COI & Integrity Screening

Effective tobacco control depends on institutions that can identify conflicts early, manage interactions carefully, and protect public-interest decision-making from concealed or normalized industry influence.

Integrity safeguards

Screening systems help institutions detect risk before access, participation, or partnership becomes normalized.

Key facts What it is Why it matters Screening pathways Solutions

Key facts

Conflict-of-interest screening is strongest when it is built into routine institutional practice rather than treated as an exceptional step only for obvious tobacco-facing decisions.

COI

screening is a governance safeguard, not a paperwork exercise, when tobacco interests seek access to policy processes.

Early

disclosure and screening reduce the chance that conflicted actors shape agendas before risks are detected.

System

integrity depends on protocols across ministries, agencies, meetings, procurement, and advisory processes.

Article 5.3

implementation becomes more practical when institutions have clear screening and interaction rules.

What it is

What does this issue involve?

COI and integrity screening is the practical work of identifying affiliations, funding links, prior relationships, representation patterns, and other indicators that a person or organization may compromise a public-interest process.

In tobacco control, this includes screening for direct industry links as well as third-party, front-group, or sponsored participation that can appear independent while advancing tobacco interests.

Good screening systems are clear, repeatable, and usable. They help institutions decide when to limit access, require disclosure, document necessary interactions, or exclude conflicted participation entirely.

Why it matters

Why is it urgent to act?

Integrity failures rarely begin with a dramatic public breach. More often they start with routine access, weak disclosure, and assumptions that no screening was necessary.

Influence often arrives before policy debate starts

Conflicted participation in consultations, expert groups, technical meetings, or procurement discussions can shape assumptions long before a public decision is visible.

Undisclosed links weaken public trust

When affiliations, funding, or prior industry relationships are hidden or treated casually, institutions create avoidable risks for credibility, legality, and policy quality.

Good screening reduces administrative burden later

Clear upfront rules help prevent avoidable disputes, recusal problems, access controversies, and integrity failures that are far more costly once decisions are underway.

Screening pathways

Common integrity checkpoints

Effective systems make screening ordinary. They define where risks appear, who reviews them, and what action follows when a conflict or integrity concern is identified.

Meeting and consultation protocols

Institutions need clear rules for who may participate, what must be disclosed, and how necessary interactions are recorded and justified.

Explore related materials

Advisory, expert, and research safeguards

Panels, working groups, and evidence processes should screen financial, institutional, and third-party links before participation is approved.

Explore related materials

Procurement and partnership diligence

Integrity screening should extend beyond policymaking to grants, events, sponsorships, partnerships, and vendor relationships that can normalize industry access.

Explore related materials

Cross-government implementation

Health ministries alone cannot carry this work. Finance, customs, education, justice, foreign affairs, and executive offices also need usable safeguards.

Explore related materials

Solutions

Tools and pathways for action

GGTC’s screening and integrity work is most useful when institutions can translate principles into concrete operating rules, documentation practice, and whole-of-government implementation.

Use the Article 5.3 handbook

Apply practical guidance on limiting interactions, documenting necessary contacts, and strengthening whole-of-government safeguards.

Read handbook

Benchmark risk with the GTI

Use comparative evidence to identify recurring interference patterns and explain why stronger screening systems are needed.

Visit GTI

Pair screening with broader accountability

Conflict-of-interest safeguards work best when linked with transparency, liability, and administrative accountability measures.

Explore liability

Use GGTC resource collections

Build institutional practice around templates, examples, and public-interest governance materials already curated by GGTC.

Browse resources