The UK’s largest electricals retailer, Currys, has moved to disband its board-level ESG committee, effectively ending the formal mechanism for overseeing environmental, social and governance issues at the top of the company.

While the company has insisted it remains committed to its ESG objectives, the move comes at a pivotal moment. Across the UK and Europe, new regulations are increasing reporting requirements on sustainability and stakeholder governance, and investors are placing greater pressure on companies to demonstrate board-level accountability.

The decision has sparked debate about how businesses should structure their ESG oversight in a changing regulatory landscape. Commenting on the development, Ciarán Bollard, CEO of The Corporate Governance Institute, said: “Statements of this kind are becoming more common. We hear companies say: ‘we are stepping back from formal ESG structures, but our commitment remains.’ In the United States, this has often been driven by political hostility towards ESG. Companies there can, to some extent, be forgiven for de-prioritising when the political and regulatory climate makes ESG such a contentious subject. The UK, however, is a very different environment.”

Bollard noted that UK boards are facing tougher expectations rather than looser ones. “Regulation on sustainability disclosures is tightening, investor scrutiny is increasing, and the broader governance culture here continues to value ESG as part of long-term resilience. In that context, dissolving a dedicated ESG committee could appear short-sighted. It risks sending a signal that ESG is no longer seen as a strategic priority at board level, precisely when stakeholders are demanding greater accountability.”

He added that the structure of ESG oversight matters as much as the policies themselves. “A board-level committee ensures focus, visibility and responsibility. Without that, ESG risks becoming fragmented and treated as a peripheral issue rather than one embedded in strategy. That can create challenges for compliance, investor relations and reputation over time.”

Bollard concluded that the Currys decision should be seen as part of a broader test for UK corporate governance.

“Governance models evolve, and no single structure is mandatory. But timing is everything. In the UK, stepping back from formal ESG oversight as standards rise is likely to raise more questions than it answers. The lesson for boards is clear: commitments to ESG are judged not just by what is said, but by the governance structures that underpin them.”