Common Questions – General Information Only

Key foundations and definitions

These questions address the basic “what is it?” and “why does origin matter?” issues that people in 2025 commonly explore.

• What is Governance Five™ © in simple terms? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Governance Five™ © is a non-operational governance and participation system created in Australia in 2010. It provides a structured way to document how decisions affecting people, markets and public value move through five clear stages – Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve. It does not replace laws or technical standards. Instead, it helps organisations make their governance reasoning visible, traceable and auditable. While ASIC does not endorse specific frameworks, its 2025 focus on transparent, evidence-based governance means organisations are expected to describe how important decisions are made in a way that can be explained and reviewed.

  International context

  Internationally, Governance Five™ © sits alongside other authored governance methods that help organisations explain how they govern complex programs, ESG commitments, public-value initiatives or sovereign-capability work. Standards such as IFRS S1/S2 and OECD governance principles emphasise clear governance structures and evidence-supported decision processes. Governance Five™ © offers a lawful, pre-existing method that can be used within those broader expectations. It does not replace local laws, but it gives boards, executives and reviewers a defined governance method they can interpret within their own jurisdiction.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Why does governance method-origin matter in 2025? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In Australia, organisations that make statements about their governance, ESG practices or public-value outcomes must be able to show that those statements are accurate and supported by evidence. ASIC’s 2025 focus on governance and greenwashing, including themes highlighted in public reports and speeches, stresses the importance of traceable, explainable governance. If an organisation claims that “a framework” guided its decisions but cannot show when that framework existed, who authored it or how it was applied, there is a risk that the disclosure could be incomplete or misleading under existing law.

  International context

  Globally, method-origin matters because investors, regulators and assurance providers increasingly ask “What governance system did you actually use?” and “Can you show that it predated the decisions you are reporting on?”. IFRS S1/S2 and various sustainability reporting codes expect organisations to describe governance processes in a way that can be tested. A framework with clear authorship, a dated public record and consistent structure is easier to evaluate than an internal, undocumented or improvised approach when disclosures are being reviewed.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Is traceable governance now “law”, or just good practice? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  There is no single statute that says organisations must use a particular traceable governance framework. However, existing obligations under the Corporations Act and ASIC’s enforcement work mean that governance and ESG disclosures must be truthful, not misleading and supported by reasonable evidence. In practice, this pushes organisations towards approaches that are documented and traceable, because vague or retrospective claims about “governance frameworks” are harder to justify if they are questioned by regulators, investors or auditors.

  International context

  Internationally, traceable governance is embedded through requirements to describe governance structures and decision processes in sustainability and risk reporting, rather than through a single “traceability law”. Frameworks such as IFRS S1/S2, OECD principles and stock-exchange governance codes expect organisations to explain how decisions are made, who is accountable and what process was followed. A traceable method helps organisations meet these expectations, even though no specific proprietary framework is legally mandated by regulators.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Why is the lawful origin of Governance Five™ © in 2010 relevant? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Governance Five™ © was publicly demonstrated in Australia from 2010 onwards, with community pilots and institutional initiatives documented in media and sector publications. This means the Framework existed, in a defined form, before later ESG, social-value and sustainability trends became mainstream. For Australian organisations that choose to use it, this helps show that the governance method they are relying on is not a retrofitted story invented after the fact, but an authored system with an established history. That can support clearer, more defensible governance disclosures if they are examined.

  International context

  For international readers, the 2010 origin matters because it demonstrates that Governance Five™ © is not a short-term or reactive construct, but an independently developed governance method with a long-standing public footprint. When regulators, auditors or ESG reviewers examine governance claims, they often look for frameworks that predate the reporting period. A framework with a verifiable 2010 origin and evidence trail on www.powergrouppurchasing.com is easier to situate within that context than a newly improvised internal model.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• What makes a governance framework “authored” rather than improvised internally? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  An authored framework has identifiable creators, documentation, dates of first use and a stable structure. It is treated as intellectual property, much like a methodology, standard or professional body of work. From an ASIC perspective, the key issue is not which framework is chosen but whether governance claims reflect real, evidenced practice. If a framework is improvised internally and only written down after decisions are made, that can make disclosures about its role harder to support if those disclosures are later reviewed.

  International context

  Globally, authored frameworks are often preferred in assurance and governance work because they are easier to recognise, compare and test. They usually have published descriptions, a track record of application and a recognisable structure. This does not mean internal approaches are invalid, but it does mean that externally authored and documented frameworks – including proprietary ones like Governance Five™ © – can make it easier for auditors, regulators and stakeholders to understand what was actually used when important decisions were taken.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Does Governance Five™ © replace operational, technical or regulatory standards? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. Governance Five™ © does not replace procurement rules, engineering codes, clinical standards, workplace safety requirements, financial reporting standards or any law or regulation. It sits above or around those systems as a governance method that helps document how needs are identified, stakeholders are engaged, options are considered and decisions are made. Decisions must still comply with all relevant Australian laws and sector-specific standards; the Framework does not alter or diminish those obligations.

  International context

  Internationally, organisations can use Governance Five™ © alongside IFRS, ISO standards, sector regulations and local law. It provides a consistent, non-operational governance flow, but it does not instruct engineers, clinicians, accountants or regulators on how to do their technical work. Instead, it helps draw a clearer line between “how we govern” and “how we operate”, which is increasingly important when governance and ESG narratives are subject to external review and assurance.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• How does Governance Five™ © work alongside existing frameworks and standards? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In practice, Australian organisations might apply Governance Five™ © as the overarching governance method while continuing to comply with Commonwealth, state or industry-specific rules. For example, a program may follow state procurement law and technical regulations while the Governance Five™ © stages are used to ensure participation, options, evaluation and delivery are documented in a transparent, repeatable way. If that program is later reviewed, there is a clear governance story to explain how decisions were formed.

  International context

  For multinational entities, the Framework can act as a common governance “language” across countries, departments and partners. Each team still follows local law and relevant standards, but they share a single way of describing governance steps. This can help reduce fragmentation in ESG and governance reporting when information is consolidated at a group level and must be explained to global stakeholders and exchanges.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• How can I tell if a governance framework is genuine or retrofitted after the fact? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No single test is definitive, but some practical indicators include: whether the framework has a clear author or owner; whether there is evidence of it being used before the period being reported on; whether its stages and concepts are documented consistently; and whether there is a public record or independent reference to its existence. If a framework only appears in internal documents created after a program is completed, that may raise questions about whether disclosures that rely on it accurately describe what actually happened at the time.

  International context

  Internationally, auditors, ESG reviewers and regulators often look for provenance – who created a framework, when it was created and how widely it has been applied. Authored frameworks with public documentation and demonstrable history, such as those described on www.powergrouppurchasing.com, tend to be easier to verify than internal, undocumented approaches. That does not mean proprietary frameworks are preferred by any regulator; it simply means they are easier to assess for consistency and origin when governance narratives are being scrutinised.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Does a framework need a licence to be considered valid? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Validity, from a governance-disclosure point of view, depends on whether statements about the framework are accurate and evidence-based, not on whether it is licensed. Licensing becomes relevant where a framework is protected intellectual property – such as Governance Five™ © – and is used without permission. In that case, questions can arise about both intellectual property and whether the organisation has accurately described the governance system it was entitled to use and apply.

  International context

  Globally, organisations can choose from a mix of public, proprietary and internal frameworks. IP-protected frameworks generally require licensing wherever they are used, just as software, methodologies and standards often do. The key point is that if a governance system is described in public reporting, it should be described accurately, and any intellectual property conditions – including licensing obligations – should be respected in parallel with local laws and professional responsibilities.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Does governance integrity actually affect ESG, audit and sustainability reporting? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Yes. When organisations make ESG, sustainability or public-value claims, those claims are increasingly being tested against the underlying governance process. ASIC has signalled that concerns about “greenwashing” extend to how governance is described and evidenced. If decision pathways are unclear or undocumented, it becomes difficult to show that ESG statements reflect a credible, well-governed process rather than aspiration or marketing language alone.

  International context

  Internationally, assurance providers working with IFRS S1/S2 and other sustainability frameworks are looking not only at metrics but also at governance. They expect to see who was involved, how decisions were made and what governance structure was in place. A traceable governance method can help organisations demonstrate that their disclosures arise from a structured process, not just from after-the-fact narratives, which in turn can support more reliable and trusted reporting in global markets.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

Licensing triggers and responsibilities

These questions explain licensing triggers, boundary expectations, and how Governance Five™ © interacts with organisational governance structures, professional roles and public disclosures.

• When do I actually need a Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © licence? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Licensing is an intellectual property matter. You need a licence when you apply, rely on or derive value from the Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © Framework – for example, when it is used to design or govern programs, guide decisions, structure stakeholder participation or underpin governance and ESG narratives. ASIC does not regulate licensing, but it expects governance claims and ESG statements to be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading.

  International context

  Internationally, proprietary governance methods are treated similarly to proprietary standards, software or methodologies: they may be selected voluntarily, but if used, their use must comply with the rights holder’s terms. Governance Five™ © can be applied in any jurisdiction provided the appropriate licence is held.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• I see leadership acronyms online (e.g., CLEAR, GROW). Do these predate or affect the lawful origin of Governance Five™ ©? ▶

  Leadership acronyms such as CLEAR or GROW circulate widely in coaching, management and personal development settings. These are not governance systems and do not contain a staged governance architecture. They do not operate in procurement, public-value governance, community or institutional decision pathways, nor do they relate to audit traceability, value influence, or structured participation.

  Governance Five™ © was publicly demonstrated in 2010 under independently verifiable conditions (Somers 2010, Portarlington 2011, Cardinia/Casey 2011, SA Police Journal 2012). These public-record applications establish lawful origin. Leadership mnemonics appearing online, regardless of their age or prevalence, operate in a separate domain and have no bearing on authorship, IP rights, licensing or the verified method-origin trail behind the Framework.

  In short, leadership content is distinct from governance architecture. It does not intersect with the Framework’s lawful origin, custodianship, licensing obligations or evidentiary record.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• What if my organisation has already been using the Framework informally? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  If an organisation has adopted ideas, structures or terminology that closely mirror Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © without a licence, it may wish to regularise that use. A licence clarifies method origin and sets transparent boundaries around how the Framework is applied. ASIC’s interest is not in licensing, but in whether organisations’ governance and ESG statements accurately reflect the methods they claim to use.

  International context

  Internationally, it is common for organisations to formalise use of a proprietary method once they realise it has influenced decision structures, governance processes or program logic. The Licensing & Fee Schedule explains how retrospective coverage can be considered. Organisations should seek their own advice when assessing their historical governance position; the Custodian cannot advise on individual legal interpretations.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• How far back can licensing apply if the Framework influenced past decisions? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Retrospective licensing considerations sit at the intersection of intellectual property law, governance practice and the Licensing & Fee Schedule. Where the Framework has influenced multi-year programs, organisations may choose to license past periods for transparency. ASIC’s priority is that governance and ESG disclosures accurately describe what occurred over time.

  International context

  Internationally, retrospective licensing may be relevant where an organisation wishes to acknowledge that a governance method has influenced outcomes historically. The published schedule defines boundaries, including value ranges and record-keeping expectations. Each organisation must make its own assessment.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Can I license a long-term program, such as a 10-year project, in advance? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Yes. Multi-year licensing can be appropriate where a long-term program intends to use Governance Five™ © across its lifecycle. Accounting treatment is a separate question for organisations and their auditors.

  International context

  Globally, forward-looking licensing provides transparency over intended use. Significant scope changes may require review under the upgrade rules in the Licensing & Fee Schedule.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Who is responsible for holding the licence – the individual, the team or the organisation? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  The licence is typically held by whichever stakeholder is applying or benefiting from the Framework. This is often the organisation itself, but may be an individual (e.g., sole trader or micro-enterprise). ASIC’s role is separate: it focuses on whether governance disclosures are accurate.

  International context

  Internationally, the same principle applies. Each governance “circle of influence” using the Framework is expected to be covered by an appropriate licence.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Do organisations only need one licence, or can multiple licences be required? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Licences apply to governance “circles of influence.” A single entity may need multiple licences where the Framework is used in separate programs, divisions or partner arrangements. ASIC does not manage licensing, but accurate disclosure requires clarity about which governance method is used where.

  Illustration – “circles of influence”

  Each licence covers a distinct governance influence domain:

  Licence A – Internal program / business unit

  Licence B – Multi-stakeholder or community initiative

  Licence C – Supplier / delivery partner use

  One organisation may therefore require more than one licence, depending on how and where the Framework is applied.

  International context

  Globally, the same approach applies. Large institutions, governments and multinationals often license multiple portfolios or agencies separately to maintain fairness and clarity.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Do contractors, advisers or delivery partners need their own licence? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Contractors and advisers may need a licence if they independently apply or adapt the Framework. If they simply operate inside a licensed program, a separate licence may not be required.

  International context

  Internationally, partners who incorporate the Framework into their own services across multiple clients or jurisdictions are expected to license their use directly.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

Value, self-assessment and affordability

These questions address influenced value, evidence expectations, global affordability and role-based licensing.

• How is “influenced value” considered when declaring licensing for a program? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  “Influenced value” refers to the approximate scale of decisions, outcomes or programs governed using the Framework. It is not profit or consulting fees. Organisations self-assess based on the Licensing & Fee Schedule and maintain reasonable internal records.

