[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":125},["ShallowReactive",2],{"author-329":3,"author-team-329":6,"author-work-329":7},{"id":4,"name":5,"image":6},329,"Collective Action team at the Basel Institute on Governance",null,{"publications":8,"news":50},[9,23,34],{"id":10,"title":11,"slug":12,"image":13,"type":14,"date_published":16,"publisher":17,"summary":6,"body":18,"area":6,"programme":6,"languages":19,"countries":21,"tags":22},1838,"Collective Action ideas, insights and inspiration – 2020 Integrity Partner workshop series","collective-action-ideas-insights-and-inspiration-2020-integrity-partner-workshop","4c70392e-0bc8-4a79-98f6-186aaa33f60b",[15],"Report","2020-09-17","Basel Institute on Governance","This report contains ideas, insights and inspiration on four key topics in anti-corruption Collective Action:\n\n\n- Engaging: How to engage stakeholders in new or expanding Collective Action initiatives\n- Building: How to develop a strong and successful initiative that achieves its goals in integrity, anti-corruption and compliance\n- Sustaining: How to ensure a Collective Action initiative is set up to survive and thrive\n- Measuring: How to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of Collective Action\n\n\nThe report and related online resource results from the 2020 Integrity Partners workshop series, hosted by the Basel Institute on Governance in August 2020 with the support of the Siemens Integrity Initiative.",[20],"English",[],[],{"id":24,"title":25,"slug":26,"image":27,"type":28,"date_published":29,"publisher":17,"summary":6,"body":30,"area":6,"programme":6,"languages":31,"countries":32,"tags":33},1913,"Collective Action Conference 2018: Evolution to Revolution – Conference Highlights","collective-action-conference-2018-evolution-revolution-conference-highlights","ce3521d9-483b-4a7c-839c-6efaa6204d89",[15],"2018-12-01","There was not quite a revolution in Basel on 14–15 November 2018, but there was plenty of lively discussion during the panel sessions and on the margins of the Basel Institute's 3rd International Collective Action Conference. \n\nOver 200 participants from 40 countries across five continents were present, including representatives from 95 businesses of all shapes and sizes, government and public sector officials, key members of international organisations and financial institutions, lawyers and law enforcement experts, academics and civil society activists. All came together to share their wide-ranging experience in using Collective Action to tackle corruption and prevent bribery. \n\nThese conference highlights give a brief insight into the varied and interesting presentations and panels. If you have any comments or would like more information, please feel free to contact the \u003Ca href=\"/collective-action\">Collective Action team\u003C/a>.",[20],[],[],{"id":35,"title":36,"slug":37,"image":38,"type":39,"date_published":41,"publisher":17,"summary":6,"body":42,"area":6,"programme":6,"languages":43,"countries":44,"tags":45},1922,"Working Paper 27: Anti-corruption Collective Action: Success factors, sustainability and strategies","working-paper-27-anti-corruption-collective-action-success-factors-sustainability-and","432246ae-96c0-40ce-96d3-6b82f621ce51",[15,40],"Working Paper","2018-11-01","Anti-corruption Collective Action Initiatives (CAIs) are structured efforts that bring together private sector actors with other stakeholders with the aim of preventing corruption and improving the business environment in a particular context.\n\nThe landscape of CAIs is extremely diverse. Differences cut across the type and number of stakeholders involved. Initiatives can be sector-specific or cross-sectoral. They can be applied at the community, country, regional or global level.\n\nThis paper is based on two recent workshops in which a wide variety of international Collective Action practitioners shared their experiences, success factors and strategies for overcoming common challenges.\n\nFor more information about Collective Action, see the \u003Ca href=\"/node/1095\">B20 Collective Action Hub\u003C/a>.\n\n### About this Working Paper\n\nThis paper is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper Series, \u003Ca href=\"/publications?type[]=255\">ISSN: 2624-9650\u003C/a>.",[20],[],[46],{"tags_id":47},{"id":48,"name":49},909,"Collective Action",[51,61,69,77,85,93,101,109,117],{"id":52,"title":53,"slug":54,"image":55,"type":56,"date":57,"body":58,"language":6,"tags":59,"translations":60},9981,"Interview with Camilo Enciso, former Colombian Secretary for Transparency on developing a High-Level Reporting Mechanism for Peru","interview-with-camilo-enciso-former-colombian-secretary-for-transparency-on-developing-a-high-level-reporting-mechanism-for-peru-251","b23317ee-7937-42ae-ae81-7131d5c0bf93","Blog","2017-12-05","Below is an interview with Mr. Camilo Alberto Enciso Vanegas, former Secretary for Transparency of the Presidency of the Republic of Colombia and international anti-corruption expert, who visited Peru on behalf of the Basel Institute on Governance (BIG) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in August and October 2017 to support efforts to adopt a High Level Reporting Mechanism (HLRM) in the country.\n\nThe expert missions were supported by Peru’s High Level Anti-Corruption Commission (CAN) and the Basel Institute on Governance’s Peru country office. It involved high-level meetings with key stakeholders of the procurement system.\n\nHigh Level Reporting Mechanisms seek to prevent bribery in public procurement, or other forms of corruption through innovative and strategic collaboration between the public and the private sectors. An HLRM is a reporting channel that companies can use to report issues that might lead to favoritism of a particular bidder or other forms of unfair treatment including indications of bribery solicitation that might occur during a procurement tender. The HLRM is designed to provide a prompt and swift resolution of such allegations. It substantially reduces collusion risks and aims to prevent the suspension of the procurement process, it also seeks to prevent retaliation against companies and business losses. \n\nUltimately, an HLRM aims to benefit citizens, by promoting the implementation of major public works with transparency and the efficient use of public resources.\n\nThe following comments on efforts to adapt the HLRM model for Peru, drawing in part on the Colombian experience, has been adapted from a Spanish version of an interview with Mr. Enciso.\n\n## How has the High-Level Reporting Mechanism been implemented in Colombia?\n\nLatin American countries face great challenges as a result of particularly serious and emblematic grand corruption cases, which have led to lack of public trust and have revealed poor institutional capacity to timely process corruption allegations. The High-level Reporting Mechanism intends to provide a channel for prompt and timely reporting, which will help solve corruption risks and problems that are currently being found in government procurement processes, licensing procedures or administrative actions of great relevance.