The hardest part of a board review is not collecting the responses. It is writing the document the chair reads. This board effectiveness review report template sets out the full structure, with model wording for each section, a worked findings example and action plan, and the annual report disclosure that has to follow it.
What goes in a board effectiveness review report?
A board review report has eight parts: an executive summary, the scope and method, participation, findings against the board, its committees, the chair and individual directors, cross-cutting themes, prioritised recommendations, an action plan with owners and dates, and appendices holding the instrument and the response data. Everything else is commentary.
Who this applies to
The person drafting the report: a company secretary writing up an internal round, a governance lead turning a facilitator's findings into a board paper, or a chair reviewing a draft before the nomination committee sees it. It applies equally under the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Charity Governance Code and the well-led framework.
If you have not yet run the fieldwork, start with the board effectiveness review questionnaire template and our guide to running the annual board performance review. This piece picks up where the responses land.
What the board needs to decide
- Who receives the full report and who receives a summary. Individual director findings rarely go to the whole board.
- Whether ratings are reported as averages, as distributions, or both. A mean of 3.4 hides a board split between 5s and 2s; the spread is usually the finding.
- How many recommendations the board will accept. Twenty is a report nobody acts on. Six with named owners is a plan.
- Who owns each action, and by when. Provision 22 puts acting on the results with the chair, so blank owners default the follow-through to one person.
- Where the responses are kept, and for how long. Comparability across cycles depends on holding the instrument and the raw data.
The board effectiveness review report template, section by section
Copy the structure below. The model wording in each row is a starting sentence, not a formula: replace the bracketed text and cut anything the round did not actually cover.
| Section | What it contains | Length |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Executive summary | The three to five findings that matter, the direction of travel since the last round, and the recommendations the chair is asked to accept | 1 to 2 pages |
| 2. Scope and method | The lenses covered, the instrument, whether the round was internal or externally facilitated, the reviewer's identity and connections, fieldwork dates | 1 page |
| 3. Participation | Who was invited, who responded, the response rate, and any interviews or observation | Half a page |
| 4. Findings by lens | Board, committees, chair, individual directors: ratings with spread, supporting comment, change since the last cycle | 4 to 8 pages |
| 5. Cross-cutting themes | Three to five themes appearing across more than one lens | 1 to 2 pages |
| 6. Recommendations | Prioritised, each traced to a finding | 1 to 2 pages |
| 7. Action plan | Action, owner, target date, evidence of completion, review point | 1 page, as a table |
| 8. Appendices | The instrument, question-level results, the interview protocol, and last cycle's action plan with its closing position | As needed |
1. Executive summary
Model opening: "The [year] review of the board, its committees, the chair and individual directors was conducted between [date] and [date] by [internal / external reviewer]. [Number] of [number] directors participated. The board is operating effectively against the four areas reviewed. Three matters require attention this year: [theme one], [theme two] and [theme three]. Six recommendations follow at section 6."
Say the direction of travel plainly. "Information quality has improved since [year]; time on strategy has not" is a finding. "The board continues to demonstrate a commitment to effectiveness" is not.
2. Scope and method
Model wording: "The review covered the board as a whole, the [audit / remuneration / nomination] committees, the performance of the chair, and the contribution of each individual director. It was conducted [internally by the company secretary / by an external reviewer, [name]]. [Reviewer] has no other connection with the company or with individual directors, other than [state any, or 'none']. The method comprised an online questionnaire of [number] questions, [number] interviews of [duration], and observation of the board meeting on [date]."
The connection statement belongs here because Provision 21 requires the external reviewer to be identified in the annual report with a statement about any other connection. Drafting it now makes the annual report sentence a lift. If you are still choosing between an internal and an external round, our comparison of internal and external board effectiveness reviews sets out the thresholds.
3. Participation
Model wording: "All [number] directors were invited. [Number] completed the questionnaire, a response rate of [X]%. [Number] attended an interview. The company secretary and [named attendees] responded as regular attendees; their answers are reported at appendix [X] and excluded from the board averages."
Report the rate even at 100%, because next year needs the comparison. Below 100%, say so without naming who did not respond.
4. Findings by lens
Each of the four lenses gets the same shape, in the same order: the mean score per theme on the scale used; the spread, as a range or a count at each point; this year's mean beside the last comparable round's; two or three anonymised quotations; and one or two sentences of the reviewer's own judgement, which is the part a questionnaire cannot produce.
The individual director lens is the one most often softened into uselessness. Report it at the level agreed at the outset: usually a private note to the chair per director, with aggregate observations only in the main report. Our guide to non-executive director appraisals covers the wording.