  International context

  Globally, value-based licensing is used to keep the Framework accessible while ensuring major beneficiaries contribute proportionately.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• What evidence should organisations keep to support licensing self-assessment? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Organisations should maintain high-level records of where the Framework was applied, how value ranges were determined, and how income-group and role categories were selected. ASIC does not audit licensing, but clear governance records support transparency.

  International context

  Globally, entities retain enough documentation for internal and external reviewers to understand how licensing decisions were made.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• What is the Regional Affordability Adjustment (RAA), and does it reduce my obligations? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  RAA adjusts the base annual licence fee to reflect global income-group differences. It does not change whether a licence is required, nor does it alter underlying value ranges.

  International context

  For lower-income regions, RAA ensures fairness without reducing governance or licensing obligations.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• What is the “role factor”, and why are government or institutional uses treated differently? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  The role factor ensures public authorities, institutions and systemic-influence entities contribute proportionately when applying the Framework at scale. This does not alter their statutory obligations; it simply governs licensing fairness.

  International context

  Internationally, role-based licensing differentiates small-scale private use from large-scale institutional or state-linked programs.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

Efficiency and coordination benefits

These questions look at how a single governance method can simplify work across multiple projects, teams and reports.

• How can Governance Five™ © improve efficiency in large organisations or departments? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Many Australian organisations run dozens of projects, reviews and ESG initiatives at once. If each uses a different informal approach to governance, it becomes harder for boards, executives and audit committees to see what is really happening. Using a single, authored method such as Governance Five™ © does not remove work, but it can reduce confusion and duplication: decision-makers see the same five-stage pattern repeated across business units and programs. That makes it easier to understand where a decision is up to, what has been considered, and what evidence supports any ESG or public-value claims described in reporting to shareholders, regulators or ministers.

  International context

  Internationally, large groups face similar challenges, especially where governance information must be consolidated for global investors or exchanges. A consistent governance method can help leadership teams compare programs on a like-for-like basis rather than interpreting dozens of different internal templates. Governance Five™ © offers a repeatable way to describe how issues are governed without dictating technical content. That can make internal briefings, risk reviews and assurance work more efficient because everyone is reading from the same governance “language”, even across borders and sectors.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Can a single governance method reduce duplication of frameworks and templates inside an organisation? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  It is common for different business areas – procurement, ESG, risk, transformation, community engagement – to create their own governance tools over time. This can lead to duplicated effort and inconsistent language, making it harder to give ASIC, boards or auditors a clear, joined-up picture of governance. Applying Governance Five™ © as the overarching method does not stop specialist teams from using their own tools, but it gives them a shared structure for how proposals move from “govern” through to “evolve”. That can reduce the number of separate “frameworks” needing to be explained in public disclosures.

  International context

  Globally, organisations often face “framework fatigue”, with multiple overlapping models for ESG, risk, compliance and stakeholder engagement. Using one authored governance method as the organising spine can help integrate those tools rather than replace them. Teams can map existing processes into the five stages, so that governance is described once, while existing sector standards and procedures continue to operate underneath. This can reduce confusion for internal and external stakeholders without constraining local practice.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Does using the Framework create extra paperwork and meetings for staff? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Any governance method can be applied in a heavy or a light way. Governance Five™ © is designed to clarify, not multiply, governance steps. In many cases, the five stages already exist informally; staff are simply asked to document them in a more consistent way. For Australian organisations, that can improve the quality of information provided to boards and regulators without significantly increasing workload, because teams are aligning existing work to a clearer structure rather than creating entirely new processes.

  International context

  Internationally, efficiency gains often come from simplification: replacing many ad hoc templates with one underlying method. The Framework does not dictate how many meetings or documents an organisation must have. It offers a common skeleton that people can adapt to their context. Over time, this can reduce the amount of rework involved in explaining governance to different audiences, because the same five-stage story is reused instead of rebuilding governance narratives for each report or review.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• How can Governance Five™ © help boards and executives read complex governance information more quickly? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Boards and executives are responsible for overseeing governance, but they rely on clear, concise information from management. If each paper uses a different structure, it can be difficult to see where gaps or issues sit. When reports follow the five stages of Governance Five™ © – from initial mandate and constraints, through engagement and options, to delivery and continuous improvement – directors can compare programs more easily and ask better questions. That supports the oversight responsibilities expected under Australian corporate and public-sector governance standards.

  International context

  International boards face similar challenges across multiple jurisdictions. A common governance pattern helps busy directors and committee members recognise where they should focus their time: for example, whether a problem is one of “govern” (mandate and boundaries), “engage” (stakeholder integrity), “aggregate” (options and trade-offs), “deliver” (execution) or “evolve” (learning and correction). This does not replace local governance codes, but it can make board-level oversight more efficient and more easily explainable to investors and regulators.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

Risk management, audit and reporting

These questions look at how the Framework can support risk teams, auditors, ESG reporting and post-incident reviews.

• How does a traceable governance method support risk management and assurance work? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In Australia, risk and audit teams increasingly need to show how governance processes support reliable decisions, not just how risks are listed on a register. Using Governance Five™ © gives those teams a common reference point: they can test whether each stage has been applied and evidenced for a given program. That can help identify where governance is strong or where additional controls or documentation may be needed to support the organisation’s disclosures to ASIC, parliament, shareholders or the public.

  International context

  Internationally, assurance providers working with ESG and sustainability disclosures are looking for clear links between governance processes and reported outcomes. A framework such as Governance Five™ © provides a map that auditors and reviewers can follow when testing whether governance has been applied consistently across different initiatives. It does not remove professional judgement, but it can reduce ambiguity about what “good governance” was supposed to look like in a particular program or reporting cycle.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Can Governance Five™ © help reduce the cost or burden of ESG and sustainability reporting over time? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  ESG and sustainability reporting can be costly when data and governance stories have to be rebuilt from scratch each year. Governance Five™ © does not remove reporting requirements, but it can make information more reusable by standardising how governance steps are documented as decisions are made. Over time, this can support more efficient preparation of narrative disclosures and governance sections in reports, because teams are drawing on a consistent, familiar structure rather than constructing new governance explanations for each reporting period.

  International context

  Internationally, organisations dealing with IFRS S1/S2 and other sustainability frameworks face similar pressures. A common governance method can help them align internal processes with external reporting needs, reducing the gap between “how we actually govern” and “how we have to explain it” in reports. This may reduce duplication and last-minute effort, but each organisation remains responsible for determining its own reporting scope and for meeting the specific requirements of the standards that apply to it.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• How can internal audit or external auditors make use of the Framework without becoming “implementers” of it? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Internal audit and external auditors in Australia must remain independent from management’s design and operation of systems. Governance Five™ © can be used as a reference point for assessment, without auditors taking on responsibility for implementation. For example, they might test whether management has applied the five stages in a way that aligns with the organisation’s own policies, without directing how programs should be governed. The Custodian does not set or change audit standards; auditors must apply their own professional judgement and codes of ethics.

