Organisational Ethos & Language Review
The board's review of language ensures communications fulfill the amānah of Sidq (truthfulness), Balāgha (clarity), and ‘Adl (justice/balance). This builds stakeholder trust, safeguards reputation, and ensures the organization's public identity authentically reflects its core Islamic ethos. Balāgha entails accessibility and inclusion; the board ensures communications are understandable through plain language and appropriate formats. Tone must reflect Hikmah (wisdom), avoiding harm or polarization. This framework prevents misrepresentation (Ghurūr) and concealment (Tadlīs) while protecting the dignity (Hifz al-‘ird) of beneficiaries.
| Metric | Communications Integrity Index |
|---|---|
| Target | 95% |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Method | Composite score: % staff trained + % high-risk outputs with evidence packs + % readability targets met. |
| Unit | Percentage |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Communication review is informal and reactive. Language is checked for basic errors, but there is no formal process to ensure alignment with the Islamic ethos of Sidq or Balāgha.
Level 2: Developing
The board acknowledges the need for ethical communication. Key public documents are discussed ad-hoc, but there is no risk taxonomy or consistent application of principles.
Level 3: Established
A formal, board-approved communications policy and risk taxonomy are in place. A defined process exists for reviewing major external communications against Sidq and Balāgha.
Level 4: Advanced
The board's review process is integrated into the communications lifecycle with risk-based sampling. Effectiveness is measured through stakeholder feedback and readability metrics. Staff receive regular training.
Level 5: Optimizing
The board proactively leads a culture of Sidq, Balāgha, and ‘Adl. The review process uses data-driven continuous improvement (evidence packs, audits). The organization is an exemplar in ethical, faith-aligned communication.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Highly disproportionate; volunteer groups lack the digital infrastructure and resources for formal WCAG audits or risk taxonomies. |
| Small | exempt | Formal annual assurance reports, RACI matrices, and strict WCAG 2.2 AA compliance are too resource-intensive for small teams. |
| Medium | partial | Basic communications policies and general accessibility efforts apply, but formal risk taxonomies and strict annual WCAG audits should be scaled down. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- Organization is legally constituted
Not Applicable When
- The organization is a passive entity (e.g., a holding company, asset-managing waqf) with no public-facing programs, fundraising, or marketing communications.
- The organization is in a pre-launch, dormant, or winding-down phase and is not issuing any substantive public reports or communications.
- All organizational communications policies and key external messages are mandated and exclusively controlled by a parent or governing body. (Note: Local board must still evidence assurance that parent policies meet these standards).
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.