\n\nIn Colombia, the HLRM was implemented in fourth generation infrastructure projects, i.e. road infrastructure projects with a high level of government investment. More than 14 fourth generation road projects were developed, for which we invited pre-qualified companies to sign a MoU.  Through this, companies agreed, first, to fair competition and to act in good faith; and, second, to report potential corruption concerns that may have arisen in the course of the tender processes to the HLRM\n\n## During your expert missions you have held meetings with important Peruvian authorities. Could you give us an overall appreciation on how you perceive their commitment with anti-corruption efforts?\n\nThe Peruvian public administration has shown a great deal of commitment by supporting the implementation of this mechanism. We are defining more precisely which agency will be competent to host and implement the HLRM. Moreover, we are observing which would be the projects or types of agreements around which it might operate because the HLRM is not suitable for all business transactions. A phased approach is encouraged, which will first focus on projects of a high strategic value and of high cost, which are particularly relevant for the economic development of Peru. For instance, the HLRM could work for road infrastructure projects, in the metro system building process, in the aqueduct construction works or works of similar relevance.\n\n## Northern Peru is going through a critical process after recent natural disasters have destroyed a great part of available infrastructure. Is there a similar Colombian experience you could tell us about, which could serve as an example for rebuilding works to be developed in Peru?\n\nWe are also exploring the idea of incorporating the HLRM in some agreements to be entered into for rebuilding northern Peru. There is a very interesting experience in Colombia, which resulted from the “cold wave” of 2011. This phenomenon destroyed dozens of towns in the country, which received a very significant injection of resources from the government to build roads, bridges and highways, renew crops, rebuild houses and schools, something very similar to what is currently going on in the towns of northern Peru.\n\nIn this case, efforts were made to establish clear rules that allowed a prompt investment of resources ensuring full transparency and integrity, thus succeeding at preventing corruption practices, even though multi-million resources were invested. This was a great challenge and a very valuable experience.\n\n## The OECD is a key stakeholder in the fight against corruption. What was the role it played in Colombia and what would be its role in Peru?\n\nIn Colombia, the process of OECD accession was a priority because it demonstrated the government’s commitment to meet the highest international standards on good governance. The OECD has two working groups of great relevance: the Working Group on Bribery and the Public Governance Committee. Throughout the Colombia OECD accession process, in which I participated as one of Colombia’s representatives, I led many necessary internal transformations and changes. The OECD works as a catalyser and accelerator of reform processes required by our countries.\n\nIn Peru, both the OECD and the Basel Institute on Governance will provide the necessary technical support necessary to plan, design and implement the HLRM, supporting the national agencies to achieve this goal.\n\n## The Basel Institute on Governance’s Subnational Public Financial Management Program implemented in Peru with the support of the Swiss Cooperation – SECO works to improve financial management of the public budget and transparency of institutional processes. Is there any related experience from Colombia you can tell us about?\n\nWhen I worked as Colombia’s Secretary of Transparency, we implemented a program, “Educational Paths for a Culture of Integrity” to educate citizens at different stages of their lives with tailored awareness-raising activities on ethics for school students, university students, and public servants. Furthermore, we made efforts to achieve an “Open Government” understood as access to information on what the government produces and have made significant progress. Colombia’s Open Government Partnership two-year National Action Plan includes commitments by the Council of State, the highest judicial authority, which started an open information and accountability process at the national and local levels.\n\nThis plan was signed by all the heads of the governing bodies, of criminal prosecution agencies and of the anti-corruption authorities in Colombia, including the President of the Republic. Without a doubt it was a truly transformational process, which also engaged Colombian citizens.",[],[],{"id":62,"title":63,"slug":64,"image":6,"type":56,"date":65,"body":66,"language":6,"tags":67,"translations":68},10084,"Are Collective Action enforcement mechanisms a burden for companies?","are-collective-action-enforcement-mechanisms-a-burden-for-companies-260","2016-08-29","_As the Basel Institute on Governance's second [anti-corruption Collective Action conference](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference) draws near, let's take a moment to look back at one of the key messages that emerged from the [2014](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2014-conference) edition, on the question of enforcement mechanisms and business participation Collective Action._ \n\nDefining what constitutes an ‘enforcement mechanism’ depends to a certain extent on the Collective Action itself; there is no single method to keep all stakeholders bound to their commitments. To date, such mechanisms have ranged from self-monitoring and peer pressure, to using external monitors, legal sanctions, fines, disbarment from tendering, or other coercive means to make sure a Collective Action agreement has bite.\n\nThe question whether enforcement mechanisms in anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives are a burden on companies was raised at the conference, and without giving a definitive answer on this wide ranging question, various aspects are summarised here.\n\nAsking if companies, as opposed to any other stakeholders, find these mechanisms burdensome is to approach the question with a narrow perspective. If a Collective Action is to live up to its name, then all the participants should feel obligated to make it work, and sometimes this may be more onerous on one or other of the parties. Research on the effectiveness of Integrity Pacts developed by Transparency International has examined the matter from the perspective of other parties involved in making an Integrity Pact work, including external monitors and the public sector. What emerges from this research is a more differentiated picture of what is burdensome: failure by an errant stakeholder to follow the commitment is probably the hardest burden for all the other stakeholders to bear when contemplating the consequences of the breach.