[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":277},["ShallowReactive",2],{"news-fcpa-blog-are-companies-and-executives-responsible-for-human-rights-violations-abroad-2604":3,"news-fcpa-blog-are-companies-and-executives-responsible-for-human-rights-violations-abroad-2604-similar":60,"i-heroicons:arrow-left-20-solid":272},[4],{"id":5,"status":6,"date_created":7,"date_updated":8,"title":9,"type":10,"body":11,"date":12,"topic":13,"slug":15,"activity":16,"nid":18,"topics":19,"activities":20,"programme":21,"area":21,"websites":22,"language":21,"image":24,"translation_of":21,"countries":34,"tags":35,"authors":36,"images":57,"translations":58,"content":59},10436,"published","2024-03-19T11:01:58.000Z","2025-08-31T23:14:40.000Z","FCPA Blog: Are companies and executives responsible for human rights violations abroad?","Blog","_This blog was originally published on the FCPA Blog, which was discontinued in February 2024._\n\nWhat is the responsibility and possible criminal liability of companies and their officials relating to human right violations allegedly committed abroad?\n\nShould a CEO for example step down when a violation of financial or other conduct rules has occurred, which may even make the corporation complicit in terrorism financing or war crimes? Or should prosecution be a consequence of such transgression?\n\nWhose conduct triggers a reaction by prosecution services: Acts by all persons associated with a company’s foreign subsidiaries, only subcontractors, also suppliers?\n\nIn several countries the controversial debate about corporation liability for violations of human rights abroad is fuelled either by legislative initiatives (e.g. the [Responsible Business Initiative](http:\u002F\u002Fkonzern-initiative.ch\u002F?lang=en)), or pending court decisions (as in the U.S.) or new laws (Australia).\n\nPublic concern about the accountability of corporations and their managers has given rise to such initiatives aimed at holding corporate actors accountable for certain rights violations of subsidiaries in their business activities.\n\nAt the international level, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the [Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.unglobalcompact.org\u002Flibrary\u002F2) (UNHRC 17\u002F4 of 16 June 2011, so-called Ruggie Principles).\n\n[The 2014\u002F95\u002FEU Accounting Directive](http:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095) establishes reporting requirements on human rights compliance, with some members of the EU Parliament pushing for further reform with regard to criminal liability.\n\nThe Swiss [Responsible Business Initiative](http:\u002F\u002Fkonzern-initiative.ch\u002Finitiativtext\u002F?lang=en), signed by the end of 2016 by 120,000 Swiss citizens, launches a far-reaching attempt to implement the _Ruggie Principles_ into Swiss law, but clearly keeps criminal law out of the picture. Other countries consider criminal prosecution — and NGOs target such remedies.\n\nA global movement towards the expansion of corporate criminal liability law is thus not uni-directional. The challenge of making good in cases of human rights violations is of particular relevance for states that are hubs for multinational corporations operating in “high-risk” areas of commerce and jurisdictions.\n\nNew business and human rights frameworks present lawyers in practice with a new range of crucial questions, not only about where and when and for what type of wrongdoing a company or its managers may be brought to court, but also about a sustainable strategy to avoid human rights violations abroad. \n\nFor academics and activists, there are related concerns about the credibility of threats to charge entrepreneurs with overseas misconduct and the effectiveness of such reform in the light of the goals of the Ruggie Principles and the overall objectives of corporate law.\n\nIf you’re interested in further exploring this topic, join the International Association of Penal Law (IAPL) and the University of Basel for an international colloquium on _Prosecuting Companies for Human Rights Violations Abroad? The Jurisdictional Issues_ (June 2, 2017, Basel, Switzerland).\n\nSpeakers and panelists include:\n\n_Mark Pieth, University of Basel \u002F President Basel Institute on Governance, Switzerland_ \n\n_Radha Ivory, University of Queensland, Australia_\n\n_Sara Beale, Duke University, U.S.A._\n\n_Cedric Ryngaert, Utrecht University, Netherlands_\n\n_Kenneth Gallant, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, U.S.A._\n\n_Mirna Adjami_, Basel Institute on Governance\n\n_Felix Ehrat, Novartis, Switzerland_\n\n_Flavio Noto, Staatsanwaltschaft Basel-Stadt, Switzerland_\n\n_Urs Rybi, Public Eye Switzerland_\n\nFor more information or to register, please contact [Claudine.abt@unibas.ch](mailto:Claudine.abt@unibas.ch).","2017-03-18",[14],"Human rights","fcpa-blog-are-companies-and-executives-responsible-for-human-rights-violations-abroad-2604",[17],"",2604,[14],[],null,[23],"Main page",{"id":25,"storage":26,"filename_disk":27,"filename_download":28,"title":9,"type":29,"created_on":7,"modified_on":7,"charset":21,"filesize":30,"width":31,"height":32,"duration":21,"embed":21,"description":21,"location":21,"tags":21,"metadata":33,"focal_point_x":21,"focal_point_y":21,"tus_id":21,"tus_data":21,"uploaded_on":7},"15cbe156-29a7-4b3f-a0c1-5feeca52c234","local","15cbe156-29a7-4b3f-a0c1-5feeca52c234.webp","tmp.webp","image\u002Fwebp",36230,800,606,{},[],[],[37],{"id":38,"news_id":39,"authors_id":53},1033,{"id":5,"status":6,"user_created":40,"date_created":7,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":8,"title":9,"type":10,"body":11,"image":25,"date":12,"topic":42,"slug":15,"activity":43,"nid":18,"topics":44,"activities":45,"programme":21,"area":21,"websites":46,"translation_of":21,"language":21,"countries":47,"tags":48,"authors":49,"images":50,"translations":51,"content":52},"03bebfd8-0b40-4a2a-820d-b9d9c13b9de6","b0662e2a-864d-4888-a1b7-4342b7570b30",[14],[17],[14],[],[23],[],[],[38],[],[],[],{"id":54,"name":55,"position":21,"image":56},297,"Gretta Fenner","06f7143f-fe9b-45df-87a0-8c2e8f721109",[],[],[],[61,88,110,126,151,173,202,225,246],{"id":62,"body":63,"status":6,"type":10,"date":64,"slug":65,"title":66,"image":67,"countries":68,"topic":69,"activity":72,"tags":75,"nid":76,"topics":77,"activities":78,"authors":79,"images":80,"websites":81,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":82,"translations":83,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":84,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":85,"content":86,"link":87},10555,"_A joint blog by Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Distinguished Professor of Law (emerita), University of California Law, and Lucie Binder, Senior Specialist, Governance and Integrity, Basel Institute on Governance._\n\nWho are the real victims of corruption? \n\nTraditionally, the answer has been “the state.” This stems from the fact that corruption typically involves the misuse of public office and the theft or diversion of public funds. In this legal framework, the state prosecutes the crime, claims the damage and receives any recovered assets.\n\nBut what if the state is part of the problem? In contexts of grand corruption or kleptocracy, where entire government systems are complicit or captured, treating the state as the sole victim makes little sense. The real harm falls on individuals and communities: children poisoned by unsafe food in corrupt school feeding programmes (as happened in [Peru](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.proetica.org.pe\u002Fnoticias\u002Fgrave-caso-de-intoxicacion-infantil-en-puno-solicitan-medidas-cautelares-ante-la-cidh-contra-el-estado-peruano\u002F)); patients denied treatment because health budgets were looted (as happened in [Venezuela](https:\u002F\u002Fdossiervenezuela.com\u002Fsocial\u002Ffuncamama-corrupcion-en-venezuela-genera-escasez-de-servicios-para-enfermos-oncologicos\u002F)); or families displaced by infrastructure projects greenlit through bribery (as happened in [Honduras](https:\u002F\u002Fberta.copinh.org\u002Fwp-content\u002Fuploads\u002F2021\u002F02\u002FCaso-Gualcarque-CESPAD2020-1.pdf) and elsewhere).