  International context

  Internationally, auditors can also use the Framework as a lens rather than a toolkit: they observe and evaluate how management says it uses Governance Five™ ©, rather than designing or operating the method themselves. This can support clearer conversations with boards and audit committees about governance without jeopardising independence. Each audit firm and professional body remains responsible for its own methodology and for ensuring that any reference to proprietary frameworks is consistent with independence and ethics requirements in that jurisdiction.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Can the Framework help when something has gone wrong – for example, in reviews or inquiries? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  When incidents, complaints or public concerns arise, reviews often ask “where did governance fail?”. If an organisation has used a structured method like Governance Five™ ©, it can be easier to identify whether the issue sat in the mandate, stakeholder engagement, option assessment, delivery, or learning stages. That can support more targeted remediation and clearer explanations to regulators, oversight bodies or the community. The Framework does not conduct investigations, and the Custodian does not handle complaints; those functions remain with the appropriate regulators and internal processes.

  International context

  Internationally, inquiries and investigations also look for clear governance pathways. A defined method can provide a neutral reference structure for mapping what happened and where decisions were made. This does not replace legal or investigative work, but it can make it easier for organisations to cooperate with reviews and to understand their own governance gaps. Any use of the Framework in such contexts must still respect local legal processes and the roles of regulators, courts and oversight institutions.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• Is there a specific benefit for government departments and agencies using this Framework? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Public-sector entities in Australia face strong expectations for transparency, value-for-money and public trust, alongside parliamentary and audit scrutiny. Governance Five™ © can help departments and agencies describe how they govern programs that cut across policy, procurement, service delivery and community outcomes. Using one method can make briefings to ministers, central agencies and oversight bodies clearer, because governance is explained in a consistent, pre-existing structure rather than as a series of unrelated processes for each initiative.

  International context

  Internationally, governments and public authorities are also being asked to show how they make complex decisions about infrastructure, climate, social programs and sovereign capability. A non-operational governance method can provide a common way of describing decision pathways while respecting the laws, institutions and cultures of each jurisdiction. It is one option among many, not a mandated standard, and each government body must decide whether using a proprietary framework aligns with its policies and public interest responsibilities.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• How does the Framework interact with digital systems, data tools or AI used in governance and reporting? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Governance Five™ © is not software and does not replace digital tools. Instead, it provides a governance structure that can sit above systems such as risk platforms, ESG data tools or AI-enabled analytics. Australian entities can use the five stages to decide where technology is appropriate and how outputs should be interpreted in context. This can support ASIC’s focus on clear, explainable governance by showing that digital tools are embedded in a wider, human-governed process rather than driving decisions on their own.

  International context

  Internationally, many organisations are looking for ways to reconcile advanced analytics with human oversight. A clear governance method can help by defining where human judgement, stakeholder engagement and ethical considerations fit within technology-heavy decision environments. Governance Five™ © can be layered on top of existing systems so that boards, regulators and the public can see how digital tools are governed, without dictating which software or platforms an organisation must use.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

Public and buying-group participants

These questions focus on what everyday participants, customers and community members might reasonably want to know.

• I’m a member of the public. Organisations keep talking about “governance” and “ESG frameworks”. What should I look for? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In Australia, when organisations make claims about governance, ESG or “frameworks”, they are expected to be honest and not misleading. As a member of the public, you can look for signs that their claims are more than marketing language: do they name a specific governance method or system, explain how it works, and show when it was applied? Do annual reports, statements or public information give examples of how decisions were governed, not just broad values? You are not expected to be an expert, but you are entitled to ask questions when governance or ESG language feels vague, unsupported or inconsistent with your lived experience.

  International context

  Internationally, similar principles apply: public audiences are increasingly alert to “governance” and “ESG” being used as reputational labels. A genuine framework will usually have a clear name, authorship, dates and a description of how it is used. It should be possible to locate at least some credible information about it, whether on the organisation’s site, the framework owner’s site, or in independent publications. If claims are unclear, asking respectful questions – or consulting trusted consumer, civil-society or media sources – can help you interpret what is being said.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• I’m part of a buying group or community program. How does Governance Five™ © relate to that kind of arrangement? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In Australia, early applications of the Framework included community and buying-group style initiatives, where residents or members participated voluntarily and decisions were governed openly. Governance Five™ © does not run buying groups; it provides a governance method that can help those groups make their processes transparent and accountable. If a program claims to be using the Framework, you can reasonably expect that its organisers can explain how decisions are governed, how tenders or offers are evaluated, and how participation is handled in line with consumer and privacy laws. The Custodian does not sit between you and the organisation running the program.

  International context

  Internationally, group purchasing, citizen-led initiatives and membership schemes can also adopt authored governance systems to build trust. Governance Five™ © is a governance and participation framework that can be licensed and applied in those contexts. It does not change consumer rights or contract law in any country; it offers a structured way for organisers to show that decisions were made fairly and transparently. Participants should still read local terms and conditions and seek independent advice if something does not feel right or is unclear.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

• If an organisation says it uses Governance Five™ ©, does that guarantee it is ethical or compliant? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No governance framework can guarantee behaviour. Governance Five™ © is a method for structuring and documenting decisions. Organisations remain fully responsible for complying with Australian law, sector regulations, contracts and ethical duties. A licence allows them to apply the Framework; it does not certify their overall conduct or financial or ESG position. If you are assessing an organisation, you should look at its track record, oversight arrangements, regulator interactions and independent reporting, not just whether a particular framework is referenced.

  International context

  Internationally, frameworks and standards support better governance but do not replace law, regulation or enforcement. Governance Five™ © can help organisations explain and evidence their processes, which may support trust and accountability, but it is still possible for decisions or behaviours to fall short of expectations. External regulators, courts, ombuds services, media and civil society remain essential in checking whether conduct aligns with the values and frameworks organisations claim to use.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice.

Employees, insiders & concerned observers

These questions recognise that staff, engineers, professionals or community members may be quietly worried about gaps between public claims and actual governance practice.

• I work inside an organisation claiming strong governance or sovereign capability, but I’m not sure there’s a real framework. What can I do? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  If you are in Australia and feel that public claims about governance, ESG, sovereign capability or frameworks do not match reality, the first step is usually to use internal channels: your manager, risk or compliance functions, internal audit or any protected-disclosure or whistleblower mechanisms. If concerns involve potential breaches of financial, corporate or consumer law, external options may include ASIC, AFCA or other relevant statutory bodies, depending on the issue. The Custodian of Governance Five™ © cannot investigate specific organisations or advise on individual cases; this page is only general information.

