Connect with us

Finance

Reevaluating Board Composition

Published

on

Reevaluating Board Composition

By Dr. Robert Straw, CEO Zurich Campus, China Europe International Business School

 

 

 

Advertisement

 

In an era marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), the effectiveness of a corporate board depends not only on the technical depth of its members but also on the breadth of their strategic and leadership capabilities. This article argues for recalibrating board composition, particularly in global corporations. It contends that the trend of appointing domain-specific experts to the board—a model likened here to a “Noah’s Ark” of paired expertise—is increasingly ineffective. Instead, the most resilient and high-functioning boards are those led by generalist leaders: former chief executive officers (CEOs), senior executives and operational general managers with track records of strategic oversight and people leadership. I propose a hybrid model that favors generalist board composition, supplemented by specialist consultants as needed, thus maintaining the board’s strategic integrity while ensuring subject-matter rigor.

1. The “Noah’s Ark” problem in boardrooms

Across many global boardrooms today, a familiar pattern has taken hold—a structure that mirrors the Biblical Noah’s Ark. For every critical domain, boards are stacked two by two: two cybersecurity experts, two marketing authorities, two finance veterans, two talent gurus, et cetera. The intent is risk mitigation and representation, ensuring every discipline has a voice. Yet this Noah’s Ark strategy, while symbolically complete, is strategically flawed.

Rather than charting a bold course, these boards often resemble floating zoos of expertise, in which directors are isolated by often outdated specialties and are overly deferential to their functional peers. As each pair narrows its focus to its specific discipline, the board risks losing the cross-functional integration and strategic oversight essential to corporate governance. This leads to fragmented accountability, outdated expertise and authority bias—quite often to the advantage of and/or burden on the chairperson.

Roberta Sydney explicitly critiqued this model. “Generalists—rather than specialists—make for great board directors…to be better prepared to govern in times of uncertainty.” The problem is not that specialists lack value; it’s that the permanence of their board seats can create intellectual silos and stagnation.

Advertisement

The academic literature supports this observation. Yaron Nili and Roy Shapira noted in the Yale Journal on Regulation that appointing specialists may, in fact, reduce the diversity and quality of strategic debate. “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints,” they argued, “particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”

The alternative is to rethink the ark: not as a static collection of experts, but as a vessel guided by navigators—generalist leaders who can synthesize, question and direct. These are individuals who have operated companies, not just departments; who have balanced growth and risk, not just analyzed it; who bring perspective, not just credentials.

In this article, I argue that the future of corporate governance lies not in Noah’s Ark duplication of expertise, but in empowering generalist captains who can integrate functional insights and steer with strategic clarity. Functional experts should remain part of the picture—as consultants, advisory panelists or rotating guest participants—but not permanent fixtures at the helm.

2. The limitations of specialist-dominated boards

2.1 Obsolescence of expertise

Expertise, particularly in rapidly evolving fields such as cybersecurity or digital marketing, has a half-life. A director whose reputation is grounded in achievements from a decade ago may no longer be equipped to handle contemporary challenges in that domain. As Sydney remarked, “Expertise earned in the past can easily become obsolete when not continually tested in real-time environments.”

Advertisement

Nili and Shapira found that directors labeled as specialists often experienced a depreciation of influence over time, especially when their technical knowledge failed to align with emerging trends or technologies. In effect, these directors may inadvertently become liabilities rather than assets.

2.2 Authority bias and groupthink

When boards rely heavily on domain specialists, they risk developing a cognitive dependency on those individuals, leading to authority bias. This creates a boardroom dynamic in which certain directors dominate conversations in their areas of specialized expertise, while other members hesitate to challenge or question their contributions.

As Nili and Shapira noted, “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints, particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”

This contributes to groupthink, which may hinder the board’s ability to critically evaluate, discuss and challenge strategic decisions from a multi-dimensional perspective.

