[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":268},["ShallowReactive",2],{"vanessa-hans":3,"team-authored-vanessa-hans":35,"i-fluent:call-20-regular":260,"i-fluent:mail-20-regular":264,"i-heroicons:arrow-left-20-solid":266},[4],{"id":5,"status":6,"sort":7,"user_created":8,"date_created":9,"user_updated":8,"date_updated":10,"first_name":11,"last_name":12,"position":13,"phone":14,"email":15,"image":16,"cv":17,"category":18,"division":19,"location":20,"tags":21,"nid":24,"slug":25,"function":26,"country":29,"directorate":31,"hidden":33,"author":34},8,"published",26,"b0662e2a-864d-4888-a1b7-4342b7570b30","2022-08-23T19:52:21.000Z","2026-06-23T15:59:51.000Z","Vanessa","Hans","Director, Business Integrity","+41 61 201 18 21","vanessa.hans@baselgovernance.org","95374f21-2967-4959-882a-6636823e1d4a","Vanessa Hans is Director of the Private Sector team at the Basel Institute on Governance. She has held the position since July 2022, having first joined the Basel Institute in January 2020 as Private Sector Specialist.\n\nIn her role, she leads a team of compliance and Collective Action specialists, taking a dual approach to engaging and strengthening the private-sector response to corruption risks in business transactions: by advancing anti-corruption Collective Action, and through technical assistance to private corporations and state-owned enterprises.\n\nShe regularly advises organisations ranging from small and medium enterprises to multinationals, state-owned enterprises and international organisations on topics relating to governance, ethics and compliance. She also leads the Basel Institute’s work on synergies between corruption and business and human rights as well as in the humanitarian sector.\n\nVanessa is a Board member of the United Nations Global Compact Network Switzerland and Liechtenstein. She also is a member of the Advisory Group of the Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific (ACI) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as well as the Anti-Corruption Leaders Hub of the OECD under the Global Initiative to Galvanize the Private Sector as Partners in Combatting Corruption and the UNCAC Working Group on Human Rights and Corruption. She is part of the Independent Sustainability Sounding Board of Argor-Heraeus, a Switzerland-based gold refiner.\n\n \n\nPrior to joining the Institute, Vanessa was the Managing Director of the French Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the Philippines where she established the first network-wide code of conduct and was appointed Data Privacy Officer. She initiated multi-stakeholder C-level committees addressing challenges across: gender, youth, infrastructure, agribusiness, and market access. Under her leadership, the Chamber won the French public service delegation contract as the only trade agency in the country under Team France Export.\n\n \n\nShe previously worked at several non-profit organisations focusing on corporate social responsibility and international development strategies.\n\nShe holds a Bachelor of Business Administration with a minor in International Relations from HEC Montreal and a Master of Science in Corporate Social Responsibility from the Nottingham University Business School.\n\nVanessa is a competitive long-distance cyclist and a certified mountain bike instructor.","Director","Collective Action","Basel HQ",[22,19,23],"Senior management","Compliance","20001","vanessa-hans",[27,28],"Core Management","Extended Management",[30],"Switzerland (HQ)",[32],"Business Integrity",false,298,{"publications":36,"news":184},[37,66,95,118,144,171],{"id":38,"title":39,"slug":40,"image":41,"type":42,"date_published":44,"publisher":45,"summary":46,"body":47,"area":48,"programme":50,"languages":52,"countries":54,"tags":55},2407,"Collective Action in practice: a game-changer for business integrity","collective-action-practice-game-changer-business-integrity","0dd71cde-39e7-4161-a90f-c7b90ebc2415",[43],"Book","2025-06-30","Basel Institute on Governance","This book offers a comprehensive reflection on that journey and explores the growing impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration on promoting business integrity around the world. It aims to capture the living ecosystem of Collective Action as it exists today, its foundations, its progress and the possibilities it continues to offer for the future.","At its core, Collective Action is a simple yet powerful concept: tackling corruption challenges together, rather than alone. Over the past two decades, anti-corruption Collective Action has grown from a niche idea to a recognised approach embedded in international standards, national strategies and corporate practices.\n\nThis book offers a comprehensive reflection on that journey and explores the growing impact of multi-stakeholder collaboration on promoting business integrity around the world. It aims to capture the living ecosystem of Collective Action as it exists today, its foundations, its progress and the possibilities it continues to offer for the future.\n\nDrawing on real-life examples, policy milestones and practical experiences from the Basel Institute on Governance and its partners, *Collective Action in practice: a game-changer for business integrity *presents how diverse actors have been working together to tackle corruption in complex environments.\n\n\n- **Part 1: Advancing the knowledge base** – presents the analytical tools and conceptual models that help us make sense of Collective Action in practice.\n- **Part 2: Mainstreaming Collective Action as a norm** – illustrates the growing recognition of Collective Action in international standards and policy frameworks. It also showcases the Institute’s International Collective Action Conference series and the Collective Action Awards.\n- **Part 3: Providing hands-on support** – focuses on the Basel Institute’s direct support to Collective Action practitioners and highlights the importance of peer learning.\n\n\n\n\n\n*Collective Action in practice: a game-changer for business integrity *was developed and published by the Basel Institute on Governance, with support from the Siemens Integrity Initiative.\n\n### About this publication\n\nThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fcreativecommons.org\u002Flicenses\u002Fby-nc-nd\u002F4.0\u002F\">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0\u003C\u002Fa>). Please credit the Basel Institute on Governance and link to: collective-action.com\n\nSuggested citation: Hocq, Nicolas, and Vanessa Hans. 2025. *Collective Action in practice: a game-changer for business integrity. Stories, evidence and inspiration from the Basel Institute on Governance*. Basel: Basel Institute on Governance.\n\nISBNs are as follows:\n\n\n- PDF: 978-3-9526182-0-2\n- Paperback (forthcoming): 978-3-9526182-1-9\n\n### Download or view online\nScroll down for links to download the book or specific chapters, or flick through online below:",[49],"Business Integrity & Governance",[51],"Private Sector",[53],"English",[],[56,60,63],{"tags_id":57},{"id":58,"name":59},982,"Anti-corruption",{"tags_id":61},{"id":62,"name":23},1236,{"tags_id":64},{"id":65,"name":19},909,{"id":67,"title":68,"slug":69,"image":70,"type":71,"date_published":73,"publisher":45,"summary":74,"body":75,"area":74,"programme":74,"languages":76,"countries":77,"tags":78},2395,"Quick Guide 39: Business integrity and ethics","quick-guide-39-business-integrity-and-ethics","9a75cbfc-a56c-4739-b683-d2122f94d9bc",[72],"Quick Guide","2025-03-25",null,"The changing landscape of anti-corruption regulation and enforcement has triggered important discussions around the role of ethics and compliance in business strategies and in the economy as a whole. It has also given impetus to the narrative that anti-corruption compliance programmes are inevitably costly, potentially ineffective and bureaucratic. \n\nThis ignores many of the positive advances in compliance that have been made in recent years, as well as the growing body of evidence supporting the business case for compliance.\n\nThis Quick Guide covers five broad areas in which mature and well-constructed ethics and compliance systems can benefit businesses even in the face of an uncertain regulatory and enforcement framework. It is based on a roundtable convened by the Basel Institute on Governance and bilateral discussions with key figures in the business and anti-corruption community.