\n\nThese are not abstract harms – they are direct violations of human rights. As explored in Naomi Roht-Arriaza’s [_Fighting Grand Corruption: Transnational and Human Rights Approaches in Latin America and Beyond_](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.cambridge.org\u002Fcore\u002Fbooks\u002Ffighting-grand-corruption\u002F4B738654046BEA6F0F2FF336BEA12112) (Cambridge University Press), a growing movement of legal scholars, judges and practitioners is challenging the state-centric model. They are pushing for a more victim-centred approach to corruption: one that recognises and repairs harm and enables those affected to participate in justice processes.\n\n### Aligning anti-corruption and human rights: a Basel Institute priority\n\nThe convergence that _Fighting Grand Corruption_ highlights aligns with the Basel Institute’s own work at the intersection of corruption and human rights. In [Quick Guide 32](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002Fexplore\u002Fpublications\u002F2367), our Vice President Anne Peters explains how corruption contributes to systemic conditions that undermine human rights, especially access to healthcare, education and justice. It also directly violates rights through discriminatory practices, illegal detention or the suppression of freedoms essential to exposing corruption itself, such as press freedom and the right to information.\n\nFurthermore, asset recovery and forfeiture mechanisms – as analysed in our [Working Paper 54](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fwp-54) – must adhere to international human rights standards to build trust and ensure fairness, and foster international cooperation.\n\n### Reimagining remedy: what reparations for corruption could look like\n\nIn our [Quick Guide 31](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002F2024-05\u002FQuickguide_31.pdf), we argue that countries already have a range of policy options to ensure that confiscated assets are used for the public good. These range from reinvesting funds into law enforcement or community programmes to enabling direct repatriation or co-managed development projects in countries where citizens have suffered the harms of corruption.\n\nModels like Italy’s redirection of mafia assets to social initiatives or France’s development-focused asset return mechanisms show how the reinvestment of stolen wealth can foster both justice and sustainable development. Roht-Arriaza’s book explores these and related options for return and reparation in detail.\n\nThe Basel Institute has long emphasised the importance of such responsible asset return models. We actively support countries in developing frameworks that align with both anti-corruption and human rights principles.\n\n### How would these approaches affect the private sector?\n\nRecognising that corruption and human rights violations are often systemic and deeply linked reinforces the need for companies to connect compliance efforts across both areas. Doing so enables businesses to more effectively:\n\n*   identify large-scale governance risks;\n*   understand their cascading impacts; and\n*   anticipate regulatory or reputational exposure, particularly in high-risk environments.\n\nIntegrating anti-corruption considerations into sustainability and human rights due diligence processes can help prevent costly missteps, such as inadvertently supporting abusive actors or financing projects that harm vulnerable communities.\n\nFor example, Dutch banks financing Honduran dams secured by high-level bribes and regulatory subterfuge suffered years of lawsuits and tarnished reputations. Importantly, identifying victims and documenting harm makes corruption tangible. It moves corruption out of the abstract and enables ethical businesses to distinguish themselves from competitors who profit from impunity.\n\nIn Honduras, Mexico, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Argentina and elsewhere, legal systems increasingly recognise victims’ rights to participate in proceedings and seek redress. These developments will also need to be reflected in corporate risk assessments, especially for marginal or politically exposed projects. Companies will need to ask not only “is this legal?” but also “what is the harm, and who bears it?”\n\n[Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002F), in the sense of sustained, collaborative multi-stakeholder initiatives involving the private sector, provides a powerful vehicle for navigating these challenges. By engaging in such initiatives, businesses can help shape shared standards, mitigate systemic risks and demonstrate commitment to responsible conduct in environments where state capacity may be weak or compromised.\n\nSuch collaboration not only fosters more coherent and credible compliance approaches but also supports wider efforts to ensure that justice reaches those most affected by corruption.\n\n_Fighting Grand Corruption_ is available through the publisher or major bookstores.","2025-06-02","how-connecting-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-can-help-both-victims-and-businesses-2813","How connecting anti-corruption and human rights can help both victims and businesses","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fc7389186-1599-4ae8-9b94-5745b8adb635?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[70,14,71],"Collective Action","Private Sector",[73,74],"Research","Insights",[],2813,[70,14,71],[73,74],[],[],[23,70],"English",[],"2025-06-02T22:01:34.000Z","2025-08-31T23:10:53.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fhow-connecting-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-can-help-both-victims-and-businesses-2813",{"id":89,"body":90,"status":6,"type":10,"date":91,"slug":92,"title":93,"image":94,"countries":95,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":96,"nid":21,"topics":97,"activities":100,"authors":101,"images":102,"websites":103,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":104,"translation_of":21,"user_created":105,"date_created":106,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":107,"content":108,"link":109},10553,"*The following blog post is a guest contribution and reflects the views and opinions of the original author, which do not necessarily represent those of the Basel Institute. It is shared as-is for informational purposes only.*\n\n\u003Chr \u002F>\n\n*By **Pat Poitevin**, Co-Founder – Executive Director, Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption (CCEAC)\nMember, Collective Action Mentoring Programme*\n\nIn the global effort to tackle corruption, the concept of collective action has moved from theory to necessity. At the CCEAC, this principle is more than a model – it is the foundation of our approach to ethics, compliance and anti-corruption.\n\nSince joining the Basel Institute’s Collective Action Mentoring Programme, we have had the opportunity to share our work, learn from others and expand our reach. We have seen first-hand the value of connecting like-minded organisations, particularly NGOs and not-for-profits working in the prevention space, to share experiences, build capacity and tackle corruption collaboratively. As an early member of the programme, this blog offers our reflections on CCEAC’s evolution, successes, ongoing challenges and our call to keep pushing forward together.\n\n\n**Building a hub for anti-corruption collective action**\n\nCCEAC was launched with a clear purpose: to bring together public, private, academic and civil society actors to address corruption through a collaborative and multi-sectoral approach. We created an online platform and knowledge hub where professionals, students and organisations could access and contribute tools, strategies and best practices, building collective capacity in Canada and abroad.\n\nAlthough “anti-corruption” is in our name and remains a central focus, we have learned over years of field experience that to truly engage businesses and other key stakeholders, we must frame anti-corruption as part of a broader conversation around ethics, compliance and risk management. Companies are more receptive when we speak their language, emphasising how ethical business practices, responsible conduct and effective risk mitigation strategies can enhance their resilience, reputation and long-term success.