This paper examines corporate governance as a behavioural phenomenon, arguing that the quality of board decision-making is shaped not only by governance structures, but by the cognitive and emotional capacities through which those structures are enacted in practice. The study introduces three original instruments: the Board EI Proxy Composite Score, which operationalises collective board-level emotional intelligence (EI) capacity using publicly available data; the Disclosure Integrity Rubric, which assesses governance disclosure quality across four dimensions, including cross-channel coherence; and the Data Transparency Index. A pilot study of five ASX 100 companies provides preliminary validation for all three instruments. Five Disclosure Integrity Gap (DIG) types emerge inductively from the analysis — Sophisticated Purpose Washing, Conduct Gap, Performative Accountability, Institutional Arrogance, and Mission–Governance Disconnection — with each pattern associated with distinct deficits in emotional intelligence capacity. Human, Social and Organisational Capacity (HSOC) was absent across all pilot boards, regardless of sector or governance reputation. The findings suggest that behavioural disclosure requirements alone are insufficient to produce behavioural governance change. Instead, crises often compel organisations to adopt the language of governance without corresponding development in governance capacity. The paper concludes by proposing a broader empirical research agenda for validation across a larger ASX 100 sample. Preprint Notice: This manuscript is currently under review for publication and has not yet undergone peer review. Findings and interpretations may be revised prior to formal publication. Where possible, readers should consult the final published version once available.
Sanela Osmic (2026) studied this question.