Governance Five™ © – CPA, Audit & Assurance Lawful-Origin & Traceability Guide

Intended audience: external auditors, CPA and CA professionals, internal audit and risk teams, ESG and sustainability assurers, and governance reviewers who encounter “frameworks”, “models”, “public-value pathways” or “sovereign capability” narratives in client reporting.

---

1. Purpose – why this page exists (and what it does not do)

This page explains, in plain language, how Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © operates as a lawfully authored, licensed governance system, and how audit and assurance professionals may use the public-record material as context and evidence of method-origin when reviewing client frameworks and narratives.

It is designed to support:

• Clearer understanding of authorship, lawful origin and licensing for governance frameworks that clients rely on.
• More consistent traceability of structured decision-making and participation claims in workpapers.
• Safe, neutral use of public evidence where client language or designs resemble Governance Five™ © or similar authored systems.

It does not:

• Impose any requirement to use or rely on Governance Five™ ©.
• Prescribe audit procedures, risk ratings or reporting decisions.
• Interpret professional standards or regulator expectations.
• Create, alter or remove any obligations for audit firms, clients or regulators.

2. What Governance Five™ © is – an authored method-origin for public-value governance

Governance Five™ © is a five-stage governance and stakeholder-engagement system used to structure how organisations design, document and justify public-value, participation and sovereign-capability pathways: Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve™ ©.

It was first publicly demonstrated in 2010 in Australian community energy pilots, then applied in other sectors. The Framework is independently authored, documented and governed under copyright, with a global licensing model introduced in 2025 to maintain lawful origin, attribution and ethical use.

For auditors and assurers, the relevance lies in the fact that:

• It is a clearly identifiable method-origin for staged public-value and participation structures.
• Clients may adopt, adapt or describe similar structures or language, sometimes without recognising or documenting the IP origin.
• Claims about frameworks, models, social-value systems or sovereign-capability pathways may be implicitly derivative of Governance Five™ © or comparable authored methods.

Where this appears to be the case, auditors may, within the scope of the engagement and applicable standards, consider how authorship, attribution, licensing and disclosure are recognised and evidenced.

3. Public evidence site – a reference for method-origin, not an authority

The public-reference site powergrouppurchasing.com serves as an evidence and provenance hub for Governance Five™ © and related public-record materials (early pilots, media coverage, explanatory articles, licensing information and sector guides).

Audit and assurance professionals may:

• Use the site as a background reference when assessing whether a client’s claimed framework resembles, or may have drawn on, Governance Five™ ©.
• Document in workpapers that public-record evidence exists of an independently authored system with similar terminology or structure.
• Encourage clients (through normal management communication channels) to undertake their own self-assessment and legal review if overlap appears significant.

The site is not a regulatory source, standard-setter, professional body, or audit authority. It is a public evidence reference point that may help explain method-origin and context where clients describe structured public-value systems.

Public-record reference:

🔗 https://powergrouppurchasing.com/

🔍 Auditor self-check – optional internal prompts (no obligation)

The following prompts are optional and are provided only to support internal reflection. They do not prescribe audit procedures or create any duty to act.

• Framework claims: Has the client described an internal “framework”, “model”, “pathway” or “method” that underpins governance, ESG, social-value or sovereign-capability claims?
• Staged decision-making: Is that framework expressed as a staged flow (for example five steps, lifecycle, loop) that echoes the logic Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve™ © or similar language?
• Origin clarity: Has the client documented where their framework came from (independent development, licensed adoption of Governance Five™ ©, or another clearly identified source)?
• Licensing and attribution: If the framework appears derivative, has management considered whether a licence or attribution is required under applicable IP laws?
• Disclosure consistency: Do ESG, impact, strategy or narrative disclosures match the governance method described internally, or is the story stronger than the underlying evidence?
• Regulatory context: Do emerging expectations around traceable governance and sustainability reporting (for example ASIC’s focus on evidence-based claims, IFRS sustainability standards, CSRD or equivalent) increase the need for transparent method-origin in this area?

Any decision to adjust risk assessments, design procedures or communicate with those charged with governance remains entirely with the audit and assurance team in line with their professional standards and firm policies.

4. Self-check – how auditors can document why this context was considered

Where engagement scope and professional judgement support it, auditors may choose to document, in plain language, why Governance Five™ © was considered as contextual information:

• The client uses a staged governance, participation or public-value model that closely resembles the Governance Five™ © decision flow or terminology.
• Public-record evidence shows that Governance Five™ © exists as a lawfully authored method-origin with a licensing model and clear custodianship.
• Understanding this context assists in assessing whether internal claims, ESG/impact narratives or “unique frameworks” are accurate, traceable and fairly described.

Referencing this page, or the public-record site, in workpapers is purely a matter of professional judgement and does not imply endorsement or adoption of the Framework by the audit firm or its partners.

5. Common audit & assurance scenarios where Governance Five™ © may be contextually relevant

Without creating any duty to use or recognise Governance Five™ ©, the Framework may be contextually relevant in scenarios such as:

• ESG and sustainability reports describing staged decision-making, stakeholder participation or “community-value frameworks”.
• Social impact, public-value or trust narratives that refer to “structured engagement”, “aggregated community voice” or “evidence-based pathways”.
• Sovereign capability or national-interest claims where the client asserts a unique method for aligning procurement, industry uplift, communities and public outcomes.
• Sector-specific governance guides (for example health, energy, defence, local government, allied health, humanitarian, vaccines and immunisation) that echo the Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve™ © logic.
• Third-party and ecosystem frameworks where the client claims to apply a structured method to suppliers, partners or alliances using staged governance language.

In these situations the central questions are: Is the claimed framework clearly sourced? Is its method-origin lawful and properly attributed? Are related disclosures fair, supportable and traceable?

6. Lawful origin, licensing, and what may matter for documentation

Governance Five™ © is protected under the Commonwealth of Australia Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and international treaties as an original system and framework with definable authorship and a public-record evidence trail (2010–2025).

A Global Licensing & Fee Schedule governs how organisations may apply the Framework, including:

• Use of the Governance Five™ © method in programs, procurement, governance and stakeholder-engagement structures.
• Public claims or disclosures that rely on the Framework’s staged governance logic or visuals.
• Derivative use in sector-specific adaptations or institutional frameworks based on the five-stage flow.

From a documentation perspective (subject to scope and standards), audit teams may wish to:

• Record that a recognisable authored framework exists and is publicly documented for the type of structure the client uses.
• Note management’s position on origin, licensing and attribution where resemblance is significant.
• Encourage management, where appropriate, to seek independent legal advice on IP and licensing where uncertainty is identified.

Decisions to modify procedures, adjust risk assessments, or raise matters with those charged with governance remain entirely within the judgement of the audit or assurance team, in line with professional standards and firm policies.

7. Boundaries – what this page and the Framework do not do

Governance Five™ ©, and this explanatory page, do not:

• Provide legal, financial, tax, valuation, actuarial, audit, assurance, or regulatory advice.
• Interpret ASA/ISA, ASQM/ISQM, APES, IFRS, CSRD, or any other professional or regulatory standard.
• Set expectations for regulators, professional bodies, investors or markets.
• Interfere with independence, engagement scope or professional scepticism.
• Require any firm or client to adopt, endorse or license the Framework.

The Framework is positioned as a licensed governance system and method-origin that some organisations may choose to use. For auditors, it is simply one more contextual reference point that may explain how certain governance and public-value narratives have been structured.

8. Optional wording for client self-reflection (if independence allows)

The following wording is an optional example only. It is not a recommendation and must be considered against independence, scope and firm policies before any use:

“You may wish to consider whether any of your internal frameworks, public-value models or staged decision-making approaches align with, or resemble, authored systems such as Governance Five™ ©. Public evidence is available at powergrouppurchasing.com. Independent legal and professional advice can help determine whether licensing, attribution or disclosure updates are appropriate.”

Any use of similar language is solely at the discretion of the audit firm and engagement leadership.

9. Custodianship, independence and further information

Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © is governed under an independent custodianship model. The Custodian’s role is to:

• Protect authorship, attribution and lawful use of the Framework as intellectual property.
• Maintain public-record clarity on method-origin, provenance and licensing boundaries.
• Issue and oversee licensing arrangements in a non-consulting, non-advisory, non-regulatory capacity.

Audit and assurance professionals who require only background clarification about the nature of the Framework, or who wish to confirm whether certain public claims appear derivative, may rely on:

🔗 Public-record reference: powergrouppurchasing.com

Any client-specific legal, regulatory or standards-interpretation questions must be directed to the client’s own advisers, professional bodies or regulators. The Custodian does not provide legal, financial, audit or regulatory advice.