Managing university records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk: Case studies from South Africa and Malawi

There are enormous benefits for any organisation from practising sound records management. In the context of a public university, the importance of good records management includes: facilitating the achievement the university’s mandate; enhancing efficiency of the university; maintaining a reliable institutional memory; promoting trust; responding to an audit culture; enhancing university competitiveness; supporting the university’s fiduciary duty; demonstrating transparency and accountability; and fighting corruption. Records scholars and commentators posit that effective recordkeeping is an essential underpinning of good governance. Although there is a portrayal of positive correlation, recordkeeping struggles to get the same attention as that given to the governance. Evidence abounds of cases of neglect of recordkeeping in universities and other institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The apparent absence of sound recordkeeping provided a rationale for revisiting some universities in South Africa and Malawi in order to critically explore the place of recordkeeping in an organisation’s strategy in order to develop an alternative framework for managing records and documents in an era where good governance is a global agenda. The research is a collective case study in which multiple cases are used to critically explore the relationship between recordkeeping and governance. As qualitative research that belongs in the interpretive tradition of enquiry, it is not meant to suggest prescriptive solutions to general recordkeeping problems but rather to provide an understanding of the challenges and opportunities that arise in managing records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk. That is: what goes on in the workplace; what are the problems; and what alternative approaches might address any existing problem situations. Research findings show that some institutions are making good use of their governance structures and other drivers for recordkeeping to put in place sound recordkeeping systems. Key governance structures and other drivers for recordkeeping identified include: laws and regulations; governing bodies; audit; risk; technology; reforms; and workplace culture. Other institutions are not managing their records and documents well despite efforts to improve their governance systems. They lack recordkeeping capacity. Areas that determine recordkeeping capacity include: availability of records management policy; capacity for digital records; availability of a records management unit; senior management support; level of education and training of records management staff; and systems and procedures for storage, retrieval and dispositions of records. Although this research reveals that the overall recordkeeping in the selected countries has slightly improved compared with the situation other researchers found a decade ago, it remains unsatisfactory and disjointed from governance. The study therefore proposes governance recordkeeping as an approach to managing records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk. The governance recordkeeping viewpoint considers recordkeeping as a governance function that should be treated in the same manner as other governance functions such as audit and risk management. Additionally, recordkeeping and governance should be considered as symbiotic elements of a strategy. A strategy that neglects recordkeeping may not fulfil the organisation’s objectives effectively.

Strategic Diplomacies: Indigenous Governance, International Politics, and Natural Resources in Canada

International Relations theory would predict that central governments, with their considerable material resources, would be unlikely to face a challenge from a substate government. However, substate governments, and particularly Indigenous governments, are pushing back against central government control in both domestic and international spheres. Indigenous governments are leveraging their local mining sectors to realize their interests and express local identities—interests and identities that may not be congruent with those of the central government. Applying the case study of the resource extraction sector in Canada, this thesis asks: under what conditions are substate governments able to challenge the authority of central governments in the international arena? Canada’s reliance on the global extractive resource sector is a major driver of its international policy preferences, but the increased engagement of Indigenous governments in the sector challenges the control of the federal government. Focusing on the resource extraction sectors in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, this thesis argues that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between Indigenous governments’ international engagement and their domestic autonomy; both challenge the parameters of state authority. Both force the state to respond to claims of control from multiple sites and to clarify convoluted policy environments. A confluence of factors—including increased Indigenous connections to the globalized economy, new Canadian regulatory frameworks, and recent Supreme Court of Canada cases regarding Indigenous lands—have all altered the space in which Indigenous governments in Canada participate in the resource extraction sector and produce overlapping or multilevel governance structures. This thesis demonstrates that Indigenous international engagement entrenches the authority and political legitimacy manifest in Indigenous governments’ insistence on equitable and horizontal negotiations in Canada’s lucrative resource extraction sector. A cumulative process occurs in which domestic and international expressions of political autonomy reinforce each other, produce further opportunities to express authority in both environments, and trouble the state’s capacity to fully realize its international policy preferences.

Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Appoach

This article reports the findings into patterns of governance on nonprofit boards in Australia. The research surveys 118 boards, upon which serve a total of 1405 directors. The findings indicate that nonprofit boards can mimic some aspects of a shareholder approach to governance. But nonprofit boards, in the main, indicate priorities and activities of a stakeholder approach to governance. The features of `isomorphism' that arise largely stem from legislative requirements in corporate governance. Generally, nonprofit directors are influenced by agenda and motivations that can be differentiated from the influences upon director activity in the corporate sector. The study indicates that nonprofit boards prize knowledge and loyalty to the sector when considering board composition. The survey suggests nonprofits ``compensate'' for the demands placed upon them about fiduciary duty and due diligence responsibilities with the diverse intellectual expertise of non-executive directors. Nonprofit boards possess greater diversity than boards in the corporate sector; they include more women as directors than corporate boards and they include a greater proportion of directors from minority groups. While strategic issues feature significantly as a task of the nonprofit board, they distinguish themselves from their corporate counterparts by engaging in operational management. The findings indicate that, in the main, directors on nonprofit boards deliberate and operate in ways distinctive from their corporate counterparts. Such findings offer a contribution to the reform of Corporations Law in other countries and the likely consequence on boards outside the corporate sector.