Why Commission-Based EMF Mitigation Recommendations Are a Conflict of Interest (and Why It Matters)

A trust-based perspective on EMF testing, ethical consulting, and client protection

In the EMF testing industry, one question arises again and again:

If an EMF field testing engineer recommends mitigation products that they profit from, even if the client knows they profit, is that a conflict of interest?

The answer is yes, in most situations, it is a conflict of interest.
And the deeper question is why, and whether there are any circumstances where this could be ethically acceptable.

This article explores what conflicts of interest look like in EMF consulting, why transparency alone does not eliminate them, and why trust matters more than sales in a field that affects health, homes, and workplaces.

What Is a Conflict of Interest?

A conflict of interest exists when a professional’s judgment in a client’s best interest may be compromised — consciously or unconsciously — because they stand to gain financially from a specific recommendation.

In EMF testing, this typically means:

• The consultant performs testing

• The consultant identifies “problems.”

• The consultant recommends mitigation products

• The consultant earns a commission, margin, or resale profit on those products

Even if the client is fully informed, the professional’s incentives have shifted from:

“What is best for the client?”
to
“What do I make money from recommending?”

That incentive shift changes the integrity of the consultation — even when no misconduct occurs.

Why Transparency Alone Doesn’t Solve It

Many consultants say:

“It’s not a conflict of interest because the client knows I’m making a commission.”

But transparency is not the same as neutrality.

A client can be aware of a financial incentive and still be influenced by:

• The authority of the consultant

• Their own fear or uncertainty

• A sense of urgency created by alarming interpretations

• The belief that the consultant is impartial

• Lack of access to competing, non-incentivized recommendations

In other words, awareness does not remove imbalance.

Even when disclosed, commissions can still distort decision-making, because the relationship is no longer purely advisory — it becomes advice + sales in a single channel.

Why It’s Especially Important in EMF Work

This industry is unique.

EMF clients often arrive:

• distressed

• confused

• physically symptomatic

• financially pressured

• worried about their children

• uncertain who to trust

When a client is in a vulnerable psychological or health position, ethical expectations must be higher.

This is why commission-based models are considered high-risk in almost every adjacent professional field:

• financial advising

• medicine

• legal consulting

• environmental testing

• building inspections

• safety compliance

In many industries, mixing advisory work with product sales is explicitly restricted and, at a minimum, heavily regulated.

The Commission Model Creates Predictable Distortions

Even if the tester is honest and well-intentioned, the system itself tends to drive predictable outcomes:

1. Problems will be framed in ways that justify product solutions

If revenue depends on mitigation products, then naturally the “problem narrative” will emphasize mitigation.

2. Lower-cost mitigation strategies may be omitted

Sometimes the best mitigation is behavioral, layout-based, wiring, or power-quality corrections, or addressing a grounding error, rather than expensive materials.

But those solutions rarely generate commissions.

3. Fear can become a sales catalyst

Even unintentionally, language can drift toward urgency:

• “You need this immediately.”

• “This is dangerous.”

• “Your exposure is extremely high.”

• “You must shield this wall.”

Fear increases conversions.
And that is precisely why commission structures are risky in this field.

The “Foot in the Door” Strategy: When Low Bids Become a Sales Funnel

A troubling pattern occurs when consultants bid low on testing services — not because they are efficient, but because they use testing as an entry point for product sales.

In this model:

• The bid is intentionally lower than the competitors ‘

• The tester wins the job

• The tester recommends high-margin products

• The commission revenue makes up the difference

This is not simply a business strategy — it transforms the testing process into a sales funnel, where the testing result becomes a mechanism to trigger future revenue.

Even if the consultant is technically accurate, the client is no longer receiving a neutral assessment. They are receiving a conversion event.

This is, by definition, a conflict of interest.

Are There Times Where This Is NOT a Conflict of Interest?

There are rare situations where recommending products you profit from may be ethically acceptable — but only under strict conditions.

Potential Non-Conflict Conditions

1. The consultant did not perform the assessment
   and is not the one interpreting the test results.

2. The client has received at least one independent assessment
   and is choosing mitigation from multiple vendors.

3. The consultant is explicit that they are functioning as a vendor
   , not a tester, and the relationship is sales-based from the outset.

4. Pricing is transparent and competitive
   , with apparent alternatives offered.

5. The client is not vulnerable or coerced
   and has time and clarity to decide.

6. But in general, the moment the person testing is also profiting from the mitigation, neutrality is compromised.

ELEXANA’s Position: No Products. No Sales. No Incentive Distortion.

ELEXANA is one of the only EMF testing and electromagnetic consulting companies that:

-does not sell mitigation products
-does not accept commissions
-does not resell shielding materials
-does not profit from remediation outcomes

We provide:

• testing

• interpretation

• engineering diagnosis

• and remediation recommendations

…without any financial stake in what you buy.

This allows ELEXANA to tell the truth even when it is inconvenient — including when the best remediation is not a product at all.

What About Companies That Sell Test Equipment and Training Courses?

This is a subtler ethical issue.

If an EMF testing company sells test equipment to clients and then teaches them how to use it, that can be legitimate.

However, the ethical problem emerges when:

1. The training is presented as neutral education,
   but it is actually an equipment sales funnel.

2. The instructors are positioned as “certifying authorities.”
   while also profiting directly from the tools required for certification.

3. The organization that certifies testers makes money primarily through certification courses and equipment sales.

This becomes especially sensitive when members are board members of institutions whose revenue model depends on certifications.

Is That a Violation of Trust?

It depends on transparency and structural separation — but it can become a trust violation if:

• The certification appears like an “independent standard.”
  When it is also a revenue model

• The training creates scarcity or authority pressure

• Clients believe the organization’s advice is neutral
  when it is economically tied to equipment and course revenue

Even when disclosed, the question becomes:

Is the system designed for truth… or for monetization?

Trust is not only about disclosure.
It’s about whether incentives align with client welfare.

The Ethics of Measurement

In a field like EMF testing, where numbers are often interpreted through fear or uncertainty, the tester carries an unusual weight of influence.

The moment a tester earns money based on what they recommend, the measurement is no longer purely a measurement.

It becomes persuasion.

Even if the professional is honest, the client senses it, and the trust relationship becomes conditional.

The deeper problem is not profit itself.

The deeper problem is that, in such a system, the tester’s incentives do not align with the client’s needs. The client needs truth, clarity, and empowerment — not a sales pipeline.

Some industries solve this problem with formal separation:

• Inspectors do not sell repairs

• Auditors do not sell accounting services to the audited entity

• Pharmaceutical sales do not pay physicians

These boundaries exist not because professionals are untrustworthy, but because systems influence humans.

To protect trust, the system must protect neutrality.

A truly ethical EMF testing company should have one goal:

To tell the truth, even when it makes them less money.

That is why ELEXANA’s model matters.

Conclusion: Trust Is the Foundation

The EMF testing world needs more technical excellence, but even more, it requires ethical integrity.

Clients deserve:

• accurate data

• careful interpretation

• practical solutions

• and impartial guidance

When testing becomes tied to commissions, the client is forced into a dilemma:

“Is this recommendation true… or profitable?”

ELEXANA exists to remove that doubt.

We believe testing should be a service of truth — not a gateway to sales.

If You Want a Neutral EMF Assessment

ELEXANA provides workplace, industrial, and residential EMF assessments with:

no product sales
no commissions
no mitigation upsells
engineering-based guidance
independent reporting

© 2026