Advertisement

2.3 Fragmented oversight and responsibility silos

A board composed of function-specific experts risks devolving into a confederation of silos. Each director may focus narrowly on his or her area, resulting in an aggregation of perspectives rather than an integrated strategic vision. This is antithetical to the board’s purpose, which is to provide overarching governance and align on long-term value creation.

Moreover, these silos can lead to poor communication and accountability. For example, cybersecurity may be deemed “handled” because a former chief information security officer (CISO) is on the board, but this individual may not be aligned with current best practices or may fail to integrate the issue into a broader risk framework.

2.4 Firms exemplifying the Noah’s Ark-like board composition

According to my framework evaluation, the following companies have (had) boards predominantly composed of domain-specific experts, which may lead to fragmented oversight and a lack of cohesive strategic direction:

Advertisement
  1. Credit Suisse Group AG
    • Prior to its acquisition by UBS in 2023, Credit Suisse’s board was heavily populated with specialists in risk management, compliance and technology.
    • The lack of generalist leadership contributed to challenges in strategic oversight and cohesive decision-making. We all know what happened here.
  2. Synopsys Inc.
    • The board includes individuals with deep expertise in software, semiconductors and related technical fields.
    • While this brings valuable insights, in my view, the board lacks a sufficient number of generalist leaders with broad operational experience.
  3. Ansys Inc.
    • Ansys’s board comprises individuals with substantial experience in the engineering and technology sectors.
    • The composition leans heavily towards technical expertise, potentially limiting broader strategic perspectives.
  4. Dell Technologies
    • The board is composed of members with extensive backgrounds in technology and engineering.
    • This concentration of technical expertise may result in a narrower focus on operational and strategic issues.
  5. NVIDIA Corporation
    • NVIDIA’s board includes several members with strong technical backgrounds in graphics processing and computing.
    • While beneficial for product development, this may limit diverse strategic viewpoints at the board level.

3. The strategic value of generalist leadership

3.1 Systems thinking and integration

General managers bring a systems-oriented perspective, honed by years of operational leadership, cross-functional collaboration and enterprise accountability. Unlike specialists, they are not confined by functional dogma and are more adept at evaluating trade-offs, interdependencies and strategic timing.

Generalists also tend to excel in scenario planning, a crucial skill in the VUCA landscape. Their exposures to multiple business cycles, regulatory environments and stakeholder contexts equip them to contextualize issues that transcend functional boundaries.

3.2 Leadership and people-management acumen

Boards are not merely technical advisory bodies; they are fiduciary stewards responsible for setting the tone, culture and long-term direction. As such, directors need more than technical knowledge—they require leadership. Generalists who have led large teams and managed significant P&Ls (profits and losses) bring firsthand knowledge of how strategic decisions impact people, performance and profit.

As Roberta Sydney put it, “Great board members are not those with the narrowest expertise but those with the broadest capacity to lead, challenge, and support from a holistic standpoint.”

Advertisement

3.3 Enhanced strategic dialogue and decision-making

Strategic oversight requires directors to ask the right questions, not just provide the right answers. Generalists, with their cross-functional experience, are often better positioned to identify gaps in strategy and explore unintended consequences. They can bridge specialists’ knowledge without becoming trapped in it.

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) has emphasized that effective boards engage in strategic conversations that go beyond operational details. This necessitates board members who can traverse diverse domains and synthesize insights.

3.4 Seven global firms with best-in-class generalist boards

Here are seven “best-in-class” global firms with board compositions that reflect their strong commitments to generalist leadership, strategic breadth and cross-functional oversight. These boards embody the antithesis of the Noah’s Ark model by prioritizing operational experience, enterprise leadership and integrative thinking over siloed technical specialization.

