Re-Inventing Governance:
A Multi-Theoretical Perspective towards Integrated Stewardship
Join the conversation on governance research, integrated stewardship, and the path from paper development to publication.
About this event…
Corporate governance continues to evolve beyond narrow compliance models and shareholder primacy toward a more purpose-driven and integrated approach to stewardship. In this event, Dr Lindie Grebe presented her paper, Re-Inventing Governance: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective towards Integrated Stewardship, and explored the research ideas underpinning it.
The session examined how governance outcomes could be connected to organisational mission, value generation, stakeholder salience, risk, resilience, disclosure, and legitimacy. It also considered how multiple theories and norms can be brought together in a practical way to support governance mechanisms, decision-making routines, and accountability tools.
Following the presentation, the discussion turned to the journal process itself, including reflections on developing a paper for submission, navigating publication, and contributing to meaningful governance research.
Brief explainer video…
Podcast-style summary…
key questions answered.
Selecting the appropriate medium for sharing governance insights is a strategic imperative for both practitioners and academics. Effective publication is not a passive act of documentation; it is a vital contribution to the global discourse that validates practitioner experience through the lens of academic rigor. For those seeking to influence the field, targeting journals like Advances in Corporate Governance (ACG) is essential for ensuring that “on-the-floor” commercial realities are translated into credible, peer-reviewed literature.
To ensure an article is “submission-ready,” Dr. Lindie Grebe and Prof. Sezer Bozkus Kahyaoglu emphasize that authors must adhere to the following standards:
- Rigorous Alignment with Journal Policy
Manuscripts must demonstrate a precise fit with the journal’s scope, whether the contribution is qualitative, quantitative, or conceptual. - Optimization of First Impressions
Technical quality is a proxy for research integrity. Professional editing and formatting are mandatory to minimize the “cognitive load” on blind reviewers, ensuring the focus remains on the strength of the argument rather than grammatical distractions. - Strict Ethical Compliance
Formal ethical clearance is a non-negotiable requirement for indexed journals; failure to document this at the outset can invalidate years of research. - Methodological Transparency
Authors must explicitly justify their theoretical selections and acknowledge researcher bias to satisfy the requirements of academic rigor.
Proper journal selection facilitates a vital feedback loop between the classroom and the boardroom. When practitioners publish in venues like the ACG, they prevent governance from becoming an “ivory tower” concept. By bridging the gap between theoretical research and practical commerce, they ensure that the evolution of the field is grounded in the lived experience of modern organizational leadership.
This commitment to professional excellence and rigorous standards is equally relevant when applying governance to the unique challenges of smaller, owner-managed entities.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the engine rooms of the global economy, yet they often perceive corporate governance as an prohibitive financial and administrative burden. This perception creates a dangerous gap, as the societal and environmental impact of an SME is often proportionally as significant as that of a multinational corporation. For owner-managed businesses, the path to high-value governance requires a shift in perspective: prioritizing an “approach” over a rigid set of “rules.”
Dr. Grebe’s advice for these structures focuses on leveraging their inherent clarity of purpose:
“The aim for an owner-managed business should be to find the purpose and the aim, which is typically easier because you know your heart and why you started the business. It is not about shopping around and cherry-picking frameworks, but rather finding what has meaning to achieve real stewardship towards society and the environment. Focus on the deep principles—the spirit of the theories—rather than just the rules.”
High-value governance in SMEs is not about “shopping for frameworks”; it is about protecting the entity’s long-term contribution to the broader economy. By moving away from a “one-size-fits-all” tick-box exercise, SMEs can adopt a stewardship model that is both realistic and actionable. This ensures that governance serves as a protective mechanism for the business’s heart and mission, rather than a bureaucratic hurdle.
Supporting these practical applications—whether in SMEs or large-scale enterprises—is a foundation of “theoretical bricolage” that provides the necessary scaffolding for modern governance.
Modern corporate complexity is too multi-dimensional to be captured by a single theory. Relying solely on Agency Theory, for example, results in a reductionist view of the firm. The “Reinventing Governance” framework utilizes a “Bricolage” methodology—a strategic amalgamation of various theories to create a cohesive model. This “theoretical plurality” ensures that boards can address the diverse interests of shareholders, workers, and society simultaneously.
Theory | Practical Mechanism/Scaffolding | Board Capability Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
Stewardship & Stakeholder Theory | King V | Evaluating whether governance practices produce ethical and effective outcomes. |
Corporate Citizenship Theory | ISO 37000 | Defining governance as a purpose-driven framework for direction, oversight, and responsibility. |
Legitimacy & Institutional Theory | IFRS S1 & S2 | Converting sustainability risks into decision-useful disclosures for stakeholders. |
Agency & Resource Dependency | G20/OECD Principles | Strengthening the legal, regulatory, and institutional scaffolding for stable market participation. |
This bricolage approach provides “diagnostic precision.” By utilizing multiple theoretical lenses, boards gain superior Risk Resilience; different theories allow a board to identify and mitigate different types of risks that a single-theory model would miss. This allows a board to be more intentional in its governance, selecting the specific scaffolds that support its unique mandate.
