Introduction
Traditionally, corporate governance is viewed as a rigid framework that polices everything the organisation does and focuses mostly on financial results and shareholder value maximisation (Aguilera & Castillo, 2025). Sir Adrian Cadbury’s Report on Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (Cadbury, 1992) defined corporate governance as the system by which companies are directed and controlled. In today’s ever-changing business environment, a more adaptable approach is necessary (Aguilera & Castillo, 2025; Assche, Valentinov & Verschraegen, 2021; Jetoo & Tynkkynen, 2021). Economic volatility, regulatory shifts and sustainability demands require flexibility to properly manage an organisation (Duit & Galaz, 2008). By reimagining governance structures as a living ecological system, we can work on creating a more resilient and adaptable system that eventually creates a self-sustaining governance system (Assche et al., 2021; Bianchi, Greta & and Rivenbark, 2021). The purpose of this study is to examine governance as a living ecosystem, where internal auditors act as the gardener that cultivates and nurtures effective governance, while management serves as guardians, ensuring stability and sustainable growth, to foster a self-sustaining and adaptive governance framework. This paper consists of three sections: governance as a living ecosystem, management as the guardians of governance and internal audit as The Gardener.
Literature review
Governance as a living ecosystem
Biological ecosystems are dynamic networks of interdependent organisms, resources and processes in an area acting together with their environment to maintain balance through feedback loops and adaptability (Allen & Holling, 2010; Ostroumov, 2002). Just as ecosystems evolve through natural selection to survive changing environments, governance structures must adapt to shifting economic and regulatory environments with management driving strategic evolution (Assche et al., 2021; Duit & Galaz, 2008). Expanding on the ecosystem approach, governance can be viewed as a dynamic, interdependent ecosystem, where management’s role shifts to guardians fostering balance and growth, instead of a strict enforcer, while internal audit’s role shifts to that of a gardener nurturing the governance ecosystem (Aguilera & Castillo, 2025; Duit & Galaz, 2008; Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022). Sasol’s governance mirrors this, with management engaging communities, regulators, and shareholders through various stakeholder programs just like how species interact in a natural ecosystem (Uzunca et al., 2022; Watson & Smith, n.d.). Its sustainability reporting serves as a feedback loop, enabling adaptive strategies for market and environmental challenges. (Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016; SASOL, 2024; Watson & Smith, n.d.) In contrast, Steinhoff’s 2017 collapse illustrates governance failure from disconnected stakeholder engagement, just like an ecosystem lacking interactions between organisms (Duit & Galaz, 2008). Feedback loops, such as non-transparent reporting, allowed financial irregularities to escalate undetected (Bianchi et al., 2021; Watson & Smith, n.d.). Internal audit could have prevented or at least reduced the impact of governance failures, such as those of Steinhoff, as The Gardener of governance (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). Management’s failure to act as guardians, overlooking regulatory and shareholder input, led to ethical and financial collapse. (Rossouw & Styan, 2019) Like eco-systems, organisations consist of many interconnected components that must balance resilience, diversity and adaptability to survive and grow (Uzunca et al., 2022).
Management as guardians of the governance ecosystem
In this governance ecosystem, management should act as guardians, maintaining the balance between necessary control and natural growth (Duit & Galaz, 2008). They should direct the governance system by enforcing compliance and stability while fostering innovation and stakeholder collaboration to ensure natural growth, as if nurturing an ecosystem (Awaldo & Nur, 2024; Bianchi et al., 2021). Overregulation is the excessive application of rules and regulation (Collin's Dictionary, 2025). Excessive policies, rigid compliance or strict controls that suppress innovation is akin to deforestation stripping an ecosystem of vitality (Holling, 2001; Uzunca et al., 2022). Overregulation creates a corporate culture where uniform decision-making stifles creativity, like an ecosystem losing its biodiversity (Awaldo & Nur, 2024; Bruno & Claessens, 2010). Rigid systems fail to adapt to market or regulatory changes, leading to a possible governance collapse (Assche et al., 2021; Awaldo & Nur, 2024; Uzunca et al., 2022). Furthermore, excessive control can alienate stakeholders, disrupting the interconnectedness needed for a healthy governance system (Adebayo & Ackers, 2023; Bruno & Claessens, 2010). This highlights how important it is for management to foster ethical growth and strategic adaptability to prevent overregulation and create a resilient governance system. Management should embed ethical principles such as transparency and accountability into governance to ensure stakeholder trust (Adib, Zhang, Zaid & Sahyouni, 2021; Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016). They should also foster flexibility through stakeholder feedback and innovative strategies (Bianchi et al., 2021). By promoting diverse perspectives such as sustainability and finance, management avoids uniform decision making and ensure a more resilient governance framework (Adib et al., 2021; Aguilera & Castillo, 2025). An example of a company whose management are effectively acting as guardians of a governance ecosystem, is Anglo American. Anglo American, a global mining company, exemplifies management acting as guardians, balancing compliance with sustainable innovation. Its Sustainable Mining Plan engages communities and regulators, fostering ethical growth while avoiding overregulation. Their management’s use of stakeholder 3 feedback ensures adaptability as seen in its renewable energy initiatives, maintaining governance resilience like a thriving ecosystem. (Anglo American, 2024:64-91) Eskom is an example of a failed governance system. Eskom’s governance failures are caused by overregulation with management’s rigid bureaucratic controls stifling innovation, such as delayed renewable energy alternatives. They neglected stakeholder feedback, destroying trust that led to financial and operational crises, akin to an ecosystem collapse. Unlike the guardians in the form of Anglo American’s governance system, Eskom’s management failed to foster ethical growth and adaptability (Vorster & Marais, 2015). Governance as an ecosystem requires that management guide their organisation towards adaptive growth while preventing overregulation (Duit & Galaz, 2008). (Vorster & Marais, 2015)
