# Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network *The firewall between consulting and review.* ## About this course **Who it is for.** This course is written for ICoBC Lead Reviewers (N2) and ICoBC Accredited Partners (N3). It has no prerequisites. **Where it sits.** The course supports the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L3 "Enable", stage K "Knowledge". At this level the skill is: runs self-assessment against a quality framework, prepares for external review and implements improvements. The Knowledge stage means that you understand the concepts, rules and standards, and the reasons behind them. You can explain and recognise. **Learning outcomes.** After this course you can: 1. Explain the separation between consulting and review in the ICoBC model. 2. Identify conflicts of interest in realistic situations. 3. Apply the disclosure and recusal procedure. **Workload.** About 1.5 hours of self-paced learning. Live or workshop elements are described in facilitator notes for the people who run them. **Assessment.** A scenario quiz in the section "Assessment and badge". Full marks are required. You can retake the quiz as often as you need. **Badge.** "Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network (Knowledge, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-K. The badge evidence is the passed quiz. **Quality focus.** The trustworthiness of the Seal itself. Every review decision supports the Global Quality Seal only if people can rely on the independence of the people who made it. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Explain the separation between consulting and review in the ICoBC model | Why independence matters | Module quiz and final scenario quiz | | 2. Identify conflicts of interest in realistic situations | Typical conflicts | Module quiz and final scenario quiz | | 3. Apply the disclosure and recusal procedure | The procedure | Module quiz and final scenario quiz | > **A note on status.** The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are at status **Emerging**. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. This course therefore teaches general rules of independence and does not rely on any specific indicator. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
Facilitator notes **Optional live element (30 to 45 minutes, not part of the badge).** Run a short workshop after the self-paced part. Ask participants to bring one anonymised situation from their own work in which independence was tested. In small groups they apply the decision tree from module 3 and compare their conclusions. Remind everyone not to name people or organisations. Collect questions about the Emerging status of the VRITE criteria and pass them to ICoBC for clarification rather than answering from memory.
## Why independence matters ### The two roles in the network The ICoBC quality network has two kinds of work that must stay apart. **Consulting** helps an organisation get ready. An ICoBC Accredited Partner (N3) may advise an education provider or an employer on how to meet a quality framework. The partner runs a self-assessment with the client, suggests improvements and helps to prepare for external review. This is the work described by ICSF skill QUAL at level L3. **Review** judges whether the organisation meets the framework. An ICoBC Lead Reviewer (N2) examines the evidence and contributes to a recommendation. The reviewer does not coach the client on how to pass. Both roles are useful. A client benefits from good advice, and the network benefits from sound review. The ICoBC model asks only that one person or one organisation does not do both for the same client. This separation is often called the **firewall** between consulting and review. {{1}} The firewall between consulting and review Diagram with the consulting side on the left and the review side on the right, separated by a vertical firewall. The Accredited Partner advises a client on the left. The Lead Reviewer examines evidence on the right. A dashed line labelled evidence of readiness crosses the firewall in one direction only, from client to reviewer, and no advice or coaching crosses it. Consulting and review stay on separate sides Consulting side Accredited Partner (N3) gives advice Client organisation prepares for review Firewall Review side Lead Reviewer (N2) judges evidence Review decision supports the Seal Evidence of readiness No advice or coaching crosses the firewall ### Why the firewall exists A seal is a promise. When a provider or employer shows the Global Quality Seal, other people rely on it without repeating the review themselves. Learners, employers and associations trust the Seal because they believe the judgement behind it was independent. If the same person coached an organisation and then judged it, the judgement would be a review of their own advice. Even an honest person would find it hard to be critical. Other people would also have reason to doubt the result, even if no one ever did anything wrong. The ICoBC model therefore protects two things: - **Actual independence:** the judgement is free from influence. - **Perceived independence:** a reasonable outsider has no cause to think it is not. Both matter. A review can be fair and still lose trust if it looks compromised. Because the Seal depends on trust, a visible firewall