Conflict of interest: how to investigate it without turning it into a moral trial

A procurement lead whose brother-in-law is a supplier. A manager who hires the consultancy where she used to work. A director with shares in a client. None of these situations is, in itself, misconduct. What a company’s policy sanctions is failing to disclose the tie and acting as if it did not exist. Investigating conflict of interest requires separating those two things clearly; otherwise the file becomes a trial of a person’s honesty rather than of verifiable facts.

What is actually investigated

• Existence of the tie. Proven through corporate records, asset declarations, public information and, where applicable, the person’s own admission.
• Duty to disclose. What the policy in force at the time required, and whether the person knew of that obligation (the training record is decisive here).
• Involvement in the decision. Whether the person took part in, influenced, or was able to influence the decision that favored the related party.
• Harm, if any. Overpricing, anomalous terms, exclusion of competitors. It is the hardest element and the one most often left unproven.

The underlying error

Concluding "conflict of interest substantiated" when all that was proven was the tie. A defensible report distinguishes: tie proven, failure to disclose proven, involvement proven, harm not proven. That precision allows proportional sanction of what was actually proven and protects the company from a challenge for excess.

What almost always solves the problem

A living conflicts registry, updated annually and at every change of role, with a simple channel to disclose. Most conflicts that reach investigation had existed for years and nobody had asked. Asking beforehand costs an hour; investigating afterwards costs weeks.

← All insights