Some Thoughts on Governance

by Andrew J. Burton

Things About Governance (2026) - 13

---------------

"Things About Governance" is a thematic series of articles, sponsored by Reality Skimming Press. Pieces in the series run from Jan-June 2026. Query us about contributing for $25 CAD a post at https://facebook.com/relskim  or by email at info@realityskimming.com

---------------

Author Andrew J. Burton, 2025.

Governance. There’s a whole lot in that one word. On the surface it refers to how an organization

is directed and controlled. An organization could be a business, a service organization, a charity,

or it could be a government. On the surface “good governance” can seem like a lofty goal,

something to strive for, but it often is not. Take a deep dive into corporate structure and the

cracks start to show. Too often the structure developed to ensure “good governance” provides

nothing more than the appearance of the idea rather than a true working process. Governance is,

at its heart, management and. While management is necessary, it can quickly become dependent

on the structure it creates, often at the mercy of managers who may pay lip service to the

elements of good governance are committed to acting purely in service of advancing their career

and their place in the power structure. Over time, such a structure becomes so engrained that it

warps the policies and procedures of the organization. Management built around the personal

ambitions of people in the structure see principled, ethical individuals as both a threat to personal

goals and a risk to themselves personally. A corrupt person sees another corrupt person as a

known quantity, as someone they can work with. Someone who lives and works according to a

moral code will at some point, cave to pressure and abandon that code, leave rather than put up

with a structure that cannot be trusted, or push back against immoral, dishonourable or illegal

behaviour. Any or all of these outcomes threatens the stability of the “paper chase” form of

management, leading to a dumbing down of the structure and a slow and steady eating away at

the models of Governance.

Good governance does exist and, in some cases, works well enough to build organizations and

work places that could stand as beacons to us all. However, bad practice can corrupt to levels that

are hard to identify and even harder to correct. Structures held up as models of good practice can

become so corrupted that they appear to work while undermining the basic principles they

pretend to support.

A Model for Good Governance

The principles of governance (as set out by the “Chartered Governance Institute” (https://www.cgi.org.uk/ ) identify some obligations to good governance. Those obligations are:

1. Ensuring ethical conduct

2. Sustainable growth

3. Balancing stakeholder interests

4. Mitigating risks

Notice they start with “ethical conduct” which is often the first to go in corporate structures.

A Model of Governance that is designed to look good and is widely used, can be deceptive. It

can look reasonable, positive and workable but it cannot overcome corrupting influences that ban

arise from within.

Let’s consider an imaginary big business. (Big, because there is more potential for widespread

fallout of decision making, Imaginary because an actual business may be litigious if someone

airs their dirty laundry in public.)

This imaginary business develops mining operations and sales of minerals around the world.

After discovering a significant source of metal ore, they decide to develop a mine and an

adjacent processing facility. This will mean a lot of jobs, a lot of employees in a place where

there was nothing but wilderness before the mine. Note: the use of the term “wilderness”. To

many people, wilderness suggests something that is not worth much, so it is exploitable without

a great deal of consideration for the rivers, forests and wildlife that have long existed within the

area. The company secures the land title for an area big enough to develop the mine and to create

a town to house their future considerable work force. The company engages another corporate

entity to develop a fully planned community. The town, (named after the Chairman of the Board)

begins to grow. The first steps to development create an encampment of trailers housing transient

workmen to begin the building of the mine and facilities. The Company has plans for the future.

Surveyors and planning crews lay out the footprint of a fledgling community. Construction crews

get to work. More employees start moving in. At first most are renting accommodations. The

company’s new construction provides apartments at reasonable rents. Construction of single-

family houses begins. As the town becomes more established, people want to own their own

homes, so the company provides houses for sale and manages mortgage provision for their

employees. The company provides infrastructure for the town including schools, a hospital,

shopping centres, car dealerships, an airport, travel agents, recreation places, a golf course,

restaurants, several bars, developed lots at a few local lakes for “summer homes”. Telephone,

local radio and television services are provided. Another corporate entity is invited in to create a

local newspaper. This entity operates a chain of such newspapers in “industry based”

communities across Canada. They focus on “good news” and “supporting the community”,

reporting on what the local citizens want to hear.

The mine hits full production. The town continues to grow, more people move in, settle down,

raise families. Some lease space to start small businesses, restaurants, shops, sporting goods. All

is right with the world. Or is it?

Occasionally people would decide they want to leave the town. People come and go. It’s not a

big deal. For the most part, having good pay, easy access to fishing, hunting boating, skiing and

other recreation, a small, fairly tight knit community, a good school for the kids. What’s not to

like?

Things sometimes change. Global economics and market conditions resulted in layoffs, and little

was available in employment other than the mine and service industries. People planning to leave

often found themselves staying because it was not an easy place to escape. The availability of

financing meant that many people went “all in” on the good life, buying a summer home, a new

truck, a boat; all the toys they dreamed of. Debt load became an unexpected roadblock to

leaving. People who wanted to leave would sometimes say they felt trapped in the town. They

were used to their standard of living and could not recoup their losses by selling things because

others in the town were in the same situation.