  International context

  In other countries, similar principles apply: internal escalation and formal whistleblower or ethics processes are usually the first step, followed by sector regulators, ombuds institutions or professional bodies where appropriate. Each jurisdiction has its own rules and protections. If you are unsure, seeking confidential advice from a trusted adviser, union, professional association or legal service can help you understand your options. The Custodian does not run complaint, grievance or whistleblower schemes anywhere.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice or a whistleblower channel.

• Can I complain directly to the Custodian about an organisation’s behaviour or ask for an investigation? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. The Custodian of Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © does not have any regulatory, investigative, enforcement or complaints-handling powers. The Custodian’s role is limited to authorship, lawful origin, licensing integrity and protection of the intellectual property. Concerns about organisational conduct, misconduct, disclosure quality or consumer harm should be directed to the appropriate regulator or formal complaints body (for example, ASIC, AFCA or other statutory agencies), or raised through protected internal channels. This separation is intentional to keep the Framework neutral and non-operational.

  International context

  Internationally, the Custodian is not a regulator, ombudsman, tribunal or court. Users of the Framework in other countries remain subject to their own national laws and regulators. People with concerns should use local avenues: corporate, financial, competition or consumer regulators; ombuds institutions; professional bodies; or judicial processes, depending on the nature of the issue. The Framework is a governance method, not a parallel enforcement system, and it must not be treated as such.

  General information only — not legal, financial, regulatory, complaints-handling or whistleblower advice.

• As an employee, engineer or professional, do I personally need a licence if my organisation uses the Framework? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In most Australian organisations, the licence is held at the entity level (for example, the company, department, council or institution) when the Framework is being applied to its programs and governance. As an employee or engineer working inside that organisation, you are usually covered by your employer’s licence when you use the Framework in your role, provided you are not representing it as your own method or reselling it externally. If you operate independently (for example, as a sole trader, small practice or contractor using Governance Five™ © with your own clients), then you may need your own licence. Your employment contract and professional obligations still apply separately.

  International context

  Internationally, the same general principle applies: if the Framework is used only as part of your work for a licensed organisation, you are normally covered by that organisation’s licence. If you adopt Governance Five™ © as part of your own independent service offering or practice, a separate licence is usually required. This is similar to how proprietary methodologies, software or standards are handled. Each person and organisation should consider their own situation and, if in doubt, seek professional advice or clarify directly through licensing channels described on the main website.

  General information only — not legal, financial, employment or professional advice.

Media, journalists & public-interest storytelling

These questions are for reporters, writers, researchers and public-interest storytellers who want to understand how to reference the Framework responsibly.

• I’m a journalist or researcher. How can I safely reference Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © in my work? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In Australia, journalists and researchers can reference the Framework as a lawfully authored governance system, first demonstrated in 2010, using information available on www.powergrouppurchasing.com and other public-record sources. It is important to describe it accurately as a non-operational governance and participation method, not as a regulator, product, consulting service or tool that replaces legal or professional advice. When reporting on specific organisations, standard journalistic standards apply: independently verifying claims, seeking multiple perspectives and being clear where information comes from.

  International context

  Internationally, media and researchers can treat Governance Five™ © similarly to other authored frameworks: by acknowledging authorship, origin and scope, and by distinguishing between the Framework itself and how different organisations choose to apply or interpret it. The Custodian cannot comment on or verify specific organisational behaviour. Any reference to the Framework should avoid implying regulatory status or endorsement; it is a proprietary governance method that can be licensed and applied in different sectors, not a replacement for laws, standards or public institutions.

  General information only — not media law, defamation, regulatory or professional advice.

Accountants, CPAs & financial professionals

These questions are written for accountants, reviewers and finance professionals who see governance and ESG narratives in annual or sustainability reporting.

• I’m a CPA / accountant reviewing a client that claims to use Governance Five™ ©. What should I look for? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  From an Australian perspective, your primary reference points remain the Corporations Act, applicable standards, your professional body’s guidance and ASIC’s public expectations on fair and evidence-based disclosure. If a client claims to use Governance Five™ ©, you are not endorsing the Framework itself, but you may wish to consider whether their governance narrative is coherent: can they explain how the five stages apply in practice, show that use predates the reporting period, and demonstrate that any reference is broadly consistent with the public description on www.powergrouppurchasing.com? Your judgement remains anchored in professional standards – this Framework is simply one part of the governance story you are evaluating.

  International context

  Internationally, accountants and finance professionals can treat Governance Five™ © as one of several possible governance methods that might be referenced in narrative reporting or management explanations. Your role is usually to assess whether disclosures are consistent, supported by evidence and aligned to applicable reporting frameworks, not to certify any particular proprietary method. Where a client cites Governance Five™ ©, you can cross-check that their description is broadly accurate and that they are not overstating what a governance framework can do relative to their actual controls, processes and outcomes.

  General information only — not accounting, assurance, legal or professional advice.

• Am I, as a CPA or reviewer, required to recommend or use Governance Five™ © for my clients? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. Neither ASIC nor Australian professional bodies mandate any specific proprietary governance framework. Governance Five™ © is an option that some organisations may choose where it fits their context and public interest responsibilities. As a CPA or reviewer, your obligation is to apply professional standards, assess the reasonableness of governance and ESG narratives, and ensure that financial and related disclosures are not misleading. You may find it helpful to understand the Framework when clients use it, but you are not required to promote or adopt it in your own practice.

  International context

  Internationally, professional guidance and standards are set by bodies such as IFAC, regional institutes and regulators. Governance Five™ © does not replace or compete with those standards. It is a governance method that entities can elect to use and disclose, and which professionals may need to understand when evaluating governance-related assertions. Whether you recommend or simply acknowledge it is a matter of professional judgement, client needs and your own practice policies.

  General information only — not accounting, assurance, legal or professional advice.

• If a client uses the Framework without a licence, does that automatically affect my ability to sign off on reports? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Licensing is principally an intellectual property and governance-integrity matter between the rights holder and the organisation. As a CPA or reviewer, your main focus is whether the client’s reporting is fair, accurate and compliant with applicable standards and law. Unlicensed use could raise broader questions about governance culture and respect for IP, but it does not automatically invalidate financial statements or ESG disclosures on its own. However, if a client’s public claims about using a framework are inconsistent with their legal right to do so, you may consider whether that inconsistency is relevant to your overall assessment of their governance and disclosure controls.

