Reflections by Francesca Grandi, PhD (Transparency International Defence & Security), Elizabeth Andersen and Juhani Grossmann (Basel Institute on Governance) from the Munich Security Conference 2026.

Europe’s ambitious defence spending plans will only pay off if corruption risks are taken seriously. At our joint roundtable at the Munich Security Conference, industry and political leaders agreed: transparency and strong anti-corruption safeguards are essential if higher spending is to deliver technological innovation, real security gains and voter trust. It is time to place integrity at the centre of Europe’s defence agenda.

At the 2026 Munich Security Conference, political leaders spoke with urgency about readiness, deterrence, industrial capacity and the need to mobilise unprecedented levels of public and private financing. The tone was sober, the geopolitical risks real and the commitments delivered with a sense of urgency. 

The presence of the defence industry was impossible to miss. Private sector actors were actively engaged in shaping the debate, not only across panels and more informally, but also with a gigantic billboard “We Got This” directly in front of the conference venue. 

What we didn’t get was much focus on governance.

With money comes responsibility – and corruption risks

Europe’s defence architecture is being reshaped at historic speed and scale. As we convened our joint roundtable, Get the Balance Right: Capability, Integrity and Effectiveness in Europe’s Emerging Defence Architecture, one theme stood out: this build-up is vital to European security. But it is also a systemic governance test.

The scale of financing under discussion is enormous. Meeting Europe’s defence commitments is estimated to require additional financing of around 2 percent of EU GDP. At this magnitude, even small governance gaps could translate into billions lost to misallocation, corruption, or fraud. Governance infrastructure must scale in line with spending.

Accelerated procurement, emergency procedures and exceptional budgetary tools are being justified with the urgency of the task, which is understandable. But without enhanced safeguards, they risk:

• heightening fragmentation, overpricing, undue influence, and fiscal distortion; 
• weakening transparency and reducing opportunities for civic monitoring; and 
• limiting the parliamentary and independent oversight that is necessary to maintain the democratic legitimacy of defence investments.

More spending doesn’t mean more security

The lesson from past crises is clear: spending more does not automatically deliver more security. Defence build-up without governance produces predictable and avoidable risks. Transparency and oversight are not luxuries – they are force multipliers.

This is not a marginal issue. Weak governance undermines defence readiness as surely as underinvestment does. It erodes public trust. It fuels political polarisation. It creates openings for foreign interference and strategic corruption. And it risks turning today’s security investments into tomorrow’s legitimacy crises.

Across panels and side conversations, we repeatedly heard that “the money is there.” What remains contested is how to spend it wisely. How to balance speed with scrutiny? How to ensure that urgent injections of capital do not come at the expense of robust internal controls? How can transparent spending foster flexibility and innovation in defence technology?

Acknowledging the problem is the first step to solving it

At our event in Munich, participants spoke candidly about the tension between scaling production and modernising compliance systems, the political consequences of potential scandals and the perceived trade-offs between oversight and urgency. 

In separate conversations, Ukrainian partners described the dual challenge of mobilising wartime production at the same time as they are strengthening anti-corruption standards, all the while living and working under existential threat. 

One structural risk clearly stands out: no single authority is responsible for safeguarding integrity across Europe’s evolving defence ecosystem.

But how do we embed integrity into the EU's defence architecture?

• First, protect a transparency baseline, even under urgency. Accelerated procedures cannot mean suspended scrutiny. Parliamentary access to information, audit trails, and structured civilian oversight must remain operational. Where secrecy is required, tailored transparency can still reinforce accountability, especially when normal procurement rules are set aside. 
• Second, hardwire integrity into new defence financing tools. From day one, EU and national instruments should require machine-readable procurement data, beneficial ownership disclosure, conflict-of-interest controls, and interoperable oversight systems. 
• Third, regulate influence where money and policy meet. Public–private cooperation should not blur lines of accountability. As industry access expands, so must lobbying transparency, cooling-off periods, and enforceable revolving-door rules. 
• Fourth, align regulation with effectiveness. Smart, predictable standards reduce risk premiums, limit market distortion, and create fair entry points to stimulate innovation.
• Fifth, designate a clear political authority responsible for governance of Europe’s defence architecture. A harmonised anti-corruption framework requires defined leadership. Otherwise, oversight will continue to fall between institutions and funding mechanisms.

Is Europe serious about governance and democratic accountability?

MSC 2026 demonstrated that Europe is serious about rearmament. The question now is whether it is equally serious about governance.

European citizens will only support sustained defence spending, and the social trade-offs that come with it, if they trust that resources are used strategically and with integrity. That trust can only be secured through robust oversight, transparency, and accountability. 

If we are committed to long-term security – beyond the announcements and beyond Munich – then integrity must move from the margins to the centre of the agenda.

The task ahead is clear: get the balance right, and make governance a core pillar of Europe’s emerging defence architecture.