Internationalisation and social responsibility: policy and regulatory implications

Failure in relation to the policy position may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include management assurance accepted without testing, governing bodies receiving activity data instead of outcome evidence, corrective action closed without verification, and authority assigned without accountability. For internationalisation and social responsibility, materiality depends on the consequence and extent of an exception, not only on how often it appears in sampled records.

Application to internationalisation and social responsibility

In the context of internationalisation and social responsibility, implementation of internationalisation and social responsibility should be organised around a decision that can be tested.

The stated reference—the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education—establishes the contemporaneous context. Assurance concerning the issue should state the scope examined, evidence relied upon and any condition preventing a complete conclusion. Unsupported elements should remain open.

For implementation, cross-jurisdiction interpretation should distinguish international commitment, regional instrument, national law, regulatory direction and provider policy. For internationalisation and social responsibility, each has a different source of authority and may apply to a different object or person.

• Escalate material exceptions.
• Preserve a traceable decision record, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.
• Define information required for oversight, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.
• Test management assurance.
• Verify corrective action independently.

Controls for internationalisation and social responsibility

In examining internationalisation and social responsibility: policy and regulatory implications, across the defined scope, a policy direction should not be presented as a uniform legal obligation where national implementation differs.

The evidential record for the policy position should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require conflict declarations and controls, independent review records, governing-body papers and decisions, and defined delegations and reserved decisions, supported by public reports reconciled with controlled records and risk and assurance plans.

Review of internationalisation and social responsibility

The method for the policy position is to prepare a jurisdictional register identifying the service, learner location, provider location, responsible authority, applicable instrument and conflict rule. For internationalisation and social responsibility, obtain competent interpretation where the legal position is uncertain and do not resolve uncertainty through promotional wording.

For internationalisation and social responsibility, the implementation record for the measure should identify the instrument being applied, its status, the competent authority, the affected jurisdiction and the action expected of each responsible body. A staged implementation record should set out transition dates, interim safeguards and the readiness review point.

• Who has enforcement authority?
• What is the status of the relevant instrument?
• Do partner arrangements change responsibility?
• How will conflicting requirements be managed?
• Which jurisdiction governs the activity?

Implications for internationalisation and social responsibility

For internationalisation and social responsibility, governing bodies should receive sufficient, reliable and timely information to oversee education quality, learner protection and material institutional risk. Across the defined scope, assurance should follow the learner journey and test more than a single access point or aggregate result.

In the context of internationalisation and social responsibility, progress should not be assessed by the amount of policy or documentation produced.