Advertisement
  1. Best Buy Co., Inc.
  • Why it stands out: Includes seasoned CEOs (Corie Barry, Hubert Joly) and chief financial officers (CFOs) (Karen McLoughlin), blending operational, digital and financial acumen.
  • Governance strength: The board is involved in long-range planning and organizational culture, not just functional compliance.
  1. Nestlé S.A.
  • Why it stands out: Features former CEOs (Paul Bulcke), global executives and experts in nutrition, marketing and ESG (environmental, social and governance).
  • Governance strength: Diversity of leadership backgrounds contributes to long-term strategic alignment across global markets. P.S.: There’s not a single Swiss on the board, although it is Swiss-based.
  1. Microsoft Corporation
  • Why it stands out: Strong mix of tech innovators (Satya Nadella, Reid Hoffman), policy leaders (Penny Pritzker) and investors (Hugh Johnston).
  • Governance strength: The board’s composition enables foresight in innovation and adaptability to policy and market shifts.
  1. Unilever PLC
  • Why it stands out: Board members have held leadership positions across consumer goods, sustainability and emerging markets.
  • Governance strength: Emphasizes a purpose-driven strategy with operational execution.
  1. Procter & Gamble Co.
  • Why it stands out: Broad operational experience across marketing, international business and corporate strategy.
  • Governance strength: The board is known for supporting long-term innovation while managing scale and complexity globally.
  1. ABB Ltd.
  • Why it stands out: Chaired by Peter Voser (former Shell CEO) with board members including industrial CEOs, CFOs and operational leaders (e.g., Atlas Copco, Caterpillar Inc.).
  • Governance strength: Industrial and engineering complexity is matched by real-world general-management experience across sectors and geographies.
  1. UBS Group AG
  • Why it stands out: Although historically more specialized, the current board reflects a shift towards generalist leadership: banking CEOs (Gail Kelly), macroeconomists (William Dudley), policy advisors and digital leaders. This board has learned from the Credit Suisse debacle, ensuring that it moves towards a more generalist approach.
  • Governance strength: Increasing emphasis on governance, geopolitical awareness and technology strategy with global integration.

4. The hybrid model: Generalists with consultative experts

A growing number of governance experts advocate a hybrid model in which boards are composed primarily of generalist leaders while subject-matter experts are brought in on an ad hoc or consultative basis. This model preserves the board’s strategic bandwidth while still incorporating the latest expertise in fast-moving domains.

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance wrote, “Adding a director with a narrow range of expertise may reduce the quality of board discussions on other, more prevalent topics on the agenda. A better approach is to access specialist knowledge via external advisors or advisory boards.”

This approach is not merely theoretical. Many high-performing boards have established external advisory panels or rotate in technical experts for specific strategic reviews or quarterly deep dives. These consultants provide real-time insights without permanently altering the board’s structure or diluting its strategic cohesion.

5. Global governance implications

Global organizations require directors who understand international markets, regulatory systems and geopolitical dynamics. Generalists who have managed operations in multiple regions bring nuanced perspectives that specialists often lack. Their broader worldview is essential in aligning global strategy with local execution.

General managers are more likely to bring experience from multiple sectors, enabling boards to cross-pollinate ideas and practices. In contrast, specialists often have deep but narrow experiences, which can limit innovation or relevance across different contexts.

Advertisement

Generalists tend to be better crisis managers. Having led through downturns, restructurings and transformations, they are equipped to make swift, principled decisions under pressure. Their presence on the board strengthens institutional resilience.

6. Recommendations for board-composition policy

  • Prioritize leadership track records in board recruitment.

Search committees and nominating boards should place greater emphasis on operational-leadership experience rather than on recent technical expertise. Candidates should be evaluated on their ability to synthesize, challenge constructively and lead across functions.

  • Establish standing advisory councils.

Rather than embedding all needed expertise within the board, organizations should institutionalize external advisory councils composed of domain experts who can be called upon for in-depth consultations.

  • Conduct regular composition audits.

Boards should assess their composition annually to ensure alignment with strategic needs, not just with compliance checklists. This includes identifying whether a board has become too narrow in its functional expertise and whether it retains integrative thinkers.

  • Educate about governance over expertise.

Board-onboarding programs should stress fiduciary responsibility, enterprise leadership and strategic oversight rather than domain mastery. General governance capabilities should be cultivated and prioritized.