Governance Diversity
Research consistently shows that diverse boards outperform homogeneous ones. McKinsey’s “Diversity matters even more” report in 2023 found that companies in the top quartile of diversity were 39% more likely to have above average profitability (Hunt, DixonFyle, Huber, Márquez & Sara Prince, 2023). Governance with no diversity, where leadership is drawn from narrow demographic or professional background, resembles ecosystems vulnerable to collapse when conditions change (Awaldo & Nur, 2024). Tongaat Hullet’s 2018 accounting scandal reflects their governance system’s fragility due to homogeneous decision-making. Their board is dominated by financial experts which in part contributed to the fraudulent land sales. Management’s failure to integrate diverse perspectives led to a R3.5 – R4.5 billion equity restatement. (Hluzani, 2023:28) In nature, biodiversity ensures adaptability through a variety of responses to environmental changes. Similarly, cross-disciplinary governance teams integrating insights from finance, risk management and sustainability offer broader, more adaptive responses (Duit & Galaz, 2008). Shoprite has a governance system that stems from cross-disciplinary inputs, with their board integrating finance, sustainability and social expertise (Shoprite Holdings, 2024). Their management’s commitment to diverse appointments mitigates groupthink and enables adaptive strategies (Shoprite Holdings, 2024). Groupthink is the tendency of 4 members of a certain company conforming to the opinions of the entire group, causing a lack of individual creativity and new solutions (Collin's Dictionary, 2025) Cross disciplinary inputs ensure resilience against market and regulatory shifts, fostering stakeholder trust and innovation, just like the stability of an ecosystem (Mkhabela & Nshimbi, 2023). Furthermore, less diverse leadership structures are prone to groupthink, which restricts innovation and risk awareness (Awaldo & Nur, 2024). Thus, having more diversity in governance systems is not just a moral imperative, but a strategic necessity for organisational resilience (Awaldo & Nur, 2024).
Management’s role in creating a self-healing governance system
Governance systems should be allowed to self-regulate and regenerate, mimicking nature’s self-healing capabilities (Ulibarri, Emerson, Imperial, Jager, Newig & Weber, 2020). A self-sustaining governance system is one that continuously adapt, regenerates and maintains resilience through feedback loops, ethical practices and stakeholder integration, mirroring ecosystems’ ability to selfheal (Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim, 2014). In practice, this means embedding continuous auditing, stakeholder feedback, ethical growth strategies and sustainability frameworks directly into governance operations (Adebayo & Ackers, 2023). Some companies have shifted from rigid, rule-based governance models to agile, learning based systems to anticipate risks and adapt proactively (Assche et al., 2021; Ulibarri et al., 2020). Natural eco-systems heal itself by responding dynamically to disturbances, ensuring ongoing health without external control (Ostroumov, 2002). Similarly, effective governance must build mechanisms that detect risks early and adjust processes without the need for reactive processes (Adebayo & Ackers, 2023; Assche et al., 2021). Governance systems should be designed to evolve continuously so that organisations can create systems with the capability of sustaining resilience without external intervention (Ulibarri et al., 2020). Management uses real time data from ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) metrics and other economic indicators to analyse, monitor and adjust where the company is directed to similar to ecological feedback (Zakhidov, 2024). A self-sustaining governance system should also be able to use and predict future trends (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024; Zakhidov, 2024). AI and data analytics will enhance risk assessment and decision making 5 which will improve the systems adaptability (Assche et al., 2021; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024; Zakhidov, 2024). As forest guardians, management drives adaptability by embedding regenerative practices and fostering a culture of ethical innovation to ensure governance will mirror nature’s self-sustaining systems (Assche et al., 2021). Discovery Limited exemplifies a self-sustaining governance system, with management using AI for risk assessments and ESG metrics as regenerative feedback loops (Sadowski, Kelly & and Bednarz, 2024:227249). Their approach strengthens stakeholder trust and governance resilience (Sadowski et al., 2024:227-249). By building a naturally evolving governance system, businesses can ensure resilience and sustainability much like ecosystems do through self-healing and regeneration (Ulibarri et al., 2020). In conclusion, this section examined governance as a living ecosystem, focusing on management’s role as guardians, the importance of governance biodiversity and the design of self-sustaining governance systems. As forest guardians, management should foster interconnectedness, balance innovation with compliance and promote diverse perspectives to create a self-sustaining system. Management must balance control with organic growth, while diverse perspectives strengthen governance adaptability. Together, these principles offer a roadmap to building governance systems that are both resilient and sustainable over the long term.