5. Cross-cutting themes and 6. Recommendations
Themes are where a report earns its fee. That the audit committee is short of time and the board is short of time on strategy is two findings. Naming the shared cause, an agenda that has grown 40% in three years, is a theme. Each recommendation then carries three things: itself, the finding it comes from, and a priority, numbered so the action plan can reference it.
7. Action plan and 8. Appendices
Owner and date are mandatory fields in the action plan; an action with neither is a sentiment. The appendices hold the instrument, question-level results, the interview protocol and last cycle's plan, each item marked closed, in progress or superseded. Closing the previous plan inside this year's report is the cheapest evidence of follow-through you will produce.
A worked example: findings and action plan
The extract below is anonymised and illustrative, drawn from the shape of a typical mid-cap round rather than any one organisation. A five-point scale is used, 5 being "strongly agree".
Extract from section 4.1, the board as a whole: strategy and time allocation
| Theme | Mean 2026 | Mean 2025 | Spread 2026 | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The board spends enough time on strategy | 2.8 | 3.1 | 1 to 5 | Down |
| Board papers arrive early enough to be read properly | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3 to 5 | Up |
| Papers are the right length for the decision asked | 2.6 | 2.7 | 1 to 4 | Flat |
| Debate is genuinely open before a decision is taken | 4.3 | 4.2 | 3 to 5 | Flat |
Strategy time has fallen for a second year, and the spread of 1 to 5 is the more significant number: three directors rated it 2 or below and two rated it 5. The split follows tenure, suggesting the difference lies in what each group counts as a strategy discussion rather than in the calendar. Paper length shows the clearest settled dissatisfaction, at 2.6 with no improvement despite better circulation timing. One director commented: "The papers arrive on time now, which I appreciate. They are still 180 pages, and I could not tell you which decision half of them support."
Extract from section 7, the action plan
| No. | Action | Owner | Target date | Evidence of completion | Review point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Two half-day strategy sessions outside the normal board calendar, with an agreed definition of a strategy item | Chair, with company secretary | 31 January 2027 | Dates in the 2027 calendar; note defining strategy items | March 2027 board |
| R2 | Board paper template revised to a two-page cover setting out the decision, options and recommendation, detail moved to annexes | Company secretary | 30 November 2026 | Revised template issued; first pack using it | February 2027 board |
| R3 | Audit committee agenda rebalanced, two standing items moved to an annual cycle | Audit committee chair | 31 December 2026 | Revised committee forward agenda | Audit committee, March 2027 |
| R4 | Induction extended to include a strategy briefing for directors appointed since 2022 | Chair, with chief executive | 28 February 2027 | Briefing held; attendance recorded | March 2027 board |
| R5 | Nomination committee to consider tenure profile alongside the skills matrix | Nomination committee chair | 31 March 2027 | Minute of the discussion; updated skills matrix | May 2027 board |
| R6 | Progress against R1 to R5 reported to the board as a standing item | Company secretary | Ongoing | Standing agenda item minuted quarterly | Each board meeting |
Six actions, each traceable to a finding, each with an owner and a date. That table is what the chair returns to in March, and what next year's report opens against.
What does Provision 23 require the annual report to say?
Provision 23 of the UK Corporate Governance Code 2024 requires the annual report to describe the work of the nomination committee, including how the board performance review was conducted, the nature and extent of an external reviewer's contact with the board and individual directors, the outcomes and actions taken, and how it has or will influence future board composition.
Quoted verbatim from the FRC's UK Corporate Governance Code 2024 (checked on 4 September 2026), Provision 23 reads: "The annual report should describe the work of the nomination committee, including:
- the process used in relation to appointments, its approach to succession planning and how both support developing a diverse pipeline;
- how the board performance review has been conducted, the nature and extent of an external reviewer's contact with the board and individual directors, the outcomes and actions taken, and how it has or will influence future board composition;
- the policy and any initiatives on diversity and inclusion, their objectives and link to company strategy, how they have been implemented and progress on achieving the objectives; and
- the gender balance of those in the senior management and their direct reports."
Provision 21, which generates the report in the first place, reads: "There should be a formal and rigorous annual review of the performance of the board, its committees, the chair and individual directors. The chair should commission a regular externally facilitated board performance review. In FTSE 350 companies this should happen at least every three years. The external reviewer should be identified in the annual report and a statement made about any other connection it has with the company or individual directors."
The 2024 Code applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2025, so for a December year end the first annual report under this wording is published in 2026. Note what the second bullet does not ask for: scores, individual director findings, or the report itself.
Model disclosure: an internally conducted year
Illustrative only, to be adapted to your own round:
"The 2026 review of board performance was conducted internally by the company secretary, under the direction of the chair. It covered the board, its three committees, the chair's performance and each individual director's contribution. The method comprised a questionnaire completed by all ten directors, followed by discussions between the chair and each director, and between the senior independent director and the chair.