\n\nUnderstanding the pain points and motivations of our audience, whether it is reducing legal exposure, protecting brand integrity or gaining access to new markets, has helped us better connect, engage and ultimately activate our stakeholders. By positioning anti-corruption as a strategic component of doing business responsibly, we have been more effective in encouraging companies, especially SMEs, to take action.\n\nOur CCEAC Toolbox is central to this mission. It is not just a repository – it is a growing, user-driven resource library built by contributors who have experienced the real-world challenges of ethics and compliance and want to share practical solutions. It is tailored to meet the needs of SMEs and under-resourced organisations and is grounded in a spirit of accessibility and collective contribution.\n\nWe have also developed the Global Anti-Corruption University Project (GAUP), which brings law and business students into real-world settings to co-develop ethics and compliance programmes with small and medium-sized enterprises. GAUP turns future leaders into agents of change and helps close the gap many SMEs face when trying to implement cost-effective, risk-based anti-corruption measures.\n\n\n**International reach through shared values**\n\nCCEAC’s collective action model has reached beyond Canada thanks to partnerships that align with our values. We have worked with universities and stakeholders in Ecuador, Colombia and Indonesia to adapt the model locally, always emphasising collaboration, shared ownership and the importance of building solutions that fit cultural, legal and business contexts.\n\nA key enabler of this global engagement has been our long-standing partnership with Canada’s Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) under Global Affairs Canada. This relationship has proven invaluable, providing targeted funding to support training initiatives and regional expansion, but more importantly, connecting us with Canadian companies operating abroad.\n\nThrough TCS, we have trained and advised Canadian businesses on corruption risks in specific markets, while also encouraging trade commissioners themselves to become more engaged on anti-corruption issues. This dual impact, on both the business community and Canada’s trade representatives, has helped extend the mission and visibility of CCEAC far beyond our own borders.\n\nBut even with these successes, we continue to face a critical challenge: long-term sustainability.\n\n\n**The funding paradox: innovation without stability**\n\nLike many NGOs and NFPs in the Collective Action Mentoring Programme, CCEAC relies on a mix of project-based grants, in-kind support and volunteer contributions. While this model has enabled us to deliver impactful results on a very limited budget, it comes at a cost.\n\nProject-based funding often only covers the essentials – keeping the platform running, responding to requests, delivering promised outputs. But it rarely allows for strategic planning, innovation or platform upgrades. There is little room to explore new tools, test new ideas or invest in deeper engagement with our contributors and users.\n\nDespite these limitations, we have managed to innovate, largely through creative partnerships. Our collaboration with a local technical college has enabled us to tap into student talent for web and AI development projects, helping us build digital tools that support ethics and compliance benchmarking, risk assessment and user-driven dashboards. This model has not only benefited us, it has provided students with real-world experience and a tangible impact.\n\nStill, the lack of core, flexible funding means we are often working at capacity without the ability to scale or secure the future of our programmes.\n\n\n**Lessons from the mentoring programme: more than exchange**\n\nBeing part of the Collective Action Mentoring Programme has been a turning point. The programme created space for honest conversations, shared learning and mutual encouragement. We have learned from the diversity of approaches taken by others and we have gained insight into where we can improve.\n\nOne of the most important lessons, though, has been the need to share not just tools but strategies for funding and sustainability. Too many promising initiatives face burnout or stall because the business model does not keep up with the mission. In our discussions with other members, we see a clear need to co-create a roadmap for sustainable funding including new mechanisms, public-private partnerships and shared fundraising strategies that reflect the long-term nature of capacity-building work.\n\n\n**A call to keep building together**\n\nAs we prepare to meet in Basel and reflect on three years of mentoring, we at CCEAC are optimistic but also realistic. We know that meaningful change takes time, trust and shared effort. We also know that those working in this field often carry the weight of doing more with less, innovating without the safety net of reliable funding and fighting for attention in crowded public agendas.\n\nThis is why we are putting forward this call to action:\n\n1. To fellow programme members:\nLet us keep exchanging ideas, but let us also start exchanging strategies for financial resilience. How are we diversifying revenue? What models have worked and which have not? How can we support each other’s funding proposals or co-design shared initiatives?\n\n2. To donors and public sector allies:\nRecognise the full value of collective action. Beyond deliverables, invest in the infrastructure, platforms and people who keep this work alive. Core funding matters – it is what allows innovation to happen and impact to scale.\n\n3. To companies and compliance leaders:\nIf you have built strong anti-corruption programmes, consider sharing them. Your tools, training materials and policies can help raise the bar for SMEs. Mentorship and open access to your resources are powerful forms of collective action.\n\n4. To academics and students:\nPartner with us. Whether through GAUP, applied research or co-developing content for our toolbox, your ideas and energy are vital. Help us shape what comes next.\n\n\n**Final reflections**\n\nCollective action works best when it is active, inclusive and focused on impact. CCEAC has grown from a Canadian initiative to an international model because we have listened, partnered and stayed rooted in the belief that doing the right thing should be easier, not harder.\n\nWe still have work to do, but we are in good company. The mentoring programme has given us more than guidance – it has given us a community and, with that, a renewed commitment to help each other grow, sustain and succeed.\n\nWe look forward to connecting in Basel and continuing the conversation about how we can fund, grow and sustain collective action into the future.\n\nGet involved with CCEAC:\n🌐 www.cceac.ca\n📧 info@cceac.ca\n📢 Want to contribute to the Toolbox or support our work? Let us connect.\nOr reach out to Pat at pat.poitevin@cceac.ca","2025-05-15","effectively-leveraging-collective-action-sharing-the-journey-challenges-and-a-call-to-action-from-the-canadian-centre-of-excellence-for-anti-corruption","Effectively leveraging collective action: sharing the journey, challenges and a call to action from the Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F3aeee180-868c-43cc-979b-ced9399b977b?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[],[98,99,14,70],"HLRM","Integrity Pacts",[],[],[],[23,70],[],"de81a3eb-02df-461e-a0e0-e5db7e35c0fc","2025-05-15T13:58:23.000Z","2025-08-31T23:15:27.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Feffectively-leveraging-collective-action-sharing-the-journey-challenges-and-a-call-to-action-from-the-canadian-centre-of-excellence-for-anti-corruption",{"id":111,"body":112,"status":6,"type":10,"date":91,"slug":113,"title":114,"image":115,"countries":116,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":117,"nid":21,"topics":118,"activities":21,"authors":119,"images":120,"websites":121,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":122,"translation_of":21,"user_created":105,"date_created":123,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":107,"content":124,"link":125},10554,"*The following blog post is a guest contribution and reflects the views and opinions of the original author, which do not necessarily represent those of the Basel Institute. It is shared as-is for informational purposes only.