Background: South Africa is a corporate governance pioneer. The King Reports have offered guidance to listed companies in the country since 1994 and unlisted entities since 2016. In the drive for corporate change, attention is increasingly placed on the role of activist shareholders, in particular institutional investors, given the size of their investments.
Purpose/objectives: This study aimed to gauge institutional investors’ views on the differences between the King III and IV Reports related to positive aspects and room for improvement.
Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected institutional investors. Themes were then derived by conducting an interpretive thematic analysis.
Findings: Interviewees commended the format and scope of the latest King Report but suggested that outcomes-based training should be offered to directors to ease implementation. Executive remuneration, director independence and auditor independence were highlighted as areas that require attention. Some interviewees questioned whether the current non-binding vote on executive remuneration is sufficient. They suggested that executive remuneration should be tied to performance outcomes across the triple bottom line. Participants recommended that director independence should be considered on a case-by-case basis, instead of strictly applying King IV’s suggested tenure guideline. Furthermore, mandatory audit firm rotation could enhance auditor independence, and hence transparency. Stakeholders are encouraged to demand enhanced transparency on corporate matters to enable more informed decision-making.
Reflecting on Corporate Governance in South Africa: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward
