1. Purpose
Comparative insight should support learning and investment—not create misleading precision, reputational harm or incentives to game self-reported scores.
2. Consent
i5 Benchmark will not publish an organisation’s identifiable score, position or response details without explicit, informed and documented consent covering the intended publication.
3. Initial benchmark basis
The initial assessment is normative. It is not calibrated against an undisclosed peer dataset. A maturity score must not be described as a percentile or market rank unless a disclosed and methodologically appropriate comparison dataset exists.
4. Illustrative data
Sample rankings must be clearly labelled “illustrative”, “fictional” or “demo only”. They must not use names likely to be mistaken for participating organisations.
5. Conditions for future ranking
- Defined cohort, scope, period and inclusion criteria.
- Sufficient sample size and disclosure of material limitations.
- Comparable assessment versions and scoring methods.
- Context for sector, scale, geography and evidence confidence.
- Quality checks and a correction or appeal pathway.
- Consent appropriate to identifiable publication.
6. Preferred reporting
Where possible, use bands, distributions, anonymised aggregates and progress over time rather than simplistic league tables. Avoid ranking cohorts too small to protect confidentiality.
7. Changes and corrections
Published comparative outputs should state their version and date. Material errors should be corrected transparently, with affected participants notified where appropriate.
8. Prohibited presentation
Comparisons must not imply certification, legal compliance, EU endorsement, official standard status or superiority beyond what the disclosed method and data support.