\n\nWhere an enforcement mechanism requires corporate competitors to raise concerns about each other to a third party monitor or government agency, there is a risk that none will take such action for fear of upsetting the market in which they all operate. In such cases the mechanism may fail and as a result the Collective Action initiative may also not succeed. The best way to address such a scenario is to have a strong basis of trust between the stakeholders, and a good rapport with the external facilitator who may or may not be the monitor. The mechanism will work if there is a forum for dialogue and even confrontation to address possible breaches of an initiative, moderated by a trusted facilitator. This is why some of the more successful Collective Action initiatives are a sustained commitment that are developed over time and which also allot time for regular meetings in person.\n\nEnforcement through High Level Reporting Mechanisms\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nThe [High Level Reporting Mechanism](/node/1098) (HLRM) in Colombia presents another form of ‘enforcement mechanism’ in Collective Action, requiring pre-selected bidders for certain designated infrastructure projects to sign up to an integrity pact type commitment. The HLRM is however, more than an integrity pact arrangement and presents an interesting study of an enforcement mechanism as a tool rather than a legal remedy, to ensure the procurement process continues even in the event of allegations of breaches of the pact. The enforcement element is thus more of an enabling mechanism, offering a win-win for all involved.\n\nThe Colombian HLRM example represents a shift away from solely punitive approaches that can end up stymying the procurement procedure and involving the parties in protracted legal proceedings. Instead, the novelty of the HLRM process lies in the ad-hoc committee that has been established to receive complaints that bidders (or potentially others) in the procurement process can raise.\n\nThe committee in the Colombian example consists of just four experts: in criminal law, civil engineering, business structures, and public procurement. The bidders can raise technical issues, problems of extortion and of course allegations of bribery by their competitors in the tender process, with the committee’s recommendations transmitted back to the Secretary of Transparency, thereby offering a quick and solution oriented process. If the prosecution authorities do need to be involved, then appropriate referrals will be carried out.\n\nThe HLRM reporting procedure is in itself part of the remedy in that it starts a process that aims to keep the procurement procedures running, instead of bringing them to a halt. As such, this feature may help to incentivise companies to participate actively, rather than just depositing a complaint, then waiting for the outcome in enforcement terms and possibly delaying or stopping the tender process altogether.\n\nPositive reinforcement\n----------------------\n\nMore generally, the participatory and voluntary characteristics of Collective Action are not only its distinctive features but also its strengths; otherwise signing up to a no-bribes pledge or a similar type of agreement in the context of a government procurement process would be nothing more than just another formal requirement that has to be acknowledged. Given these two basic characteristics, the notion that companies find enforcement mechanisms burdensome becomes less credible; companies enter such arrangements with their eyes open, and knowing that they can influence the process through their participation.\n\nIn future, it is likely that the number of Collective Action initiatives that are based on positive incentives, such as white listing or preferential treatment for companies participating in these types of commitments, should increase. There are many examples where enforcement is based on incentives, and hopefully these will continue to grow in number.\n\nThe question as to how burdensome enforcement mechanisms really are to all stakeholders would be a worthy area of more research. This would help to establish the business case for companies considering whether to join a Collective Action initiative and also to bolster wider support for such approaches.",[],[],{"id":70,"title":71,"slug":72,"image":6,"type":56,"date":73,"body":74,"language":6,"tags":75,"translations":76},10099,"Strengthening the case for anti-corruption Collective Action through research","strengthening-the-case-for-anti-corruption-collective-action-through-research-263","2016-05-01","The private sector’s role in combating and preventing corruption continues to be essential and is widely recognized by government, civil society and companies themselves, with the spread of corporate anti-corruption compliance programs in recent years presenting a clear response to the acknowledged responsibility of the private sector. Whilst this is a positive development it is not enough to tackle corruption in particularly challenging markets and sectors. In this regard, Collective Action seeks to further level the playing field through applying concerted, cooperative strategies against corruption.\n\nPrivate sector engagement however in anti-corruption Collective Action has yet to reach its full potential, and is frequently perceived as a new or emerging concept despite years of application and evolution in numerous multi-stakeholder approaches.\n\nAn oft-heard question remains: what is the business case for engagement? What are the benefits of anti-corruption Collective Action to the participants?\n\nA better understanding and communication of these issues and greater application of empirical research-based arguments for Collective Action may help to better convince the private sector of its value. In addition, this may encourage greater government support and recognition of Collective Action. Academics, researchers and evaluation methods clearly have a role to play here.\n\nVirna Di Palma of TRACE International addressed this topic [previously](https://www.baselgovernance.org/blog/role-academia-anti-corruption-collective-action) on the International Centre for Collective Action (ICCA) Blog, underscoring the important role of research to improve anti-corruption strategies and policy recommendations. The research support basis for Collective Action will thus be an important topic at the upcoming Collective Action conference hosted by the Basel Institute’s ICCA on October 20-21 in Basel.