\n\n### About this Quick Guide\n\nYou are free to share and republish this work under a \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fcreativecommons.org\u002Flicenses\u002Fby-nc-nd\u002F4.0\u002F\">Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Licence\u003C\u002Fa>. It is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Quick Guide series, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.baselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications?type=2428\">ISSN 2673-5229\u003C\u002Fa>.",[53],[],[79,83,87,91],{"tags_id":80},{"id":81,"name":82},830,"Business integrity",{"tags_id":84},{"id":85,"name":86},1274,"Ethics",{"tags_id":88},{"id":89,"name":90},1380,"Sustainability",{"tags_id":92},{"id":93,"name":94},859,"Corruption risks",{"id":96,"title":97,"slug":98,"image":99,"type":100,"date_published":102,"publisher":45,"summary":74,"body":103,"area":74,"programme":74,"languages":104,"countries":105,"tags":109},2335,"Policy Brief 13: Catalysing the private sector for disaster response and resilience – Case study of the Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation","pb-13","8803b7dc-e28d-43f1-bac1-2887ce12babb",[101],"Policy Brief","2024-01-26","Extreme weather events, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and epidemics cause the loss of countless lives and bring disruption to many countries. Governments and humanitarian aid agencies are expected to be at the forefront of preparing for and responding to such disasters.\n\nHowever, occasionally the scale and impact of some natural disasters are so large that additional resources beyond what governments can provide become necessary. In such cases, efforts may be perceived as insufficient and slow. Resources and efforts need to be augmented in order to provide relief and support to those who need it most.\n\nCould the private sector take a more leading role in pre- and post-disaster efforts? How could a structured, long-term engagement reduce the inevitable integrity risks in high-stress disaster situations involving numerous government, business and international actors?\n\nThis Policy Brief looks at how the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.pdrf.org\u002F\">Philippines Disaster Resilience Foundation\u003C\u002Fa> (PDRF) has emerged as a leading private-sector coordinator for disaster risk reduction and management.\n\nIt illustrates the important role that the private sector can play in responding to – and building resilience to – natural disasters and other humanitarian emergencies. It also showcases how vital it is for good governance, integrity and transparent collaboration to be at the heart of those efforts.\n\n### About this Policy Brief\n\nThis publication is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Policy Brief series, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications?type[]=257\">ISSN 2624-9669\u003C\u002Fa> and relates to our work to promote anti-corruption \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002F\">Collective Action\u003C\u002Fa> with the private sector.\n\nYou may freely share or republish it under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fcreativecommons.org\u002Flicenses\u002Fby-nc-nd\u002F4.0\u002F\">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0\u003C\u002Fa>). ",[53],[106],{"countries_id":107},{"name":108},"Philippines",[110,112,114],{"tags_id":111},{"id":65,"name":19},{"tags_id":113},{"id":81,"name":82},{"tags_id":115},{"id":116,"name":117},1382,"Humanitarian assistance",{"id":119,"title":120,"slug":121,"image":122,"type":123,"date_published":125,"publisher":45,"summary":74,"body":126,"area":74,"programme":74,"languages":127,"countries":128,"tags":143},2316,"Working Paper 48: A collaborative approach to improve business integrity in ASEAN: Case studies of anticorruption Collective Action in the region","wp48","4721d38d-d829-421c-986d-90d1e7759d7c",[124],"Working Paper","2023-11-09","This working paper provides an overview and analysis of anti-corruption Collective Action case studies in the ASEAN region. It builds on the 2014 paper: \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.asean-csr-network.org\u002Fc\u002Fimages\u002FAIMPublication-CollectiveActionAgainstCorruptionRVR-CVStarr-1.pdf\">*Collective Action against Corruption: Business and Anti-Corruption Initiatives in ASEAN*\u003C\u002Fa>, which was published by the ASEAN CSR Network and the Asian Institute of Management.\n\nThis 2023 paper reviews the initiatives featured in the 2014 paper and highlights new initiatives that have emerged in the region since then. It covers:\n\n\n- Indonesia: Indonesia Business Links\n- Malaysia: Corporate Integrity System Malaysia\n- Philippines: Integrity Initiative and project SHINE\n- Thailand: Collective Action Against Corruption\n- Thailand: Anti-Corruption Organization of Thailand\n- Vietnam: Vietnam Chamber of Commerce & Industry and its Office for Business\n\n\nThe analysis identifies several success factors, while noting that Collective Action is a flexible approach that can and must be tailored to different contexts.\n\n### About this Working Paper\n\nThe authors would like to thank the Asian Institute of Management and the representatives of the initiatives featured in this paper for their time and contributions.\n\nThis paper is made possible through the support of the Siemens Integrity Initiative.\n\nThe publication is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper Series, ISSN: 2624-9650. You may share or republish the Working Paper under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).\n\nSuggested citation: Binder, Lucie, Vanessa Hans, and Anna Stransky. 2023. ‘A collaborative approach to improve business integrity in ASEAN: Case studies of anti-corruption Collective Action in the region.’ Working Paper 48, Basel Institute on Governance. Available at: \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fwp48\">https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fwp48\u003C\u002Fa>.",[53],[129,132,135,137,140],{"countries_id":130},{"name":131},"Indonesia",{"countries_id":133},{"name":134},"Malaysia",{"countries_id":136},{"name":108},{"countries_id":138},{"name":139},"Thailand",{"countries_id":141},{"name":142},"Vietnam",[],{"id":145,"title":146,"slug":147,"image":148,"type":149,"date_published":150,"publisher":45,"summary":74,"body":151,"area":74,"programme":74,"languages":152,"countries":153,"tags":160},1773,"Policy Brief 8: It takes a network to defeat a network – What Collective Action practitioners can learn from research into corrupt networks","policy-brief-8-it-takes-network-defeat-network-what-collective-action-practitioners","e139b149-ae15-42eb-a076-1dccd23e562f",[101],"2021-12-14","This Policy Brief distils recommendations for \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fcollective-action\">Collective Action\u003C\u002Fa> practitioners based on empirical insights on certain forms of corruption involving private-sector actors.\n\n\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Finformal-networks-investment-east-africa\">Field research carried out in Tanzania and Uganda\u003C\u002Fa> produced detailed case studies that show how informal networks link private and public sector actors to pursue common illicit goals, such as gaining an unfair business advantage, avoiding a sanction, decreasing taxes owed or jumping the queue at the point of delivery of public services. Corruption, most often bribery, is the currency that works to cement and nurture those networks.\n\nThis Policy Brief is based on that research and a series of in-depth interviews with Collective Action practitioners working in Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The goal is to extract insights from what we have learned about the networks that fuel corruption and discuss implications for anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives. \n\n## About this Policy Brief\n\nThis publication is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Policy Brief series, ISSN 2624-9669.\n\nIt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Suggested citation: Baez Camargo, C., Costa, Hans,V., J., Koechlin, L. and Wannenwetsch, S. (2021) *It takes a network to defeat a network: What Collective Action practitioners can learn from research into corrupt networks*. Policy Brief 8, Basel Institute on Governance.