A Third of Companies Still Combine CEO and Chair – Here’s Why

The decision to combine or separate the Chair and CEO roles remains a focal point of debate among boards, investors, and governance experts in 2025. While momentum has shifted toward separating these positions, a third of companies still combine the role, including those who previously separated them.

Why it matters: Controversy persists because there is no universal answer: while separation promotes independent oversight and risk mitigation, it can also invite leadership discord and blurred responsibilities if not well-managed.

What the board says: Many boards defend the combined role on grounds of efficiency and strategic cohesion, arguing that CEOs are uniquely positioned to understand company challenges and drive long-term value. 

• In fact, a study found that a combined leadership structure benefited companies during the COVID crisis -  it heightened the CEO’s ability to move quickly, take risks, and develop strategy.

What investors say: Investors argue that splitting the two positions enhances the board’s independence and provides a necessary check on executive power. This is partly driven by the importance of oversight on issues like culture and succession planning, as well as the need to counteract potential conflicts of interest and concentration of authority. 

• Shareholder proposals for independent chairs are common and generally supported by proxy advisors, but not driving practice; support is around 30%.
• Asset managers like LGIM and Norges Bank have gone so far as to systematically vote against directors who support combined roles. 

Bottom line: Ultimately, the debate endures because both governance models present significant trade-offs, and the “best practice” can depend on company size, maturity, and specific business context.