Compliance cases involving alleged abuse of charitable status for private benefit rose 23% in a single year. That is a significant increase, and it would be easy to read it as evidence of growing misconduct. 

But the Commission’s own analysis tells a different story. In the majority of cases, the root cause was not dishonesty. Trustees simply did not recognise that a conflict of interest existed in the first place. 

That distinction matters. It means that for most charities, the greater risk is not bad faith – it is the conflict that passes through a board meeting unremarked, because no one around the table thought to name it. 

What Is a Conflict of Interest – Really? 

It is easy to think of conflicts as something obvious: a Trustee awarding a contract to their own business, or voting on a decision that directly benefits a family member. Those cases exist, but they are not where most of the risk sits. 

Conflicts are often more subtle than that. They can arise where a Trustee: 

• has a professional relationship with a supplier under consideration 

• sits on the board of another organisation that might benefit from a decision 

• has a personal connection to a beneficiary, funder, or partner 

• holds strong views shaped by external roles rather than the charity’s interests alone 

None of these situations are inherently wrong. Trustees bring exactly these kinds of connections and expertise – it is often why they were appointed. The issue is not the conflict itself. It is whether it is recognised, declared and properly managed. 

Familiarity Risk: When Routine Becomes the Problem 

In many charity boards, Trustees know each other well. They share values, they work collaboratively, and they have built genuine trust over time. That is a real asset – but it can also create a specific kind of risk. 

Familiarity changes the way routines operate. What begins as a well-intentioned standing agenda item – “any declarations of interest?” – can, over time, become something that is asked and answered in under thirty seconds, because it has always been answered that way. Not because anyone is being careless, but because the process has become subconscious. The form is followed; the substance drifts. 

This is worth naming, because it is not a failure of integrity. It is a failure of attention – and it is far more common than the cases that make it into regulatory guidance. 

The updated CC29 guidance is a useful prompt to ask: are we genuinely exploring this question each time, or have we been going through the motions? 

What Good Practice Looks Like 

The Commission is not asking Boards to be perfect. It is asking them to be consistent – and consistency, in practice, comes down to a few straightforward habits. 

1. Maintain a live register of interests 

Not a document completed at induction and filed away, but one that is actively reviewed, updated when circumstances change, and referenced at the start of relevant discussions. 

2. Create space to declare – at every meeting 

A standing agenda item is only effective if it is treated as a genuine question, not a formality. Slowing down for thirty seconds to allow proper consideration can make a real difference to what gets surfaced. 

3. Step back meaningfully 

Stepping out of the room is stronger than simply not voting – and it serves two purposes. It protects the individual Trustee from any suggestion that their presence shaped the outcome, and it creates a safe space for remaining Trustees to air concerns, apply proper challenge, and reach a genuinely independent view. 

4. Document the rationale 

Clear minutes that record not just the decision but the process – who declared an interest, who withdrew, how remaining Trustees reached their conclusion – are not administrative overhead. They are evidence that good governance actually took place. 

A Practical Reflection for Trustees 

Rather than viewing the updated guidance as a regulatory prompt aimed at others, it is worth asking a few straightforward questions of your own board: 

• When did we last review our register of interests as a full board? 

• Are declarations actively explored at each meeting, or briefly noted and moved on? 

• If a conflict arose today, would every Trustee know what to do – and feel comfortable acting on it? 

• Would our minutes demonstrate that the process was followed, not just the decision made? 

Keeping It Visible 

What the updated guidance reflects is that governance drift tends to happen quietly. There is rarely a moment where a board collectively decides to lower its standards. More often, a process that was once carefully observed becomes slightly less deliberate over time – and the gap between intent and practice widens without anyone quite noticing. 

Conflicts of interest are one of the areas where that drift can carry real consequences, both for the charity’s reputation and for the Trustees personally. Revisiting CC29, refreshing the register of interests, and having an honest conversation about how declarations are handled in practice is a reasonable response to a meaningful shift in the Commission’s own data. 

It does not require a governance overhaul. It requires attention – and the willingness to ask the question properly, even when it feels like a familiar one. 

If you would like to talk through how your board manages conflicts of interest, or how to strengthen your governance processes more broadly, we would be happy to help. You can get in touch with us at hunterfds.co.uk/get-in-touch.