King V: The renewal of a governance philosophy with deeper wisdom

The evolution of governance in South Africa has always carried a sense of moral purpose. Each King Code has reflected the spirit of its time, interpreting how ethical leadership, accountability and value creation should find expression in a changing world. The latest iteration continues that tradition. It is less a new chapter than a renewal of the same idea: that governance is a living practice, shaped by conscience as much as by compliance. It extends the life of King IV by deepening its wisdom.

King IV reframed governance as outcomes-based and principle-driven. It moved organisations beyond mechanical adherence to rules and towards a consciousness of purpose. Over the years, the four outcomes – ethical culture, performance and value creation, conformance and prudent control, and legitimacy – have become the vocabulary of good governance. The new Code preserves this structure but enriches its meaning.

This is evident in its streamlined form. Where King IV had 17 principles, the new framework consolidates them into 13, sharpening focus on the essential domains of governance. The refinement recognises that the environment in which boards operate has changed profoundly. Complexity, technology and social expectation have reshaped what responsibility looks like.

Reading the Code, one senses a quiet assurance. It does not announce reform but invites reflection. It begins again where governance always begins, with the character of leadership. Governing bodies are reminded that ethical and effective leadership remains the foundation of everything else. The traits of integrity, competence, responsibility, accountability, fairness and transparency (ICRAFT) are not decorative ideals; they are the daily disciplines through which trust is earned. In an age of institutional fatigue, that reminder feels essential.

The Code also refines the language of governance itself. It uses plain words to bring accessibility and depth to familiar ideas. It replaces the abstraction of “capitals” with “resources and relationships,” returning governance to human scale. It speaks of the economy, society and the natural environment as the context within which organisations exist, acknowledging that value cannot be separated from the systems that sustain it. These choices are not cosmetic. They recognise that governance must be understood, not merely cited.

Its philosophical roots draw visibly from the worldview of Ubuntu-Botho. It affirms that interdependence is not a social slogan but an organising principle. Every decision has ripple effects across communities, ecosystems and generations. To govern well is to act with awareness of those connections. That idea gives governance moral texture. It shifts the focus from ownership to stewardship, from entitlement to responsibility.

Integrated thinking, which once appeared as an element of reporting, is re-imagined as a way of leading. Boards are asked to see how their choices interweave economic performance, social impact and environmental stewardship. A notable development is the formal embrace of “double materiality.” This principle demands that corporate reporting reflect two inseparable realities: how social and environmental risks affect the company’s bottom line, and how the company’s operations, in turn, impact the world around it. The outcome is a model of leadership that values coherence over control, where disclosure becomes dialogue.

The enduring “apply and explain” principle remains at the centre. It requires that organisations demonstrate alignment through reasoned reflection rather than formulaic reporting. Governing bodies are now asked to express, in their own words, whether their governance has realised value in line with the four outcomes. This subtle step transforms compliance from recital to introspection. It asks boards to pause, consider and account not only for what was done but for what difference it made.

Such reflection restores accountability to human hands. It insists that ethics is integral to performance and that responsibility cannot be delegated. In this sense, the Code reclaims the spiritual core of governance, reminding leaders that authority carries moral weight.

It also strengthens the link between governance and legitimacy. In a society marked by inequality and mistrust, legitimacy is not a given. It must be earned through transparency, fairness and responsiveness. Boards cannot rely on technical compliance to secure credibility. They must show ethical intent in decisions and empathy in conduct. When legitimacy is restored, it becomes the quiet capital that sustains organisations through volatility.

The simplicity of structure is deliberate. By removing excess commentary, the framework allows meaning to breathe. It trusts that those who lead can think deeply and apply wisely. In this way, it honours the maturity of the governance community that King IV helped to cultivate. The challenge now is not to learn new terminology but to practise old truths with conviction.

The tone of this new guidance is both humble and resolute. It recognises that governance will always be tested by context. The digital era has introduced dilemmas of data, information ethics and artificial intelligence. The framework moves beyond generalities, offering principles for governing AI that mandate human oversight, clear accountability and adherence to ethical values like human-centricity, fairness and transparency. Social movements have redefined accountability. Environmental urgency has exposed the limits of short-termism. Yet the Code does not attempt to legislate every challenge. It offers a compass that endures when the terrain shifts. Good governance remains adaptable because it is principled, not prescriptive.

There is also an invitation to courage. Frameworks can provide structure, but they cannot substitute for judgment. The real test will not be how many organisations adopt it, but how many internalise its intent. Boards that do so will find governance becoming less about what meetings produce and more about the quality of mindset that guides them. Evidence will be seen in how decisions balance risk with fairness, how culture reflects integrity and how reports read as conversations rather than defence.

Its arrival marks a moment of renewal. It signals that South Africa’s governance tradition remains alive to the realities of our time. It affirms that the pursuit of ethical leadership is continuous and that each generation must rediscover its meaning.

As boards and executives begin to engage with the framework, they would do well to treat it not as a checklist but as a conversation. Governance is not a static framework but a relationship between leaders and stakeholders, between performance and purpose, between what we value and what we measure.

In that relationship lies the soul of governance. It will endure not because it is enforced but because it is believed in. The Code reminds us that belief must be renewed through conduct every day. It asks of leaders a simple but demanding discipline: to govern with conscience, to act with honesty and to decide with awareness of consequence.

As this new era unfolds, one question remains for every governing body: Are we creating value that endures beyond our term of office, and are we doing so in a way that strengthens the society that grants us our licence to lead?

The answer will not be found in documents, but in the daily practice of leadership.

Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), Cert.Dir (IoDSA) and an Academic.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

BUSINESS REPORT