As a diverse movement with presence in more than 60 countries, Amnesty International members and volunteers put their time, energy and expertise to drive each of the national entities forward, with good governance and management. Our people-powered movement is all about achieving human rights for all. To do that, Amnesty needs to continue to strengthen our governance and decision-making capacity and skills of our Boards and membership. Since 2013, Amnesty’s Core Standards have guided the movement on how to fortify and improve how we develop our entities. One very important area of governance in the Core Standards is about preventing, managing and recording conflict of interest under Standards 3(VI) and 10.
As each of our entities membership gather in General Meetings to make decisions regarding the vision, strategy and overall organisational health of the organisation (Core Standard 1), we need to always check whether a conflict of interest between what it is being decided and who can decide on it exists. A conflict of interest is any situation in which a Board member or an individual member personal interests or loyalties could, or could be seen to, prevent the that person from making a decision only in the best interests of the Amnesty entity. In other words, if a leader (Board member) or member with voting rights has something to gain from a particular decision, they have a conflict of interest between a personal individual gain and that of the Amnesty entity and the Amnesty movement.
At Amnesty, we have two policies governing conflict of interest for Board members in leadership positions:
2011 International Council Meeting Decision 15: Requests that the International Executive Committee introduce the following rules:
Chairs and members of the board of Sections and Structures may not be appointed to any senior salaried post in that Section for two years following the end of their elective mandate;
Senior salaried staff of a Section or Structure may not stand for membership elected Board positions in that Section or Structure for two years following the end of office;
If a former Section leader, elected or salaried, is given a remunerated assignment, by another Section or by the International Movement, the Section of origin must first be asked for an opinion;
If it appears that, in exceptional situations, these provisions are contrary to the interests of the Movement, a decision will be made by an ad hoc commission composed of the International Executive Committee Chair, the Chair of the International Council Meeting and the Secretary General.
Amnesty’s Core Standard 3(VI) and 10
In addition to the Core Standards and the 2011 International Council Meeting Decision, our current Global Governance Regulations also contain a clause on conflict of interest:
Global Governance Regulation 7 Conflict of Interest
7.1.1 Whenever a participant has a conflict of interest or duty in a matter to be discussed at a Global Assembly meeting as defined under the applicable movement policy, the participant must declare such an interest to the Chair of the Global Assembly before discussion begins on the matter.
7.1.2 Whenever a participant has a conflict of interest or duty in a matter to be voted on at a Global Assembly meeting, this participant must: unless and to the extent that the Chair of the Global Assembly determines otherwise, having discussed the matter with the relevant participant and considered the materiality of the conflict in the circumstances, following the declaration at Regulation 7.1.1.
What we learn from these policies, standards and regulation is:
Conflict of interest is an area all governance bodies need to actively consider and mitigate taking into consideration the context, legal requirements and practice.
Developing a conflict of interest policy and procedure is needed for Board members and recommended in general for all voting members.
Boards are responsible for creating a clear policy, definitions and procedures to manage conflict of interest to comply with the Core Standards
How about Staff members?
In addition to having a clear conflict of interest policy for Board members, it is recommended the principles are considered for the wider membership with voting rights at General Meetings. One aspect of applying the policy in a wider context is about the role entity staff have as members of the Amnesty movement with voting rights at the General Meeting. Although there is no movement-wide policy denying national entity staff from becoming members and voting at General Meetings, several national entities (Peru, Puerto Rico, Spain, Taiwan, Mexico, UK, Senegal) have unofficially implemented an agreement whereas staff members participate in the General Meeting, but abstain during voting. At the global level, International Secretariat staff are not allowed to vote in the Global Assembly, however, they are permitted to be members of national entities. While there is no movement-wide policy precluding staff members from voting at general meetings, there might be situations where this will transform into a conflict of interest. This would include voting on:
Board composition, elections and performance assessments
Changes to the Director role, responsibilities or terms and conditions of employment
Approving strategic plans, vision or other organisational direction decisions
Questions on salaries
To govern these situations, the Core Standards should be the point of departure to create a solid conflict of interest policy that covers volunteers and staff members. In essence, as a global movement, we must empower our internal democracy while keeping checks and balances in place for good governance.
Core Standard 10 assigns the Board the responsibility to draft a conflict of interest policy and procedure. To do so, consider the resources in this page, and the following steps:
Consider Amnesty’s Core Standards and the 2011 Policy on Conflict of Interest
Consider any legal requirement based on your country in relation to how civil society is regulated
Consider the implications of the policy to the entity statute or other regulations
The policy should cover three key areas:
Identification: what process should be put in place for members to declare their conflict of interest
Management: what definition and process will determine what constitutes a conflict of interest, and how will it be implemented
Recording: what process should be put in place to record the instances, situations and members that have declared a conflict of interest.
Engage in an open and constructive conversation with Board members, and members at large to create a solid and future-proof policy
Consider seeking the advice of the Movement Building Programme, including Regional Capacity Building Coordinators (movementbuilding@amnesty.org) at the Secretariat to get input on the policy development process, how to create good conversations and keep a healthy debate at entity level.
