Mirna Adjami
Publications and news by Mirna Adjami.
Publications
Roundtable on the pilot High Level Reporting Mechanism in Argentina
The Basel Institute on Governance and the Centre for Anti-Corruption Studies (CEA) of the University of San Andrés, Argentina convened a private-sector roundtable in Buenos Aires on 4 October 2018.
The purpose was to hear feedback and exchange on the recent implementation of the pilot High Level Reporting Mechanism (HLRM), in the tender carried out by the Argentine National Roads Authority within the framework of the Secure Roads and Routes Network Project using the new Public-Private Participation (PPP) legal framework adopted by the Argentine Republic.
Integrity Pacts to Prevent Corruption in Banknote Procurement
The Banknotes Ethics Initiative (BnEI) is an anti-corruption collective action initiative founded in 2013. It addresses the internal compliance standards of its members combined with a rigorous accreditation process administered by an external accreditation council.
The objectives of BnEI are also supported by 38 central banks, and now, some five years after its inception, the BnEI is picking up on one of its driving themes – ensuring fair competition in the procurement of banknotes.
Promoting Private Sector Engagement in the Open Government Partnership
There has been limited private sector engagement in OGP to date. This discussion paper commissioned by the OGP Support Unit seeks to explain why this is so and suggests some options for promoting increased private sector engagement going forward.
History/Context
OGP’s policy and guidance documents take an ambivalent position towards the private sector as a stakeholder to engage, without acknowledging the private sector’s unique potential value. The private sector includes a diverse set of actors and an effective OGP engagement strategy must pay attention to different entry points and concerns of the private sector at various levels.
Two attempts at engaging the private sector – through OGP’s Networking Mechanism and the Private Sector Council – failed to gain traction, mostly because they focused on creating a “supply” of private sector expertise without facilitating the demand from governments and civil society. Among the many actors in the global governance and sustainability fields, OGP is poorly known by the private sector.
Articulating clear value propositions regarding the mutual benefit of the private sector to open government/OGP is critical to attracting private sector interest.
News and blog
Streamlining human rights and anti-corruption compliance
Child labour. Forced evictions. Confiscation of migrant-worker identity documents. Crackdowns by security forces on peaceful assemblies. Serious illness resulting from corporate pollution. These are all examples of human rights abuses that might arise in business operations or supply chains, knowingly or unknowingly, in a company’s home country or abroad. What are human rights and who is obliged to respect them? Human rights are the universal rights and freedoms inherent to all individuals established through a range of international treaties. States have the primary duty to respect human rights and prevent human rights abuses on their territories. Yet businesses also have a corporate responsibility to respect internationally recognised human rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Human Rights set out the respective roles of States and companies to prevent, address and remedy human rights abuses committed in business operations. Since the Guidelines were endorsed in 2011, society’s expectations that businesses are held to account for their role in respecting human rights have risen. Human rights in corporate compliance Human rights are progressively entering the compliance sphere. Many if not all international human rights have corresponding civil or criminal infractions under national laws, though traditionally there has been an enforcement gap. An increasing awareness of human rights has contributed to a rise in efforts to enforce them at the national level. Additional human-rights specific legislation and standards pertaining to businesses are being adopted at the national and multilateral levels. For example: The United Kingdom and the Netherlands require certain companies to conduct due diligence, take other preventive measures, and report on their efforts to ensure there is no slavery, trafficking, or child labour in their supply chain. The EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive, which came into effect in 2018, places a requirement on large companies to disclose the human rights impacts of their business operations and efforts to mitigate them. Integrating human rights into anti-corruption compliance? Countries in which human rights abuses regularly occur often present high risks of corruption, and corruption can itself be a cause of human rights abuses. Companies can therefore integrate human rights issues into their compliance system by applying their existing anti-corruption mechanisms, such as risk assessments. Such an approach has the potential to enhance both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the company's overall efforts to do business with integrity. An adapted version of this article appeared in German in the September 2019 edition of Recht relevant – für Compliance Officers, published by Schulthess. Photo by Safal Karki on Unsplash
Key takeaways from Transparency International’s new guide on civil society and anti-corruption Collective Action