*\n\nImage source: **© UNICEF\u002FUNI687651\u002FKhan |** Emergency supplies of water, sanitation and hygiene arrive at a warehouse run by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Kabul, Afghanistan.\n\n\u003Chr \u002F>\n\nBy **[Arco Iris Santos](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fin\u002Fsantos-arco\u002F)** and **[Ken Graversen](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fin\u002Fgraversen\u002F)**\n\nIn many high-risk countries, companies face a familiar dilemma: delays, red tape and questionable demands from public officials that culminate in requests for small “informal” payments. These facilitation payments, typically small amounts offered to speed up or secure routine services, may seem like a necessary evil. But in reality, they present ethical, operational and humanitarian challenges. Ultimately, they fuel a broader environment of corruption, weaken institutions and undermine the impact humanitarian actors are driving.\n\nAt the [Fight Against Facilitation Payments Initiative (FAFPI)](https:\u002F\u002Ffafpi.org\u002F), we believe the private sector has the power to drive systemic change. But not alone. To disrupt the normalisation of facilitation payments, companies must collaborate not just with governments but with each other. This is where collective action becomes a game-changer.\n\n\n**What are facilitation payments and why do they matter?**\n\nDelivering accountable, timely and effective responses to the needs of disaster-affected populations, whether in acute or prolonged crises, is a vital and ever-present demand on the humanitarian sector globally. Requests for facilitation payments can pose significant challenges to companies working with humanitarian organisations in emergency response efforts.\n\nConsider, for example, a transport company operating under the World Food Programme-led Logistics Cluster. If stopped at a roadblock checkpoint by a local police officer requesting a “small contribution” – perhaps a food basket for their family – in exchange for allowing the truck to proceed without delay, the company faces a serious dilemma: delay the delivery, risking the lives of people experiencing severe hunger, or give in.\n\nThreats to personal safety, the urgency of a life-saving delivery and the fear of broader consequences leave little room for alternatives. And yet, despite the circumstances, by fulfilling the demand, the company perpetuates a system where officials expect to receive “small gifts” for services that are supposed to be guaranteed and freely available. Moreover, it compromises the principles of neutrality and impartiality that humanitarian organisations uphold, ultimately eroding community trust in humanitarian agencies.\n\nFacilitation payments, as we define them, are small payments, gifts or other benefits made to officials to secure or expedite the performance of a routine or necessary action, which you are entitled to have performed without the incentive. Common forms include cash, a pack of cigarettes, alcohol or even a sandwich.\n\nIt is tempting to explain facilitation payments as “just how things are done” in certain regions. And indeed, cultural norms often shape how these transactions are understood and justified. In some contexts, offering a small “gift” might be socially acceptable or even expected. Terms like *kitu kidogo* (Swahili for “small thing”) or raccomandazione (Italian for “recommendation”) hint at how informal exchanges are woven into daily transactions. These practices reflect deeper social expectations and may emerge in response to systemic inefficiencies or weak public institutions.\n\nBut while culture matters, it is not a destiny. [Research](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fculture-and-corruption-complex-relationship) across Africa, Asia and Latin America shows that these behaviours often emerge not because people inherently approve of them but because formal institutions fail. In contexts where public employees are underpaid, services are unreliable and oversight is weak, individuals may resort to informal practices to navigate daily life. This environment can cultivate informal workarounds such as facilitation payments.\n\nSo, rather than blaming culture, the real question becomes: how do we create environments where neither individuals nor companies are pressured into informal payments to access the services they are already entitled to?\n\n\n**The power of collective action**\n\nTraditionally, anti-corruption strategies rely on [vertical enforcement](https:\u002F\u002Ffafpi.org\u002Fare-transparency-and-accountability-enough-to-fight-facilitation-payments\u002F) – top-down mechanisms like transparency mandates, oversight bodies and audits. These are important, especially when paired with strong accountability. But in many high-risk countries, vertical enforcement alone is insufficient. Officials tasked with enforcement may be complicit or under-resourced. Reporting channels might exist on paper but lead nowhere in practice.\n\nThe result? Even when facilitation payment requests are exposed, they often go unaddressed.\n\nThis is where [horizontal enforcement](https:\u002F\u002Ffafpi.org\u002Fare-transparency-and-accountability-enough-to-fight-facilitation-payments\u002F) – peer-based accountability among companies – comes in. Rather than relying solely on state-led interventions, horizontal enforcement empowers ethical actors to band together, check each other, create shared standards, apply pressure on outliers and influence public reform.\n\nTake the [Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (MACN)](https:\u002F\u002Fmacn.dk\u002F), a collective action that has brought together companies in the shipping industry to tackle undue port payment requests. Through collective data reporting, stakeholder dialogue and capacity building, MACN has reduced such demands in multiple countries.\n\nFAFPI applies a similar model for facilitation payments. FAFPI collects and aggregates data on facilitation payment demands. By identifying recurring patterns, FAFPI can generate evidence of systemic issues. This data-driven approach supports informed engagement with local authorities in the fight against facilitation payments. This illustrates how horizontal enforcement could work in practice: through collective action, capacity building, coordinated pressure among ethical actors and targeted reform efforts driven by shared intelligence.\n\nThe private sector plays a central role in humanitarian response. By joining forces through collective action platforms such as MACN and FAFPI, companies not only protect their reputation but also the people their operations impact.\n\n\n**A call to action**\n\nThe persistence of facilitation payments not only distorts competition in the corporate world, it also undermines humanitarian efforts by threatening supply lines, inflating costs and eroding trust. As we always emphasise, facilitation payments can be seen as the seeds of bribery and lead to more serious acts of corruption.\n\nCompanies, NGOs and donors operating in high-risk countries should not feel compelled to accept facilitation payments as a cost of doing business. Instead, they can proactively shape the ecosystem by joining forces with civil society and peer firms in collective action initiatives like FAFPI.\n\nUniting affected stakeholders – private sector, humanitarian NGOs and civil society – we can transform facilitation payments from a daily frustration into a shared target for systemic change. If your organisation operates in a high-risk region, consider joining FAFPI or a similar [Collective Action initiative](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002Fexplore\u002Finitiatives) to be part of a movement driving meaningful reforms.\n\n**Learn more**\nRead the chapter Culture and corruption: a complex relationship in [Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Corruption Law](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Fculture-and-corruption-complex-relationship).\nLearn more about horizontal enforcement in [ACE Anti-Corruption Evidence](https:\u002F\u002Face.soas.ac.uk\u002Fpublication\u002Fmaking-anti-corruption-real-using-a-power-capabilities-and-interest-approach-to-stop-wasting-money-and-start-making-progress\u002F).\nIf you want to know more about FAFPI, visit [our website](https:\u002F\u002Ffafpi.org\u002F).\n","how-companies-can-unite-to-fight-facilitation-payments-and-protect-humanitarian-impact","How Companies Can Unite to Fight Facilitation Payments – and Protect Humanitarian Impact","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F85149b74-01ba-4c5d-9482-98771a2ffdef?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[],[98,99,14,70],[],[],[23,70],[],"2025-05-16T13:35:15.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fhow-companies-can-unite-to-fight-facilitation-payments-and-protect-humanitarian-impact",{"id":127,"body":128,"status":6,"type":10,"date":129,"slug":130,"title":131,"image":132,"countries":133,"topic":134,"activity":135,"tags":137,"nid":138,"topics":139,"activities":140,"authors":141,"images":143,"websites":144,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":145,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":146,"user_updated":147,"date_updated":148,"content":149,"link":150},9558,"In 2020, the Basel Institute on Governance with the support of the Siemens Integrity Initiative launched a series of roundtable discussions that brought companies together to analyse the potential nexus between corporate efforts to protect human rights and prevent corruption.\n\nWhile bribery has been a prohibited practice under the laws of a majority of countries for over 20 years, and in many places corporate criminal liability for corruption has also been introduced, the corporate responsibility to protect human rights has largely been addressed through soft law instruments up until recently. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the [UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ohchr.org\u002Fdocuments\u002Fpublications\u002Fguidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf), this situation however is changing.\n\n### From soft law towards mandatory regulations\n\nOn the one hand, there are strong regulatory expectations on companies to implement effective compliance programmes to address bribery laws.\n\nOn the other hand, the pressure on companies to take action around the topic of human rights is increasing as, similar to the field of bribery 20 years ago, the regulatory landscape is shifting away from soft law towards mandatory human rights due diligence regulations.\n\nAs companies in almost all industry sectors continue to be challenged when it comes to addressing the jigsaw of varying international and national standards, this presents opportunities for companies to meet the expectations of stakeholders on an increasingly level regulatory playing field.\n\n### Exploring a collaborative approach through Collective Action\n\nDrawing on our long experience in anti-corruption Collective Action, we reached out to private-sector partners to gather their views on the potential of exploring synergies between anti-corruption compliance and the business human rights agenda to address this challenge. A collaborative approach has also been recommended by the 2020 guide [_Connecting the anti-corruption and human rights agendas: A guide for business and employers’ organisations_](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fconnecting-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-agendas-guide-business-and-employers) by Business at OECD (BIAC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).\n\nMore than 50 companies responded to our outreach on the synergies between business human rights and anti-corruption. We met with each company on a bilateral basis at first, in order to understand the interest of each company for this specific topic, and also to assess the level of maturity of each company’s approach to addressing human rights and anti-corruption topics. Based on the sectors, but also common interests and challenges identified by each company, we then divided the 50 companies into five groups which met twice over a period of six months.\n\nThe aim of the roundtable discussions was to identify opportunities to leverage anti-corruption best practices which could potentially support human rights and synergies between the two efforts, and also the limits.\n\n### Challenges in connecting the business and human rights and the anti-corruption agendas\n\nMost companies noted the presence of internal silos between compliance functions that are responsible for anti-corruption on the one hand, and the sustainability\u002Fcorporate social responsibility (CSR) functions that have traditionally managed the topic of human rights. Breaking down these silos and fostering constructive exchanges was one of the first recommendations resulting from this consultation.\n\nSeveral other challenges emerged during both the bilateral calls and the roundtable discussions:\n\n#### Fast-changing stakeholder expectations\n\nCompanies confirmed the above-described marked increase in focus on business human rights from regulators, but also noted the rapidly growing interest from other key stakeholders, including clients, public lenders and investors.\n\nThey pointed out that a particular challenge was the speed at which the expectations of these stakeholders are shifting, something that was reported to be particularly noticeable in certain European countries and North America.\n\n#### Differing levels of maturity and understanding\n\nGiven the relatively recent uptake in human rights discussions both at the international and local levels, the maturity of companies with regards to their understanding and integration of the human rights agenda into their risk mitigation strategies and compliance management systems varies widely.\n\nHeavily regulated industries and industries that have faced high-profile human rights-related scandals in recent years are, in general, more likely to have undertaken efforts to understand business human rights-related topics within their sector. It is interesting to note that these same sectors also appear to have the strongest understanding of corruption prevention.\n\n#### Assessing human rights risks\n\nHuman rights risk is seen as a challenge for a great majority of companies. This mainly arises from the divide between _risk to business,_ in the traditional compliance interpretation of risk assessment, and _risk to people_ in the human rights interpretation of a risk assessment.\n\nThe limited in-house expertise on human rights was also noted as a challenge in order to identify salient human rights risks across the supply chain.\n\n#### Bridging the silos of compliance and sustainability\n\nThe definition of a governance structure which adequately takes into account human rights is an ongoing challenge which takes several forms. A siloed approach that integrates human rights in the CSR or sustainability function seems to prevail. This is largely for historical reasons relating to the debates around standalone reporting on CSR topics and more recently environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports.\n\nMany companies noted that this typically leads to limited (or non-existent) exchanges of information between the anti-corruption compliance functions and the guardians of CSR.\n\nSome companies nowadays do have a dedicated human rights function. However also in these set-ups, internal buy-in (and coordination with other relevant functions, such as anti-corruption compliance) is perceived as a major obstacle.\n\nIn other companies, ownership of the human rights risk is unclear and does not have board attention, let alone any form of oversight.\n\n#### Implementing policies – a need for tone from the top\n\nOn the upside, most companies have already defined – or are in the process of finalising – policies on human rights, either as a standalone statement or integrated into a broader policy document. Where companies have had such policies for some time, they are also engaged in reviewing these to ensure alignment with new legal and regulatory developments.\n\nHowever, a common thread is that there is a lack of support from the top leadership of the companies for substantiating the implementation of such policies with appropriate procedures and processes. This in turn affects access to resources.