\n\nThe conference, entitled “[Collective Action: Evidence, Experience and Impact](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference),” will address the latest in research and practice in Collective Action and business integrity, through a number of high-level panel discussions and interactive sessions that together aim to emphasise the business case for joint engagement against corruption. The preliminary agenda for this 1.5 day event and further information is available on the conference webpage. To support the research component, the ICCA is inviting papers from anti-corruption and compliance practitioners and academics (including graduate students), that assess and provide further insights into anti-corruption Collective Action evidence and impact (10,000 words maximum, excluding annexes). Papers selected for the conference will be published here on the B20 Collective Action Hub and made available to participants during the conference. In addition, authors selected for their work may be given the opportunity to present their paper during the conference and to publish their papers in the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper Series.\n\nDetailed submission requirements, thematic areas for papers and further information can be found on the conference [website](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference). Those interested in contributing a paper should send a 300 to 500 word abstract by 24 June, 2016, along with full contact information and institutional affiliation.\n\nWhile many actors remain convinced of the validity of Collective Action, the more we know about how corruption operates and where cooperative solutions can most effectively and efficiently tackle it, the better we can tailor Collective Action approaches  that are relevant and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, particularly the private sector.",[],[],{"id":78,"title":79,"slug":80,"image":6,"type":56,"date":81,"body":82,"language":6,"tags":83,"translations":84},10100,"High Level Reporting Mechanism update","high-level-reporting-mechanism-update-264","2016-03-31","The High Level Reporting Mechanism (HLRM) has received increased [attention](https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2016/03/02/guest-post-high-level-reporting-mechanisms-a-promising-new-tool-to-fight-public-corruption/) in recent months, making it worthwhile to take stock of developments surrounding the tool as well as supporting items for their implementation. Developed by the Basel Institute on Governance in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Transparency International, and promoted during the 2012 G20, the HLRM seeks to address corruption from the ‘demand’ side, essentially solicitation and extortion of companies from public officials. Since then, versions of the tool have been in operation in both Colombia and [Ukraine](https://boi.org.ua/en/), and now, and as of March 2016, and HLRM has also been introduced in [Panama](https://www.baselgovernance.org/news/panama-and-basel-institute-launch-high-level-reporting-mechanism-hlrm-promote-integrity-health).\n\nThe HLRM takes a multi-stakeholder approach to develop an institutional framework for the efficient resolution of complaints raised by businesses in cases of unfair treatment. From these activities, the HLRM seeks to build confidence from the business community, the public and other stakeholders at large, in areas such as procurement, licensing and other activities at the interface of business and government interaction, promoting increased efficiency and transparency. To ensure that gains are recognised more broadly, the HLRM can include regular reporting to stakeholders on outcomes. In addition, the HLRM can serve as a vehicle for long-term change by identifying systematic regulatory risks.\n\nIn recent activity, promotion of the HLRM remains at the front of the agenda in the G20/B20 process. The 2015 B20 in Turkey included among its final [recommendations](http://b20turkey.org/policy-papers/b20turkey_summary.pdf) that the G20 “continue to develop and promote the concept of high level reporting mechanisms.” For the Basel Institute, which took part in the B20 Turkey Anti-Corruption Task Force, the HLRM has been an area of focus in 2015 and will remain as such over the coming years. In August 2015 the Basel Institute published a [working paper](https://www.baselgovernance.org/publications/working-paper-19-high-level-reporting-mechanisms-colombia-and-ukraine) on the B20 Collective Action Hub analysing the initial experiences with HLRMs in Colombia and Ukraine.  This first step towards analysis and review of the tool will provide insights moving forward for parties interested in adapting the HLRM in other national contexts. In addition, a [policy guide](https://www.baselgovernance.org/publications/designing-high-level-reporting-mechanism-business-guidance-note-governments) for governments interested in conducting HLRMs was produced.\n\nThe latest introduction of an HLRM, in Panama, also reflects its expanding uptake in recent years. The HLRM in Panama will focus specifically on the health sector and the procurement of medical equipment, with an official start date slated for May 2016. The Basel Institute, through experts from the International Centre for Collective Action (ICCA), worked closely with local stakeholders from government, business and civil society within Panama in order to find solutions most suited to the specificities of the Panamanian context. This latest practical iteration of the tool should provide further examples and material for inspiration, lessons learned and knowledge transfer for stakeholders in other jurisdictions interested in pursuing HLRMs as a tool to promote integrity in the business environment.",[],[],{"id":86,"title":87,"slug":88,"image":6,"type":56,"date":89,"body":90,"language":6,"tags":91,"translations":92},10114,"What is the business case for anti-corruption Collective Action?","what-is-the-business-case-for-anti-corruption-collective-action-266","2016-01-31","This summer will mark two years since the ICCA Conference, [Collective Action: Going Further Together to Counter Corruption](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2014-conference). \n\nDespite increasing [attention](http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/126812/collective-action-as-a-competitive-advantage) being given to Collective Action, the appearance of promising new [initiatives](https://www.baselgovernance.org/b20-collective-action-hub/initiatives-database) from around the globe, and its continued [presence](https://16iacc.sched.com/event/3ZjT/collective-action-mission-impossible-or-a-way-to-a-better-future) as a topic on the international anti-corruption conference circuit, strengthening and evidencing the business case are key to ensure greater take-up and buy-in.\n\nThe ICCA remains deeply engaged with this discussion. As a preview to upcoming announcements on the topic (watch this space!), this blog piece returns to one of the key messages that emerged from the 2014 event, a topic which in the months since remains no less relevant today: what is the business case for anti-corruption Collective Action?