Internal Auditing as The Gardener
Traditionally, internal auditors are seen as strict, police like function that has focused on preventing past mistakes from happening again (Kherrazi, 2021; Lenz & Enslin, 2025). Now internal auditors should focus on the future, acting as The Gardener, looking after and nurturing the governance system of an organisation to ensure long term future growth (Lenz & Enslin, 2025). The Global Internal Audit Standards define internal auditing as “an independent, objective assurance and advisory service designed to add value and improve an organisation’s operations. It helps an organisation accomplish its objective by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of governance, risk and control processes” (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024:12). Gardening refers to the planning and cultivation of a garden and a gardener is a person who cultivates and takes care of a garden (Collin's Dictionary, 2025). A gardener is usually involved in all aspects of a garden, taking care of the soil, planting and nurturing seeds, removing weeds and pruning dead branches and continuously nurturing and taking care of the garden (Reichard, 2011). Similarly, internal auditors should strive to rather be The Gardener of the entire organisational ecosystem: creating a good environment for future growth, providing nutrients through establishing an ethical culture, weeding out weaknesses and risks and nurturing growth, rather than policing and restricting an organisation (Adib et al., 2021; Lenz & Enslin, 2025; Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022)
The Gardener cultivates the soil and plants new seeds
A gardener has to test, prepare and cultivate the soil of the garden to ensure it is fertile, has the correct pH levels and is free of toxins (Reichard, 2011). This creates the foundational conditions for anything to grow (Reichard, 2011). In the same way, an internal auditor needs to assess and strengthen the control environment and ethical climate of an organisation to ensure that the foundation of the organisation is ready for new growth in the company (Adib et al., 2021; Arel, Beaudoin & Cianci, 2012; Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022). Without a strong foundation, governance structures risk collapsing no matter how advanced their internal controls and reporting frameworks are (Adib et al., 2021; Lenz & Enslin, 2025). In the governance ecosystem, the internal audit function (hereafter, IAF), should create an environment rooted in ethics, best practices and strong 7 protocols (Harkins, 2016; Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022). Furthermore, the IAF promotes ethical behaviour, strengthening the company’s control environment and planting seeds of risk awareness and better governance practices (Arel et al., 2012; Coetzee & Lubbe, 2013).
Ethics as the soil’s nutrients
To better understand the IAF’s role as The Gardener of governance, it is necessary to begin with the foundation, by cultivating soil and planting new life for future growth (Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022). Having fertile soil is the essential foundation for future growth (Reichard, 2011). Lenz proposed that attitude, behaviour and culture are the foundation of the house of governance (Lenz & Enslin, 2025:165). In governance, ethical values and integrity will be the essential nutrients needed for a governance ecosystem to thrive (Arel et al., 2012; Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016; Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024). Integrity requires being honest and having strong moral principles and is essential for a good governance system (Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016). Therefore, the governing body should act in good faith and in the best interest of the organisation, avoid conflicts of interest and act ethically beyond legal compliance (Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016).
The executive management of a company will set the “tone at the top” for their organisation (Arel et al., 2012). This means they are acting as role models for the organisation’s employees (Arel et al., 2012; Kgomo & Plant, 2015). According to the 2016 King IV Report culture of an organisation refers to how different members in an organisation relate to each other, their work and the outside world in comparison to other companies (Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016)11. Employee perception surveys will be essential to determine the organisation’s ethical culture and employees’ opinion and knowledge of the governance ecosystem (Levenson, 2014). From here, the IAF can see where improvements are necessary and how to go about auditing and implementing them (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024).
