Around the world, businesses, civil society and governments are working together in initiatives to address corruption risks that no single actor can resolve on their own. 

Initiatives might be set up to reduce bribe demands in ports, for example, or harmonise compliance frameworks in the metals technology industry, or help small businesses in Thailand enhance their anti-corruption credentials and thereby improve their business prospects. We have recorded more than 300 such initiatives in the database of our B20 Collective Action Hub from across the world and in multiple industries.

So it is clear that Collective Action – as an umbrella term for these diverse multi-stakeholder initiatives – is now firmly established as part of the anti-corruption landscape. 

Yet this very diversity poses a challenge. Initiatives come in many forms, pursue different goals and operate in widely varying political and institutional settings. That makes it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons or to understand, in a systematic way, what works best in which circumstances.

As part of the Basel Institute’s decades-long efforts to advance anti-corruption Collective Action, this challenge became the starting point for a multi-year project. The project, funded by the Siemens Integrity Initiative, set out to strengthen the evidence base for Collective Action. 

We wanted to know: how can we describe and analyse Collective Action in a way that respects its diversity but still allows for consistency and comparability?

The answers matter for all those who care about being effective in countering corruption and creating fairer, cleaner and more competitive business environments. You can find them in our Working Paper 57: Mapping and strengthening the evidence base for anti-corruption Collective Action – which is summarised below.

The challenge of “cutting the cake”

Developing a conceptual framework was far from straightforward. Collective Action can be “cut” in many different ways. 

• Should we focus on what initiatives do: training, codes of conduct, strengthening industry standards? 
• Or on who participates: companies or business associations, governments, non-profit or civil society organisations – or a combination of these and potentially others? 
• Should we look at their goals, such as strengthening compliance systems or influencing laws? 
• Or at their level of formality, from voluntary declarations to binding agreements?

Each lens has value, but none alone captures the full picture. Our task was to weave these perspectives together into a framework that could accommodate complexity while still generating clarity. 

We drew on models of system change, organisational decision-making, network formation and impact pathways. Taken together, these offered a dynamic picture of how initiatives emerge, why organisations choose to join, how networks are built and governed, and how their actions might contribute to wider change.

The framework we developed is not intended to provide definitive answers. Rather, it creates a shared language and a set of guiding questions. 

It allows practitioners, policymakers and researchers to explore initiatives in a structured way; to test assumptions, compare across contexts and build knowledge cumulatively rather than in isolated case studies.

From framework to evidence

To see if the framework could work in practice, we turned to the B20 Collective Action Hub, the world’s largest repository of anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives. The Basel Institute launched the Hub in 2013 following a mandate from the B20 group of business leaders and has developed and enhanced it over the last 12 years. 

We carefully reviewed and reclassified initiatives in the database, creating new categories of mission, scope, activities and stakeholder composition. The result was not just a cleaner dataset, but also a more solid foundation for analysis.

This process revealed important patterns. Most initiatives remain focused on fostering engagement between stakeholders through awareness-raising, dialogue and practical tools. Such activities are often vital entry points where trust is low or enforcement is weak. 

This emphasis on prevention – addressing root causes rather than relying solely on detection and punishment – is also where these initiatives make their strongest contribution: building capacity, equipping companies with tools and fostering trust-based cooperation that reduces opportunities for corruption. 

More formal and arguably more ambitious activities, such as developing self-regulatory standards or seeking external monitoring for certifications for example, are rarer – but may develop over time as relationships and capacities mature.

Context also matters to how Collective Action initiatives operate and what they achieve. Our analysis confirmed that broader reforms, such as transparency standards or legal change, are more likely to take hold in open democratic settings with a strong rule of law. In more restrictive environments, narrower, company-level initiatives like strengthening internal compliance systems may be the realistic starting point. 

Strengthening the evidence base

Beyond insights into today’s landscape of anti-corruption Collective Action, the project has also generated practical tools to help strengthen the evidence base for the future. We have: 

• introduced a set of guiding questions that practitioners and researchers can use when designing or analysing initiatives;
•  produced a new reporting protocol that encourages more consistent and transparent data sharing, so that future initiatives can be compared more reliably; and 
• refined the global dataset itself, making it a richer resource for both practice and research.

Taken together, these outputs offer both a conceptual foundation and a practical toolbox. They offer ways to link the design and activities of Collective Action initiatives to plausible outcomes, and to situate those outcomes within broader governance environments.

Key lessons for practitioners, policymakers and researchers

For practitioners, the central lesson is to design with context in mind. What works in one setting may not be feasible in another. In environments with weaker rule of law or restricted civic space, modest, company-focused initiatives can still lay important foundations. 

In more open settings, broader collaborations that aim for systemic reforms may be realistic and worthwhile.

For policymakers, the message is to see Collective Action as a complement to formal anti-corruption institutions and efforts, not a substitute. By fostering dialogue, developing practical tools and raising standards of integrity, these initiatives can reinforce prevention efforts and bridge the gap between policy commitments and implementation on the ground. 

That is why it is important for governments to support Collective Action with recognition and resources. 

For researchers, the key takeaway is the importance of building the evidence base systematically. Our framework, refined dataset and reporting protocol are designed to enable more consistent comparison and more robust testing of assumptions. Longitudinal and case-based studies, in particular, will be essential to understand how initiatives evolve and where they deliver the greatest impact.

This kind of research will be of great practical value to both practitioners and policymakers seeking to harness the power of Collective Action to achieve anti-corruption or economic development goals.

Looking ahead

The strength of Collective Action lies in its adaptability: the ability of diverse actors to come together, often in difficult circumstances, to find practical solutions to challenges of corruption and fair business. But adaptability must be matched by clarity if the field is to grow stronger.

By offering a shared framework, a refined dataset and practical tools for reporting and reflection, this project contributes to building that clarity. It does not close the debate but opens it wider, inviting practitioners, researchers and policymakers to engage with a more coherent evidence base and to help refine it further.

The message is clear: to strengthen Collective Action as an effective part of the anti-corruption toolkit, we need to learn from it systematically and plough those learnings back into policy and practice. This paper offers an important step in that direction.

Learn more

• Download the full paper and its practical annexes.
• The Collective Action team at the Basel Institute on Governance provides a free advice service for anti-corruption practitioners and other professionals or government officials. Contact the B20 Collective Action Hub Helpdesk.