protects every holder of the Seal, including those who had no connection with the conflict. ### Independence, impartiality and objectivity Three words appear often in quality work, and they are related. - **Independence** describes the relationships around you: no financial, personal or organisational ties that could steer a judgement. - **Impartiality** describes your attitude: you give no side an advantage. - **Objectivity** describes your method: you judge from evidence and criteria. Independence supports the other two. When there are no ties, impartiality and objectivity are easier to keep and easier to show. When ties exist, the person must either remove them or step away from the decision. General rules of independence are widely used in conformity assessment and accreditation. ICoBC bases its approach on the same ideas. Details such as formal cooling-off periods or thresholds are set by ICoBC governance documents, not by this course. **Worked example: The same firm on both sides** Dana is an ICoBC Accredited Partner (N3). Her firm helps a regional training provider, Northfield Academy, to run a self-assessment and fix gaps in its quality processes. Six months later Northfield applies for external review. The review panel is short of people and asks whether Dana could join it, because she knows the provider well. Dana's knowledge is real, and that is the problem. She would be judging processes that she helped to design. The firewall rule says that she must not review a client she has advised. The panel must find another reviewer. Dana may still tell the panel that she has a conflict, and that disclosure helps the network. She does not give the panel any advice about how to judge Northfield. Note what Dana does not need to do. She does not need to stop being a consultant, and she does not need to leave the network. She declines this one review. **Practice activity: Name the role** Look at the diagram again and cover the labels with your hand if you can. For each statement, decide whether it describes consulting, review, or a breach of the firewall: 1. "I helped the client write its improvement plan." 2. "I read the evidence and wrote my findings." 3. "I told the client what the panel would want to see, then sat on the panel." Write your answers down, then check them: statement 1 is consulting, statement 2 is review, and statement 3 is a breach of the firewall because one person is on both sides.
Facilitator notes Ask participants to share, without naming anyone, one case from their experience where a person held both roles. Discuss what the other side might have thought. Keep to the principle and do not try to decide real cases. Time: 10 minutes.
### Check your understanding: Why independence matters **Question 1.** What does the firewall in the ICoBC model separate? [( )] Education providers from employers [(X)] Consulting for a client from reviewing that same client [( )] Lead Reviewers from the ICoBC office [( )] Learners from the organisations that issue badges [[?]] Think about the two kinds of work that the Seal depends on. **** The firewall separates consulting (helping a client to get ready) from review (judging whether the client meets the framework). The aim is that nobody reviews their own advice. **** **Question 2.** Why does the ICoBC model care about perceived independence as well as actual independence? [( )] Because perception is easier to measure than behaviour [( )] Because perceived independence replaces the need for evidence [(X)] Because people who rely on the Seal lose trust if the review looks compromised, even when it was fair [( )] Because only Accredited Partners need to appear independent [[?]] Who relies on the Seal without repeating the review? **** The Seal works because outsiders trust it. A review that looks compromised damages that trust, even if the reviewer acted honestly. Both actual and perceived independence therefore matter. **** **Question 3.** An Accredited Partner coached a provider through its self-assessment. The provider now applies for external review. What should the partner do? [( )] Join the panel but only comment on topics they did not advise on [( )] Join the panel and tell the provider in advance what to expect [(X)] Decline to review this provider and, if asked, disclose the earlier consulting work [( )] Join the panel if the provider agrees in writing [[?]] Remember that the person who is judged cannot release the reviewer from the firewall. **** A person who has consulted for a client does not review that client. Disclosing the earlier work helps the network to choose another reviewer. The client's agreement does not remove the conflict, because the public trusts the Seal, not only the client. **** **Question 4.