Original Research

A critical analysis of the meaning of the term ‘value’ in Section 30(6)(e) of the Companies Act

Mareli Dippenaar
South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences | Vol 21, No 1 | a1985 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1985 | © 2018 Mareli Dippenaar | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 15 June 2017 | Published: 26 April 2018

About the author(s)

Mareli Dippenaar, School of Accountancy, Stellenbosch University, South Africa


Background: Sections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) require, inter alia, disclosure of the remuneration received by each director in a company’s annual financial statements. Section 30(6) defines the term ‘remuneration’, which includes, inter alia, in Section 30(6)(e) the ‘value’ of any option or right granted to a director, as contemplated in Section 42, which deals with options for the allotment or subscription of securities or shares of a company. It is uncertain what the intended meaning of the term ‘value’ is in this context and it is interpreted differently by different companies in practice.


Aim: The objective of this study was to understand the meaning of the term ‘value’ in Section 30(6)(e) of the Act (including the date of measurement thereof), as intended by the legislature.


Setting: This article examined existing literature in a South African corporate and legislative environment.


Method: A non-empirical study of existing literature was conducted by performing a historical analysis within a South African context. A doctrinal research approach was followed.


Results: Possible interpretations of the term ‘value’ include the grant date fair value of the rights, the fair value at reporting date, the fair value on vesting date, the expense calculated in terms of the International Financial Reporting Standard on share-based payments, the gain on exercise of the rights and the intrinsic value on reporting date. It is submitted that the most likely meaning is the grant date fair value.


Conclusion: It was found that the meaning of the term ‘value’, for purposes of Section 30(6)(e) of the Act, is unclear and interpreted differently by different companies. It is, therefore, recommended that the wording of Section 30(6)(e) is amended to reflect the meaning intended by the legislature.


directors’ remuneration; share-based incentives; share-based payments; disclosure; interpretation; value; Section 30(6)(e); Companies Act; King III; IFRS; JSE listing requirements


Total abstract views: 2236
Total article views: 3551

Crossref Citations

No related citations found.