Conclusion

The composition of a board is one of the most powerful levers for corporate performance. In a globalized, fast-changing environment, boards must be able to operate above the fray of specialist silos. The evidence increasingly supports a model that privileges generalist leadership, enriched by specialist insight when needed but not dominated by it.

Don’t fill the ark—staff the bridge: Boards need navigators, not more passengers.

By adopting a generalist-first philosophy in board appointments, global corporations can foster more integrated thinking, sharper strategic oversight and greater institutional resilience. The Noah’s Ark model of expert duplication is outdated; what boards need today are strategic navigators who can steer through complexity—not passengers who specialize in reading one part of the map.

 

Advertisement

Finance

Evoke Entertainment Closes $35 Million Production Financing Facility Backed By Major Private Credit Fund

Published

on

Evoke Entertainment Closes  Million Production Financing Facility Backed By Major Private Credit Fund

EXCLUSIVE: Evoke Entertainment has closed a senior secured production financing facility of up to $35 million backed by a multi-billion-dollar private credit fund.

While we verified the deal with the lender, they spoke with Deadline on the condition of anonymity, per company policy. The revolving production facility is designed to support Evoke’s expanding slate of independent features, television movies, streaming films, and series — significantly increasing the company’s already high-volume production output across major studios, networks, and streaming platforms.

More from Deadline

Structured around contracted revenue streams, distribution agreements, tax incentives, and the value of Evoke’s existing library and historical production performance, the facility provides the company with flexible, scalable production financing across multiple genres and platforms. Evoke’s lender comes to the partnership with extensive experience in structured finance, asset-backed lending, and entertainment-related investments.

The deal was spearheaded by Evoke Entertainment CEO Stan Spry, who told us, “This financing marks a transformative moment for Evoke. The backing of a major institutional private credit partner gives us the ability to substantially scale our production operations while continuing to focus on commercially driven, cost-efficient content for the global marketplace.”

Advertisement

The first projects to be financed under Evoke’s facility include a large slate of TV and streaming movies including a Christmas film for Hallmark, a survival thriller for Lifetime, alongside the independent feature films Suburban KingsHomesick, and Bali Hai.

Founded in 2011, and formerly known as Cartel Entertainment, Evoke Entertainment is a full-service management, production, and finance company that produces more than 20 films and series annually across major platforms including Netflix, Hallmark, Lifetime, Tubi, NBC/Peacock, AMC, and Great American Media. Notable past projects include Creepshow (AMC), Day of the Dead (Syfy), Twelve Forever (Netflix), and the upcoming Breaking Bear for Tubi, to name a few.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Livestock Methane in India: Aligning Livelihoods, Systems, and Finance – CPI

Published

on

Livestock Methane in India: Aligning Livelihoods, Systems, and Finance – CPI

Background

India is home to the world’s largest livestock population of 536.76 million, which produces 25% of the world’s milk1. This increase in livestock population leads to increased methane emissions, primarily from enteric fermentation and manure management. As a result, livestock contributes to 58% (BUR 4, 2020) of India’s agricultural methane footprint. However, unlike crop-based emissions, livestock methane is diffuse, biologically driven, and more complex to measure and manage, making it less visible within existing climate finance frameworks.

Current research and policy discussions indicate that while technical mitigation solutions exist through feed improvements and manure management, evidence of their effectiveness in maintaining dairy productivity, animal health, and protecting farmers’ incomes is scattered. This leads to heightened risk perceptions among dairy producers when considering methane mitigation measures. Furthermore, even where the evidence is compelling, the fragmentation of dairy producers precludes their aggregation. Additionally, there is a lack of robust, affordable, and scalable monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems at the grassroots level. These barriers prevent the development of a clear, scalable, and financeable pipeline of livestock methane abatement in India.