The IAF should provide support for decision makers in the organisation to have good ethical leadership in place for the governance ecosystem (Arel et al., 2012). The IAF needs to review the leadership practices for integrity in decision making, conflicts of interest handling and transparency (Adib et al., 2021; Aguilera & Castillo, 2025; Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016; Kgomo & Plant, 2015). Ethical leadership, as defined by Brown, Treviño and Harrison (2005:120), is when the leaders of a business shows appropriate behaviour in their personal and interpersonal relationships and encourage the same behaviour in the employees by communicating and making decisions to reinforce this (Brown et al., 2005:120). There are several dimensions that is relevant when testing ethical leadership: fairness, transparency, people orientation, accountability, responsibility and role clarification, integrity and congruency and ethical awareness (Kgomo & Plant, 2015:91). They should also reinforce the foundation by ensuring that all policies, codes of conduct and procedures are enforced by an organisation (Campbell, 1998). This should be done by evaluating how all policies, procedures and codes of conduct are communicated and applied (Campbell, 1998; Harkins, 2016). These include policies that are guidelines to regulate organisational actions and control the conduct of people and activities (Campbell, 1998:1). Procedures are action oriented and used to supplement policies with more specific instructions (Campbell, 1998:3). They provide step by step instructions that the organisation expects employees to take in various scenarios as well as consequences of failure (Campbell, 1998). Policies and procedures are necessary for any company to function as it provides information on what, how, why and when a company wants something to be done (Campbell, 1998). It should be communicated clearly to everyone in the organisation and applied consistently throughout (Campbell, 1998). An organisation’s policies and procedures should also align with relevant regulatory requirements and the organisation’s values (Campbell, 1998). The IAF should assess whether policies are being enforced and applied on a day-to-day basis and if it is an active part of the decision-making process.
Planting seeds of awareness
Just as planting seeds determines the future of a garden, internal auditors plant seeds of governance by fostering awareness and skills across the organisation (Adib et al., 2021; Harkins, 2016). This can be achieved by giving risk workshops and training sessions as well as scenario-based simulations that help employees to better understand how to respond to certain situations (Harkins, 2016). Open dialogue and education is essential for creating a risk-aware culture where employees are actively taking part in the risk management process (Harkins, 2016).
In Harkins’ book (2016:72), he has established a four-stage model for improving awareness and behaviour: 1. Checking the box – basic awareness of external standards and regulation. 2. Changing employee behaviour – getting employees to follow defined processes. 3. Encouraging employees to use judgement – reduce risk where security option is less clear. 4. Enabling employees as breach detectors – improving detection of breaches and incidents through active employee involvement. (Harkins, 2016:72) This model is a good start to encouraging proactive thinking and adaptability amongst employees (Harkins, 2016). Training and open communication is essential for ensuring employee involvement in risk management is more than just compliance based (Harkins, 2016). Seeds grow into plants and replenishes the ecosystem, just like how governance is continuously replenished and renewed with fresh knowledge and perspectives (Adib et al., 2021; McLean, Antony, Garza-Reyes & Samadhiya, 2023). This will prevent the governance ecosystem from becoming rigid, outdated or stagnant and enables the system to evolve in response to new risks and opportunities (Kherrazi, 2021). Internal auditors cultivate the soil with ethics and planting seeds of awareness to provide the foundation for the governance ecosystem to flourish and grow into a resilient and adaptive system (Adebayo & Ackers, 2023; Harkins, 2016; Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016).
The Gardener removes weeds and prunes branches
Even healthy soil will produce weeds and branches that may weaken a tree or plant in the long run (Holling, 1973; Rotherham & Lambert, 2011). The gardener must actively protect plants by removing harmful elements from the garden as weeds will choke growth and prune dead or diseased branches to redirect energy to more important parts of the plants for increased growth (Amateis & Burkhart, 2011). Similarly, the governance ecosystem can be threatened by inefficiencies, non-compliance and unethical practices that need to be weeded by the IAF (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024; McLean et al., 2023). If these weeds are left unaddressed, they steal vital nutrients like financial resources and time, blocking opportunities the organisation might receive (Adib et al., 2021). Internal auditors play a vital role as the gardener in identifying risks related to these inefficiencies, removing them and pruning the governance system to ensure that energy can be directed towards future growth (Adib et al., 2021; Kherrazi, 2021).
Weeding control weaknesses and inefficiencies
Weeds are often invasive plant species that compete with the natural ecosystem for nutrients and sunlight (Rotherham & Lambert, 2011). The weeds of this governance ecosystem are those control weaknesses and inefficiencies that compete with healthy growth (Kherrazi, 2021). Very often it will lead to unnecessarily draining the company’s resources or limiting the organisation’s potential. A formal control structure will formalise safeguards the organisation and protects the interest of stakeholders (Kherrazi, 2021; McLean et al., 2023)852. Just like control weaknesses and inefficiencies, redundant processes take all of management’s attention (Adib et al., 2021; Kherrazi, 2021; Li, Hu & Shi, 2024). Diverting resources that could have been used on the company’s objectives (Adib et al., 2021). The IAF identify these weeds by evaluating controls and processes, uncovering non-compliance to laws, policies and regulations and identifying inefficiencies (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024; Kherrazi, 2021). This way, internal auditors can ensure that important nutrients, such as resources and time, are directed to strengthen governance practices rather than wasting it on inefficiencies (Adib et al., 2021; Kherrazi, 2021).
