The independent investigation into the governance at the University of Cape Town (UCT) has been widely covered, and consequences are evident. UCT has already indicated it is taking actions to restore the university community and regain public trust, while according to a SENS announcement, the former chair of the Council has just resigned from one of the boards she sits on in order to take the findings on review.

Professor Parmi Natesan, CEO of the Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) says the lesson is clear: governance failure has significant negative impacts on both institutions and the individuals implicated in it. “The panel’s conclusions, which can be found in paragraphs 651-682, and its recommendations, should be required reading for all board members,” she says.

Some key themes identified by Professor Natesan include:

Leaders must be suitable people—and know how to fulfil their roles. Institutions cannot prosper if their boards (Council, in the case of UCT) and executives do not have the right personal qualities, skills and experience to fulfil their roles satisfactorily.

For this reason, given the greatly increased scope of a board member’s responsibilities, the IoDSA has long advocated that directorship should be recognised as a regulated profession. This would enable directors to gain the necessary skills and to keep them updated, require directors to be bound by a code of conduct, and would mean that directors could be disciplined and have their license to practice removed.

A key directorial responsibility is the legal duty to act in the best interests of the organisation, in good faith and for proper purpose with care, skill and diligence, something that the report indicates some UCT Council members seem not to have practiced in numerous instances. For instance, the report indicates that the former Council “failed to act on the information…, leaving many members of staff vulnerable to further abuse of power” (660).  It further refers to the vice-chancellor and chair advancing “their own interests, instead of UCT’s” (Recommendation VIII).

The board also has a responsibility for appointing a CEO with the right levels not only of technical competence but also moral compass and the personality to lead—another key responsibility that the previous UCT Council seems to have failed to live up to. For example, the report indicates that the selection committee appointed the vice-chancellor, despite “clear evidence of her inability to lead and manage senior executives” (657).

A key recommendation by the panel was that the process for nominating and selecting Council members should be revisited to ensure that fit and proper persons are selected in terms of current law and also King IV. Who gets selected to serve on boards or similar governing bodies is crucial, as the IoDSA has continually pointed out.

Board chairs have a vital role. Concerning the CEO particularly, the board chair has leadership in holding the CEO accountable for his/her performance and conduct. Various paragraphs in the report indicate this not to have been the case.

Codes of conduct are important but must be policed. UCT’s former vice-chancellor was found to have breached the Council’s Code of Conduct, as did the former chair of Council. Furthermore, Recommendation IX of the report indicates “multiple instances of violations of the Code of Conduct by members of Council”. Boards have a responsibility to act decisively in these instances, and hold others accountable for their actions.

Role clarity is crucial. The report findings indicate that many of UCT’s governance problems derived from the fact that board members and executives constantly strayed out of their lanes, which we can assume to have been either deliberate interference or a lack of understanding of their role. For example, the Council “irregularly… [involved] itself in day-to-day management rather than focusing its attention on governance and accountability based on UCT’s strategic plan” (653). 

“These governance failures seem to have had a devastating effect on UCT’s reputation, and in the work environment at the institution. I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding what its specific governance failures were, and then applying King IV’s best-practice recommendations to help avoid them in future,” Professor Natesan concludes. “As we see again, governance excellence is critical to an organisation’s reputation and, indeed, its ability to function properly.”

​ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website: www.iodsa.co.za
X (Twitter): @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors in South Africa Company Page  
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

A slew of recent media reports indicate that the Johannesburg Property Company has appointed several individuals to its board who, on the face of it, do not possess the necessary skills to govern a significant municipal entity with a property portfolio worth an estimated R8.7 billion. These appointments, which are reported to include a receptionist, a cashier and a person without matric, appear to have been made unilaterally by the MMC for Economic Development.
 
“The Johannesburg Property Company manages 30 000 properties, many of which have reportedly been hijacked—in fact, the devastating Albert Street fire that claimed 77 lives was apparently one of them. The Company’s board bears ultimate oversight accountability for the inadequate management of its valuable property portfolio properly, and it’s no stretch of the imagination to assume that the possible lack of skills could lie at the heart of the problem,” says Professor Parmi Natesan, CEO of the Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA).
 
“Media reports also suggest that the MMC treats the company as a private fiefdom to which political cadres are appointed, based presumably on their loyalty and political importance, and not necessarily their skills as directors. The sad state of municipal entities across the city, and indeed the country, shows the devastating consequences of flouting robust nomination processes for board and senior executive positions.”
 
