Ethical Risks in Public-Private Advocacy

David Bell
Dec 1
13 min read

Public-private advocacy partnerships - where governments, non-profits, and private companies collaborate to influence policies - can deliver meaningful policy changes. But they also bring serious ethical risks. Here's what you need to know:

Conflicts of Interest: Private sector profit motives may clash with public interest goals, risking biased advocacy and undermining trust.
Transparency Issues: Hidden funding, undisclosed agreements, and opaque decision-making erode public confidence.
Revolving Door Practices: Movement of personnel between public and private sectors can lead to undue influence on policies.
Accountability Gaps: Weak governance and oversight can allow private interests to dominate partnerships.

To address these risks, organisations must prioritise transparency, enforce robust governance, and rely on evidence-based advocacy. Clear conflict-of-interest policies, independent oversight, and public disclosure of funding and relationships are essential to maintaining trust and ensuring these collaborations genuinely serve the public good.

Main Ethical Risks in Public-Private Advocacy

Public–private advocacy partnerships come with a set of ethical challenges that can jeopardise both their credibility and success. It's important for stakeholders in government, non-profits, and the private sector to be aware of these potential pitfalls.

Conflicts of Interest and Misaligned Priorities

One of the biggest ethical hurdles in these partnerships stems from the natural tension between public and private goals. While public agencies are driven by the need to serve the community and uphold the public interest, private companies are focused on achieving measurable financial returns for their stakeholders [3]. When these two objectives intersect, they can clash in ways that may compromise advocacy efforts.

Take, for example, a public health organisation aiming to ensure universal access to healthcare. Its private sector partner, however, might prioritise expanding its market share. This difference in focus can result in advocacy campaigns that inadvertently lean towards commercial interests rather than the broader public good [3].

A particularly troubling outcome is rent-seeking behaviour, where private entities use these partnerships to gain preferential treatment or economic advantages. This could manifest in several ways:

Advocacy messaging that heavily promotes private sector solutions.
Funding arrangements where private organisations dictate advocacy priorities.
Decision-making processes that shut out public input.
Policy recommendations that oddly align with the private partner's business goals [2].

For such partnerships to work ethically, they must adhere to a guiding principle:

the benefits to the public should be clear and measurable and outweigh the risks.

Additionally:

the partnership should not adversely affect the public's trust in the agency or create a reputational risk for the agency [1].

Unfortunately, power imbalances often tilt these partnerships in favour of private entities, leaving public interests sidelined [4].

Ethical Consideration	Public Sector Priority	Private Sector Priority	Potential Conflict
Profit vs. Public Good	Serving the public interest	Maximising shareholder returns	Differing views on pricing, service levels, and investment priorities [4]
Transparency	Full public disclosure	Safeguarding proprietary data	Hidden funding sources or undisclosed agreements
Decision-Making	Democratic accountability	Efficiency and cost control	Power imbalances favouring private partners [4]

Transparency and Public Accountability Issues

Transparency - or the lack of it - adds another layer of ethical complexity. When the public is kept in the dark about funding sources, decision-making processes, or the agreements driving advocacy campaigns, it becomes nearly impossible to discern whose interests are truly being served.

The CDC’s ethical framework highlights the need for transparency in these partnerships, advocating for:

full public disclosure of policies, procedures, and guidelines governing partnerships with private industry,

and:

public posting of information about all projects funded by private entities and how the relationship supports agency priorities and the core mission [1].

Without these safeguards, advocacy risks becoming a tool for advancing private interests under the guise of serving the public.

Procurement phases are particularly vulnerable to ethical breaches like corruption, conflicts of interest, and opacity. Advocacy partnerships face even more scrutiny because their outcomes - such as policy recommendations and public messaging - are less tangible than physical projects like infrastructure [4].

Revolving Door Dynamics and Self-Dealing

Personnel transitions between the public and private sectors, often referred to as the "revolving door", introduce another ethical challenge. When former government officials or policy advisers take up roles in private advocacy, they bring with them insider knowledge, established relationships, and credibility that can be exploited to sway policies in favour of their new employers. This dynamic is especially problematic because it allows private interests to shape advocacy strategies in ways that may not align with the public good.

Similarly, current public officials may make decisions influenced by the prospect of lucrative private sector roles in the future. This kind of self-dealing undermines the integrity of advocacy efforts, as policy decisions may be driven more by personal career ambitions than by evidence-based analysis of what benefits the public.

Collusion between political figures and favoured firms can also distort policy outcomes [2]. Such practices not only erode trust in public–private partnerships but can also discourage legitimate private investment in areas like infrastructure [2].

Unlike outright corruption, revolving door dynamics are subtle and legal, making them harder to regulate. The challenge lies in distinguishing between the legitimate transfer of expertise and undue influence. Moreover, these partnerships often reflect deeper power imbalances within political and economic systems [4]. In advocacy, these imbalances determine which voices get amplified, what evidence is prioritised, and ultimately which policies are promoted to the public and policymakers.

When combined, these ethical risks - conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and revolving door practices - pose a serious threat to public trust and accountability. They can undermine the legitimacy of advocacy partnerships and the democratic principles they aim to support.

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks Governing Advocacy

Advocacy partnerships operate within a complex web of legal requirements, which can vary based on the organisations involved and the nature of their activities. These legal frameworks establish the minimum standards for ethical advocacy, but true integrity often demands going beyond compliance.

Advocacy Regulations for Non-Profits and Private Entities

Legal regulations play a crucial role in shaping the boundaries of advocacy partnerships, particularly for charities and non-profits. In the UK, charities must adhere to the Charities Act 2011, which allows them to engage in political activities and campaigning - but only if these efforts support their charitable purposes and do not overshadow their primary mission. This creates a careful balancing act: advocacy must align with the organisation’s goals without dominating its overall focus.

For charities spending over £20,000 on regulated campaigning, registration as a recognised third party under the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 is required. This ensures that significant advocacy spending is transparent and accountable.

Advocacy partnerships face stricter scrutiny compared to commercial arrangements. While commercial partnerships are primarily governed by contract law and financial regulations, advocacy initiatives must also consider factors like tax-exempt status, donor transparency, and restrictions on political activities. Charities are required to disclose related party transactions and major funding sources in their annual accounts submitted to the Charity Commission. Additionally, lobbying organisations engaging in direct lobbying must register with the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. Publicly funded bodies are subject to transparency requirements concerning partnerships and funding arrangements. These disclosure obligations aim to provide public oversight, though their effectiveness depends largely on how accessible and clear the disclosed information is.

Beyond Legal Compliance: Ethical Considerations

While legal standards set the baseline, ethical advocacy demands a deeper commitment to transparency, accountability, and prioritising public benefit. The CDC’s Advisory Committee, which began its work in April 2015 and included representatives from academia, healthcare, charities, and private industry, outlined four core ethical principles:

partnerships should not negatively impact public trust in the public agency; transparency should be maximised; partnerships should support the public agency's core mission; and all staff members should be accountable for following partnership guidelines [1].

These principles highlight the tension between public and private sector goals. Public entities focus on serving the public interest, while private organisations often prioritise measurable economic outcomes [3]. A well-designed legal framework should bridge these differences, ensuring that ethical principles and economic goals align to benefit the public while minimising risks like moral hazard [3].

Ethical advocacy also requires organisations to conduct thorough impact assessments before entering into partnerships. This involves setting mission-driven metrics and carefully evaluating potential risks, such as reputational harm or loss of credibility. Before formalising a partnership, organisations should:

Review applicable legal constraints
Identify key stakeholders and their values
Analyse risks and benefits
Assess the implications of displaying private entity logos on materials
Develop strategies to maximise benefits while minimising risks [1]

These steps go well beyond legal obligations but are essential for maintaining public trust and credibility.

Transparency is a key area where ethical practice often surpasses legal requirements. While regulations may mandate disclosure of funding sources, ethical standards call for organisations to provide detailed information about how funding relationships influence advocacy priorities. For example, the CDC recommends publicly disclosing policies, procedures, and guidelines for partnerships with private entities. This includes sharing information about all privately funded projects and how these align with the organisation’s mission [1]. Such practices demonstrate a commitment to public benefit over private interests.

Balancing transparency with legitimate confidentiality concerns remains challenging. Organisations must adopt tiered disclosure approaches that prioritise openness while safeguarding sensitive information, such as commercial data or personal details protected under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Confidentiality should only apply when disclosure would lead to genuine harm.

Independent oversight serves as another layer of ethical protection. Advocacy organisations can establish ethics committees with external members, advisory boards representing diverse perspectives, or conduct regular audits focused on partnership governance. Although not legally required for most organisations, these mechanisms help prevent conflicts of interest and ensure accountability.

The way risks are perceived and managed within public–private partnerships is often shaped by social dynamics. Research shows that ethical risk-sharing can improve a partnership’s ability to navigate challenges, reducing the likelihood of project failure [3]. Most failures stem from poor risk-sharing rather than other factors [3]. This underscores the importance of ethical frameworks - not only to prevent misconduct but also to build trust and foster successful collaborations.

Public scepticism towards advocacy partnerships often arises from the assumption that private sector involvement prioritises profit over public interest [3]. Legal compliance alone cannot address this perception. Only genuine ethical practices - demonstrated through transparency, independent oversight, and a clear focus on public benefit - can build the trust needed for advocacy partnerships to effectively influence policy and public opinion.

Aligning rigorous legal standards with strong ethical principles is essential to fostering trust and ensuring that public–private advocacy efforts genuinely serve the public good.

How to Reduce Ethical Risks in Advocacy

Minimising ethical risks in public–private advocacy calls for a combination of transparency, strong governance, and evidence-based practices. These steps not only help safeguard public trust but also ensure that advocacy efforts genuinely work for societal benefit. With these principles in place, organisations can adopt more focused strategies to maintain accountability.

Improving Transparency and Disclosure Practices

Transparency is the bedrock of ethical advocacy. Organisations must openly share details about their funding sources, including the identities of their partners, the amounts received, and any conditions attached. This openness ensures that funding aligns with their mission and builds public confidence in their work [1].

Key areas for disclosure include memberships in trade associations, consultancy ties, and any financial benefits received by staff or board members from private entities. It’s also crucial to reveal past employment connections that could influence current advocacy activities. For example, if an organisation receives funding from a cultivated meat company, it should clearly state the funding amount, the company’s identity, any attached conditions, and how this funding could influence its advocacy efforts.

To balance openness with legal and ethical considerations, organisations can use tiered disclosure methods. This approach respects UK laws on protecting sensitive commercial and personal information while still prioritising transparency.

Strengthening Governance and Oversight Mechanisms

Transparency alone isn’t enough - strong governance is equally critical. Organisations must establish frameworks that address potential conflicts and ensure accountability at every stage of a partnership. Clear conflict of interest policies are vital, requiring staff to disclose financial interests, board memberships, and personal relationships with private partners. Conducting thorough pre-partnership reviews can help identify risks - whether ethical, financial, or programmatic - before they escalate.

Multi-disciplinary reviews, involving legal, ethics, and policy experts, provide a comprehensive approach to evaluating partnerships [1]. Independent oversight committees, including external stakeholders from fields like academia, healthcare, non-profits, and affected communities, can offer impartial assessments. These committees evaluate whether partnerships might create conflicts, undermine public trust, or fail to deliver public benefits.

Written guidelines should outline roles, responsibilities, and accountability measures within partnerships. Organisations should also define "deal-breaker" criteria - conditions under which a partnership would be rejected outright, regardless of potential funding benefits. Regular ethics reviews, audits, and independent grievance mechanisms give stakeholders a voice and ensure that accountability remains an ongoing priority.

The Role of Evidence-Based Advocacy

Evidence-based approaches are essential to maintaining credibility in advocacy. Policy recommendations should rely on peer-reviewed research and independently verified data, ensuring they remain impartial and trustworthy. Organisations must develop clear research protocols to separate advocacy from research, maintaining objectivity in their claims.

Take The Cultivarian Society as an example. This organisation backs its policy positions with rigorous data, highlighting that cultivated meat production results in 92% fewer emissions and uses 99% less land compared to traditional farming methods [6]. By presenting concrete evidence - such as the existence of 259 cultivated meat companies globally and the annual slaughter of 92 billion land animals - they raise public awareness and support policy change while maintaining credibility.

When partnering with food technology companies, advocacy groups should independently verify environmental claims through detailed research and impact assessments. These measures ensure that the public benefits of partnerships are measurable and outweigh any associated risks. Regular reviews and flexibility to adjust advocacy positions based on new evidence further strengthen credibility. Additionally, diversifying funding sources helps organisations maintain independence, ensuring their policy decisions are guided by evidence rather than the influence of a single commercial partner.

Conclusion: Building Ethical Advocacy for the Future

Public–private advocacy partnerships have the potential to bring about transformative change, but only when they are firmly grounded in ethical principles. Challenges like conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and weak accountability can erode public trust. However, by focusing on measurable public benefits and strong governance, organisations can maintain their integrity while leveraging private sector resources to achieve their goals.

Key Takeaways

Creating ethical advocacy partnerships relies on a few core principles. Transparency is non-negotiable - organisations must openly share their policies, funding sources, and any conditions tied to private sector contributions. This openness reassures the public that advocacy efforts are aligned with public interests, not hidden agendas [1].

Public benefit must always come first. Partnerships should deliver clear, measurable outcomes that justify any risks involved. Whether it's advancing policy changes, producing reliable evidence, or raising awareness, organisations need to demonstrate how their collaborations serve the broader public good [1].

Accountability requires a structured approach. Ethical intentions alone won’t suffice. Organisations need robust governance mechanisms, including pre-partnership evaluations, regular oversight, and independent reviews. Clear conflict-of-interest policies and staff accountability are essential for fostering a culture where ethical practices are part of the organisational fabric [1].

Proactive conflict management is critical. Research into 37 cases of public–private partnership conflicts shows that disputes often arise from misaligned expectations and poor transparency [5]. By setting clear agreements, maintaining open lines of communication, and establishing fair dispute resolution processes, organisations can avoid damaging controversies that undermine their reputation and mission.

Above all, trust is the cornerstone of successful partnerships. If the public loses confidence in advocacy organisations, the entire cause suffers. To maintain trust, organisations must consistently prove that their partnerships genuinely prioritise public welfare over private interests [1].

These principles provide a roadmap for making ethical advocacy partnerships the standard.

A Vision for Ethical Advocacy Partnerships

To lead the way, mission-driven organisations must demonstrate how public–private collaborations can achieve meaningful solutions while adhering to strict ethical guidelines. This involves going beyond basic legal compliance by creating detailed ethical frameworks, documenting decision-making processes transparently, and actively involving stakeholders in discussions about advocacy practices [1].

A compelling example is The Cultivarian Society, which advocates for cultivated meat as a way to address the ethical, environmental, and societal problems associated with industrial farming. According to their data, cultivated meat offers substantial environmental advantages [6]. With 92 billion land animals slaughtered annually and 259 cultivated meat companies now operating worldwide, the urgency for policy reform is clear and backed by strong evidence [6].

When advocacy groups partner with food technology companies or similar private entities, their dedication to transparency and public benefit can challenge the assumption that such collaborations only serve private interests. Instead, well-structured partnerships can deliver solutions that benefit society, the environment, and individuals. By adhering to ethical principles and demonstrating accountability through consistent action, these organisations set a standard that others can follow.

The future of advocacy depends on recognising that transparency, accountability, and evidence-based practices are not barriers - they are the very foundation of effective partnerships. Organisations that embrace these values will not only safeguard public trust but also amplify their impact, driving meaningful change rooted in public benefit and rigorous evidence.

FAQs

How can organisations build trust by ensuring transparency in public-private advocacy partnerships?

To establish trust in public-private advocacy partnerships, organisations need to prioritise clear communication and accountability. This means being upfront about all stakeholders involved, outlining their roles, and being transparent about any financial contributions or incentives. It’s also important to make decision-making processes open and ensure the public has access to relevant information.

Another crucial step is setting up independent oversight mechanisms. These can help identify and prevent conflicts of interest, reinforcing the partnership's credibility. By focusing on openness and ethical standards, organisations can build public confidence and showcase their dedication to integrity in their advocacy efforts.

How can conflicts of interest be avoided in public-private partnerships for policy advocacy?

Preventing conflicts of interest in public-private partnerships hinges on two critical principles: transparency and accountability. To safeguard the public interest and avoid undue influence from private sector agendas, it's essential to establish clear guidelines that outline the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties.

Some effective steps to achieve this include:

Mandatory disclosure: Requiring all financial contributions, partnerships, and vested interests to be openly declared fosters greater openness and trust.
Independent oversight: Engaging third-party audits or independent monitoring ensures activities align with ethical standards and remain above board.
Public engagement: Actively involving diverse perspectives helps build trust and ensures the collaboration reflects the needs and concerns of the wider community.

By embedding these practices, partnerships can pursue their shared objectives while upholding integrity and maintaining public trust.

What is the 'revolving door' in public-private advocacy, and how can its ethical risks be managed?

The term 'revolving door' describes the movement of individuals between government positions and roles in private sector organisations, especially within industries they once regulated or influenced. This practice can create conflicts of interest, where former policymakers might favour corporate agendas over public welfare. Such scenarios can erode trust and compromise transparency in advocacy and decision-making.

To address these challenges, both governments and organisations can adopt specific measures. These include introducing mandatory cooling-off periods to delay transitions between public and private sector roles, enforcing strict disclosure rules for lobbying activities, and ensuring greater transparency in decision-making. These actions aim to safeguard fairness, maintain impartiality, and prioritise the public’s best interests in policy development.