Conflict of interest review process decision tree

What the conflict of interest review process decision tree process is

A conflict of interest review process decides what happens to an interest once someone has declared it. This page is a decision tree, not a cross-functional process map. It is drawn as a chain of questions (is there a conflict at all, what kind of interest is it, does it touch a decision that is live right now, is recusal enough to contain it, and is the value or seniority high enough to need a committee) and each answer runs to a named outcome. A process map answers what happens next and who does it. This one answers which option you choose and who is entitled to choose it.

The lanes name decision rights rather than departments. The declaring individual owns the declaration and any recusal. The line manager triages it and decides whether there is a conflict to assess. The compliance officer classifies the interest, applies the threshold and holds the register. The ethics committee is reached only when the threshold test says so, and when it is reached it has three answers available, not one. Setting that out in advance settles the argument that otherwise happens afterwards: whether the person should have withdrawn, and who was allowed to decide that they need not.

A declared conflict almost always interrupts something else, and this tree deliberately stops at the management decision. For the end-to-end flow of the decision it interrupts, use the procurement process, recruitment process or vendor approval process templates, which map the full sequence of steps and hand-offs. Where a concern is raised about somebody else rather than declared by the person themselves, it is a complaint and belongs in the employee complaint process template. Keep the tests you write into this tree consistent with the duties that already apply to your organisation: directors' duties to avoid situational conflicts and to declare an interest in a proposed transaction under the Companies Act 2006, Charity Commission guidance for trustees, and the requirement on contracting authorities to identify, keep an assessment of and mitigate conflicts in public procurement. None of those prescribe a flow, so the thresholds below are yours to set and justify.

What this flowchart covers

In this template

• Four decision-right lanes (Declaring individual, Line manager, Compliance officer and Ethics committee) across five stages: Declaration, Triage, Assessment, Management decision, and Outcome and review.
• A three-way opening question, "Conflict identified?", where None ends at "Nil return recorded", Perceived is routed through "Record how it appears externally" rather than dismissed, and Actual goes straight to classification.
• "Interest type?" branching to three different assessments (value the financial interest, map the personal relationship, or review the outside appointment) which reconverge on one test.
• "Touches a live decision?", where No leads to the review question and Yes moves the case into the management decisions, with a note defining live as a procurement, hiring, grant, contract or approval decision open now and inside the declarer's remit.
• The threshold pair: "Above committee threshold?" sends the case to the ethics committee, and below it "Recusal sufficient?" chooses between "Recusal recorded and applied" and "Responsibility reassigned and recorded".
• "Committee direction?" with three answers: reassign, divest ("Outside interest ended or divested") or refuse ("Participation not permitted"), plus "Ongoing monitoring needed?" ending at "Kept under periodic review" or "Entry closed at review date".

When to use this template

• You have a declarations form and a register, but no written rule for what happens after a form comes back.
• Recusal is the answer to everything, including decisions the declarer still influences through budget, line management or the specification they wrote.
• Nobody can say at what value or seniority a case has to leave the line manager and go to a committee.
• An auditor, funder or contracting authority has asked how declared interests are assessed and mitigated, and the honest answer is case by case.
• You want the conflict decision separated from the process it interrupts, so a live tender or interview panel is not paused while people argue about who decides.

How it works

1. Open the template as a chart

   Open the conflict of interest review template and use it as a new chart. Nothing is fixed: every lane, question, branch label and outcome can be renamed, moved or deleted.

2. Rename the lanes to your decision rights

   Replace Declaring individual, Line manager, Compliance officer and Ethics committee with whoever actually holds each answer. If you have no standing committee, name the person or board that plays that part rather than deleting the lane, because the escalation route is the point of it.

3. Write your committee threshold into the note

   Put the real test behind "Above committee threshold?" into the step's note: the value of the interest, the value of the decision it touches, and the seniority of the declarer. Decide in advance which roles always go to the committee, such as board members, executives and anyone approving above the delegated authority limit.

4. Define what recusal means here

   Recusal is only sufficient if the person can be kept out of the whole decision, including papers, discussion, scoring and the vote. Record who checks that, and list the situations that force reassignment instead: line managing the decision maker, holding the budget, or having written the specification or job description.

5. Set the register entry and the review date

   Decide what each register entry must hold — the interest, the classification, the management action agreed and who agreed it — and what triggers an early review rather than waiting for the date, such as a change of role, a new tender or a renewed outside appointment.

6. Circulate it and put it under version control

   Share the chart with the people named in each lane and collect their comments, then use the approval workflow and version history so the policy diagram itself has a recorded approver and a trail of what changed and when.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between an actual, a potential and a perceived conflict of interest?

An actual conflict is one where the interest bears on a decision the person is taking now. A potential conflict would do so if the circumstances arose, for example a relative working for a supplier who is not currently bidding. A perceived conflict is one where a reasonable outsider could think judgement was affected, even where it was not. The distinction matters for how much management is needed, not for whether the interest is declared, and perceived conflicts are managed rather than dismissed, because the damage from one comes from how it looks after the decision rather than from how it was actually taken.

When is recusal enough, and when should the responsibility be reassigned?

Recusal works when the person can genuinely be removed from the whole decision: not receiving the papers, leaving the discussion, not scoring, not voting and not being consulted informally afterwards. It stops working when they still shape the decision through another route, and the common ones are line managing the decision maker, holding the budget, chairing the meeting, or having written the specification or the scoring criteria. In those cases the responsibility itself should move to somebody independent, and the reassignment should be recorded against the register entry rather than agreed verbally.

Who should decide, the line manager or an ethics committee?

Most declarations are settled by the line manager with the compliance officer, and reserving everything for a committee just means declarations stop being made. Send a case upward on a written threshold rather than on instinct: the value of the interest, the value of the decision it touches, and the seniority of the person declaring. Anything involving a board member or an executive, or any decision above the delegated authority limit, is normally the committee's, since the alternative is somebody assessing a conflict held by the person who appraises them.

Does every declaration need a register entry, even when there is no conflict?

Yes. The nil return is what makes the register evidence rather than a collection of the awkward cases. Recording that an interest was declared, assessed and found not to conflict shows the test was applied, and it gives a starting point when the same interest matters later because circumstances changed. It is also the only way to answer an auditor who asks how many declarations were received against how many were escalated.

How often should entries in the interests register be reviewed?

Set a date on each entry rather than relying on an annual sweep, and make the interval reflect the risk: entries attached to a live procurement or an ongoing outside appointment are usually reviewed at least annually and often at each decision point, while a closed one-off can be closed at its review date. Add event triggers as well, because most changes do not wait for the date: a change of role, a new tender or grant round, a promotion into a decision-making post, or a change in the outside interest itself should all pull the entry back through this tree.