Some weeds hide their nature by taking the form of a beautiful flower (Rotherham & Lambert, 2011). In organisations, excessive regulations and overcomplexity in administrative procedures can often stifle growth in an organisation (Adib et al., 2021; McLean et al., 2023). Over time, many controls can become redundant or overlap (Li et al., 2024). It can also cause outdated reporting structures and inefficient approval layers (Li et al., 2024; McLean et al., 2023). These overgrown process and controls can block the sunlight from reaching healthier practices, causing the organisation to lose good opportunities (Li et al., 2024). These complexities can cause decision making to be slower and stifle innovation (Li et al., 2024). The IAF must not only expose these overgrown inefficiencies but also recommend better, simplified solutions (Arel et al., 2012; Li et al., 2024; McLean et al., 2023). Removing these unnecessary layers will prevent the governance ecosystem from becoming rigid and unresponsive, causing opportunities for growth and improvement to not be veiled by unnecessary administrative burdens (Uzunca et al., 2022).
Pruning unhealthy branches
Unlike weeding, pruning is not just about eliminating the threat (Efekto, 2021; Lamp'l, 2020). When the gardener prunes to remove unhealthy branches, it redirects the plant’s energy to the strongest branches to produce more fruit or flowers (Efekto, 2021; Lamp'l, 2020). It can also control the shape and size of a plant and improve the plant’s structure (Efekto, 2021; Lamp'l, 2020). Similarly, the IAF needs to help management with reshaping the governance ecosystem by recommending removing outdated and inefficient controls and challenging legacy practices that has become redundant to the company’s objectives (Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022; Li et al., 2024). This ensures that energy like capital, time or strategic focus, is concentrated on areas that will ensure the continuous operation and growth of the company (McLean et al., 2023). An effective internal control system is essential for corporate governance for its role in strategic decision making and outcomes (Li et al., 2024). Pruning must be balanced: pruning too much can cause plants to die, but not pruning at all will cause energy to be directed to unhealthy branches (Lamp'l, 2020). Excessive pruning in the governance ecosystem might cause the company’s growth to be stinted, however, not pruning at all will allow inefficiencies in the ecosystem to persist (Li et al., 2024). The IAF provides guidance on how to achieve this balance to strengthen resilience without stifling adaptability (Allen & Holling, 2010; Assche et al., 2021; Folke, Hahn, Olsson & Norberg, 2005; Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024). By weeding and pruning the governance ecosystem, the IAF protects it from threats and inefficiencies to create a healthier system with more productive growth (Li et al., 2024). Resources and opportunities are now redirected to places that ensures growth and outdated practices are replaced and improved to better align with the organisation’s objectives (Holling, 2001).
Protection alone does not guarantee a growing, flourishing garden (Lamp'l, 2020). The garden must be nurtured and cared for and in governance this means using their forward looking role to plant new ideas, fertilise governance with insights and nurturing a risk aware culture that will encourage and sustain growth (Lenz & Jeppesen, 2022).
The Gardener nurtures and waters
After the soil is prepared, seeds are planted, weeds are removed and branches are pruned, the garden still requires water and nourishment to thrive (Reichard, 2011:36). A gardener consistently provides water and fertilizer to nourish plants ensuring they are resilient, fruitful and can reach their full potential (Reichard, 2011; Tibbett, Daws, George & Ryan, 2020). The IAF plays this nurturing role as the gardener of governance and provide insights, risk analysis and strategic advice to an organisation (Coetzee & Lubbe, 2013). To keep the garden well nourished, gardeners set up a watering or irrigation system and regularly fertilises the plants for continued growth (Canales-Ide, Zubelzu & Rodríguez-Sinobas, 2019). Auditing does this through continuous auditing and insights, strategic advice and risk analysis that will improve decision making (Coetzee & Lubbe, 2013).
Watering with ongoing insights and auditing
In the governance ecosystem, internal auditors water the system through ongoing audits, insights and monitoring (Baksa & Turoff, 2011; Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024). They provide actionable plans and solutions instead of just criticism (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024). Currently, control testing tends to be retrospective and testing procedures only includes small samples that does not always give an accurate representation of the state of the company’s systems (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). The IAF as The Gardener, will ensure that the governance ecosystem stays hydrated and not allowed to dry out due to neglect or complacency. The IAF can assist management by continuously identifying and assessing risks in the organisation (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). A risk assessment is “the identification and analysis of risks relevant to the achievement of an organisation’s objectives” (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2024:13).