How can more civil society organisations get involved in anti-corruption Collective Action, and in what capacity? These are the questions that Transparency International addresses in its new publication, Collective Action on Business Integrity: A Practitioner’s Guide for Civil Society Organisations. This Guide is a succinct, easy-to-read, and practical tool for civil society organisations CSOs to better understand what anti-corruption Collective Action is and the important – and diverse – roles they can play in supporting multi-stakeholder approaches to corruption prevention in varied environments. The Basel Institute on Governance’s International Centre for Collective Action advised Transparency International at various stages of the Guide’s development and shared its expertise based on the work it does as facilitator to several anti-corruption industry sector Collective Action initiatives and from its advisory, research, and analysis work with many of the initiatives that are part of the B20 Collective Action Hub database. Of the Guide’s many insights and contributions, there are three that merit highlighting here. First, one of the most important contributions of the Transparency International Guide is its analysis of the four different types of CSO involvement in anti-corruption Collective Action, namely, CSOs’ roles as: initiator facilitator participant / contributor monitor The Guide quite rightly notes that a CSO can play multiple roles in various stages of a Collective Action’s development. But distinguishing these roles and highlighting the pros and cons of involvement in each stage helps underscore the various ways that Collective Action can get started and evolve. For example, in some environments, anti-corruption CSOs might be looking for new tools or approaches to address corruption and might play the initiating role in approaching private and/or public sector actors to come together and commit to a multi-stakeholder process of corruption prevention. This is the case in Transparency International’s Business Integrity Country Agenda BICA project which includes an initial research phase on the state of business integrity rules and practices in a given country with a multi-stakeholder advisory committee and a subsequent collective action phase to collectively implement the resulting policy recommendations and tackle existing integrity gaps. In other instances, by contrast, private sector competitors might want to engage in a dialogue to improve anti-corruption compliance standards in their industry sector, but need a neutral third party to pre-empt antitrust concerns, as well as bring expertise in a facilitating role. Some Collective Action initiatives take the form of classic multi-stakeholder governance initiatives – such as the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative, or the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative – in which civil society is a necessary counterpart whose inputs provide credibility to the initiative and communication channels to citizens. Some CSOs in many instances Transparency International chapters monitor actors’ compliance with anti-corruption commitments made in a Collective Action initiative. This role not only puts a CSO at the centre of a Collective Action with powers and responsibilities to oversee its execution, such as by monitoring an Integrity Pact, but also raises risks: if stakeholders fail to abide by the conditions of an Integrity Pact, the CSO may face difficult decisions about whether to withdraw from its role to protect its reputation. Second, the Transparency International Guide opens debate for further elaboration on the questions – what is civil society and who belongs to it? – as pertains to anti-corruption action. There is no universally accepted definition of “civil society” and the concept is subject to subjective interpretation. The Transparency International Guide endorses a definition of “civil society” by Civicus, a global alliance to promote citizen action and CSOs around the world as: “an arena outside the family, the state and the market that is created by individual and collective actions, organisations and institutions to advance shared interests.” On a spectrum, this definition classifies CSOs as representing citizens’ interests – be they individual or collective vis-à-vis the state and private sector. But who then can decide what is a shared interest? Following Civicus, the Transparency International Guide does not consider business associations as part of civil society. However, it acknowledges that business associations play an important role in facilitating many Collective Action initiatives from which good practices applicable to CSOs can be learned. The Guide’s case study on the Egyptian Junior Business Association’s Integrity Network Initiative is a good case in point on this. Does the definition of civil society therefore matter for Collective Action? It does in the sense that an organisation’s vision – whether it is to represent citizens’ views and advocate for a particular position or rather to provide neutral and independent expertise – will influence what kind of role in Collective Action a CSO will seek to engage in and be effective at. Likewise, the private sector and/or government will also reach out to involve a particular CSO as facilitator or moderator of a Collective Action initiative based on its perception of that CSO’s objectives and means of work. There is certainly more research and analysis to be done in teasing out good practices with respect to the various roles and effectiveness of different types of CSOs in different kinds of anti-corruption Collective Action as a follow-up to the TI Guide. Finally, a third strength of the Transparency International Guide is its emphasis on project management as integral to CSO engagement in anti-corruption Collective Action. The Guide outlines several key steps to engaging in Collective Action, underscoring the importance of stakeholder mapping, ongoing risk assessment, SMART objective-setting, and real-time monitoring and evaluation. It provides pragmatic, if sobering, tips on the time it usually takes for Collective Action initiatives to launch and produce tangible results. It is a helpful reminder to all actors, whether already engaged in or embarking on anti-corruption Collective Action, of the positive effect that good project management can have on the evolution of an initiative. It also provides questions to help CSOs determine if a particular context is ripe for Collective Action, or if separate awareness-raising or outreach activities with government and business stakeholders are needed first to set the stage for future Collective Action. The Transparency International Guide will hopefully spark not only further discussion, debate, and analysis but also more action and engagement on the part of civil society organisations of all stripes around the world to better understand and engage in anti-corruption Collective Action as an important tool for corruption prevention. Read the guide: Collective Action on Business Integrity: A Practitioner's Guide for Civil Society Organisations