The Government of India has actively supported dairy development and livestock health through various schemes and programs introduced by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. At the same time, livestock systems in India are deeply embedded within rural livelihoods and socio-economic structures, making the sector a critical component of rural resilience. Consequently, interventions must be context-aware and farmer-centric, with a strong focus on livelihood security and alignment with local values and practices.

With this background, CPI is organizing a roundtable to explore how livestock methane can transition from a technically understood challenge to actionable opportunities on the ground, including both animal feed and manure management. The forum would bring together dairy producer organizations, nodal agencies, think tanks, ecosystem enablers, and financial institutions. It will deliberate upon possible projectized solutions and accompanying financing mechanisms that could be scaled up to address the twin objectives of methane abatement and farmers’ income security.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Efficient Capital Markets Can Unlock Africa’s Domestic Savings

Published

on

Efficient Capital Markets Can Unlock Africa’s Domestic Savings

By Samira Mensah, Head of Analytics & Research Africa, S&P Global Ratings

 

 

 

Advertisement

 

Efficient capital markets can transform Africa’s limited domestic financial assets into investments that spur economic growth. By connecting institutional investors, pension funds and foreign investors, capital markets enhance economic development by increasing the availability of funding for long-term projects.

Efficient domestic capital markets can not only address governments’ significant funding gaps but can also ensure that critical infrastructure developments—such as transportation, energy and telecommunications—are adequately financed, ultimately driving economic growth and employment. Supported by transparent and comparable risk frameworks, efficient domestic capital markets can build confidence among domestic and foreign investors and enhance resilience during periods of global risk aversion.

In our view, African capital markets currently lack two key building blocks.

In our view, African capital markets currently lack two key building blocks. Firstly, with limited exceptions, regulatory frameworks generally lag the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO’s) global standards, which cover listing standards on securities exchanges, development of digital market infrastructure and improvements in the timeliness and transparency of regulatory disclosures of issuers’ financial results, including environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and green-finance taxonomies.

Advertisement

Some countries, such as South Africa, Kenya, Morocco and Mauritius, are more advanced than others. The misalignment of regulatory frameworks with international norms stems from the gap between adoption and implementation through legislation, which deters international and local investment.

Secondly, the absence of standardized risk assessments leads to information gaps and limits investor participation in primary and secondary bond markets. Credit benchmarks—such as sovereign-yield curves, credit ratings and market-implied risk measures—can help in this regard. They distill complex financial, macroeconomic and institutional information into consistent and comparable signals.

As such, these benchmarks provide a standardized framework for assessing creditworthiness, supporting consistent credit analysis and facilitating decision-making based on transparent and comparable data. They are relevant to investment vehicles with specific investment mandates and may influence the availability of capital, which is crucial for infrastructure projects.

Capital markets can spur economic growth

Capital markets can play a central role in turning domestic savings into productive investments. This is particularly the case in Africa, where development needs are high and incomes are rising from a low base. Additionally, innovative financial technologies, such as fintech platforms, attract more small savings—including money sent home by migrants—that can also fund investments. However, mobilizing domestic savings for investments in local economies remains a significant challenge because many transactions are in cash and outside the financial system.

According to the Africa Finance Corporation (AFC), African sovereign-wealth funds, pension funds, insurers, central banks and commercial banks hold an estimated US$4 trillion in financial assets, representing 130 percent of Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025. Long-term institutional capital accounts for $1.1 trillion of the $4 trillion, while African sovereign-wealth funds manage only about $145 billion in assets under management (AUM)—less than 1 percent of global sovereign-wealth funds’ AUM.

Advertisement

Although banking assets comprise the majority of financial assets, they are typically short-term, and banks rely on customer deposits to fund lending activities. This underscores the mismatch between banks’ short-term funding profiles and the economy’s long-term financing needs, particularly in underdeveloped financial systems.

South Africa holds the largest share of Africa’s financial assets, followed by Egypt and Nigeria. South Africa contributes 20-25 percent to Africa’s financial assets. This reflects the country’s outsized role within the continent’s savings pools, its large and mature pension system and its highly developed banking sector. We estimate that the South African banking sector’s assets amount to nearly 100 percent of GDP, while nonbank financial institutions—including pension and insurance funds—account for close to 120 percent of GDP.