Drip irrigation is a watering or irrigation method that delivers water directly to the roots of the plants by slowly dripping water directly to the root zone (Gültekin, Ertek, Görgişen, Yeter, Avağ & Yıldırım, 2025; McCann, 2024). This not only enhances nutrient uptake but also minimises water loss due to evaporation and runoff (Ashour, Ali, Elgaafary & Sayed, 2025; Gültekin et al., 2025; McCann, 2024). Baksa and Turoff (2011) listed several definitions in their research on continuous audits, however they concluded that they have in common that the audit processes are performed very quickly and on a continuous basis. Continuous auditing acts like a drip irrigation that constantly keeps the high-risk areas in sight, providing vital insights in real time (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). This drip irrigation method will prevent risks staying unnoticed in the ecosystem and help with ensuring continued control efficiency in organisations (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). This irrigation ensures that the organisation is resilient and adaptable in the long run (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). Since continuous auditing has much in common with emergency management and response systems and thus companies will be more prepared to face sudden disasters or threats (Baksa & Turoff, 2011).
Strategic advice as fertiliser
Fertilisers act as food for plants providing them with essential nutrients to grow and thrive (International Fertilizer Association, n.d.; Tibbett et al., 2020). The IAF’s risk assessments that improves management’s strategic decision-making processes acts like additional nutrients that accelerates growth in the governance ecosystem (Baksa & Turoff, 2011). There are various ways that internal audit fertilises the governance ecosystem: The first is to conduct assessments and risk analysis on emerging and existing threats (Coetzee & Lubbe, 2013). Next, they can offer advice on how the risks they found will impact the organisation’s objectives and operations (Assche et al., 2021; Baksa & Turoff, 2011; Bianchi et al., 2021). Finally, they recommend benchmarking techniques and best practice guidelines to show management how they can strengthen their organisations governance system and overall health (Di Fonzo, Marini & International Monetary Fund Statistics, 2012). Benchmarking is the process of combining high- and low frequency data for the same variable in a single, time consistent series that can help internal auditors and with evaluating the effectiveness if controls and reporting processes (Di Fonzo et al., 2012). The IAF should move away from just compliance-based audits and use benchmarking that will encourage growth in the organisation’s governance system by supporting management in making informed, future oriented decisions (Adebayo & Ackers, 2023). By watering the governance ecosystem with continuous insights and fertilising with strategic advice, the IAF will ensure that the ecosystem thrives and grows stronger as time passes (Adebayo & Ackers, 2023; Baksa & Turoff, 2011; Coetzee & Lubbe, 2013).
In conclusion, the IAF is the gardener that nurtures effective governance. To begin, they nurture the soil by establishing and strengthening ethical practices, integrity and accountability and planting seeds of awareness through training and good communication to help improve an organisation’s resilience. Next, they also weed out control inefficiencies stifling growth and blocking opportunities and prune away outdated practices to redirect the energy for growth in more useful areas. Finally, the governance system is watered through insights and risk assessments and fertilised with strategic advice and benchmarking to ensure the system can adapt to sudden changes or threats. The IAF as the gardener does not just take care of the governance system, but also protects it from threats, nurturing sustainable growth and enabling the system to become more resilient, adaptive and sustainable.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine governance as a living ecosystem, where internal auditors act as The Gardener that cultivates and nurtures effective governance, while management serves as guardians, ensuring stability and sustainable growth, to foster a self-sustaining and adaptive governance framework. As forest guardians, management should foster interconnectedness, balance innovation with compliance and promote diverse perspectives to create a self-sustaining system. Management must balance control with organic growth, while diverse perspectives strengthen governance adaptability. Together, these principles offer a roadmap to building governance systems that are both resilient and sustainable over the long term. The next part of this study explored the internal audit function as the gardener that nurtures effective governance. To begin, they nurture the soil by establishing and strengthening ethical practices, integrity and accountability and planting seeds of awareness through training and good communication to help improve an organisation’s resilience. Next, they also weed out control inefficiencies stifling growth and blocking opportunities and prune away outdated practices to redirect the energy for growth in more useful areas. Finally, the governance system is watered through insights and risk assessments and fertilised with strategic advice and benchmarking to ensure the system can adapt to sudden changes or threats. The IAF as the gardener does not just take care of the governance system, but also protects it from threats, nurturing sustainable growth and enabling the system to become more resilient, adaptive and sustainable.
Reference List
Adebayo, A. & Ackers, B. 2023. Adoption of the combined assurance model by South African state-owned enterprises (SOEs). National Accounting Review, 5(1):41-66.
Adib, M., Zhang, X., Zaid, M.A.A. & Sahyouni, A. 2021. Management control system for corporate social responsibility implementation – a stakeholder perspective. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 21(3):410-432.
