The new CUC Governance Code is not an update. It is a reset.

By Daniel Snowden, CEO / 18 June 2026

The 2026 Code marks a clear shift: away from broad governance principles and towards more explicit expectations of board action, judgement and accountability. Its focus is no longer simply whether institutions can point to good governance frameworks, but whether governing bodies can demonstrate effective decisions, active judgement and sustained institutional viability in practice.

The structural shift is telling: the previous Code was organised around values and broad elements such as accountability and sustainability; the 2026 Code is organised around what boards do, from leadership, culture and strategy to academic governance, risk and performance. That shift moves the emphasis from governance as a set of frameworks to governance as observable action, judgement and outcomes.

The new “must” and “should” statements sharpen expectations: institutions must now show that core requirements are met, not simply explain how they have interpreted them.

Alongside this, the Code calls for what it describes as a step change in governance intensity. In practice, this means that governing bodies are expected to be more engaged, more inquisitive and more prepared to challenge. It is no longer sufficient for boards to receive assurance and note it. They are expected to probe assumptions, test the robustness of strategy and take a more active role in shaping outcomes.

The Code draws strategy, risk, financial sustainability and academic governance into a single, sharper frame for board oversight. Governing bodies must understand not only strategic ambition, but deliverability, downside risk, trade-offs, financial resilience and the implications for quality, standards and student outcomes.

Perhaps the most notable change, however, is the emphasis on culture and behaviour. The Code recognises that formal structures rarely explain why governance succeeds or fails. More often, it is determined by whether difficult issues are raised early, whether challenge is constructive and whether there is sufficient openness to confront uncomfortable evidence.

Taken together, these changes point to a more demanding conception of governance. It is less tolerant of passivity and less reliant on form. It expects boards to be capable of operating under pressure, making informed judgements in conditions of uncertainty and maintaining a clear line of sight to institutional sustainability and purpose.

What this means in practice

• Boards will need to spend more time on fewer, more critical issues 

  There is a clear expectation of deeper engagement with strategy, risk and sustainability, rather than broad but shallow oversight.

  
  

• The quality of discussion becomes as important as the quality of information 

  Well-prepared papers are no longer enough if they do not lead to rigorous, evidence-based challenge.

  
  

• Financial insight must be embedded across the board, not confined to committees 

  Sustainability considerations now underpin almost every major decision.

  
  

• Academic and corporate governance can no longer be treated separately 

  Boards need a more integrated understanding of student outcomes, quality and institutional performance.

  
  

• Board culture will increasingly determine effectiveness 

  Whether individuals feel able to challenge, question and raise concerns becomes central to governance quality.

  
  

• Evidence of effectiveness will matter more than statements of intent 

  Institutions will need to demonstrate how governance works in practice, particularly under pressure.

How Strive Higher can support

In our experience, most governing bodies are not starting from a weak position. They are thoughtful, committed and supported by established processes. The challenge raised by the new Code is different: it is about whether those arrangements translate into effective performance when it matters:

• Providing an external, evidence-based view of board effectiveness 

  Looking beyond formal compliance to how decisions are made, how challenge is exercised and how assurance is understood.

  
  

• Helping boards examine the connection between strategy, risk and sustainability 

  Ensuring that these are not treated as separate conversations but as a single, coherent framework for decision-making.

  
  

• Supporting Chairs and governors in developing confidence in challenge and judgement 

  Particularly in areas such as financial sustainability, strategic trade-offs and institutional risk.

  
  

• Exploring board dynamics and culture in a structured way 

  Creating a clearer understanding of whether the conditions exist for open, constructive and timely challenge.

  
  

• Strengthening the alignment between governance and executive leadership 

  Clarifying roles, expectations and the flow of information so that oversight is both rigorous and constructive.

  
  

• Focusing on how governance performs under pressure 

  Not just in steady-state conditions, but when institutions face uncertainty, constraint or rapid change.

The 2026 Code does not prescribe a single way of governing, and it preserves institutional autonomy. But it does establish a more demanding and more explicit understanding of what effective governance entails.

For governing bodies, the question is unlikely to be whether they recognise themselves in the Code. Most will. The more difficult question is whether their current ways of working are sufficient for the level of scrutiny, complexity and risk that the Code anticipates.

That is a question that benefits from careful, and sometimes uncomfortable, reflection.

If you would like to explore what the new Code means for your institution, we would welcome a conversation. Please do get in touch.