Board self-assessment published
Evaluating board governance, this metric assesses whether the board conducts an annual effectiveness self-assessment and transparently publishes a summary of the methodology, participation, key findings, and agreed improvement actions. It emphasises muḥāsabah (self-accountability), shūrā (consultative governance), and itqān (continuous improvement/proficiency), demonstrating stewardship (amānah) through learning, transparency, and fairness. By institutionalising these practices, the board upholds the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (objectives of Islamic law), specifically ensuring ḥifẓ al-māl (preservation of wealth) and reinforcing stakeholder trust through rigorous, ethical self-evaluation.
- Does the board conduct a formal effectiveness evaluation at least annually (scope, methodology, participation)?
- Is there a documented action plan with owners, timelines, and resources, and is progress reviewed by the board?
- Was the summary published within the stated timeframe (e.g., 60 days/TAR) and what components were included?
- How are GDPR/data protection controls assured (privacy notice, retention schedule, redaction protocol, lawful basis)?
- What % of prior-year actions were completed, and how are findings linked to risk, succession, and training?
- Board-approved evaluation methodology/tools (survey, interview guide, skills matrix)
- Trustee privacy notice for evaluation and data retention schedule excerpt
- Latest board evaluation report and board minutes approving findings and action plan
- Published summary (Trustees’ Annual Report extract and website URL/screenshot with date)
- Action plan with owners/timelines and a tracker showing progress vs prior year
- GDPR artefacts: lawful basis note, redaction log/rationale, and publication sign-off
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Annual evaluation is robust and periodically externally facilitated (≥ every 3 years); published summary includes methodology, participation, strengths, material gaps, actions with owners/timelines; GDPR controls evidenced; prior-year actions and improvements reported; linked to risk/training. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Annual evaluation (internal); published summary covers most components within defined timeframe; GDPR safeguards evident; actions tracked with partial progress reporting. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Evaluation conducted; limited or late publication (e.g., only high-level findings); weak linkage to actions or GDPR controls. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Irregular or ad-hoc evaluation; little/no publication; no action tracking. |
| 1 | 1/5 | No board evaluation. |
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.