Guide for South African boards

King V for boards: showing, decision by decision, that you applied it

Last updated 21 October 2026

King V asks boards to explain how they applied each principle, and to support that with evidence. Most of that evidence is created one decision at a time. This guide summarises what changed from King IV and what to record on each material decision so your disclosures can point to it.

King V at a glance

Published on 31 October 2025 by the King Committee, with the Institute of Directors in South Africa (IoDSA) as custodian.
Effective for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026. It replaces King IV in its entirety.
Four parts: the Foundational Concepts, the Code, the Glossary and the Disclosure Framework.
13 principles, down from 17 in King IV.
Apply and explain remains. The Code's recommended practices are not rules; they are meant to be scaled to the organisation's size and complexity.
Outcomes-based: governance is judged on results, not on the number of practices ticked off.

What the Disclosure Framework asks for

The biggest change is a standalone Disclosure Framework that sets out how and what organisations disclose about their application of King V. According to the IoDSA:

any organisation that wants to apply King V must use the Framework and publish its governance disclosures in line with it;
disclosures relate to a specified reporting period and should be reviewed at least annually;
the Framework should be published on the organisation's website alongside its other external reports; and
its content is approved by the governing body.

Commentators note that the Framework asks organisations to address each principle and support it with evidence, with explanations for any departures. Boilerplate statements of intent are exactly what it was designed to replace.

Why individual decisions matter

A disclosure that says "the board exercised oversight of material investments" is only as credible as the records behind it. When an investor, regulator or auditor asks how, the answer is in the decisions themselves: what was before the board, who had authority, what was challenged, and why the board chose as it did. If that is reconstructed afterwards from minutes and email, the disclosure is hard to support.

The principles that show up in each decision

All 13 principles matter, but these are the ones whose application is most directly visible in individual board decisions. For each, the right-hand column is what to record at the time.

King V principleRecord on each material decision

Principle 1Leadership

Who decided, on what information, and the reasons given — so leadership is shown by what the board did, not by policy statements.

Principle 3Strategy, performance and sustainable value creation

How the decision links to strategy, and the economic, social and environmental effects the board considered.

Principle 6Committees of the governing body

Which committee considered the matter first, under which mandate, and what it reported to the board.

Principle 7Appointment and delegation to management

Whether the matter sat within management's delegated authority or had to come to the board, and who was required to approve it.

Principle 8Risk

The principal risks and opportunities, how likely and severe they are, whether any are irreversible, and how they will be managed.

Principle 10Data, information and technology

Where AI was used to prepare or analyse the papers, what a person checked, and who made the decision.

Principle 12Assurance

Where the information came from, whether it was assured, and any independent review of the decision.

Principle 13Stakeholders

Which material stakeholders' interests were considered and how they were weighed.

Principle names as published in the King V Code. Read the Code itself, available from the IoDSA, for the full principles and recommended practices.

A per-decision checklist

Frame the question, including what is not being decided.
Confirm who must approve it under your delegation of authority, and record why.
Link every material claim in the papers to its source, and record missing evidence as a gap.
Record the alternatives considered, including doing nothing.
Record the principal risks and opportunities, and the stakeholders affected.
Record declarations of interest and who stepped aside.
Record the challenge questions asked and the answers given.
Record where AI was used, and what a person checked.
Record the recommendation, its reasons, the contrary case and the uncertainty that remained.
Record the outcome, the rationale and any conditions — then follow the actions through and compare the result with what was approved.

Most of these steps also help a director show the reasonably diligent steps and rational basis that section 76(4) of the Companies Act refers to. See the section 76(4) checklist.

How DecixionIQ helps

DecixionIQ keeps that record as each decision is made, and freezes the approved case so it cannot be edited afterwards. Your own delegations of authority and thresholds decide who must approve. AI can test the evidence and draft challenge questions, but only authorised people approve. DecixionIQ does not write your King V disclosures or ensure that you apply King V; it gives your board and company secretary the decision-level evidence to draw on.