** Which sentence best describes independence? [( )] A reviewer's attitude of giving no side an advantage [( )] A reviewer's method of judging from criteria and evidence [(X)] The absence of ties that could steer a reviewer's judgement [( )] A reviewer's wish to be liked by all parties [[?]] Compare independence, impartiality and objectivity from the text. **** Independence describes the relationships around a person: no financial, personal or organisational ties that could steer the judgement. Impartiality is an attitude and objectivity is a method. **** ## Typical conflicts ### What a conflict of interest is A **conflict of interest** exists when a person has a personal, financial, professional or organisational interest that could influence, or could reasonably appear to influence, their judgement in a role of trust. A conflict is a situation, not an accusation. Many people in the network hold several roles and will meet conflicts. The matter becomes a problem only when the situation is hidden or ignored. Three types help you to recognise conflicts quickly. - **Actual conflict:** the interest exists now and relates directly to the decision. - **Potential conflict:** the interest could become relevant, for example if circumstances change. - **Apparent conflict:** a reasonable outsider would suspect influence, even if there is none. The ICoBC approach treats all three seriously. You disclose potential and apparent conflicts, and the procedure in module 3 decides what happens next. {{1}} Five typical sources of conflict around a reviewer A navy circle labelled reviewer judgement sits in the centre. Five labelled boxes surround it: prior consulting for the client, financial interest, close personal relationship, competing interest, and gifts or hospitality. Lines connect each box to the centre. Reviewer judgement 1. Prior consulting for this client 2. Financial interest in the client 3. Close personal relationship 4. Competing interest with the client 5. Gifts or hospitality offered by the client ### Five typical sources **1. Prior consulting.** You, or your organisation, advised the client on the matter now under review. This is the central case of the firewall. It also applies to colleagues in the same firm if the firm benefits from the client relationship. **2. Financial interest.** You hold shares in the client, receive fees from it, or expect future work from it. Expected work counts, because the hope of a contract can shape a judgement. **3. Close personal relationship.** The client's leader is a relative, a close friend or a former partner. Equally, an open dispute with that person is a conflict. Strong dislike and strong liking both affect judgement. **4. Competing interest.** You work for, or advise, a competitor of the client. You could gain from a negative result, or you could see commercially sensitive information that you should not use. **5. Gifts and hospitality.** The client offers a gift, a trip or a generous meal around the time of a review. Small courtesies such as a coffee during a site visit are normal. Anything of real value, or anything that could look like thanks in advance, needs disclosure. Policies on value limits come from ICoBC governance documents. ### Employment and time Conflicts can come from the past and from the future. A person who worked for the client two years ago may still hold loyalties or knowledge that matter. A person who is negotiating to join the client has a strong interest in how the review turns out. Ask both questions: "What ties did I have?" and "What ties could I soon have?" Another common case involves organisations that have several arms. A partner's training department may sell courses to the client while its quality team carries out an assessment. The people may differ, but the organisation benefits from both. This is an organisational conflict, and the firewall must work at the organisational level as well as the personal one. ### Not every tie is a conflict Being part of the same professional network, attending the same conference or having reviewed other, unrelated clients does not create a conflict. The test is whether the tie could influence, or could reasonably appear to influence, this particular judgement. When you are unsure, disclose and let the procedure decide. Silence is the one response that always creates a problem. **Worked example: The offer of a future contract** Marek is an ICoBC Lead Reviewer (N2) assigned to review Riverside Employers Forum, an association of companies that offers credentials to its members. During the preparation call, Riverside's director mentions that the forum is planning a large quality improvement programme next year and is looking for a trusted adviser. She says that Marek's name came up. Marek has no financial tie yet and no relationship with the director. But he now has a possible future interest in the client, which makes this a potential conflict, and one that a reasonable outsider might see as apparent. Marek does not need to decide alone whether he is still independent. He tells the review coordinator about the remark, in writing, and follows the procedure. He also does not respond to the idea of future work while the review is open. **Practice activity: Sort the situations** Place each situation under one of these headings: *conflict*, *possible conflict, disclose*, or *no conflict*. Use the five sources above. 1. A Lead Reviewer once spoke on the same conference panel as the client's quality manager. 2. A Lead Reviewer's sister is the head of the client's quality unit. 3. A Lead Reviewer's employer is about to bid for consulting work with the client. 4. The client sends a bunch of flowers to the review team after the site visit. Check yourself: situation 1 is no conflict. Situation 2 is a conflict. Situation 3 is a possible conflict that must be disclosed. Situation 4 is a possible conflict, so disclose it and ask for guidance, because the value and timing matter.
