4 Vital Differences Between King III And King IV™ On Corporate Governance

[ad_1]

What is the King Report?

If you’re not familiar with the King Reports: it’s a series of reports that translate international standards and big-time happenings on corporate governance into set of local principles. Each new Report replaces the former.

The aim of the King Report is to set up actionable principles for South African company leadership to act as modern, good corporate citizens.

It also ensures those in leadership positions act in the best interest of the company and all parties influenced by the company. The first Report, King I, published in 1994, and was the first officiated document of its kind in South Africa.

Why is it useful to my business?

The Report also promotes transparency within your company’s leadership to ensure transgressions aren’t hidden that will eventually damage the company.

Related: South African Millennials Key To Enforcing King IV

The Report also ensure blunders can be evaluated, found and corrected ASAP. Today, its mandatory for all JSE listed companies to implement the Report into their company policy. If you’re a smaller business or a non-profit, you can comply with the Report voluntarily; by applying the principles you’re essentially ensuring the long-term sustainability and survival of the business.

It also helps that create a healthy corporate culture and when your business’s foundation is healthy, growth is unthreatened. If you haven’t applied any of the former Reports in your business, you’re in luck; King IV™ is the simplest, and seemingly the most practical, Report in the family of four reports.

Why was King IV™ needed?

Companies, especially smaller businesses, often struggled to apply the King III due to its long-winded structure.

Also, King IV™ was needed because King III, published in 2009, was out-dated in terms of present-day concerns like technological advances, the increased need for online transparency, long-term resource sustainability and information security.

Here’s the rundown of the most significant differences between King IV™ and King III.

1. King IV’s™ structure is much simpler to apply

While King III did a good job of summarising the extensive scope of effective and ethical governance into 75 principles, the Report still lacked clear guidance on real-world application.

Ensuring the effective incorporation of all 75 vague, ethical principles was too exhaustive for most companies to implement, monitor and account for. That’s why King IV™ took a different structural approach.

King IV™ boiled good corporate governance down to 17 simplified principles, each supplemented with various recommended practices to make it easier for smaller companies to implement the principles within their day-to-day running.

2. King IV™ spotlights practical implementation

King III lists multiple ethical principles and then commands companies to explain how their management and actions honour those principles.

Unfortunately this meant companies approached it like a mindless compliance checklist.

King IV™ also states principles, but more importantly, requires organisations to actively report on the implementation of the recommended practices thereof.

Mervyn King, the chair of the King Committee, dubs this the shift from a “apply OR explain” mentality to a “apply AND explain” mentality. The Report also allows organisations to report on alterative-implemented practices – provided they support and advance the principle.

To make the application simpler to grasp, King IV™ clearly differentiates between the long-term Outcomes, the ethical Principles and the recommended Practices.

Essentially the new structure and its requirements mean companies have to engage in thoughtful implementation and reporting of those practices.

Related: 5 Thoughts To Give You The Courage To Make Change

3. King IV™ is inclusive to more than just large companies

After King III, there was a significant demand for the inclusivity of smaller businesses, and governmental or non-profit organisations in the King Report.

Consequently, King IV™ dedicates an entire supplement chapter to guiding municipalities; non-profit organisations; retirement funds; small and medium enterprises and state-owned entities in the implementation of the Report.

Also, where King III used terms like “companies” and “boards”, King IV™ very purposefully uses more inclusive terms like “governing bodies” and “organisations” throughout the report.

It’s clear that King IV™ aims to move the principles on good corporate governance into real-world action – for all organisations.

4. Difference 3: King IV™ pushes for more accountability, transparency and reporting

What King IV™ does quite differently from King III, is recommending the application of its principles within set timelines, reports and committees within it’s recommended practices.

King IV™ strongly propagates transparency, the delegation of responsibility and the implementation of accountability by putting pen to paper in term of officiated aims, bodies responsible for those aims and the provisions of consistent reports.

Take leadership as an example, where King III would just stipulate what being a good leader means, King IV™ advises you to set goals, delegate responsibility and evaluate progress through reports and accountability.

An example would be to set up a committee, consisting of lower management levels, with clearly identifiable responsibilities and then to measure their progress via reports.

It comes down to the ignorance no longer being a valid excuse. Directors should be aware of all issues within your company.

Directors should take responsibility for everything that happens within their organisation – you can’t plead innocence on the grounds of not knowing. There should rather be reports in place to identify and uncover any discrepancies early on.

Essentially, where King III lacks in the aim of ensuring the actualisation of good corporate citizenship, King IV™ steps up the game.

[ad_2]

Read_more MMO mastermind