

---

1. First, we need to clarify what we mean by “Board of Directors”

In Greek business discussions, we often use the same term for three different things:

The distinction is critical.

A company that needs better coordination between sales, marketing, finance and operations probably needs a stronger executive committee.

A company that needs independent judgment, management oversight, risk control, capital allocation discipline and a succession plan needs a Board of Directors or an Advisory Board.

One does not replace the other.

---

2. The legal position in Greece

For a Societe Anonyme, the basic institutional framework is Law 4548/2018, as consolidated with its subsequent amendments. The Ministry of Development continues to refer to this law as the regulatory framework for the S.A., while the available consolidated version incorporates amendments up to and including Law 5317/2026. GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF COMMERCE

As a rule, an S.A. is collectively managed by a Board of Directors of three to fifteen members. Members may or may not be shareholders and may be freely removed and re-elected. Taxheaven

However, the articles of association of a small or micro-sized unlisted S.A. may provide for a single-member management body, the “director-manager.” This option is not available to medium-sized, large or listed companies. Taxheaven

In an IKE, the company is managed and represented by one or more managers, while the articles of association may regulate how management is exercised and whether multiple managers act collectively or otherwise. In an EPE, unless otherwise agreed, management rests collectively with the partners, but may be assigned to one or more partners or third parties. Taxheaven

This means that an IKE or EPE can establish an Advisory Board, but this does not automatically acquire the manager's statutory powers. An actual transfer of management authority requires the appropriate amendments to the articles of association, corporate actions and legal instruments.

Law 4706/2020 on corporate governance applies primarily to societes anonymes with shares or other securities listed on a regulated market in Greece. Ordinary unlisted companies are therefore not automatically required to replicate the proportions of independent members, committees and entire organizational architecture of a listed company. Taxheaven

This does not mean, however, that they cannot selectively adopt good practices. The Hellenic Corporate Governance Code is intended for listed companies and operates on a “comply or explain” basis, without itself imposing new obligations. It can, however, be used as a library of practices rather than a package to be copied blindly. HCGC

The same logic is reflected in the OECD principles: there is no single model of corporate governance suitable for every business. The principles were designed primarily for public companies, but can also be a useful tool for unlisted companies, depending on their size, maturity and complexity. OECD

Important note: banks, insurance companies, investment firms, public-interest entities and other supervised entities may be subject to additional or more specific requirements. The final structure must always be reviewed by a corporate lawyer and a tax adviser.

---

3. When the time is truly right

There is no magic turnover figure.

A company with turnover of 3 million euros may need a serious board much more than a company with turnover of 20 million euros if it has:

• three shareholders with different objectives,
• high debt,
• a large investment program,
• significant regulatory risk,
• dependence on a founder,
• rapid international expansion,
• succession problems,
• or weak financial discipline.

The critical measure is not turnover.

It is complexity multiplied by the cost of a wrong decision.

The key signs of readiness

1. The founder has become the central bottleneck

Every important decision waits for them.

Managers do not decide; they escalate. Colleagues do not take full responsibility because they know that, in the end, the founder's personal approval will be required. Important issues accumulate in the same calendar, the same inbox and the same mind.

The business may appear agile. In reality, it moves at one person's maximum processing speed.

At this stage, the board is not there to weaken the founder.

It is there to free them from the role of sole center of judgment.

2. Decisions carry greater financial exposure

When decisions involve:

• investments of hundreds of thousands or millions,
• new stores or facilities,
• acquisitions,
• major hires,
• substantial borrowing,
• providing guarantees,
• new products with high upfront costs,
• entry into new markets,

the informal logic of “we discussed it among ourselves and it seemed right” is not sufficient.

The company needs a structured process that tests assumptions, scenarios, liquidity, downside and alternative uses of capital.

3. There are multiple shareholders with different roles

One works in the company.
Another is a passive shareholder.
A third has invested capital but does not participate in management.
The next generation is preparing to take over.
An investor is asking for more information.

Without a clear governance system, business disagreements quickly turn into personal conflicts.