Facilitator notes Hand out four or five short cases written by the facilitator. Participants work in pairs and classify each one as conflict, possible conflict or no conflict, and name the type from the diagram. Compare results and discuss the cases where pairs differ. Stress that the aim is a shared habit of disclosing when in doubt. Time: 15 minutes.
### Check your understanding: Typical conflicts **Question 1.** Which statement best defines a conflict of interest? [( )] A proven case in which a reviewer made an unfair decision [(X)] A situation in which an interest could influence, or could reasonably appear to influence, a person's judgement in a role of trust [( )] A disagreement between two reviewers about a finding [( )] A tie that exists only if money has already been paid [[?]] The definition includes both real and apparent influence. **** A conflict of interest is a situation, not a proven wrong. It covers interests that could influence judgement and interests that only appear to do so. No one needs to have misbehaved for a conflict to exist. **** **Question 2.** An Accredited Partner's training department sells courses to a provider. The partner's quality team is asked to run an assessment for the same provider's review. What kind of problem is this? [( )] No problem, because different people work in each team [( )] A personal conflict that only affects the head of the quality team [(X)] An organisational conflict, because the organisation benefits from both relationships [( )] A gifts and hospitality issue [[?]] Think about who gains from the client relationship. **** Conflicts can sit at the level of the organisation. Even if the people differ, the organisation gains from the client on both sides, so the firewall must work at the organisational level too. **** **Question 3.** A Lead Reviewer is negotiating to join the client's quality team next year. Which description fits best? [( )] No conflict, because the reviewer is not employed there yet [(X)] A conflict, because a future interest in the client can shape the judgement [( )] Only a perceived conflict that needs no action [( )] A conflict only if the reviewer accepts the job [[?]] Conflicts can come from the future as well as the past. **** A person who is seeking work with the client has a strong interest in the outcome. Future ties count as much as present ones, and the reviewer must disclose and step away. **** **Question 4.** A client offers a reviewer a cup of coffee during a site visit. What is the sensible view? [( )] Refuse everything and end the visit [( )] Accept anything the client offers, since it is polite [(X)] An ordinary courtesy of this kind is normal, while gifts of real value need disclosure [( )] Accept it and mention it only if the review result is negative [[?]] Look at the value and the timing of what is offered. **** Ordinary courtesies during a visit are normal. Items of real value, or anything that could look like thanks in advance, need disclosure and guidance under ICoBC policy. **** ## The procedure ### Three steps: disclose, assess, act When you notice a possible conflict, follow a short and repeatable procedure. The general rules are the same in most quality systems, and ICoBC applies them to Lead Reviewers and Accredited Partners. 1. **Disclose.** Tell the review coordinator, in writing and as early as possible, what the tie is. Describe the facts. Do not argue that it is harmless. 2. **Assess.** A person other than you decides whether the conflict is serious and what to do. You do not judge your own case. 3. **Act.** The decision is recorded. If the conflict is serious, you **recuse** yourself, which means that you step out of the review and take no part in the findings or the decision. If it is minor, the decision may allow you to continue with named safeguards. Disclosure is a duty. It is also a protection for you, because a recorded disclosure shows that you acted in good faith. {{1}} Decision tree for disclosure and recusal A flow chart. Start: you notice a tie to the client. Question one: could it influence or appear to influence your judgement. If no, continue and keep a note. If yes or unsure, disclose in writing to the review coordinator. The coordinator assesses. If the conflict is serious, you recuse and the decision is recorded. If it is minor, you continue with recorded safeguards. You notice a tie to the client Could it influence, or appear to influence, your judgement? Clearly no Continue and keep a short note Yes or unsure Disclose in writing to the review coordinator Someone else assesses how serious it is Serious: you recuse and the decision is recorded Minor: continue with recorded safeguards ### What a good disclosure