[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":84},["ShallowReactive",2],{"author-333":3,"author-team-333":6,"author-work-333":7},{"id":4,"name":5,"image":6},333,"William Nero",null,{"publications":8,"news":49},[9,35],{"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},2038,"Collective Action to tackle corruption","collective-action-tackle-corruption","0a95cc52-15e1-416b-aa29-f0d646f14c03",[15],"Article","2015-07-01","Ethical Boardroom","An important factor for success in anti-corruption Collective Action is that it should be a business-driven endeavour. That being said, the role of civil society must be recognised for its important contributions towards successful multi-stakeholder approaches against corruption.\n\nThis article from the Spring 2016 edition of Ethical Boardroom magazine looks at how building a strong coalition with civil society puts business on the front foot.",[20],"English",[],[23,27,31],{"tags_id":24},{"id":25,"name":26},909,"Collective Action",{"tags_id":28},{"id":29,"name":30},830,"Business integrity",{"tags_id":32},{"id":33,"name":34},1375,"Civil society",{"id":36,"title":37,"slug":38,"image":39,"type":40,"date_published":16,"publisher":17,"summary":6,"body":41,"area":6,"programme":6,"languages":42,"countries":43,"tags":44},2039,"Building alliances to tackle corruption","building-alliances-tackle-corruption","a922834b-bb86-436c-9712-fbebde2e2c03",[15],"William Nero examines the role of leadership in driving a collaborative and sustained fight against corruption in this article from the Summer 2015 edition of Ethical Boardroom magazine.",[20],[],[45,47],{"tags_id":46},{"id":25,"name":26},{"tags_id":48},{"id":29,"name":30},[50,60,67,75],{"id":51,"title":52,"slug":53,"image":54,"type":55,"date":56,"body":57,"language":6,"tags":58,"translations":59},10066,"Collective Action: Evidence, experience and impact - a recap","collective-action-evidence-experience-and-impact-a-recap-258","bd2a875a-f3c9-4395-8348-52290800c701","Blog","2016-10-28","The Basel Institute on Governance and its International Centre for Collective Action recently concluded its second international Anti-Corruption [Collective Action Conference](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference). The event, which took place on October 20-21 2016 in Basel, brought together nearly 200 participants from business, government, civil society, international organisations, academia and beyond, with participants hailing from every continent.\n\nThis second Collective Action conference aimed to build upon many of the experiences and discussions surrounding the topic in recent years and with several principle questions in mind: what is the evidence for Collective Action effectiveness? What has worked, why, and in what ways can examples of best practice be replicated in order to maximise the impact of Collective Action? While frequently described as a young and promising method to combat corruption, Collective Action is slowly reaching the stage where it must more explicitly deliver on the promise, making the establishment of the evidence base critical for the credibility and future of this anti-corruption approach. To address these questions, the conference invited as panelists and keynote speakers a number of [researchers and practitioners](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference), with broad stakeholder representation and diverse national experiences. A call for papers conducted in conjunction with the conference underscored the desire to promote the academic and practical evidence base. An entire afternoon session of the event was devoted to presentation and discussion of several [papers](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference) submitted in response, in addition to concrete examples of good practice evidenced in other panels.  \n\nAs presentations at the conference demonstrated, there is no one-size-fits-all method for successful engagement in Collective Action. This is particularly the case when examining initiatives practiced at global versus local levels, or single sector versus multi-sector approaches, examples of which were all presented at the event. The session on the morning of October 20 entitled “Anti-Corruption Collective Action: Impact Stories” explicitly demonstrated this through presentations ranging from those such as the [Wolfsberg Group](https://wolfsberg-principles.com/), an association of global banks addressing financial crime risks, to more national and local-based initiatives, including the use of [Integrity Pacts in Hungary](/node/1526) and a Collective Action initiative in [Egypt](http://ejb-act.com/the-integrity-network.html) led by the Egyptian Junior Business Association and focused on SMEs. This diversity of experiences poses challenges to the development of a grand unifying theory of Collective Action initiatives, yet also provides encouragement by underscoring the flexibility of Collective Action to foster change in various national or international settings.  The experience of the [Alliance for Integrity](https://www.allianceforintegrity.org/en/), another initiative presented during this session, encapsulates this through its global approach combined with various regional offices.\n\nThe question remains however as to how to measure impact from Collective Action initiatives, this despite frequent articulation of its benefits from participating civil society stakeholders and companies, including reputational benefits, increased awareness of anti-corruption internally, and raising standards within an industry. The definition of success itself and methods for measuring it also remain subjects of debate as seen from the practitioners and academic panel discussions. More systematic documentation of evidence of Collective Action impact could potentially be realised by focusing more on locally-operating initiatives (as opposed to global) that take into account local circumstances, as well as incorporating data-driven approaches to complement qualitative evidence-gathering. Sharing these examples through increased dissemination of results, at conferences such as these and with the wider public, could further bring Collective Action to the forefront as an anti-corruption strategy.  