A client says their marketing is "carbon neutral." Another has a fossil fuel supplier on their books. Neither is thinking about lawsuits, and you probably aren't either. But the ground is shifting. NEMA lets communities challenge harmful business decisions. The new Climate Change Act gives government climate duties real teeth. King V puts climate risk in the boardroom. And the damage doesn't wait for a court ruling, it starts the moment the story hits the news. Banks pull back. Tenders get reviewed. Contracts get cancelled. Three simple questions could help you spot the risk before your client does.

A R2.3 billion audit finding. The supplier was good. The work got done. The price was fair. None of that helped. In the public sector, a finding is rarely about the quality of the work. It is about the process, the budget, and the outcome — and if you cannot tell the difference between irregular, unauthorised, and fruitless and wasteful expenditure, you are already at risk.

R120 billion in irregular expenditure isn’t just a number, it’s a warning. Behind every “just process it” instruction is a finance professional forced to choose between compliance and career risk. The PFMA is clear: accountability doesn’t move up the chain with verbal approvals, it stays with you. In a system where consequences are inconsistent, your judgment becomes the last line of defence between governance and failure.