Transparency International

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries and territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index – a combination of polls – drawing on corruption-related data collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI reflects the views of observers from around the world.[25]

The Corruption Perceptions Index has received criticism over the years. The main one stems from the difficulty in measuring corruption, which by definition happens behind the scenes. The Corruption Perceptions Index therefore needs to rely on third-party survey which have been criticized as potentially unreliable. Data can vary widely depending on the public perception of a country, the completeness of the surveys and the methodology used. The second issue is that data cannot be compared from year to year because Transparency International uses different methodologies and samples every year. This makes it difficult to evaluate the result of new policies.[26] The Corruption Perceptions Index authors replied to these criticisms by reminding that the Corruption Perceptions Index is meant to measure perception and not "reality". They argue that "perceptions matter in their own right, since... firms and individuals take actions based on perceptions".[27]

• The Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) is a survey that asks citizens about their direct personal experience of corruption in their daily lives.[28]
• The Global Corruption Report picks a specific topic like corruption in climate change for example and provides in-depth research.[29]
• National integrity system assessments are designed to provide comprehensive analysis on a given country's mechanisms to fight corruption.[30]
• In 2013, Transparency International published the Government Defence Anti-corruption Index with which corruption in the defence sector of 82 countries was measured.[31] Some governments have expressed criticism towards the methodology of the report. Mark Pyman, the founder of TI's Defence & Security program, defended the report in an interview and stressed the importance of transparency in the military sector. The plan is to publish the index every two years.[32]

In August 2019 whistleblower accounts from seven current and former TI Secretariat staff emerged alleging a “toxic” workplace culture under the current Managing Director, Patricia Moreira. Reported in The Guardian, the alleged misconduct reported ranged from gagging orders in termination agreements, to bullying and harassment of critical internal voices.[37] Moreira and other senior managers were alleged to have targeted dissident staff members and bullied them toward resignation. The report cited a staff survey carried out by works council staff representatives, which found that 66% of 92 respondents had observed or experienced bullying at TI and one in five felt sexual harassment to be a problem.[37]

Transparency International Ireland made a protected disclosure on behalf of the whistleblowers to the international board of TI in August 2019, calling for an investigation into the alleged misconduct.[38] Transparency International announced an investigation into the whistleblower reports within days, stating that “[W]e are absolutely committed to transparently addressing any failings. If misconduct is found, at any level of the organization, it will not be tolerated.”[39] Two investigations followed, conducted by law firm Taylor Wessing and Transparency International's Ethics Panel. The investigations showed that the principles of Transparency international were not uphold and that a particular case had resulted in the creation of a “hostile and offensive environment”.[40][41]

The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung simultaneously reported that Transparency International dismissed Moreira “without giving any reasons”. The article added that under Moreira's tenure, “dozens of employees, including high-ranking ones, have left the organisation in recent years. Even long-standing and deeply committed employees complain that TI is involved in political intrigues in which some are only interested in their own progress. For a non-governmental organization whose goal is to fight corruption around the world, and which collects millions of dollars in funding from governments and companies every year, this is a disturbing finding."[42]

Following Moreira's dismissal the Senior Management Team of Monika Ebert, Rute Caldeira, and Maximilian Heywood[43] was dissolved in April 2020.[41] Daniel Eriksson was appointed Interim Managing Director in March 2020.[44]

In January 2017, the TI Secretariat confirmed that its International Board of Directors decided on 10 January 2017 to strip its US affiliate – Transparency International USA – of its accreditation as the National Chapter in the United States.[8] The stated basis for the dis-accreditation was the board's recognition of differences in philosophies, strategies, and priorities between the former chapter and the Transparency International Movement. Elsewhere, it was reported that TI-USA came to be seen in the United States as a corporate front group, funded by multinational corporations. TI-USA's funding was provided by Bechtel Corporation, Deloitte, Google, Pfizer ($50,000 or more), Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Fluor, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Marsh & McLennan, PepsiCo, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Raytheon, Realogy, Tyco ($25,000–$49,999), and Freeport-McMoRan and Johnson & Johnson (up to $24,999).[45] TI-USA previously awarded an annual corporate leadership award to one of its big corporate funders. In 2016, this award went to Bechtel. In April 2015 the Secretariat defended the decision by TI-USA to give Hillary Clinton its Integrity Award in 2012.[46]

Due to a "lack of confidence", TI's chapter in Croatia was disaccredited by the organization's board of directors in November 2015.[47] The previous year, several leaders of the Croatia chapter challenged the legality of the chapter president's election. The president was accused of falsifying records, conflicts of interest, and arbitrarily expelling 10 chapter members who opposed the hiring of staff against the organization's rules. The Croatian government eventually revoked the president's appointment.[48]

In August 2015 former TI staffer Anna Buzzoni went public regarding retaliation she and her colleagues faced after reporting to managers questionable financial dealings at TI's Water Integrity Network.[49] Two of Buzzoni's project responsibilities were suspended and she was transferred against her will. She left TI shortly before internal whistleblower guidelines were adopted in June 2014.[50]

In January 2015 it was reported that Transparency International accepted $3 million from the German engineering multinational Siemens, which in 2008 paid one of the largest corporate corruption fines[51] in history – $1.6 billion – for bribing government officials in numerous countries. In 2014, Siemens made the donation Transparency International after pleading guilty in 2008 to bribery charges relating to widespread corrupt practices in Greece, Norway, Iraq, Vietnam, Italy, Israel, Argentina, Venezuela, China and Russia.[52] Transparency International applied for and received the funding from Siemens, even though TI's due diligence procedures[53] prohibit the organization from accepting money from corporations that want to "greenwash" their reputations by making donations to TI. "If any corporate donor is accused of having been involved in corruption, the donor can expect no protection from TI," the procedures state. Transparency International received the funding from the Siemens Integrity Initiative[54] about a year after the Initiative hired former TI staffer Jana Mittermaier, raising questions of a "revolving door" that has benefited both the organization and the company. Several of TI's national chapters also have accepted money from Siemens: $660,000 for TI USA, $600,000 for TI Italy, $450,000 for TI Bulgaria, and $230,000 for TI Mexico – each for a period of three years. "This really shows that Transparency International is not as pure as people think," a TI insider told Corporate Crime Reporter. Transparency International Managing Director at the time, Cobus de Swardt, said, "We did not file an application to Siemens, we applied to the Siemens Integrity Initiative. There's a difference. We have not applied to Siemens." However, according to Siemens, the money for these grants is "provided by Siemens".[55][56][57]

At its annual members' meeting in November 2013 in Berlin, Transparency International's national chapters from Germany and Ireland proposed a resolution calling for the "end of the prosecution of Edward J. Snowden... He should be recognized as a whistleblower for his help to reveal the over-reaching and unlawful surveillance by secret services... He symbolizes the courage of numerous other whistleblowers around the world."[58]

The final resolution that was passed by the plenary excluded any reference to Snowden, and excluded a call for "comprehensive protection on whistleblowers from all forms of retaliation". The original resolution was weakened following the intervention of the USA chapter.[59] Five months earlier, in June 2013, representatives from Transparency International declined Snowden's request to meet him at the Moscow airport. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch met Snowden to support his asylum request, but Transparency International refused.