Qualification, character and integrity: Where governance truly begins

By Nqobani Mzizi

Across South Africa, the Autumn graduation season fills institutions of higher learning. Campuses are filled with jubilation. Families gather, lecturers and academics reflect on their contribution, and graduates step into professional life. It is a moment of achievement, and rightly so.

I recently had the privilege of addressing graduates in accounting, auditing and business management at the Vaal University of Technology’s Faculty of Management Sciences. It was an honour I received with both gratitude and a deep sense of responsibility. As I stood before them, I found myself reflecting on what sits beneath the celebration. Graduation is often viewed as arrival. It is also a point of release, where institutions usher graduates into systems that rely on their competence, their judgement and their integrity.

As I prepared the speech, a lingering question persisted with me throughout: what exactly are we sending into those systems of employment and entrepreneurship? That question extends beyond educators to boards, executives and all who rely on the integrity of the professionals these systems produce.

In my address, I spoke about three themes: qualification, character and integrity. Qualification provides access. It opens doors and creates opportunity. Character determines how one conducts oneself within those spaces. Integrity shapes the decisions that are made when those decisions carry consequence. These ideas are lived realities that define professional conduct.

This becomes particularly important in fields such as accounting, auditing and management. These disciplines sit at the centre of governance. They carry responsibility for financial reporting, resource allocation, control environments and decision-making processes that affect organisations and, in many cases, the broader public. They are positions of trust.

Over time, we have observed how that trust can be compromised. Governance failures in both the public and private sectors have repeatedly placed professionals at the centre of breakdowns in accountability. This includes failures in financial reporting, weaknesses in control environments and the manipulation of supply chain processes. These are environments largely staffed by individuals who have been formally trained in commerce and management disciplines.

If those entrusted with the stewardship of organisational resources and systems are implicated in governance failures, then the question shifts. It moves beyond the organisation. And this is where I argue that we must look upstream: to the formation of the professionals themselves.

Universities and colleges play a foundational role in this formation. They develop technical competence, equip students with the knowledge required to operate in complex environments and create pathways into professions that carry significant responsibility. This role is essential. Yet technical competence, on its own, does not resolve ethical tension.

Professional life will, at some point, present moments of decision where the correct course of action is clear, but not convenient. These moments emerge within pressure, expectation and, at times, silence. In those moments, knowledge does not guide behaviour. Character does.

This raises an important consideration. To what extent are tertiary institutions intentionally shaping ethical grounding, alongside competence?

Ethics is often included within curricula, and governance is introduced as a framework. These are undoubtedly important components. The question is whether they are positioned as central disciplines or as peripheral subjects. There is a difference between teaching ethics and forming ethical professionals.

Human beings have agency and can distinguish between right and wrong. At the same time, early formation influences how those choices are made under pressure. It shapes the instinct to question, to resist, to speak and to act with integrity even when it carries personal or professional cost.

The environments into which graduates enter also matter. Organisations reinforce behaviour through what they value, reward and tolerate. When oversight systems are strong and consistently applied, they support ethical conduct. When they are weak or selectively enforced, they create conditions within which compromise can take root.

Boards carry a central responsibility in this regard. They define the tone of the organisation. They influence culture through the policies and standards they set and the conduct they expect. They also determine how governance failures are addressed. Where there is inconsistency, or where consequences are absent, a different message is communicated, which, over time, shapes behaviour.

The absence of visible consequence can have a broader societal effect. It can create the perception that misconduct carries limited risk, thereby normalising behaviour that should be resisted. For young professionals entering the system, this creates a tension between what has been taught and what is observed. This erosion of consequence reaches beyond boardrooms. It strikes at the heart of our democratic gains.

As South Africa celebrates Freedom Day on 27 April, marking 32 years since the dawn of our democracy, we are reminded of the significance of that freedom. It reflects the outcome of struggle, sacrifice and the pursuit of justice. Corruption stands in direct opposition to that legacy because it diverts resources, weakens institutions and erodes the very conditions required for that freedom to be meaningful.

Later this week, Workers’ Day will be commemorated on 1 May. Employment, dignity and economic participation are central to that moment. Corruption undermines these as well. It distorts opportunity, constrains growth and contributes to job loss. The link between governance and lived experience is direct.

It is therefore not surprising that the call to address corruption extends beyond formal institutions. Religious bodies, through the South African Council of Churches, have taken a public stand, calling for ethical conduct and accountability across society. This reflects the depth of the concern. When moral voices mobilise alongside regulatory and governance structures, it signals that the issue is both systemic and societal.

In this context, the role of institutions of higher learning becomes even more pronounced.

There is an opportunity, and perhaps a responsibility, to embed ethics and governance more deeply within the formation of future professionals. The focus lies in positioning these disciplines as foundational, ensuring that students understand governance frameworks and appreciate the weight of responsibility that accompanies their application.

While this carries relevance in management sciences, where graduates are more likely to enter environments that shape financial and operational decisions, this applies across faculties. Supply chain management, in particular, has been repeatedly exposed as an area vulnerable to manipulation. Strengthening formation at this level has the potential to influence outcomes across the system.

At the same time, organisations and public institutions must respond with equal intent. They must create environments that support ethical conduct, enforce accountability and restore confidence. Boards must remain deliberate in how they exercise oversight, how they respond to misconduct and how they reinforce the standards expected of those within their organisations.

The question of governance therefore does not begin in the boardroom. It begins much earlier.

It begins in lecture halls, in conversations about responsibility, in how success is defined and in how students are prepared to navigate complexity. It is shaped further in workplaces, through leadership, culture and consequence. By the time an individual sits in a position of authority, much of that formation has already taken place.

Graduation marks the transition into that next phase.

As institutions celebrate the achievements of their graduates, there is value in reflecting on what graduates carry with them. Not only their qualifications, but also their values, their judgement and their understanding of responsibility.

For institutions of higher learning, for organisations and for those charged with governance, a set of questions remains:

• What are we producing?
• What are we reinforcing?
• What are we tolerating?

And perhaps most importantly, are we forming professionals who are equipped not only to succeed, but to sustain the integrity of the systems they will one day lead?

* 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