"The Governor View": Committee of University Chairs (CUC) Code of Higher Education Governance 2026

Change has always been a constant in Higher Education. However, over the last few years, institutions have had to contend with a widening range of considerations. 

Financial headwinds have forced many universities to consider their purpose and the range of services and courses that they offer. At the same time, they face added public scrutiny and evolving regulation, as well as the impact of social and technological change.

These pressures have prompted extensive discussion about the role and responsibilities of the governors that help shape the direction of universities around the UK. Governors provide essential expertise and oversight, which is more crucial than ever at a time of uncertainty. However, as their commitments and responsibilities intensify, there has been a growing need for clarification about what is expected of them, and how to ensure that boards are structured effectively.

In response last year, the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) announced its intention to redevelop its code of governance. It subsequently organised extensive consultation and engagement with higher education leaders, interviewing more than 300 governors and receiving more than 100 responses to its call for evidence.

The result is a document released late last month (see Advance HE governance news alert), which aims to inform governance that is “collaborative, robust, constructive and focused on the long-term delivery of their institution’s purpose and values”. It contains a range of requirements and suggestions, including guidance over leadership, establishing purpose and values, risk management, performance assessment and financial stewardship.

Many governors who have subsequently spoken to Advance HE say they are already working through the code to ensure their board is compliant.

“It’s tempting for universities to take a tick-box approach and say: ‘yeah, we’re compliant’, but I think that misses the point,” said one Chair of a university in Wales. “It’s a really good opportunity to consider how we can further enhance our purpose. Good governance, to me, is a continuous process of development, particularly while the sector faces so many challenges.”

Another Chair said their institution was working through all of their documents to make sure they met the new Code’s standards.

“We’re going through all our governance documents, our instruments, our regulations and our SODAs (Schedules of Delegated Authority) to check they’re in line. For example, we currently have a behaviour policy but not a code of conduct, so we’re putting that together now.”

It has been six years since the last update of the CUC Code. Governors concurred that the landscape facing Higher Education has vastly changed during that time, with one describing it as “basically a different era”.

“Now, there’s hardly a meeting that goes by without a major strategic issue that needs to be discussed,” they said.

“One big step change is that we’ve found ourselves looking far more into the situations of our competitors. That goes broader than just regional competitors. We’re looking at institutions of a similar size, or a similar position in their own regions.”

Financial sustainability and risk management are - understandably - key areas of focus for university boards today. The CUC Code highlights the importance of determining and regularly reviewing an institution’s risk appetite.

“This isn’t just something we do at the end of an agenda,” stressed a Chair of a university in the North of England. “It is absolutely critical for us that we understand the risks and review them regularly, as well as the mitigations in place.”

One Chair commented: “Over the last 12 months, we’ve overhauled our entire risk management approach. We had an extensive discussion within the board around risk appetite against each individual opportunity and challenge, and I think it’s placed us in a much stronger position.”

A governor of a university in the Midlands commented: “It’s not just about risk appetite, of course, but also risk velocity. It’s about how quickly things can escalate to become an even bigger risk. We measure risk in multiple ways and bring that to the board at every main board meeting, so it’s not just a thing for the audit and risk committee.”

Another governor stressed the importance of recognising the risks while avoiding “being forced into inertia” by their number and gravity.

“You’ve got to establish a culture of making the best out of a challenging environment, rather than letting it stop or slow things down too greatly. Our board operates as a good check to ensure the institution is considering risks as much as it needs to. Where there is a need to adapt to certain risks, things may need to be parked or de-prioritised for us to come back to later. The board is a critical friend in that process.”

The Code advises that boards implement an “open recruitment process that promotes equality, diversity and inclusion”. According to one Chair, this is absolutely essential as “you need different perspectives for good decision-making”.

Another governor noted that their institution had introduced a governor apprenticeship programme, that targeted those who might not have otherwise seen themselves as a viable board candidate.

“We’ve also focused quite heavily over the last couple of years on creating a culture where all views are shared openly and honestly, and people aren’t scared to come forward. It’s about ensuring that we foster an environment where everyone on the board can feed in equally, and a diversity of opinion is truly represented.”

The revised CUC Code says boards must provide “structured induction and ongoing support for all board members”, which is tailored to their background and experience. Governors agreed that a strong induction process was important in giving new recruits the ability to find their feet. 

One institution holds “immersion” sessions, where governors can visit certain faculties, meet the Dean and learn more about ongoing projects and research. More than one Chair said that they meet up with staff and student board members outside of meetings, to discuss upcoming papers and agendas and keep abreast of any questions or concerns.

While budgets vary, training is also offered to governors, both internally and through sector bodies, such as Advance HE’s refreshed Governance Continual Professional Development programme, who may wish to expand their knowledge of board-related topics, such as finance and risk management. One institution was particularly proactive, offering away days, sessions on specific topics, monthly newsletters, and access to courses and conferences.

