Integrity you can evidence.
An evidence-based approach to assessing integrity capability, strengthening governance, and supporting practical GRC uplift over time.
Show that it actually works.
Boards are increasingly asked to show their integrity and governance actually work — not just that policies exist. We assess capability against evidence and help you close the gap deliberately.
That means examining what happens in practice when a concern is raised: whether it reaches someone able to act on it, whether it is triaged and recorded, whether the person who looks into it is independent of the conduct, whether conflicts are declared and then followed through, and whether the board sees enough to exercise oversight. A process that exists only in a document leaves no evidence behind, and it is the evidence a board is asked for.
Five things we look at closely.
Reporting and escalation
Responsibility and independence
Triage and closure records
Conflicts of interest
Oversight and lessons
Assess. Prioritise. Strengthen. Sustain.
Assess
We look at how integrity issues are actually reported, triaged, investigated and closed, using the records the organisation already generates — reporting channel logs, case files, conflicts declarations, board and committee papers. We speak to the people who do the work rather than only those who own the policy, because the gap between the two is usually where the exposure sits.
Prioritise
We rank the gaps by consequence and likelihood, not by how easily they are fixed. Each priority comes with the evidence that produced it, so the board can see why one gap sits above another and challenge the reasoning if it wants to.
Strengthen
We set out practical changes proportionate to the size and risk of the organisation — a clearer escalation path, a defined triage record, a workable conflicts process — with proposed owners. The scope of any implementation support is agreed in advance; we are not delivering a compliance program.
Sustain
We identify the evidence the organisation should be able to produce at the next review, and the small number of measures worth tracking in between. The aim is assurance that still holds six months later, rather than a snapshot taken the week of an audit.
What you receive.
Evidence-based findings
What we examined and what the material showed, rather than an impression of maturity.
Priority gaps, with reasoning
The gaps that matter most and why they rank where they do.
A practical roadmap
Proportionate improvements with proposed owners, sized to the organisation.
Evidence for next time
The records and measures that should exist at the following review.
The exact deliverables depend on the scope agreed for the engagement.
Where a review earns its place.
- After an incident, when the board wants to know whether it could happen again unnoticed.
- On a change of leadership, where assumptions about how things are handled have not been tested.
- During growth, when informal arrangements stop scaling.
- Where directors suspect blind spots but have nothing concrete to point at.
- When the board needs something evidenced to rely on, not a reassurance.
It is worth being clear about what this is not. It is not a certification, it is not legal advice, and it is not a guarantee that wrongdoing cannot occur. It is an evidenced read of how your organisation would handle an issue if one arose, and a prioritised view of what to strengthen first.
Investigation, assurance, or ongoing.
An investigation answers a question about something that has, or may have, already happened.
Assurance asks a different question: if something happened, would you find out, and could you show how you handled it.
Where an organisation wants that capability held continuously rather than reviewed periodically, Your Integrity Team provides it as an ongoing engagement. Our fees for organisations set out how each is charged.
Common questions.
We already have policies. Isn't that the same thing?
No. A policy describes the intended process; assurance examines what actually happens when someone raises a concern. We look for the records a working process leaves behind — reports received, how they were triaged, what was decided, and what followed.
Is this useful for a smaller organisation?
Yes. The scope is proportionate to the organisation's size, exposure and existing capability. We assess whether concerns reach an appropriate person, decisions are recorded and action follows. Where ongoing independent support would help, we can discuss Your Integrity Team separately.
What happens if you find a live allegation during a review?
We tell you promptly and stop short of investigating it under the assurance engagement. If it needs to be investigated, that is scoped and agreed separately so the review and the investigation do not compromise each other.
Can reviews be repeated over time?
They can. Where a board wants a recurring read, we agree what evidence should exist by the next review and reassess against it. Organisations wanting the function itself handled continuously use Your Integrity Team instead.
Ready to evidence your integrity capability?
Looking for this on an ongoing basis rather than matter by matter? See your Integrity Team.