Governance behaviour scale

What the model asks

Since behaviour is a matter of judgement, how a behaviour has been measured should be checked with the stakeholder it concerns. Table 3 describes the levels: level 0, the body has not agreed or planned to adopt the principle; level 1 (adoption), there is a plan or commitment to adopt it, but little ability to say why it matters; level 2 (understanding), it has been adopted and there is a clear reason for it, but little grasp of the way the principle is put into practice now or will be later; level 3 (application), the body has experience of applying the principle and can say how it went about it, but has no plan to judge effectiveness and governance is thinly resourced; level 4 (analysis), the effectiveness of the practices is judged against leading practice or against views on the outcomes reached, and resources are available, though improvement programmes or stakeholder feedback are limited; level 5 (evaluation and creation), there is a clear commitment to finding out how stakeholders see the body's governance, backed by action, and the body can explain how it plans and carries out corrective action and improvement.

What it means when one board controls another

Behaviour ratings in a group should be confirmed with the people whose behaviour is being rated, and that includes the entity board, not only the controller. A rating of an entity board taken without speaking to it is the most common source of a contested result.

Evidence an evaluator asks for

A maturity rating is a claim about how the group governs. The evidence is what proves it operated. Keep both, and keep them together.

• Behaviour scale: Behaviour ratings per principle with confirmation from the stakeholder rated

Where evaluations commonly find gaps

• Behaviour rated without confirming the interpretation with the governing body

How this requirement enters the rating

This unit governs the instrument. The scale must be fixed before the ratings, the level labels must be the published ones, and the aspect-specific descriptions must be used for the aspect being rated. The six levels are on /scale/.

It carries 1 evidence item and 1 common gap in the model. One item is enough only if it is the artefact that proves the practice operated, not a policy that says it should. The group application on this page is ours; the requirement and evidence are the model's, stated in our own words.

Requirements that sit beside it

• 5.4.1 General: the six-point scale
• 5.4.3 Governance effectiveness scale
• 4.1 General: the purpose of evaluating governance maturity and its three aspects

The three aspects The six-point scale All 35 requirements

Note on the draft: The requirement, evidence and gaps on this page are read from ISO 37004:2023, which the draft states it builds on. The draft's own clause body is not public, so this page does not state it. The clause reference at the top is the draft's public contents heading that this requirement sits under.