Accountability · Stage 2

Are you discharging it?

Accountability that exists only on paper is not accountability.

Stage 1 mapped what you are accountable for. This stage tests whether that accountability is being exercised in practice — in decisions, in challenge, in oversight, in the culture the board sets and tolerates. The gap between stated accountability and exercised accountability is where governance fails. Three routes are available. All reach the same place.

How AI works through it with you

What happens when you choose the AI route

Submit your Stage 1 accountability map alongside your completed Stage 2 worksheets. AI reads both, identifies where accountability is being exercised and where it is not, and returns a structured discharge assessment — specific, direct, and ready to act on.

Here is the prompt sequence, in full:

The AI prompt sequence

Read the Stage 1 accountability map and all Stage 2 worksheets in full before drawing any conclusions. Confirm what has been submitted.

The discharge assessment must be grounded in the accountability that was mapped in Stage 1. Without that foundation, the assessment will be generic.

Across the board decision log, what does the pattern of decisions tell you about how accountability is being exercised? Are decisions recorded with their reasoning? Are there decisions that should have been reserved to the board that appear to have been made elsewhere?

The decision log is the primary evidence of accountability in action. Gaps in it are gaps in governance.

Does the delegation framework create a clear and current line between what the board decides and what it delegates? Name any areas where accountability appears to be diffuse or where oversight mechanisms are unclear.

Delegation without oversight is abdication. The framework must make both explicit.

Across the accountability stress test responses, where is accountability being exercised in practice and where is it being assumed? Name the specific areas of gap directly.

Assumed accountability and exercised accountability look the same on paper. The stress test distinguishes them.

Return a structured discharge assessment under two headings: Where accountability is being exercised — with evidence. Where accountability is not being exercised — with the specific gap and what it requires.

This is the foundation for Stage 3. It must be honest enough to build an evidence trail from.

AI works with what it is given. It will not identify what has been omitted from the submission or challenge whether the self-assessments have been completed honestly. For full details of how AI is used in this platform, see our AI & data policy.

Download AI submission template (Word)

Submit your work for AI analysis →

Commission One Degree to work through this with you

Independent assessment of how accountability is actually being exercised

A One Degree consultant reviews the board's decision-making record, delegation framework, and accountability practices — and tells you honestly where accountability is being exercised and where it is not. This is the stage where external challenge is most valuable, because the gaps are hardest to see from inside.

One Degree in the room

Commission One Degree to assess how accountability is being discharged

We review your board's decision log, delegation framework, and accountability practices independently — and return a structured assessment of where accountability is genuinely being exercised and where the gaps are. Direct, evidenced, actionable.

Decision log reviewed for pattern, reasoning, and gaps
Delegation framework tested for clarity and oversight
Accountability stress test facilitated with the full board
Culture and ethics oversight assessed against the IoD Code
Structured output: discharge assessment, gaps identified, actions required

See pricing and options →

Work through it yourself

The same tools — applied with the honesty the role demands

Work through the tools below. The statutory tools test whether legal accountability is being exercised in practice. The conduct tools test whether ethical and cultural accountability is active — not assumed.

The most common finding at this stage is not deliberate failure. It is the gradual drift of accountability from active exercise to comfortable assumption. Name it if you find it.

Statutory accountability

A board decision log records every significant board decision — what was decided, who was present, what information was considered, and the reasoning behind the decision. It is the primary evidence that statutory duties are being discharged. Board minutes that record only outcomes — not reasoning — are a governance liability.

What to assess

Does a decision log or equivalent exist for the last twelve months?
Does it record the reasoning behind decisions — not just the outcome?
Are conflicts of interest noted and managed in the record where relevant?
Are there significant decisions in the period that should be in the log but are not?
Would the log satisfy an external reviewer that statutory duties were being actively discharged?

Download decision log template (Word)

Delegation is not abdication. When the board delegates authority to management or a committee, it retains accountability for the outcome. A delegation framework makes explicit what has been delegated, to whom, with what financial or operational limits, and what reporting and oversight mechanisms ensure the board remains informed and accountable.

What to assess

Is there a current, written delegation framework? Is it known to both the board and the Exec?
Does it specify financial limits — the threshold above which board approval is required?
Are reporting requirements clear — what comes back to the board, how often, and in what format?
Has the delegation framework been tested recently — are there decisions that were made within delegated authority but should have come to the board?

Download delegation framework template (Word)

Provision 29 of the 2024 FRC Corporate Governance Code requires the board to make an explicit declaration on the effectiveness of its risk management and internal control framework — applying to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026. This is not a new burden for well-governed boards. It is a formalisation of accountability that should already exist. For boards where it does not, the declaration requirement is the prompt to build it.

What to assess

Does the board have a current and documented view of its principal risks and how they are being managed?
Is there an internal controls framework — and does the board have evidence of its effectiveness?
Who is responsible for maintaining the framework and reporting on it to the board?
Is the board prepared to make the required declaration — and if not, what needs to change before it can?

Download internal controls assessment (Word)

Conduct accountability

The accountability stress test asks each board member to account — specifically and in writing — for a named decision or outcome from the last twelve months. Not in general terms. For a specific thing that happened. It surfaces, immediately, where accountability is genuinely held and where it has been assumed, diffused, or avoided.

How to run it

Select three to five significant decisions or outcomes from the last twelve months
Ask each board member to write, independently, who was accountable for each — and what evidence of that accountability exists
Compare the responses. Where they diverge, accountability is unclear. Where nobody can point to evidence, it is not being exercised.
The exercise is not about assigning blame. It is about identifying where governance needs to be strengthened.

Download accountability stress test (Word)

The IoD Code of Conduct places responsibility for organisational culture and ethical conduct at board level. This is not a human resources matter. The board is accountable for the culture it sets, the conduct it tolerates, and the values it demonstrates. This review tests whether that accountability is active.

What to assess

Does the board receive regular information about organisational culture — employee voice, conduct data, grievance patterns, exit interview themes?
Has the board explicitly discussed culture in the last twelve months — not as a policy review, but as a substantive governance conversation?
Are the board's own conduct and dynamics consistent with the culture it expects of the organisation?
Is there a mechanism for raising ethical concerns that reaches the board directly — not only through the Exec?

Download culture and ethics review (Word)

Taking this to the Executive Team

The board oversees. The Executive executes. The line must be explicit.

The most common governance failure at this stage is the board receiving information about what the Exec has done and treating that as evidence that accountability has been discharged. It is not. The board's accountability is discharged through challenge, decision, and oversight — not through being kept informed.

The board discharges accountability by

Challenging management's proposals and assumptions
Making decisions within its reserved matters — with recorded reasoning
Actively overseeing what has been delegated — not just receiving reports
Holding the Exec to account for delivery against agreed objectives

The Executive discharges accountability by

Operating within the limits the board has set
Reporting accurately, completely, and in time for the board to act
Escalating decisions that exceed delegated authority
Maintaining the internal controls the board has approved

Where the Exec is not reporting accurately or escalating appropriately, the board's accountability is being undermined. That is a governance matter — not a management one.

← Back to dashboard