\n\nThe research underpinning this Policy Brief was funded by the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Face.globalintegrity.org\u002F\">Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programm\u003C\u002Fa>e, funded with UK Aid from the British people.",[53],[154,157],{"countries_id":155},{"name":156},"Tanzania",{"countries_id":158},{"name":159},"Uganda",[161,165,167,169],{"tags_id":162},{"id":163,"name":164},1309,"Informality",{"tags_id":166},{"id":81,"name":82},{"tags_id":168},{"id":58,"name":59},{"tags_id":170},{"id":65,"name":19},{"id":172,"title":173,"slug":174,"image":175,"type":176,"date_published":177,"publisher":45,"summary":74,"body":178,"area":74,"programme":74,"languages":179,"countries":180,"tags":181},1818,"Working Paper 34: Local certification through Collective Action: an innovative approach to anti-corruption compliance and due diligence","working-paper-34-local-certification-through-collective-action-innovative-approach","5dd44698-4bf4-4948-9e55-99be6f25fb9d",[124],"2021-01-19","How can local certification of small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) help to alleviate anti-corruption due diligence for SMEs as well as multinational corporations (MNC) seeking to work with them. This Working Paper by the Basel Institute's Collective Action team attempts to answer that question based on discussions and analysis of current local certification initiatives in different countries and sectors.\n\n*Local certification* in this context means the assessment of a company’s anti-corruption compliance standards according to a method devised through a Collective Action and developed within a domestic (local) market. The local component also involves verification (certification) by a reputable organisation based in the same country as the entity that is being certified. \n\nThe paper explores:\n\n\n- Due diligence dilemmas faced by both SMEs and MNCs.\n- How local certification can help SMEs develop and demonstrate robust anti-corruption compliance procedures.\n- How a trusted certification programme can help alleviate due diligence on third parties by MNCs, using a risk-based approach.\n- Wider benefits, including raising standards of compliance across the board.\n- How a Collective Action approach boosts the potential of local certification to achieve these wins.\n- Special considerations and six practical recommendations for practitioners seeking to raise levels of anti-corruption compliance through a local certification scheme.\n\n\n### About this Working Paper\n\nThis paper is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper Series, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.baselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications?type[]=255\">ISSN: 2624-9650\u003C\u002Fa>.\n\nThe paper was funded by the KBA-NotaSys Integrity Fund of Koenig & Bauer Banknote Solutions. It is part of the Basel Institute’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub\u002Fcertification\">local certification project\u003C\u002Fa>, which aims to support innovative approaches to anti-corruption compliance and due diligence through Collective Action. .\n\nThe views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the position of the KBA NotaSys Integrity Fund, Koenig & Bauer Banknote Solutions, any affiliates or any persons acting on their behalf.\n\nThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). \n\nCitation: Hans, V., Wannenwetsch, S. and Aiolfi, G. (2020). *Local certification through Collective Action: an innovative approach to anti-corruption compliance and due diligence*. Working Paper 34, Basel Institute on Governance.",[53],[],[182],{"tags_id":183},{"id":62,"name":23},[185,195,214,223,232,247],{"id":186,"title":187,"slug":188,"image":189,"type":190,"date":191,"body":192,"language":53,"tags":193,"translations":194},10550,"Why ethical business and behaviour are key to resilience in volatile times","why-ethical-business-and-behaviour-are-key-to-resilience-in-volatile-times-2808","7d2ef844-cf67-475d-812f-923f2dd4ea51","Blog","2025-05-12","With increasing geopolitical and regulatory volatility, the need for companies to develop resilience to market shocks and uncertain conditions is critical. One of the most effective ways to do this is by embedding strong compliance programmes into their operations that not only ensure adherence to laws and regulations, but also support positive, ethical work environments. \n\nEffective compliance programmes provide a foundation for businesses to act ethically by helping them to identify and manage risks early, and promote accountability and transparency. Ethical businesses are more resilient because they create trust with investors and customers, reduce the likelihood of legal or reputational crises, and are better able to motivate their staff to adapt to change when they are committed to their company’s purpose and values.\n\nThe OECD’s recently published [_Companies’ Assessments of Anti-Corruption Compliance_](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.oecd.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002Fcompanies-assessments-of-anti-corruption-compliance_977ed5a8-en.html) offers perspectives on how companies currently evaluate the effectiveness of their anti-corruption compliance programmes. Behind it lies months of consultation with the private sector; work that the Basel Institute on Governance was pleased to lead on behalf of the OECD.\n\nThrough a series of in-depth interviews and facilitated roundtables with multinational enterprises and SMEs from across sectors and regions, we helped capture the real experiences, challenges and innovations of corporate compliance leaders. The findings from this engagement shaped the OECD’s recommendations for improvement.\n\nWhat we heard from companies aligns strongly with the OECD’s message: that effectiveness can’t be defined by counting the number of compliance activities alone. What matters is whether those activities actually prevent misconduct and promote ethical business in practice.\n\n### Culture first: compliance starts with behaviour\n\nEvery company we spoke to, regardless of size or sector, emphasised the central role of organisational culture in achieving their compliance goals. Companies described good organisational cultures as those that empower people to act properly to prevent misconduct, but also feel safe to speak up when they see wrongdoing or feel unsure about how to proceed in a tricky situation.\n\nThis supports the behavioural focus in the OECD’s report, as well as our previous work on developing [indicators for company reporting](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fmeasuring-effectiveness-anti-corruption-programmes-indicators-company-reporting) supported by Norges Bank Investment Management, in which we concluded that:\n\n> An organisation’s culture is the key to the effectiveness of an anti-corruption programme. Not only does it influence staff attitudes and behaviour, but it also affects all aspects of the programme’s effective implementation.\n\nIt affirms that a compliance programme’s success hinges less on the written documents – although, these are critical as “guardrails” for behaviour – and more on how people feel and act in everyday decision-making. Good leaders and middle managers are essential for modelling integrity and turning principles into practical action, supported by open communication mechanisms where staff feedback is encouraged and acted upon.\n\n### Measuring what matters: outcomes over activities\n\nCompanies broadly agree that meaningful evaluation of compliance effectiveness must go beyond simply counting the number of policies developed or training sessions conducted. Leading firms are investing in innovative methods for evaluating impact. These range from in-depth employee opinion surveys, risk mapping and data analytics, to engaging behavioural scientists to explore how interventions affect behaviour and prevent harm. As one respondent put it to us:\n\n> Continuous improvement is a direct outcome of assessing effectiveness.\n\nStill, many note the difficulty of defining or measuring effectiveness in comparable ways. SMEs, in particular, struggle to keep pace with evolving expectations. The need for clear yet flexible guidance is a recurring theme.\n\n### Opportunities for better public-private interactions\n\nAll of the companies we interviewed as part of this process emphasised the influence of government legislation and guidance on the design of their compliance programmes. This isn’t surprising – governments make the rules that companies must follow. Companies, though, are now asking governments to make progress in two main areas. First, to consistently implement and enforce the laws and regulations they already have in order to ‘level the playing field’ for companies:\n\n> Enforcement is the best prevention\n\nSecond, to provide clearer articulation of the desired goals and outcomes of compliance programmes within the context of improved alignment, standardisation and consistency. Whether this also leads to more detailed government guidance on how to achieve these outcomes is still up for discussion. It may also differ depending on the industry and on the size of companies targeted:\n\n> Go to the question of why: why do compliance programmes exist? What are we trying to accomplish? \\[We\\] understand that \\[this approach\\] makes it difficult from a standards perspective. \\[But as the business environment becomes\\] more global; more complex... we’re going to need flexibility; risk mitigation for one company might look different than for another, and that’s ok.\n\nIn the first area, companies contextualised their backing for consistent enforcement with a request for a more supportive, flexible approach from governments. This approach should ideally be focused on dialogue and collaborative learning, and take into account if companies act in good faith when imposing penalties, even when wrongdoing occurs.\n\nIn the second area, and reflecting the complexity of the issue, companies themselves do not have simple definitions of effective anti-corruption compliance programmes. However, those with the most advanced programmes have a particular focus on: \n\n*   achieving the goals of widespread _prevention_ of misconduct within the context of an ethical culture;\n*   robust _detection and remediation_ processes; and \n*   _transparency around sanctions_ applied for wrongdoing.\n\n#### Collective Action initiatives\n\nCompanies are also willing to collaborate with governments to further develop definitions. They have demonstrated that they are an important source of compliance innovation which governments can leverage, including in the application of advances in the behavioural and data sciences. \n\nHowever, trust between companies and governments is variable. Companies have said that formal approaches specifically designed to build trust – such as Collective Action initiatives – would help to foster a more collaborative and positive culture around anti-corruption compliance and business integrity.\n\n#### International forums\n\nCollaboration between different jurisdictions would also be welcomed by companies in order to decomplexify the jigsaw of laws and regulations that companies have to abide by when operating globally. While acknowledging that identical laws would be unrealistic, companies are requesting greater alignment in the spirit of the law and a greater focus on functional equivalence. \n\nInternational organisations and anti-corruption conventions such as the OECD Convention on Bribery and its Working Group have been cited as possible forums to discuss improved alignment.\n\n### Co-creating behavioural-led compliance for resilient, ethical business\n\nThe insights gathered in this process point to a powerful opportunity for public and private actors to co-create more consistent, outcomes-focused definitions of effective compliance. In other words, definitions that prioritise behavioural change over box-ticking and reflect the realities companies face in conducting business globally.\n\nBy shifting the focus from documentation to demonstrable integrity in decision-making, both sectors can help move the needle on what meaningful compliance looks like. This is especially important at a time when the need to follow established rules is often being questioned. \n\nIt is a moment for innovation: through joint learning and dialogue, governments and companies can leverage each other’s strengths to build smarter and more adaptive compliance frameworks that transfer best practice from paper to action. \n\nAt the core of this effort must be a shared recognition that effective compliance programmes underpin ethical business conduct, and ethical businesses are more resilient. There is both a strong moral imperative and a clear commercial case for investing in this work, supporting the creation of financial and societal value in the long term.\n\n### Learn more\n\n*   See the OECD report: [Companies’ assessments of anti-corruption compliance](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.oecd.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002Fcompanies-assessments-of-anti-corruption-compliance_977ed5a8-en.html)\n*   See a related [Quick Guide to business integrity and ethics](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fqg39)\n*   Learn more about [anti-corruption Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002F)",[],[],{"id":196,"title":197,"slug":198,"image":199,"type":190,"date":200,"body":201,"language":74,"tags":202,"translations":213},10521,"Corporate disclosure on anti-corruption and ESG: three innovative approaches","corporate-disclosure-on-anti-corruption-and-esg-three-innovative-approaches-2735","f0488555-7a90-437c-ac6f-edbdd3f0f775","2024-12-16","Twenty-five years after the [OECD Anti-Bribery Convention](https:\u002F\u002Flegalinstruments.oecd.org\u002Fen\u002Finstruments\u002FOECD-LEGAL-0293) came into force, companies are facing an increasingly complex regulatory landscape, not only on anti-corruption but also sustainability.\n\nIn this blog, Vanessa Hans sheds light on recent corporate disclosure regulations and how companies can better meet stakeholders’ reporting expectations.\n\n### ESG regulations tighten: time to break down siloes\n\nMost countries have had laws prohibiting bribery for over two decades. Many have introduced corporate criminal liability for corruption. Environmental and social corporate responsibility, however, has largely been addressed through soft-law instruments.\n\nNow the regulatory landscape for sustainability topics is shifting away from soft law towards mandatory regulations. Companies need to establish a governance structure that adequately addresses anti-corruption compliance and broader environmental, social and governance (ESG) topics, including human rights issues.\n\nThat is a challenge for most businesses. A siloed approach still prevails, with limited exchanges of information between a company’s anti-corruption compliance function and its ESG function.\n\nThere are synergies between the environmental and social agenda and anti-corruption compliance – and breaking down silos is critical. Nonetheless, they remain distinct topics that require specific subject-matter expertise.\n\nIn our ethics and compliance work, we see how companies benefit from internal coordination on ESG and anti-corruption compliance within their broader risk management frameworks. The key is to leverage complementary aspects while treating the topics discretely when necessary.\n\nA similar approach is helpful to leverage synergies between [anti-corruption compliance and business and human rights](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fconnecting-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-agendas-challenges-and-opportunities-collective).\n\n### Three ways to better meet stakeholder expectations on corporate disclosure\n\nOne thing that companies are grappling with is new disclosure requirements. The European Union’s [Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Funpicking-eu-directives-corporate-responsibility-and-sustainability), for example, requires companies to report according to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), which also cover topics relating to corruption and bribery.\n\nDisclosure of anti-corruption efforts is not a new issue. Increased transparency through disclosure can be useful to build trust with external stakeholders, mitigate reputational risks and identify best practices.\n\nThree innovative approaches to corporate disclosure for anti-corruption compliance can help provide inspiration for wider ESG-related reporting: effectiveness indicators, corporate culture and engagement in anti-corruption Collective Action.\n\n#### 1\\. Reporting on effectiveness\n\nThe Basel Institute has facilitated the co-development of a set of indicators that companies may wish to consider when reporting on the effectiveness of their anti-corruption efforts to external stakeholders. While these indicators were developed with health care companies, they are not sector specific and could prove valuable for companies working in other fields.\n\nThe [guidance note](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fmeasuring-effectiveness-anti-corruption-programmes-indicators-company-reporting) was developed in collaboration with Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) and responds to [NBIM’s publication of expectations](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.nbim.no\u002Fcontentassets\u002F9af1e01021a642b3aa162d140dd0069a\u002Fanti-corruption.pdf) of companies on anti-corruption. These expectations emphasise among others that companies should report on their anti-corruption programme, including disclosing how they measure its effectiveness. The expectations are based on internationally recognised principles such as the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.\n\nThe effectiveness indicators are grouped into five themes based on their relevance to the prevention of corruption:\n\n*   Culture\n*   Risk management\n*   Third parties\n*   Compliance function\n*   Oversight\n\nThe indicators use a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics. Some are goal oriented and need descriptive answers. For others, a yes or no suffices.\n\n#### 2\\. Measuring corporate culture\n\nIt is worth taking a closer look at the first theme of the Basel Institute\u002FNBIM effectiveness indicators – culture. An organisation’s culture impacts both employees’ behaviour and the effective implementation of anti-corruption and other ESG programmes. A real commitment to corruption prevention and sustainability requires a strong corporate culture focusing on integrity.\n\nThe focus on disclosures relating to corporate culture has attracted attention in recent months. The U.S. Department of Justice’s latest guidance document on the [_Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs_](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.justice.gov\u002Fcriminal\u002Fcriminal-fraud\u002Fpage\u002Ffile\u002F937501\u002Fdl) (updated in September 2024), for example, highlights the importance of fostering an organisational culture “that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law” – beyond having check-box compliance structure and policies in place.\n\nFive of the indicators developed by the Basel Institute and NBIM relate to culture (paraphrased here). They can be a helpful resource for companies to define how they measure corporate culture and how it evolves over time:\n\n*   A baseline to identify perceptions of the culture of integrity and a methodology to measure changes in the culture over time are established.\n*   Frequency of references to ethics and compliance by C-level executives and managers.\n*   Performance management framework incorporates how ethics and integrity objectives are achieved.\n*   Ethics and integrity are integral components in leadership decisions.\n*   The company actively engages in anti-corruption Collective Action.\n\nMeasuring an organisation’s corporate culture remains challenging. But the list of indicators can provide a starting point for companies wishing to not only shape a culture of integrity in their organisation but to report externally on the success of their efforts.\n\n#### 3\\. Multi-stakeholder engagement through Collective Action\n\nNow it’s time to zoom in on the fifth culture-related indicator above: anti-corruption [Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002F).\n\nActive and sustained engagement with peers and stakeholders from civil society and in some cases government through Collective Action can [indicate a company’s commitment](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fnew-journal-article-anti-corruption-compliance-non-financial-reporting-and-collective-action) to integrity and a continuously improving ethical culture.\n\nCollective Action has gained significant momentum in recent years. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in its revised Anti-Bribery Recommendation has [formally endorsed the use of Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Foecd-recommends-anti-corruption-collective-action-its-revised-anti-bribery-recommendation) to address corruption. The concept is also supported by development banks, including the [World Bank](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fwhy-should-development-banks-engage-anti-corruption-and-collective-action-initiatives#:~:text=The%20World%20Bank%20Group%20has,financed%20projects%2C%20but%20more%20generally). Most recently, the B20 Integrity and Compliance Task Force under the Brazilian presidency of the G20 has included fostering Collective Action initiatives as one of three [policy recommendations](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fb20-brazil-rings-new-era-collective-action). Looking at corporate disclosure, the Global Reporting Initiative’s standards for sustainability impacts ([GRI Standards](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.globalreporting.org\u002Fstandards\u002F)) also integrate Collective Action in their recommended anti-corruption disclosure.\n\nCompanies across different industries and sectors continue to face challenges when it comes to addressing the increasing jigsaw of varying international and national standards. Collaborative approaches such as Collective Action are an impactful way for companies to address these challenges jointly and also meet expectations of their stakeholders, be it on corruption prevention, human rights or other ESG topics.\n\n### Read more\n\n*   For details on all themes and effectiveness indicators for company reporting, see the Basel Institute\u002FNBIM [guidance note](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fmeasuring-effectiveness-anti-corruption-programmes-indicators-company-reporting).\n*   For more information about Collective Action, visit our [B20 Collective Action Hub](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002F).",[203,205,207,211],{"tags_id":204},{"id":65,"name":19},{"tags_id":206},{"id":58,"name":59},{"tags_id":208},{"id":209,"name":210},1303,"Environment",{"tags_id":212},{"id":81,"name":82},[],{"id":215,"title":216,"slug":217,"image":218,"type":190,"date":219,"body":220,"language":74,"tags":221,"translations":222},10345,"Celebrating diversity, equity and inclusion at the Basel Institute","celebrating-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-at-the-basel-institute-2398","6e76b217-4713-49bf-af1e-e194fdac031b","2023-03-08","On International Women’s Day, we celebrate the conversations that issues of gender equality have triggered over recent years – conversations about the kind of world we want to live in and the values of the organisations we want to work for.\n\nThese conversations go far beyond narrow statistics of women vs men. They encompass equity in pay and parental leave; creating a culture where all staff feel welcome; and taking advantage of the different backgrounds and points of view that diversity brings.\n\nDiversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has been part of the Basel Institute’s way of working since its establishment 20 years ago – long before the term became a widely known acronym. This has naturally led, for example, to a near-equal gender balance in our global team (55 percent women at the end of 2022) and 28 separate primary nationalities among our 114 staff.\n\nYet as our collective understanding and expectations evolve, so too must our policies and procedures.\n\n### Putting commitments into practice\n\nThe Basel Institute’s Managing Director Gretta Fenner has recently formalised our Institute’s high-level commitments to gender equality and wider diversity, equity and inclusion.\n\nOur aim is to be more intentional in understanding and implementing measures. This includes gathering and publicly reporting data that will allow us to be more transparent and accountable to this commitment.\n\nIn this way, we hope to create even greater employee buy-in and loyalty, as well as better meet the expectations of our donors and stakeholders.\n\nOther steps we have recently taken include:\n\n*   Being successfully evaluated by the Swiss Federal Administration in relation to [gender pay equality](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ebg.admin.ch\u002Febg\u002Fen\u002Fhome\u002Fservices\u002Flogib-triage.html).\n*   Complementing principles around safeguarding in our [Code of Ethics](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002F2022-10\u002F2022%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf). The update reinforces safeguarding from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH)_._ It also reinforces our conduct expectation of our partners in regard to safeguarding, fairness, diversity and respect, including SEAH, in the context of the delivery of programmes of the Institute. \n*   Committing to the [Women’s Empowerment Principles](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.weps.org\u002F) of the UN Global Compact and UN Women.\n*   Joining the UN Global Compact’s [Target Gender Equality](https:\u002F\u002Funglobalcompact.org\u002Ftake-action\u002Ftarget-gender-equality) initiative and drawing up an action plan with practical and measurable short- and medium-term steps.\n\nThrough the [International Gender Champions Network](https:\u002F\u002Fgenderchampions.com\u002F), Gretta Fenner and our President Peter Maurer also serve as ambassadors for gender equality. In the same way, the Basel Institute seeks to be an ambassador for diversity, equity and inclusion in our sphere of influence.\n\n### Next steps\n\nAs we grow, we will seek to maintain our staff balance of approximately 50–50 women and men – and of course continue to ensure pay equality and cultivate a positive environment for people from diverse cultural and professional backgrounds. Improved tracking of selected data on employee lifecycles will help us be more proactive with regard to gender, diversity and inclusion issues in the workplace.\n\nBy the end of 2025, we also aim to reach gender balance in both our Management Group and our Foundation Board.\n\nWe will roll out updated training for all staff on our Code of Ethics and safeguarding principles, and develop an accessible complaints mechanism.\n\nBeyond our staff, we are also developing a framework to mainstream gender considerations into the work of our International Centre for Asset Recovery.\n\nWatch this space, and feel free to [contact us](mailto:info@baselgovernance.org) meanwhile for more information on our commitments and steps to achieve them.",[],[],{"id":224,"title":225,"slug":226,"image":227,"type":190,"date":228,"body":229,"language":74,"tags":230,"translations":231},9558,"Connecting the anti-corruption and human rights agendas: challenges and opportunities for Collective Action","connecting-the-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-agendas-challenges-and-opportunities-for-collective-action-2110","221ac298-d45b-4244-806b-906083b24b25","2021-09-30","In 2020, the Basel Institute on Governance with the support of the Siemens Integrity Initiative launched a series of roundtable discussions that brought companies together to analyse the potential nexus between corporate efforts to protect human rights and prevent corruption.\n\nWhile bribery has been a prohibited practice under the laws of a majority of countries for over 20 years, and in many places corporate criminal liability for corruption has also been introduced, the corporate responsibility to protect human rights has largely been addressed through soft law instruments up until recently. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the [UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ohchr.org\u002Fdocuments\u002Fpublications\u002Fguidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf), this situation however is changing.\n\n### From soft law towards mandatory regulations\n\nOn the one hand, there are strong regulatory expectations on companies to implement effective compliance programmes to address bribery laws.\n\nOn the other hand, the pressure on companies to take action around the topic of human rights is increasing as, similar to the field of bribery 20 years ago, the regulatory landscape is shifting away from soft law towards mandatory human rights due diligence regulations.\n\nAs companies in almost all industry sectors continue to be challenged when it comes to addressing the jigsaw of varying international and national standards, this presents opportunities for companies to meet the expectations of stakeholders on an increasingly level regulatory playing field.\n\n### Exploring a collaborative approach through Collective Action\n\nDrawing on our long experience in anti-corruption Collective Action, we reached out to private-sector partners to gather their views on the potential of exploring synergies between anti-corruption compliance and the business human rights agenda to address this challenge. A collaborative approach has also been recommended by the 2020 guide [_Connecting the anti-corruption and human rights agendas: A guide for business and employers’ organisations_](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fconnecting-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-agendas-guide-business-and-employers) by Business at OECD (BIAC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).\n\nMore than 50 companies responded to our outreach on the synergies between business human rights and anti-corruption. We met with each company on a bilateral basis at first, in order to understand the interest of each company for this specific topic, and also to assess the level of maturity of each company’s approach to addressing human rights and anti-corruption topics. Based on the sectors, but also common interests and challenges identified by each company, we then divided the 50 companies into five groups which met twice over a period of six months.\n\nThe aim of the roundtable discussions was to identify opportunities to leverage anti-corruption best practices which could potentially support human rights and synergies between the two efforts, and also the limits.\n\n### Challenges in connecting the business and human rights and the anti-corruption agendas\n\nMost companies noted the presence of internal silos between compliance functions that are responsible for anti-corruption on the one hand, and the sustainability\u002Fcorporate social responsibility (CSR) functions that have traditionally managed the topic of human rights. Breaking down these silos and fostering constructive exchanges was one of the first recommendations resulting from this consultation.\n\nSeveral other challenges emerged during both the bilateral calls and the roundtable discussions:\n\n#### Fast-changing stakeholder expectations\n\nCompanies confirmed the above-described marked increase in focus on business human rights from regulators, but also noted the rapidly growing interest from other key stakeholders, including clients, public lenders and investors.\n\nThey pointed out that a particular challenge was the speed at which the expectations of these stakeholders are shifting, something that was reported to be particularly noticeable in certain European countries and North America.\n\n#### Differing levels of maturity and understanding\n\nGiven the relatively recent uptake in human rights discussions both at the international and local levels, the maturity of companies with regards to their understanding and integration of the human rights agenda into their risk mitigation strategies and compliance management systems varies widely.\n\nHeavily regulated industries and industries that have faced high-profile human rights-related scandals in recent years are, in general, more likely to have undertaken efforts to understand business human rights-related topics within their sector. It is interesting to note that these same sectors also appear to have the strongest understanding of corruption prevention.\n\n#### Assessing human rights risks\n\nHuman rights risk is seen as a challenge for a great majority of companies. This mainly arises from the divide between _risk to business,_ in the traditional compliance interpretation of risk assessment, and _risk to people_ in the human rights interpretation of a risk assessment.\n\nThe limited in-house expertise on human rights was also noted as a challenge in order to identify salient human rights risks across the supply chain.\n\n#### Bridging the silos of compliance and sustainability\n\nThe definition of a governance structure which adequately takes into account human rights is an ongoing challenge which takes several forms. A siloed approach that integrates human rights in the CSR or sustainability function seems to prevail. This is largely for historical reasons relating to the debates around standalone reporting on CSR topics and more recently environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports.\n\nMany companies noted that this typically leads to limited (or non-existent) exchanges of information between the anti-corruption compliance functions and the guardians of CSR.\n\nSome companies nowadays do have a dedicated human rights function. However also in these set-ups, internal buy-in (and coordination with other relevant functions, such as anti-corruption compliance) is perceived as a major obstacle.\n\nIn other companies, ownership of the human rights risk is unclear and does not have board attention, let alone any form of oversight.\n\n#### Implementing policies – a need for tone from the top\n\nOn the upside, most companies have already defined – or are in the process of finalising – policies on human rights, either as a standalone statement or integrated into a broader policy document. Where companies have had such policies for some time, they are also engaged in reviewing these to ensure alignment with new legal and regulatory developments.\n\nHowever, a common thread is that there is a lack of support from the top leadership of the companies for substantiating the implementation of such policies with appropriate procedures and processes. This in turn affects access to resources.\n\n#### Supporting the supply chain\n\nSome companies also noted a more general lack of understanding from suppliers and third parties as to what human rights questionnaires and requirements would mean in practice for their business relationship. The use of contractual agreements mentioning human rights was seen as a first step, but companies noted challenges in going further down the supply chain and having a greater positive impact.\n\nIn order to overcome this, some companies focus on outreach and on capacity building: they help their contractors produce policies, develop whistleblowing mechanisms and roll out training programmes.\n\n### A complementary approach that acknowledges specificities\n\nWhile a majority of participating companies identified potential synergies between the human rights agenda and anti-corruption compliance, it was also generally acknowledged that human rights and corruption are two distinct topics. In other words, they should not (and cannot) be completely merged. Rather, they need to be seen as an overarching compliance and risk topic and thus embedded into risk management processes, but also treated discretely when necessary.\n\nSubject matter expertise can help enhance and leverage current practices, with an emphasis on coordination of such expertise when looking at due diligence with a corruption and human rights lens.\n\n### Taking the next steps together: Collective Action\n\nCollaborative approaches to the joint agendas of human rights and anti-corruption could also lead to self-regulation within these dual agendas in certain industry sectors. As mentioned in a [September 2021 paper](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Finput-roadmap-next-decade-building-blocks-realizing-ungps-implementation-toward-2030) issued by the IOE, BIAC and Business Europe:\n\n> Business and their representative organisations must be part of the solution and not perceived as the problem and must be fully involved in the development of normative and non-normative processes. Peer-learning and the exchange of experience are key to support each other in the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.\n\nThis opens a window of opportunity for [Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub) between industry players, peer companies and other stakeholders. The aim is to level the playing field with meaningful and coherent anti-corruption and human rights approaches that will support transparency, ethical decision making and engaged leadership. Pushing the human rights and anti-corruption agenda forward in any business requires a strong corporate culture focusing on integrity.\n\nThe roundtable members will be invited to take the discussions to the next level through a second round of bilateral meetings as well as targeted roundtable discussions. We will also conduct further research on the nexus between human rights and corruption, engaging multiple stakeholders throughout the process and in the development of an analysis report.",[],[],{"id":233,"title":234,"slug":235,"image":236,"type":190,"date":237,"body":238,"language":74,"tags":239,"translations":246},9666,"New journal article on anti-corruption compliance, non-financial reporting and Collective Action","new-journal-article-on-anti-corruption-compliance-non-financial-reporting-and-collective-action-1895","ab2c4203-baf7-46ef-b72f-9c53dcc6a079","2020-10-26","Oil, Gas & Energy Law ([OGEL](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ogel.org\u002Fabout-author-a-z-profile.asp?key=3443)) has just published a detailed paper I wrote on [Anti-Corruption Disclosure in the Oil and Gas Industry: Challenges and Opportunities for Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ogel.org\u002Farticle.asp?key=3932).\n\nThe oil and gas industry is particularly affected by the evolving regulatory landscape and growing jigsaw of standards and guidelines focusing on non-financial (extra-financial) reporting. But many other industries are seeing the same pressures and trends, and I believe they could similarly benefit from Collective Action.\n\nHere is the argument in brief. Please consult the full paper for a much more detailed exploration of the issues, case studies and references.\n\nFirst, some observations. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) analysis is becoming increasingly important to investors seeking to assess the risks in their investment portfolios. In generic terms, this means investment portfolios are assessed on both traditional financial performance indicators and non-financial indicators, which include the topic of corruption.\n\nYet there is no exhaustive list of ESG indicators and most indicators cover material topics which are intertwined.\n\nThe same applies to corruption, as there is currently a lack of harmony in anti-corruption reporting standards and approaches to anti-corruption compliance evaluation. It's a jigsaw that doesn't quite fit together. In many places the pieces overlap.\n\nThis is a feature that we see not only in the oil and gas industry, but in many other sectors with complex global value chains and significant corruption risks.\n\nSecond, an opportunity. I argue that the current situation opens a window of opportunity for Collective Action between industry players and other stakeholders to collaboratively develop meaningful and coherent anti-corruption compliance indicators.\n\nDisclosure of the commitments and activities under such Collective Action initiatives in the public domain can lead to a greater understanding from the investor community as well as to greater accountability, and thereby help level the playing field.\n\nThird, a sweetener. Collective Action is supported by both states and international organisations as an innovative approach to tackle corruption, raise standards of business integrity and level the playing field within a specific sector. The World Bank, the OECD, UNODC and UN Global Compact support the methodology. States from Malawi to the UK have endorsed it in their national anti-corruption strategies.\n\nFrom the private-sector perspective, the [2020 Policy Paper of the B20 Working Group on Integrity & Compliance](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.b20saudiarabia.org.sa\u002Fwp-content\u002Fuploads\u002F2020\u002F09\u002FB20-Integrity-Compliance-Policy-Paper-30092020.pdf) endorses it as the very first policy action under the first recommendation to the G20 for pursuing \"a culture of high integrity in the public and private sectors\".