This article highlights that section 76(4)(a) of South Africa's Companies Act, which reflects the business judgment rule (BJR) concept, is a standard of review, providing a means of determining whether a director has met his or her undertakings under section 76(3). The article suggests that section 76 should be titled “Standards of conduct and review” instead of referring only to standards of conduct. It draws a clear distinction between standards of conduct (including the personal financial interests disclosure requirements) on one hand, and a standard of review on the other. After tracing the traditional international requirements of BJR, the article analyses the decision-making requirements under section 76(4)(a). It concludes that, while section 76(4)(a) compares favourably with US and Australian laws, the omission of a good faith requirement is unfortunate since that is a critical component of decision-making. The article proposes that good faith and proper purpose under section 76(3)(a) should form part of the section 76(4)(a) requirements.

中文翻译：

---

行为标准还是审查标准？根据南非 2008 年第 71 号公司法审查非洲商业判断规则

本文强调，反映商业判断规则 (BJR) 概念的南非公司法第 76(4)(a) 条是一种审查标准，提供了一种确定董事是否已履行其承诺的手段第 76(3) 条。文章建议第 76 条的标题应为“行为和审查标准”，而不是仅提及行为标准。它一方面明确区分了行为标准（包括个人财务利益披露要求），另一方面明确区分了审查标准。在追溯了 BJR 的传统国际要求之后，本文分析了第 76(4)(a)条下的决策要求。它的结论是，虽然第 76(4)(a) 条与美国和澳大利亚的法律相比具有优势，遗漏诚信要求是不幸的，因为这是决策的关键组成部分。该条建议第 76(3)(a) 条下的善意和正当目的应构成第 76(4)(a) 条要求的一部分。