Quick answer
Conflict management is a basic duty of a serious review body. Before signing, ask whether it certifies competitors in the same region and category, how reviewers and document access are separated, and whether written conflict policies exist. Proper practice means project grouping, personnel recusal and tiered access. If it coaches competitors yet cannot explain the separation, be cautious—the concern is sideways leakage of formulas and pricing, not multi-client service.
Detailed explanation
What counts as a substantive conflict
- The same auditor accesses formulas and supplier data of both you and a direct competitor.
- Consulting and review teams inside the agency are not separated, allowing information to circulate.
- A related company serves the competitor, nominally separate but actually sharing staff and systems.
- Your formula case is used in marketing or pricing references shown to competitors.
Written arrangements to request
- A project team list and recusal statement so key auditors are not shared.
- A written description of tiered access rights, access logs and storage isolation.
- A competitor-information separation commitment with breach compensation in the NDA.
A realistic view of multi-client service
A professional LHLN inevitably serves many companies, and sector experience is an advantage. What you should require is institutional separation, not a promise that you are the only client; ask to see the written policy, since verbal assurances do not count. Where food makers share similar suppliers, as around Shanghai, recusal rules are worth putting in writing.
Still have questions?
Tell our consultants your product category and target market, and we will help you map out the path and the documents required.