contains A disclosure is short and factual. It should state: - who you are and the role you hold in this review or engagement; - the client or case concerned; - the nature of the tie, such as consulting work, a family link or a financial interest; - when the tie started, and whether it has ended; - what you have already done, for example whether you have seen documents or taken part in a discussion. You do not need to prove that you would stay fair. You also do not need to explain at length why you think the tie is harmless. Your own view of your fairness is not the test, because the question is how the tie looks to others and what it could do. Make the disclosure early. A tie that is raised before the review begins is easy to handle: another reviewer takes the place. A tie that is raised halfway through, or after the report, can invalidate work already done and damage trust in the result. ### What recusal means in practice When you recuse yourself, you step out completely. In practice: - you stop reading and receiving documents for that review; - you take no part in meetings, discussions or decisions about it; - you do not talk to the other team members or to the client about the case; - you hand over any material you have, as the coordinator instructs; - you do not advise anyone on the outcome. Recusal is neutral. It is not a penalty and it is not an admission of wrongdoing. It is the normal result of an honest disclosure when a conflict is serious. Where a conflict is minor, the coordinator may decide that you continue with safeguards. A safeguard could be a second reviewer who checks your part of the work, or a limit on what you review. The safeguards are written down so that others can see them. The decision belongs to the coordinator, not to you. ### Records, ongoing duties and unclear cases Keep a copy of your disclosure and the written decision. If your circumstances change during the review, disclose again. A new job offer, a new client relationship or a change in your organisation can all create a conflict that did not exist at the start. If you are unsure whether something counts, disclose. The cost of a disclosure that turns out to be unnecessary is small. The cost of a conflict that comes to light later is large, both for the people concerned and for the trust in the Seal. Details such as the exact reporting channel, the form to use, deadlines and who forms the coordinating function are set by ICoBC procedures and may change while the VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are still Emerging. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. **Worked example: A disclosure on day two** Amara is an ICoBC Lead Reviewer (N2). She is part of a three-person team reviewing Lakeshore College. On the first evening, while reading the self-assessment, she notices that the improvement plan was written with help from Tomas, who is a colleague at her own firm. She did not know that her firm had worked with the college. Amara has not discussed the college with Tomas, and she has not seen any of his files. Even so, her firm has an interest in how the college is judged. She follows the procedure. She writes to the review coordinator the same evening and states the facts: her firm's earlier consulting, her lack of contact with Tomas about this case, and the documents she has read so far. The coordinator decides that the conflict is serious because it is organisational and directly tied to the plan under review. Amara recuses herself. She hands over her notes, and the coordinator appoints a replacement. The decision is recorded. Amara acted as soon as she saw the issue and gave clear facts. The review team lost one day, and the Seal lost nothing. **Practice activity: Write a disclosure** Imagine this situation. You are an Accredited Partner (N3). You have been invited to join a panel reviewing a provider called Harbour Institute. You realise that your cousin teaches there part-time and may be affected by the findings. Write a disclosure of three to five sentences for the review coordinator. Include your role, the case, the nature of the tie and what you have already done. Then check your text against the list in "What a good disclosure contains". A good answer is short, factual and early, and it does not argue that the tie is harmless.
Facilitator notes Pairs swap their written disclosures and give feedback using the five-point list. Ask them to underline any sentence that argues the tie is harmless and remove it. Then run a short role play in which one person is the coordinator and decides, with a reason, between recusal and continuation with safeguards. The coordinator must not ask the discloser to decide. Time: 20 minutes.
### Check your understanding: The procedure **Question 1.** You notice a tie to a client and you are not sure whether it matters. What should you do? [( )] Wait to see whether it affects your findings [( )] Decide privately that it is harmless and carry on [(X)] Disclose it in writing to the review coordinator [( )] Ask the client whether they mind [[?]] When in doubt, the procedure asks for disclosure. **** When you are unsure, you disclose. The disclosure costs little if the tie turns out to be minor, and silence can cause serious harm to trust later. **** **Question 2.** Who decides whether a disclosed conflict is serious? [( )] The person who disclosed it, since they know the facts best [( )] The client being reviewed [(X)] Someone other than the person with the conflict, such as the review coordinator [( )] The other members of the panel by majority vote, including the discloser [[?]] A person should not judge their own case. **** The assessment is made by a person other than the one with the tie, so that nobody judges their own case. The decision and its reasons are recorded. **** **Question 3.** Which action belongs to recusal? [( )] Continuing to read the documents but not signing the report [( )] Telling the other team members informally what you think [(X)] Stopping all work on the review and handing over material as instructed [( )] Taking part in the discussion but not in the final decision [[?]] Recusal means stepping out completely. **** Recusal is complete. You stop reading, you do not attend meetings or discuss the case, and you hand over material as the coordinator instructs. **** **Question 4.** Your circumstances change in the middle of a review because you receive a job enquiry from the client. What should you do? [( )] Nothing, because you disclosed at the start [( )] Wait until the report is finished and then mention it [( )] Quietly decline the enquiry and say nothing [(X)] Disclose the change to the review coordinator promptly [[?]] Disclosure is an ongoing duty, not a one-time event. **** Disclosure is an ongoing duty. A new job enquiry from the client is a new tie, and the coordinator must be told promptly so that the situation can be assessed again. **** ## Assessment and badge ### Final knowledge check This scenario quiz covers all three learning outcomes. You need **full marks** to pass, and you can retake it as often as you like. Each scenario is invented for teaching, and all names are illustrative. **Question 1.** Which description matches the ICoBC model? [( )] The same organisation may coach and review a client if different people do the two tasks [(X)] Consulting for a client and reviewing that same client are kept separate behind a firewall [( )] Only Lead Reviewers may advise clients, and Accredited Partners review them [( )] Consulting and review may be combined when the client consents [[?]] Think about the purpose of the firewall. **** The firewall separates consulting from review for the same client. Different people in the same organisation do not solve the problem, and client consent does not remove it, because the trust in the Seal belongs to everyone who relies on it. **** **Question 2.** Why does a visible firewall protect holders of the Global Quality Seal who were never involved in a conflict? [( )] It makes reviews faster for every holder [( )] It lets the Seal be issued without evidence [(X)] It keeps general trust in the Seal high, and a single compromised review would weaken it for all holders [( )] It allows holders to choose their own reviewers [[?]] The Seal works because outsiders rely on it. **** The Seal is a shared signal of trust. A compromised review damages the confidence that all holders depend on, so a visible firewall protects them all. **** **Question 3.** A Lead Reviewer was an adviser to a provider three years ago and the work is finished. Which statement is most accurate? [( )] There is no issue, because the work ended [( )] The reviewer must leave the network [(X)] The past tie should be disclosed so that the coordinator can assess whether it could influence or appear to influence the review [( )] The tie matters only if the reviewer was paid in the last year [[?]] Past ties can still be relevant. **** Past ties may still matter. The reviewer discloses, and someone else assesses how serious the tie is, taking into account what the work was and how long ago it ended. Details of any time limits come from ICoBC governance documents. **** **Question 4.** A Lead Reviewer's close friend is the quality director of the client. The reviewer is confident that they would stay fair. What is the right conclusion? [( )] No action is needed because the reviewer is confident [( )] The friend should be asked whether they mind [(X)] The tie must be disclosed, because the reviewer's own confidence is not the test [( )] The reviewer should continue and mention the friendship in the report [[?]] Who decides whether the tie matters? **** A close personal relationship is a typical source of conflict. The reviewer's view of their own fairness does not settle the matter. Disclosure lets another person decide. **** **Question 5.** An Accredited Partner's consulting arm is helping a provider to prepare. The same organisation's separate assessment unit is asked to join the review of that provider. Which is correct? [( )] Allowed, since the two units have different managers [( )] Allowed, if the units never share files [(X)] Not allowed, because the organisation is on both sides and the conflict is organisational [( )] Allowed, if the provider pays a reduced fee [[?]] The firewall applies to organisations as well as to people. **** The conflict sits at the level of the organisation, which gains from both relationships. Separate managers or file rules do not remove it. **** **Question 6.