The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Rules concerning conflicts of interest during recruitment

På svenska

Content on this page:

Lund University is an administrative authority

As higher education institutions are administrative authorities, the preparation and decision-making process in recruitments must be characterised by objectivity and impartiality. In order to ensure that the recruitment process is impartial in all aspects and that this impartiality cannot be called into question, there are rules governing conflicts of interest (Sections 16-18 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 2017:900).

Conflicts of interest refers to circumstances that undermine confidence in the impartiality of a particular member or official in the processing of a matter. If a person who is to participate in a decision has a personal connection to the issue, that person’s impartiality may be called into question and for that reason that person must not participate in the process.

Those who are to participate in the preparation of a recruitment must carefully investigate whether there is any conflict of interest. This includes everyone involved in the process, not just those who are involved in making the decision. Employees who are only responsible for registering, printing, dispatching documents or similar work are not considered to be covered by these rules on conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest according to the law

Section 16 of the Administrative Procedure Act describes the rules on conflict of interest: 

A person who takes part on behalf of an authority in the processing of a matter in a way that can influence the authority’s decision in the matter is disqualified if

  1. either they or a person close to them is a party in the matter or can otherwise be assumed to be affected by the decision to a not insignificant extent,
  2. either they or a person close to them is or has been a representative or counsel for a party in the matter or someone else who can be assumed to be affected by the decision to a not insignificant extent,
  3. they participated in the final processing of the matter at another authority and have, as a result of this, already taken a position on the questions to be examined by the authority as a superior instance, or
  4. there is some other special circumstance that means that their impartiality in the matter can be questioned.

If it is obvious that the question of impartiality is of no importance, the authority shall disregard the disqualification.

This text focuses on points 1 and 4, as they are the ones that are most likely to be of relevance when recruiting.

Point 1: Party conflict of interest, general conflict of interest and related party conflict of interest.

Point 1 can be split into three different types of conflict of interest, party conflict of interest, general conflict of interest and related party conflict of interest. 

  • Party conflict of interest refers to when a person who participates in the preparation of the case is also a party to the case. For example, someone preparing a recruitment case where they are the applicant.
  • General conflict of interest is when the outcome of the recruitment process gives a clear advantage or disadvantage to someone who is participating in the preparatory process. An example might be that a member of the academic appointments board has a collaborative project with one of the applicants in a recruitment and could therefore be assumed to have an interest in who is proposed for appointment.
  • Related party conflict of interest: here the law states that a person handling a case has a conflict of interest when a person related to them is impacted by the case according to the above-mentioned forms of conflict of interest. For example, the sibling or partner of a member of the academic appointments board applying for a job.

Point 4: Discreet conflict of interest

Point 4 aims to capture those situations of conflict of interest, discreet or delicate, which are not covered by the other grounds for conflict of interest. According to this general clause, the person responsible for preparing a case has a conflict of interest if there is any other special circumstance that might call into question their impartiality in the matter.

It is not possible to specify exactly which kinds of issues fall under this point, but they may include, for example, financial dependence and strong friendship or enmity.

In terms of recruitment, for example, there may be discreet or delicate conflict of interest if the external expert and one of the candidates to be reviewed have co-published research articles in the recent past. In the case of situations of joint authorship, the assessment depends primarily on the extent of the collaboration and the length of time that has elapsed since the collaboration ended. It is difficult to set firm limits on the length of time that must elapse for the issue of conflict of interest to no longer be relevant, as the assessment could be influenced by, for example, very rapid developments in the field of research in question.

In cases where there are suggestions of conflict of interest due to differences between an external expert and an applicant, based solely on the fact that they belong to different schools of thought or research fields, this is not considered to be conflict of interest. If, on the other hand, there is a deeper antagonism between the two, which may call into question the objectivity of the external expert, this should be considered a conflict of interest.

Investigating the risk of a conflict of interest

All those involved in the preparation of a case must check whether there is a risk of a conflict of interest. Preparation refers to all the tasks performed in the recruitment process that affect the decision, i.e. everything from conducting a needs analysis and developing a person specification to the final decision to appoint. Exception is made for those only responsible for booking premises and arranging coffee etc.

When assessing whether there is a risk of conflict of interest, it is essential to step back and think in terms of how an outsider would perceive the situation. Is there a risk that an outsider, who does not understand the context in detail, could perceive that an employee of the public authority has a conflict of interest? If so, it is reasonable to discuss together in what way it could be a conflict of interest. One suggested thought experiment could be, how could the situation be described in a short newspaper headline?

