Method Origin & Licensing Guidance

General information to help organisations, auditors, advisors and community leaders understand when use of the Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © Framework is likely to require a licence, when it may not, and where other regulatory or whistleblower channels apply.

General information only – not legal, financial, regulatory, whistleblower or professional advice.
Organisations should obtain their own independent legal and professional guidance.

If you are worried that conduct may be unlawful, misleading or inconsistent with professional or regulatory obligations, you can scroll down to the section titled “If you feel uneasy about conduct, reporting or governance behaviour” for general information about regulatory and whistleblower channels. This information is context only and does not constitute advice.

Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © is a licensable, non-operational governance system first demonstrated publicly in 2010. It provides a structured, evidence-based method-origin for public-value and multi-stakeholder decision-making using the staged flow: Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve™ ©.

Before 2010 many organisations already used policies, committees and ad-hoc “steps” to make decisions. What did not generally exist was a clearly authored, public-record, five-stage governance system designed specifically to structure participation, aggregation and delivery as a traceable, licensable method across community, enterprise and government settings.

Today, regulators and assurance bodies increasingly expect method-origin, governance evidence and traceable reasoning pathways – including under IFRS S1/S2, emerging sustainability-reporting rules and public-governance principles. This page offers illustrative examples to help you:

• recognise when your organisation may be using a staged, structured method similar to Governance Five™ ©
• consider whether licensing is appropriate or whether a genuinely independent method-origin exists
• know where to raise concerns if you feel uncomfortable about conduct, reporting or governance behaviour

Fairness principle: Nothing on this page asserts that all staged methods “belong” to Governance Five™ ©. Licensing is relevant where a framework is derived from, aligned with or represented as using the Governance Five™ © system or substantially mirrors its staged logic and language. Other independently authored methods with clear, pre-2010 evidence and different structure may sit outside this Framework.

How to read these examples

Each section below covers one application area and provides:

• Three or more long-form examples – illustrative scenarios of how licensing can be triggered.
• Why licensing applies – where the Governance Five™ © staged method is being used.
• When it may not – where organisations use a clearly different, independently authored method.
• Questions you can safely ask – to your governance, audit, legal or advisory teams.
• IFRS / assurance context – where relevant for sustainability or governance disclosures.

The scenarios are generic and illustrative. They do not describe any particular organisation and should not be read as accusations, endorsements or compliance findings.

Quick self-check: 20 situations where licensing often applies

The list below highlights common situations where organisations may be using a Governance Five™ ©-style governance method without realising that licensing could apply. It is designed as a practical “sense check” before you dive into the longer examples.

1. Sovereign-capability environments

Sovereign capability includes defence, critical infrastructure, energy security, food systems and other areas where national resilience and industrial depth matter. Decisions often involve complex trade-offs between cost, local content, skills, resilience and alliance commitments.

Example 1 – Defence-industrial uplift program

A defence department runs a multi-year program to “grow local capability” in guided weapons and munitions. Before 2010, this might have been handled through a series of ad-hoc consultations, policy papers and procurement rounds, with limited transparency on how local suppliers were prioritised or how workforce outcomes were weighed against cost.

In 2025, the program adopts a staged governance framework that:

• identifies values, integrity safeguards and eligibility rules (Govern)
• runs structured dialogues with primes, SMEs, unions and community representatives (Engage)
• aggregates needs, risk data, industrial options and capability gaps across the country (Aggregate)
• implements coordinated procurement, workforce and training actions with clear reporting (Deliver)
• reviews results and adjusts the approach each budget cycle (Evolve)

Why licensing applies: if this staged structure is based on, promoted as, or closely mirrors the Govern → Engage → Aggregate → Deliver → Evolve™ © method (including language, diagrams or templates), the program is effectively using the Governance Five™ © system and should hold an appropriate licence.

When it may not: if the department can show a differently structured, independently developed method with clear pre-2010 origins and documentation – and is not using Governance Five™ © marks, language or diagrams – then it may be operating under its own governance method-origin.

IFRS / assurance context: where sovereign-capability investments are material to listed entities, auditors may ask management how governance and risk decisions were made. A licensed Governance Five™ © structure can help explain method-origin and controls; independent methods should still be clearly documented and evidenced.

Example 2 – Critical-energy transition decisions

A national energy authority coordinates a staged transition away from ageing coal assets toward renewables, storage and flexible generation. It runs a multi-stage decision process involving communities, industry, workforce and investors.

Licensing trigger: if the authority explicitly uses a five-stage public-engagement and aggregation method that tracks the Governance Five™ © flow and references Governance Five™ language or materials, this is licensed use.

Questions to ask internally: “What governance method are we using?”, “Is it independently authored?”, “Does it match a licensable system such as Governance Five™ ©?”, “Do we hold the right licence or written permission?”.

Example 3 – Defence-adjacent research and export programs

Universities, defence-industry clusters and research institutes adopt a common staged framework to decide which projects to support, how to manage export controls and how to share benefits locally.

Licensing applies where the shared framework is based on Governance Five™ © documents, training or diagrams – even if internally rebranded – because the underlying staged logic and IP remain the same.

When it may not: if the institutions created and can evidence their own method-origin, with different structure and language, and are not using Governance Five™ © IP, they may not require a licence. Independent legal advice is recommended.

Example 4 – Defence manufacturing and platform supply chains

A defence prime contractor leads a multi-tier manufacturing program for platforms or components (for example, vehicles, naval systems or aerospace structures). To demonstrate “local content”, “sovereign industrial base” and “social value”, the prime and government partner adopt a common, staged governance framework that:

• sets rules, integrity safeguards and Australian-industry requirements (Govern)
• engages SMEs, First Nations businesses, unions and training providers in structured forums (Engage)
• aggregates supplier capability, risk, safety, workforce and regional-impact data (Aggregate)
• allocates work packages and support programs, with clear reporting obligations (Deliver)
• reviews incidents, value-for-money, safety outcomes and industrial depth each contract phase (Evolve)

Why licensing applies: if this shared framework is based on the Governance Five™ © staged method – whether explicitly referenced or quietly adapted – and is used in tenders, capability statements or ESG claims, the method-origin is Governance Five™ © and a licence is appropriate.

IFRS / assurance context: where defence contracts and sovereign-capability claims are material to listed or state-owned entities, auditors may ask how “sovereign value” and “safety-critical decisions” were governed. A licensed method helps evidence the reasoning pathway, not just the engineering and cost elements.

Partial mirroring check (all sovereign-capability examples): Even where only some stages are named (for example, Engage and Aggregate) and others are implied, if the overall story is “we set rules, engaged stakeholders, aggregated inputs, delivered actions and then evolved our approach”, this may indicate reliance on a Governance Five™ ©-style method. That does not automatically mean wrongdoing, but it is a signal for organisations to review method-origin, evidence and licensing with independent legal or governance advisors.

2. Procurement and resource allocation

Procurement has always used processes, but a licensable governance method is different from a set of templates. It structures how needs, offers, risks and value are aggregated and how stakeholders participate in decisions.

Example 1 – Whole-of-government social procurement framework

A government adopts a “five-stage social procurement framework” to integrate local jobs, Indigenous participation and social enterprises into major contracts. It publishes diagrams and tools that strongly resemble Governance Five™ © stages and logic.

Why licensing applies: if the framework derivatives were informed by, adapted from or marketed as using Governance Five™ © principles, then this is method use – not just generic “good practice” – and a licence should be in place.

IFRS / assurance context: when sustainability or social-value outcomes affect financial statements (e.g. provisions, capitalisation, long-term contracts), IFRS S1/S2 expect transparent governance and control descriptions. A clearly licensed method-origin helps explain “how decisions were made”.

Example 2 – Health-equipment tender with community-linked value

A hospital network runs a significant medical-equipment tender and uses a staged governance approach that:

• sets values, constraints and clinical governance boundaries (Govern)
• engages clinicians, patient representatives and suppliers in structured sessions (Engage)
• aggregates quality, risk, cost, reliability and social-value factors (Aggregate)
• awards and implements contracts (Deliver)
• reviews performance and adapts for future rounds (Evolve)

If this structure is based on Governance Five™ © IP, licensing applies. If it is a genuinely independent clinical governance method, clearly documented with its own history, it may not.

Example 3 – Enterprise-wide portfolio allocation

A listed company uses a “five-stage investment decision framework” to allocate capital between regions and projects, claiming it ensures fair, transparent and community-aligned outcomes.

Where that framework follows Governance Five™ © logic and is used to support ESG or public-value claims, a licence is appropriate. Otherwise, the company should be ready to show evidence of truly independent method-origin and governance design.

Partial mirroring check (procurement & resource allocation): Many procurement teams say “we already do most of this”. The key question is not whether there are steps, but whether those steps are framed and repeated as a five-stage narrative similar to Governance Five™ ©. Where policies, diagrams or training materials effectively follow “Govern, Engage, Aggregate, Deliver, Evolve” – even with different labels – licensing and method-origin should be reviewed.

3. Community and stakeholder participation

Community engagement has existed for decades. Governance Five™ © becomes relevant when engagement is structured into a staged, repeatable governance system rather than isolated meetings or surveys.

Example 1 – Community energy or rates consultation

A council runs a structured program to help residents shape local energy, rates or infrastructure decisions using steps that match the Governance Five™ © flow. If the process, diagrams or language track that staged method, the council is using a licensable governance framework.

Example 2 – Police–community trust-building initiatives

A police organisation partners with communities to reduce violence and improve trust. They adopt a staged governance model for co-designing programs, aggregating concerns, delivering actions and reviewing outcomes.

Licensing applies if this model is derived from Governance Five™ © or represented as such. If it is clearly an internal, independently authored policing framework with its own published origin, it may not.

Example 3 – University civic-participation programs

A university uses a five-stage participation framework across all civic and industry-engagement programs, mapped explicitly to “Govern, Engage, Aggregate, Deliver, Evolve”. This is a clear signal that a Governance Five™ © licence is appropriate.

Partial mirroring check (community & stakeholder participation): Many engagement programs show only part of the cycle (for example, workshops and surveys) but internally describe a full journey from setting rules, hearing views, aggregating results, delivering actions and reviewing outcomes. Where that journey is formalised into a branded “five-stage engagement framework”, it may be functionally identical to Governance Five™ © and therefore raise a licensing question.

4. Public-value and social-value initiatives

Public-value, ESG and “impact” initiatives often rely on staged logic: define goals, engage stakeholders, deliver programs and report outcomes. Governance Five™ © is licensable where this staged logic is based on the original authored system.

Example 1 – City-wide “social value charter”

A city adopts a charter promising “fair procurement, local jobs and community uplift” and uses a five-stage framework to drive it across all agencies. If that framework mirrors Governance Five™ © and is used to justify tenders, ESG claims or bond issuances, licensing is required.

Example 2 – Corporate “licence to operate” programs

A resources company tells investors it uses a “five-stage community and value framework” to maintain its social licence. If the internal method is essentially Governance Five™ © under another label, that is a licensable governance system – not generic PR.

Example 3 – Philanthropic or foundation programs

A foundation uses a staged method to select, aggregate and report social investments across multiple countries. When the method follows the Governance Five™ © stages, the foundation should consider licensing, especially if it uses the structure in public claims or sustainability reports.

Example 4 – Worker and public-safety social value programs

A transport, mining or manufacturing group launches a “Safety & Social Value Framework” and promotes it to investors, workers and regulators as the way it:

• sets safety principles, human-rights commitments and zero-harm goals (Govern)
• engages workers, unions, local communities and safety regulators in structured conversations (Engage)
• aggregates incident data, near-miss reports, hazard registers and community feedback (Aggregate)
• prioritises engineering controls, training and investments (Deliver)
• reviews serious incidents, lessons learned and systemic fixes at board level (Evolve)

When that safety-and-social-value framework tracks the Governance Five™ © staged method – and is used in ESG reports, debt financing, or safety-performance claims – it is using a licensable governance system. Licensing clarifies method-origin and avoids implying that the staged structure “arose everywhere by coincidence”.

IFRS / assurance context: safety-related provisions, environmental liabilities and “social licence” claims often influence valuation and risk disclosures. Reviewers may ask: which method governed safety decisions and community engagement? A licensed Governance Five™ © method helps answer that transparently.

Partial mirroring check (public-value & social-value): Social-value and impact teams frequently re-use the same staged story across programs and reports. If that story repeatedly follows “set values, engage, aggregate, deliver, evolve”, licensing should be considered. The question is not whether the words are identical, but whether the staged reasoning pattern is effectively the same as Governance Five™ ©.

5. Cross-sector and multi-agency work

Multi-agency work is where Governance Five™ © is often most visible – because the staged governance method sits “around and between” existing departmental rules.

Example 1 – Joint taskforces (crime, disaster, health, housing)

A national taskforce brings together police, health, housing and community agencies to tackle family violence or homelessness using a five-stage governance map. If that map is derived from Governance Five™ ©, the coordinating body or sponsoring department should hold a licence.

Example 2 – Regional economic transition boards

A regional transition authority uses a staged governance framework to coordinate industry, unions, councils and community groups around major economic shifts (e.g. mine or refinery closure). Where that staged method matches Governance Five™ ©, licensing applies.

Example 3 – International development or humanitarian coalitions

NGOs, donors and agencies use a common staged governance method to plan and deliver programs in fragile settings. If that method is based on Governance Five™ © (or the humanitarian extension Power Group™ ©) licensing is appropriate – even where fees are remitted or adjusted under humanitarian provisions.

Partial mirroring check (cross-sector & multi-agency): Where different departments or organisations say they are using a “shared” or “common” five-stage governance framework to coordinate decisions, that framework should have a clearly documented origin. If, in practice, it mirrors Governance Five™ ©, licensing is a governance issue – not a political one – and should be addressed transparently.

6. Audit, assurance and evidence-based governance

Audit and assurance teams sometimes adopt governance frameworks to assess “how decisions were made”. If they use Governance Five™ © as that method, licensing applies – even if the client is not yet licensed.

Example 1 – ESG and sustainability assurance

An assurance team uses the Governance Five™ © stages to structure their review of ESG and public-value claims for a listed entity under IFRS S1/S2-aligned frameworks. They map board decisions, stakeholder input and delivery outcomes through the five stages.

In this case, the assurance firm is using a licensable method. If the firm markets this as a repeatable governance framework, not just a one-off mental model, a licence and clear attribution are expected.

Example 2 – Internal audit methodology

An internal audit function redesigns its methodology and adopts Governance Five™ © as the reference structure for testing governance and participation. Even if they don’t show the diagrams in the report, using the method systematically can trigger licensing.

Example 3 – Supreme audit institution or national audit office

A national audit office adopts a staged framework to review value-for-money in social programs and sovereign-capability investments. If that staged framework is drawn from Governance Five™ ©, a licence would respect method-origin while remaining independent and non-political.

Partial mirroring check (audit & assurance): Audit and assurance tools sometimes embed Governance Five™ © logic “inside the methodology” without naming it. If checklists, work programs or review templates are structured around a five-stage reasoning model consistent with Governance Five™ ©, licensing should be considered at the firm or methodology-owner level, even when individual reports do not show the full framework.

7. Multi-stakeholder groups and participation structures

Wherever multiple stakeholder groups are brought into a structured process to shape decisions, there is a risk that a licensable governance method is in use – even if it is rebranded.

Example 1 – Advisory panels and citizen assemblies

Citizen assemblies or advisory panels often follow “set rules, engage, deliberate, decide, review”. If the specific structure and tools are taken from Governance Five™ © materials, licensing is appropriate.

Example 2 – Industry roundtables and supply-chain councils

A supply-chain council uses a Governance Five™ ©-style framework to balance supplier interests, labour standards and sustainability outcomes. It becomes the default method for decision-making. This is licensed framework use.

Example 3 – Professional or faith-based institutional forums

Large institutions (including religious or professional bodies) may use staged governance to coordinate programs, investments or community work. Where the stages and logic match Governance Five™ ©, licensing is expected – regardless of geography or ideology.

Example 4 – Religious institutions, interfaith councils and royal / monarch-related foundations

A large religious institution, interfaith council, or royal/monarch-linked foundation adopts a common staged governance framework to coordinate:

• ethical principles, safeguarding, public commitments and funding rules (Govern)
• dialogue with communities, faith leaders, civil society and youth (Engage)
• needs assessments, risk information and program proposals across regions (Aggregate)
• allocation of grants, social investments and symbolic support (Deliver)
• reflection on impact, reconciliation outcomes and trust-building over time (Evolve)

Where this five-stage structure substantially mirrors Governance Five™ © – especially if used to support claims of “unique” or “proprietary” governance in public statements, websites or reports – a licence respects method-origin while remaining neutral to belief, doctrine or political structure. The Framework is non-ideological; it only addresses the governance method.

Institution definition reminder: for licensing, “institution” includes governments at all levels, public authorities, universities, charities, NGOs, religious or faith-based bodies, monarchs and royal households, and community groups. Licensing clarifies where a shared staged method is in use, not the content of beliefs or policies.

Partial mirroring check (multi-stakeholder & institutional forums): Where a council, board or foundation states that “all our committees use the same five-stage framework” to guide decisions, the origin of that framework should be clear. If the stages and logic effectively match Governance Five™ ©, licensing is a method-origin and integrity question – not a judgement on faith, ideology or policy content.

8. Institutional or enterprise decision-making

Enterprises, councils, universities and institutions often adopt “house frameworks” to show boards and regulators how they govern complex decisions. These structures are increasingly relevant under IFRS S1/S2 governance and risk expectations.

Example 1 – Enterprise-wide governance method

A group of companies uses a five-stage governance system across all major decisions, including ESG and community commitments. If that system is derived from Governance Five™ © – or described using its stages – a licence is appropriate.

Example 2 – University-wide engagement and impact framework

A university uses a Governance Five™ ©-style framework to coordinate research impact, community programs and partnerships, then uses that framework in rankings or reporting. Licensing respects method-origin and clarifies boundaries.

Example 3 – Institutional investment and stewardship approaches

An asset owner promotes a “five-stage stewardship and engagement method” used across portfolios. If it mirrors Governance Five™ © and is positioned as proprietary, a licence or written arrangement should be considered.

Partial mirroring check (enterprise & institutional decision-making): Internal “house frameworks” can still rely on external, licensable method-origin. If a group-wide model is effectively the same as Governance Five™ © – regardless of branding – licensing should be reviewed. This is not about catching people out, but ensuring that governance claims are honest about where their underlying method came from.

When licensing may not apply – independently authored methods

Licensing is not about claiming ownership of “having a process” or “using steps”. It is about protecting a specific, authored system with public-record origins and traceable IP.

Your organisation may not require a Governance Five™ © licence where:

• you use generic project-management, risk or policy cycles (e.g. plan–do–check–act) without adopting Governance Five™ © stages
• you can clearly evidence a different governance method authored independently, with documented pre-2010 origins
• your framework does not use Governance Five™ © marks, diagrams, language or staged logic – and is not represented as doing so

Where there is any doubt, organisations are encouraged to: seek independent legal advice, review method history and, if needed, contact the Governance Five™ © Custodian for general clarification. Licensing decisions remain your responsibility.

If you feel uneasy about conduct, reporting or governance behaviour

Sometimes people reading this page may feel uncomfortable about how their organisation – or an organisation they observe – is using governance frameworks, making claims, or preparing reports. This can include employees, contractors, suppliers, volunteers, community members, customers, investors or any member of the public.

Feeling uneasy does not automatically mean anyone has broken the law or misused Governance Five™ ©. Often it simply reflects uncertainty about:

• whether the governance method being used has a clear, lawful and independently authored origin
• whether public or ESG-style claims are supported by transparent, evidence-based reasoning
• whether reporting keeps pace with 2025 expectations (for example under ASIC, IFRS S1/S2 or OECD principles)

It is reasonable for members of the public to feel uneasy because governance frameworks and staged “impact journeys” can affect:

• trust and confidence in institutions, councils, agencies and companies
• fairness and inclusion in how decisions are made and who is invited to participate
• public spending and charges – for example, rates, tariffs, fees, services and “community benefit” programs
• ESG, social-value and impact claims used in public communication and investor material
• environmental and energy-transition decisions that shape local communities and regions
• how vulnerable people or communities are represented in reports and public statements
• ethics, integrity and values – whether claims “match” what people experience on the ground

Not holding a Governance Five™ © licence, by itself, is not a finding of misconduct. Organisations may use other independently authored methods. Concerns arise where governance frameworks or public claims appear misleading, misrepresent method-origin, or rely on licensed systems without attribution or permission – especially where this affects public trust, ethics, values or the way lawfulness is understood by the community.

It is also important to understand that it is not only employees who may raise concerns with regulators. Depending on the rules in each jurisdiction, concerns may be raised by:

• employees, contractors, temporary staff and volunteers
• suppliers, service providers and professional advisors
• investors, customers, members and beneficiaries
• community members and other people who observe public-facing governance and reporting behaviour

This reflects the reality that public-value, ESG and impact claims can influence financial decisions, community expectations and public confidence – even where a person is not directly employed by the organisation.

• Governance Five™ © / Power Group Purchasing™ © cannot investigate or resolve complaints.
• The Custodian does not act as a regulator, whistleblower channel, legal advisor or enforcement body.
• This page does not tell anyone to make or not make a complaint. It is general context only.

If your concern is specifically about whether a staged framework appears to align with Governance Five™ © or whether licensing might be relevant, you may raise questions with your own governance, audit or legal teams. Any decision to seek advice, escalate concerns or make a report should be taken independently and, where appropriate, with professional legal guidance.

If you are concerned that conduct may be unlawful, misleading or inconsistent with professional or regulatory obligations, you may wish to consider the appropriate channels in your jurisdiction, such as:

Australia (examples only)

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) – reporting corporate and financial misconduct:
  Make a report of misconduct to ASIC
• ASIC – whistleblower information (rights and protections):
  ASIC whistleblower information
• Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) – for certain financial disputes:
  Australian Financial Complaints Authority

Other jurisdictions (illustrative examples only)

• United States – Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – tips, complaints and whistleblower information:
  SEC Tips, Complaints and Referrals (TCR)
• United Kingdom – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – whistleblowing and reporting wrongdoing:
  FCA whistleblowing information
• European Union – sustainability and reporting rules (including CSRD) are overseen by EU institutions and national regulators. Citizens and professionals typically raise concerns through their national securities regulator, audit oversight body, ombudsman or professional association.

The links above are examples only and may not be complete or up to date. Always check the latest guidance from your own regulator, professional body, union, employer policies and independent legal advisors.
Nothing on this page is legal, financial, whistleblower or professional advice, and no relationship is created by reading it.