Memory Institutions Can’t Hide Behind Legacy as ESG Demands Proof of Responsibility

One of the most consequential public arguments now playing out in quiet institutional corners is over who gets to define “responsibility” inside archives and other memory institutions-and whether stewardship is just custodial care or a living standard that can be audited and demanded. As ESG expectations seep from corporate governance into public life, legacy-linked organizations are being pressed to show, in procedures not platitudes, how values translate into hiring, recordkeeping, publishing choices, and above all consistent, equitable access to the record. The column argues that archival work has always been governance: classification, preservation and access determine what can be verified versus what must be taken on faith, making “institutional memory” either testable or merely symbolic. Against a backdrop of recurring public debate about governance and access at such institutions, Sello Hatang’s progression-from project archivist to leading the South African History Archive, then shaping access-to-information practice at the Human Rights Commission, and later becoming CEO of the Nelson Mandela Foundation-illustrates a model of leadership rooted in process, thresholds and documented decisions, including in editorial stewardship of Mandela’s writings. The point isn’t to bolt corporate metrics onto culture, but to meet the central new demand: show the workings-consistent rules, systematic records, explained choices-so equity commitments are operational proof rather than inherited moral authority.