The powers that be within the corporate structure were often quoted in the local paper about the

company’s commitment to their employees and to the community. The company regretted the

layoffs, but “they” (the company) were hurting too. “We’re all in this together!” the company

said, (while eyeing alternative mining properties in Brazil).

The “planned community” can seem like good corporate practice. It provided a nice place to live

with almost every amenity a person could want. The undercurrent was and is, the level of control

the company maintained over every aspect of the operation of the town and all the structures in

it, including the lives of the people.

An argument could be made, (and the company was always ready to make it) that their level of

planning and control was “good governance”. It ensured quality of life, access to recreation and

support for families while the company maintained a stable workforce. It’s a “win win”.

However, every aspect of the creation and operation of the town was quietly controlled by the

company and those services being provide were, in fact, additional revenue streams that often

were not acknowledged as such.

Let’s go back for a moment to that first order of “good governance”, ethics. Suppose the federal

government implements policies to protect the environment. Suppose the government designates

an inspector to measure the composition of the smoke coming out of the stack at the smelter.

Suppose the operating temperature is maintained at a level that reduces the pollutants coming out

of the stack but also reduces production levels. Suppose the company pays employees a bonus

based on production. Imagine standing in the centre of town, looking up at the smokestack at

5:00 PM after the government inspector goes home and seeing the smoke change colour. The

company will claim they are following the rules, while notices go up cautioning hunters not to

eat organ meats from wild game in the region due to heavy metal contamination.

The principles of good governance seem like positive ideals. And there are businesses and

organizations that do follow them. However, there is a need for checks and balances, for

transparency and availability of information.

“Ensuring ethical conduct” is the heart and soul of good governance in business and in

government. However, who decides what is ethical? What structures are in place to evaluate and

control organizational behaviour? What are the consequences for a breach of ethics? Who makes

the decisions?

“Sustainable growth” can involve a range of measurements. In the “imaginary” corporation

described here, sustainable growth could be described as incremental increases in the

development and range of mining, processing and distribution of materials. The other streams of

income, derived from corporate control of every aspect of a community, are not openly

acknowledged and hidden in shadow holdings set up to distance the corporation from full

disclosure of what they do. This takes us back to issues of ethics again. Who decides? Who

benefits from it? Who loses from it?

“Balancing stakeholder interests” is another slippery topic. Who decides who “stakeholders” are?

Do stakeholders fully know what the company does, and how it functions? Would the employees

of the company be considered stakeholders? Would the people living in the community who do

not work directly for the company be stakeholders too? Does corporate practice consider the

interests of ALL stakeholders or just the interests of financial stakeholders?

“Mitigating risks” depends on who defines risk and what are acceptable means of dealing with

those risks? Does “risk” include actions taken that threaten the environment? What about threats

to the health and wellbeing of the community? Does corporate control of media and the

dissemination and scope of information available to the community represent a risk? Does

“mitigation” mean changing practices or changing definitions and awareness?

The heart and soul of good governance require engagement. It requires independent media. It

requires local government with a real voice not controlled by corporate interests. It requires a

population with the will to take a stand, when necessary, to act in the best interests of all the

community without consideration of fear or favour. This is not a simple ask. It requires

engagement, attention to what is going on, awareness of history and a commitment to doing the

right thing. It requires a reawakening of the belief in ethics as a standard of behaviour.

In the corporate structure it will require a commitment among management all the way up the

line, to honesty and ethical behaviour. This means embracing the idea that every decision will be

evaluated based on; “What is the right thing to do?” rather than; “How will this affect my

career?” Such change would include a change to corporate culture. A well known auto

manufacturing executive once said; “it’s cheaper to convince people that “quality is job one”

than it is to make quality job one.”

Good Governance will not come easily. It will take more than spin and slogans. It will take

attention, work and commitment by a significant part of the population. Not doing so leaves us

open to manipulation and deception, to falling for the easy lie over the difficult truth. Is the truck

the boat, the cottage at the lake really worth the cost?

So, what are you going to do about it?

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ( Mark

8:36) (quoting Jesus).

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one” Spock.

---------------

Biography:

Andrew Burton is a Canada-based poet, playwright, and creative arts social worker, resident in Prince George, British Columbia, since the mid-1990s. He founded and served for many years as Artistic Director of Street Spirits Theatre, a socially-engaged theatre company that received a citation from Canada's Solicitor General, the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and the Otto Award. An award-winning writer across genres: poetry, short stories, articles, and plays, Burton has appeared in literary outlets such as Ellery Queen, Minstrel, Dreamland, CaNon, Dateline Arts, Parent Connection, Thimbleberry, and Biker magazines.

References:

• Chartered Governance Institute The principles of governance (as set out by the “Chartered Governance Institute” (https://www.cgi.org.uk/ )

• Movie: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1mE_lyVKRQ&t=40s