INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Professor Michael Katz, Matthew Morrison, Madison Liebmann and Sinovuyo Damane, ENS
Corporate Governance in 2026: Navigating Convergence and Complexity In an era defined by geopolitical fragmentation, accel - erating technological disruption and enhanced regu - latory focus, effective governance is now more of a strategic imperative than ever. The country-specific chapters in this guide examine how these global dynamics are reflected in local legal and regulatory frameworks, providing practitioners with a detailed view of the rules, standards and market expectations that boards and governing bodies must meet. In this introduction we draw out certain themes common to the cross-jurisdictional overview. These five central themes of 2026 are: the ongoing reform of govern - ance codes and listing standards; the governance of artificial intelligence; the impact of the shifting political landscape on ESG; the heightened focus on geopoliti - cal risk in board-level oversight; and the intensification of global sanctions, anti-money laundering and ben - eficial ownership transparency requirements. Regulatory Reform Corporate governance codes and company law continue to be revised across the globe, reflecting a shared conviction among regulators and standard- setters that governance frameworks must keep pace with the complexity of modern enterprise. The year 2026 sees several significant reforms reach maturity. In the South African context, notable developments include the release of the King V Report on Corpo - rate Governance and significant amendments to the South African Companies Act to keep pace with local and global governance shifts, in particular oversight of executive remuneration. Stock exchange require - ments are also evolving: the JSE simplification pro - ject, effective from January 2026, has followed global simplification projects to compete for capital and also introduced mandatory fit-and-proper assessments for prospective directors and enhanced shareholder over - sight of executive remuneration. The European Union has been at the forefront of this movement. In March 2026, the EU’s comprehensive reform package took effect, recalibrating two corner - stone directives: the Corporate Sustainability Report - ing Directive (CSRD), which sets out what companies must disclose about their environmental and social performance, and the Corporate Sustainability Due
Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which obliges large enterprises to identify, assess and mitigate human rights and environmental risks across their operations and supply chains. The reforms narrow the range of companies subject to these obligations and stream - line reporting requirements, though the underlying policy commitments remain intact. Globally, the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, revised in 2023, continue to serve as the benchmark against which national frameworks are evaluated. Stock exchanges are also tightening their governance expectations. Across jurisdictions, reforms to listing rules are introducing mandatory fit- and-proper assessments for prospective directors, expanded shareholder oversight of executive remu - neration and enhanced requirements for diversity dis - closure. These developments illustrate a global trend towards greater transparency, accountability and rig - our in the governance of publicly traded companies. Artificial intelligence and technology governance Artificial intelligence has rapidly emerged as a gen - erational governance challenge for boards in 2026. Regulators, standard-setters and investors across a growing number of jurisdictions are grappling with how existing oversight frameworks should apply to AI deployment, and whether new, purpose-built gov - ernance structures are required. Boards face a dual focus: they must oversee their organisations’ adoption of AI systems while considering how AI-powered tools can enhance their own decision-making capabilities. Regulatory approaches vary considerably. Some juris - dictions have enacted comprehensive, cross-sectoral AI legislation; others have opted to embed AI gov - ernance within existing supervisory frameworks for conduct, risk management and data protection; and many are still at the stage of developing national poli - cy frameworks or consulting on draft regulation. What is consistent is the expectation that boards should establish clear accountability for AI-related decisions, risks and outcomes, an expectation that is likely to intensify as adoption accelerates. The jurisdiction- specific chapters that follow examine how individual markets are responding in practice.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook