We often receive enquiries from third parties operating in the markets we cover, who want to align themselves with our quality content. This is natural and forms part of any commercial publisher’s operation. We aim to be fully transparent with our readers, so will always label this content in one of two ways.
This content is editorially independent, but has been funded – or part-funded – by a third party that wants to align itself with a subject. This label may appear on an article, a topic, or a section of the site.
In some cases, funding is accepted for work that is already underway; in others, it is accepted for new projects. The funder may suggest topics for coverage, but the relevant commissioning editor is under no obligation to accept those suggestions. The suitability of any funder must first be approved by the editor-in-chief.
The content is written and edited by Risk.net journalists, or those we have approved, using the same processes and standards applied to the rest of our journalism. Risk.net does not show this content to funders for approval.
This material is paid for by the third party and is produced without the involvement of Risk.net’s editorial team – sometimes it will be written by the third party, and sometimes by a freelance journalist at the direction of the third party. Traditionally, these pieces are known as ‘sponsored statements’ or ‘advertorials’.
All sponsor content is clearly labelled, so any reader of Risk.net can easily distinguish between a piece written by our editorial team and a piece written by a sponsor, in accordance with guidelines set by the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) and the Federal Trade Commission (US).
The acceptance of both ‘supported by’ and ‘sponsor content’ in no way affects our editorial position. Our editorial team works independently from our commercial team, and is free to challenge the activities of companies and organisations that are also our advertisers and sponsors.