The IoDSA has repeatedly pointed out that public sector entities face particular challenges when it comes to appointing competent boards. The state, as the sole shareholder, has not been seen to follow best practice in this regard. According to King IV, directors should have the correct mix of skills and experience to discharge their legal duties. A robust and transparent nomination process that includes in-depth vetting of candidates should be followed, says Professor Natesan.
 
“Without such a nomination process, the board members can hardly act competently and independently in order to fulfil their legal duties, which are to the company and not to whoever appointed them,” Professor Natesan says. “I wonder if these directors realise that they can be held personally liable for any untoward decisions they make. Modern-day directors need not only business and sector skills and experience, but also finely honed governance expertise.”
 
The performance of local government generally, including municipal entities like the Johannesburg Property Company, has a direct bearing on service delivery and thus on the most vulnerable sectors of society. The Auditor-General’s Consolidated General Report on Local Government Audit Outcomes 2021-22, an annual report on audit outcomes for entities governed by the Municipal Finance Management Act, notes that fruitless and wasteful expenditure continues to balloon. It doubled in 2021-22 to R4.74 billion, plus an estimated R5.19 billion in financial loss from non-compliance and fraud. It is clearly imperative that municipalities and municipal entities are properly governed, and the Auditor-General highlights the need for competent people to be appointed to municipal structures, and for governance to be strengthened.
 
“The Johannesburg Property Company is just one of many municipal entities that are perceived to be – and often are – underperforming, with one of the reasons for that underperformance reasonably assumed to be that board appointments are not necessarily made with the entity’s needs in mind,” she argues. “These entities need proper governance and strong oversight or they are likely to fail to do their jobs, with disastrous consequences for society and our country.”
​
ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Idéle Prinsloo, idele@thatpoint.co.za, 082 573 9219, www.atthatpoint.co.za
 
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website: www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter: @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors in South Africa Company Page  
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

News reports that the Minister of Public Enterprises has rejected the name put forward by the Eskom board to replace André de Ruyter as CEO once again raising the complex governance issues relating to the appointment of senior management at state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The reported reason for the Minister’s rejection of the board’s nominated candidate is that it was supposed to submit three names as stipulated by the Minister in terms of Eskom’s Memorandum of Incorporation.

Professor Parmi Natesan, CEO of the Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA), says that the Minister’s rejection of the board’s nomination, whatever the technicalities, lays bare the governance tangle that continues to affect the governance balance at SOEs.

“Governance best practice is for the board to appoint the CEO so that he or she is accountable to the board. The challenge is that SOEs have enabling legislation or founding documents which often stipulate that the government (effectively the shareholder) has the power to appoint senior management, as well as the board,” she says. “King IV recognises this, and suggests in the SOE supplement that the board be fully involved in the appointment of the CEO and that both parties agree that the CEO is accountable to the board, not the Minister, as representative of the shareholder.”

If this approach is not followed, she adds, CEOs who do not have the confidence of the board may be appointed, and CEOs may see their reporting line leading directly to the Minister rather than the board. The resulting blurred reporting lines make it difficult for boards and management to work constructively together.

The current state of affairs means that the faith of both the board and the Minister seems questionable. The former could be construed to be not following the Minister’s instructions, or rebellious in that it is asserting its preference for appointing the CEO it wants (in line with governance best practice). Similarly, the latter could be accused of having a hidden agenda, namely that the nomination did not meet with the approval of the political powers.

Professor Natesan says. “The IoDSA has been steadfast in bringing this particular governance issue to the fore, and we once again urge Government and SOEs to follow King IV’s lead. In a perfect world, though, the appointment of the CEO should be the board’s prerogative. The board would then be able to hold the CEO properly to account, and could in turn itself be held to account by the shareholder.”

ENDS
 
MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn: 
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

The Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) and the King Committee have broadly welcomed the amendments relating to social and ethics committees (SECs) in the Companies Amendment Bills.
 
Prof Parmi Natesan, CEO of the IoDSA, expressed support of the new clause (6A) proposed for section 72, which allows the minister to prescribe the minimum qualifications, skills and requirements for the SEC. “The IoDSA has consistently advocated for all board members to have the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to discharge their duties adequately,” she says. “Our Director Competency Framework will assist directors to acquire the skills they need on the board and the SEC.”
 