For recruitments handled through an academic appointments board or similar, such a discussion should be ongoing. The discussion should be held with board members, the academic appointments board HR officer, and department representatives, no matter which stage of the recruitment they are taking part in. Even the external expert could benefit from participating in these types of discussions.

Participation in case handling, reporting a conflict of interest and assessing a conflict of interest 

Pursuant to Section 17 of the Administrative Procedure Act, a person who is disqualified due to a conflict of interest must not take part in the processing of the matter and must not be present when the matter is determined either. A person who is disqualified from a meeting must not only abstain from speaking or voting, but must also leave the room. Otherwise, their presence may still affect the outcome.

Administrative Procedure Act (Förvaltningslagen):

Section 17 A person who is disqualified must not take part in the processing of the matter and must not be present when the matter is determined either. However, they may perform tasks that no one else can perform without a considerable delay in the processing of the matter. 

Section 18 A person who is aware of a circumstance that can be assumed to disqualify them must immediately notify the authority of this. An authority shall examine a question of disqualification as soon as possible. The person that the disqualification applies to may only take part in the examination of the question of disqualification if this is required for the authority to be quorate and a replacement cannot be summoned without material delay to the examination.

A person with a conflict of interest may perform tasks that no one else can perform without causing a considerable delay in the processing of the matter. In urgent cases which cannot be postponed, the person with a conflict of interest may even make a decision if this is necessary in view of the lack of time. However, this rule should be interpreted very restrictively and it is exceptionally rare that such a situation arises in recruitment matters. Bad planning of tasks can never be used as a justification for an exception to the general rule.

If a head of department or another manager has a conflict of interest in a matter, the matter should be handed over to the superordinate manager.

A person who is aware of a circumstance of a conflict of interest must immediately notify the authority of this. A person with a conflict of interest has an obligation to inform about their conflict of interest. Failure to declare a conflict of interest may result in disciplinary action or even a case of professional misconduct.

A public authority shall assess a potential conflict of interest as soon as possible. In such a situation, the potentially conflicted party is in principle precluded from participating in the assessment of the conflict of interest. If the situation is such that the authority does not have a quorum without them, and a substitute cannot be called in without the review being significantly delayed, the potentially conflicted party may participate in the review. If the public authority decides that there is no conflict of interest or that it does not need to be taken into account, the administrative officer is to participate in the further processing of the case.

Decisions on conflicts of interest by the Higher Education Appeals Board (ÖNH)

The table below presents a selection of decisions on conflict of interest made by the Higher Education Appeals Board (ÖNH). The decisions of the ÖNH may be regarded as guidelines for practice in the field of higher education. Click on the link in the table to read the decision in full.

Note the following: an assessment pursuant to Section 16, Paragraph 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act involves an overall assessment of the circumstances of the case. Several circumstances which individually are not considered to constitute a conflict of interest may, when taken together therefore, be deemed to constitute a conflict of interest. The cases below refer to decisions made pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223) in force between 1987 and (1 July) 2018.

Family relationship

The former head of department was in charge of recruitment and his wife was one of the applicants.  .  

Vänskapsrelation

The external expert had previously had a close private friendship with the applicant for a teaching position, which had subsequently turned antagonistic. 

A member of the academic appointments board had a friendship with an applicant for a teaching position. 

Joint authorship and research collaboration 

The head of department had an ongoing research collaboration, and co-publications, with one of the applicants. The head of department made a statement on behalf of the applicant’s merits at a meeting of the recruitment committee. 

Close research collaboration

The head of department had an ongoing research collaboration with one of the applicants. The head of department wrote the person specification and participated in the recruitment committee’s work, and presented the work of the committee at the meeting of the academic appointments board.

Joint authorship and family relationship 

Wife among those applying for a position. The husband took part in the processing of the other applications. Also question of recent co-authorship with two members of the recruitment committee. 

Joint authorship 

The applicant cited nine works published between 1996 and 2000 for which a member of the academic appointments board was the first author or co-author. The senior lectureship vacancy notice was announced in 2002. 

The applicant cited six works co-authored with the external expert and other authors in the years 1991-1997. The external expert report was written at the end of 1998. 

Close colleague 

Close collegial collaboration between the applicant and a family member of a manager involved in the recruitment process. 

Supervisor and colleague 

The external expert had previously been a supervisor and then a colleague of the applicant until about two years before the senior lectureship vacancy notice was announced. 

Supervisor, joint authorship and colleague 

The chair of the academic appointments board, also the chair of a faculty committee, had been a co-supervisor to the applicant, later a co-author, and the two had collaborated within a faculty committee recently (the applicant was vice-chair of the same faculty committee). 

Page manager: webbansvarig [at] hr [dot] lu [dot] se | 10 Feb 2023