Editorial policies
Conflict of Interest Management
How Security Safety Reviewer identifies, discloses and manages potential conflicts of interest in editorial company reviews and awards.
Purpose and scope
An editorial assessment can be useful even where a connection exists between the reviewer and a reviewed organisation. The connection must be described clearly so readers can assess the evidence and the conclusions in context.
This policy applies to company reviews, editorial ratings, award assessments, certificates and material changes to published assessments.
Published criteria must be followed
Every assessment must apply the published review methodology and, where an award is considered, the relevant award criteria. A business relationship must not substitute for evidence or relax the criteria.
Decisions should record the criteria considered, the supporting evidence, material limitations and the reasons for the editorial conclusion. If evidence is insufficient for a particular claim, the assessment should say so.
Identify and disclose potential conflicts
Anyone materially involved in a review or award decision should identify any relevant ownership, management, employment, financial, referral, family or other relationship with the business under review.
The disclosure should describe the nature of the relationship in plain language, including where the same person operates the editorial platform and the reviewed business. A fixed salary or the absence of per-project commission may provide useful context, but does not remove the underlying organisational connection.
Visible disclosure on each company review
Each published company review includes a Conflict of Interest Disclosure section towards the bottom of the article, close to its conclusion and sources. Where a relevant connection exists, that section identifies it and links to this policy.
Where the evidence available to the editor does not establish a particular connection, the review should not claim to have independently verified that none exists. Disclosures are updated when relevant facts change.
How conflicts are managed
Where a material conflict exists, the editorial record should distinguish company-supplied claims, public evidence, third-party customer feedback and editorial judgment. The review should acknowledge material limitations and avoid presenting the outcome as independent third-party certification.
Where practical, a person without the relevant interest may review the evidence or decision. Such a check must only be described as independent when it has actually taken place; this policy does not imply that a separate assessor is always appointed.
Declared relationship: UK Safety Camera Network Ltd
Bert Scanlon, founder and managing director of UK Safety Camera Network Ltd (USCN), also operates Security Safety Reviewer (SSR). This is a disclosed leadership and commercial connection relevant to SSR’s USCN review and Gold Award.
Under USCN’s stated arrangements, the managing director receives a fixed salary rather than remuneration based on customer numbers or completed jobs. USCN states that additional revenue remains within the company to support its public-safety mission. These arrangements provide context; they do not eliminate the potential conflict.
The USCN Gold Award is SSR editorial recognition involving a disclosed connection. It is not an independent third-party certification, an NSI or SSAIB accreditation, or a regulatory endorsement.
Challenges and updates
Readers and businesses may submit factual corrections, relevant evidence or questions about disclosures through the Corrections, Verification & Contact page. Material errors or newly established connections should be reflected in the affected review.