Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Policy

Version 1.0 · Effective 31 July 2026 · The current online version controls.

1. Purpose

This policy sets the ethical and impartiality principles that apply to Reedleys recognition, verification, directory and review activities. Its purpose is to reduce bias, manage conflicts and protect confidence in published ratings and statuses.

2. Core principles

Reedleys seeks to act with:

• integrity - decisions and public statements should be honest and supportable;
• impartiality - commercial interests must not determine recognition outcomes;
• fairness - applicants should be treated consistently and given a reasonable opportunity to clarify material issues;
• competence - reviewers should work within their training and authority;
• proportionality - requirements should be applied according to the relevant profile, jurisdiction and risk;
• confidentiality - non-public information should be used only for legitimate purposes;
• transparency - Reedleys should explain the nature and limitations of recognition;
• non-discrimination - decisions must not be based on protected personal characteristics or irrelevant personal opinions;
• accountability - material decisions and conflicts should be recorded.

3. Commercial independence

Recognition fees, subscriptions, advertising, featured placement, lead-generation services, partnerships and API arrangements are separate from the assessment outcome. Current plans and what each one buys are set out on the pricing page.

No person acting for Reedleys may:

• sell or guarantee Recognized status or a particular rating;
• imply that purchasing a higher plan improves the assessment result;
• threaten an applicant with a lower rating for declining a commercial service;
• change an assessment to satisfy a sales target, partner or advertiser;
• accept a personal benefit in exchange for favorable treatment.

4. Conflicts of interest

A conflict may arise where a reviewer has a personal, family, financial, employment, advisory, competitive or other relationship that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, impartiality.

People involved in a material decision must disclose relevant conflicts. Reedleys may respond by:

• assigning another reviewer;
• limiting the conflicted person's role;
• obtaining a second review;
• recording why the conflict is not material;
• declining or pausing the assessment where the conflict cannot be managed.

5. Gifts and benefits

Assessors and decision-makers must not request or accept gifts, hospitality, discounts, commissions, referral payments or other benefits that could influence or appear to influence a decision. Low-value customary items may be accepted only where permitted by Reedleys and where they cannot reasonably affect impartiality.

Applicants should not offer incentives connected to an assessment outcome.

6. Confidentiality and proper use of information

Non-public application information may be used only for assessment, verification, quality control, security, appeals, complaints, legal compliance and related legitimate purposes.

A reviewer must not:

• use confidential information for personal advantage;
• disclose evidence to an unrelated applicant or competitor;
• retain personal copies outside authorized systems;
• discuss a case publicly without authorization;
• access a file without a work-related need.

7. Evidence and honesty

Reedleys expects applicants, representatives and reviewers to act honestly. Deliberately altered documents, false declarations, impersonation, hidden conflicts, fabricated reviews, borrowed credentials or misleading use of another entity's evidence may result in rejection, suspension, withdrawal or account restrictions.

A concern must be assessed fairly. Suspicion alone is not treated as proven misconduct without reasonable supporting information.

8. Competence and consistency

Reedleys provides instructions, templates, standards and quality controls appropriate to the reviewer's role. Complex, high-risk or unfamiliar cases may be escalated for a second opinion or specialist input.

Reedleys may use calibration, sample review and decision comparison to reduce inconsistent treatment.

9. Respectful conduct

Reedleys personnel, applicants and users must communicate without threats, harassment, discrimination, bribery or deliberate deception. Firm disagreement, criticism and good-faith complaints are permitted; abusive conduct is not.

10. Public claims

Reedleys and recognized profiles must describe recognition accurately. Recognition must not be presented as government licensing, statutory accreditation, regulatory approval, a credit rating, an investment recommendation or a guarantee of service quality or future conduct. How marks and ratings may be described is set out in the Badge, Certificate and Rating Use Policy.

11. Reporting a concern

A person may report a suspected conflict, unethical conduct or improper influence through the complaints contact form. Reports should include specific facts or evidence where possible.

Good-faith reporting will not by itself disadvantage an applicant or user. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may be treated as abuse.

12. Breaches

Depending on seriousness, Reedleys may provide guidance, remove a person from a case, repeat an assessment, correct a decision, restrict system access, suspend or end a contractor relationship, suspend or withdraw recognition, or take other proportionate action.

13. Policy ownership and review

Reedleys reviews this policy periodically and may update controls as its services, jurisdictions and risk profile develop.