A clear separation is needed here:

• The General Meeting decides on ownership matters.
• The Board of Directors directs and oversees the company.
• The CEO and management team execute.
• In a family business, the family council manages family matters — not the company's day-to-day issues.

When these rooms become confused, family dynamics swallow business logic.

4. An external investor comes in or borrowing increases

Banks and investors do not look only at the balance sheet.

They also examine how reliably the decisions behind it are made.

A functioning board, with clear information, approvals, minutes, risk management and independent judgment, reduces the business's perception risk. Good corporate governance also affects the terms on which businesses can access capital. OECD

5. The owner is no longer the only or the right CEO

When a professional CEO joins, the question “who oversees, supports and evaluates them?” cannot be answered vaguely with the phrase “the shareholders.”

The CEO needs a specific body:

• that approves the strategy,
• defines the limits of their authority,
• evaluates their performance,
• approves their remuneration and targets,
• supports them in difficult decisions,
• and can replace them when required.

6. The company is growing faster than its systems

Growth increases turnover, but along with it also increases:

• points of failure,
• people-related exposure,
• funding needs,
• legal and regulatory obligations,
• reporting requirements,
• the likelihood of losing control.

A board becomes necessary when growth begins to create more complexity than the existing management structure can absorb.

7. There is material risk without an independent owner

Cybersecurity, liquidity, key-person risk, reputation, outstanding tax matters, employee safety, regulatory compliance, customer concentration, supplier dependence.

If everyone is responsible, usually no one is truly responsible.

The board does not manage every risk on a daily basis. It does, however, ensure that:

1. critical risks have been identified,
2. they have an owner,
3. there is a tolerance limit,
4. there is a response plan,
5. management provides timely updates, not only when the problem has already exploded.

8. The company has no succession plan

What happens if the founder is absent for six months?

Who can sign?
Who can decide?
Who will speak to the banks?
Who will keep the management team united?
Who will take over management temporarily?

If the answer is “we will deal with it then,” the company does not have institutional continuity. It has hope.

And hope is not a governance system.

---

A quick readiness test

Award one point for each statement that substantially applies:

1. More than 70% of important decisions end up with the founder.
2. The company is planning major capex, borrowing, an acquisition or international expansion.
3. There are multiple shareholders with different roles or interests.
4. There is a professional CEO, or preparations are underway to hire one.
5. The next generation is entering the company.
6. There is no documented succession plan.
7. There is no systematic risk register.
8. Financial information arrives late or without a reliable forecast.
9. Major decisions are not recorded along with their assumptions.
10. The founder does not have people around them who can genuinely say “I disagree.”

As a practical, not legal, diagnosis:

• 0–2 positive answers: you probably need a better management cadence, not a board yet.
• 3–5: this is the right time for an Advisory Board.
• 6 and above: serious planning for a formal Board of Directors or a substantial upgrade of the existing one is needed.

---

4. Why a business should have a Board of Directors

The board's role is not simply to provide “advice.”

According to the OECD principles, its core purpose is to provide strategic direction, effective oversight of management and accountability to the company and its shareholders. OECD

In an unlisted business, a good board creates value in seven ways.

1. It improves decision quality

The founder sees depth.
A properly structured board adds breadth.

It brings in people who have already dealt with:

• growth into new markets,
• liquidity crises,
• acquisitions,
• professionalizing family businesses,
• difficult restructurings,
• CEO changes,
• institutional financing,
• technological transition.

Their value lies not only in the answers.

It lies primarily in the questions management did not think to ask.

2. It creates discipline in capital allocation

Many businesses do not fail because they lacked opportunities.

They fail because they invested capital without sufficient prioritization.

The board must examine:

• which investment has the greatest strategic impact,
• which has an acceptable downside,
• what the true cost of capital is,
• which assumptions underpin the return,
• what must stop to fund the new choice,
• when an investment should be reviewed or discontinued.

Budget approval is not enough.

An architecture for capital decisions is needed.