\n\nAs Collective Action continues to gain attention from companies, NGOs and policymakers as a tool to counter bribery and extortion, one question that consistently arises from those deciding whether to engage in it remains: What is the business case for participating in Collective Action initiatives? The conference brought this issue to the fore again.\n\nMany of the corruption risks that companies face in a particular market are often common among competitors but also across industry sectors. By taking steps beyond solely improving their own internal compliance programs, Collective Action provides opportunities for leveraging the power of the group to effect real change, and to engage with the public and private sectors to kick-start new initiatives to tackle systemic corruption and related issues. ‘Going it alone’ has often been a hurdle for firms to overcome when persuading boards and business managers as to why they should take a proactive approach to tackling bribery: Engaging in Collective Action affords companies the benefits of a group approach, decreasing concerns of being out of sync with other players in the market.\n\nEveryone concedes that reducing corruption provides more stable, transparent, and in the end, more profitable business environments for companies and other stakeholders in which to operate; this in itself should galvanise companies to think creatively about how to enhance their anti-corruption approaches. But if internal drivers are lacking, responding to external pressures is going to continue to be an imperative for companies large and small. The growing demands of customers, and civil society, the frustrations of disillusioned citizens are all cogent reasons to engage in Collective Action because it can deliver concrete evidence of a firm’s commitment to acting with integrity and play a part in improving the overall development prospects of a country.\n\nFinally, the regulatory environment continues to evolve to ensure that companies and individuals paying bribes will be prosecuted, and companies will be fined, damaging to reputations and to their share price. Engaging in Collective Action demonstrates to law enforcement and regulatory authorities a company’s serious commitment to improving not only their internal anti-corruption programs but also making a difference in the wider business environment. This is cited as well among the adequate procedures for compliance with the UK Bribery Act.\n\nArguing for business involvement in Collective Action through highlighting the tightening regulatory arena, responsibilities of good corporate citizenship within broader economic and social settings, and Collective Action’s contribution to establishing a more level playing field and cleaner business environment presents strong incentives for company participation.\n\nOne area for future consideration is the greater need for researchers and proponents of Collective Action to better speak the language of business. Through the development of metrics to improve the collection and analysis of measurable data, the benefits accruing to companies involved in Collective Action can be more tangible and convincing for other stakeholders to also take part.",[],[],{"id":94,"title":95,"slug":96,"image":6,"type":56,"date":97,"body":98,"language":6,"tags":99,"translations":100},10152,"Anti-corruption Collective Action in the maritime industry","anti-corruption-collective-action-in-the-maritime-industry-273","2015-07-31","_Cecilia Müller Torbrand is Senior Legal Counsel, Group  Compliance Officer of the Maersk Group, the container shipping industry leader and one of the founding companies of the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (MACN). She spoke to the ICCA recently about the MACN and its work towards a shipping industry free of bribery and corruption. Mrs Müller Torbrand serves as the Chair for the network. In part for her work with MACN, Mrs Müller Torbrand has been named Compliance Officer of the Year at the_ [_2015 Women in Compliance Awards_](https://www.c5-online.com/women-compliance-awards/)_._ \n\n_Please tell our readers about the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (MACN) and how it came into existence._\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI was working in Maersk Line at the time and when Maersk Line was developing its compliance programme, we started to evaluate how we could create sustainable changes on the ground and how we can support our front line staff better. We concluded that engaging our peers would be a useful first step and started to reach out within our sector and received positive feedback. During 2011 I arranged frequent meetings and invited relevant stakeholders to seek inspiration, e.g. Transparency International and UN Development Programme.\n\nAfter a year we were about 15 companies that were willing to “give it a go” and we engaged a third party ([Business for Social Responsibility](http://www.bsr.org/en/), a global non-profit organisation) to assist in formalising and continue building the network. The network has now grown from eight members at its inception to around 60 members today.\n\nWhat are the main goals and objectives of the MACN?\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nBusiness can’t solve the global problem of corruption alone. MACN is a global business network established to work toward a vision of a maritime industry free of corruption that enables fair trade to the benefit of the broader society.\n\nAs a global business initiative, MACN believes that sustainable, transformational change requires multi-stakeholder collaboration, which must provide win-win solutions to motivate and incentivise all stakeholders to contribute and adopt strong anti-corruption management practices. This is best done in dialogue with national governments and with support from intra governmental institutions such as the UN.\n\nHow can companies join the MACN?\n--------------------------------\n\nCompanies can seek more information on [MACN’s website](http://www.maritime-acn.org/).\n\nTo become a member companies need to sign up to MACN anti-corruption principles and they need to have support and commitment from senior management to join.\n\nWhere have you seen the greatest contributions of the initiative in supporting transparency and integrity in the shipping industry?\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Three things – open dialogue, best practice sharing and multi stakeholder conversations.\n\n*   Open dialogue: In order to tackle the problems it is important to find channels to address them. When MACN members meet, specific challenges are discussed. This is helpful for the member company representatives as they can feed that back to their own organisation.\n\n*   Best practice sharing: Individual members are responsible for their own compliance programs, but using MACN as a platform to exchange experiences and build tools and use what other members are doing makes the process more efficient. There is no need to reinvent the wheel!\n\n*   Multi stakeholder conversations: Discussing challenges with your stakeholders gives better perspectives, e.g. it is more efficient to have your third party in the room rather than pushing the problems to someone who isn’t there. For the shipping sector, for example, port agent service providers serve as a crucial part of ship clearance and in the interaction with government officials. Discussing challenges together with port agents therefore helps to better understand the challenges and design the solutions. The same goes for customers.\n\nWe are also better equipped to engage in discussions with governments if they know we have all relevant parties on board.\n\nMACN has recently been named as winner of the second annual [TRACE Innovation in Anti-Bribery Compliance Award (IACA)](http://www.traceinternational.org/about-trace/initiatives/). First, congratulations on this well-deserved honour. How has a Collective Action approach in particular been helpful in view of the anti-bribery compliance challenges that your company and industry sought to address through the MACN?\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe are still learning how to combat illicit demands and define root causes to eliminate the problem in a sustainable manner. There is no handbook for how to carry out collective actions but we have great momentum within the membership towards solving problems collectively – which is very positive in itself!\n\nThe more members we are in the network the more we can do jointly. We are a stronger voice now compared to three years ago, as we today are over 60 members in the network. Going forward we believe it will be easier for the network to engage in dialogue with relevant governments.\n\nWhere do you see the greatest challenges, risks and opportunities in anti-bribery and compliance in the shipping industry in the near future? How does MACN, through Collective Action, seek to meet them?\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAround 90% of world trade is carried by the international shipping industry. The International Chamber of Shipping states that “without shipping the import and export of goods on the scale necessary for the modern world would not be possible, and seaborne trade continues to expand, bringing benefits for consumers across the world through competitive freight costs”. Further, it has been stated several times that corruption is an obstacle to trade and to economic and social development. Improving efficiency in port operations will benefit world trade and on a root level, such improvements will enable companies to import and export more easily.\n\nImproving efficiency often strengthens integrity. MACN wants to be a part of that journey and believes that as an industry voice MACN can provide support with tools and processes that will make the ship and cargo clearance process work better. Through our members’ experiences we can quite easily identify the challenges and work with governments to design solutions to combat issues with red tape and corruption. However governments and the private sector need  to engage and MACN sees its role as a catalyst for change. Further, the experiences gained from our collective action work in Nigeria and Argentina show that efforts and tools can in many cases be replicated and MACN is working to scale up its efforts by creating and partnering with stakeholders that can also help drive change.\n\nThe drive for change however needs to come from national governments, where “tones from the top and the middle” are just as important as they are for the success of companies’ compliance programme. Political instability and internal conflicts are risk factors when engaging in a national anti-corruption project. As for the maritime industry, MACN is just one tool which can support the development of a compliance programme. Raising the bar within our industry will help to set a common standard and make it easier for a Captain to reject illicit demands as he or she knows that the peers will do the same.\n\nIn the coming years, I would like to see MACN further grow in membership and that MACN engages in dialogue and projects with more governments to tackle corruption issues. I hope that we have been able to build more useful tools for members and that we can successfully demonstrate that together with stakeholders, we have made progress in tackling port corruption issues.",[],[],{"id":102,"title":103,"slug":104,"image":6,"type":56,"date":105,"body":106,"language":6,"tags":107,"translations":108},10158,"How to engage government in Collective Action?","how-to-engage-government-in-collective-action-277","2015-05-31","_As we soon approach the one year anniversary of the 2014 ICCA Conference \"[Collective Action: Going Further Together to Counter Corruption](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2014-conference)\" this blog piece returns to one of the key messages to emerge from the event, on the topic of engagement with government in Collective Action._\n\nCorruption happens mostly at the interface between business and public authorities. Consequently, effective anti-corruption measures need to engage both parties. The same is true when it comes to [Collective Action](/node/233), and indeed the need to involve or engage with governments and the public sector as part of the Collective Action approach to bribery emerged as a key theme throughout the conference.\n\n## Manners of engagement with government\n\nHowever, it has become clear that the manner in which to approach government has to be highly contextualized. Factors that may influence the way companies choose to engage include the level of trust of companies in the integrity of the public sector and the degree of political will of the government; the capacity of the concerned public institutions to implement sustainable anti-corruption reforms; and the convening power of the members of the Collective Action, etc.\n\nIllustrative of this are the different approaches chosen in Colombia and Ukraine in relation to the establishment of mechanisms to handle corruption complaints by individual companies. While the [High Level Reporting Mechanism](/node/1098) in Colombia is attached to the Office of the President of Colombia and thus an integral part of the government and the country’s public administration, the [Business Ombudsman Institution](/node/1101) has steered towards a more independent structure.\n\nAnother difference emerging from different contributions at the conference related to the timing of engagement with government. While in some cases such engagement should occur from the very start, in other cases it has proven to be more sustainable if businesses first work among themselves to establish trust and a strong alliance, before then engaging government.\n\nA question that also needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis is whether companies should approach one or several specific agencies or try to engage with government as a whole and in a more encompassing manner. Ultimately the decision in this regard is to be taken in light of the particular objective(s) of a given Collective Action and, again, the level of trust that companies have in the concerned agency or government as a whole.\n\nPotential challenges and remedies\n---------------------------------\n\nInvolving government in a Collective Action is faced with a number of potential challenges. These include, notably, the risk of being perceived as yet another industry lobby group, a risk that is especially there if the Collective Action is industry specific. Taking a cross-industry approach to the particular engagement with government may help overcome such suspicion.\n\nAnother frustrating experience discussed during the conference may be that while top-level officials are highly supportive of actions proposed by a group of companies, the implementation of said actions is blocked by mid-level officials, either due to lack of interest or their direct involvement in the concerned corruption problem.\n\nIn some instances, it is the whole government, which is non-responsive to any attempt to jointly engage in anti-corruption efforts, most likely because of a high level of state capture. In these situations it is clearly advisable that Collective Action initiatives delay the involvement of the public sector with a view to creating realities that cannot be ignored anymore by the concerned state actors. For such an approach to work, however, the alliance of business partners must be extremely strong and participating companies ideally must jointly bring together considerable market strength.\n\nFinally, in the face of high levels of state capture, but also more broadly, experience shows that identifying and creating an alliance with a known integrity champion from within government / the public sector and with a sufficiently high profile can often be a key to unlocking relationships with government, or at least with selected agencies. In the same logic, the use of leverages, for example identifying government policy priorities and how the concerned Collective Action can contribute towards the achievement of these objectives, is another way into a constructive collaboration with government / the public sector when the willingness to do so is not immediately apparent by all stakeholders.",[],[],{"id":110,"title":111,"slug":112,"image":6,"type":56,"date":113,"body":114,"language":6,"tags":115,"translations":116},10168,"The Global Anti-Corruption Initiative of the IRU","the-global-anti-corruption-initiative-of-the-iru-279","2015-04-21","_[IRU](http://www.iru.org/) Secretary General, Umberto de Pretto, unveils the scale and damages of corruption on roads and explains how the world road transport organisation is tackling this issue head on._\n\nWhat is the Global Anti-Corruption Initiative?\n----------------------------------------------\n\nIn short, it’s a joint effort between the IRU and United Nations Global Compact to fight extortion and corruption along major road transport corridors. We’re working together to secure the sustainable development of global supply chains, hence economies, worldwide.\n\nIs this a widespread problem?\n-----------------------------\n\nDefinitely! Corruption is mostly found in emerging economies, but corrupt practices also exist in industrialised ones. However, many people don’t even realise that transport operators today suffer from lengthy non-harmonised administrative procedures and overregulation, which creates an environment conducive to corruption or other illicit activities on roads and at borders.\n\nYou can see in our latest figures  that drivers spend up to 57% of time en-route queuing at borders in some regions, with over 1/3 of freight costs going towards illicit payments. But again, people simply aren’t aware how harmful corruption and illicit practices on roads can be to international trade and the development of national and global economies. They increase legal and operational uncertainty and add additional costs to the entire logistics chain and end product. In fact, as much as USD 1.6 trillion is lost globally each year according to estimates from the World Bank. This has major negative economic and political consequences, so you can understand why fighting corruption has become one of the priority issues for governments and international organisations. \n\nHow did you address this issue?\n-------------------------------\n\nOur initiative collected information on cases of corruption along major international trade routes on five continents. Road transport companies and truck drivers completed an online questionnaire to help us identify areas of business and administrative activities, as well as geographic locations that are most vulnerable to extortion and bribery. \n\nThe survey collected information on corruption cases in 34 countries altogether. We received 112 questionnaires filled out by transport operators from the Middle East, 68 from Africa, 13 from Latin America, and 281 from across Eurasia. But it was actually quite challenging to find professionals willing to share their experiences, because of the contradiction of being both a victim of corruption and giving in to it.\n\nThe results were nonetheless compiled into a final report that provides specific recommendations to combat such corruption. The report was presented to the Global Compact 10th Principle Advisory Group in December 2014 on International Anti-Corruption Day. It will also be presented to governments of participating states and leading global international groups, including the G8, G20 and Davos Forum. We want to draw attention to the negative impact of corruption on road transport and put a stop to this major impediment to trade.\n\nWhat came out as major corruption “hot spots” on roads?\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nWell, the survey helped us identify the major areas where corrupt practices are most likely to occur at domestic and institutional level.\n\n\"Recipients\" of corruption on roads include security, state and municipal police officers or authorities, Customs officers at border crossing and Customs clearance checkpoints. You also have road police and patrol officers, transport control officers who check the weight and size of truck loads or document their validity at border crossing checkpoints and en-route. There are also sanitary, veterinary and phyto-sanitary inspection authorities and  border control police officers who check drivers’ passports and visas. Last but not least, you have transport business operators who are subject to corrupt practices associated with the registration and issuance of appropriate licences and permits. \n\nBut overall, with few exceptions, corruption levels in the international road transport business show a close correlation with the World Bank Logistics Performance Index and Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index.\n\nSo what is the actual cost of corruption on roads?\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nIt depends because the level of corruption varies quite a lot from one country to the next. Our survey gave us an average corruption cost per carrier of USD 164.4 per round trip. The survey revealed that the highest corruption levels were observed in the Middle East (USD 183.0) and Eurasia (USD 185.7). But corruption levels can also vary significantly within the same region, so the monetary value of bribes recorded in a number of countries was rather moderate. Yet, if you multiply these small amounts by only half of the number of round trips undertaken in these countries each year, we’re talking huge amounts!\n\nMoreover, in a number of registered cases, considerable sums exchanged hands. For instance, there was a Eurasian carrier that paid a Customs officer $2,000. Another Eurasian carrier paid a transport control officer $1,200. There was also a carrier at a border crossing checkpoint in the Middle East that paid State police and Customs officers $2,250!\n\nHow do transport operators compensate for such costs?\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\nWell, corruption takes a heavy toll on cross-border haulage and trade in general. Some checkpoints even unofficially post a “price list” for quick border and customs clearance without any hassles. We even observed some cases of extortion that turned into routine practice.  For example, a Latin American haulier reported daily extortion by national police officers, which went on for years and was presented to hauliers as an established rule.\n\nTransport operators quite often add “bribery expectations” to their freight cost estimates, which in turn adds to the cost of export-import operations. Goods become less competitive on international markets and consumers incur additional costs. Eventually, the total effective demand goes down together with other social and economic indicators. These corrupt practices place a heavy burden, not only on transport operators, but on economies and citizens.\n\nThere are business community stereotypes that say corruption can’t be cured. But these need to be countered with positive models and information on anti-corruption practices in cross-border road transport and border crossing procedures that have been successfully implemented in various countries.\n\nBorder crossings seem to be particularly conducive to corruption. Is that true?\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nYes, that’s correct! In international road transport, bribes are mostly collected while trucks line up to go through border crossing checkpoints. Two thirds of all bribes and extortion from commercial transport operators fall into that category. The remaining third is collected en-route.\n\nIt’s unfortunate, because the World Customs Organization and other multilateral organisations are continuously working to fight corruption. But despite their strenuous efforts, Customs still generally account for nearly half of all cases of extortion, under pretexts that they can expedite full border clearance at checkpoints by helping circumvent lengthy document processing procedures, or by promising to drop charges of “suspicion” of drug trafficking which would otherwise call for a “super-thorough” and extra-lengthy search for drugs, including drilling through truck bodies. So in some cases, officials are bribed in order to preserve the cargo, especially if it consists of fruits or live animals.\n\nBut transport control bodies rank second on the corruption scale. Bribes paid by road carriers in relation to actual or alleged noncompliance with truck load regulations or transport document standards represent 17% of the total bribe payments.\n\nFinally, what are the recommendations to fight such corruption on roads?\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAn important remedy against bribery and extortion is the multilateral alignment of legal and regulatory provisions governing transport and cross-border haulage. Joining international agreements and UN legal instruments, such as the TIR and Harmonization Conventions, has proven to be highly effective in pushing down the level of corruption. Even more so than all punitive measures taken under the applicable national law against “bribe takers wearing rank insignia” at Customs and border crossing checkpoints.\n\nThese two UN conventions help reduce waiting lines and traffic delays at border crossing checkpoints. This in turn eliminates the need to expedite border control clearance through illicit payments. Regrettably, many countries have not yet ratified and implemented these UN trade facilitation instruments.\n\nSo in the meantime, it’s crucial to keep raising awareness among all cross border transport stakeholders. Information on the scale of corruption, losses incurred by the public, businesses and national economies from corrupt practices, the adverse impact of corruption on trade, transport and transit, and factors that cause corrupt practices, should all be disseminated broadly and continuously.\n\nThis study has highlighted the urgency to further liberalise the transport market. The more regulated the transport business, the more flexibility is available to controlling officials who can abuse their power. More liberal foreign trade and other open economy procedures would eliminate the pretexts for bribery both en-route and at border crossings.\n\nBut corruption is something that we can effectively fight, especially if we implement the IRU motto, \"working together for a better future.\"",[],[],{"id":118,"title":119,"slug":120,"image":6,"type":56,"date":121,"body":122,"language":6,"tags":123,"translations":124},10176,"Bribery and compliance in India: know the challenge and prepare for it","bribery-and-compliance-in-india-know-the-challenge-and-prepare-for-it-173","2015-03-05","In this interview, Richard Bistrong, former international sales executive and current blogger and speaker on FCPA, compliance and anti-bribery issues, speaks with Sherbir Panag of MZM Legal, where they discuss bribery and anti-bribery compliance in India. Mr Panag stresses that despite very real corruption risks in the country, business in India is possible without bribery.\n\nFor companies to achieve this, an anti-bribery strategy must focus on knowing the challenge and preparing for it, and avoiding avenues of bribery.\n\nThe interview can be found in its entirety at the website of [JD Supra, LLC](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/bribery-and-compliance-in-india-know-th-90523/), as well as at the website of [Richard Bistrong](https://richardbistrong.com/bribery-and-compliance-in-india/).",[],[],1784560136720]