The Chair of the King Committee, Ansie Ramalho, highlights three significant changes. One is the requirement for public companies and state-owned enterprises to appoint SEC members at their AGMs. The second proposed change requires the representation of non-executive directors on the SEC and the other involves the tabling of an SEC report at the AGM.  Ramalho agrees with giving SECs more prominence. ”The requirements introduced by the Bill for the election and qualifications of members of SECs are likely to elevate its authority and effectiveness which is critical for a committee which exercises oversight of matters as important as the social and environmental impact of companies’ output and operations.”
 
Ramalho suggests, however, that there be a rewrite of the regulations that address the responsibilities of the committee. “Currently the regulations do not deal with oversight of company ethics as an area for oversight by the SEC, despite - judging by the given name of the committee - it clearly being the intention. Also, other areas for monitoring and oversight as stated in the regulations are not sufficiently focused for meaningful reporting against which the SEC could be held accountable,” she says.
 
Deon Rossouw, a member of the King Committee and Chair of the IoDSAs Social and Ethics Committee Forum, says that the intention to exempt certain companies, such as subsidiaries of a company that has an SEC, will contribute to the ease of doing business and eliminate duplicate administration. Rossouw also lauds the inclusion of a clause requiring an SEC report to be tabled at the AGM. “In line with modern thinking, it is important that shareholders are informed not only about the company’s financial performance but also about how it does business and its impact on society,” he says.
 
However, he sounds a note of caution: while the new Bill requires the SEC report to be made “in the prescribed manner and form”, it does not provide guidance as to either.
 
“We were very thankful that the drafters dropped the requirement for the SEC report to be passed by a resolution at the AGM as was previously tabled in the 2021 bill, which we argued was a bad idea since the report would contain historic information, thus a fait accompli which the vote cannot change,” he says.
ENDS

 
MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
 
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page 
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa
 

The Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) and the King Committee say that, although they remain supportive of reform efforts in what is a highly contested area, some of the proposals contained in the Companies Act Amendment Bills 2023 relating to remuneration are problematic.

Both bodies agree that the proposal to have the remuneration policy tabled for approval at the AGM only every three years or when material amendments are made is constructive in that it gives shareholders a real voice. It is also in line with international leading practice.

However, they are ringing alarm bells over proposals relating to firstly the voting on the remuneration implementation report and secondly, the consequences of the report not being approved at the AGM.

The issue here is that in terms of the proposed Bill, the Remuneration Committee (RemCo) has to present its implementation report (giving effect to the remuneration policy) for approval at every AGM. If the ordinary resolution on the implementation report is not passed by at least 50% of the votes in favour of the report, RemCo members are obliged to step down from the committee, for a period of at least three years, although they would be able to remain on as board directors.

Professor Parmi Natesan, CEO of the IoDSA, says that the consequences of this would be undesirable and impractical on many levels. “It would mean that those board members with specialist remuneration skills (already in short supply) would be no longer available to serve on RemCo—this at a time when boards are under pressure to reduce in size. The former RemCo members could suffer considerable reputational damage anyway,” she says. “One could also foresee that shareholders could hold boards hostage by threatening to vote down the implementation report if their demands are not met.”

Ansie Ramalho, Chair of the King Committee, argues that a vote on the implementation report is neither constructive nor instructive. “The intention behind King IV in providing for a non-binding advisory vote on remuneration implementation was to furnish the opportunity for engagement between the board and shareholders as a constructive avenue for airing views and resolving differences.  A binding vote makes sense for the remuneration policy because it is forward-looking, but it does not make sense when it comes to the implementation report, which is why no other jurisdiction in the world has implemented it. The implementation report is like the financial statements: it presents historical information and similarly should simply be presented to the AGM, but not voted on.”

“We have no objection against consequences, but they are in the hands of shareholders who have the right to vote against the appointment of directors involved in remuneration decisions. We should also not lose sight of the fact that the numbers in the remuneration report are an outcome of the implementation of a policy supposedly previously approved by shareholders.”

Dr Ronel Nienaber, Chair of the IoDSA Remuneration Committee Forum, adds that there are important details that need to be carefully considered if this amendment is passed. For example, if the RemCo’s implementation report is not passed, would the members have to step down immediately? This would potentially mean that the new members of the RemCo would find themselves having to engage with the shareholders to understand their concerns without any insight into the rationale for the previous RemCo’s decisions. Nienaber also asks whether there would be any other consequences beyond the RemCo members having to stand down, such as an additional action calling for a clawback of monies already paid.