  International context

  Internationally, professionals generally do not police IP arrangements, but they do consider how governance behaviour reflects on control environments and reporting integrity. Discovery that a client is making prominent claims about a proprietary governance method while lacking a licence might be a “soft signal” about attitudes to compliance and transparency. Professionals must exercise their own judgement, within their ethical and legal frameworks, as to whether such factors need to be considered in their risk assessment or communications with those charged with governance.

  General information only — not accounting, assurance, legal or professional advice.

Auditors & assurance providers

This group focuses on internal and external auditors, sustainability assurance teams and those testing governance, risk and ESG narratives.

• As an auditor, can I use Governance Five™ © as a lens without compromising my independence? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Independence is governed by audit standards, codes of ethics and regulatory guidance, not by this Framework. In general, auditors can use an external framework as a reference lens – for example, to structure questions about governance stages – provided they do not design, implement or operate management’s systems. You may observe how management purports to apply Governance Five™ © and evaluate whether that aligns with internal policies and public claims, without taking responsibility for implementation. Your firm’s methodology and independence rules should always take precedence over any external governance method.

  International context

  Internationally, auditors often refer to recognised frameworks (e.g. COSO, ISO, proprietary models) when planning and performing work, without becoming implementers of those frameworks. Governance Five™ © can be used similarly – as a descriptive map of how management says it governs. Whether and how you reference it should be consistent with your firm’s policies and local independence standards. The Custodian does not set auditing rules and cannot advise on independence; those decisions rest with professional bodies, regulators and audit firms themselves.

  General information only — not audit methodology, independence or professional advice.

• Can Governance Five™ © help structure sustainability or ESG assurance engagements in practice? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  For Australian sustainability or ESG assurance engagements, applicable standards and firm methodologies remain primary. Governance Five™ © may help frame inquiries about how governance, participation, option assessment and learning were managed for particular climate, social or public-value initiatives. For example, it can help distinguish between issues in the initial mandate (“govern”), stakeholder integrity (“engage”) and execution (“deliver”). But any use of the Framework should sit underneath your professional standards, not replace them, and assurances should never imply that using a particular method automatically satisfies regulatory expectations.

  International context

  Internationally, ESG assurance practitioners can use Governance Five™ © as a non-operational structure for understanding how entities say they govern sustainability topics, while still relying on the relevant assurance and reporting frameworks (such as IFRS S1/S2 or regional standards). The Framework can help map governance processes, but it is not, by itself, a sustainability standard or assurance framework, and should not be presented as such in reports or opinions. Professional scepticism and standards-compliant work remain central.

  General information only — not ESG assurance, legal or professional advice.

Engineers, project leads & technical roles

These questions are written for engineers, technical leads, project managers and delivery teams who see governance frameworks appearing “around” their work.

• As an engineer or technical lead, where does Governance Five™ © sit alongside my technical standards and codes? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Governance Five™ © does not change or dilute engineering codes, safety obligations, design standards or regulatory approvals. Those remain mandatory and enforceable in their own right. The Framework sits above as a way of structuring how decisions about needs, options, suppliers, design choices and trade-offs are governed and documented. In an Australian sovereign capability, infrastructure or critical-systems setting, this can help show that technical decisions were supported by a credible governance process, but it never replaces your duties under engineering, safety or professional regulation.

  International context

  Internationally, engineers should view Governance Five™ © as a governance wrapper, not a technical standard. You still design, test and sign off in line with your sector’s codes and regulations; the Framework provides a shared language for how those decisions were framed, challenged, approved and learned from. It can be useful when explaining projects to non-technical boards, regulators or the public, but it does not substitute for domain-specific discipline and compliance.

  General information only — not engineering, safety, legal or professional advice.

• Does using Governance Five™ © limit my professional judgement as an engineer or project manager? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. The Framework is intentionally non-operational: it does not tell you which technical option to choose or how to design a system. It structures the governance environment around your work – clarifying who sets the mandate, who is consulted, how options are evaluated and how learning is captured. Your professional judgement is still exercised within that environment, guided by your codes, laws and standards. In many cases, having a transparent governance method can make it easier to explain and defend professional judgement if it is later questioned in reviews or inquiries.

  International context

  Internationally, technical professionals remain responsible for their own decisions and ethical duties. Governance Five™ © neither absolves nor overrides those responsibilities. It can, however, provide a clearer context for documenting why certain technical pathways were chosen, which constraints were applied and how stakeholders were engaged. That can be valuable when reporting to boards, regulators, investors or the public on complex, high-stakes projects.

  General information only — not engineering, project or legal advice.

ESG, sustainability & governance officers

These questions are tailored to sustainability leads, ESG officers and governance specialists who must align internal reality with external reporting and policy expectations.

• I’m responsible for ESG or sustainability. How can Governance Five™ © support my work without becoming “another framework” to manage? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Many ESG teams in Australia are managing overlapping standards and expectations. Governance Five™ © does not add a new reporting regime; it offers a single governance backbone you can reuse across climate, social and public-value initiatives. You can map your existing processes – materiality, stakeholder engagement, risk, strategy, metrics and targets – into the five stages, so that governance is described once, even if you are reporting under multiple frameworks. This can help align internal reality with external claims, supporting ASIC’s emphasis on traceable, evidence-based governance for ESG narratives.

  International context

  Internationally, ESG and sustainability officers can use the Framework as an organising layer that sits above specific standards (like IFRS S1/S2 or regional codes). It helps make explicit how governance, participation, option evaluation and learning occur around ESG topics, without dictating what the metrics or targets must be. Over time, this may reduce effort by providing one coherent story about how ESG is governed across the organisation, instead of separate governance explanations for each initiative or reporting regime.

  General information only — not ESG, sustainability, legal or professional advice.

• Could professionals be criticised later for ignoring questions about method-origin and governance traceability? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  How professionals are assessed after the fact depends on their standards, codes, engagement scope and evidence at the time. In Australia, ASIC’s evolving focus on governance, greenwashing and traceability may increase expectations that significant governance claims are tested rather than taken at face value. That does not mean professionals must adopt any specific proprietary framework, but it may mean that they are expected to ask reasonable questions about how governance methods are defined, evidenced and applied if those methods are central to disclosures and public claims.

  International context

  Internationally, regulators and professional bodies are also paying more attention to how governance narratives are substantiated. Over time, this can shift what is considered “reasonable” in terms of questioning frameworks, method-origin and traceability. Whether a particular professional should have asked more probing questions will always depend on context. This page does not set those expectations; it simply recognises that governance method-origin is increasingly visible in global reporting and may become a more regular topic of professional judgement and discussion.

  General information only — not legal, disciplinary, regulatory or professional advice.

What Governance Five™ © is not

These questions set out boundaries, so that organisations, professionals and the public do not misunderstand the role of the Framework or the Custodian.

