More than ever, investors need to know they have entrusted stewardship of their organisation to experienced, professional company directors who can deliver modern corporate governance.

They need to distinguish between company directors in name and those who see directorship as a profession.

That is not to downplay post-nominal qualifications provided by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) for members, graduates, fellows and life fellows, based on experience.

Knowing whether a director is a GAICD, MAICD or FAICD is important information.

But a formal accreditation system goes further.

Young directors would have to show significant prior learning and pass a rigorous governance training course before accreditation.

Current directors would have to demonstrate considerable board experience.

All directors would commit to continuing annual professional development and be bound by a strict, enforced code of ethics.

Being an 'accredited' director would require considerable upfront and ongoing work.

You might ask why formal accreditation is needed when Australia ranks highly in global governance surveys.

Accreditation is not about fixing a broken system.

There has been much good work in governance in the past decade from several organisations, although more can be done, especially to weed out 'outliers' who tarnish the image of directorship.

Accreditation is about the future.

As institutional and retail investors demand even stronger governance, more work will be needed to differentiate qualified, professional company directors from the rest.

Surely the most important test is whether the public can easily distinguish between specialist company directors and those who join multiple boards, masquerade as professional directors and are mostly interested in quick fees.

With just over 2 million corporate directors in Australia, the potential for misinformation and misunderstanding about directorship is vast.

That is not to say directors without formal accreditation cannot add great value.

For example, a community member who is passionate about a social cause and has little interest in a board career can add tremendous value to a not-for-profit board.

A family-business founder may see little need to recruit accredited directors to their enterprise's board.

A small listed explorer might not have the need or funds to recruit several accredited directors.

A board might still nominate an unaccredited director over an accredited one if that person is a better fit.

Another benefit of accreditation is helping directors deal with governance complexity.

As directorship becomes even more challenging this decade, a stronger commitment among directors to annual governance training will be needed.

The immense challenge of environmental, social and governance issues, and within that corporate social responsibility, will test even the best boards as stakeholders increasingly judge enterprises on financial and non-financial metrics.

The pace of change across myriad board issues means upfront governance training will not nearly be enough.

A continuing professional development system, where a certain amount of governance training or high-level experience is needed each year to meet accreditation requirements, would have particular benefit for not-for-profit enterprises that may have skimped on board training to reduce costs and appear more efficient.

Such training need not be expensive or goldmines for providers. Other industries manage it, so why not directors?

Perhaps the real benefit of accreditation is creating more value around directorship.

A young director who becomes accredited, commits to annual governance training, and knows there is some 'scarcity' around accreditation has a valuable asset.

A small listed company with a board of accredited directors might receive some premium from investors, compared to a similar-size enterprise governed by unaccredited directors.

A director doing due diligence on a board might take comfort knowing others are accredited and that there is a strong system for weeding out unscrupulous directors by removing their accreditation.

Of course, the accreditation system itself would have to be explained and promoted to investors, just as accounting bodies, for example, have built value in their qualifications through brand marketing.

The qualification would need to have real value in the public's eye.

For all the long-term benefits, I suspect there would be much resistance to accreditation.

Some directors might demand accreditation based on their experience.

Others who don't like change might find it annoying. A minority of directors might think accreditation is beneath them.

And many more resources would be needed to assess, accredit and provide annual training.

Accreditation is not an easy solution; the best opportunities rarely are. Australia has shown itself to be a leader in good governance and must now take a step further by lifting the bar for all directors and creating more value in directorship by better recognising - and rewarding - those who are capable of providing world-class governance on behalf of investors.