Dr Mark Bussin, member of the King Committee and the IoDSA Remuneration Committee Forum, raises the issue of South Africa’s attractiveness as a place to do business, already being compromised. “If we become the first country to introduce a binding vote on the RemCo’s implementation report, we risk being seen to be unfriendly to business and not consistent with well-established principles,” he says.

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page 
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

According to a recent news report, the Minister of Higher Education, Blade Nzimande, is considering a legal review of the governance frameworks at South Africa’s universities in order to stem the rising tide of corruption and mismanagement at these institutions. Professor Parmi Natesan, CEO of the Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) says that the Department can rely on King IV to help him put the necessary governance reforms in place.
 
“King IV was drafted to be applicable to all types of organisations. Because it is outcomes-based, King IV is flexible—it’s not about following a rigid template but rather taking appropriate actions that will lead to the desired end results,” she says. “While it’s a voluntary code, it is considered governance best practice and it would thus make sense for the Minister to rely on it to guide his actions in reforming governance in the university space. The Department’s own ‘Guidelines for Good Governance Practice’ is also an excellent resource.”
 
The Minister is reported as being particularly concerned about several issues that have repeatedly cropped up in university assessors’ reports. Professor Natesan makes the following comments on these specific areas of concern:
 
Lack of skills and experience of members of university councils. Lack of skill and experience, especially as regards governance best practice and serving as a director, is one that affects many organisations, especially in the public sector. The IoDSA has long since identified the need to build up a talent pool of professional directors who combine their existing sector knowledge and experience with a comprehensive set of directorial competencies. The Institute developed a Director Competency Framework to help the public understand what is needed to serve as a director, and to help prospective directors acquire and maintain these skills via its training programmes. It has also created two SAQA-recognised professional designations for directors.
 
Individuals guilty of transgressions at one university find employment at others. As the ultimate governance custodian, the university council has to ensure that succession planning for senior roles is in place, and that a transparent nominations and thorough due-diligence process is developed and mandated. This due diligence should delve into candidate’s prior track record and reputation prior to appointment.
 
Entrenchment of corruption. Principle 1 of King IV (“The governing body should lead ethically and effectively“) makes it clear that the university council should take collective responsibility for the university’s overall performance and must be held accountable for the execution of its responsibilities. As regards corruption, particularly in the university’s supply chain, it is clearly the council’s responsibility to ensure that effective checks and balances are in place, and are constantly monitored. The council should clearly set the tone of the organisation, which should include zero tolerance for unethical behaviour.
“Effective governance is the surest bulwark against corruption and ultimately poor performance, so this should be seen as an urgent and critical matter,” she says. “As the owner of the King Reports and advocate for governance, the IoDSA stands ready to assist the Department with recommendations if needed.”

ENDS
 
MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
 
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website: www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter: @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn: Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

The Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) has been named Most Innovative Corporate Governance Training Institute for 2023 (UK) by Global Brands magazine. Sherma Malan, Executive Director: Certification and Member Services at the IoDSA, says the award is a welcome recognition of the quality of training the Institute offers, and thus its contribution to creating and expanding the country’s directorial talent pool.
 
“We are particularly proud of our designation as an innovative training provider because we have put so much effort into offering directors and would-be directors training that really does prepare them for what has become a very fast-moving and demanding profession,” she says.
 
“The IoDSA is 60 years old, but that legacy is built on our forward-looking stance. As the ultimate custodians of corporate governance within an organisation, directors have an incredibly tough job and a heavy responsibility—it’s up to us to ensure they can access the best possible training to prepare them for their important role.”
 
The IoDSA is the only professional body for directors in South Africa that is recognised by the South African Qualifications Authority, which means that its training not only meets stringent quality controls but can also earn delegates CPD (continuous professional development points). The IoDSA has been spearheading the professionalisation of directorship in response to the key role directors play in guiding organisations to success, and their potential exposure to personal liability for breaching their fiduciary duties.
 
The IoDSA has introduced two professional director designations, Certified Director and Chartered Director, to provide an objective, rigorous framework within which directors can obtain and maintain the necessary corporate governance skills, aligned with the IoDSA’s Director Competency Framework.
 
