Identification and explanation of the responsibilities of role players to compliance in an organisation: A case of Steinhoff International

Abstract

The central of the purpose of this article is to comprehend the role of corporate governance role players in complying with the various legislative  frameworks. The study will also further examine the extent to which the legislative framework was complied with within the context of Steinhoff International. This article questions if the Steinhoff International (SI) corporate governance failure, emanates from the failure of the board and  committees in dealing with compliance requirements or not. It is discussed in this article that corporate governance consists of rules, systems and processes that are utilised to regulate the nexus between the company and its stakeholders. The various ownership models define the company ownership model adopted. The most prevailing types of ownership in a particular country determines how the company is governed. Multiple models are used, the two models that are focused on in this study are the outer model and the insider model of company ownership. The outsider model of ownership, gives priority to the stakeholder interest over those of employees, whereas the insider model recognises the interests of  workers, managers, supplier, customers and society. The two-tier insider model of company ownership is used in German and Austrian companies while single tier is applicable in South Africa. This article discusses the responsibilities of the role players and the role of governance in the company. The discussion includes the exposition of the different board structures that govern compliance in companies. Our discussion takes the perspective from King III (2009) & King IV (2016). The King codes serve to guide corporate organisations with regards to compliance. To achieve the purpose of this article, we employed Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Secondary data sources covering corporate governance issues were analysed. The article concludes by indicating that the failure of Steinhoff International (SI) was not influenced by a change in board structures but lacklustre compliance with ethical governance principles.

Keywords: Audit Committee; Corporate Governance; External Auditors Sarbanes Oxley; King III report; King IV report