For any governance framework to maintain its “social license to operate,” it must achieve legitimacy within its specific national context. In South Africa, this necessitates an alignment between voluntary codes like King V and the statutory requirements of the Companies Act, all within the overarching values of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The “Reinventing Governance” framework highlights that while many codes are voluntary, they are the primary vehicle for fulfilling broader human rights mandates:
- Constitutional Integration
Adhering to modern governance codes ensures that a firm’s operations remain consistent with the Bill of Rights and legal statutory requirements. - Localized Sensitivity (Mining Context)
In sectors like the South African mining industry, governance cannot be a generic exercise. It must specifically address worker rights and environmental impacts, as these are the localized touchpoints where corporate action meets constitutional protections. - Statutory Evolution
While codes are often voluntary, they frequently evolve into de facto requirements through Stock Exchange listings or legal precedents, bridging the gap between moral stewardship and mandatory compliance.
Evaluating the Impact: Aligning governance with human rights transforms it from a generic global exercise into a localized, purpose-driven mandate. This forces an organization to define what specifically matters to its country and society, ensuring that governance is practiced in the spirit of the law, not just the letter.
This alignment with societal values leads to the final practical challenge for boards: navigating the overwhelming landscape of modern standards.
As the “fruit salad” of codes expands, boards increasingly suffer from “framework fatigue,” where the sheer volume of standards causes leadership to lose sight of organizational value.
To transform governance from a “grudge purchase” into an operational asset, boards must prioritize the following three areas:
- Prioritization of Purpose and Aim: Boards must return to the “heart” of the organization. Governance begins with an internal evaluation of values and determining what matters most to specific stakeholders.
- Evaluating Outcomes over Rules: The metric for success must shift from “did we comply?” to “did we achieve the desired impact?” Effective governance is measured by its ethical, social, and environmental outcomes.
- Adopting a Systematic Process Flow: Boards should move away from fragmented reporting and adopt a cohesive “Purpose-to-Outcomes” roadmap. This sub-process flow must be operationalized as follows:
Values Integrated Value Creation Stakeholder Salience Risk Resilience Connected Disclosure Measurable Impact.
Ultimately, the reinvention of governance is a call to action. It is an invitation to a global discourse where the goal is not just compliance, but caring, contributing, and making the world a better place.
meet the speaker.
Dr Lindie Grebe.
Senior Lecturer, Akademia
With more than two decades of experience as a Chartered Accountant, Dr Lindie Grebe has worked across audit practice, commerce, corporate governance consulting, and academia. She is also an active member of the Good Governance Academy’s Research Forum, where she contributes to research that promotes ethical, transparent, and sustainable governance practices.
glossary of terms used.
Term | Definition |
|---|---|
Bricolage | A methodological approach that involves constructing or creating something new from a diverse range of available things (theories, frameworks, or data). |
Fruit Salad of Codes | A metaphor used by Prof. Mervyn King to describe the crowded and fragmented landscape of overlapping corporate governance standards and frameworks. |
Integrated Stewardship | A model of governance that goes beyond compliance to focus on creating long-term value, accountability, and resilience through a purpose-driven approach. |
Stakeholder Salience | A theory (often associated with Mitchell et al.) that helps organizations identify and prioritize stakeholders based on their power, legitimacy, and urgency. |
Legitimacy Theory | The idea that organizations must operate within the bounds and norms of their respective societies to maintain their “social license” to operate. |
Theoretical Plurality | The integration of multiple, often diverse, academic theories to provide a more holistic understanding of a complex problem. |
Outcomes-Based Governance | An approach to governance (central to King 5) that measures success based on the results achieved (e.g., ethical culture, good performance) rather than the processes followed. |
Tick-Box Exercise | A derogatory term for a compliance approach where an organization fulfills requirements superficially to meet a standard without embracing the underlying principles. |
Connected Disclosure | A reporting approach that links financial data with sustainability, risk, and governance outcomes to provide a holistic view of organizational performance. |
Social License | The ongoing acceptance and approval of an organization’s business practices by its employees, stakeholders, and the general public. |
Agency Theory | A theory concerning the relationship between principals (shareholders) and agents (management) and the potential conflicts of interest therein. |
Stewardship Theory | A theory suggesting that managers, left on their own, will act as responsible stewards of the assets they control for the benefit of the owners. |
Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) | A theory that examines how the external resources of organizations affect their behavior and governance structures. |
Corporate Citizenship | The extent to which businesses are socially responsible for meeting legal, ethical, and economic responsibilities as established by shareholders. |
Diagnostic Precision | The ability of a board to use a framework to identify specific governance issues or failures rather than merely checking for general adherence to a code. |