Ubuntu and Corporate Governance

A different starting point

In many African contexts, this question is especially pressing. Formal governance systems, particularly Western models built around shareholders and formal accountability structures, often operate alongside indigenous ethical frameworks that shape how people understand responsibility, leadership and accountability. One such framework is Ubuntu, a philosophy commonly expressed as "a person is a person through other persons."

Ubuntu emphasises human dignity, relational responsibility, and the idea that decision-making should consider the well-being of the wider community. It's sometimes framed as an "African alternative" to shareholder-centred governance. But treating it as a replacement for formal governance misses a more interesting insight.

Ubuntu as a way of seeing, not a rulebook

Rather than functioning as a governance code, Ubuntu works more like an underlying ethical mindset. It shapes how directors interpret their roles, not what the rules say, and comes into play particularly when formal rules are ambiguous or silent.

Interviews with corporate directors in Eswatini illustrate this well. Directors didn't describe invoking Ubuntu as a checklist or policy. Instead, they spoke of it as a "way of seeing": a lens through which they weighed stakeholder impact, leadership responsibility and the moral implications of their decisions. It became most visible not in routine compliance, but in moments of uncertainty, when rules alone couldn't resolve an ethical tension.

This reframes the role of ethics in governance. Good governance doesn't happen automatically when rules are followed. It depends on how people interpret and act on those rules in context.

Where this approach can go wrong

This relational approach carries risks too. Ubuntu isn't automatically a force for good, and it can be misused. Where governance systems are weakly enforced or power is unevenly distributed, appeals to harmony, loyalty or community can end up suppressing dissent, legitimising informal allegiances or obscuring accountability rather than strengthening it.

Several directors acknowledged this tension directly. In some contexts, challenging a dominant voice could be framed as disruptive or disloyal, the opposite of what ethical governance actually requires. Here, Ubuntu-inspired language risks becoming symbolic rather than meaningful: governance that looks ethical on paper but carries little real weight in practice.

None of this undermines Ubuntu as a concept. If anything, it strengthens the case that relational ethics needs discipline, not just good intentions.

Values alone aren't enough

This is where individual judgement comes in. Relational ethics demands discernment, wisdom and courage, because directors have to weigh up competing obligations rather than simply point to shared values in the abstract. Where that judgement is weak, relational frameworks can end up making governance failures worse rather than better, particularly where loyalty or consensus get used to suppress dissent or protect powerful interests.

This challenges a common assumption: that simply having the right values automatically leads to better behaviour. In reality, it's the opposite. Ubuntu doesn't lower the bar for directors, it raises it, because it asks them to actively translate relational responsibility into fair and accountable practice.

What this means for governance in practice

The key lesson: Ubuntu strengthens governance only when it works alongside strong institutional safeguards, not instead of them. It shouldn't replace regulation, fiduciary duties or enforcement. Instead, it complements these by shaping how accountability and legitimacy are understood and exercised day to day.

For boards and policymakers, this means resisting the temptation to treat indigenous ethical frameworks as symbolic additions to a governance code. Ethical governance isn't achieved through language alone. It comes through disciplined interpretation and genuine vigilance against misuse.

In a world increasingly aware of the limits of compliance-driven governance, Ubuntu doesn't offer an easy solution. It offers a demanding one: governance as a moral practice grounded in responsibility and relational accountability.

Co-author:

Dr. Cricy Chris Makufa is an academic, business management consultant, and lecturer with a PhD from Leeds Beckett University. He specialises in organisational management, business strategy, leadership development, and corporate governance, combining academic expertise with consultancy experience in strategic planning, performance management, and executive training. He has also taught on MBA programmes, supporting the development of senior leaders across a range of organisational and business contexts.