Membership Code of Conduct

This Code of Conduct exists to protect trust in the WorkOnward Foundation membership program and to define the standards expected of applicants, supporters, members, assessors, nominees, interview panellists, volunteers, speakers, and invited participants.

It applies across application intake, supporter validation, membership review, interviews, events, online communities, direct messages, email, collaborative documents, and any other official setting where a person is participating through Foundation membership or membership-related authority.

The Code also applies when a member uses Foundation status, post-nominals, or committee authority in a public context in a way that could reasonably affect the Foundation, its participants, or the integrity of its processes.

Applicants and members must present their qualifications truthfully. Employment history, academic records, publications, awards, patents, project leadership, references, and committee experience must not be fabricated, materially exaggerated, or attributed to the wrong person.

Plagiarism, impersonation, ghostwritten supporter responses, fabricated testimonials, undisclosed AI-generated evidence presented as first-hand work, and any other deliberate misrepresentation may lead to denial, suspension, termination, or permanent ineligibility depending on severity.

When a participant becomes aware that a submitted statement is materially inaccurate, the participant is expected to correct the record promptly rather than relying on the Foundation not to notice the error.

Participants must treat one another with professionalism and respect. Harassment, threats, intimidation, stalking, bullying, humiliating behavior, discriminatory exclusion, or hostile conduct toward any person are prohibited.

Disagreement is permitted, but it must be expressed without abuse, personal degradation, retaliatory tactics, or efforts to undermine another person's access to fair participation.

Members are expected to contribute to a culture where applicants and peers from different backgrounds, geographies, and career pathways can engage without fear of ridicule or gatekeeping.

Anyone acting as a supporter, assessor, nominator, interviewer, or committee participant must disclose actual, perceived, or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.

Examples include close personal relationships, active disputes, direct line-management relationships, business dependencies, undisclosed competition, or any circumstance where a reasonable observer would question neutrality.

Where a conflict exists, the Foundation may recuse the individual, seek additional review, or reassign the matter entirely. Failure to disclose a material conflict can itself be treated as a conduct issue.

Application materials, supporter responses, interview notes, scoring sheets, committee discussions, complaint records, and internal decision documents are confidential and must be used only for legitimate Foundation purposes.

Participants must not share private application materials, screenshots, recordings, or confidential emails outside authorized processes except where disclosure is legally required or explicitly authorized by the Foundation.

Committee members and assessors are expected to use reasonable care in handling access credentials, downloaded materials, and stored notes so that private applicant information is not exposed or mishandled.

Membership status, post-nominals, badges, and Foundation affiliations must not be used in misleading ways or in a manner that falsely implies endorsement, licensing authority, employment, certification, or official policy approval.

Doxxing, coordinated pile-ons, misuse of private messages, impersonation, unauthorized recording, publication of confidential internal discussions, and targeted digital harassment are prohibited whether they occur on Foundation systems or external platforms.

Members who speak publicly about Foundation work should distinguish personal opinion from official positions unless they have been expressly authorized to speak on behalf of the organization.

Participants who become aware of serious misconduct, integrity issues, discrimination, or threats to the safety or fairness of Foundation processes are encouraged to report the matter through the published complaint channel or directly to Foundation leadership.

Reports made in good faith are protected. Retaliation, intimidation, reputational threats, or adverse treatment aimed at a reporter, witness, or cooperating participant are separate violations of this Code.

Bad-faith complaints, knowingly false allegations, or manipulative use of the conduct process may also be treated as misconduct.

The Foundation may assess allegations, gather records, request explanations, seek witness statements, and take proportionate action to protect participants and process integrity.

Possible interim and final actions include guidance, warning, requested apology, removal from volunteer or assessor roles, application denial, deferral, suspension, termination of membership, or permanent exclusion from particular Foundation activities.

Enforcement decisions may consider severity, pattern, impact, intent, abuse of authority, cooperation, risk of recurrence, and whether the participant misused privileged access or confidential information.

Not every breach requires the same outcome. The Foundation may choose education, corrective action, or monitored restoration where the facts justify a rehabilitative response and risk can be responsibly managed.

Restoration of good standing may require acknowledgment of misconduct, training, written assurance, limited role restrictions, updated representations, or formal reapplication following a lapse or sanction period.

Nothing in this Code prevents the Foundation from taking stronger action where safety, fraud, confidentiality, or serious abuse of process is involved.