Uncategorized

The passage of The Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) on Friday, July 4th, marks a decisive recalibration of U.S. clean-energy policy and incentive structure—elevating urgency, compliance, and strategic flexibility for corporations. The upending of financial incentives create a real-time operational challenge. Boards must respond by aligning capital schedules, fortifying supply chains, and taking out cost from their decarbonization strategies. How should enterprises evolve their capital allocation for operational effectiveness, ESG targets, and financial return?

Higher input costs and reduced demand due to President Trump’s tariff policy raise red flags under U.S. GAAP and IFRS for impairment testing of non-financial assets such as property, plant, and equipment (PP&E), intangible assets, and goodwill. The increased economic uncertainty and geopolitical volatility mean projections used to determine “Value in Use” or “Fair Value” may fall below carrying amounts, signaling possible impairments. How are Audit Committees anticipating impairment risks from the material change in U.S. trade policy?

Audit committees have long been the mandated nexus of corporate financial reporting, internal controls, and risk management. Even though these committees face a full slate of topical oversight and compliance – financial, internal audit, AI, cyber, ESG, Sustainability, DEI – 2025 has also brought forward a new suite of risks. Namely, trade and tariffs, and geopolitical conflict. With so much responsibility across a broad spectrum of issues, have audit committees become the “kitchen sink” of corporate boards?

Shareholder activism is surging in 2025. Nearly 600 U.S. companies faced demands in 2024 — up 16% from 2022 — and the pressure is only growing. In Q1 2025, activist campaigns targeting U.S. companies jumped 46%. The boardroom is no longer a quiet place. How can directors ready themselves for what will be a turbulent year in the boardroom?

President Trump recently announced the Golden Dome project – his equivalent to his second term’s moonshot with a goal of completion by 2029. The $175 billion project is envisioned to be a multi-layered defense architecture to shield the U.S. from advanced threats, including hypersonic and space-launched missiles. While certain defense and aerospace contractors—the likes of SpaceX, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Boeing—remain obvious winners, industrial and CPG boards should consider the ramifications for their sectors over this decade-long investment. With the rise of national security investment, what will be the financial opportunities and operational complexities?

With the reorientation of manufacturing to the U.S. in response to President Trump’s trade policy, multinationals focus on potential site evaluation and selection. Be it Hyundai in Indiana, Apple in Texas, or Toyota in North Carolina, global companies have made public commitments to bring back parts of their complex supply chains to the U.S. While a myriad of factors must be considered – talent pools, state incentives, land availability, access to first-tier supplies—an underrated question is that of physical climate risks. As manufacturing returns, corporate boards will have to ask their teams what climate-driven risks—water shortages, extreme heat, or flooding—will these new sites face? Where will climate-related hazards pose the greatest threat to business continuity and long-term profitability? Is it enough to reconsider our site location?