Smaller economies that are important regional financial hubs—such as Morocco, Mauritius and Kenya—also play a meaningful role. Aggregate financial assets represent 80 percent to more than 200 percent of these economies’ respective GDPs. Yet a significant portion of this capital does not flow into long-term productive investments.

In several countries, the economic effects of financial assets are muted because large shares are either invested in government securities or placed offshore. For example, the bank-sovereign nexus remains particularly high in Egypt and Kenya, where government securities account for 30-60 percent of banking assets. This contributes to crowding out private investments and increases fiscal-financial linkages. Pension funds are further constrained by specific investment mandates. We understand that only 5 percent of their assets are allocated to alternative investments.

Capital allocation rules could channel domestic savings into real sectors

Regulations across various jurisdictions permit pension funds and sovereign-wealth funds to invest abroad, albeit to varying degrees. For instance, South Africa, which holds the largest share of the continent’s institutional savings, allows its pension funds to invest up to 45 percent offshore, while Nigeria’s regulatory framework limits pension funds’ aggregate offshore exposure to 20-25 percent.

Advertisement

While this facilitates diversification, it also means that a significant portion of domestic savings is invested in fixed-income securities outside Africa, thereby curbing the potential for local economic development. Similarly, when African sovereign-wealth funds invest internationally, their portfolios tend to be diversified away from African assets, further diluting the potential developmental benefits of domestic savings.

Intra-African investment remains limited

However, existing cross-border banking and investment activity points to significant untapped potential. Pan-African banks are important for regional financial connectivity, but their cross-border activities are limited by risk-return considerations, leaving significant potential for greater mobilization of long-term investment. These banking groups’ networks facilitate payments, trade settlement and sovereign financing, but remain only partially leveraged for long-term investment mobilization.

For example, Moroccan banking groups have built extensive footprints across francophone West and Central Africa but their assets outside Morocco account for less than 10 percent of their consolidated assets. Although Nigerian and Kenyan banks support trade finance and corporate lending across regional trade corridors, their home markets hold the lion’s share of their consolidated assets.

Cross-border institutional capital flows remain modest. Pension funds and insurers largely invest domestically—often in government securities—or allocate savings offshore. This reflects regulatory fragmentation, currency risks, shallow capital markets and limited regional investment-vehicle opportunities. Joint investments in infrastructure, productive sectors and regional value chains remain low.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) aims at deepening financial integration. By seeking to expand intra-African trade and regional value chains, the AfCFTA aims to increase demand for cross-border financing, risk-sharing and long-term capital. This, however, will require more regional capital-market integrations, harmonized regulations and co-investment platforms that pool African savings.

Advertisement

Leveraging existing pan-African banking networks, regional bond markets, infrastructure funds and blended-finance vehicles could redirect Africa’s capital toward continental growth. This could, in turn, reduce reliance on external financing and strengthen the links between domestic savings and productive investments under the AfCFTA framework.

The catalytic role of MLIs in capital mobilization

Multilateral lending institutions (MLIs) can mobilize long-term funding, provide credit enhancement and support the introduction of new financing structures. To improve capital efficiency and preserve lending capacity, several MLIs have increasingly used balance-sheet optimization tools in recent years, including portfolio risk-sharing and originate-to-distribute-type arrangements.

More broadly, MLIs’ engagement extends beyond direct financing to include policy support, institutional and capacity-building development and infrastructure. These measures may support longer-term improvements in market functioning and economic integration.

Afreximbank’s (African Export–Import Bank’s) push to implement the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) aims to accelerate regional trade integration under the AfCFTA. The PAPSS seeks to facilitate cross-border settlements in local currencies and reduce trade costs, while the Africa Trade Gateway plans to ease cross-border trade and payment flows. The benefits of these platforms for intraregional trade and transaction costs will likely emerge gradually.

