Power and privilege have existed for as long as humans have. Some argue that both are innate, presenting themselves not just in society but also in biology, and Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” mantra has indeed manifested itself in some of the most heinous crimes of human history.
Conflict of interest disclosures, though on a different scale, arguably perpetuate a potential micro-aggressive exertion of power and privilege. Conflict of interest disclosures are intended to promote transparency and accountability in various sectors, particularly in business, governance, and academia. However, these disclosures can inadvertently perpetuate structures of oppressive power and privilege, echoing historical injustices and dehumanization.
Understanding Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Conflict of interest disclosures are mechanisms designed to reveal potential biases that could influence decision-making processes. They are often required in corporate governance, academia, and public service to ensure that individuals do not exploit their positions for personal gain. While the intention behind these disclosures is to foster ethical behavior, they can also serve to uphold existing power dynamics.
Not all individuals or organizations are held to the same disclosure standards. Those in positions of power often have the resources to navigate or manipulate disclosure requirements, allowing them to maintain their privileges while appearing compliant. This selective transparency can create an illusion of accountability while masking deeper systemic issues. Individuals from marginalized backgrounds may need more access to resources and networks that facilitate compliance with disclosure requirements. This disparity can lead to a situation where those with privilege can easily navigate the complexities of disclosure.
In contrast, others face barriers that prevent them from fully participating in the system. This mirrors historical structures where access to power and resources was limited to specific groups, akin to the dynamics of slavery where the enslaved were systematically denied agency and opportunity. Thus, disclosing conflicts of interest can reinforce existing hierarchies by placing greater scrutiny on those already marginalized. For instance, when disclosures target individuals from non-dominant groups, they can perpetuate a narrative that these individuals are less trustworthy or competent.
Conflict of interest disclosures can create a façade of accountability that distracts from the underlying issues of systemic oppression. Organizations may overlook the broader institutional practices perpetuating inequality by focusing on individual disclosures. This mirrors the historical context of dehumanization, where the focus on individual behavior often obscures the systemic nature of oppression.
Organizations may sometimes implement conflict of interest disclosures as tokenism, using them to demonstrate a commitment to ethics without making substantive changes to address systemic inequalities. This can lead to a situation where the appearance of accountability is prioritized over genuine reform, perpetuating existing power structures.
One illustrative example of power and privilege in conflict of interest disclosures is a university dean who sits on multiple biotech company boards creating a disclosure policy that only requires reporting “substantial” financial interests, defined as over $50,000—knowing that their $45,000 annual consulting fees for each board position will fall under that disclosure threshold.
Another example is a tech company implementing “cultural background disclosure” requirements that disproportionately scrutinize employees with family ties to certain countries, requiring them to report all relationships with foreign nationals and businesses under the guise of security compliance.
Perhaps the most egregious example is a retail chain that pays minimum wage, requiring employees to disclose and get approval for any additional employment, including gig work or freelancing. Thus, workers who fail to report picking up DoorDash shifts would face disciplinary action, despite needing the extra income to afford basic necessities. These particular examples are hypothetical but represent realistic dangers of misused conflict of interest disclosures.
Finding Balance in the Use of Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Sound counterarguments highlight the value of conflict of interest disclosures. For instance, it’s important to know whether researchers studying drugs are being compensated by drug companies, thereby creating the potential for biased reporting for financial gain. It’s important to know if elected officials have foreign investments that could influence their domestic operations. It’s important to know if Chief Financial Officers are short-selling securities to advance their portfolios at the expense of their clients’.
Therefore, it is important to take a balanced approach that maintains accountability while avoiding discriminatory disclosure requirements. Performance-based detection could be one option, where unusual patterns in research outcomes or business decisions are monitored, tracking significant deviations from expected results or historical trends. Implementing a rigorous peer-review process focused on methodology and data using statistical analysis could identify potential bias.
Structural safeguards, such as creating firewalls between funding and research departments and establishing independent oversight committees, can also be an option. This requires multiple independent replications of key research findings and implementing blind review processes where evaluators don’t know funding sources.
Voluntary transparency may be another option: offering incentives for voluntary disclosure and creating protected channels for whistleblowers while maintaining confidential reporting systems could foster a culture where transparency is rewarded but not mandated.
Focusing on outcomes, evaluating performance based on merit and verifiable results, and looking for patterns of systematic bias in aggregate data could directly address outcomes without requiring blanket disclosures.
Moving Forward
The narratives surrounding conflict of interest disclosures often emphasize individual responsibility, which can obscure the collective nature of systemic oppression. This focus on individual actions can detract from the need for systemic change, similar to how narratives around injustice often emphasized individual moral failings rather than the broader economic and social systems that supported the institution.
Many thriving businesses turn an immense profit even as their employees live paycheck to paycheck, often struggling to make ends meet. In this context, it is essential to reconsider the current practices surrounding conflict of interest disclosures. Rather than mandating employees to disclose potential conflicts, organizations should focus on evaluating employees based primarily on the quality of their work rather than the number of other employers they engage with.
By shifting the focus from disclosure to performance, businesses can create a more equitable workplace that values the skills and dedication of all employees, regardless of their external commitments. This approach enhances employee morale and promotes a culture of trust and accountability within the organization.