** Before a review begins, a client sends the review team an expensive gift basket with a thank-you note. What is the best action? [( )] Share the basket among the team and say nothing [( )] Keep it, since a note of thanks is polite [(X)] Decline or hand it to the coordinator, disclose the offer in writing and follow the guidance [( )] Accept it and mention it only if the review result is negative [[?]] Value and timing matter. **** A gift of real value around a review could look like thanks in advance and must be disclosed. The coordinator decides how to handle it, and the safest response is to decline. **** **Question 7.** A Lead Reviewer learns on the second day that the client is a direct competitor of the reviewer's employer. Which is the correct first step? [( )] Finish the review quickly so no harm is done [( )] Ask the client to confirm that there is no problem [(X)] Disclose in writing to the review coordinator as soon as the reviewer notices it [( )] Continue but avoid commenting on sensitive areas [[?]] The first step in the procedure is always disclosure. **** A competing interest is a typical source of conflict. The reviewer discloses as soon as they notice it. Someone else then assesses the seriousness and decides on the action. **** **Question 8.** Who decides whether a disclosed conflict leads to recusal or to continuation with safeguards? [( )] The reviewer with the conflict [( )] The client [(X)] A person other than the reviewer, such as the review coordinator, who records the decision [( )] Whichever team member has the most experience [[?]] A person should not judge their own case. **** The decision belongs to someone other than the person with the conflict. It is recorded so that the reasons are visible later. **** **Question 9.** What does recusal require in practice? [( )] Staying on the team but abstaining from the final vote [( )] Reading the evidence but not writing findings [(X)] Stopping all work on the review, handing over material and not discussing the case [( )] Giving informal advice to the replacement reviewer [[?]] Recusal is complete. **** Recusal means stepping out completely: no reading, no meetings, no discussion and no informal advice. **** **Question 10.** Midway through a review, a Lead Reviewer is invited by the client to bid for next year's improvement project. What should the reviewer do? [( )] Decline the invitation silently and continue [( )] Accept the invitation to bid after the report is signed [( )] Wait until the review ends and then mention it [(X)] Disclose the invitation promptly to the review coordinator and follow the decision [[?]] A new tie arising during a review must be disclosed. **** A possible future contract with the client is a new tie. The reviewer discloses it promptly, and the coordinator assesses it again. Silent refusal does not give others the chance to decide. **** ### Rubric | Criterion | Evidence in the quiz | Level reached at full marks | |---|---|---| | Explains the consulting and review separation (outcome 1) | Questions 1 and 2 | Explains the firewall and why it protects trust in the Seal | | Identifies conflicts in realistic situations (outcome 2) | Questions 3 to 7 | Recognises prior, financial, personal, organisational, competing and gift-related conflicts | | Applies the disclosure and recusal procedure (outcome 3) | Questions 8 to 10 | Chooses to disclose early, leaves the assessment to another person and describes recusal correctly | ### Pass rule and badge evidence - **Pass rule:** full marks, which means all 10 questions answered correctly. - **Retakes:** allowed without limit. - **Badge:** "Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network (Knowledge, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-K. - **Evidence submitted for the badge:** the passed quiz. Completing this course shows that you understand the concepts, rules and reasons covered here. It does not prove competence in a job. ## Sources and further reading The following are standards bodies and framework owners whose published work covers independence, impartiality and conflicts of interest in conformity assessment and accreditation. Search their sites for the current editions, because texts are revised from time to time. - International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): ISO/IEC 17000, *Conformity assessment: Vocabulary and general principles*. - ISO and IEC: ISO/IEC 17011, *Conformity assessment: Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies*. - ISO and IEC: ISO/IEC 17021-1, *Conformity assessment: Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems*. - ISO: ISO 19011, *Guidelines for auditing management systems*. - ISO: ISO 9000, *Quality management systems: Fundamentals and vocabulary*. - European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA): *Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG)*. - ICoBC (internal): the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF) and the ICoBC governance documents on independence, disclosure and recusal. **Time-sensitive facts.** The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are at status Emerging. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.