The Importance of Independence in EMF Testing and Mitigation Recommendations
- A trust-based approach to ethical consulting in electromagnetic environments
by James Finn
Electromagnetic field testing has become an increasingly important service for workplaces, industrial environments, and residential settings. As electrical and wireless infrastructure expands, so does the need for accurate measurement, meaningful interpretation, and thoughtful mitigation when mitigation is warranted. In this space, trust is everything. Clients hire EMF professionals not simply to collect numbers, but to provide clarity, context, and informed guidance. For that reason, the integrity of the testing relationship matters as much as the tester's technical skill.
One of the most frequently discussed ethical questions in this industry is whether it is appropriate for an EMF testing professional to recommend mitigation products when they earn a commission or financial margin from those same products. Many companies disclose these relationships openly. Some clients are comfortable with it. Others are not. But even when disclosure is present, the underlying issue remains: a financial incentive attached to specific recommendations can make it more difficult for a client to feel confident that guidance is fully independent.
A conflict of interest does not necessarily imply wrongdoing. It does not mean that a professional is dishonest, careless, or intentionally biased. In many cases, professionals who sell products they recommend may genuinely believe that those products are effective and that the arrangement is beneficial for the client. However, conflict of interest is not primarily about personal character. It is about incentives. When the person responsible for assessing a problem also benefits financially from a particular solution, the client may reasonably wonder whether alternative approaches were considered equally, or whether recommendations were shaped—consciously or unconsciously—by the structure of the business model.
In practice, many EMF mitigation outcomes do not require product-based solutions. Some mitigation is achieved through wiring corrections, grounding and bonding improvements, relocation of work areas, adjustments to equipment placement, modifications to operational behavior, power-quality corrections, or redesign of specific electrical configurations. These approaches can be highly effective and, in some cases, more appropriate than commercially available mitigation materials. When a tester’s revenue is tied to product sales, there is a natural pressure—sometimes subtle—to move toward recommendations that involve purchasable goods. Even if a professional maintains objectivity, it can be challenging to remove the appearance of bias, and that appearance matters because the client’s trust is foundational to the engagement.
The concern becomes more pronounced when testing services are offered at unusually low rates while mitigation recommendations later include high-cost products. In some industries, this pricing structure is recognized as a legitimate marketing strategy, but in health-adjacent fields, it can create confusion about what is being purchased. If the assessment becomes a gateway to sales rather than an independent evaluation, the client’s relationship with the provider shifts. The professional is no longer simply an evaluator. They are also a vendor. That dual role can be reasonable when explicitly framed and agreed to, but it is not the same as independent consulting.
There are situations in which product recommendations by a professional who profits from them may not constitute an ethical problem. For example, if the client clearly understands that the professional is offering a combined consulting-and-supply service and intentionally chooses that model for convenience, then the relationship is less ambiguous. In other cases, if multiple vendors and alternatives are offered transparently, and the professional presents commission-bearing products as only one option among several, the client may still feel that the advice is balanced. There are also circumstances where the professional’s ability to source, install, or support specific materials is genuinely helpful. In these cases, the key factor is whether the relationship is structured and communicated as sales plus service, rather than positioned as independent guidance.
Even so, in many health-related and safety-adjacent fields, the most straightforward way to protect trust is to maintain separation between assessment and product revenue. This separation exists in many industries, not because professionals are assumed to be unethical, but because financial incentives can unintentionally influence professional judgment, and because clients deserve advice that is as clean and uncompromised as possible.
At ELEXANA, we have developed our policies with that principle in mind. In the past, ELEXANA occasionally disclosed commission relationships when making specific recommendations, and we also made a practice of directing clients to other vendors so that they had choices. That approach may be common in the industry, and it was implemented with transparency and good intent. Over time, however, we recognized that even full disclosure does not remove the structural tension that commission-based recommendations introduce. We came to believe that independence in testing and consulting should not be partial. It should be absolute.
For that reason, ELEXANA adopted a strict policy: we do not sell mitigation products in any capacity, and we do not accept commissions for recommendations. We provide testing, analysis, interpretation, and remediation guidance without any financial stake in what the client purchases or with whom the client works. This policy has decreased our income. It has not been the most profitable route. But it draws a clear line about who we are and how we serve.
ELEXANA’s work is rooted in engineering-based clarity. We focus on identifying sources, understanding coupling pathways, and offering remediation strategies that are appropriate to each environment. Sometimes that involves products, sometimes it does not. But our recommendations are never influenced by commissions, brand partnerships, or resale margins. That independence supports a simple promise: our clients receive guidance based solely on what is technically and practically best for them.
The broader EMF testing industry is still evolving, and many models exist. Some models combine testing and mitigation. Others separate them. Both can be conducted with integrity depending on how they are structured and communicated. But for clients seeking the highest level of neutrality, an independent testing firm that does not profit from downstream outcomes offers a distinct advantage. It ensures that the testing itself is not a sales event. It ensures that recommendations can be made freely, including when the best solution is inexpensive, behavioral, or infrastructure-based. And most importantly, it makes it easier for the client to trust the results and the advice.
In an industry where people often seek reassurance as much as technical data, independence is not merely an ethical preference. It is a form of protection. It reduces ambiguity. It reduces pressure. It gives the client confidence that the professional’s only incentive is to tell the truth and help them make wise decisions.
That is why ELEXANA chose the line we decided, and why we continue to hold it.