The review found the board operating effectively, with information quality materially improved since 2025. Two matters were identified for action: the time available for strategic discussion, and the length of board papers relative to the decisions they support. Six actions were agreed, with owners and target dates, and progress is reported quarterly. The committee has factored the board's tenure profile into succession planning for 2027."
Model disclosure: an externally facilitated year
"The 2026 review of board performance was externally facilitated by [reviewer name], which has no other connection with the company or with any individual director. [Or: [Reviewer] also provided [service] during the year; the committee considered this connection and concluded it did not affect the independence of the review, because [reasons].]
The reviewer observed two board meetings and one meeting of each committee, interviewed each of the ten directors for approximately one hour, and issued a questionnaire completed by all directors. Findings were presented to the board on [date]. The review concluded that the board is operating effectively and identified [number] areas for improvement, the most significant being [theme] and [theme]. The board accepted all [number] recommendations; [action] and [action] are complete and the remainder are scheduled for [date]. The committee has reflected the observations on [tenure / skills / committee load] in its succession planning."
What not to disclose
| Do not publish | Why | What to publish instead |
|---|---|---|
| Individual director scores or comments | Attribution is often obvious on a small board, and it destroys candour next cycle | That individual performance was reviewed, and by whom |
| Detailed findings about the chair | The senior independent director's process is confidential by design | That the chair was reviewed, led by the senior independent director |
| A bare statement that the review was "positive" | Provision 23 asks for outcomes and actions; an adjective supplies neither | The specific outcomes and actions taken |
How the report changes in charities and the NHS
The structure transfers almost unchanged. What gets rewritten is the scope section, the framework references and the disclosure.
Charities. The Charity Governance Code sets board effectiveness as its eighth principle, on an apply or explain basis. Its practice guidance expects agreed processes for reviewing the board (ideally annually), the chair and individual trustees, and for the charity to explain its board evaluation process in the trustees' annual report. For charities the Code classes as large, it expects an external evaluation every three years, including the board's approach to equity, diversity and inclusion. Compliance is not a regulatory requirement, so that annual report explanation carries the accountability Provision 23 carries for a listed company. (Checked on 4 September 2026.)
NHS provider trusts. The report sits inside the well-led framework rather than a code provision. NHS England's well-led framework sets the eight key lines of enquiry a trust self-assesses against, and the insightful provider board treats an independently facilitated developmental review every three to five years as good practice. Structure the findings around the key lines of enquiry rather than the four Code lenses; leave the action plan unchanged.
Common mistakes in board review reports
Writing the executive summary first. It reads like an abstract of a report not yet written, because it is. Draft it after the action plan.
Recommendations with no owner. Provision 22 puts acting on the results with the chair, so a blank owner column quietly assigns every item to one person and produces no progress.
Drafting the Provision 23 disclosure from memory. By the time the annual report is written, the fieldwork is months old. Draft the paragraph as an annexe to the review report and hand it to the reporting team.
Treating the report as the end of the process. It is the input to the action plan, and the plan is the input to next year's report.
Where BoardServe fits
If you want the instrument, the responses, the ratings and the action plan held in one place across cycles rather than reassembled from spreadsheets each year, our board effectiveness reviews page sets out what BoardServe covers: board, committee, chair and individual director reviews, findings carried into a tracked action plan, and a time-stamped record behind every figure in the report.
This page is maintained as an annual update: we re-check the Code provisions and every sector citation when the FRC, the Charity Governance Code steering group or NHS England revise their guidance.
FAQ
How long should a board effectiveness review report be?
Between 15 and 30 pages including appendices, with the main body at about 12 to 20. Longer is usually reporting the questionnaire rather than the findings; much shorter has probably skipped the committee or individual director lenses.
Who should see the full report?
The chair and the nomination committee see the full report. The board sees it minus individual director findings, which go to the chair alone as a private note per director. The senior independent director holds the chair's own findings. Agree the distribution at scoping stage and say so in the instrument.
Does the report itself have to be published?
No. Neither the UK Corporate Governance Code nor the Charity Governance Code requires the report to be published. Provision 23 requires the annual report to describe how the review was conducted, the extent of an external reviewer's contact, the outcomes and actions taken, and the influence on future composition. That is drafted from the report, not the report itself.
What is the difference between the findings and the recommendations?
A finding is what the evidence shows: a score, a spread, a pattern in the comments, an observation from an interview. A recommendation is what the board should do about it. Every recommendation cites the finding it comes from by section number, and a finding that generates none says so plainly.