The Corporate Governance Framework® (which can be deployed in any organisation) provides internal stakeholders with an instrument to measure and communicate the effectiveness of the organisation’s governance structures, policies and processes before a crisis hits.  This additional layer of assurance requires evidence to support governance assessments across all critical business areas.  As such, it encourages a more than superficial discussion amongst the board, its management and employees about organisational performance, optimisation and compliance.

The improved transparency offered by the framework allows data to be viewed in context and enables issues requiring further investigation to be brought to light in a professional manner.  Pre-emptive engagement on these issues puts the “broken window” theory into practice, ensuring that wrongdoings, fraud, corruption and other unethical practices are remediated in a timely manner so that potential harm to the organisation and its stakeholders is mitigated (or limited).

Illustration 1. The Corporate Governance Framework® 

Whistleblowing can be a positive force for change, however, without adequate safeguards against retaliation, potential whistleblowers may be hesitant to come forward.  Whilst citizens and employees should feel safe to speak out, and indeed be able to report malfeasance, local and global surveys including track records indicate that protected disclosure (whistleblowing) legislation and frameworks are generally not achieving their desired objectives.  The recent Afrobarometer survey conducted in South Africa over the period between November-December 2022, indicated that as much as seventy-two percent (72%) of South Africans feared the likely consequences of retaliation, and or other negative consequences if they were to blow the whistle on malfeasance.

Illustration 2. Perceptions of corruption in South Africa - Reporting (Afrobarometer)
Source: New laws to tackle corruption and protect whistleblowers in South Africa (BusinessTech – 13 July 2023) 

Although only twenty-five (25%) of respondents indicated that they could report on corruption without fear, four percent (4%) of the respondents did not know if such reporting would be safe for them to do, or they simply refused to answer.