The packed program and generous audience participation attests that there has indeed been significant progress in Collective Action over the years, but there remains much work to be done. Fortunately the conference delivered evidence that the maturation process continues, laying the groundwork for improved cooperation between stakeholders against corruption.  \n\n_Visit the [conference website](https://www.baselgovernance.org/collective-action/events/2016-conference) for further information, presentations and papers._",[],[],{"id":61,"title":37,"slug":62,"image":6,"type":55,"date":63,"body":64,"language":6,"tags":65,"translations":66},10128,"building-alliances-to-tackle-corruption-267","2015-11-30","_A version of this blog post initially appeared in the Summer 2015 edition of [Ethical Boardroom Magazine.](https://ethicalboardroom.com/)_\n\nMany companies recognise the importance of high-level management commitment in the development and implementation of an effective compliance programme, as evidenced by the repeated emphasis on establishing the ‘tone from the top’. Without clear demonstration of CEO and board-level dedication to promoting a culture of integrity within the firm, the statements and procedures communicated in a code of conduct or internal policies will bear little resonance among employees, external stakeholders – or law enforcement and regulatory agencies, in the case of a breach.\n\nDespite the widespread and increasing enactment of anti-corruption compliance and ethics programmes however, firms continue to face corruption challenges that can severely hamper their operations in certain markets.  It is in this context that anti-corruption Collective Action has emerged. By working with competitors and other stakeholders in civil society, government or even other industries, Collective Action takes compliance and ethical business practices beyond a firm’s own internal policies and procedures, and instead seeks to raise standards among all market participants.\n\nForward-thinking CEOs and boards are encouraged to adopt this clear shift towards business driven integrity. For, as in the case of an anti-corruption compliance programme, strong leadership is a vital component towards the success of Collective Action.\n\nAnti-corruption Collective Action\n---------------------------------\n\nDefined variously as a “catch-all term for industry standards, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and public-private partnerships,” or as “a collaborative and sustained process of cooperation amongst stakeholders (that) increases the impact and credibility of individual action, brings vulnerable individual players into an alliance of like-minded organisations and levels the playing field between competitors,” Collective Action initiatives can be sector-specific or multi-sector based, and can involve participants beyond the private sector. They may be differentiated by the level of enforcement applied to the commitments made by the firms involved, whether it be a signed declaration committing all stakeholders to operate free of corruption, or more complex varieties which include ethics boards, external monitors or mechanisms for sanctioning non-compliance.\n\nA number of Collective Action initiatives have taken shape over the past two decades, and across a number of sectors, including banking, energy and transportation, extractive industries, aerospace and defence, as well as multi-sector initiatives. Civl society representative Transparency International has long supported Collective Action through its Integrity Pacts, a tool developed to improve transparency and preven corruption in public procurement. The B20 recommendations from Los Cabos in 2012 highlighted the importance of Collective Action and encouraged business involvement. The recommendations led to the creation of this B20 Collective Action Hub.\n\nAlthough there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, several elements have been observed that contribute to the successful establishment and operation of a Collective Action initiative. Facilitators from civil society can support the initial creation of an initiative, which, as a business-driven undertaking, should be led by companies. This is often easier when taken up by a leading player within the industry, though it is not essential. The involvement of facilitators also mitigates anti-trust issues and enables a neutral basis from which to identify issues of common interest. Allowing time for companies to develop trust and understanding are also important to the success of an initiative.\n\nUnderscoring all of these elements is the support of senior leadership, as this will bolster the chances of success and exemplifies business-driven integrity.\n\nThe importance of top-level commitment\n--------------------------------------\n\nSenior management is attuned to the company’s reputation risks and business goals and has the power to command support for driving a Collective Action initiative. In practice the General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and the CEO are likely to be the decision makers when it comes to initiating or joining a Collective Action as they know where the firm’s corruption risks lie. Having decided to pursue Collective Action, senior management must then delegate suitably experienced and senior persons to represent the company at the discussions to develop the Collective Action. By establishing a clearly articulated vision of where anti-corruption Collective Action fits within the company, its anti-corruption compliance and in relation to its competitors and business environment, management is on a good path towards contributing to the initiative’s success.