Malan says that as a non-profit, the IoDSA can plough all its profits back into the organisation, ensuring it maintains standards and can play a significant role in advocating for corporate governance and directorship in South Africa. It also owns the King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa, and provides secretarial services to the King Committee. The King Reports are recognised as global standard bearers for corporate governance.
 
An important differentiator for the IoDSA’s director training is that it is provided by a world-class faculty that comprises only serving directors with local and international board experience. The majority of the faculty are Chartered Directors.
 
“As the Zondo Commission’s reports clearly showed, directors are in the frontline of the fight against corruption, and an organisation’s performance directly correlates to the quality of its board,” Malan concludes. “The IoDSA’s training and its Directorship Competency Framework, along with its two professional designations, offer directors and would-be directors with the best possible training to achieve their potential.”

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
 
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page 
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

Futuregrowth Asset Management recently raised concerns about the inordinate time it is taking to fill six vacant positions on the Transnet board. These concerns are valid and point to governance issues that should be seriously considered by all boards, says Parmi Natesan, CEO, Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA).
 
“Futuregrowth’s analysis shows that the failure to fill six vacancies in a 12-person board has made it less able to tackle the serious challenges the company faces—a matter of considerable concern given its pivotal role in our economy,” she points out. “In the best of times, a board needs the right mix of skills to steer the organisation well, but in a tricky economic climate and facing significant challenges, the lack of board skills is existential.”
 
For a start, Transnet’s sparsely populated board table means that important board committees like the audit committee, social and ethics committee, and risk committee could be missing critical skills. These committees fulfil vital roles in the governance of the organisation, and particularly in relation to its ability to rise to the challenges it faces.
 
“Organisations and board chairs must pay particular attention to the need for the board to have, in the words of King IV, ‘the appropriate balance of knowledge, skills, experience, diversity and independence for it to discharge its governance role and responsibilities objectively and effectively’ (Principle 7),” Natesan says.
 
A related issue is the fact that the terms of office of the six remaining non-executive directors will expire in May 2024. While the principle of rotating board members in a staggered fashion to ensure that skills are renewed and diversity improved is a good one, it is clearly counterproductive for so many board members to leave at once.
 
“We see this kind of mass reshuffling of boards particularly in the public sector. The motivation behind rotation is good, but it needs to be handled intelligently to ensure that invaluable institutional memory is not lost,” she says. “Organisations need to focus on striking a balance between continuity and renewal.”
 
Another important consideration is succession planning. If board members are going to be rotated regularly, as best practice suggests, then the organisation needs to ensure that individuals with the right skills—including professional directorial skills—are ready in the wings. Succession planning thus needs to proceed in parallel with an ongoing skills audit to ensure that the board understands what skills it needs, and that the individuals nominated for it have them.
 
“Nobody in South Africa at least now doubts the important role that governance and oversight play in ensuring organisational health and effectiveness,” Natesan sums up. “The corollary—that the board needs to have the right mix of skills in order to fulfil this vital function—is equally true.
​
ENDS
 
MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
 
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page  
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa

Much has changed since King IV came into effect on 1 April 2017 but, says the chair of the King Committee, Ansie Ramalho, its principles and practices are expressed at a sufficiently high level of generality to empower boards to apply them in the current circumstances.

“There have been a number of developments in the past few years that will influence how organisations are led and governed over the next decade and beyond,” says Ramalho. “We are currently reflecting on these developments and what they mean for corporate governance, and whether additional clarity or guidance might be required. At this stage, though, we believe that any update of King IV would be premature—especially given the ongoing developments relating to global reporting requirements and standards, as well as the pending Companies Act Amendment Bill.”

One of the developments currently being debated by the King Committee is recent rapid advances in artificial intelligence and technology generally, which raise significant, complex risks and ethical issues.

At a global level, regulations and standards that deal with sustainability disclosure by companies are also being introduced at an unprecedented speed. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues are re-emphasising the focus on the organisation’s purpose and are affecting corporate reporting and disclosure significantly.

Human capital governance has become more complex as a new generation of employees enters the corporate world with a novel set of expectations, while the way organisations are run has changed significantly as working habits change in response to the COVID-19 lockdowns.

Board composition is also a developing area, with consideration being given to greater stakeholder representation or other suitable mechanisms to enrich decision-making.