• Is Governance Five™ © a regulator, certifier, rating agency or compliance authority? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © is not a regulator, rating agency, certification body or compliance authority. It does not issue licences to operate financial services, approve products, certify “ESG compliance” or authorise companies under the Corporations Act. ASIC and other statutory bodies retain those functions. The Framework is a lawfully authored governance and participation method that organisations may adopt under licence. It is about structure, traceability and integrity of decision-making, not about regulatory approvals or endorsements.

  International context

  Internationally, the Framework should not be described as an official standard or approval mechanism. It is a proprietary governance system that can be used in combination with local laws and recognised standards, but it has no authority to license financial institutions, approve securities listings, regulate ESG claims or enforce compliance. Those roles belong to regulators, exchanges, professional bodies and courts in each jurisdiction. Governance Five™ © provides a method, not a mandate or a regulatory badge.

  General information only — not legal, regulatory or professional advice.

• Can the Custodian investigate organisations, resolve disputes or intervene in tenders and contracts? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. The Custodian cannot investigate specific organisations, adjudicate disputes, overturn tender decisions or intervene in contractual arrangements. Those functions belong to regulators, courts, ombuds services, complaints bodies and internal governance mechanisms. The Custodian’s role is limited to authorship, lawful origin, licensing integrity and protection of the intellectual property. Any concerns about conduct, unfair treatment, disclosure quality or financial harm should be directed to the appropriate Australian regulators or complaints bodies, such as ASIC, AFCA or sector-specific authorities, or handled through internal protected-disclosure processes.

  International context

  Outside Australia, the same boundary applies: the Custodian is not a cross-border dispute-resolution service and has no investigative or enforcement powers. People and organisations must rely on their local legal systems, regulators, ombuds institutions and professional bodies if they wish to raise concerns or challenge decisions. The Framework can help document governance processes, but it cannot substitute for legal or regulatory pathways when something goes wrong.

  General information only — not legal, regulatory, complaints-handling or whistleblower advice.

• Does using Governance Five™ © replace the need to comply with laws, standards and professional codes? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. The Framework does not replace any law, regulation, professional code, safety standard or reporting requirement. Australian organisations remain fully responsible for complying with the Corporations Act, ASIC regulatory guides, sector-specific rules, privacy and consumer laws, workplace and safety obligations, and the standards of their professions. Governance Five™ © is a governance method that can sit alongside these obligations, helping to make decision pathways more visible and traceable. It does not dilute, alter or override mandatory requirements in any way.

  International context

  Internationally, the same principle applies. Governance Five™ © may be mapped to or used alongside IFRS, OECD guidance, ISO standards and various local regulations, but it is never a substitute for them. Boards, executives and professionals must still understand and comply with the specific legal and regulatory frameworks of their jurisdiction. The Framework is about how decisions are governed and explained, not about changing what the law requires.

  General information only — not legal, regulatory or professional advice.

• Does using the Framework guarantee ethical behaviour, good outcomes or regulatory approval? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No governance framework can guarantee outcomes. Governance Five™ © is designed to support fairness, transparency and integrity by making governance steps explicit, but organisations and individuals still make choices within that structure. Ethical behaviour, lawfulness and compliance depend on how people act, not only on the tools they use. ASIC and other regulators assess behaviour, disclosures and evidence, not merely whether a particular framework is named. A licence indicates permission to use the Framework; it is not a certification of overall ethics or compliance.

  International context

  Globally, governance methods can support better practice but cannot eliminate risk or misconduct. Governance Five™ © may help organisations show that they made structured efforts to govern complex decisions, but regulators, courts and oversight bodies will always look at evidence, outcomes and the totality of conduct. No entity should present use of the Framework as a guarantee of “good governance” or as a shield against regulatory or legal scrutiny.

  General information only — not legal, regulatory or risk-management advice.

Evidence, courts & misrepresentation

These questions address how the Framework might appear in legal or regulatory settings, and what happens if it is misrepresented.

• Can Governance Five™ © be used as evidence in legal proceedings or regulatory reviews? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  Courts, tribunals and regulators decide for themselves what evidence is relevant and how much weight to give it. If an Australian organisation uses Governance Five™ ©, its documentation – such as governance records, staged decision logs or participation evidence – might be provided as part of a broader evidential picture. The Framework itself does not determine outcomes. It is simply one way to structure and record governance. Any use of Framework-related material in proceedings is subject to the rules of evidence, privilege and confidentiality applicable in that forum.

  International context

  Internationally, the same idea holds: documentation created using Governance Five™ © may help show how decisions were made, but courts and regulators apply their own laws, evidence rules and standards. The Custodian has no role in advocating for or against any party in such matters. Organisations should seek legal advice about whether and how to present governance records, including Framework-based material, in any formal process.

  General information only — not legal, litigation or regulatory advice.

• What happens if an organisation misrepresents its use of the Framework in public reporting or marketing? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  If an organisation claims to use Governance Five™ © when it does not, overstates what the Framework does, or suggests endorsement that does not exist, there may be several consequences. From an IP perspective, the Custodian may address the misuse through licensing and intellectual property channels. Separately, if statements are misleading or deceptive, regulators such as ASIC or the ACCC may take an interest under existing law – entirely independent of the Custodian. The exact consequences would depend on the facts, the impact on investors or consumers, and the responses of regulators and courts.

  International context

  Internationally, misrepresenting use of any proprietary framework can raise IP, consumer-protection and disclosure issues. Governance Five™ © is no different. The Custodian can only deal with the IP and licensing side; regulators and courts in each country decide whether any broader misconduct has occurred. Organisations are encouraged to describe their governance methods accurately, avoid exaggerating the role of any framework and ensure that claims about endorsements or affiliations are strictly true and supportable.

  General information only — not legal, enforcement or marketing-law advice.

• Is Governance Five™ © a political movement, advocacy campaign or lobbying vehicle? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © is not a political party, advocacy organisation or lobbying vehicle. It is a governance and stakeholder-participation system authored and governed as intellectual property. While it was shaped in public-value contexts and may be applied by governments, institutions and communities, it does not promote any political party or candidate and it does not provide lobbying or campaigning services. The Custodian’s role is deliberately non-political and non-partisan.

  International context

  Internationally, the Framework should not be described as a campaign, movement or lobbying platform. It is a neutral method for structuring governance and participation, which may be adopted by a wide range of organisations with different policy views. Any political or advocacy messaging remains the responsibility of those organisations themselves and must not be attributed to the Framework or its Custodian.

  General information only — not political, lobbying or public-law advice.

Listed companies & multinational groups

These questions address how the Framework can sit within global reporting, without being presented as an endorsed or mandatory standard.

