At Griffith Foods, our approach to food goes beyond meeting nutritional needs. We believe food should contribute to people's well-being while also helping create a more sustainable future. Developing healthier, more sustainable product portfolios is therefore an important part of how we work with our customers. This commitment also led us to contribute to recent research from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) titled “The Case for Accelerating Corporate Performance & Accountability for Healthy and Sustainable Diets.”

The WBCSD research identifies an important change in what stakeholders expect from food companies. Corporate responsibility is increasingly extending beyond environmental reporting to include nutrition and dietary health. Attention is shifting from simply understanding how food is produced to examining how companies' product portfolios influence healthier and more sustainable diets. Areas including nutrition governance, the health profile of product portfolios, responsible marketing practices, and diversification of protein sources are emerging as important components of corporate accountability.

However, the research also identifies a substantial transparency and reporting gap. Although nutrition and dietary outcomes are receiving greater attention, disclosure across the food industry remains inconsistent. Fewer than 20% of food companies currently provide regular and comprehensive information on important nutrition-related issues. Improving the quality and consistency of this reporting could give companies valuable insight into opportunities for portfolio enhancement while contributing to sustainable, long-term value creation.

The report further emphasizes the need for companies to act promptly. The expansion of nutrition-labeling requirements, changes in regulatory expectations, and growing investor interest in nutrition as a material business issue are all increasing pressure for greater accountability. These developments point toward a transition from broad voluntary commitments to reporting that provides more measurable, comparable, and useful information about companies' contributions to healthier and more sustainable diets.

Griffith Foods' participation in this research reflects our focus on collaboration and ongoing improvement. By working with others across the industry to advance meaningful metrics and strengthen reporting practices, we hope to help encourage the development of food portfolios that address both nutritional priorities and sustainability objectives.

We believe meaningful progress depends on transparency, collaboration, and shared accountability. Together, these principles can help build food systems that support better outcomes for both people and the planet.

Discussions about proxy voting often center on executive pay packages and shareholder proposals. Yet, the most consequential votes frequently receive less attention: the election of directors. Boards of directors are crucial to protecting shareholder interests by guiding strategy, overseeing management, and ensuring accountability for long-term value creation.
Voting in director elections gives investors a strong mechanism to express views on governance matters. That influence is becoming more visible—during the 2024 proxy season, directors who led nominating and governance committees faced about 5% more opposition votes on average. This shift highlights investors’ readiness to scrutinize and hold specific board members accountable for governance and board composition concerns.
Director votes can also be used to send signals on wider issues. Beyond traditional topics like director independence or shareholder rights, investors have employed these elections to voice perspectives on areas such as product quality, executive pay, and even strategic corporate moves.
Stronger Boards, Stronger Results
The goal of our voting approach is always to strengthen governance and, in turn, improve investment outcomes. While many factors contribute to why one company may lag behind its peers, we’ve consistently observed a clear connection between the quality of a board—as reflected in our voting support—and the company’s subsequent performance.

Since 2017, U.S. firms with boards that earned our full backing have tended to outperform in both median and average stock returns the following year. This trend has held across industries and company sizes, reinforcing the idea that ineffective boards often foreshadow weaker performance.

Defining an Effective Board
Boards play a central role in evaluating management’s effectiveness, composition, and pay. Their oversight is vital in safeguarding a company’s financial health and risk profile. Ultimately, directors are accountable for ensuring management decisions serve the best interests of all shareholders. These responsibilities are especially apparent during times of corporate restructuring, when alignment between executives and investors is most critical.

Effective boards share common features:

Not all boards meet these standards. When we conclude that a board’s structure or behavior fails to serve shareholder interests, we may withhold support from relevant directors as part of our fiduciary responsibility.

A Case in Practice
At a large U.S. bank, we identified persistent governance weaknesses—including fraud, risk mismanagement, workplace misconduct, and poor alignment with investors. Over several years, we engaged with its leadership team and consistently withheld votes from key directors. As a result, the bank undertook major governance reforms, strengthened oversight, and improved incentive structures as part of a broader cultural reset.

Keeping the Focus Where It Counts
For investors, the essential question remains: is the board advancing shareholder value? Our analysis demonstrates that weak boards often correspond with disappointing outcomes, while strong, well-supported boards are linked with superior results.

Director elections rarely dominate headlines, but they remain one of the most impactful ways for investors to make their voices heard.