3. It relieves pressure on the founder without removing control

A good board enables the founder to move:

• from approvals to strategy,
• from details to priorities,
• from personal supervision to institutional accountability,
• from constant intervention to building a system.

This is not a removal of power.

It is a transition from personal power to institutional resilience.

4. It protects the business from agreement without challenge

The more successful the founder, the harder it becomes for those around them to challenge them.

Past success generates authority.
Authority generates silence.
Silence can create strategic blindness.

The role of a genuinely independent member is not to be permanently negative. It is to ensure that the company does not confuse confidence with correctness.

5. It oversees the CEO and strengthens the leadership team

A good board does not wait for the annual result to judge the CEO.

It monitors:

• the quality and speed of decisions,
• the reliability of forecasts,
• executive development,
• the culture of accountability,
• the ability to flag problems early,
• progress on strategic priorities,
• the CEO's personal development for the company's next phase.

The CEO does not need oversight alone.

They need a body that can challenge them without undermining them and support them without indulging them.

6. It creates continuity beyond individuals

A mature company must be able to continue:

• when the founder is absent,
• when an executive leaves,
• when the ownership structure changes,
• when a crisis arises,
• when the next generation is not yet ready,
• when the CEO needs to be replaced.

The board transforms the business's memory from personal to institutional.

7. It increases credibility in the market

Having well-known names on the website is not enough.

Real credibility is created when there are:

• clear decisions,
• documented approvals,
• reliable information,
• conflict management,
• a succession plan,
• risk control,
• predictable management processes.

Corporate governance is proof that the company does not depend exclusively on one person's goodwill or availability.

---

5. When a board should not yet be created

There are cases where a Board of Directors will add more cost and theater than value.

When the founder seeks validation rather than challenge

If members are chosen because “they understand us,” “they are our people” or “they do not create tension,” the board will become a mechanism for ratifying predetermined decisions.

When management lacks reliable information

A board cannot function with:

• financial information from two months ago,
• vague forecasts,
• vanity metrics,
• no cash flow forecast,
• KPIs that have not been agreed,
• different versions of the numbers across departments.

The quality of the board cannot exceed the quality of the information it receives.

When there is no intention of genuinely delegating authority

If the founder wants the board to have responsibility but no influence, the model is doomed.

You cannot ask people to commit their name, their time and potentially their legal liability to a company while all substantive decisions continue to be made elsewhere.

When the real problem is weak execution

If the company does not have:

• a clear organizational chart,
• managers with defined responsibilities,
• a weekly execution rhythm,
• budgets by responsibility center,
• basic reporting,

a Board of Directors will not fix the operational gap.

First, a management system is needed.

Then an oversight system.

When the board is used as window dressing

A prestigious name without time, preparation, relevant experience and a willingness to take a position is worth less than a less well-known member who will read the materials, understand the business model and ask the difficult question.

Prestige without presence is not governance. It is decoration.

---

6. How to design a Board of Directors properly

The most common mistake is that shareholders start with names:

“Which well-known entrepreneur can we bring in?”

The right order is the reverse.

First, we design what the board must do. Then we select the people who can do it.

Step 1: Define its mission

A Board Charter or Rules of Procedure must clearly answer:

• What is the board's purpose?
• Which decisions belong to it?
• Which belong to the shareholders?
• Which belong to the CEO?
• What information is it entitled to receive?
• How does the chair operate?
• How are conflicts of interest declared and addressed?
• How is the board evaluated?
• How are members replaced or reappointed?

Without a clear mandate, the board will move between two extremes:

it will either be passive or micromanage.

Step 2: Define the reserved matters

“Reserved matters” are decisions that the CEO or a shareholder cannot make alone without prior approval.

Examples include:

• the strategic and business plan,
• the annual budget,
• capex above a specified threshold,
• borrowing and guarantees,
• acquisitions, sales or incorporation of companies,
• entry into or exit from a significant market,
• significant contracts,
• appointment, evaluation and removal of the CEO,
• senior management remuneration,
• dividend policy,
• related-party transactions,
• significant litigation,
• risk appetite,
• crises with serious financial or reputational impact.

