Few would argue that there is anything less than an urgent need for growth in the UK economy. But the way in which that growth should be achieved – and particularly how boards should guide companies towards it – continues to stir much debate.

The underlying points of contention are clear: are boards focused too heavily on compliance at the expense of profit? And if so, is it time to let them off the leash?

Barry T Gamble, a veteran board adviser and non-executive director (NED) in the private, public and charity sectors, is hosting a boardroom debate on the topic at ICAEW’s Chartered Accountants’ Hall on 30 June. According to him, there are two dimensions to this debate: external and internal.

Regulatory change influences sentiment around risk

The first dimension is external: regulatory developments that influence boards’ sentiments around compliance and risk taking. In a letter to the Financial Times on 27 May 2026, Gamble poses whether there should be more caution over an ongoing “clamour” for financial deregulation in the UK. 

In Gamble’s assessment, the current regime is already a “hotchpotch”, with overlaps and underlaps of responsibility between the principal regulators. As such, he suggests, perhaps what directors need most of all is not sweeping deregulation, but a regime that actually works – one that supports boards’ growth ambitions while providing investors with appropriate safeguards.

“In the US, we’re seeing quite a significant, Trump-driven relaxation of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approach to corporate governance,” Gamble says. “For example, in terms of operating jurisdiction, with companies moving to Texas to avoid regulations in Delaware. But even though the mood music is shifting quite rapidly, the US does still have Sarbanes-Oxley – and is continuing to attract listings from overseas.”

He notes: “If you’re going to keep investors wanting to put capital into companies, they’ll need some guardrails, which is why I made the point in my letter that deregulation is all well and good until the next Carillion-style blowup. Then what?”

Board culture has an impact on risk appetite and growth potential

The second dimension is an internal issue: that the way in which a board conducts itself determines its fitness to harness potential growth opportunities.

According to recent research from boardroom technology specialists Board Intelligence, almost half of directors say that their board doesn't add enough value, while a third say it adds none at all.

Gamble evaluated the findings in a special Board Intelligence blog. One key issue, he pointed out, is that boards may be losing the art of thorough, effective debate. Reports to the board are merely endorsed and their recommendations waived through, rather than tested in proper discussion. Some directors turn up in ‘broadcast mode,’ asserting already fully formed views, rather than doing the hard work of listening. Chairs are failing in their duty to set the tone for debate and draw out quieter voices.

Crucially, Gamble stresses, debates between board members need honesty: directors must be willing to say uncomfortable things and question settled assumptions. “If there’s good, open debate, underpinned by powerful, careful listening and respect for each speaker’s perspective, directors can really get inside and appreciate the shades of grey in an argument. That’s why it’s so essential for our discussion at Chartered Accountants’ Hall to be a formal debate, with no PowerPoint presentations. The way in which we’re exploring the subject matter is as important as the subject matter itself.”

Boards must tread a fine line between compliance and growth

Looking specifically at how boards navigate the path between compliance and risk, ICAEW Governance and Ethics Director Peter van Veen says: “Without pre-empting the debate, which will examine pros and cons on either side, this is always a balancing act. For example, you can’t just say, ‘We don’t worry about compliance on our board because we’re only focused on market growth,’ because then all you’re doing is taking risk.”

Much of a board’s risk appetite stems from the stage of its lifecycle, Van Veen notes. A dynamic startup’s board will have a very different risk appetite to that of a mature company that has been around for 100 years.

Exploiting regulatory gaps is not sustainable

In parallel, he says, the world doesn’t stand still. Some opportunities are mere moments in time; regulators have entire teams of people working out if, and how, gaps in their rulesets are being exploited. “If we think back to the 2008 financial crisis,” Van Veen says, “subprime mortgages were based on a model that some had noticed wasn’t expressly forbidden. If you’re on the board of a firm whose margins depend on exploiting such gaps, fine, but a business built purely on that type of approach is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.”

Factor in investor expectations

Compliance also opens up issues around corporate reporting, Van Veen says. Your board may opt for de minimis disclosures, but investors may complain that they are not getting enough information. Your environmental reporting may focus largely on, say, water-quality impacts, but your investors want more on air quality or energy use. Plus, certain levels of detail may affect your company’s ability to maintain a competitive advantage, should you end up revealing valuable trade secrets or know-how. “None of these are easy challenges,” Van Veen stresses.

For that reason and others, he is looking forward to the debate on 30 June: “I often find that by exploring the extremes, debates crystallise our thinking around the nuanced middle, and people can see more clearly where the compromises lie.”