OUR GLOBAL MOVEMENT
This report focusses on specific corruption risks in major planning decisions, an area where there is often a large amount of money at stake. It is also very contentious, with many new developments resulting in a net loss of social and genuinely affordable housing, which in many areas are in short supply.
To understand what could undermine openness in the planning process and what local authorities are doing to stop this, we have collected evidence from across England. Although there are some examples of good practice, generally the results make for a worrying read.
Unminuted, closed-door meetings with developers and excessive hospitality undoubtedly undermine confidence in the planning process, yet too many local authorities have weak rules to stop this from happening. Even fewer councils have control measures for major conflicts of interest, with far too many decision-makers also working for developers on the side. Moreover, when councillors behave badly, there are no clear or meaningful sanctions available to councils that could act as an effective deterrent against serious misconduct by them or others in the future.
To address these issues we propose ten practical solutions, none of which are beyond the means of those who need to implement them. All reinforce existing guidance and good practice recommended by anti-fraud and corruption initiatives here and internationally. Some even reflect existing practice in particular parts of the UK, such as Scotland.
Open Business sets a new bar for disclosures in anti-corruption and governance and provides an aspirational but achievable roadmap to better corporate practice.
By demonstrating the value of harnessing transparency in these areas, this report shows how companies can embrace transparency to reduce corruption risk while also building consumer and public trust, protecting and building their reputation and gaining a competitive advantage.
Informed by extensive research including in-depth interviews with legal and compliance figures from FTSE 100 companies, insight from some of the world’s biggest institutional investors, and Transparency International’s own anti-corruption expertise, this groundbreaking research:
This major new report from Transparency International – Defense & Security examines the underlying processes and pathways to influence between the American defense export sector, the federal government, the defense bureaucracy, and Middle East and North Africa (MENA) governments. These pathways enable American defense firms to export arms and defense services to MENA countries despite many regimes’ poor human rights and governance records, lack of transparency and accountability, and questionable outcomes for US foreign policy. This not only often leads to poor outcomes for American national security and foreign policy, but it is also harms international peace by helping to fuel conflict and human rights abuses in the MENA region.
A new index of 104 multi-national companies, many of whom regularly meet with Government, has found nearly three quarters are failing to adequately disclose how they engage with politicians. Just one company received the highest grade whilst on average companies were ranked “E” – representing poor standards in transparency.
Launched today by the UK national chapter of Transparency International, the 2018 Corporate Political Engagement Index, assesses businesses on how transparent they are in their political engagement – this includes key areas such as donations to political parties, lobbying of those in power, the revolving door, public commitment to ethical behaviour and the overall transparency of this information.
It is concerning that almost four out of five companies were found to have poor standards in disclosing their lobbying and nearly all ranked poorly for controls on the revolving door. Companies generally scored better for their controls on political donations with 60 per cent achieving at least a C grade.
The index is the culmination of a nine-month process in which all assessed companies were invited to submit evidence. During this period almost a third of companies actively strengthened their political engagement policies and another 17 per cent pledged to do so.
In our report ‘In Whose Interest?’, Transparency International UK has looked at how some parliamentarians are engaging in activity that appears to be supporting or legitimating the actions of corrupt and repressive regimes in Azerbaijan, Russia and Bahrain. Although these case studies reflect a range of engagement – from potentially unknowing legitimation through to seemingly active endorsement – the effect of these activities is to provide a veneer of respectability to foreign regimes that stymie freedom of expression, ride roughshod over the rule of law and abuse their positions of power for personal enrichment.
