In this present issue, we have assembled perspectives on clinical governance from countries beyond the United Kingdom. The broad question we put to authors in our call for papers was, "what does clinical governance mean in your country?"

The author of the first paper in this issue (McAuliffe) has addressed these questions in detail. The second paper (Black & Berg) directs institutional boards to complement their focus on corporate governance with an equal concentration on clinical governance and a willingness to translate lessons from other safety-critical industries into direction for healthcare providers. The third paper (Botje et al.) has focused a contribution which we locate to the third of the environments we have listed. The authors are concerned with the transparent sharing of performance information by different institutions within the system of healthcare provision. Such information is the vehicle used by institutions to assess the capability of their professional staff and their own boards. It is also the vehicle for dialogue between the institution and its external social and political environment. The fourth paper (Rahman & Al-Khatlan) presents the terms of this dialogue in social rather than technical terms, emphasising the multiple 'social constructions' of health, illness and healthcare and the various forms of disparity which need to be eradicated through government and political action before universal health and healthcare quality can becomes realities.On the other hand, O'Neill (2014) place the importance of protecting patients' privacy and data on a near-equal level with protection of their person. This is a regulated activity which resides within the third of our environments.