• Is Governance Five™ © endorsed by any stock exchange or regulator (ASX, NYSE, LSE, EU authorities, etc.)? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © is not formally endorsed by ASIC, the ASX or any other Australian regulator. It is a proprietary governance framework that can be used by listed and unlisted entities if they judge it appropriate. When entities in Australia disclose that they use the Framework, they should do so accurately and avoid implying regulatory approval. ASIC’s concern remains whether governance, ESG and financial disclosures are fair, evidence-based and not misleading, regardless of which governance method is chosen.

  International context

  Internationally, no stock exchange or global regulator is assumed to endorse the Framework. Exchanges such as NYSE, NASDAQ, LSE, Euronext and others typically require entities to describe their governance structures and risk oversight, but do not prescribe specific proprietary frameworks. Governance Five™ © can be used within those expectations, but it must not be marketed as an “approved” or “required” standard by any exchange or regulator unless that is explicitly and publicly confirmed by those bodies.

  General information only — not securities, listing, corporate or regulatory advice.

• How might a listed or multinational entity reference the Framework in governance or ESG reporting? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  An Australian or ASX-listed entity that uses Governance Five™ © might choose to mention it in governance, sustainability or operating-and-financial review sections as part of explaining its governance processes. Any such reference should be factual, clear about the Framework’s non-regulatory nature, and consistent with information on www.powergrouppurchasing.com. It should not be presented as an ASIC-endorsed solution or as a guarantee of compliance. Directors remain responsible for ensuring that all references to governance frameworks are accurate and supported by the entity’s actual practice.

  International context

  In other jurisdictions, entities could describe Governance Five™ © as one of the frameworks underpinning their governance of climate, social, sovereign-capability or public-value initiatives. They should do so in a way that aligns with local disclosure requirements and does not imply regulatory endorsement. The Framework can provide a helpful narrative structure for explaining decision processes to investors and regulators, but the decision to reference it – and how – ultimately belongs to each entity and its advisers.

  General information only — not securities, reporting or listing-rule advice.

• How does the Framework work in cross-border groups, joint ventures or international alliances? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  For Australian-headed groups or joint ventures operating across borders, Governance Five™ © can provide a single governance language that sits above local legal and operational differences. Each entity within the group still complies with its own jurisdiction’s requirements, but the shared method can help boards, committees and oversight bodies understand how cross-border programs are governed from mandate through to learning. Licensing and value declarations are then aligned to the overall influence and role across the combined structure, using the Global Licensing & Fee Schedule.

  International context

  Internationally, multinational groups can adopt the Framework as a group-level governance method that is applied across subsidiaries, alliances or strategic partnerships. Local teams continue to follow their own laws and standards, but governance reporting, ESG narratives and sovereign-capability explanations can be harmonised using the five-stage flow. Each organisation must ensure that any cross-border use of the Framework respects local law, data and confidentiality rules, and that licensing correctly reflects the structure and influenced value.

  General information only — not cross-border structuring, tax, legal or regulatory advice.

Digital assets, crypto & emerging markets

These questions consider how a governance method can sit around rapidly evolving areas such as crypto, digital assets, platforms and new market structures.

• Can Governance Five™ © apply to crypto, digital-asset or DeFi projects – or to exchanges and platforms serving them? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  The Framework is technology-neutral. It can be used to structure governance around crypto, token, platform or digital-asset projects – for example, how participation is handled, how risks are consulted on, how design options are tested, and how learning feeds back into change. However, it does not provide financial, investment or legal advice, and it does not change how Australian law classifies particular tokens, services or products. Entities involved in crypto or digital assets remain responsible for complying with ASIC, AUSTRAC and any other relevant regulators and laws, regardless of which governance method they adopt.

  International context

  Internationally, crypto and digital-asset markets face increasing governance expectations from regulators, exchanges and institutional investors. Governance Five™ © can provide a traceable way of organising governance decisions around these projects, but it does not alter regulatory classifications, licensing requirements or investor-protection rules in any jurisdiction. It is a governance wrapper, not a financial product, protocol or trading system, and should never be described as a substitute for financial regulation or due diligence.

  General information only — not financial, investment, securities, tax or crypto-asset advice.

• Could governance using this Framework help digital-asset or crypto organisations build trust with regulators and markets? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  In Australia, regulators have emphasised the need for clearer governance, risk management and disclosure in digital-asset and crypto contexts. Using a structured governance method such as Governance Five™ © may help organisations demonstrate that they are taking governance seriously – for example, by documenting how decisions about custody, platforms, token design, customer protection and incident response are made. But this does not guarantee regulatory approval or compliance. ASIC and other bodies will still assess behaviour, evidence and legal obligations directly.

  International context

  Internationally, regulators and institutional participants are more likely to engage with digital-asset projects that can show clear governance, not just technology. The Framework can support this by providing a repeatable way to explain governance decisions. Whether this leads to better regulatory relationships or market access depends on many factors beyond the Framework – including compliance, risk culture, financial integrity, transparency and long-term behaviour.

  General information only — not financial, regulatory or licensing advice.

International verification & authorship checks

These questions deal with how international stakeholders can verify that the Framework is genuine and lawfully authored.

• I am outside Australia. How can I verify that Governance Five™ © is a genuine, pre-existing framework? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  The primary public reference point for Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © is the website www.powergrouppurchasing.com, which collates evidence of authorship, early pilots and media references dating back to 2010. These public records sit alongside the Framework’s licensing documentation, IP notices and historical material. ASIC does not certify private frameworks, but the coherence and dating of public evidence can still be assessed by organisations and professionals when considering method-origin.

  International context

  International stakeholders can review the same public record, alongside any local references, academic citations or sector articles that emerge over time. Verification of authorship typically involves looking at dated publications, consistent documentation, recorded history of use and clear IP statements. Governance Five™ © is positioned as an authored system, not an informal idea, and its evidence trail is designed to be visible enough that cross-border users and professionals can perform their own checks if they wish to do so.

  General information only — not IP, legal or due-diligence advice.

• Does using Governance Five™ © give my organisation any special legal standing or protection internationally? ▶

  Australian / ASIC context

  No. Applying the Framework, and holding a licence, does not create any special legal immunity or standing under Australian law. It may help organisations demonstrate structured governance and support more coherent disclosures, but regulators and courts assess conduct, evidence and lawfulness directly. Governance Five™ © is a governance method and IP system, not a legal shield.

  International context

  Internationally, the same applies: using the Framework does not place an organisation above local law, nor does it provide “safe harbour” status or special legal protections. It is one tool among many that an organisation may use to strengthen governance, transparency and accountability. Legal risk, regulatory exposure and liability are determined by each jurisdiction’s laws and by the organisation’s actions, not by whether a particular governance framework is licensed or referenced.

  General information only — not cross-border, legal or liability advice.