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. No universal permissible gift value is set here. Assess procurement law, the MKK code’s personal scope and the applicable organisational rule separately.

Preventing conflicts differs from proving bribery. In public procurement, Kbt. section 25 regulates direct or indirect interests affecting impartiality. Defined participants must give written declarations and promptly report relevant circumstances arising later. An interest requires assessment, not an automatic finding of abuse.

Apply the following rule: Section 20 accepts unlawful or suspected unlawful acts, omissions and other abuses. Eligibility to report differs from entitlement to every safeguard. Section 45 requires the statutory route, information obtained in a work-related context and reasonable grounds to believe it true when reported. Apart from section 43 assistance, subchapter 8 protection also requires the section 48 EU subject matter, specified EU restrictive-measures infringements added in 2025, or reasonable grounds to believe the matter falls within that scope. Apply the section 48(2) exclusions.

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.