A governance charter people actually use defines decisions, not just meetings. It says who decides what, at which level, how quickly, and what happens when a decision doesn't get made. Most charters describe meeting cadence and attendees and stop there, which is why they are signed at kickoff and rarely opened again.
Why do most governance charters go unused?
They are written for the contract rather than for the study. They are adapted from generic templates. They describe forums instead of decision rights. They run long. And nobody owns keeping them current, so within a few months the charter describes a relationship that no longer exists.
What should a sponsor–CRO governance charter contain?
Purpose and scope. Which studies and services it covers, and how it relates to the contract.
Governance bodies. Typically an operational study team, a joint oversight or steering committee and executive sponsors on both sides, each with a clear remit.
Decision rights. A simple matrix showing which decisions sit at which level: adding sites, reallocating budget within a threshold, classifying important protocol deviations, approving change orders, changing key personnel.
Escalation pathway. Time limits that move an unresolved issue up a level automatically, so nothing waits for someone to feel comfortable escalating.
Metrics. The KPIs and key risk indicators each body reviews, with thresholds that trigger discussion.
Inputs and outputs. What each meeting needs beforehand and what it must produce: decisions, actions, owners and dates.
Named roles. Individuals and their backups, not just titles.
Documentation. How decisions and their rationale are recorded and filed, so oversight can be demonstrated later.
Review points. When the charter itself is revisited: after startup, after a major amendment and at least annually.
How long should a governance charter be?
Short enough that people read it. A few pages of narrative plus a one-page decision matrix is usually enough. If the charter can't be summarized on a slide at the start of a steering committee meeting, it is probably too complicated to guide behavior.
How do you keep it a living document?
Use it. Open each steering committee meeting with the decision log and the escalations received since the last meeting. When an issue stalls, point to the escalation timeline rather than debating whether to escalate. When reality diverges from the charter, such as a new vendor joining or a decision level that proves too slow, change the charter and note why.
What does a charter look like when it works?
Imagine enrollment is behind plan and the study team proposes adding three sites. Without a charter, the proposal circulates by email for weeks while people wonder who can approve it. With a charter, everyone knows that site additions above a defined budget impact go to the joint oversight committee, which meets within a week to decide. The decision, its rationale and its owner are recorded the same day. The difference is not bureaucracy. It is speed.
Who should own the charter?
The sponsor. A CRO can draft it and will have useful templates, but the sponsor carries regulatory accountability for oversight and should decide how decisions are made on its own study. ICH E6(R3) reinforces that sponsors retain responsibility for activities they delegate, and a clear charter is one of the most practical ways to show it.
Want help building governance into your CRO relationship from day one? Explore ABRA's CRO Selection & Management support.
