An AI conflict of interest check agent compares supplier owners, directors, addresses and bank details with employee declarations and your internal records, and notes overlaps that deserve a look.
Agent collects supplier owners and key contacts.
Agent compares them with staff and declarations.
Agent lists possible relationships and their basis.
Ethics officer decides whether a conflict exists.
Decision and any controls are stored.
Agent informs the requester of the outcome.
It checks that the people on the request, such as the requester and approver, have submitted a current declaration, and chases missing ones through a draft message.
It lists each possible link with the evidence and its confidence, and sends it to a named reviewer without drawing any conclusion about intent.
Conflicts are rarely declared openly, and spotting a link means connecting data that sits in separate systems and is held by different teams.
A shared address or bank account is not visible when records are reviewed one at a time.
People do not always file them, and nobody checks.
Reviewers are reluctant to raise a suspicion without evidence.
Common names create false positives and erode trust in alerts.
Conflicts surface after the contract is signed, when options are limited.
Supplier owners, directors, addresses and bank details are collected with the people involved in the request.
These are compared with employee declarations and relevant internal records your policy allows.
Possible links are scored on how strong the matching details are, to separate coincidence from concern.
Missing or old declarations from the people involved are identified and a reminder is drafted.
Findings go only to the named compliance reviewer, with the evidence and no conclusion on intent.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Conflicts are caught only if someone recognises a name. | Agent compares supplier names against declarations and staff records permitted for the check. |
| Declarations | Staff declarations are not linked to suppliers. | Declared interests are matched to supplier records. |
| Discretion | Findings are discussed informally. | Matches go only to the ethics officer. |
| Controls | Mitigations are agreed verbally. | Agreed controls are recorded on the record. |
| Timing | Checks happen after selection. | Checks happen before onboarding completes. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| a supplier owner matches a declared interest | send to ethics officer only | Ethics officer |
| an address or phone matches a staff record | show the shared detail | Ethics officer |
| the match is on a common name | mark it as weak | Ethics officer |
| the requester has declared a relationship | hold the request for review | Ethics officer |
| a mitigation is agreed | record it and set a review date | Ethics officer |
| no matches are found | record a clear check | Ethics officer |
The agent only uses data the policy permits for this purpose. The ethics officer and privacy lead decide what is in scope.
A shared surname is shown as a weak indicator only. The ethics officer decides whether to ask questions.
The agent shows the earlier approval and its conditions. The officer decides if they still apply.
The agent routes the case to the ethics officer without alerting the requester. The officer decides who else to involve.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Agree what data may be compared.
Run checks for a small group of suppliers.
Check false match levels.
Extend to all new suppliers.
It shows whether the people involved in supplier decisions have declared interests recently. Low currency weakens any conflict check.
Quick answers to what people ask most about conflict of interest check.
Book a demoIt is a check for personal, financial or family connections between people at your company and a supplier. An AI agent can compare data and declarations and flag possible links for compliance to review.
No. It reports possible links with the evidence and confidence, and a compliance reviewer decides what, if anything, they mean.
Supplier owners, directors, addresses and bank details against declarations and internal records that your policy and privacy rules allow it to use.
Only the reviewers your policy names. Restricting access protects individuals while the facts are established.
Supplier ESG assessment is the step of evaluating a supplier's environmental, social and governance practices against your own standards, such as emissions reporting, labour conditions and ethics policies.
→Supplier tiering is the practice of grouping suppliers into levels, such as strategic, preferred or transactional, so that oversight matches importance and risk.
→A supplier credit risk check is the step of assessing how likely a supplier is to fail financially or default on its obligations, using credit reports, payment history and public records.
→Supplier classification is the step of labelling each supplier by what it provides and what it is, such as spend category, industry code, legal type, diversity status or goods versus services.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
