While reading LinkedIn posts following the Conference of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), I came across something that genuinely shocked me. ITI, one of the UK’s largest professional bodies for translators and interpreters, gave an Award for Excellence to the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), an interest group representing commercial intermediaries often referred to as LSPs.

I could not help wondering whether such an award was appropriate at a time when many freelance translators and interpreters are facing intensifying financial insecurity. Numerous practitioners report that they are struggling to earn a living income. Public service interpreters, in particular, have described being unable to negotiate rates, absorbing unpaid travel and waiting time, and carrying increasing financial risks while commercial intermediaries continue to dominate access to work.

Against this backdrop, honouring the organisation representing commercial intermediaries raises important questions. Whose interests are being recognised? And what message does this send to procurement officers awarding outsourcing contracts? Does it ultimately harm the translators and interpreters whom ITI claims to represent?

This is not a single event. The award represents an escalation of multiple public statements and events that appear to fit a broader pattern in which corporate perspectives appear to be given increasing institutional legitimacy. ITI has issued public statements in collaboration with ATC. The head of ITI repeatedly spoke at conference and university events where the focus was largely on promoting collaboration with corporate actors while little, if any, attention was dedicated to the economic realities facing practitioners and the responsibilities of intermediaries towards translators and interpreters.

Over the past several years, I have repeatedly raised these concerns with ITI, both privately and publicly through correspondence, including an open letter and multiple articles, especially regarding the Working Together whitepaper have warned about the unintended consequences of granting commercial actors prominent positions within professional spaces. Why are corporate representatives repeatedly invited to shape discussions about the future of the profession? Narratives about market pressures and technological change are often presented from the perspective of commercial organisations, while far less attention is devoted to labour rights, declining earnings, or the structural inequalities experienced by freelance translators and interpreters.

For this article, rather than relying solely on my own interpretation, I asked some of the conference organisers, speakers, and translators and interpreters what they thought about ITI’s decision to award the ATC and about the structure of the conference. Their responses varied in tone, but many expressed similar concerns. One translator reported that the CEO of ITI had explained that the organisation relies on corporate members to help cover its costs. In this regard, ITI may be making a strategic decision about its membership base. However, the ethical problem arises from positioning itself as a trusted voice for the profession while participating in consultations and producing public statements without clearly acknowledging the conflicting interests within its own membership. Some respondents also said they had been unable to attend the conference because of the high cost.

Some translators and interpreters said they valued the sense of community that ITI provides. They enjoyed catching up with colleagues and friends during the conference and participating in discussions about the profession. This is a positive indication that ITI offers a valuable service to translators and interpreters. However, the ethical and strategic problem of misrepresenting the organisation’s composition and the conflicting interests within its membership remains deeply concerning.

Many of the ITI conference organisers and speakers did not respond to my requests for comment. Those who did respond expressed dismay that I intended to write about the conference, but none engaged meaningfully with the substance of the concerns I had raised.

These responses alone do not prove that ITI has been captured by corporate interests. However, they do point towards a growing perception that commercial interests have acquired disproportionate influence over the organisation’s priorities and public messaging. Perception matters.

I continued to question whether the award reflected the lived realities of practising linguists and whether ITI has become increasingly disconnected from the economic conditions facing translators and interpreters. I worry that the award will be understood as a symbolic endorsement of a particular model of the industry.

Institutional capture develops gradually through repeated collaboration, shared networks, financial relationships, sponsorship, and increasing reliance on particular groups of actors as legitimate experts. Over time, organisations can begin to internalise the assumptions and priorities of those actors.

Power is also exercised through narratives. Those with influence help determine which questions are asked, whose voices are heard, and which solutions appear reasonable. The ITI conference included discussions about the pressures faced by intermediaries and end clients while giving comparatively little attention to the deteriorating working conditions of translators and interpreters. As a result, certain economic arrangements begin to appear natural, inevitable, or even beneficial. Practices that many practitioners experience as unfair may gradually become normalised and legitimised through institutional discourse.

The conference also included a session on entrepreneurship that appeared to shower practitioners with practical advice about running their own businesses without carefully analysing the market in which they operate, the concentration of market share among a small number of large commercial intermediaries, or the risks this creates for independent translators and interpreters. Perhaps the most worrying session was the one on ethics, which brought together academics, a translator, and a representative of the ATC. Once again, the same question arises: why is the ATC repeatedly being given the opportunity to present itself as a driver of ethical practice while representing a membership that includes a wide range of commercial intermediaries with very different business practices?

Some readers may object that it is unfair to criticise commercial intermediaries as a whole. I agree. This is precisely why I found the award so problematic.

The ATC represents a diverse membership. Some companies undoubtedly strive to provide fair rates, invest in professional development, and maintain ethical relationships with translators and interpreters. Others operate within procurement systems that have been criticised for driving prices down, transferring financial and legal risks onto freelancers, or treating language professionals primarily as cost variables rather than as highly skilled knowledge workers.

The difficulty is that the ATC’s membership does not publicly distinguish between intermediaries that consistently uphold fair labour practices and those that do not. By recognising the organisation as a whole, ITI inevitably extends institutional legitimacy across its entire membership. The award therefore risks being interpreted not as recognition of exemplary labour standards, but as an endorsement of the existing commercial model itself.

While ITI continues to claim to represent practitioners, its independence from corporate interests becomes increasingly important. In my view, its repeated decisions raise serious ethical and strategic concerns and legitimate questions about whether it has become institutionally captured. Institutional capture does not require corruption or bad faith. It describes a gradual process through which an organisation’s priorities become increasingly aligned with those of influential stakeholders through repeated collaboration, financial dependence, shared networks, or agenda-setting.

ITI now faces a fundamental choice. If it wishes to remain a forum that brings together commercial organisations and practitioners, that is entirely legitimate. However, it cannot credibly continue to present itself as an independent and trusted voice for translators and interpreters while simultaneously legitimising organisations whose commercial interests do not always align with those of the professionals it claims to represent. Doing both is misleading and, ultimately, harmful.

Leadership carries responsibility. When an organisation repeatedly makes decisions that undermine confidence in its independence, questions about whether its leadership remains fit for purpose are entirely legitimate.

Note

Before publication, I contacted ITI, conference organisers, and speakers, inviting them to comment on the issues discussed in this article. Where responses were received, they have been reflected fairly.

Blog Image

Reihaneh Golpayegani & Digit / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/