For global investors and owner-managers alike, corporate governance in emerging markets is no longer a peripheral concern. It sits at the heart of capital allocation, risk management, and long-term value creation. China, Brazil, and South Korea offer three distinct but instructive governance stories—each shaped by history, ownership structures, and regulatory choices. Examined together, they reveal how governance frameworks evolve, where tensions persist, and what practical lessons can be drawn for investors and controlling families.

Governance is rarely decided in dramatic boardroom moments. It is shaped quietly and persistently by the quality of information directors receive, the discipline of how decisions are framed, and the consistency with which an organisation communicates with its owners, regulators, clients, and employees. The familiar “six Cs” of board effectiveness—competence, commitment, contribution, challenge, collaboration, and culture—are not abstract ideals. They are revealed most clearly in communications, because communications show what a board chooses to make transparent, what it chooses to control, and how seriously it treats accountability.

Corporate governance ultimately rises or falls on the quality of the individuals who sit around the board table. Committees, codes, and structures matter, but they are only as effective as the judgment, integrity, and competence of the directors who operate them. At a time when boards are expected to oversee strategy, risk, culture, and trust simultaneously, the appointment and conduct of directors deserves far more deliberate thought than a simple review of CVs and reputations.

Hong Kong’s voluntary and community organisations and NGOs operate in a high-trust space of society. They deliver welfare services, mobilise volunteers, and often manage public or donated funds on behalf of the community. That combination of mission, money, and trust is precisely why corporate governance matters so deeply in the non-profit sector. Governance in this context is not about bureaucracy or copying listed-company rules, but about safeguarding legitimacy, stewardship, and public confidence over the long term.

Corporate governance is often discussed in abstract terms, yet it is best understood through the structures, behaviours, and disclosure practices of real organizations. When we examine how large groups are organised, how power is distributed between holding companies and subsidiaries, and how transparently these arrangements are communicated to shareholders, governance stops being theoretical and becomes operational. Few companies illustrate this better than General Electric, alongside the distinctive corporate structures commonly seen among listed companies in Hong Kong.

In today’s complex business environment, companies are no longer judged purely on financial performance. Stakeholders increasingly expect organizations to act responsibly, manage environmental and social impacts, and demonstrate ethical leadership. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability have therefore shifted from being peripheral activities to becoming central pillars of long-term corporate strategy and value creation.

Risk management in large financial institutions has long been treated as a defensive discipline—something designed to prevent failure rather than enable success. Yet in an environment shaped by volatile markets, rapid digitization, regulatory scrutiny, and shifting client expectations, risk has become inseparable from strategy itself. For global asset managers such as Fidelity International, the question is no longer whether risks can be avoided, but how they are understood, governed, and deliberately taken in pursuit of long-term value.

Strategy formulation is often presented as a rational, linear exercise, analysing the environment, assessing internal resources, setting objectives, and choosing a path forward. In practice, strategy sits at the intersection of purpose, power, information, and control. It is shaped not only by markets and capabilities, but also by governance structures, mission statements, management control systems, and board oversight. Understanding how these elements interact is essential if strategy is to be more than an annual planning ritual.