Hide table of contents

If I'm interviewing someone for a position my job is to assess their suitability as a potential employee, but if they're my cousin I might be tempted to give them an overly favorable review. Most organizations have Conflict of Interest (CoI) policies that describe how to handle this sort of situation: it's common that someone might have external relationships which lead to duties, interests, or desires that conflict with what's best for their organization.

It's reasonably common for non-profits to publish their CoI policies (Hewlett, Carnegie, Gates). Within effective altruism I do see some of this:

Historically people and organizations within the EA movement have prioritized transparency, and while there's been some shift away from the most enthusiastic versions of this as we've better understood the costs, there are still a lot of benefits. If you're already going to the effort of drafting a policy like this, making it public seems pretty useful:

  • EAs who are concerned about CoIs within the community and are thinking about what norms they might try to influence can see what's already formally in place.

  • Other organizations can reference it in trying to figure out what sort of policy they want.

  • People who are worried a situation can see what policy was (supposed to have been) followed.

On the other hand, many EA organizations don't seem to have public policies. This includes ones that work in community building or grant-making where they seem pretty important. Here are a few I checked:

I'll write asking for policies, and will update this post if I hear anything back.

Disclosure: my wife is a GiveWell board member, former president of GWWC, and works for CEA which is part of EVF. I haven't run this post by her and I don't know her views here. I work at an organization that has received funding from Open Philanthropy.

Comment via: facebook

Comments21


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you Jeff for the post. I’m Alex, Director of Operations at Charity Entrepreneurship. We have a COI policy in our staff handbook, but you're right to say that our COI policy isn't public at the moment, so thank you for the nudge. Recent events made us think that we could take this opportunity to review our policy and potentially strengthen it even more, particularly by comparing it to others’ policies in this post. We will take a look and can commit to publishing it on our website before the end of the month. 

Ofer
15
0
0

Hi there!

Has Charity Entrepreneurship published its CoI policy? (I didn't find it on CE's website.)

Hi there. As promised, here is CE's Conflicts of Interest policy. We're still waiting for a couple of pieces of advice to come through so the text will likely change and we'll post an updated version. In saying that, there likely won't be wholesale changes.  

CE does not permit Executive Directors initiating a romantic and/or sexual relationship
involving any member of Staff or the Board.

I'm curious what "does not permit" means here, since below this is written fairly modest steps. 

I.e. I am aware Joey (executive director) has dated several members of staff (and still does at point of writing). Do I understand correctly Joey was not permitted to do so, but since presumably he has followed the steps described in the COI, he is permitted to continue?  

To be clear, I am new to COI's so this might be normal, plus I can see COI are not designed as a guide for good workspace culture, but to specifically mitigate a certain form of mismanagement (i.e. what would colloquially be called "corruption"). 

Somewhat related question, do you expect any individual board members have COI in that all are previous founders of CE incubated charities. I am not sure I can point to any direct harms from this, but it does pattern match onto a Revolving Door. The Effective Altruism space is large, so it does seem suboptimal to have only board members that were previously in a subordinate role to the directors of CE. 

Probably not all of my thoughts here are related to COI, but more towards unhealthy  culture around CE and the way it operates. 

Hi Ofer, apologies for the delay. We're doing one final round of review and will be publishing it very soon. I will send you a link as soon as it's published. 

Hey, thanks for the suggestion. To save interested people from having to email us, here are links to our conflict of interest policies. We have two: one for our board and one for staff. These are probably pretty standard documents and I would think they do not differ much between organizations (except at grantmaking foundations, where I imagine they are more complicated). I expect the real value comes from really thoughtfully detecting and enforcing conflicts of interest, as opposed to having a written policy that is not well understood or enforced.

Thanks; requested access to both!

I do think you're right that they're often pretty boring and the important stuff is in organizational practice. In this case, though, I'm especially interested in what sort of things the policies require employees to disclose (internally), which I think probably does (or at least should) vary meaningfully?

Sorry I didn't realize they were restricted. I've made both documents publicly viewable.

Thanks! I appreciate the speedy responses, though they aren't necessary!

After I've been able to look at ones for a bunch of organizations I think I'll probably do some sort of comparison.

Some things that jumped out to me on skimming these:

  • The board member one seems to only be concerned with financial conflicts of interest, but interpersonal ones also seem like they could be an issue?

  • The employee one maybe covers interpersonal stuff, but not very explicitly. For example, it's not obvious to me under which circumstances two RP employees would need to disclose that they've begun dating.

We have a separate "Personal Relationship Policy" that governs disclosure around dating. The summary is that if an employee has a personal relationship with another RP employee or external stakeholder (e.g., at an EA grantmaking organization) who has perceived or real authority / influence / power to affect RP or its employees, they must disclose such a relationship.

Is there any chance you might be up for posting that policy as well? I'm interested in understanding how different organizations have decided to handle these.

Would nepotism be handled by one of these, or would that be another policy?

Open Philanthropy has published a summary of the conflict of interest of policy we use. (Adding it as another example despite the age of this thread, since I expect people may still reference the thread in the future to find examples of COI policies.)

Hi Jeff, here is CE's Conflicts of Interest policy. We're still waiting for a couple of pieces of advice to come through so the text will likely change and we'll post an updated version. In saying that, there likely won't be wholesale changes. 

And they should all be put on a wiki page called "conflict of interest policies"

What do you lot hate about this? Seems like a reasonable place to put them. And much more credible to be able to say "all our orgs policies are here"

I'll go even further: policies of potential public interest should be public unless there is an articulate reason to the contrary.

Ehhh, I can see an issue with everything being transparent. I used to work in the Civil Service and trust me,  the Freedom Of Information act causes a huge amount of busywork. 

That said there does seem to be the general and harmful opinon that EA orgs don't have conflict of interest policies, but they do so sharing them seems good.

I have a civil-service background as well -- full FOIA would be unreasonable, but "post your policies once every few years unless there are reasons not to post certain portions" isn't a heavy ask.

I agree Nathan, I don't understand the downside. If it's public, it's public so why not just make it more easily accessible?

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by