Aguilera, R.V. & Castillo, M.R. 2025. Toward an updated corporate governance framework: Fundamentals, disruptions, and future research. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 28(2):336-348.
Allen, C.R. & Holling, C.S. 2010. Novelty, adaptive capacity, and resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(3). [Online] Available from: 10.5751/ES-03720-150324 [Accessed: 2025-1008].
Amateis, R.L. & Burkhart, H.E. 2011. Growth of young loblolly pine trees following pruning. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(12):2338-2343.
Anglo American. 2024. Integrated annual report 2024. [Online] Available from: https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Groupv9/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2024/aa-annual-report-full-2024.pdf [Accessed: 202506-13].
Arel, B., Beaudoin, C.A. & Cianci, A.M. 2012. The impact of ethical leadership, the internal audit function, and moral intensity on a financial reporting decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3):351-366.
Ashour, M., Ali, Y., Elgaafary, A. & Sayed, T. 2025. A field study on replacing traditional flood irrigation of sugarcane crop in upper Egypt with drip irrigation technique. Applied Water Science, 15:1-2
Assche, K., Valentinov, V. & Verschraegen, G. 2021. Adaptive governance: learning from what organizations do and managing the role they play. Kybernetes, (In press). [Online] Available from: 10.1108/K-11-2020-0759 [Accessed: 2025-05-17].
Awaldo, D.F. & Nur, W. 2024. Groupthink, leadership and cohesiveness as contexts for quality of decision making: A systematic literature review. Asian Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship and Social Science, 4(01):1017-1029.
Baksa, R. & Turoff, M. 2011. Continuous auditing as a foundation for real time decision support: implementation challenges and successes Supporting Real Time DecisionMaking:1-8
Bianchi, C., Greta, N. & Rivenbark, W.C. 2021. Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11):1581-1589.
Brown, M., Treviño, L. & Harrison, D. 2005. Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97:117-134.
Bruno, V. & Claessens, S. 2010. Corporate governance and regulation: can there be too much of a good thing? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 19(4):461-482.
Cadbury, A. 1992. The financial aspects of corporate governance. London: Professional Publishing Ltd.
Campbell, N. 1998. Writing effective policies and procedures: a step-by-step resource for clear communication. New York: American Management Association Communications.
Canales-Ide, F., Zubelzu, S. & Rodríguez-Sinobas, L. 2019. Irrigation systems in smart cities coping with water scarcity: The case of Valdebebas, Madrid (Spain). Journal of Environmental Management, 247:187-195.
Coetzee, P. & Lubbe, D. 2013. The use of risk management principles in planning an internal audit engagement. Southern African Business Review, 17(2):113-139. Collin's Dictionary. 2025.
Collin's dictionary. Collin's Dictionary. Collinsdictionary.com: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. [Online] Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/overregulation [Accessed: 2025-0522].
Di Fonzo, T. & Marini, M. 2012. On the extrapolation with the Denton proportional benchmarking method. [Place of publication not identified]: International Monetary Fund. [Online] Available from: http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/24285/2012/wp12169.pdf [Accessed: 2025-05-22].
Duit, A. & Galaz, V. 2008. Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21(3):311-335.
Eccles, R., Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. 2014. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60:2835-2857.
Efekto. 2021. Pruning 101: How, when, what, and where. [Online] Available from: https://efekto.co.za/blog/english/pruning-101-how-when-what-and-where/ [Accessed: 2025-09-25].
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 15:441-473.
Gültekin, R., Ertek, A., Görgişen, C., Yeter, T., Avağ, K. & Yıldırım, Y.E. 2025. Effect of deficit and intermittent subsurface drip irrigation on soil water distribution. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 80(2):144-156.
Harkins, M.W. 2016. Managing risk and information security: protect to enable. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
Hluzani, N.B. 2023. The role of accounting regulation in the prevention of corporate failure in South Africa. University of Johannesburg.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4:1-23.
Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5):390-405.
Hunt, D.V., Dixon-Fyle, S., Huber, C., Márquez, M.d.M.M. & Sara Prince, A.T. 2023. Diversity matters even more: the case for holistic impact. [Online] Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matterseven-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact [Accessed: 2025-05-16].
Institute of Directors in Southern Africa. 2016. King IV report on corporate governance for South Africa 2016. [Online] Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/684B68A7-B768-465C8214-E3A007F15A5A/IoDSA_King_IV_Report_-_WebVersion.pdf [Accessed: 2025-0526].
Institute of Internal Auditors. 2024. Global Internal Audit Standards. [Online] Available from: https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/site/standards/editableversions/globalinternalauditstandards_2024january9_editable.pdf [Accessed: 2025-0914].