Financial thresholds should not be arbitrary. They must be linked to the company's size, EBITDA, liquidity, borrowing and capacity to absorb losses.

Step 3: Build a skills matrix

Do not select five people with similar backgrounds.

The board must collectively cover:

• strategy and scaling,
• finance and capital allocation,
• the industry and customers,
• operations and supply chain,
• technology, data, AI and cybersecurity,
• people, culture and succession,
• risk, legal matters and compliance,
• international growth or M&A, where needed.

No member needs to know everything.

But the board must not have critical gaps that everyone assumes someone else is covering.

Step 4: Choose the right size

The law allows an S.A. to have three to fifteen members, but the legal range does not automatically represent the right business choice. Taxheaven

For most growing unlisted businesses:

• 3 members are often too few for sufficient diversity of views.
• 5 members provide a workable starting point.
• 7 members can be justified when there is greater complexity, an investor, family representation or a need for more specialisms.
• Above 7–9 members, the risk of diffused responsibility and slow discussion increases significantly.

An illustrative five-member structure could include:

1. the founder or CEO as an executive member,
2. a second executive member, usually the CFO or COO,
3. a non-executive member with financial and risk experience,
4. a non-executive member with industry, commercial or technological experience,
5. a strong non-executive or independent chair.

The composition must reflect the company's next phase, not just its past.

Step 5: Choose a chair with governance capability

The best entrepreneur is not necessarily the best chair.

The chair must be able to:

• shape the right agenda,
• ensure sufficient information,
• protect space for disagreement,
• prevent one member from monopolizing the discussion,
• turn discussion into a decision,
• maintain a productive relationship with the CEO,
• evaluate the dynamics of the board itself.

The chair is not the “head of the company.”

They are the architect of how the board functions.

Step 6: Conduct real due diligence on members

Before appointment, the following must be checked:

• actual availability,
• previous experience,
• economic and financial competence,
• potential conflicts of interest,
• professional relationships with competitors, customers or suppliers,
• other board positions,
• reputation and integrity,
• ability to collaborate,
• willingness to prepare,
• behavior under pressure.

A member who has excellent knowledge but cannot listen, synthesize views or disagree without personal conflict can reduce the performance of the entire board.

Step 7: Plan terms and renewal

In S.A.s, the maximum term that the articles of association may provide for does not exceed six years, while staggered renewal may be provided for. Taxheaven

From a business perspective, however, treating the position as permanent is not good practice.

An unlisted company's board can operate with:

• an initial term of two or three years,
• an annual evaluation,
• the option of renewal,
• clear provision for replacement when needs change.

Gratitude for past contributions should not turn into a lifetime position.

---

7. Executive, non-executive and independent members

The fundamental difference is not the title.

It is each member's relationship with day-to-day management and the type of judgment they must bring to the table.

In the context of listed companies, Law 4706/2020 defines executive members as those with management responsibilities and links independent non-executive members to specific independence criteria. The same law assigns executive members responsibility for implementing the strategy set by the Board of Directors. Taxheaven

For an unlisted business, this distinction can be adopted as good practice without replicating the entire regulatory framework for listed companies.

Non-executive does not mean non-responsible

A critical mistake is the belief that a non-executive member has no responsibility because they are not involved in day-to-day management.

In an S.A., board members must comply with the law, the articles of association and General Meeting resolutions, act in the company's interests, oversee the implementation of decisions and keep other members informed. They also have a duty of loyalty, timely disclosure of conflicts and confidentiality. Taxheaven

Each member may be liable for damage resulting from an act or omission that breaches their duties. The assessment of diligence takes into account their capacity and the specific duties assigned to them. The legislation protects a reasonable business decision when it has been made in good faith, with sufficient information and solely in the company's interests. Taxheaven

Therefore:

A member does not need to predict the future. But they must be able to demonstrate that they did their job before deciding.

External does not necessarily mean independent

An external lawyer who receives substantial fees from the company, a key supplier, a close friend of the founder or a relative may be non-executive.

