Public Claims Integrity Reflection Tool (Informational)

For the purposes of this tool, public claims include any statements made by or on behalf of an organisation that are reasonably accessible to people outside the immediate internal team, such as:

• Annual reports, ESG or sustainability reports, impact statements and policy documents.
• Media releases, speeches, interviews, conference presentations and social media posts.
• Tender responses, grant applications and funding submissions that describe capability or methods.
• Websites, brochures and marketing materials that promote programs, frameworks or systems.

For this page, integrity of public claims refers to:

• Consistency between what is said and what can be shown in governance structure and evidence.
• Appropriate attribution and licensing where methods, systems or frameworks are referenced.
• Honest recognition of limits, uncertainties and work-in-progress, not just strengths.
• Respect for communities, partners and stakeholders affected by the claims.

These working descriptions are provided for internal reflection only. They do not override statutory, regulatory or professional definitions used by authorities, courts or assurance bodies in any jurisdiction.

In many sectors and regions, expectations are shifting from “say the right things” towards “show the structure that supports those things”. This is especially true where claims relate to:

• Environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.
• Social value, community uplift, reconciliation or impact.
• Sovereign capability, national resilience or critical infrastructure.
• Safety, risk management, integrity and anti-corruption measures.

Traceability helps organisations demonstrate that:

• Claims are linked to a clear authorising environment and governance structure.
• Participation, evidence and delivery can be followed and tested, not inferred.
• Attribution and licensing are handled lawfully where specific methods or systems are relied upon.

This tool does not decide whether a claim is acceptable. It simply helps organisations check whether claims are grounded in a traceable, lawful structure rather than assumption, optimism or marketing alone, in whatever jurisdiction they operate.

Organisations may choose to apply an informal Green / Amber / Red lens to their public claims, as an internal discussion aid only:

This lens is for internal reflection only. It does not create scores, ratings or labels for external use.

The prompts below can be applied to any public claim – a sentence, paragraph, slide or whole document. They are not exhaustive; organisations may add their own questions and adapt wording to their cultural, legal and sector context.

4.1 Mandates and authorising environment

• Does this claim reflect a decision or position that has been clearly authorised by the appropriate body?
• Can we show where that authorisation sits – for example, in a board resolution, policy, charter or delegated authority?
• Are we clear whether the claim is a current fact, a commitment, a target, or an aspiration – and is that distinction evident in the wording?

4.2 Evidence, data and stories

• What evidence, data or case material do we rely on to support this claim?
• Has that evidence been checked, challenged or contextualised, or are we repeating inherited narratives?
• Where we use individual stories or examples, have we been clear that they are illustrative and not necessarily representative of all outcomes?

4.3 Frameworks, methods and systems

• Are we naming or implying that we use a particular framework, method or system (for example a governance framework, impact model or participation structure)?
• If so, can we show how that method actually operates internally, not just as a label?
• Where our claims closely resemble public record examples of Governance Five™ © or other named systems, have we considered whether attribution or licensing questions arise?

4.4 People, communities and partners

• How would the people, communities, partners or staff affected by this claim experience it? Would they recognise their reality in our wording?
• Have we avoided over-claiming credit for work that is shared with communities, suppliers, governments or other organisations?
• Are any risks of harm, misunderstanding or disappointment being acknowledged and managed, or left unsaid?

4.5 Timeframes and change

• Is it clear whether we are talking about the past, present or future – and have we avoided suggesting that future intentions are already achieved?
• Where circumstances or standards have changed, have we updated or qualified older claims that remain accessible online or in archives?
• Do we have a plan to revisit or retire claims that are no longer accurate?

These reflection areas are for internal use. They are intended to encourage careful, proportionate communication, not to discourage organisations from speaking about their work.

Some organisations may choose to use the five stages of Governance Five™ © as a neutral lens to test whether public claims align with their internal structures:

• Govern: Is there a clear mandate or authorising environment behind the claim?
• Engage: Have affected stakeholders been involved through structured participation, with records?
• Aggregate: Can we assemble a traceable evidence base that supports the claim?
• Deliver: Do implementation, contracts and practice match what is said publicly?
• Evolve: Are we updating our claims in response to incidents, feedback and learning?

Considering these questions does not itself create a licence or obligation. It simply highlights where public claims may benefit from stronger structural support. Any decision to align with or license Governance Five™ © is a separate, internally governed decision.

Where public claims refer to particular frameworks, systems, methodologies or branded approaches, organisations may wish to consider:

• Are we explicitly or implicitly claiming to use a particular governance or participation system (for example, a framework that resembles Governance Five™ ©)?
• If so, have we confirmed whether our use is licensed, independently developed, or based on public domain material that does not require licensing?
• Have we avoided presenting a hybrid or derivative method as if it were the original, where that might cause confusion?
• Where our claims rely on independent pre-2010 provenance of our own method, is that provenance documented and verifiable?
• Do our public documents distinguish clearly between:
  • use of Governance Five™ © or other systems under licence; and
  • general references to governance or participation that are not specific to any licensed framework?

These questions are prompts only. Organisations should seek their own legal and professional advice on intellectual property, licensing and attribution questions within their own legal and regulatory environments.

Some organisations may find it useful to capture reflections on a small number of key claims, using simple headings such as:

• Claim or statement – the specific wording or section.
• Context – where it appears (report, website, speech, tender, submission).
• Structural support – what governance, evidence and participation sit behind it.
• Traffic-light view – internal sense of Green / Amber / Red.
• Possible follow-up – for example clarifying wording, strengthening evidence or seeking advice.

Reflections may then be used to:

• Inform future board, executive or committee discussions.
• Guide updates to policies, frameworks or reporting templates.
• Identify where a single governance system such as Governance Five™ © could reduce duplication.

Any record of reflections should be treated as an internal governance document, not as published assurance. Decisions about change and communication remain with the organisation and its advisors.