International Fertilizer Association. n.d. What are fertilizers? [Online] Available from: https://www.fertilizer.org/about-fertilizers/what-are-fertilizers/ [Accessed: 2025-09-21].
Jetoo, S. & Tynkkynen, N. 2021. Institutional change and the implementation of the ecosystem approach: a case study of HELCOM and the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Environments, 8(8):6.
Kgomo, B. & Plant, K. 2015. Dimensions for the assessment of ethical leadership: an internal audit perspective. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research, 17(2):85-94.
Kherrazi, S. 2021. Management control of collaborative innovation: design and structuring mode. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3):848-869.
Lamp'l, J. 2020. Why Pruning Matters: Principles, Recommendations and Tips from the Pruner’s Bible. [Online] Available from: https://joegardener.com/podcast/138-whypruning-matters-principles-recommendations-and-tips-from-the-pruners-bible/ [Accessed: 2025-09-25]. auditing.
Lenz, R. & Enslin, B. 2025. The gardener of governance: a call to action for effective internal Boca Raton: CRC Press. [Online] from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk& AN=4016372 [Accessed: 2025-05-12]. Available Lenz, R. & Jeppesen, K.K. 2022. The future of internal auditing: gardener of governance. EDPACS, 66(5):1-21.
Levenson, A. 2014. Employee surveys that work: improving design, use, and organizational impact. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Li, Q., Hu, S. & Shi, W. 2024. Internal control weakness and corporate divestitures. Journal of Management, (In press). 10.1177/01492063241274284 [Accessed: 2025-07-11]. [Online] Available from: McCann, A. 2024. The University of Rhode Island - Drip irrigation. [Online] Available from: https://web.uri.edu/safewater/protecting-water-quality-at-home/sustainablelandscaping/drip-irrigation/ [Accessed: 2025-09-20].
McLean, R.S., Antony, J., Garza-Reyes, J.A. & Samadhiya, A. 2023. A continuous improvement implementation framework for manufacturing companies: a Delphi studybased approach for development and validation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 40(9):2222-2246.
Mkhabela, M. & Nshimbi, C. 2023. Post-apartheid South Africa and African continental integration: the contribution of South African multinational corporations to integration in Africa. Journal of African Business, 25:445-466.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2024. Framework for anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. [Online] Available from: http://0dx.doi.org.innopac.up.ac.za/https://doi.org/10.1787/0248ead5-en [Accessed: 2025-0610].
Ostroumov, S. 2002. New definitions of the concepts and terms ecosystem and biogeocenosis. Doklady Biological Sciences:141-143 Reichard, S. 2011. The conscientious gardener: cultivating a garden ethic. Berkeley, United States: University of California Press.
Rossouw, J. & Styan, J. 2019. Steinhoff collapse: a failure of corporate governance. International Review of Applied Economics, 33(1):163-170.
Rotherham, I.D. & Lambert, R.A. 2011. Invasive and introduced plants and animals: human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group.
Sadowski, J., Kelly, L. & Bednarz, Z. 2024. Risk, value, vitality: the moral economy of a global behavioural insurance platform. Economy and Society, 53(2):227-249. SASOL. 2024.
SASOL Limited integrated report 2024. [Online] Available from: https://www.sasol.com/sites/default/files/2024-09/SASOL-Integrated-Report-2024_0.pdf [Accessed: 2025-06-13].
Shoprite Holdings. 2024. Integrated Report 2024. [Online] Available from: www.shopriteholdings.co.za [Accessed: 2025-06-13].
Tibbett, M., Daws, M.I., George, S.J. & Ryan, M.H. 2020. The where, when and what of phosphorus fertilisation for seedling establishment in a biodiverse jarrah forest restoration after bauxite mining in Western Australia. Ecological Engineering, 153. Ulibarri, N., Emerson, K., Imperial, M.T., Jager, N.W., Newig, J. & Weber, E. 2020. How does collaborative governance evolve? Insights from a medium case comparison. Policy and Society, 39(4):617-637.
Uzunca, B., Sharapov, D. & Tee, R. 2022. Governance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems. Research Policy, 51(7):104560.
Vorster, S. & Marais, C. 2015. Corporate governance, integrated reporting, and stakeholder management: A case study of Eskom. African Journal of Business Ethics, 8:31-57.
Watson, S.B. & Smith, E.E. n.d. A qualitative assessment of sustainability reporting: An environmental, social and governance perspective. International Business Conference. [Online] Available from: https://internationalbusinessconference.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/10/CP59-Watson-Smith-Qualitative-Assessment-sustainabilityfinal-corrected.pdf. [Accessed: 2025-05-18]
Zakhidov, G. 2024. Economic indicators: tools for analysing market trends and predicting future performance. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Universal Scientific Perspective, 2(3):23-28
