What is the difference between transparency and impartiality

We do not favour one person or group over another, acknowledging that discrimination increases feelings of unfairness and makes our jobs harder to do.

We must not allow personal feelings, beliefs or opinions to unfairly influence our actions in any situation. We assess each situation based on its own merits ensuring we are fair and consistent in our actions. We are clear in our rationale for the decisions or actions we take ensuring they are clear and evidence-based. This value links to the principle of integrity from the Code of Ethics. The purpose of this policy is to describe how Preferred by Nature ensures independence, impartiality and transparency in all its activities.

Our goal is to make unbiased findings and fair decisions. Preferred by Nature strives to avoid situations where a risk to impartiality arises, or a potential conflict of interest becomes real. A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organisation has multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation in a given activity.

Preferred by Nature has additional policies related to impartiality management such as Anti-Corruption Policy, Whistleblower Policy, Donations Policy and Open Source Policy, which are available on our website. Preferred by Nature owns a certification branch Assurance providing conformity evaluation services, including certification and verification. NEPCon F. These entities also provide invoicing services for clients based in these countries as well as ensuring compliance with local tax regulations.

The legal and financial separation of activity areas in Preferred by Nature is continuously monitored to ensure impartiality. General principles. The following principles are applicable to the entire Preferred by Nature organisation to assure impartiality and reduce the risks of conflicts of interest:. Such disclosures are then analysed and appropriate risk mitigation measures undertaken. As per signed conflict of interest agreements, all parties have the responsibility to update declarations as new situations arise that may pose a conflict of interest.

It should mark the change, even if it does not offer a full-fledged rationale behind it. Story 2 : Few years ago, a gifted and up-and-coming scholar received a slew of scholarships to attain a number of educational degrees from a donor. In the meantime that person became a director of a prominent think tank.

Both the individual and partially the think tank in question are harsh critics of the donor — former patron in its current political commentaries. How this relates to transparency: Not everyone knows that the director has received scholarships in the past. Such move may even result in a higher sence of value for the criticism since the person does not shy away to criticize the former patron.

More importantly, it would allow the stakeholders of the think tank and the public to have a broader picture of the history and context. Nobody needs to make value judgments, only be transparent.

I treat this as if this was a case of conflict of interests. Story 3. Many think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe are operating through two parallel legal entities: a not-for-profit organization and for-profit consultancy. I see nothing wrong in this arrangement, especially in the light of complicated and divergent donor practices that includes one of the other legal forms.

The public not-for-profit think tank produces analysis that is publicly available public good usually paid for by a donor or from membership fees and other sources of income. Why transparency is crucial in this case : There is a web of intertwined aspects here. First, the public has to be aware of the duality of the brand; and who the clients and donors that are funding the organization are. Second, the donors need to know that there is no double dipping often the two entities are staffed by the same people sharing the overall work and costs.

Finally, if the think tank engages into political consulting, there should be clear bottom-line about who could appear as a client and who could not simply jeopardizing the entire concept of analysis for public good. In my understanding, this bottom-line is context dependent and changes from one place to the other depending on different factors level of political culture, the maturity of the consulting market and other….

In conclusion, think tanks should do their best in insuring that the data and facts they use are from trusted sources and their analysis is as objective as possible. However, they should not forget to be transparent about who they are and where do they come.

After all, it is better for think tanks to put out public the facts about themselves instead of someone else, usually with ill intentions, spreading rumor and gossiping about the same matter. In my last post, I described what an organisation is and how it might be made more effective, drawing on three schools of thought.