The distinctive stance of the King Reports on corporate governance from a global perspective

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a perspective on the distinctive stance of the King Report on Corporate Governance in South Africa, 2016 (King IV) in relation to a number of other codes of corporate governance issued globally.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper presents a comparative analysis between King IV and the codes of governance that apply in a select number of the jurisdictions, namely, Australia, Brazil, Malaysia, Nigeria and the UK. The selection of jurisdictions was done with the view of having a sample that is representative of the major global regions. Preference was given to codes that were issued or revised recently. Mention is also made of the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance where appropriate.

Findings

The conclusion reached in this paper is that King IV is distinctive from the codes compared to it in this paper in six respects. These include that King IV defines corporate governance as accountable leadership instead of it being a system only and is drafted for positive outcomes instead of compliance; proposes an application regime that is qualitative instead of quantitative; integrates sustainable development into its model for corporate governance instead of treating sustainability as an ad hoc-matter; has applicability across the ecosystem of all organisations instead of limited application to listed or larger companies; and has a has built in a social value system to harness broad public support instead of reliance on bottom-down enforcement.

Originality/value

The implications of the distinct approach to corporate governance in King IV are explained in the paper and should serve as a premise to reconsider whether the more traditional approaches to corporate governance code development are still appropriate in light of the learning as evidenced in King IV.

Citation

Ramalho, A. (2020), "The distinctive stance of the King Reports on corporate governance from a global perspective", Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-10-2019-0094