Governance and Board Advisory
King IV is written as principles with outcomes rather than as a checklist, which is precisely why so many organisations apply it in name only. A disclosure stating that a principle is applied, unsupported by any structure that actually does the applying, is the most common governance failure we see and the easiest for a reader to detect.
1
Assess
Current against principles
2
Structure
Board and committees
3
Authority
Who decides what
4
Risk
A framework that works
5
Disclose
Honest application
How We Advise
01
Governance Assessment
We assess what actually operates against what King IV expects, principle by principle. The gap is usually between the documented position and observable practice rather than an absence of documents.
- Assessment against each applicable King IV principle
- Documented position compared to observable practice
- Board and committee minutes reviewed for evidence
- Gaps prioritised by governance consequence
02
Board and Committee Structure
Committees accumulate. We review whether the current structure matches what the organisation needs, whether terms of reference are current, and whether the right matters actually reach the board.
- Board composition and independence assessed
- Committee structure against organisational need
- Terms of reference reviewed and refreshed
- Board and committee calendar and agenda design
03
Delegation of Authority
Most governance failures are decision rights failures. Either nobody had authority and a decision waited, or somebody assumed authority they did not have. A written framework resolves both.
- Delegation framework covering financial and operational authority
- Thresholds set proportionate to the organisation
- Sub delegation rules and limits
- Recording requirements per decision level
04
Risk Management Framework
A risk register that exists purely to be produced at meetings is not risk management. We design a framework where risks have owners, appetite is stated, and escalation actually happens.
- Risk appetite articulated in usable terms
- Register structured by owner and by control
- Escalation thresholds and reporting routes
- Integration with the combined assurance model
05
Disclosure and Reporting
King IV requires an application disclosure, and honest partial application reads considerably better than a claim of full application that the rest of the report contradicts.
- Application disclosure drafted honestly
- Explanation where a principle is partially applied
- Governance section of the integrated or annual report
- Board reporting pack structure and content
What You Receive
- Assessment against each applicable King IV principle
- Board and committee structure review with recommendations
- Refreshed terms of reference for each committee
- Delegation of authority framework
- Risk management framework with appetite and escalation defined
- Draft governance application disclosure
Indicative Timeline
A governance review takes four to six weeks. Board and committee availability governs the schedule more than the work does, since interviews and a presentation both depend on meeting cycles.
- Documentation review and assessment: one to two weeks
- Interviews with board and executive: two weeks
- Framework and terms of reference drafting: one to two weeks
- Presentation to the board: next available cycle
What We Cover
Governance work spanning structure, authority, risk and the disclosure that reports on all three.
King IV Application
Principle by principle assessment and the disclosure that follows from it.
Board Structure
Composition, independence and whether the committee structure fits the organisation.
Terms of Reference
Committee mandates that are current, specific and actually followed.
Delegation of Authority
Written decision rights, which prevent both paralysis and overreach.
Risk Framework
Appetite, ownership and escalation, rather than a register produced for meetings.
Board Reporting
Packs designed so a board can govern rather than merely be informed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is King IV compulsory?
It is a code rather than legislation, but listed companies are required to apply it and it is widely expected elsewhere, including across the public sector. Many funders and tender processes ask about it directly.
What does apply and explain mean?
King IV asks you to disclose how each principle is applied rather than tick a box confirming compliance. Partial application honestly explained is entirely acceptable. A claim of full application contradicted by the rest of the report is not.
Do we need all these committees?
Probably not. Smaller organisations frequently discharge several functions through one committee, which is acceptable provided the terms of reference say so and the minutes show the work being done.
Our risk register is not used. How do we fix that?
Usually by cutting it down. Registers with sixty risks and no owners get produced for meetings and ignored between them. Fifteen risks with named owners, stated appetite and escalation thresholds get managed.
Can you attend our board meetings?
Yes, for presentations and for specific governance matters. We would not take a board seat, since advising a board and sitting on it are different roles and combining them compromises both.
How does this differ from your internal audit work?
Governance advisory designs the structures. Internal audit independently tests whether they operate. Independence rules mean we are careful about providing both to the same client, and we would flag the constraint at scoping.
Related Services
This sits inside our Business Advisory practice. Related work: Combined Assurance for the assurance coverage a board relies on, and IT Governance Assessment for King IV Principle 12 specifically.
