Outcomes over outputs: Reframing governance for measurable impact

Nqobani Mzizi

For too long, governance has been reduced to the production of paperwork, compliance checklists and board reports. Many boards take comfort in approving strategies, signing off policies and publishing annual reports as if these activities, in and of themselves, are proof of effectiveness. Yet an uncomfortable truth remains: outputs alone do not guarantee that governance is working.

The real test of governance lies not in the number of policies approved or reports filed, but in whether those actions translate into meaningful and measurable impact. In other words, governance maturity is not about outputs but about outcomes. King IV reminds us that governance must deliver four intended outcomes: an ethical culture, good performance, effective control and legitimacy. These are the benchmarks against which boards should ultimately be judged.

Outputs are easy to count. They are tangible, auditable and can be neatly presented in a board pack or annual report. A board can demonstrate that it held 10 meetings in a year, approved a sustainability policy and complied with reporting requirements. These are outputs, the deliverables that mark activity. But activity is not the same as impact. When boards mistake outputs for outcomes, they create the illusion of governance effectiveness.

South Africa’s State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) offer sobering illustrations. Many can demonstrate outputs in the form of strategic plans, governance frameworks and glossy annual reports. Yet, in too many cases, the outcomes, such as reliable service delivery, financial sustainability and public confidence, remain elusive. The public is left with reports but without results. This is the danger of the output trap: mistaking paper compliance for genuine governance performance.

Outcomes shift the conversation from activity to impact. They are the difference governance makes in the lives of stakeholders, the resilience of organisations and the value created for society. Boards that practise outcomes-based governance do not ask, “What have we produced?” but rather, “What has changed because of what we produced?” King IV’s focus on outcomes provides a useful framework. Ethical culture, good performance, effective control and legitimacy cannot be measured by the existence of documents alone. They must be assessed through the effects those documents have in shaping behaviour, strengthening accountability and creating sustainable value.

Take the case of Unilever. The company’s sustainable living plan went beyond producing sustainability reports and policies. It embedded environmental and social goals into its core business strategy, reducing carbon emissions, driving supply-chain responsibility and building consumer trust. The outcomes were tangible: improved brand reputation, resilience in volatile markets and measurable reductions in environmental impact. Governance, in this case, was not about producing more reports, but about embedding accountability that translated into meaningful results.

This illustrates the heart of outcomes-based governance: the alignment of intent, execution and impact. The documents are necessary, but they are not sufficient. The real measure is whether they produce the outcomes they were designed to achieve. To achieve this, boards must shift their lens from oversight of activity to stewardship of impact. That requires a fundamental change in mindset and practice.

Boards that govern for outcomes cultivate integrated thinking, connecting financial performance with social and environmental value. Outputs such as integrated reports become valuable not because they merely exist, but because they reflect a way of thinking.

This thinking ensures value is created across multiple capitals. Boards also deepen stakeholder accountability, recognising that legitimacy is built not through compliance alone but through trust. They measure the quality of stakeholder relationships, the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement and the extent to which their decisions enhance societal confidence. And they embed impact metrics, measuring not just how many policies or training sessions are delivered, but whether these interventions change behaviour, improve performance or reduce risk.

Financial institutions provide useful illustrations. Some banks have moved beyond reporting how many loans they disbursed to demonstrating how those loans improved financial inclusion and livelihoods. The shift reflects an appreciation that governance must be judged by the difference it makes in the economy and society, not simply by the volume of activities undertaken.

Boards that remain trapped in output thinking face significant risks. They risk eroding legitimacy by being seen as busy but ineffective. They risk losing stakeholder trust when glossy reports are contradicted by poor lived experiences. And they risk overlooking systemic challenges because they measure activity rather than impact. This is particularly acute in the public sector, where citizens are less interested in the number of strategic plans approved and more concerned with whether electricity is reliable, water is safe, and public services are delivered efficiently. Where governance is reduced to outputs, the gulf between boardroom and stakeholder widens, often with damaging political and social consequences.

The pathway forward requires boards to embrace outcomes-based governance with intentionality. They must ask the outcome question at every decision: What difference will this make, and how will we know? They must measure impact rather than activity, develop metrics that capture behavioural change, stakeholder trust and sustainable value. And they must embed outcomes into culture, ensuring that governance is not a reporting exercise but a way of thinking and acting across the organisation.

This shift can start with a simple step. At the next board meeting, dedicate 10 minutes to reframing one agenda item through an outcome lens. Instead of merely approving a new policy, debate what measurable change in culture or risk reduction its implementation should create within 12 months. Also discuss how the board will track it. The same principle can be embedded into every paper proposal: ask, “What measurable impact do we expect this decision to have, and what is the leading indicator we will use to measure it?” This forces a change in thinking for both management and the board, gradually cultivating an outcomes mindset.

When boards govern for outcomes, they do more than comply with frameworks. They create legitimacy, trust, and long-term value. This is governance at its most effective, governance that changes organisations and societies for the better.

Governance must therefore graduate from proving activity to demonstrating impact. Outputs will always have their place: policies must be written, strategies must be approved, reports must be published. However, the true measure of governance is whether those outputs achieve the intended outcomes. Boards must therefore ask the harder questions:

• Are our board packs filled with activity or impact?
• Do our decisions change the organisation, or do they simply document it?
• How are we measuring the real difference our governance is making?
• And ultimately, how will history remember this board: as administrators of outputs, or as architects of outcomes?

Because in the final analysis, governance will not be judged by what it produced, but by what it changed.

* Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), Cert.Dir (IoDSA) and an Academic.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

BUSINESS REPORT