\n\nWith this in mind, my article argues that engaging in anti-corruption Collective Action is a strong signal of a company's commitment to collaboration in tackling corruption, raising standards of business integrity and levelling the playing field. It should itself be considered as an indicator of anti-corruption compliance within the ESG framework.\n\n### Your thoughts?\n\nThe article is available online to subscribers [here](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ogel.org\u002Farticle.asp?key=3932). \n\nI'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on this emerging discussion - feel free to contact me via email, Twitter ([@FightBribery](https:\u002F\u002Ftwitter.com\u002Ffightbribery)) and LinkedIn ([Collective Action at the Basel Institute](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fcompany\u002Fbasel-institute-collective-action)).\n\nPlease also take time to check out some of the [Basel Institute's Collective Action projects](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fcollective-action) and our other publications, databases and resources on the [B20 Collective Action Hub](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub).",[240,242],{"tags_id":241},{"id":81,"name":82},{"tags_id":243},{"id":244,"name":245},804,"Natural resources",[],{"id":248,"title":249,"slug":250,"image":251,"type":190,"date":252,"body":253,"language":74,"tags":254,"translations":259},9672,"Clean procurement in times of covid-19 – transparency and the High Level Reporting Mechanism  ","clean-procurement-in-times-of-covid-19-transparency-and-the-high-level-reporting-mechanism-1882","d4da7de6-d892-421d-964b-c243b2871a5c","2020-09-29","As aid, donations and recovery packages are deployed to cope with the pandemic, the risk of corruption is surging in many countries. Funds for emergency healthcare procurements are flooding in. These fast procurement processes often have limited corruption prevention measures in place and therefore present an increased risk for both governments and businesses.\n\nIn his recent publication “[It’s Only the Beginning: COVID-19, Public Procurement, and Corruption](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.paulhastings.com\u002Fpublications-items\u002Fblog\u002Finternational-regulatory-enforcement\u002Finternational-regulatory-enforcement\u002F2020\u002F09\u002F10\u002Fits-only-the-beginning-covid-19-public-procurement-and-corruption)”, anti-corruption expert Nicola Bonucci emphasises the lack of oversight of Covid-19 aid funds and the related surge in fraud and corruption. Procurement processes are far from perfect in many countries and will take time to adjust. Yet the nature of the pandemic means that urgent tenders which present increased risk exposure are unavoidable for the time being.\n\nThat’s not the only problem:\n\n*   Current research by Claudia Baez Camargo, who leads the Basel Institute’s [Public Governance](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublic-governance) team, points to added difficulties in procurement when governments declare a State of Disaster or State of Emergency. This can allow the bypassing of existing safeguards due to the urgency of the situation.\n*   Another increased corruption risk lies in the lack of policy and control mechanisms on donations to public facilities such as health facilities.\n*   There is also a lack of clarity around the role of anti-corruption authorities when it comes to emergency public procurement. Anti-corruption authorities could potentially help in identifying loopholes and safeguarding Covid-19 related resources.\n\n### Transparency through collaborative action\n\nNow available in English, a [Recommendation Guide](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.covidradar.org.br\u002Fen\u002Frecommendation-guide\u002F) jointly developed by [Global Compact Network Brazil](http:\u002F\u002Fwww.pactoglobal.org.br\u002F), [Transparência Internacional - Brasil](https:\u002F\u002Ftransparenciainternacional.org.br\u002Fhome\u002Fdestaques), [IBGC - Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ibgc.org.br\u002F) and [Instituto Ethos](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ethos.org.br\u002F) with the participation of [Alliance for Integrity](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.allianceforintegrity.org\u002F) includes a specific section on procurement and contracting. It recommends the adherence to active transparency mechanisms and includes additional recommendations related to emergency public procurement.\n\nHow to achieve this? In a nutshell: through collaborative approaches between government, the private sector and civil society.\n\nThere is evidence from all over the world that multi-stakeholder engagements, if granted enough power, can offer a robust response in preventing corruption in Covid-19 procurement and beyond the pandemic. Any systematic framework for reporting allegations of possible bribery and corruption needs buy-in from all parties in order to work. It must also be supported by whistle-blower protection regulations.\n\n### Applying the HLRM to Covid-19 procurement\n\nThe High Level Reporting Mechanism ([HLRM](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub\u002Fhrlm)) is one powerful transparency mechanism which could be deployed rapidly to address Covid-19 procurement challenges for the benefit of citizens, governments and businesses.\n\nThe Basel Institute on Governance, OECD and Transparency International jointly developed this tool to meet private sector demands for a fast, independent and effective mechanism to deal with alerts about suspected bribery or unfair business practices in public tenders.\n\nHLRMs offer an alternative to traditional judicial and administrative procedures. They enable the private sector to obtain a prompt and pragmatic response from the government and avoid further escalation.  They are tailored to address a country’s specific risks. The result: more transparency, more efficient procurement of urgently needed essential supplies, a fairer playing field for bidding companies and stronger  trust in government.\n\nA silver bullet? No. But a powerful and collaborative tool for those with the courage to take it forward.\n\n### Learn more\n\n*   [Find out more about the HLRM](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub\u002Fhrlm), including case studies from four countries.\n*   See this guest blog by our partners in the OECD Anti-Corruption Division, published on 24 September 2020: [New OECD study on how to implement a HLRM for clean, transparent public procurement](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fnew-oecd-study-how-implement-hlrm-clean-transparent-public-procurement)",[255],{"tags_id":256},{"id":257,"name":258},1381,"Health",[],{"left":261,"top":261,"width":262,"height":262,"rotate":261,"vFlip":33,"hFlip":33,"body":263},0,20,"\u003Cpath fill=\"currentColor\" d=\"m6.987 2.066l-.717.216a3.5 3.5 0 0 0-2.454 2.854c-.297 2.068.367 4.486 1.968 7.259c1.597 2.766 3.355 4.548 5.29 5.328a3.5 3.5 0 0 0 3.715-.705l.542-.514a2 2 0 0 0 .247-2.623l-1.356-1.88a1.5 1.5 0 0 0-1.655-.556l-2.051.627l-.053.01c-.226.033-.748-.456-1.398-1.582c-.68-1.178-.82-1.867-.633-2.045l1.043-.973a2.5 2.5 0 0 0 .575-2.85l-.662-1.471a2 2 0 0 0-2.4-1.095m1.49 1.505l.66 1.471a1.5 1.5 0 0 1-.344 1.71l-1.046.974C7.078 8.36 7.3 9.442 8.2 11c.846 1.466 1.618 2.19 2.448 2.064l.124-.026l2.088-.637a.5.5 0 0 1 .552.185l1.356 1.88a1 1 0 0 1-.123 1.312l-.543.514a2.5 2.5 0 0 1-2.653.503c-1.698-.684-3.303-2.311-4.798-4.9C5.152 9.3 4.545 7.093 4.806 5.278a2.5 2.5 0 0 1 1.753-2.039l.717-.216a1 1 0 0 1 1.2.548\"\u002F>",{"left":261,"top":261,"width":262,"height":262,"rotate":261,"vFlip":33,"hFlip":33,"body":265},"\u003Cpath fill=\"currentColor\" d=\"M15.5 4A2.5 2.5 0 0 1 18 6.5v8a2.5 2.5 0 0 1-2.5 2.5h-11A2.5 2.5 0 0 1 2 14.5v-8A2.5 2.5 0 0 1 4.5 4zM17 7.961l-6.746 3.97a.5.5 0 0 1-.426.038l-.082-.038L3 7.963V14.5A1.5 1.5 0 0 0 4.5 16h11a1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1.5-1.5zM15.5 5h-11A1.5 1.5 0 0 0 3 6.5v.302l7 4.118l7-4.12v-.3A1.5 1.5 0 0 0 15.5 5\"\u002F>",{"left":261,"top":261,"width":262,"height":262,"rotate":261,"vFlip":33,"hFlip":33,"body":267},"\u003Cpath fill=\"currentColor\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\" d=\"M17 10a.75.75 0 0 1-.75.75H5.612l4.158 3.96a.75.75 0 1 1-1.04 1.08l-5.5-5.25a.75.75 0 0 1 0-1.08l5.5-5.25a.75.75 0 1 1 1.04 1.08L5.612 9.25H16.25A.75.75 0 0 1 17 10\" clip-rule=\"evenodd\"\u002F>",1782230771666]