Board & Executive Conversation Guide (Informational)

These prompts focus on the overall governance story: how the organisation explains its structure, decisions, accountability and public claims at group and local levels.

• Can we describe, in simple language, the governance flow that sits underneath our major decisions and public claims – for the group as a whole and for key subsidiaries or local entities?
• Do we rely on multiple separate frameworks (risk, ESG, social value, procurement, quality, project) that operate in parallel, or is there a single, visible structure that connects them?
• If a new director, regulator, or external reviewer in any jurisdiction asked “How do you make and justify decisions that affect people, public value, or sovereign capability?”, could we show this in a clear, traceable way?
• Where do we see the most duplication or confusion between different governance tools, and would a single structured system help reduce this – including across borders and business units?
• Are we confident that our governance story would make sense to a member of the public, a community group or a local council, not just to specialists?

These questions can help the board understand whether Governance Five™ © – or any single system – is being implicitly used or would need a formal decision and licence to adopt across different entities and jurisdictions.

These prompts focus on where audit, risk, and assurance committees may wish to explore governance traceability, especially in areas with heightened regulatory, cross-border or public-interest scrutiny.

• For our most significant programs, can we assemble a governance evidence trail from mandate through to outcomes without relying heavily on personal recollection – including in different countries or business units?
• Where are we most exposed if asked to demonstrate the structure behind our decisions by regulators, auditors, funders, exchanges, rating agencies or investigative bodies in different jurisdictions?
• Do our current frameworks and systems make it straightforward to test whether decisions were authorised, participatory, evidence-based, and well-documented in each local context?
• Are there areas where multiple frameworks overlap (for example risk, ESG, social value, probity, ethics) in ways that make responsibility or traceability unclear?
• Would a single governance flow, such as Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve™, improve our ability to respond to audits and inquiries with confidence in multiple jurisdictions?

Committees may wish to use these reflections to prioritise where traceability work, simplification, or alignment could have the greatest risk-reduction impact across the group.

These prompts focus on the alignment between public claims and governance structures, particularly where environmental, social, impact, or capability narratives are prominent across multiple regions.

• When we speak about ESG, social value, community uplift, or sovereign capability at group level, can we show the governance path behind those claims in each key jurisdiction?
• Are our impact or ESG statements supported by a structured method, or do they aggregate multiple local initiatives under broad headings?
• Do we understand where our current narratives overlap with Governance Five™ © concepts – such as structured participation, group-buying, or public-value pathways – and whether any licensing questions may arise?
• How confident are we that our public statements would stand up to external scrutiny if reviewers examined both content and underlying governance in different legal systems?
• Could a single, licensed governance system reduce the effort and duplication currently required to support ESG and impact reporting across multiple languages, regulators and markets?

These questions may assist in deciding whether to move from multiple overlapping frameworks towards a single, traceable governance system that can still respect local requirements.

These prompts focus on areas where money, market offers, public value, and supplier relationships intersect – whether in a single city or across multiple countries.

• For large procurements, infrastructure programs, or group-buying initiatives, can we describe the full governance flow from need definition to post-delivery learning, including where work crosses borders or involves local authorities?
• Do suppliers and partners understand our governance expectations, or do they experience them as a set of separate, sometimes conflicting compliance requirements in different jurisdictions?
• Have we relied on structured participation or group aggregation models that resemble public record examples of Governance Five™ ©, and if so, have we considered method origin and licensing implications?
• Are value-for-money, fairness, social outcomes, and risk managed under a single governance logic, or handled in different silos by different teams and countries?
• Would using a single, licensed governance system reduce the complexity and cost of demonstrating fairness and public value in major programs to funders, regulators and communities?

These reflections may support strategic choices about method origin, licensing, and consistent governance across high-value work in both local and multinational contexts.

These prompts look at how formal governance is experienced in day-to-day behaviour, culture, and ethical choices, across different workplaces and cultures.

• Do our people experience governance as supportive structure that clarifies expectations, or as fragmented compliance tasks that differ widely between jurisdictions?
• Can staff and leaders explain, in their own words, how decisions are meant to move through govern, engage, aggregate, deliver, and evolve in their part of the organisation?
• Are ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, and integrity issues dealt with through clear, trusted pathways that link back to formal governance – rather than ad hoc solutions that vary by location?
• Do our values statements, codes of conduct, and behaviour expectations connect to a visible governance method, or sit alongside it?
• Would a single, licensed governance system make it easier for our people, in different countries or communities, to see how their work contributes to trust and public confidence?

These questions can support conversations about whether governance is felt as “real and lived” rather than purely procedural – in both headquarters and local settings.

For councils, public bodies, regulators, and community-based institutions, these prompts focus on governance that touches local residents, ratepayers, community members, and public space – whether in a town, city, region or cross-border community.

• Can we show how local decisions about services, infrastructure, safety, pricing, or concessions follow a transparent governance path from mandate to outcome?
• Where we rely on structured participation – community forums, associations, or group-buying arrangements – do we have clear records of how these were designed and governed?
• Could residents, community groups, oversight bodies or ombudsman-type institutions reasonably understand who is accountable for key decisions and on what basis?
• Do we have any local programs that resemble Governance Five™ © pioneers (for example structured community energy offers or group-buying models), and if so, have we considered method origin and licensing questions?
• Would adopting a single, licensed governance system help us make our public value story more traceable and easier to communicate – including to higher tiers of government or international partners?

These reflections can be adapted for different jurisdictions, legal traditions, and community expectations, including First Nations, local customary and culturally specific governance arrangements.

These prompts are designed for faith communities, values-based institutions, charities and humanitarian programs, where outcomes are often measured in trust, inclusion, safety, stability and dignity rather than profit.

• Do we have a clear, compassionate governance structure for decisions that affect vulnerable people, families, and communities we serve in different countries or regions?
• Can we describe how our values are translated into structured participation, fairness, and safeguards, not only intentions?
• Where we work alongside governments, councils, international agencies or donors, is it clear how our governance connects with theirs?
• Are there peace-building, reconciliation, or community-strengthening activities where a free humanitarian licence to apply Governance Five™ © may be relevant, because value is measured in trust, not transaction?
• Do our leaders feel that governance strengthens our mission and inclusion, rather than limiting it – including in cross-cultural or multi-faith settings?

These prompts can be adapted with sensitivity to each tradition, community, and cultural setting. They are not intended to override spiritual or cultural authority.