UK’s Anti-Corruption Strategy endorses Collective Action and will encourage the creation of High Level Reporting Mechanisms
The United Kingdom published its first Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022 on 11 December 2017 in fulfillment of its pledge made at the London Anti-Corruption Summit in May 2016. Most interesting for us at the International Centre for Collective Action is the UK Strategy’s commitment to support “strengthened business-led collective action to reduce corruption” that is tucked away as the fourth goal of the Strategy’s fifth priority to improve the business environment globally. This commitment reflects the UK Bribery Act 2010 Guidance on what constitutes ‘adequate procedures’ for the private sector. Principle 2 of that Guidance titled ‘top-level commitment’ specifically identifies Collective Action as a way for companies to demonstrate adequate procedures of internal and external communication of their commitment to prevent bribery. There are scarcely any examples in which a national Anti-Corruption Strategy offers such a clear endorsement of business-led Collective Action, although the G20 has consistently cited the need for such approaches in their communiqués in the last few years. A recent review of 44 national anti-corruption strategies led by Norton Rose came to just such a conclusion, and noted that engagement with the private sector as a means for corruption prevention was not commonplace. The UK Strategy’s endorsement of Collective Action includes pledges to support four different fields. For one, the UK pledges to sponsor relevant B20 and G20 anti-corruption events. It will also work with national industry bodies to promote anti-corruption guidance and compliance tools for SMEs in the UK. To promote inward investment, the Strategy further pledges support for business-led anti-corruption initiatives focused on professional service providers in the UK. This seeks to encourage further action by the private sector building on the Professional Services Leaders’ Statement in Support of the London Anti-Corruption Summit, a statement signed by 31 Managing Partners and CEOs of leading global law firms, auditing and accounting firms, and property and real estate services firms. This statement emerged in part due to the increased spotlight and pressure for reform given the important role that non-financial professional services firms should play as “gatekeepers” against corruption, rather than enablers of it, in light of the Panama and Paradise Papers leaks. Since the London Anti-Corruption Summit, several of the companies that signed the Statement have recognised the importance of bringing major industry players together to establish clear ethics rules that will apply to all and ensure a level playing field. These fledgling efforts to get anti-corruption Collective Action underway have been proposed as the Professionals against Corruption initiative. With committed support from the UK government for this initiative, we look forward to seeing this initiative coalesce to develop robust industry standards.The fourth and final element of the UK Strategy’s support for Collective Action is its pledge to encourage other countries to establish High Level Reporting Mechanisms HLRM as a tool for corruption prevention building on the experiences of Argentina, Colombia, Ukraine, and Panama. This is part of the UK Government’s commitment to work with UK business to address corruption risks in targeted markets and sectors, following the priorities of the UK Industrial Strategy. The Basel Institute is pleased to see the UK promote the adoption of HLRM models in high-risk markets, particularly high-value tenders. An HLRM is tailored to the country context and seeks to protect the public procurement process, by preventing bribery or other forms of corruption through innovative and strategic collaboration between the public and the private sectors. It creates an early reporting channel that companies can use to report issues that might otherwise lead to favouritism of a particular bidder or other forms of unfair treatment, including indications of bribery solicitation, and are designed to provide a swift resolution of such allegations. The HLRM aims to reduce collusion risks while ensuring that a procurement process remains on track, preventing retaliation against companies and business losses as part of the procurement process. The Basel Institute and OECD have joined forces to promote the model in pilot procurement projects and was supported by the UK Embassies in Panama and Peru in the early stages of developing the HLRM that included preliminary analyses, meetings with governments and private sector actors to explore the creation of an HLRM in the respective countries. Of course, a strategy can only be measured by the extent to which it is implemented. The UK Government’s support for Collective Action is but one of a multitude of action points endorsed by the Government. The Basel Institute nevertheless welcomes the inclusion and support for Collective Action in the UK Strategy and encourages businesses and other actors to call upon the UK Government’s support for Collective Action in industries and the promotion of the HLRM model in foreign markets where these collaborative tools can be deployed to reduce corruption risks. The Basel Institute acts as a facilitator to a wide variety of Anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives and is a one-stop-shop for advice and support to anyone interested in developing a Collective Action initiative and can be contacted here.
