The concern that regulations may be slowing business growth in South Africa is certainly understandable, but it is only partly justified. There has been an increase in regulatory complexity and amendments in multiple areas, including company law, King V, JSE listings requirements and sector-specific legislation. However, regulation in itself is not inherently anti-growth. In many cases it serves important objectives such as strengthening market integrity, advancing transformation and protecting consumers.That said, the real challenge lies in the volume of regulation, the frequency of amendments and, importantly, the overlap in oversight among different regulatory bodies. This can raise the cost of compliance and complicate decision-making for businesses.Growth is often constrained less by the existence of regulation and more by uncertainty and inconsistent application. These factors can delay transactions and corporate actions, such as capital raising or the execution of strategic initiatives.Companies usually fall short, less because of the regulations themselves and more due to how they manage them internally. Common issues include fragmented compliance efforts, unclear ownership and a reactive rather than a proactive approach. When compliance isn’t well integrated across company secretarial, legal, risk, finance and business functions, gaps emerge.Stronger outcomes come from treating regulations as strategic tools and embedding them into governance structures, aligning them with risk management systems and focusing on early risk identification rather than box-ticking.Within the context of a more complex regulatory environment, exposure is becoming more material. With bodies such as the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), the Prudential Authority and the JSE, combined with legislation such as the Competition Act, among others, in play, not only are entities subject to administrative penalties and personal accountability, but they also face financial penalties and reputational consequences.Entities that do not comply with JSE regulations, for example, risk being suspended or terminated. In addition, any other regulatory shortfall or noncompliance is amplified for listed entities due to stock exchange continuous disclosure requirements regarding price-sensitive information as well as heightened stakeholder interest, particularly from shareholders in a listed entity. In this respect, compliance gaps become an actual risk — not just theoretical — and can result in tangible financial impacts. Of course, regulatory adherence can be onerous, which is why listed entities have significant staff complements to deal with governance, risk and compliance. The issue is more pronounced for smaller operations that do not have the capacity to create departments to deal with governance. This, together with liquidity issues, is often cited as a significant trigger for SMME delistings.Compliance pressure is significantly higher and more complex for listed companies and those operating in heavily regulated environments due to the layering of obligations.The issue is more pronounced for smaller operations that do not have the capacity to create departments to deal with governance. This, together with liquidity issues, is often cited as a significant trigger for SMME delistings.Companies in regulated sectors already face stringent industry-specific requirements, such as those imposed by the FSCA and the Prudential Authority for financial institutions, the Mining Charter for mining companies, or Icasa in the telecommunications industry. These frameworks typically impose detailed rules on conduct, capital adequacy, transformation and operational practices.This baseline is further intensified for listed companies. They must comply with the JSE listings requirements, which introduce rigorous obligations around continuous disclosure, financial reporting and shareholder engagement. At the same time, governance expectations are elevated through frameworks such as the King V report on corporate governance.In addition to formal regulation, listed companies face additional pressures from investor expectations, shareholder rights protections, and contractual arrangements such as relationship agreements that shape how they interact with significant stakeholders. While initiatives such as the JSE’s simplification project are aimed at streamlining aspects of the regulatory regime, apart from certain specific adjustments such as limiting the need for independent fairness opinions and pro formas or reducing shareholder approval levels for issues of shares for cash or repurchases, they do not materially reduce the core demands around governance quality, risk management and disclosure. As a result, compliance for listed entities is not only more burdensome but also more visible and consequential.The real differentiator is not mere compliance but preparation. The more successful organisations are those that plan ahead and adopt a proactive stance towards regulatory change. When regulators propose amendments, companies should actively participate in the process by submitting comments, assessing potential impacts and raising concerns early.At the very least, they need to be clear on what lies ahead so they can begin integrating expected changes into their risk management frameworks, governance structures and operational planning. This requires building internal capacity and aligning teams to respond effectively. Ultimately, organisations that view regulation and compliance as a strategic consideration and part of their long-term value creation — rather than a constraint — are better placed to adapt and ensure they maintain shareholder and general stakeholder trust as they look to grow and expand. • Markman is head JSE sponsor at boutique investment, corporate finance advisory and fund management firm Tame.