Although the independence of the board from company executives has many benefits, it may not be a mandatory requirement in most countries. After the 2007/2009 financial crisis, there has been a global push to separate the board from executive teams in large part due to conflict of interests. In particular, a board member who doubles up as the chief risk officer, for instance, may overlook some risks during the appraisal process, with one eye on higher remuneration, especially if the remuneration is directly linked to performance. Alternatively, there's the danger of the board falling under the spell of a charismatic CEO.

Option A is incorrect: Board membership may change without adversely affecting the day-to-day running of the company.

Option B is incorrect: Independence ensures that the board does not interfere with the hiring process at the departmental level since the heads of the various department levels understand better the skills and the qualifications required for specific roles.

Option C is incorrect: Tensions between the interests of CEOs and those of longer-term stakeholders are becoming a common feature in corporate management. These tensions pose risks that necessitate the independence of the board from executive management.