Most Saudi boards we sit with are running three programmes at once. They are tightening governance to meet the Companies Law and CMA expectations. They are aligning the business to a Vision 2030 mandate. And they are preparing — formally or quietly — for a path to the public markets. Each of these is treated as a separate workstream, with a separate owner and a separate adviser. That is the mistake.
The three are one problem
A governance gap is a market-readiness gap. A Vision 2030 commitment is a disclosure obligation in waiting. The control you defer this year is the qualification you explain to an underwriter next year. When these are run in parallel by teams that do not talk, the board ends up reconciling three versions of the same company — and reconciling them under time pressure, in front of a regulator.
The boards that move treat governance reform, transformation, and market readiness as one chain of reasoning: the same facts, evidenced once, consistent across every audience.
What that looks like in practice
- One control environment, not three. Map the controls a listing will require, then build to that standard now. Retrofitting controls during a transaction is the most expensive way to do it.
- Disclosure-grade evidence from the start. Treat board minutes, related-party records, and the Vision 2030 commitments you have made publicly as documents an underwriter and a regulator will eventually read.
- A single owner for the chain. Someone has to hold governance, transformation, and readiness as one picture. Where that role is split, the seams are exactly where diligence finds problems.
The cost of leaving it late
The work does not get smaller by waiting; it gets adversarial. A control you build calmly this year becomes a finding you defend next year. We help boards close the gap while it is still a governance question — before it becomes a transaction one.