In the South African context, the Companies Act Amendment Bill looks set to introduce significant amendments to the current Act. The Bill was issued for public comment in 2021, but no final version has yet appeared. However, its proposed provisions for strengthening oversight by social and ethics committees of companies’ social and environmental performance, its introduction of accountability mechanisms for the wage gap, and shareholder voting on remuneration are all clear signals of the prevailing mood, as is the cautionary statement in the Bill’s explanatory memorandum that regulation to include employees in governance structures is to follow.

In the wake of the Zondo reports, the country’s greylisting and current geo-political concerns, South African organisations are particularly affected by governance issues relating to corruption, including money laundering, terrorism, and transparency regarding the true owners of a company.

King IV unequivocally maintains that operating context needs to be accounted for in strategy development, risk management, performance and reward systems and reporting, but the balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult, says Ramalho. Businesses are increasingly being expected not only to mitigate external risks but to contribute proactively to not only the economies in which they operate but also the health of society and the planet. The move to incorporate ESG factors into investment decisions shows that so-called “non-financial” factors ultimately have financial consequences. Investors are increasingly taking into account the context in which a company operates.

This balancing act between financial and non-financial factors is particularly difficult for South African companies. In the interests of their own survival, they are increasingly having to step into gaps created by the government’s inability to deliver key services. To attract investment, South African companies will need to demonstrate that they are able to survive in an overall environment which is fraught with threats and vulnerabilities, Ramalho believes.

“I would like to assure all our stakeholders that the King Committee is keeping abreast of the evolving corporate governance trends and has been considering their potential impact on the King IV Report. While any formal update is premature at this stage, we stand ready to offer South African organisations any further insights or guidance that may be required as these trends unfold. We also envisage that this process will include stakeholder engagement,” she says.
“The King Committee reaffirms its belief that corporate governance does not exist for its own sake, but as a way of building resilient and healthy companies that are fit for this complex operating context.”

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page 
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Africa 

An Annual General Meeting (AGM) of a company that restricts shareholders to use only text-based communication does not constitute an AGM for the purposes of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. This is according to the legal opinion of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) on holding AGMs via electronic means.

According to the opinion, a company holding an AGM with shareholders attending online must allow those shareholders to verbally ask questions in real-time and without an intermediary.  This aligns with the IoDSA’s previous comments on this matter, in which we noted that whilst the section does not specifically state that verbal communication is required, the spirit of the section should be interpreted to allow sufficient engagement at the AGM, as would have taken place had the meeting taken place in-person.

The Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) welcomes this clarification from the CIPC. “If you consider the Companies Act and King IV in substance over form, shareholders should have a right to be heard at an AGMs,” says Parmi Natesan, CEO of the IoDSA. “It is imperative that companies ensure that AGMs not only comply with the form of the law but that they also enable easy, unrestricted and effective shareholder participation during the meetings, in substance.”

“Whilst engagement between companies and shareholders can take place at any time, the AGM is the key point of formal engagement and the main opportunity for shareholders to exercise their voting rights, raise concerns and ask questions,” explains Natesan.

A key, but often neglected voting resolution at AGMs is the appointment of directors. Shareholders have the legal right and obligation to appoint directors to oversee the company. Those directors, in turn, have a legal obligation to act in the company’s best interests and can be held personally liable if they do not do so.  A big emphasis at AGMs should therefore be ensuring that the right people are appointed to the board and that they are held properly accountable.

Shareholders need to be confident that they are appointing directors in whom they have full trust. They then need to allow these directors to exercise their discretion in the fulfilment of their duties while holding those directors accountable. They should also consider when the removal of a director is appropriate as this is another powerful and important tool that a shareholder has to protect the company’s interests.

In relation to the AGM resolution on director appointments, questions asked should therefore be aimed at determining whether board members have the necessary knowledge, skills, experience, independence, personal competencies, track record and even sufficient time available to effectively serve on the board.

“In summary, shareholders now have confirmation of their right to be heard at virtual AGMs and are encouraged to use their voice effectively in exercising their voting rights and holding the directors accountable,” says Natesan.

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Stephné du Toit, stephne@thatpoint.co.za, 084 587 9933, www.atthatpoint.co.za
For more information on the IoDSA please visit:
Website:  www.iodsa.co.za
Twitter:  @The_IoDSA
LinkedIn:  Institute of Directors South Africa Company Page 
Facebook: Institute of Directors South Afric