The roundtable, led by James Dunphy, Chief Executive of the Committee of University Chairs convened a diverse group of university audit and risk committee chairs, to discuss the evolving landscape of higher education governance, with a particular focus on the development and implementation of the new Committee of University Chairs (CUC) Code of Governance.
The session began with an overview of the current pressures facing UK higher education, including financial constraints, regulatory changes, and the need for sustainable long-term strategies. The importance of effective governance was emphasised as central to navigating these challenges. The CUC’s role as the voice of university chairs and its responsibility for the Higher Education Code of Governance were highlighted, alongside its commitment to sector consultation and evidence-based revision of the code.
Participants were briefed on the process behind the new code, which included extensive consultation with stakeholders across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Over 100 written submissions and engagement with more than 300 individuals informed the draft. The review steering group, comprising funders, regulators, and university representatives, met regularly to ensure broad input. The code’s principles-based approach was discussed, with a focus on balancing “must” and “should” requirements to accommodate institutional diversity while maintaining sector standards.
The code’s timeline was outlined: a near-final draft would be released for public comment in April, with final approval and publication expected in June. The implementation period would span the 2026-27 academic year, allowing institutions time for deep reflection and adaptation rather than mere compliance.
Three provocations guided the roundtable discussion:
These questions prompted participants to share practical experiences and challenges from their institutions.
A recurring topic was the remuneration of board members. Some institutions had recently voted not to remunerate governors except for the chair, citing financial pressures and strong board diversity without payment. Others argued that remuneration could enhance accountability and attract commercially experienced talent, especially as universities increasingly operate as large, complex businesses. The code’s approach was to require boards to agree their stance on remuneration, with a clear rationale linked to recruitment and board effectiveness.
Risk management was a central theme. Participants discussed the challenge of extending risk awareness beyond audit committees to the full board, avoiding the assumption that “someone else is on it.” Practical strategies included emerging risk registers, plain language discussions, and broadening committee membership to include expertise in risk, IT, and higher education. The importance of considering both threats and opportunities in risk appetite was emphasised.
The need for ongoing training and induction for board members was raised, especially as new members join and the sector faces increasingly complex risks. The value of informal, in-person sessions to deepen understanding and foster open dialogue was encouraged.
The effectiveness of boards was debated, with consensus that governance is a continuous journey rather than a destination. Boards must regularly assess whether they have the right composition and strategy for current and future challenges. The risk of compliance-driven agendas crowding out strategic discussion was noted, and participants called for the new code to help focus attention on key areas for improvement rather than adding to compliance burdens.
The role of subcommittees and their chairs was discussed, particularly in light of recommendations from sector reports. While convening chairs can enhance dialogue and prevent issues falling through the cracks, care must be taken not to exclude other board members from key decisions. Sharing minutes and reports, and ensuring feedback loops between committees and the full board, were identified as good practice.
Culture and behaviours around the board table were seen as fundamental to effective governance. The code will emphasise the need for board members to “lean in” and fully engage with key questions. The significant time commitment required for leadership roles was acknowledged, with calls for greater clarity in recruitment and induction processes.
The code’s implementation will be supported by refreshed resources, case studies, and practical examples. There is demand for templates and real-world papers to help institutions benchmark and adapt their practices. Sector bodies such as Advance HE will be involved in providing training and support, particularly for staff and student governors.
The roundtable concluded with a call for continued high-quality conversations within boards and between boards and executive teams. Participants were encouraged to scrutinise the new code deeply, reflect on their own context and strategy, and provide feedback during the public comment period. The importance of sector-wide alignment in messaging and practice was stressed, alongside the need for practical support and sharing of good practice.
We’d love to hear from you. To book an appointment or to find out more about our services:
