[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":101},["ShallowReactive",2],{"author-515":3,"author-team-515":7,"author-work-515":8},{"id":4,"name":5,"image":6},515,"Lucie Binder","d7b7f9da-9f59-483a-87ae-5ac6a5f39b4e",null,{"publications":9,"news":63},[10,24,37],{"id":11,"title":12,"slug":13,"image":14,"type":15,"date_published":17,"publisher":18,"summary":7,"body":19,"area":7,"programme":7,"languages":20,"countries":22,"tags":23},2417,"Working Paper 57: Mapping and strengthening the evidence base for anti-corruption Collective Action","wp-57","27f380ef-278b-4dce-8c52-929c5386ee2d",[16],"Working Paper","2025-06-30","Basel Institute on Governance","This Working Paper provides a theoretical and practical contribution to strengthening the evidence base for anti-corruption Collective Action – i.e. collaborative efforts by diverse actors from the private sector, civil society and public institutions to address integrity challenges that no single actor can resolve alone.\n\nIt combines a new conceptual framework for Collective Action initiatives, updated data and practical tools. Together, these will help researchers, practitioners and policymakers compare initiatives, test assumptions and design more effective collaborations.\n\nThe paper provides insights into how Collective Action works in practice; the impact of different social and political environments; how to link Collective Action with real-world improvements in corruption prevention; and whether initiatives’ activities are actually contributing to their stated goals.\n\n### About this report\n\nThis paper is made possible through the support of the Siemens Integrity Initiative.\n\nThe paper is published as part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper series, ISSN: 2624-9650. You may share or republish it under a Creative Commons \u003Ca href=\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en\">BY-NC-ND 4.0\u003C/a> International Licence.\n\nThe contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Basel Institute on Governance, its donors and partners, or the University of Basel.\n\nSuggested citation: Binder, Lucie, Joseph Pozsgai-Alvarez and Giovanna Rodriguez-Garcia. 2025. ‘Mapping and strengthening the evidence base for anti-corruption Collective Action: Models, metrics and insights.’ Working Paper 57, Basel Institute on Governance. Available at: baselgovernance.org/publications/wp-57.",[21],"English",[],[],{"id":25,"title":26,"slug":27,"image":28,"type":29,"date_published":32,"publisher":18,"summary":7,"body":33,"area":7,"programme":7,"languages":34,"countries":35,"tags":36},2332,"Good practices for facilitators of anti-corruption Collective Action","good-practices-facilitators-anti-corruption-collective-action","0d73b60b-a72f-498f-8881-1bb36edca1e1",[30,31],"Guidelines","Report","2024-01-08","This document summarises insights from a peer learning workshop in Basel, Switzerland in December 2023. The workshop explored best practices in anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives. The report covers:\n\n\n- The role of the facilitator in Collective Action initiatives. \n- The different roles that representatives from the private sector, public sector, civil society and academia play.\n- The process of establishing a Collective Action initiative and securing funding for it.\n- Ways to monitor progress and evaluate impact.\n\n\nIt ends by emphasising the importance of continuing to learn from one another and to share information, including by contributing to the \u003Ca href=\"https://collective-action.com/\">B20 Collective Action Hub\u003C/a>.\n\nThe peer-learning workshop and the preparation of this short report were funded by the Siemens Integrity Initiative.",[21],[],[],{"id":38,"title":39,"slug":40,"image":41,"type":42,"date_published":43,"publisher":18,"summary":7,"body":44,"area":7,"programme":7,"languages":45,"countries":46,"tags":62},2316,"Working Paper 48: A collaborative approach to improve business integrity in ASEAN: Case studies of anticorruption Collective Action in the region","wp48","4721d38d-d829-421c-986d-90d1e7759d7c",[16],"2023-11-09","This working paper provides an overview and analysis of anti-corruption Collective Action case studies in the ASEAN region. It builds on the 2014 paper: \u003Ca href=\"https://www.asean-csr-network.org/c/images/AIMPublication-CollectiveActionAgainstCorruptionRVR-CVStarr-1.pdf\">*Collective Action against Corruption: Business and Anti-Corruption Initiatives in ASEAN*\u003C/a>, which was published by the ASEAN CSR Network and the Asian Institute of Management.\n\nThis 2023 paper reviews the initiatives featured in the 2014 paper and highlights new initiatives that have emerged in the region since then. It covers:\n\n\n- Indonesia: Indonesia Business Links\n- Malaysia: Corporate Integrity System Malaysia\n- Philippines: Integrity Initiative and project SHINE\n- Thailand: Collective Action Against Corruption\n- Thailand: Anti-Corruption Organization of Thailand\n- Vietnam: Vietnam Chamber of Commerce & Industry and its Office for Business\n\n\nThe analysis identifies several success factors, while noting that Collective Action is a flexible approach that can and must be tailored to different contexts.\n\n### About this Working Paper\n\nThe authors would like to thank the Asian Institute of Management and the representatives of the initiatives featured in this paper for their time and contributions.\n\nThis paper is made possible through the support of the Siemens Integrity Initiative.\n\nThe publication is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper Series, ISSN: 2624-9650. You may share or republish the Working Paper under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).\n\nSuggested citation: Binder, Lucie, Vanessa Hans, and Anna Stransky. 2023. ‘A collaborative approach to improve business integrity in ASEAN: Case studies of anti-corruption Collective Action in the region.’ Working Paper 48, Basel Institute on Governance. Available at: \u003Ca href=\"https://baselgovernance.org/publications/wp48\">https://baselgovernance.org/publications/wp48\u003C/a>.",[21],[47,50,53,56,59],{"countries_id":48},{"name":49},"Indonesia",{"countries_id":51},{"name":52},"Malaysia",{"countries_id":54},{"name":55},"Philippines",{"countries_id":57},{"name":58},"Thailand",{"countries_id":60},{"name":61},"Vietnam",[],[64,74,83,92],{"id":65,"title":66,"slug":67,"image":68,"type":69,"date":70,"body":71,"language":21,"tags":72,"translations":73},10571,"Collective Action against corruption: what works best and why?","collective-action-against-corruption-what-works-best-and-why-2843","ef76f772-e0c4-4e5f-899e-40c89f892860","Blog","2025-08-26","Around the world, businesses, civil society and governments are working together in initiatives to address corruption risks that no single actor can resolve on their own. \n\nInitiatives might be set up to reduce bribe demands in ports, for example, or harmonise compliance frameworks in the metals technology industry, or help small businesses in Thailand enhance their anti-corruption credentials and thereby improve their business prospects. We have recorded more than 300 such initiatives in the database of our B20 Collective Action Hub from across the world and in multiple industries.\n\nSo it is clear that Collective Action – as an umbrella term for these diverse multi-stakeholder initiatives – is now firmly established as part of the anti-corruption landscape. \n\nYet this very diversity poses a challenge. Initiatives come in many forms, pursue different goals and operate in widely varying political and institutional settings. That makes it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons or to understand, in a systematic way, what works best in which circumstances.\n\nAs part of the Basel Institute’s decades-long efforts to advance anti-corruption Collective Action, this challenge became the starting point for a multi-year project. The project, funded by the Siemens Integrity Initiative, set out to strengthen the evidence base for Collective Action. \n\nWe wanted to know: how can we describe and analyse Collective Action in a way that respects its diversity but still allows for consistency and comparability?\n\nThe answers matter for all those who care about being effective in countering corruption and creating fairer, cleaner and more competitive business environments. You can find them in our [_Working Paper 57: Mapping and strengthening the evidence base for anti-corruption Collective Action_](https://baselgovernance.org/publications/wp-57) – which is summarised below.\n\n## The challenge of “cutting the cake”\n\nDeveloping a conceptual framework was far from straightforward. Collective Action can be “cut” in many different ways. \n\n*   Should we focus on what initiatives do: training, codes of conduct, strengthening industry standards? \n*   Or on who participates: companies or business associations, governments, non-profit or civil society organisations – or a combination of these and potentially others? \n*   Should we look at their goals, such as strengthening compliance systems or influencing laws? \n*   Or at their level of formality, from voluntary declarations to binding agreements?\n\nEach lens has value, but none alone captures the full picture. Our task was to weave these perspectives together into a framework that could accommodate complexity while still generating clarity. \n\nWe drew on models of system change, organisational decision-making, network formation and impact pathways. Taken together, these offered a dynamic picture of how initiatives emerge, why organisations choose to join, how networks are built and governed, and how their actions might contribute to wider change.\n\nThe framework we developed is not intended to provide definitive answers. Rather, it creates a shared language and a set of guiding questions. \n\nIt allows practitioners, policymakers and researchers to explore initiatives in a structured way; to test assumptions, compare across contexts and build knowledge cumulatively rather than in isolated case studies.\n\n## From framework to evidence\n\nTo see if the framework could work in practice, we turned to the [B20 Collective Action Hub](https://collective-action.com/explore/initiatives), the world’s largest repository of anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives. The Basel Institute launched the Hub in 2013 following a mandate from the B20 group of business leaders and has developed and enhanced it over the last 12 years. \n\nWe carefully reviewed and reclassified initiatives in the database, creating new categories of mission, scope, activities and stakeholder composition. The result was not just a cleaner dataset, but also a more solid foundation for analysis.\n\nThis process revealed important patterns. Most initiatives remain focused on fostering engagement between stakeholders through awareness-raising, dialogue and practical tools. Such activities are often vital entry points where trust is low or enforcement is weak. \n\nThis emphasis on prevention – addressing root causes rather than relying solely on detection and punishment – is also where these initiatives make their strongest contribution: building capacity, equipping companies with tools and fostering trust-based cooperation that reduces opportunities for corruption. \n\nMore formal and arguably more ambitious activities, such as developing self-regulatory standards or seeking external monitoring for certifications for example, are rarer – but may develop over time as relationships and capacities mature.\n\nContext also matters to how Collective Action initiatives operate and what they achieve. Our analysis confirmed that broader reforms, such as transparency standards or legal change, are more likely to take hold in open democratic settings with a strong rule of law. In more restrictive environments, narrower, company-level initiatives like strengthening internal compliance systems may be the realistic starting point. \n\n## Strengthening the evidence base\n\nBeyond insights into today’s landscape of anti-corruption Collective Action, the project has also generated practical tools to help strengthen the evidence base for the future. We have: \n\n*   introduced a set of guiding questions that practitioners and researchers can use when designing or analysing initiatives;\n*    produced a new reporting protocol that encourages more consistent and transparent data sharing, so that future initiatives can be compared more reliably; and \n*   refined the global dataset itself, making it a richer resource for both practice and research.\n\nTaken together, these outputs offer both a conceptual foundation and a practical toolbox. They offer ways to link the design and activities of Collective Action initiatives to plausible outcomes, and to situate those outcomes within broader governance environments.\n\n## Key lessons for practitioners, policymakers and researchers\n\nFor practitioners, the central lesson is to design with context in mind. What works in one setting may not be feasible in another. In environments with weaker rule of law or restricted civic space, modest, company-focused initiatives can still lay important foundations. \n\nIn more open settings, broader collaborations that aim for systemic reforms may be realistic and worthwhile.\n\nFor policymakers, the message is to see Collective Action as a complement to formal anti-corruption institutions and efforts, not a substitute. By fostering dialogue, developing practical tools and raising standards of integrity, these initiatives can reinforce prevention efforts and bridge the gap between policy commitments and implementation on the ground. \n\nThat is why it is important for governments to support Collective Action with recognition and resources. \n\nFor researchers, the key takeaway is the importance of building the evidence base systematically. Our framework, refined dataset and reporting protocol are designed to enable more consistent comparison and more robust testing of assumptions. Longitudinal and case-based studies, in particular, will be essential to understand how initiatives evolve and where they deliver the greatest impact.\n\nThis kind of research will be of great practical value to both practitioners and policymakers seeking to harness the power of Collective Action to achieve anti-corruption or economic development goals.\n\n## Looking ahead\n\nThe strength of Collective Action lies in its adaptability: the ability of diverse actors to come together, often in difficult circumstances, to find practical solutions to challenges of corruption and fair business. But adaptability must be matched by clarity if the field is to grow stronger.\n\nBy offering a shared framework, a refined dataset and practical tools for reporting and reflection, this project contributes to building that clarity. It does not close the debate but opens it wider, inviting practitioners, researchers and policymakers to engage with a more coherent evidence base and to help refine it further.\n\nThe message is clear: to strengthen Collective Action as an effective part of the anti-corruption toolkit, we need to learn from it systematically and plough those learnings back into policy and practice. This paper offers an important step in that direction.\n\n## Learn more\n\n*   [Download the full paper and its practical annexes](https://baselgovernance.org/publications/wp-57).\n*   The Collective Action team at the Basel Institute on Governance provides a free advice service for anti-corruption practitioners and other professionals or government officials. Contact the [B20 Collective Action Hub Helpdesk](https://collective-action.com/get-involved/helpdesk).",[],[],{"id":75,"title":76,"slug":77,"image":78,"type":69,"date":79,"body":80,"language":21,"tags":81,"translations":82},10550,"Why ethical business and behaviour are key to resilience in volatile times","why-ethical-business-and-behaviour-are-key-to-resilience-in-volatile-times-2808","7d2ef844-cf67-475d-812f-923f2dd4ea51","2025-05-12","With increasing geopolitical and regulatory volatility, the need for companies to develop resilience to market shocks and uncertain conditions is critical. One of the most effective ways to do this is by embedding strong compliance programmes into their operations that not only ensure adherence to laws and regulations, but also support positive, ethical work environments. \n\nEffective compliance programmes provide a foundation for businesses to act ethically by helping them to identify and manage risks early, and promote accountability and transparency. Ethical businesses are more resilient because they create trust with investors and customers, reduce the likelihood of legal or reputational crises, and are better able to motivate their staff to adapt to change when they are committed to their company’s purpose and values.\n\nThe OECD’s recently published [_Companies’ Assessments of Anti-Corruption Compliance_](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/companies-assessments-of-anti-corruption-compliance_977ed5a8-en.html) offers perspectives on how companies currently evaluate the effectiveness of their anti-corruption compliance programmes. Behind it lies months of consultation with the private sector; work that the Basel Institute on Governance was pleased to lead on behalf of the OECD.\n\nThrough a series of in-depth interviews and facilitated roundtables with multinational enterprises and SMEs from across sectors and regions, we helped capture the real experiences, challenges and innovations of corporate compliance leaders. The findings from this engagement shaped the OECD’s recommendations for improvement.\n\nWhat we heard from companies aligns strongly with the OECD’s message: that effectiveness can’t be defined by counting the number of compliance activities alone. What matters is whether those activities actually prevent misconduct and promote ethical business in practice.\n\n## Culture first: compliance starts with behaviour\n\nEvery company we spoke to, regardless of size or sector, emphasised the central role of organisational culture in achieving their compliance goals. Companies described good organisational cultures as those that empower people to act properly to prevent misconduct, but also feel safe to speak up when they see wrongdoing or feel unsure about how to proceed in a tricky situation.\n\nThis supports the behavioural focus in the OECD’s report, as well as our previous work on developing [indicators for company reporting](https://baselgovernance.org/publications/measuring-effectiveness-anti-corruption-programmes-indicators-company-reporting) supported by Norges Bank Investment Management, in which we concluded that:\n\n> An organisation’s culture is the key to the effectiveness of an anti-corruption programme. Not only does it influence staff attitudes and behaviour, but it also affects all aspects of the programme’s effective implementation.\n\nIt affirms that a compliance programme’s success hinges less on the written documents – although, these are critical as “guardrails” for behaviour – and more on how people feel and act in everyday decision-making. Good leaders and middle managers are essential for modelling integrity and turning principles into practical action, supported by open communication mechanisms where staff feedback is encouraged and acted upon.\n\n## Measuring what matters: outcomes over activities\n\nCompanies broadly agree that meaningful evaluation of compliance effectiveness must go beyond simply counting the number of policies developed or training sessions conducted. Leading firms are investing in innovative methods for evaluating impact. These range from in-depth employee opinion surveys, risk mapping and data analytics, to engaging behavioural scientists to explore how interventions affect behaviour and prevent harm. As one respondent put it to us:\n\n> Continuous improvement is a direct outcome of assessing effectiveness.\n\nStill, many note the difficulty of defining or measuring effectiveness in comparable ways. SMEs, in particular, struggle to keep pace with evolving expectations. The need for clear yet flexible guidance is a recurring theme.\n\n## Opportunities for better public-private interactions\n\nAll of the companies we interviewed as part of this process emphasised the influence of government legislation and guidance on the design of their compliance programmes. This isn’t surprising – governments make the rules that companies must follow. Companies, though, are now asking governments to make progress in two main areas. First, to consistently implement and enforce the laws and regulations they already have in order to ‘level the playing field’ for companies:\n\n> Enforcement is the best prevention\n\nSecond, to provide clearer articulation of the desired goals and outcomes of compliance programmes within the context of improved alignment, standardisation and consistency. Whether this also leads to more detailed government guidance on how to achieve these outcomes is still up for discussion. It may also differ depending on the industry and on the size of companies targeted:\n\n> Go to the question of why: why do compliance programmes exist? What are we trying to accomplish? \\[We\\] understand that \\[this approach\\] makes it difficult from a standards perspective. \\[But as the business environment becomes\\] more global; more complex... we’re going to need flexibility; risk mitigation for one company might look different than for another, and that’s ok.\n\nIn the first area, companies contextualised their backing for consistent enforcement with a request for a more supportive, flexible approach from governments. This approach should ideally be focused on dialogue and collaborative learning, and take into account if companies act in good faith when imposing penalties, even when wrongdoing occurs.\n\nIn the second area, and reflecting the complexity of the issue, companies themselves do not have simple definitions of effective anti-corruption compliance programmes. However, those with the most advanced programmes have a particular focus on: \n\n*   achieving the goals of widespread _prevention_ of misconduct within the context of an ethical culture;\n*   robust _detection and remediation_ processes; and \n*   _transparency around sanctions_ applied for wrongdoing.\n\n### Collective Action initiatives\n\nCompanies are also willing to collaborate with governments to further develop definitions. They have demonstrated that they are an important source of compliance innovation which governments can leverage, including in the application of advances in the behavioural and data sciences. \n\nHowever, trust between companies and governments is variable. Companies have said that formal approaches specifically designed to build trust – such as Collective Action initiatives – would help to foster a more collaborative and positive culture around anti-corruption compliance and business integrity.\n\n### International forums\n\nCollaboration between different jurisdictions would also be welcomed by companies in order to decomplexify the jigsaw of laws and regulations that companies have to abide by when operating globally. While acknowledging that identical laws would be unrealistic, companies are requesting greater alignment in the spirit of the law and a greater focus on functional equivalence. \n\nInternational organisations and anti-corruption conventions such as the OECD Convention on Bribery and its Working Group have been cited as possible forums to discuss improved alignment.\n\n## Co-creating behavioural-led compliance for resilient, ethical business\n\nThe insights gathered in this process point to a powerful opportunity for public and private actors to co-create more consistent, outcomes-focused definitions of effective compliance. In other words, definitions that prioritise behavioural change over box-ticking and reflect the realities companies face in conducting business globally.\n\nBy shifting the focus from documentation to demonstrable integrity in decision-making, both sectors can help move the needle on what meaningful compliance looks like. This is especially important at a time when the need to follow established rules is often being questioned. \n\nIt is a moment for innovation: through joint learning and dialogue, governments and companies can leverage each other’s strengths to build smarter and more adaptive compliance frameworks that transfer best practice from paper to action. \n\nAt the core of this effort must be a shared recognition that effective compliance programmes underpin ethical business conduct, and ethical businesses are more resilient. There is both a strong moral imperative and a clear commercial case for investing in this work, supporting the creation of financial and societal value in the long term.\n\n## Learn more\n\n*   See the OECD report: [Companies’ assessments of anti-corruption compliance](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/companies-assessments-of-anti-corruption-compliance_977ed5a8-en.html)\n*   See a related [Quick Guide to business integrity and ethics](https://baselgovernance.org/publications/qg39)\n*   Learn more about [anti-corruption Collective Action](https://collective-action.com/)",[],[],{"id":84,"title":85,"slug":86,"image":87,"type":69,"date":88,"body":89,"language":21,"tags":90,"translations":91},10543,"Staying the course: business integrity in a fragmented political climate","staying-the-course-business-integrity-in-a-fragmented-political-climate-2791","0cc9a79d-2d22-41d5-8df6-d630c62b85b6","2025-04-03","> “Strong and productive partnerships across diverse sectors were everywhere in evidence at the OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum. Such solidarity and collaboration are critically important, particularly in the face of the headwinds confronting the anti-corruption movement today.\" – Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director, Basel Institute on Governance\n\n_This blog by Lucie Binder, Senior Specialist, Governance and Integrity, reflects on the [2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum](https://www.oecd-events.org/gacif/en) and the challenges and opportunities facing all who are committed to promoting high standards of ethics and integrity._\n\nAmong the many thoughtful discussions at this year’s Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum, one quieter note resonated: the reduced presence of civil society organisations. \n\nThese groups – traditionally at the forefront of driving transparency and accountability – were fewer than in previous years. In part this was due to mounting funding pressures, especially those linked to recent changes in United States foreign assistance policy. \n\nWhile their absence was not the main story, it was a reminder of the broader reality: those working to uphold integrity are operating in a more constrained global landscape.\n\nYet the tone of the Forum was far from defeatist. In fact, one of its most striking insights was that constraints can drive clarity and innovation. Nowhere was this more powerfully illustrated than in the sessions on Ukraine. \n\nAmid the pressures of wartime, Ukraine’s business integrity and anti-corruption efforts have not been put on hold – they have become more focused. Faced with existential challenges, the priorities are clear: uphold transparency in decision-making, ensure the ethical use of public and private resources, and reinforce the integrity of institutions and businesses alike.\n\n[Innovating for integrity during wartime: Ukraine’s developments since 2022 (click to view recording)](https://www.oecd-events.org/gacif/en/onlinesession/6edbc934-63f3-ef11-90cb-6045bda07d25)\n\n## A chance to make integrity work better for all\n\nThis clarity of mission offers a valuable lesson for others. Even in times of political uncertainty and institutional fragility, there are opportunities to innovate and strengthen business integrity – not simply to maintain compliance, but to leverage it as something core to an organisation’s purpose, resilience and long-term value.\n\nRather than treating compliance as an afterthought or a legal checkbox, companies can design operations, decision-making processes and incentive structures that align with ethics and integrity from the outset, helping to build long-term trust with stakeholders, and reduce risk by creating more stable operating environments.\n\nEmerging technologies offer tools to identify risks earlier and act proactively, even in contexts where external oversight is weak or politicised. (Here again, our Ukrainian colleagues shared inspirational approaches.) Such tools can help business decisions to be both commercially sound and ethically grounded, independent of shifting regulations and political priorities.\n\n## Cooperation for fair competition\n\nAcross industries, there is renewed incentive to build shared standards and mutual accountability. Collective Action can establish a level playing field and protect against the risks of regulatory backsliding. \n\nOur Knowledge Partner session on anti-corruption Collective Action and sustainable development revealed that companies do appreciate tangible benefits from participating in Collective Action initiatives, such as integrity certification or visibility from participation. But what they are ultimately seeking is a reduction in corruption, both nationally and globally. That leads to fairer, more predictable market conditions, especially across complex supply chains. Our new working paper [presenting a typology of Collective Action](https://collective-action.com/explore/publications/2397) initiatives provides a roadmap for companies to work together toward such meaningful change.\n\n[Anti-corruption Collective Action as an enabler for sustainable development (click to view recording)](https://www.oecd-events.org/gacif/en/onlinesession/c8290b16-63f3-ef11-90cb-6045bda07d25)\n\n## Showing leadership, scaling solutions\n\nAt the national level, particularly in countries where democratic institutions are under strain, companies and public actors alike have the opportunity to lead by example. Even when enforcement is inconsistent, adherence to recognised standards can demonstrate a clear commitment to integrity and build public trust.\n\nThese themes were explored in depth during the Asia-Pacific regional session on disclosures for public integrity. The session highlighted how reporting tools and digital mechanisms can be leveraged to promote transparency, accountability and the development of effective public integrity policies. The role of emerging technologies in this space – from data platforms to digital dashboards – is becoming increasingly central to how national systems build resilience and respond to integrity risks. \n\nWe also had the opportunity to moderate a session on the role of public-private partnerships in promoting a clean environment for sustainable business growth in Southeast Asia, where the panel discussed how a clean business environment can be a catalyst for sustainable development across the region. The conversation built on previous Collective Action initiatives and emphasised the value of cross-sector collaboration, while underscoring the role of innovation and technology in enabling effective, scalable solutions to integrity challenges.\n\nAsia-Pacific regional session on disclosures for public integrity\n\n## Fighting corruption means challenging threats to anti-corruption\n\nWhat emerged most clearly from this year’s Forum is that this is a time to focus, consolidate, leverage partnerships, and act with purpose. The challenges are real — shrinking resources, political pushback, and unstable governance environments. But they also underscore why integrity must remain at the centre of sustainable development. \n\nWithout accountability and ethical governance, efforts to advance economic, environmental and social goals risk being undermined by mismanagement and corruption. Integrity provides the foundation for fair institutions, efficient use of resources and inclusive growth — all of which are vital for development that is truly sustainable and resilient.\n\nIn this context, innovation is not only possible but essential. It enables new tools, partnerships and approaches to uphold integrity where traditional mechanisms may be under strain.\n\nAnd we must also remember that the broader international framework for integrity remains largely intact:\n\n*   Transnational regulation and enforcement continues to apply pressure on corporate misconduct. \n*   Multilateral organisations, including the OECD, continue to provide stable platforms for cooperation and standard-setting. \n*   Global companies continue to invest in business integrity. \n\nWhether through international frameworks or local initiatives, standing up for integrity remains one of the clearest pathways to restoring public trust and strengthening the foundations for long-term peace and prosperity.\n\n## Learn more\n\n*   [OECD 2025 Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum](https://www.oecd-events.org/gacif/en#bl-7d0b3f5b-c3a6-4b40-8749-390d707a7040)\n*   See the Basel Institute's [Quick Guide to business integrity and ethics](https://baselgovernance.org/publications/quick-guide-39-business-integrity-and-ethics)\n*   Learn more about [anti-corruption Collective Action](https://collective-action.com/)",[],[],{"id":93,"title":94,"slug":95,"image":96,"type":69,"date":97,"body":98,"language":7,"tags":99,"translations":100},10322,"ESG reporting: New EU legislation and the case for Collective Action  ","esg-reporting-new-eu-legislation-and-the-case-for-collective-action-2321","79d49024-ba41-4c7c-baf0-6b0855fa5e95","2022-11-29","Finding effective ways to achieve environmental, social, and governance (ESG) business goals has just become a lot more critical for companies in the EU.\n\nOn 29 November 2022, the EU Council adopted the European Parliament’s [Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0380_EN.pdf) (CSRD). This amends the Non-Financial Reporting Directive and requires EU companies, and other companies who have substantial business activity in the EU, to comply with significantly increased ESG disclosure and reporting rules from as early as 2024.\n\nAcross the EU, companies will now be looking to enhance their performance against ESG criteria. They would do well to consider Collective Action.\n\nIncreasingly used to address corruption and raise standards of business integrity and governance, [Collective Action](https://collective-action.com/) offers a multi-stakeholder framework to develop best practices for achieving ESG business goals more generally.\n\n## Responding to a daunting challenge for SMEs\n\nWith the adoption of the CSRD, the EU will force companies to put ESG factors at the heart of their strategic frameworks and associated reporting. Large organisations with substantial compliance budgets should be able to adapt relatively quickly. But for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the challenge of getting to grips with complex new rules might prove daunting.\n\nCollective Action provides a pragmatic approach to addressing this challenge. It involves multi-stakeholder collaboration by bringing together different combinations of private and public sectors, as well as civil society and international organisations, to raise standards of governance and business integrity within their spheres of influence.\n\nThrough the collaboration, SMEs in particular are able to benefit from the expertise of larger organisations and civil society in developing good compliance, sustainability and human rights practices.\n\n## Environmental and social priorities through the lens of good governance\n\nGiven the climate crisis, the CSRD has – quite rightly – a strong focus on the E in ESG. It explicitly supports the European Green Deal, which is a set of policy measures with the overarching aim of making the EU climate neutral by 2050.\n\nHowever, by committing to the concept of ESG, it recognises the importance of effective governance in ensuring that companies are able to respond to, and address, environmental and social issues, including preventing corruption. One only need look at another big story of the last few weeks, the collapse of the [FTX cryptocurrency exchange](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0380_EN.pdf), to be reminded of the risks of managing companies without regard for good ethics and governance frameworks.\n\nAt best, badly run organisations risk their own business. At worst, they endanger the environment and societies on a global scale.\n\n## Multi-stakeholder collaboration to raise governance standards\n\nCollective Action is a way for organisations to raise their governance standards whilst dealing with a shared problem. It is often focused on preventing or addressing corruption in a specific sector or project.\n\nCorruption hampers [sustainable development](https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/anti-corruption/module-1/key-issues/effects-of-corruption.html) and is a major contributor to [environmental degradation](https://baselgovernance.org/green-corruption). When organisations take a shared approach to tackling it, they gain access to a range of tools and approaches from their peers.\n\nAt the end of 2021, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) [formally recommended the use of Collective Action to address corruption](https://baselgovernance.org/blog/oecd-recommends-anti-corruption-collective-action-its-revised-anti-bribery-recommendation). This endorsement builds on increasing global attention to the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to address complex human rights challenges like corruption. And in July 2022, the Basel Institute's [Anti-Corruption Collective Action Awards](https://collective-action.com/get-involved/events/icac-2022/awards/) recognised best practice in this field for the first time.\n\nThe potential of this approach for supporting organisations to comply with ESG mandates, and achieve wider ESG goals, is substantial. This is because it offers a route to achieve together what may be impossible to do alone.\n\n## Learn more\n\n*   The Basel Institute has promoted Collective Action as an effective tool to raise standards of business integrity since its foundation in 2003. Learn more and get inspired on the [B20 Collective Action Hub](https://collective-action.com/), a free resource centre of initiatives and guidance.\n*   For specific questions on Collective Action, reach out to the Basel Institute's [Collective Action helpdesk](https://collective-action.com/get-involved/helpdesk).",[],[],1784560140268]