Janhavi Dadarkar consulted me for this The Institute of Directors article. Boards, she notes, have considered wider interests beyond shareholders such as ESG. So, BLM broadens that existing trend. The “Cadbury definition” of corporate governance in the 90s was a primary influence. Recently, section172 of the UK Companies Act 2006 added reporting obligations. These have been evolutionary in nature, but BLM has had a whiff of “revolution”. Regardless, a Board should respond through its risk management process, overseen by its Audit and/or Risk Committee. A response must be anchored within the strategic interests of all stakeholders. BLM has stirred related controversies for Boards outside the Euro-American axis. In Africa, questions have arisen about corporate mitigation of ethnic rivalries which cause political, economic and social uncertainties that impact business environments. In the end, Boards must remember that their duty is not to enforce equality between stakeholders but to provide for equity or fairness. The difference is subtle but vital for a world destabilised by distrust of leadership.