Annual institutional review
The annual institutional review is where The Global Risks Forum (GRF) is designed to account for its year: what it convened, what it decided within its instruments, what it published, what went wrong and what it changed as a result. A review is published only once the year it covers has a record and the review has been approved. No annual review has been released yet. This page sets out what each review will contain, so that participants and the public can hold GRF to it.
- 01In briefThe short answer
- 02ContentsWhat each review is designed to report
- 03Reporting modelReporting borrowed from public-sector practice
- 04Negative resultsReporting what did not work
- 05StandardA review that is useful because it is honest
- 06Relationship to other reportsOne review per institution
- 07Key termsTerms used on this page
GRF · Institution · service level R0
The short answer.
The GRF annual institutional review is the Forum's yearly account of what it convened, what it decided within its instruments, what it published, what went wrong and what it changed as a result. A review is published only once its year has a record and the review is approved; none has been released yet.
Mandate to authority.
Fig.How the platform is governed, from its mandate to the authorities who decide. Design, not a record.
Jurisdictions in the Zambezi Basin.
The jurisdictions that hold authority over this question: countries, their first-level divisions and capitals, shown for the Zambezi Basin as an example geography for this subject.
What each review is designed to report.
- 01
Activity
Dialogues, council sessions and programme decisions taken in the year, each linked to its record.
- 02
Nexus Universe governance
Gate decisions recorded within GRF's instruments, including any gate not passed and why.
- 03
Publications and corrections
What GRF published, and every correction issued, with the version it replaced.
- 04
Mistakes and corrective learning
Where GRF fell short of its own rules, what was done about it and what changes next year.
- 05
Concerns and complaints
How many routes were used and how cases were resolved, in a form that protects the people involved.
- 06
Support received
Hosts, sponsors and supporters, named only with permission and a current record, with the safeguards applied.
Reporting borrowed from public-sector practice.
An annual review works best when it reads like a public body's annual report rather than a brochure: activities against stated objectives, resources used, risks that materialised, complaints and corrections, and changes made in response. Integrated reporting practice adds the link between those parts, so that a reader can see how resources turned into outputs.
| Section | Evidence behind it |
|---|---|
| Activities against objectives | Event and dialogue records |
| Decisions within GRF's instruments | Decision records of the responsible organs |
| Complaints and corrections | Correction and concern logs, anonymised |
| Finances | Accounts under Swiss law |
| What changed | Amended rules with dates |
Reporting what did not work.
A review that lists only successes teaches nothing. GRF's review is designed to include dialogues that failed to produce a record, exercises that were stood down and commitments that lapsed, with what GRF changed as a result.
A review that is useful because it is honest.
Every claim traceable
Each statement in a review is designed to point to the record it rests on.
Shortfalls included
A review that reports only achievements is incomplete; adverse findings are kept.
No inflated figures
Counts are reported only where a record supports them, and never as impact without evidence.
One review per institution.
Each pillar institution publishes its own review. The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) publishes on GCRI's institutional annual review and The Global Risks Alliance (GRA) on GRA's institutional annual review. Programme findings appear in the Nexus Reports programme, to which GRF contributes as described on Reports and publications relationship.
Statutory financial reporting of the association follows Swiss law and its articles of association. It is distinct from this programme review and is described only from the association's own records.
Terms used on this page.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Annual review | A yearly public record of an institution's activities, governance changes, corrections and status, published with its dates and evidence. |
| Public accountability | The obligation of an institution to explain and justify its conduct to the public and to bodies that can question it, and to face consequences, as the OECD frames accountability in governance. |
| Lessons learned | Documented knowledge from experience, positive or negative, recorded to change future practice. |
Where this page's references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
When will the first review be published?
Will the review include mistakes?
Can I challenge something in a review?
Around GRF.
Start with an enquiry.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.