\n\n#### Supporting the supply chain\n\nSome companies also noted a more general lack of understanding from suppliers and third parties as to what human rights questionnaires and requirements would mean in practice for their business relationship. The use of contractual agreements mentioning human rights was seen as a first step, but companies noted challenges in going further down the supply chain and having a greater positive impact.\n\nIn order to overcome this, some companies focus on outreach and on capacity building: they help their contractors produce policies, develop whistleblowing mechanisms and roll out training programmes.\n\n### A complementary approach that acknowledges specificities\n\nWhile a majority of participating companies identified potential synergies between the human rights agenda and anti-corruption compliance, it was also generally acknowledged that human rights and corruption are two distinct topics. In other words, they should not (and cannot) be completely merged. Rather, they need to be seen as an overarching compliance and risk topic and thus embedded into risk management processes, but also treated discretely when necessary.\n\nSubject matter expertise can help enhance and leverage current practices, with an emphasis on coordination of such expertise when looking at due diligence with a corruption and human rights lens.\n\n### Taking the next steps together: Collective Action\n\nCollaborative approaches to the joint agendas of human rights and anti-corruption could also lead to self-regulation within these dual agendas in certain industry sectors. As mentioned in a [September 2021 paper](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Finput-roadmap-next-decade-building-blocks-realizing-ungps-implementation-toward-2030) issued by the IOE, BIAC and Business Europe:\n\n> Business and their representative organisations must be part of the solution and not perceived as the problem and must be fully involved in the development of normative and non-normative processes. Peer-learning and the exchange of experience are key to support each other in the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.\n\nThis opens a window of opportunity for [Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub) between industry players, peer companies and other stakeholders. The aim is to level the playing field with meaningful and coherent anti-corruption and human rights approaches that will support transparency, ethical decision making and engaged leadership. Pushing the human rights and anti-corruption agenda forward in any business requires a strong corporate culture focusing on integrity.\n\nThe roundtable members will be invited to take the discussions to the next level through a second round of bilateral meetings as well as targeted roundtable discussions. We will also conduct further research on the nexus between human rights and corruption, engaging multiple stakeholders throughout the process and in the development of an analysis report.","2021-09-30","connecting-the-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-agendas-challenges-and-opportunities-for-collective-action-2110","Connecting the anti-corruption and human rights agendas: challenges and opportunities for Collective Action","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F221ac298-d45b-4244-806b-906083b24b25?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[70,14,71],[74,136],"Partnerships",[],2110,[70,14,71],[74,136],[142],1182,[],[23,70],[],"2022-05-26T22:52:28.000Z","dfef11db-1bc6-47e9-a61d-93443995484b","2026-05-08T21:11:01.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fconnecting-the-anti-corruption-and-human-rights-agendas-challenges-and-opportunities-for-collective-action-2110",{"id":152,"body":153,"status":6,"type":154,"date":155,"slug":156,"title":157,"image":158,"countries":159,"topic":160,"activity":161,"tags":162,"nid":163,"topics":164,"activities":165,"authors":166,"images":167,"websites":168,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":169,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":170,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":8,"content":171,"link":172},9682,"Our [Collective Action](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcollective-action) team is working with companies to find synergies in human rights and anti-corruption compliance.\n\nThe idea: Companies invest significant resources in anti-corruption and human rights compliance programmes, often developing them separately. We believe there are synergies between these areas that will contribute to the effectiveness and cost efficiencies of both programmes.\n\nThe proposal: We are convening and facilitating a series of short private-sector roundtables under Chatham House rules. These are a chance to explore opportunities, risks and methodologies around human rights and corruption risk assessments.\n\nIs your company interested in joining a roundtable with other companies to explore this topic?\n\n[Visit the project page](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fb20-collective-action-hub\u002Fhuman-rights) to find out more and contact our Collective Action team.\n\nThis work and the roundtables are supported by the [Siemens Integrity Initiative](https:\u002F\u002Fnew.siemens.com\u002Fglobal\u002Fen\u002Fcompany\u002Fsustainability\u002Fcompliance\u002Fcollective-action.html).","News","2020-09-10","launch-of-private-sector-roundtables-to-explore-human-rights-and-anti-corruption-compliance-1847","Launch of private-sector roundtables to explore human rights and anti-corruption compliance","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fda7fd96b-4aa0-400e-9294-88767ebe4d65?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[70,14,71],[17],[],1847,[70,14,71],[],[],[],[23,70],[],"2022-05-26T22:54:15.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Flaunch-of-private-sector-roundtables-to-explore-human-rights-and-anti-corruption-compliance-1847",{"id":174,"body":175,"status":6,"type":154,"date":176,"slug":177,"title":178,"image":179,"countries":180,"topic":181,"activity":182,"tags":184,"nid":192,"topics":193,"activities":194,"authors":195,"images":196,"websites":197,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":198,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":199,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":8,"content":200,"link":201},9717,"Gemma Aiolfi, Head of Compliance and Collective Action, will explore some thorny areas of anti-corruption and human rights risk assessment and compliance during a forthcoming virtual “pre-evening dialogue” of the UN Global Compact Network in Switzerland and Liechtenstein.\n\nThe focus is on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with limited resources to address due diligence, and more broadly compliance risks. The topic, though, is relevant to all companies who need to address both corruption and human rights risks in their international business operations.\n\n### Connecting compliance\n\nFaced with pressure from regulators, investors and consumers, companies are investing significantly in compliance programmes to prevent bribery and – separately – to safeguard human rights.\n\nOften addressed as two distinct topics, anti-corruption and human rights compliance overlap. Finding synergies leads to a big opportunity, especially for SMEs, to be more effective and efficient in their risk assessments.\n\n### Synergies for SMEs\n\nDuring the virtual event, Gemma Aiolfi will cover recent legal and regulatory developments in human rights in various countries, including Switzerland. The aim is to allow participating SMEs the opportunity to explore synergies between mitigating the risks of corruption and managing their human rights risks.\n\nThe webinar topic ties in with the Basel Institute’s [newly launched project](\u002Fnode\u002F1875) to help companies join the dots between anti-corruption and human rights compliance.\n\nThe project is one of three pillars in a wider Collective Action programme [supported by the Siemens Integrity Initiative](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.baselgovernance.org\u002Fnews\u002Fbasel-institute-pursues-new-collective-action-project-renewed-funding-siemens-integrity) Third Funding Round.\n\n### Find out more\n\n*   The webinar will take place on 8 July 2020 at 17:00 (local time in Switzerland).\n*   Pre-evening dialogues of the UN Global Compact Network Switzerland and Liechtenstein are open to all GCNSL members as well as interested new members.\n*   SMEs doing business in countries eligible for development aid can apply for free tailored guidance from the Basel Institute on anti-corruption compliance and Collective Action until the end of July. The services are funded by the UK Business Integrity Initiative, which also covers guidance on human rights compliance. [Find out more](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcompliance\u002Fsme-guidance-services).\n*   For more details about our work on anti-corruption and human rights compliance, contact [Vanessa Hans](mailto:vanessa.hans@baselgovernance.org).","2020-06-26","connecting-corruption-and-human-rights-compliance-in-a-un-global-compact-virtual-dialogue-8-july-1786","Connecting corruption and human rights compliance in a UN Global Compact virtual dialogue, 8 July","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F89c49691-5b34-414a-8421-91f862a46e19?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[70,14,71],[183],"Events",[185,188],{"tags_id":186},{"id":187,"name":14},932,{"tags_id":189},{"id":190,"name":191},859,"Corruption risks",1786,[70,14,71],[183],[],[],[23,70],[],"2022-05-26T22:54:43.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fconnecting-corruption-and-human-rights-compliance-in-a-un-global-compact-virtual-dialogue-8-july-1786",{"id":203,"body":204,"status":6,"type":154,"date":205,"slug":206,"title":207,"image":208,"countries":209,"topic":210,"activity":211,"tags":213,"nid":214,"topics":215,"activities":216,"authors":217,"images":218,"websites":219,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":220,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":221,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":222,"content":223,"link":224},9779,"The Basel Institute on Governance is pleased to announce that it has received renewed funding to deepen its anti-corruption Collective Action work from the [Siemens Integrity Initiative’s Third Funding Round](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fpulse\u002Fsiemens-again-provides-funds-support-fight-against-sabine-zindera). The project will run from 2019 through 2024 and will be implemented in collaboration with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).\n\nThe [Siemens Integrity Initiative](https:\u002F\u002Fnew.siemens.com\u002Fglobal\u002Fen\u002Fcompany\u002Fsustainability\u002Fcompliance\u002Fcollective-action.html) has generously funded Collective Action projects undertaken by the Basel Institute since 2009 through its First and Second Funding Rounds.\n\n### Making Collective Action a compliance norm\n\nThe new project entitled, “Positioning Collective Action as a Compliance Norm,” seeks to promote engagement in anti-corruption Collective Action by developing it as a global norm, bolstering its application, and innovating Collective Action to address demand-side bribery and human rights synergies through three objectives.\n\nFirst, the project will undertake strategic awareness-raising and advocacy with national and international anti-corruption standard-setting and law enforcement institutions to establish Collective Action as a global compliance norm. The goal is to create greater incentives for more private sector actors to engage with others in Collective Action as part of a robust anti-corruption compliance system.\n\nSecond, the project will build on the role of the Basel Institute as the global go-to resource centre for information and guidance on Collective Action through peer-learning and best-practice sharing. Its updated findings and analysis on Collective Action initiatives will continue to be featured on the Basel Institute’s [B20 Collective Action Hub](\u002Fnode\u002F1095).\n\nThird, the project will generate innovation in anti-corruption innovation in two areas.\n\n*   To address the demand-side of bribery, the Basel Institute will continue its collaboration with the OECD to scale up the use of [High Level Reporting Mechanisms](\u002Fnode\u002F1098).\n*   To address corporate demands for increased effectiveness of compliance systems, the project will identify ways to capitalise on [synergies between bribery prevention and human rights protection](\u002Fnode\u002F1875) through Collective Action.\n\n### A growing evidence base\n\n_“We are excited to be embarking on this new Collective Action project,”_ said Gemma Aiolfi, Head of Corporate Governance, Compliance and Collective Action at the Basel Institute.\n\n_“The evidence base for engaging in anti-corruption Collective Action continues to grow. It’s time for international and national policymakers to incentivise more companies to engage in innovative Collective Action initiatives to tackle bribery together with other stakeholders.”_\n\n### More information\n\n*   Learn more about the Basel Institute’s [International Centre for Collective Action](http:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fcollective-action) and [B20 Collective Action Hub](\u002Fnode\u002F1095).\n*   See the portfolio of new projects funded under the Siemens Integrity Initiative’s Third Funding Round [here](https:\u002F\u002Fassets.new.siemens.com\u002Fsiemens\u002Fassets\u002Fapi\u002Fuuid:c869bc77-b909-445f-874e-264e3fa92ad5\u002Fversion:1575899980\u002Fthird-funding-round-project-profiles.pdf).","2019-12-17","basel-institute-pursues-new-collective-action-project-with-renewed-funding-from-the-siemens-integrity-initiative-1043","Basel Institute pursues new Collective Action project with renewed funding from the Siemens Integrity Initiative","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F44882ea6-965b-474c-bc22-f4354a22e3f3?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[70,98,14,71],[136,212],"Media releases",[],1043,[70,98,14,71],[136,212],[],[],[23,70],[],"2022-05-26T22:55:34.000Z","2025-08-31T23:14:59.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fbasel-institute-pursues-new-collective-action-project-with-renewed-funding-from-the-siemens-integrity-initiative-1043",{"id":226,"body":227,"status":6,"type":17,"date":228,"slug":229,"title":230,"image":231,"countries":232,"topic":233,"activity":234,"tags":235,"nid":236,"topics":237,"activities":238,"authors":239,"images":240,"websites":241,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":242,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":243,"user_updated":41,"date_updated":222,"content":244,"link":245},10024,"The latest FCPA Blog post written by our managing director, Gretta Fenner, is about the responsibility and possible criminal liability of companies and their officials relating to human right violations allegedly committed abroad.\n\nShould a CEO for example step down when a violation of financial or other conduct rules has occurred, which may even make the corporation complicit in terrorism financing or war crimes? Or should prosecution be a consequence of such transgression? \n\n[Read it on the FCPA Blog.](http:\u002F\u002Fwww.fcpablog.com\u002Fblog\u002F2017\u002F5\u002F8\u002Fgretta-fenner-are-companies-and-executives-responsible-for-h.html)","2017-05-08","are-companies-and-executives-responsible-for-human-rights-violations-abroad-122","Are companies and executives responsible for human rights violations abroad?","\u002Fpics\u002Fimg-placeholder.png",[],[17],[74],[],122,[],[74],[],[],[23],[],"2022-05-26T22:58:23.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fare-companies-and-executives-responsible-for-human-rights-violations-abroad-122",{"id":247,"body":248,"status":6,"type":10,"date":249,"slug":250,"title":251,"image":252,"countries":253,"topic":255,"activity":256,"tags":257,"nid":258,"topics":259,"activities":260,"authors":261,"images":264,"websites":265,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":21,"translations":266,"translation_of":21,"user_created":40,"date_created":267,"user_updated":268,"date_updated":269,"content":270,"link":271},10429,"_This blog was originally published on the FCPA Blog, which was discontinued in February 2024._\n\n2023 was a mixed bag for the business integrity community. On the one hand, the B20 – the voice of business of the G20 forum of major economies – had no Integrity & Compliance Task Force under the Indian Presidency. That was a major missed opportunity for all of us who care about raising standards of business integrity around the world.