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.
| Metric | Board evaluation publication completeness |
|---|---|
| Target | ≥80% |
| Frequency | Annual |
| Method | (Components published ÷ 5) × 100. Components: methodology, participation, strengths, gaps, actions (w/ owners & timelines). Target: 100% published within 60 days of approval. |
| Unit | Percentage |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
No formal board effectiveness evaluation is conducted and no summary is published.
Level 2: Developing
Ad-hoc or irregular board reflection occurs (e.g., occasional discussion), but there is no documented methodology, no action plan, and no public reporting.
Level 3: Established
Annual board evaluation is conducted using a basic documented tool (e.g., survey or checklist). Findings are minuted and an internal action list exists, but public disclosure is limited, high-level, or late.
Level 4: Advanced
Annual evaluation uses a mixed methodology (skills/behaviours matrix + survey/interviews). An action plan has owners and timelines; progress is reviewed at least once mid-cycle. A public summary is published in the Trustees’ Annual Report and website covering most required components.
Level 5: Optimizing
Annual evaluation is robust and periodically externally facilitated (e.g., every 3 years). Public summary includes methodology, participation, strengths, material gaps, and actions with owners/timelines; GDPR controls are evidenced. Prior-year actions and measurable governance improvements are reported and linked to risk, succession, and training budgets.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Formal documented evaluations and public reporting are entirely disproportionate for volunteer-run micro charities. |
| Small | optional | Informal board reflection is good practice, but formal methodologies, action plans, and public TAR disclosures are not expected. |
| Medium | partial | Should conduct annual self-assessments and maintain internal action plans, but full public disclosure of material gaps on the website can be scaled down. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- Organization has a formal board or governing body and produces a Trustees’/Annual Report.
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.