Independence without transparency is not verifiable — and unverifiable independence is worthless. This page discloses everything.
A labour research institute that is funded by, or accountable to, the entities whose conduct it analyses is not independent — it is a communications function. GILS was built from the start to avoid that outcome, structurally and operationally.
This page discloses, in full, how GILS is funded, what conflicts of interest policies govern our work, and what safeguards prevent any external party from influencing our research outputs. We publish this information not because we are required to, but because independence without transparency is not verifiable — and unverifiable independence is worthless.
GILS operates as an initiative of the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG), a non-commercial legal entity under Georgian law. GILS's operating costs are currently met through PHIG's institutional resources and through open research grants from international academic and development bodies. We do not accept funding from:
No funding accepted from Georgian government ministries, state agencies, or state-owned enterprises whose labour practices GILS monitors or may monitor.
No funding from employer bodies (GEA, GCCI, BAG, EBA, AmCham, or any sector employer association) whose members are subjects of GILS research.
No funding from GTUC, any sectoral trade union, or affiliated labour organisations whose advocacy positions GILS may independently assess or critique.
GILS's Founder, Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze, holds several institutional roles that could in principle create conflicts of interest with GILS's research. These are disclosed in full below, along with the safeguards in place.
| Role | Potential Conflict | Safeguard |
|---|---|---|
| Chair, PHIG | PHIG is GILS's parent institution; decisions could conflate institutional interests | GILS maintains a separate research mandate and no PHIG institutional interest may override a GILS research finding |
| Founder & President, Accréditation Sans Frontières (ASF) | ASF accredits healthcare facilities; GILS analyses healthcare labour conditions | GILS does not receive funding from ASF. GILS's findings on healthcare labour conditions are published independently of ASF's commercial accreditation activity |
| Accreditation Canada representative, Georgia | Commercial accreditation relationship with Georgian facilities | GILS's accreditation programme findings inform its research agenda but do not determine its conclusions; GILS does not promote accreditation services |
| Editor-in-Chief, GMJ | GMJ publishes GILS-connected OHS research; editorial and research roles overlap | GILS-connected submissions to GMJ are handled by independent editors under standard double-blind peer review |
| WHO Consultant | WHO is a potential collaborator and funder of labour health research | Any WHO-funded work would be disclosed on this page with scope; WHO collaboration does not confer editorial control over GILS research |
The institutional history of GILS and its founder provides the most substantive evidence of operational independence. Key reference points:
The report that triggered PHIG's commitment to labour research documented private sector healthcare providers failing to meet basic labour standards. Prof. Pkhakadze, who had served as Deputy CEO of Georgia's largest private healthcare provider (Evex), publicly adopted this evidence as the basis for GILS's research agenda — including critique of the sector he had led.
As principal COVID-19 adviser to the Prime Minister of Georgia, Prof. Pkhakadze provided government counsel while simultaneously documenting healthcare worker labour failures exposed by the pandemic — including failures of government policy. The two roles were maintained as analytically separate.
If you believe GILS has compromised its independence, published an error, or acted contrary to the commitments on this page, we want to know. Our credibility depends on being held accountable.