Scaling up private sector use of e-government for corruption prevention
Last week, we presented the results of the Basel Institute on Governance’s new report entitled New Perspectives on E-Government and the Prevention of Corruption at a side event on innovative solutions to corruption prevention at the United Nations Convention against Corruption UNCAC Conference of States Parties COSP in Vienna, Austria. Members of the panel at the COSP side event and participants discussed the use of e-government and its potential to reduce corruption in various ways, and whilst not a solution on its own it was noted that there is a great potential to scale up efforts: “Governments are increasingly investing in e-government solutions and the private sector should respond to the opportunities this creates by making their use part of a company’s anti-corruption strategy,” said GSK’s Andrew Daniels, Head of Anti-Bribery and Corruption, Sanctions & Export Controls Centre of Excellence. “We, at GSK, believe these systems reduce our exposure to bribe solicitation and make our government interactions more efficient, transparent and traceable.” E-government generally refers to the use of information and communication technologies ICT to transform relations between citizens, businesses and various branches of government. The basic premise is that by reducing face-to-face contact with government officials, e-government can play a significant role in reducing corruption. Our report examines the rise of e-government and its effects. It provides a literature review on the correlation between e-government and corruption prevention and provides illustrations of a range of e-government solutions adopted by several different countries from around the world. The report also presents the results of an anonymous web survey conducted by the Basel Institute, which sought to assess the extent to which companies are aware of and use e-government solutions, as well as private sector perceptions of the effects of such tools on preventing corruption and bribery. The Basel Institute received 197 responses to the anonymous web survey, of which 83% were private sector actors from 33 different industry sectors from the Americas, Asia-Pacific and China, Europe, and the Middle East and North Africa. Most private sector actors have not yet grasped the potential of e-government tools for ensuring anti-corruption compliance. Our survey showed that only just over half 55% of private sector respondents are currently using e-government tools in their business operations. Of those that do so, similar majorities use e-government for the purpose of reducing the time to complete a transaction 61% as to reduce the risk of a demand for a bribe 60% . Respondents most frequently used e-government tools in the fields of e-procurement and e-tax, primarily motivated to reduce bureaucracy in those processes. By contrast, respondents used e-government tools less frequently in the fields of e-customs and e-sourcing, but when they did, they indicated the highest levels of motivation to reduce corruption in these transactions. Global healthcare company GSK recognises the important role e-government can play in corruption prevention, which is why they supported the Basel Institute to undertake this research. GSK’s Anti-Bribery and Corruption Standard an excerpt is set out in the annex of the report , requires all country managers to encourage their business to use any available schemes or systems that reduce face-to-face contact, particularly when interacting with government officials or making financial transactions, such as in the areas of: e-invoicing; e-filing of taxes or other administrative acts; e-procurement, e-tendering, e-sourcing, using any electronic government platforms, including trade facilitation schemes. Although the analysis on the actual impact of e-governance on corruption prevention is relatively under researched, some independent research papers and studies by the World Bank support this conclusion. Our modest survey adds some more evidence in this direction. We encourage companies to follow GSK’s initiative to integrate the requirement of using e-government tools in their anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures. We also call upon governments to harness the private sector as a driver of economic growth and development and to respond to private-sector requests and needs when developing their e-government strategies. Finally, we encourage academics and practitioners alike to undertake further research and analysis on the relationship between e-government and corruption. The greater the awareness of the potential for e-government to prevent corruption, the more e-government will be used, and the better governments and the private sector can tailor e-government solutions as an effective measure in the fight against corruption.