What might some articles state regarding the appointment of an alternate director?

The appointment of an alternate director typically requires approval from the board. This aligns with corporate governance principles, which emphasize the necessity of board oversight and collective decision-making. Many company articles dictate that the board must consent to the appointment of an alternate director as a way to ensure that all board members agree to the appointment of substitutes who will effectively fulfil essential roles and responsibilities during the absence of the main director.

This stipulation ensures that alternate directors possess the requisite competencies and understanding of the company's operations, which is crucial for informed decision-making. Such a process helps maintain the integrity and performance of the board by allowing the remaining members to vet the qualifications and suitability of prospective alternates.

Other options fall short for various reasons. The assertion of automatic appointment upon incorporation does not reflect the necessary governance norms, as director roles and their substitutes typically require defined processes. The statement that only executive directors can appoint alternates limits the appointment mechanism too narrowly, as most companies allow other directors to also nominate alternates. Lastly, the claim that alternate directors cannot be from outside the company may misrepresent the flexibility provided in many articles of association, which often permit external appointments contingent upon board approval.