Even so, structural constraints remain. In particular, the limited availability of first-loss concessional capital and uneven risk appetite in the private sector continue to constrain the scale and pace at which blended-finance solutions can be deployed. Although MLIs’ continent-wide initiatives could support the gradual expansion of public-private partnerships and risk-sharing structures, their effectiveness will likely depend on sustained policy support, transaction standardization and stable macro-financial conditions.

Advertisement

Strengthening Africa’s capital markets

We believe the development of capital markets is crucial for the growth of African economies and their private sectors.

We believe the development of capital markets is crucial for the growth of African economies and their private sectors. Unlocking Africa’s abundant funding potential would benefit from establishing effective regulatory regimes that encourage listings without overburdening issuers. Strengthening capital markets by facilitating both debt and equity raisings and listings can broaden market access and deepen market liquidity.

Excluding South Africa, capital markets across Africa remain fragmented and shallow. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), the largest African stock exchange by market capitalization, has a total market capitalization of South African rand (ZAR) 24.6 trillion (about US$1.5 trillion)—more than three times South Africa’s GDP. It ranks among the top 20 stock exchanges worldwide.

In contrast, other exchanges are more modest, as their private sectors’ funding profiles rely primarily on bank loans rather than accessing capital markets. Countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya and Morocco have significant domestic financing sources, but these often come at high costs.

Governments largely define these domestic bond markets because they are the largest issuers, and commercial banks are the primary buyers of government bonds. South Africa has the most liquid and diverse bond market, but government securities dominate local-currency issuances (270 percent of GDP).

Advertisement

Countries such as South Africa and Nigeria have introduced reforms to unlock nonbank domestic capital, notably through pension-fund reforms that allow greater capital allocation to alternative assets. Other reforms aim to develop new financing platforms, facilitate green financing and set benchmarks for how capital markets can price climate and infrastructure-related risks.

In 2022, the African Development Bank (AfDB) issued its inaugural local-currency ZAR200-million green bond, which was listed on the JSE. The JSE is advancing sustainability-linked financial instruments and improving ESG disclosures, aligning African capital markets with global best practices.

In 2026, the JSE launched its nature platform and listed Africa’s first nature-linked performance-based bond—a ZAR2.5-billion issuance by FirstRand Bank, one of the country’s top banks. In 2025, the Rwanda Stock Exchange (RSE) launched its Green Exchange Window (GEW), supported by the Luxembourg Stock Exchange (LuxSE).

Collectively, these labeled debt instruments can act as catalysts for blended-finance structures, mobilizing more private capital.

Governments play a vital role in equalizing access to information and developing deep, transparent sovereign-bond markets. Well-established government-bond yield curves in these markets serve as important pricing benchmarks for corporates and the wider economy. This enhances investor confidence and facilitates more informed investment decisions. Ongoing efforts by governments to increase transparency, provide timely information disclosures and maintain robust regulatory oversight will maximize the benefits of sovereign-bond markets.

Advertisement

Clear and credible credit signals further enhance pricing transparency, enabling investors to better assess risk and return. Greater confidence in valuations supports active participation, improves secondary-market liquidity and strengthens price discovery. Over time, this creates a virtuous cycle—whereby increased participation reinforces market efficiency and resilience, ultimately supporting sustainable economic growth in Africa.

Despite structural shortcomings, domestic investors have increasingly stepped in to meet financing needs. Infrastructure projects are now more often financed through domestic local-currency capital markets and financial institutions, including development-finance institutions. We believe that Africa’s economic integration will be intrinsically linked to more developed domestic capital markets.

 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Advertisement
Samira Mensah is Managing Director, Research & Analytics Africa, and Country Head for South Africa at S&P Global Ratings, based in Johannesburg. She leads thought leadership and market outreach initiatives across Africa, with a particular focus on African credit markets and Islamic finance. A frequent speaker at industry conferences and contributor to research publications, Samira recently presented at The Africa We Build Summit in Nairobi.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending