Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

If you want advice about a conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

For practical advice for editors who might have a conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.

When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. Editors discussing changes to this guideline should disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's position

Purpose of Wikipedia

Further information: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns.

COI editing

See also: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide

Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously.

If you have a conflict of interest you should declare your COI, and put edits through peer review instead of articles directly:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
• you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.

Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known, decide to delete the article, or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organization concerned.

Paid editing

An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called "paid advocacy", this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer. The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed.

If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare that, and should put edits through peer review instead of editing articles directly:

• you must disclose who is paying you; on whose behalf the edits are made; and any other relevant affiliation;
• you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
• you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
• you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see PAYTALK).

Requested edits are subject to the same standards as any other, and editors may decline to act on them. To find an article's talk page, click the "talk" button at the top of the article. See WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things.

Wikimedia Foundation terms of use

Further information: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure

The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that editors who are being paid for their contributions disclose their employer (the person or organization who is paying for the edits); the client (the person or organization on whose behalf the edits are made); and any other relevant affiliation. This is the policy of the English Wikipedia.

How to disclose a COI

General COI

If you become involved in an article where you have a COI (one that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia), you should let other editors know about it whenever you discuss the topic. If you want to use a template to do this, place {{connected contributor}} at the top of the affected talk page, fill it in as follows, and save:

Connected contributor template
{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

Note that someone else may add this for you. You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution. If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the {{UserboxCOI}} template:

UserboxCOI template
Edit your user page and type {{UserboxCOI|1=Wikipedia article name}}, then click "save".

If you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.

Paid editors

Further information: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure

If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. The community expects paid editors to declare that they are being paid whenever they seek to influence an article's content; this includes when writing drafts in draft space or user space. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}} at the top of the page, fill it in as follows, and save:

Connected contributor (paid) template
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Username of the paid editor|U1-employer=Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits|U1-client= Name of client|U1-otherlinks=Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.}}

Examples

For a COI editor's declaration, see Talk:Steve Jobs.
For a paid editor's declaration, see Talk:Mia Farrow.

The employer is whoever is paying you to be involved in the article (such as a PR company). The client is on whose behalf the payment is made (usually the subject of the article). If the employer and client are the same entity—if Acme Corporation is paying you to write about Acme Corporation—the client parameter may be left empty. See {{connected contributor (paid)}} for more information. Note that other editors may add this template for you.

You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it. Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise; see WP:PAYTALK.

What is conflict of interest?

External roles and relationships

"P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf, and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship."

– Michael Davis, 2001

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. (Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.)

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse.

Subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.

COI is not simply bias

Further information: WP:ADVOCACY

Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."

Why is conflict of interest a problem?

"A person is judged to have a conflict of interest on the basis of being in a conflicted situation, whether or not that person thinks he or she is capable of resisting the temptation or corrupting influence of the interest that could interfere with her judgment."

– Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, 2012.

Until the latter half of the 20th century, the professions relied on the "virtue-centric approach": those with a COI were simply expected to act honourably and objectively. This is now known to have been naive. The virtue-centric approach underestimates the extent to which the judgment of individuals with a COI may be impaired. Conflicted individuals cannot know the extent to which they have been influenced; philosopher Michael Davis writes that they often "esteem too highly their own reliability". For example, a conflicted person might overcompensate in an effort to be fair, leading to decisions that the person would otherwise not have made.

The virtue-centric approach ignores the damage COI inflicts on public confidence, and the unease it causes within the affected community. If a judge is involved with a defendant, that judge's role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined in the view of both the public and people around the judge, no matter the self-perceived impartiality. The appearance of impropriety is something that the judge then needs to rescue.

Actual, potential and apparent COI

An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and in a position where the judgment must be exercised. Example: If a business owner edits articles related to the business owned by them and partakes in discussions about the business, then there is an actual COI

A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised. Example: A business owner with a potential COI is one that does not edit or partake in discussions related to the articles that are about the business owned.

An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI. Example: An apparent COI is present if an editor edits an article about a business and for some reason appears to be the owner. In fact, the editor may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.

Edit requests from COI or paid editors

Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests

Responding to requests

Editors responding to edit requests from paid editors are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added by or on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Make sure the proposed version of the article complies with WP:WEIGHT. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative, and check whether anything important is missing. Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content. Be cautious about accepting content based on WP:SPS, such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. If the proposed new text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.

Paid editors on talk pages

Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.

Copyright

Copyright of paid contributions

See also: Work for hire

Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia; otherwise they are unable to release it. A text's author is normally assumed to be the copyright holder. Companies sometimes provide paid editors with text written by someone else. Alternatively, a paid editor might write text for Wikipedia within the scope of their employment (a "work for hire"), in which case copyright resides with the employer.

Where there is doubt that the paid editor owns the copyright, they (or the employer or author) are advised to forward a release from the copyright holder to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter.

Attribution in edit summaries

Further information: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources

If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft." In addition to complying with copyright requirements, this transparency allows editors and readers to determine the extent of COI input into the article.

Covert advertising, consumer protection

See also: Consumer protection and Direct-to-consumer advertising

United States Federal Trade Commission

All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures.

European fair-trading law

See also: Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation.

UK Advertising Standards Authority

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK found in 2012 that the content of tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team." The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code.

Other categories of COI

Legal and other disputes

Further information: WP:BLPCOI

The biographies of living persons policy says: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases.

Campaigning, political

Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents. Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics.

Writing about yourself, family, friends

Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:BLPCOI

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question.

Citing yourself

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.

Cultural sector

Further information: Wikipedia:GLAM and Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector

Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources. If a link cannot be used as a reliable source, it may be placed under further reading or external links if it complies with the external links guideline. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.

Wikipedians in residence, reward board

There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as benign. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there.

Another benign example of paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this, transparency and neutrality are key.

Miscellaneous

Solicitations by paid editors

In any solicitation sent to a prospective client, paid editors should disclose the following information:

• Paid editors do not represent the Wikimedia Foundation nor the Wikipedia editing community, and they have no authority beyond that of any volunteer editor.
• Paid editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliations on Wikipedia. There is no confidentiality for the client.
• Paid edits may be reviewed and revised in the normal course of work on Wikipedia. Neither the client nor the paid editor own the article.
• Paid editors cannot guarantee any outcome for an article on Wikipedia. It can be revised or deleted by other editors at any time.

Providing a client with a link to this section is appropriate disclosure, if it is done in a neutral and non-deceptive manner.

• Paid editors must also provide a link to their user page which includes a declaration of their paid editing status.

If you received a solicitation from a paid editor that does not include this information, we recommend that you not do business with them. They are not following our policies and guidelines. Some of these solicitations have been linked to fraud. See Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. If you think you’ve received a fraudulent solicitation, please forward it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org for investigation.

Law of unintended consequences

Further information: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world

Once an article is created about yourself, your group, or your company, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually.

No shared accounts, no company accounts

Further information: WP:NOSHARE and WP:ORGNAME

Do not create a shared organizational account, or use the name of an organization as the account name. The account is yours, not your employer's.

Making uncontroversial edits

Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may:

1. remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,
2. remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy,
3. fix spelling and grammatical errors,
4. repair broken links,
5. remove their own COI edits, and
6. add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.

If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few involved editors, ask at the talk page of a related Wikiproject or at WP:COIN. Also see WP:COITALK.

Supplying photographs and media files

Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is not uncontroversial.

How to handle conflicts of interest

If an editor has disclosed that s/he is editing with a COI, or edits in a way that leads you to believe they might have a COI, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN. Avoid making disparaging comments about the subject of the article, its author, or the author's motives.

If there has been no COI disclosure, consider first whether the issue may be simple advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. If there are concerns about sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.

Avoid outing

Further information: Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing

When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to Wikipedia:Checkuser. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.

Dealing with single-purpose accounts

Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Disruption-only, and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account

Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Templates

Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}}. The article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. A section of an article can be tagged with {{COI|section}}

Other templates include:

• {{uw-coi}} (to be placed on user Talk pages to warn editors that they may have a conflict of interest)
• {{uw-coi-username}} (another Talk page warning, this one for editors whose username appears to violate the WP:Usernames policy)
• {{COI editnotice}} (this template goes on article talk pages and gives instructions to COI editors on how to submit edit requests to the article)
• {{UserboxCOI}} (for users to self-declare on their own Userpages those articles with which they have a conflict of interest, one such template per article)

See also

Wikimedia Foundation

• wmf:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities
• Sue Gardner, "Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing", Wikimedia Foundation, 21 October 2013.

Contact us

• Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects

Article

• Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia

Policies

• Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
• Wikipedia:Username policy
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Wikiprojects

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation (inactive)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity

Miscellaneous

• Wikipedia:About you
• Category:Requested edits (lists edits for review where proposer has a conflict of interest)
• Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest
• Wikipedia:Reward board
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
• User:COIBot
• Users creating autobiographies (an edit filter)
• Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, June 2014

Essays

• Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations
• Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)
• Wikipedia:Don't cry COI
• Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work
• Wikipedia:Ghostwriting
• Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest
• Wikipedia:Independent sources
• Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)
• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia:Public relations (essay)
• Wikipedia:Search engine optimization
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world

Historical

• Wikipedia community discussion on paid editing, 2009.
• Wikipedia community discussion on conflict of interest, 2012.
• Wikipedia:COI+ (failed proposal, 21 February 2013)
• Commercial editing (failed policy proposal turned into an essay, November 2013)
• No paid advocacy (failed policy proposal, November 2013)
• Paid editing policy proposal (failed policy proposal, November 2013)
• Conflict of interest limit (failed policy proposal, December 2013)

Further reading

(chronological order)

• Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest," Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1(4), 1982, 17–27 (influential)
• Luebke, Neil R. "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987, pp. 66–81. JSTOR 27799930 (influential)
• Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest Revisited," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(4), Winter 1993, 21–41. JSTOR 27800924
• Michael Davis, Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
• Andrew Stark, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
• Thomas L. Carson, "Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing in the Professions: A Review Essay," Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), January 2004, 161–182. JSTOR 3857777
• Sheldon Krimsky, "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
• Michael McDonald, "Ethics and Conflict of Interest", The W. Maurice Young Center for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 23 April 2006.
• Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
• Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest", in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, 441–470.