\n\nThe B20 Integrity & Compliance [Task Force](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002Fexplore\u002Fb20-g20) is a unique platform to discuss and build consensus among businesses on compliance and integrity topics across G20 countries. It provides an opportunity to present G20 governments with specific issues for consideration and implementation. \n\nOn a more positive note, the [OECD Integrity Forum](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.oecd-events.org\u002Fgacif2023) and U.S.-led [Summit for Democracy](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.state.gov\u002Fsummit-for-democracy\u002F) discussions highlighted the private sector’s critical role in the fight against corruption, particularly in high-risk sectors such as infrastructure and energy. \n\n2023 also finished on a high note: For the first time, the UN Conference of the States Parties (CoSP) in Atlanta included a forum [dedicated](https:\u002F\u002Fbusinessintegrity.unodc.org\u002Fbip\u002Fen\u002Fevents\u002Fprivate-sector-forum.html) to business integrity. More than 500 companies supported a [call to action](https:\u002F\u002Funglobalcompact.org\u002Ftake-action\u002Faction\u002Fanti-corruption-call-to-action) on business integrity, which was presented to government delegates at the CoSP. \n\nUpon taking over the G20 Presidency in December, Brazil [announced](https:\u002F\u002Fb20brazil.org\u002Fintegrity-compliance) that the B20 Integrity & Compliance Task Force would be re-introduced. The Task Force will be led by renowned Brazilian business leader, Claudia Sender, with the Brazilian National Conference of Industry (CNI) leading the B20 overall. \n\nAs the B20 [kicks off](https:\u002F\u002Fb20brazil.org\u002Fevent) in Rio de Janeiro at the end of January, strong participation and engagement of the Brazilian and global business community can be expected – including on the integrity agenda.\n\n### Business integrity: the backbone of the wider business agenda\n\n2023 offered some sobering reminders of the need for continued efforts by companies and governments to manage their corruption risks. A notable example was the corruption case in Portugal’s renewable energy sector, which led to the resignation of the Portuguese prime minister.\n\nFueled by geopolitical tensions, corruption is evolving, and economic, social, and political systems are shifting alongside it. \n\n“To stay abreast of these interconnected challenges, companies need to look beyond their internal processes, to increase their engagement in policy platforms and in spaces for dialogue with their communities”, says Robin Hodess of The B Team, a long standing B20 Task Force member. \n\nActive business participation in multi-stakeholder settings can help ensure that new standards, laws, and policies reflect business realities (including stakeholder demands) and can be effectively implemented. \n\n### The B20 Task Force at the forefront of efforts to advance business integrity\n\nAs a multi-stakeholder group with a strong and international business representation, the B20 Integrity & Compliance Task Force has achieved tangible impacts under previous G20 Presidencies. \n\nFor example, it was one of the first business groups to [recommend the introduction of public digital beneficial ownership registers](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002Fexplore\u002Fb20-g20\u002Fb20-2018-argentina) and transparent and competitive procurement processes. Both of these issues continue to be front and center for business integrity – and corporate transparency is key to global efforts to curb illicit financial flows. \n\nThe B20 also co-authored with the G20 a [guidance document](https:\u002F\u002Firp-cdn.multiscreensite.com\u002Fe0b6c17a\u002Ffiles\u002Fuploaded\u002FB20-G20%20Anti-corruptionToolkit%20for%20SMEs%202015.1.pdf) on Compliance for SMEs and worked on an [Anti-Corruption Technology Road Map](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002F2021-03\u002FB20-Integrity-Compliance-Policy-Paper-30092020.pdf) to promote integrity and compliance. Current debates about the impact of artificial intelligence on business will no doubt have huge implications for business integrity as well in the years to come. \n\nThe ongoing focus on transparency makes business integrity efforts key to the wider agenda for economic transformation, such as the just energy transition. Disclosure on company policies, processes, and impact – whether on anti-corruption or on carbon – helps create accountability, which is [critical for businesses and their commitments to a sustainable economy](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002F2022-11\u002FB20%20I%20and%20C%20summary.pdf), as the Task Force noted across the past few B20 cycles.\n\nTransparency is also a key element for stakeholder engagement, which is increasingly part of the business integrity agenda.\n\n### The B20 is a community of practice not just a process \n\nOne positive takeaway from the hiatus of the Integrity & Compliance Task Force in 2023 was the continued engagement and commitment of previous Task Force members. Together, we worked to integrate key transparency and business integrity topics in other task forces. \n\nAs a group, we have also been proactive and vocal in the process to reinstate the Integrity & Compliance Task Force during the 2023\u002F24 Brazilian B20 Presidency. Members met regularly, despite having no official home in the B20.\n\nWe updated a [guidance document](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002Fexplore\u002Fpublications\u002F1792) that captures a range of good practices and learnings for incoming B20 presidencies, such as:\n\n*   Promoting consistent engagement between the Integrity & Compliance Task Force and the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, which advises the G20 leaders on anti-corruption topics.\n*   Ensuring consistency, continuity, and follow-up across G20\u002FB20 Presidencies, including by tracking progress.\n*   Enhancing governance in Task Force management.\n\nThis all reflects what makes the B20 anti-corruption workstream unique: the voice and historical knowledge of its community. \n\n### Looking forward\n\nThrough the Task Force, the business integrity community is actively engaged in shaping the B20 process rather than the other way around. This allows for community ownership. It also means there is impact on the wider business community beyond the recommendations made to the G20 every year.\n\nUnder the Brazilian leadership, the B20 in 2024 promises a re-invigorated Integrity and Compliance Task Force, whose work is cut out for it. The community of practitioners committed to business integrity is ready for the challenge.\n\nTo find out more about the Integrity and Compliance work at the B20 or to join the informal community, see the Basel Institute’s [resource pages](https:\u002F\u002Fcollective-action.com\u002Fexplore\u002Fb20-g20) and reach out to Robin Hodess, The B Team, [rh@bteam.org](mailto:rh@bteam.org).","2024-01-29","fcpa-blog-strong-leadership-breathes-new-life-into-b20-integrity-amp-compliance-task-force-2598","FCPA Blog: Strong leadership breathes new life into B20 Integrity & Compliance Task Force","https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F5e6e9e50-d014-4914-952a-ca023c123b49?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[254],7138,[70,71],[17],[],2598,[70,71],[],[262,263],1122,1123,[],[23,70],[],"2024-03-19T11:01:32.000Z","3d9ff205-1640-4f34-b5b6-86977f51bbd6","2026-04-15T22:28:52.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Ffcpa-blog-strong-leadership-breathes-new-life-into-b20-integrity-amp-compliance-task-force-2598",{"left":273,"top":273,"width":274,"height":274,"rotate":273,"vFlip":275,"hFlip":275,"body":276},0,20,false,"\u003Cpath fill=\"currentColor\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\" d=\"M17 10a.75.75 0 0 1-.75.75H5.612l4.158 3.96a.75.75 0 1 1-1.04 1.08l-5.5-5.25a.75.75 0 0 1 0-1.08l5.5-5.25a.75.75 0 1 1 1.04 1.08L5.612 9.25H16.25A.75.75 0 0 1 17 10\" clip-rule=\"evenodd\"\u002F>",1780676494287]