Thoughts re "Draft Code of Governance Principles for South Africa 2009"

By Dave Tate posted 04-25-2009 08:21 PM

Recommend

I started reading the report version that was posted for SCCE group discussion. It is way too long (141 pages) for me to make detailed comments. Let me say initially that I have never before viewed a report that was in iPaper format. If you haven't seen a report in that format, I certainly suggest that you click on the King III report if for no other reason. iPaper format is really great.

A couple of quick comments. As you might assume, the report is well written, and contains discussions that will tend to lead people toward principles of good governance. However, it is my belief that ultimately at the end of the day good governance is based on human factors, decision making, and judgment, such as the 20 personal qualities and characteristics that I recently posted on my blog.

Many (perhaps most) of the principles discussed in the report are implemented in the U.S. by statutes (federal and state), cases and common law, rules and regulations. However, in the U.S. they are not found in one location.

I found the integrated sustainability reporting discussion at the beginning of the paper and at chapter 6 to be of great interest, particularly with respect to corporate impact on the community and on a long-term basis. I wonder if that is a direction in which the Obama administration would like the U.S. to go. We will see. However, I have significant concern that in the U.S. everything appears to have become so politicized and adversarial, and our political leaders appear to have very little integrity, individually or as parties--decisions are now made based on personal, group or party gain, not based on the value or benefit to the whole. Thus, an idea like integrated sustainability certainly would be used to further an agenda or personal gain.

I was disappointed that the beginning of the report appears to be critical of other approaches to governance, like in the U.S., to justify why the King III report committee believes that its approach is the best. In doing so, the report also significantly misstates, misrepresents or overly simplifies the U.S. approach, and also, for example, the reasons for the current financial crisis in the U.S. Thus, that discussion detracts from the credibility of the report and its committee. I suggest that the "politics" be left out of the discussion and the final report.

Regards,
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco, CA)
I am interested in opportunities to speak, collaborate and network about audit committee functions and responsibilities; and to help audit committees with their annual evaluation processes, their committee responsibilities and activities, and how they interact and work with others including management, the outside auditor, compliance & ethics, internal audit, and the board.
http://davidtate.us
For additional reading on audit committee annual evaluation topics, here is a link to my paper titled The Annual Audit Committee Evaluation
For additional reading on governance, here is a link to my paper discussing Audit Committee Responsibilities & Risk Management

0 comments

0 views