They are not necessarily independent.

Independence is not simply the absence of a salary. It is the absence of relationships that restrict freedom of judgment — and, at the same time, the presence of the character required to express a different opinion.

The OECD notes that independent members can add particular value in areas such as management evaluation, remuneration, succession, major acquisitions, transactions involving conflicts and audit oversight. OECD

A member represents the company, not the person who appointed them

A member may have been nominated by a shareholder or investor.

Once appointed, however, their primary duty is to the company and its interests — not to act as an envoy of the shareholder who nominated them. This principle follows both from the duty to promote the company's interests and from the international understanding that the board should not operate as an assembly of representatives of different factions. Taxheaven

---

8. How a Board of Directors is run

The board is not managed in the sense of hierarchical command.

It is designed, prepared, facilitated and disciplined.

1. Annual calendar

The board must know in advance which topics it will examine during the year.

An illustrative calendar might include:

First quarter

• review of the previous year,
• financial results,
• risk review,
• internal controls,
• progress on the annual plan.

Second quarter

• market, customers and competition,
• commercial model,
• technology and AI,
• talent review,
• succession planning.

Third quarter

• strategic offsite,
• three-year plan,
• scenario planning,
• capital allocation,
• investments and new markets.

Fourth quarter

• next year's budget,
• CEO targets,
• management remuneration,
• board evaluation,
• risk register update,
• next year's program.

The Hellenic Code recommends an annual meeting calendar and action program, as well as timely distribution of the agenda and supporting documents, depending on the complexity of the matters. HCGC

2. Meeting frequency

For a relatively stable unlisted company, four meetings a year is the minimum workable level.

For a business that is growing, transforming or managing significant capex, five to six meetings are often more appropriate.

During a turnaround, acquisition, crisis or investor entry, monthly meetings may temporarily be needed.

The board should not, however, become a weekly management meeting. If it needs to meet constantly to resolve operational issues, the executive structure is probably inadequate.

Legally, the board of an S.A. meets when required by law, the articles of association or the company's needs. As a rule, notice must be given at least two working days in advance, with a clear agenda, while for unlisted companies the articles of association may provide for different formalities or shorter notice periods. Taxheaven

The legal minimum notice period, however, is not good management practice. For substantive matters, the complete pack should usually arrive at least five working days in advance.

3. A board pack that enables thinking

A good board pack is not a 150-page repository.

It should include:

1. a one- or two-page executive summary,
2. performance against budget and the previous period,
3. a rolling cash flow forecast,
4. key commercial and operational indicators,
5. progress on strategic priorities,
6. a risk dashboard,
7. people and succession matters,
8. specific proposals for decision,
9. the action log from the previous meeting.

Every proposal for decision must answer:

• What are we asking to be approved?
• Why now?
• What alternatives were examined?
• What are the financial implications?
• What assumptions are being used?
• What is the downside?
• How will we know the decision succeeded?
• When will it be reviewed?

4. The agenda must be organized around decisions

Weak agenda:

• “Marketing update”
• “Financials”
• “New stores”
• “HR matters”

Strong agenda:

• “Should entry into market X be approved?”
• “Which of the three investment scenarios best serves our strategy?”
• “Which budget assumptions are already no longer valid?”
• “Which risk could derail the plan for the next twelve months?”

The board should not spend most of its time listening to what happened.

It should invest most of its time deciding what needs to happen.

5. Illustrative structure for a three-hour meeting

• 15 minutes: quorum, conflicts of interest, approval of minutes, action log.
• 30 minutes: CEO report and key financial overview.
• 30 minutes: risks, people and operational resilience.
• 75 minutes: strategic topic or major decision.
• 20 minutes: overall decisions, owners and deadlines.
• 10 minutes: closed discussion among non-executive members or meeting evaluation.

6. Minutes that protect and guide

Minutes should not be a transcript.

They should record:

• the matters examined,
• the information presented,
• the main alternatives,
• the decision,
• its rationale,
• any dissent or abstentions,
• the person responsible for implementation,
• the deadline,
• the review date.

