MAINSYSTEMS 
choose proportionate measures for different conflicts and benefits
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will consolidate a skill: choose proportionate measures for different conflicts and benefits. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. ZIntPK regulates conflicts and gifts for public officials and other specified participants. Public procurement adds requirements. Private organisations must check applicable law and policy; public-sector thresholds do not automatically apply to every employee.
Apparently similar situations may require different measures. A family link to a candidate, a financial interest in a supplier and an institutional invitation have different contexts. Consider influence over the decision and specific rules. Popularity or business convenience must not determine the response.
Apply the following rule: Article 13 permits direct external reporting where the internal route is absent, would be ineffective, or the person believes there is a risk of retaliation. Choose the authority by the subject of the breach. KPK is not the sole authority for every matter; it also provides support and statutory protection functions. Public disclosure has separate article 18 conditions. Advice, statistical reporting and reporting a breach are different services.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Compare three cases using decision, interest, rule, alternative and owner. Identify when declaration, withdrawal or refusal is needed. Explain how each measure reduces risk. Avoid symbolic steps such as leaving a vote after independently determining all criteria. 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
A candidate’s relative abstains from voting but has already designed the job requirements. The team checks impartiality of those requirements and their approval. 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: Does absence from the final vote always eliminate the conflict? 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. Assess prior influence and effectiveness of measures. Review preparation as well as the final decision.
One mistake to avoid is: limiting conflict management to the final vote or signature.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. An advice page is listed as the sole recipient of every report. What is missing?
A competence check. Select the authority by the breach and article 13 external-route conditions. KPK has support and other statutory duties but is not the only competent authority. Distinguish advice, reporting and public disclosure.