“We do a full induction process, give people mentors for their first year on the board, and sign them up for courses. We take training really seriously and we don’t stop.”

This induction and support has never been more important, since the range of challenges a board member must scrutinise as part of their work is complex and diverse.

“In the past, someone might be on a board for six years and never have to do a cost-cutting exercise, whereas now it’s much more frequent,” noted one Chair, adding: “Therefore you need to know more about HR policies and how decisions are going to impact on staff. There’s also the need to know about visas and how the government assesses universities. It’s a more complex picture now and people need a wider range of skills.”

The Code stresses that it is essential that boards fully understand the “strategic, academic, financial and operational risks” their institutions face. While many boards benefit from the experience of specialist representatives - particularly in areas such as risk management - they are also clear that members should be able to contribute effectively to a range of crucial discussions.

This applies to full board meetings as well as various subcommittees. Governors referred to a range of subcommittee activities, from established groups focusing on risk and HR and finance, to those exploring innovation, pensions, new models of business and potential mergers and acquisitions.

“I expect a degree of understanding across the agenda, complemented by the ability to deep-dive on certain areas, whether that’s financial or academic governance or quality standards. I want all board members focused across the piece, because that’s the only way they’ll understand the risks and the balance of factors and priorities,” said a Chair.

This raises a key question which many governors admitted was at the front of their minds: how does a board establish standards and expectations while still making governor roles attractive to a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds?

One governor said their board had benefited from experimenting with different ways of working, such as conducting some meetings over video call rather than in-person.

“That has enabled us to put through some important emergency meetings. We had two this month where the executive team wanted help on choosing between certain options, and we managed to convene all 24 governors for two nights online.”

However, governors recognised that the time commitment involved in holding their roles had “increased significantly”.

One said: “We’re not remunerating governors at the moment. But I think the time for that discussion might not be far away, frankly. I don’t think you could do the Chair role now on less than two days a week minimum, and if we remunerated governors, we could maybe be a bit more specific about time commitments.”

However, another warned that making remuneration more commonplace might set a less-than-welcome precedent.

“I think we need to recognise that not all universities can do that, particularly in a time of financial crisis. This might risk creating two-tier governance if we have some institutions paying and getting the big hitters, while others don’t.”

In Higher Education, a board’s relationship with - and understanding of - its academic strategy and related governance is vital. The CUC Code states that the board must “receive and understand a clear and comprehensible description of its academic strategy and quality framework”. Many governors said that their boards had worked hard in recent years to develop better assurance in this area.

“We were challenged three or four years ago around certain elements of our quality processes, so we’ve really doubled down on academic quality and standards,” said one Chair. “We established an academic quality and standards committee, and looked at academic partnerships, recruitment processes and the role of international agents. So we’ve come a long way on that.”

Another governor noted that it was essential to avoid a “two-track” approach where “academic governance happens in one place and board governance somewhere else”. They added that their institution had a governor observer in academic meetings who was able to input where appropriate, before reporting back to every board meeting on the latest developments.

“I think it’s important to equip governors with some of the intricacies and jargon of the academic world, particularly when it comes to the Research Excellence Framework. You need a basic understanding of how the academic career works, and a bit of sensitivity and understanding. Because we do appreciate what they’re doing, and we can’t do what we do without them.”

With the sector facing a rapid pace of change, many of the governors were already considering new challenges and considerations that might need to be addressed in future revisions of the code. 

“I’d like to see a bit more on helping governors to embrace new ways of thinking about the sector, such as new business models and lifelong learning”, suggested one governor, who pointed to demographic changes in the student population as one example. “We’ve got a demographic dip coming domestically at the start of the 2030s, and similar signs on the horizon internationally. China’s population is set to reduce dramatically by 2050 and that’s a big market for us. Our student demographic is going to be older, going to university later in life, and using it perhaps more to upskill and reskill.”

Another added that there may need to be more consideration of what governance might look like in the event of a merger or close partnership.

“I think there will need to be an exploration of what greater collaboration and possible mergers in the sector might look like. What does good governance look like in that environment?”

One governor called for further moves away from “one-size-fits-all governance”.

“We need to have an honest conversation about what type of institution we are and what type of governance and what type of funding settlement really suits us. It doesn’t mean going back to the old divide between universities and polytechnics. We can create a positive distinction for the current time we’re living in.”

A Chair added: “It’s time for each university to refresh and revisit its core purpose, values and strategy, and what kind of governance structure it needs to meet that. We would also be foolhardy not to turn our minds to models of collaboration and more radical partnerships. There has been some good work written on that, and I think it may be a way forward.”