The legislation also permits, subject to conditions, decisions without a meeting through minutes signed by all members, including electronically where the articles of association provide for this. Teleconferences are also permitted. Taxheaven

These options are useful for urgent or routine matters.

They should not, however, turn the board into a chain of email approvals without real discussion.

7. Decision log and action register

Every substantive decision must be recorded in a decision log with:

• date,
• decision,
• assumptions,
• expected outcome,
• key risks,
• owner,
• next review date.

The action register records what needs to happen after the meeting.

Without these, the board may have excellent discussions and generate zero organizational movement.

8. Committees only when there is a real need

Unlisted businesses do not need to mechanically copy all the committees of a large listed company.

A five-member company with three committees often ends up with the same people discussing the same matters in different rooms.

A committee makes sense when there is:

• recurring complex work,
• a need for deeper examination,
• a particular risk,
• a potential conflict of interest.

The most common are:

• Audit & Risk,
• Remuneration & Nomination,
• Investment Committee.

For a smaller company, a single combined Audit and Risk Committee or temporary working groups for specific investments may be more effective.

---

9. The role of the chair, the CEO and the corporate secretary

The chair

The chair is responsible for the quality of the board's process.

They must ensure that:

• the agenda includes the right topics,
• information arrives on time,
• all members have space to express themselves,
• disagreements are not suppressed,
• discussion leads to a decision,
• decisions are followed up,
• the CEO is evaluated fairly,
• the board itself is renewed when needed.

The CEO

The CEO does not “report” to each member separately.

They report to the board as a collective body.

They must:

• provide accurate and timely information,
• present options, not just recommendations,
• disclose problems promptly,
• implement decisions,
• report deviations,
• refrain from trying to manage relationships with members behind the scenes.

The corporate secretary

Even on a smaller board, someone must have clear responsibility for:

• notices and the agenda,
• assembling the board pack,
• minutes,
• the decision register,
• the action register,
• conflict declarations,
• procedures relating to the articles of association and GEMI,
• onboarding new members,
• the annual calendar.

This is not merely administrative support.

It is the guardian of governance continuity. The Hellenic Code assigns the corporate secretary a role in information provision, the induction of new members and communication between the board and senior executives. HCGC

---

10. How a Board of Directors is evaluated

The fact that a company has a board does not mean it has an effective board.

A board may be:

• legally sound but irrelevant to the business,
• experienced but passive,
• independent but insufficiently informed,
• active but intrusive,
• productive in discussion but weak in implementation.

Evaluation should take place at least once a year.

The OECD principles recommend regular evaluation of the board's performance and mix of skills, while the Hellenic Code provides for annual evaluation of the collective body, the chair, the CEO, members and committees, with an external facilitator at least every three years. For an unlisted company, this is good practice, not automatically a legal obligation. OECD

What should be evaluated

1. Composition

• Do we have the skills the strategy requires?
• Are there critical gaps?
• Is there sufficient diversity of experience and thought?
• Do members have time available?

2. Strategic contribution

• Did the board genuinely improve the strategy?
• Did it examine alternative scenarios?
• Did it challenge management's assumptions?
• Did it prevent the company from chasing noise rather than a meaningful opportunity?

3. Decision quality

• Are decisions made at the right time?
• Are they based on sufficient information?
• Are assumptions recorded?
• Are decisions reviewed when conditions change?

4. Oversight and risk

• Are the truly critical risks examined?
• Are difficult questions asked?
• Does management feel able to report bad news promptly?
• Are corrective actions followed up?

5. Relationship with the CEO

• Are there clear expectations?
• Is the CEO evaluated against specific criteria?
• Do they receive useful feedback?
• Does the board support them without taking over their role?

6. Information

• Does the board pack arrive on time?
• Is it concise but sufficient?
• Does it contain forward-looking information?
• Is there one reliable version of the numbers?

7. Meeting dynamics

• Does everyone speak, or do two people dominate?
• Is there productive disagreement?
• Are difficult issues avoided?
• Does discussion lead to a clear decision?

8. Follow-through

• Are decisions implemented?
• Are actions completed by the agreed dates?
• Is there accountability?
• Does the same discussion recur because nothing was implemented?

---

A practical Board Effectiveness Score

The company can score each area from 1 to 5 and apply the following weights:

The result is converted to a 100-point scale:

• below 60: a largely formal or dysfunctional board,
• 60–74: functioning, but not creating sufficient value,
• 75–84: an effective board,
• 85 and above: high performance, provided the score is supported by actual evidence.

This is not an international benchmark. It is an internal diagnostic tool.

The most important output of the evaluation is not the score.

It is the two or three specific changes that will be made in the following year.

---

11. How we measure board performance

Care is needed here.

We cannot say:

“Turnover increased by 20%, so the board performed well.”

Nor:

“Profits fell, so the board failed.”

A strong market can conceal a weak board.
A good board can protect a company from much greater losses in difficult circumstances.

Performance must be measured at two levels.

Level 1: Governance quality

Measure:

• member attendance and preparation rates,
• the percentage of board packs delivered on time,
• the percentage of time devoted to strategic issues,
• the average time taken to make important decisions,
• the percentage of actions completed on time,
• the number of substantive risk reviews,
• completion of the CEO evaluation,
• the existence and quality of a succession plan,
• the number of undeclared or inadequately managed conflicts,
• progress in closing skills gaps.

Level 2: Business contribution

For each important decision, assess:

• which option management initially proposed,
• what changed through the board's discussion,
• what financial value was created,
• which risk was reduced,
• how much time was saved,
• which loss was avoided,
• which management capability was developed.

The Board Value Ledger

To keep value from remaining invisible, the company can maintain a Board Value Ledger:

A simple financial approach is:

Net Governance Value = Value created + Value protected + Management time freed up – Total board cost

and:

Return on Governance = Net Governance Value / Total board cost

“Value protected” should not be calculated arbitrarily. It can be approximated as:

Financial exposure × estimated reduction in the probability of loss

The estimate must be recorded at the time of the decision, not retrospectively when everyone knows the outcome.

The aim is not to create false precision.

It is to stop the board from being viewed as unexplained general overhead.

---

12. How much a Board of Directors costs

There is no single fee schedule.

Remuneration is influenced by:

• company size and complexity,
• preparation time,
• number of meetings,
• industry and legal risk,
• scope of responsibility,
• scarcity of experience,
• committee participation,
• the chair's role,
• the need for availability at short notice.

Publicly available Greek data primarily concern listed companies and do not provide a reliable benchmark for a private SME. For example, Grant Thornton's survey of listed companies found that 62% of remuneration in 2024 was fixed and that 81% of total remuneration went to executive members — figures relating to a different regulatory and business environment from that of an unlisted company. grant-thornton.gr

The real cost includes

1. non-executive members' fees,
2. additional chair remuneration,
3. committee fees,
4. a corporate secretary and legal support,
5. directors' and officers' liability insurance — D&O,
6. travel and expenses,
7. onboarding and training,
8. periodic external evaluation,
9. internal CFO, CEO and executive time spent preparing the board pack.

In an S.A., members' remuneration and benefits must comply with the law, the articles of association and, where required, General Meeting resolutions. Remuneration not otherwise regulated requires specific approval, while remuneration arising from a special employment, services or mandate relationship is also subject to the rules governing the relevant transactions. Taxheaven

Indicative budget envelopes

The figures below are not an official benchmark or market price list. They are practical planning envelopes for initial design, excluding executive remuneration from their primary employment.

Advisory Board

Two to three external members, four meetings annually:

€12,000–€30,000 annually

Lean formal Board of Directors

A five-member board, two or three paid non-executive members, five to six meetings, basic legal and secretarial support:

€30,000–€80,000 annually

Mature board with greater complexity

Five to seven members, an independent chair, an audit or investment committee, D&O, external evaluation and increased availability:

€80,000–€180,000 and above annually

The right question is not whether €50,000 is a lot.

The right question is:

How much does a misguided €1 million investment, a poor financing agreement, a shareholder conflict or a failed succession cost the company?

The cheapest governance is not always the most economical.

---

13. The most important mistakes

1. Choosing members because of friendship or social prestige

Familiarity makes discussion easier, but can neutralize challenge.

2. Too many executive members

When the majority of the board is the management team itself, oversight becomes self-evaluation.

3. Non-executive members without sufficient information

You cannot ask for independent judgment from people to whom you provide an incomplete picture.

4. Meetings full of presentations and devoid of decisions

The board is not an audience for management's presentations.

5. Micromanagement

The board should not select campaigns, approve every hire or give instructions directly to middle managers.

When the board executes, it ceases to oversee effectively.

6. Inadequate conflict management

A director who simultaneously sells services to the company, represents a significant shareholder or has transactions with suppliers must disclose the relationship promptly and abstain where required.

7. Lack of follow-through

The board's value lies not in the quality of its discussions, but in the quality of the actions they produce.

8. Absence of evaluation and renewal

A board that is not evaluated gradually turns into a closed club.

9. Copying a listed-company model

A smaller company does not need a miniature version of a large listed company.

It needs the smallest possible structure capable of producing sufficient strategic judgment, oversight and accountability.

---

14. A practical 90-day plan

Days 1–15: Governance diagnosis

• mapping the ownership structure,
• analyzing the legal form and articles of association,
• recording current decision rights,
• identifying founder bottlenecks,
• mapping key risks,
• assessing reporting quality,
• interviews with shareholders and management.

Deliverable: Governance Gap Report.

Days 16–30: Design

• choosing between an Advisory Board and a formal Board of Directors,
• defining the mandate,
• reserved matters,
• delegation of authority matrix,
• size and composition,
• skills matrix,
• remuneration,
• annual calendar,
• board pack template.

Deliverable: Board Design Blueprint.

Days 31–60: Member search and selection

• creating role profiles,
• candidate sourcing,
• interviews,
• references,
• conflict checks,
• negotiating remuneration and time commitments,
• final selection.

Deliverable: Proposed composition and rationale for each member.

Days 61–75: Legal constitution and onboarding

• necessary corporate resolutions,
• amendments to the articles of association where needed,
• GEMI registrations,
• contracts and remuneration,
• conflict declarations,
• D&O,
• onboarding pack,
• presentations by the CEO, CFO and key managers.

Deliverable: A fully constituted and informed board.

Days 76–90: First substantive meeting

The first meeting should not be consumed by formal approvals.

It must answer:

1. What is the company's single most important strategic priority?
2. What are the three main risks?
3. Which decisions are currently overly concentrated?
4. Which investments need to be reviewed?
5. What capability is missing from the management team?
6. What is the succession plan?
7. What must have changed by the next meeting?

---

The real value of the Board of Directors

A good board adds useful energy:

• experience,
• judgment,
• external perspective,
• accountability,
• access,
• courage.

It reduces friction:

• unclear responsibilities,
• delayed decisions,
• shareholder conflicts,
• founder bottlenecks,
• uncontrolled risk,
• poor capital allocation.

And it creates alignment between ownership, the board and management.

If, instead, it adds only meetings, presentations and bureaucracy, it does not create governance.

It creates new operational friction.

This systemic perspective — the connection between the quantitative discipline of the boardroom and the human dynamics that shape decisions — also lies at the heart of the Growth Igniter approach.

A business should not establish a Board of Directors when it wants to appear bigger.

It should establish one when it has become large, complex or vulnerable enough that it can no longer rely on one person's judgment alone.

True corporate maturity begins when the quality of management does not depend on whether the founder is in the room every time.

---

This article is a business and management analysis, not individualized legal, tax or insurance advice. The final structure, responsibilities, remuneration and corporate actions must be reviewed in light of each business's legal form, articles of association, ownership structure and specific regulatory framework.