Recognising conflicts of interest

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify interests that may compromise an impartial decision. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. Rules vary by role, sector and entity. This course sets no universal acceptable gift value. It develops assessment criteria and declaration, review and decision procedures to align with the code of conduct and applicable special regimes.

For covered public office holders, article 74 of the June 2026 Act links conflict to a private interest capable of affecting impartial and objective performance. Articles 75–76 cover material and non-material benefits. In the private sector, assess the applicable legal and employment duties. A conflict does not automatically prove bribery.

Apply the following rule: Article 3 covers listed EU matters and national extensions, including employment legislation, public service, public receivables and public-prosecution offences learned of through work. Check article 4 exclusions. Protection under articles 5–7 requires the relevant context, reasonable grounds concerning truth and scope at the time of reporting, and the statutory route. The May 2025 amendment removed the former general exclusion for breaches more than two years old.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Identify the decision, interest and connection. Check participation in preparation, assessment or approval. Consider a reasonable appearance of partiality. Consult applicable rules and declare through the designated route. Do not wait for proof of favouritism before reporting a relevant relationship. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

An employee helps select a supplier where her spouse works in sales. Even if she considers its bid technically superior, the relationship must be declared and assessed. An authorised person must decide participation and measures, rather than leaving that decision solely to her. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Must actual influence on the decision be demonstrated before declaring the situation? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Declaration helps prevent compromised impartiality. Its purpose is assessment and management before the decision, without automatically equating an interest with wrongdoing.

One mistake to avoid is: concealing a relevant relationship because you believe you can remain impartial.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically classified as protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Read the facts and apply the national scope, context and conditions for protection. A form label helps organise information but does not determine the legal framework. If the case falls outside the regime, identify an appropriate route without unnecessarily disclosing information.