\n\nAppointing the right people to represent the company and to sit opposite peer companies and competitors will contribute to the initiative’s chances for success and show management’s clear commitment to the initiative, both internally as well as to the other companies represented. \n\nEqually, the representatives of the participating companies will be empowered by the knowledge that their efforts have the complete support of top management. This is critical due to the length of time required to develop consensus and build trust. Should the participants during the course of the discussions have doubts as to the internal reasoning behind or commitment of their firms’ engagement, this could create hurdles that hinder its effectiveness or lead to its breaking down. \n\nIn sum, top management commitment is very important to the firm’s involvement in the Collective Action initiative, thus contributing to its potential for real impact.\n\nAs a facilitator and incubator of Collective Action initiatives, the Basel Institute on Governance has witnessed how senior management commitment influences the contours, direction, and ultimately success, of a Collective Action.\n\nIn 2004, under the World Economic Forum (WEF) and in partnership with Transparency International, the Basel Institute served as a founder of the [Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI)](https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corruption-initiative), which brought together CEOs from engineering and construction, mining and metals, and the energy sector. This initiative of today nearly 100 companies is a leading global voice on anti-corruption and transparency. Further bolstering its CEO-driven agenda, PACI has recently established the PACI Vanguard, a CEO community from within WEF and PACI members which aims to further direct the PACI strategy through sustained and high level business-government engagement with particular emphasis on anti-corruption Collective Action.\n\nIn an industry sector example, one group of companies to whom the Basel Institute has served as a facilitator demonstrates how the support of top management has been critical to the progress made by the companies involved. In this initiative, the representatives at the table themselves come from the highest levels of compliance and legal areas within their respective firms.\n\nAt times during the discussions, the representatives have stressed to their counterparts that the work that they as a group are doing to develop the Collective Action, is fully supported by their respective CEOs, with whom the representatives have direct contact. This has allayed concerns that have arisen and contributed to the trust between the parties. Conversely, a different industry group is represented by more junior level compliance personnel who continually have to revert to their managers, thus hindering the discussions and hampering progress towards any common goals.      \n\nMoving forward\n--------------\n\nWith enforcement actions against companies engaging in bribery continuing to increase, top management is becoming more aware that it makes business sense to work with other stakeholders to remove corruption from the business environment. This relationship between top management, the tone from the top and Collective Action is further reinforced by government authorities.\n\nThe UK Ministry of Justice’s [Guidance](https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legislation/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf) on the 2010 UK Bribery Act makes explicit reference to this in Principle 2 entitled “Top-level commitment,” section 2.3: “Internal and external communication of the commitment to zero tolerance to bribery,” whereby it states that demonstrations of this commitment can include reference to an organisation’s engagement in collective action against bribery.\n\nCollective Action should remain at the forefront for CEOs and boards looking beyond risk mitigation and towards improving the overall business environment and levelling the playing field. Their commitment and leadership role will play a key part in the chances for success of these endeavours.",[],[],{"id":68,"title":69,"slug":70,"image":6,"type":55,"date":71,"body":72,"language":6,"tags":73,"translations":74},10157,"Integrity Pacts – safeguarding EU funds","integrity-pacts-safeguarding-eu-funds-276","2015-06-11","Last month, I had the pleasure of attending and speaking at the conference “[Integrity Pacts – Safeguarding EU Funds](http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/conferences/integrity_pacts/)” in Brussels, hosted by Transparency International (TI) and with the participation of the European Commission. The conference was held in the context of a [pilot project](https://www.transparency.org/en/projects/integritypacts) recently launched by the Commission - \"Integrity Pacts - Civil Control Mechanism for Safeguarding EU Funds\" – which will explore the applicability of Integrity Pacts to EU Structural and Cohesion Funds through a number of pilot projects.  The results and lessons learned from these pilot projects will then be shared and disseminated at EU level.\n\nThe conference on 5 May brought together over 100 representatives from civil society, as well as from EU funds managing authorities in Member States and EU institutions, with speakers from EU institutions, TI chapters across Europe, and other European civil society organisations. The morning session outlined some of the main corruption risks in public procurement, before introducing other civil society monitoring mechanisms in public procurement projects. The second half of the conference explored the Integrity Pact in depth, while also presenting a number of case studies and shared experiences from the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders. Presentations from all of the conference speakers are available on the website of [Transparency International EU Office](https://www.transparencyinternational.eu/).\n\nHLRM and Integrity Pacts\n------------------------\n\nIt was in this context of the morning session on civil society monitoring mechanisms in public procurement that I presented the [High Level Reporting Mechanism](/node/1098) (HLRM) as a tool to address bribery solicitation. \n\nThe concept of the HLRM was developed by the Basel Institute on Governance, OECD and Transparency International, together with a group of international companies seeking alternatives to slower judicial processes. Though not a legal mechanism, the HLRM functions in complement to law enforcement institutions. It aims to provide a constructive approach for companies and governments through the development of an in-country process for receiving, assessing, and quickly resolving complaints from companies affected by bribe requests in their dealings with officials at the level of administrative processes or specific public projects. Its primary purpose is thus to provide an early point of recourse to companies to address their concerns and prescribe a ‘quick fix’ before they lead to preventable harm.\n\nDespite the differences between the two models, the HLRM and the Integrity Pact can in fact complement one another towards promoting good governance in public procurement. This is currently the case in Colombia, which is implementing an HLRM in the context of a roads infrastructure project. All pre-selected bidding companies are required to sign an Integrity Pact in addition to acknowledging the availability of the reporting mechanism in cases of irregularities. This combination of the HLRM and Integrity Pact may be an area for further study and application in certain contexts.\n\nCall for proposals for the Pilot\n--------------------------------\n\nTransparency International has championed Integrity Pacts since the 1990s as a mechanism to improve, transparency, accountability and to promote good governance in public procurement. Though widely used already throughout the world in various contexts, Integrity Pacts have until now seen limited use in the context of EU Structural Funds. In this regard, the introduction of Integrity Pacts looks to be a promising initiative.\n\nWith a 2014-2020 financial allocation for regional and cohesion policy at over EUR 350 billion – [a third of the overall EU budget](https://epthinktank.eu/2013/11/14/2014-20-multiannual-financial-framework-mff/) – it is imperative that these funds are managed with integrity and free of corruption.",[],[],{"id":76,"title":77,"slug":78,"image":79,"type":55,"date":80,"body":81,"language":6,"tags":82,"translations":83},10222,"Ukraine addresses unfair treatment of business and bribery with a new Business Ombudsman","ukraine-addresses-unfair-treatment-of-business-and-bribery-with-a-new-business-ombudsman-166","ee99cdb6-8748-4908-965c-f9be25118480","2014-05-13","On 12 May 2014 the government of Ukraine took a step to help encourage much needed foreign investment into the country by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and several business associations, addressing bribery and promoting transparency and accountability.\n\nAt the signing ceremony the President of the EBRD, Sir Suma Chakrabarti spoke about the importance of the Anti-Corruption Initiative as being an “integral part of better governance, more effective institutions and an improved investment climate. All of these are fundamental to Ukraine achieving its economic potential,” he said. In his speech he also paid tribute to the efforts of all of the signatory parties and singled out the work and expertise of the Basel Institute and Professor Mark Pieth.\n\nThe [Memorandum](https://www.ebrd.com/downloads/news/mou-ukraine-aci.pdf) outlines the roles and responsibilities of a new independent Business Ombudsman Institution that will serve as a first point of contact for businesses enabling them to lodge complaints arising from unfair treatment or issues of corruption. Apart from the Business Ombudsman the Institution will also include two deputies, and together they will seek to determine the principal causes of corruption and provide this information to the wider public and appropriate authorities in government through the use of public reports.  Whilst the Business Ombudsman Institution is not a law enforcement agency, and has no criminal investigation powers, it will transmit criminal matters to the relevant authorities.\n\nThe agreement also sets out obligations for the other signatory parties, including the government, creating a Group of Parties that shares responsibility for the implementation of the MoU and the governance of the newly formed Institution.\n\nThe Basel Institute was closely involved in the development of the MoU, which was first proposed to the previous government by the EBRD as a means to address the many challenges foreign and domestic businesses in Ukraine face, deterring investment in the country.  At the end of 2013 these efforts were superseded by the events that brought down the regime of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich, with the government backing away from the proposal in November.  The work was taken up again however by the new government with renewed vigour and determination to make progress on this important anti-corruption initiative.  The Basel Institute was mandated by the EBRD to develop a mechanism to address unfair business practices in order to improve the overall business climate, as well as the prospects for foreign investment into the country. The Basel Institute will continue to support and advise the parties on the details of implementation of the Business Ombudsman Institution and help it to achieve its goals.",[],[],1784560137429]