1. No category

Conflict of Interest and Corruption:
Lessons Learned from the OECD
Countries
Janos Bertok
Head of Public Sector Integrity Division
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Context: Declining trust in public
institutions
Core principles for managing
conflict of interest
•  OECD Principles to manage CoI and maintain
trust in public institutions
–  Serving the public interest
–  Supporting transparency and scrutiny
–  Promoting individual responsibility and personal
example
–  Fostering an organisational culture which is
intolerant of conflict of interest
Growing grey areas:
how to manage effectively conflict of interest
•  A modern approach to conflict of interest seeks to
strike a balance
–  Identifying risks
–  Prohibiting unacceptable forms of private interest
–  Raising awareness
–  Ensuring effective procedures to resolve CoI situations
•  2014 OECD survey on management of Conflict of
Interest reviewed the data and experiences of 31
countries
Ensuring coherence –
monitoring role for central body
•  Majority of countries have a central function to
manage conflict of interest
Countries with a central function responsible for the
development and maintenance of the CoI policies
Specific CoI policy for particular categories of public officials
Staff in M inisterial c abinet/office
No:
32%
23%
Inspectors a t t he c entral level o f government
29%
Customs officers
32%
Political advisors/appointees
32%
Auditors
39%
Financial market regulators
39%
Tax officials
39%
Procurement officials
45%
Senior public s ervants
Slovenia
Yes:
68%
48%
Ministers
58%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Assessing the impact of preventive measures
not an exception
Countries with diagnostic tools to assess the impact of CoI policies
2012
2014
Yes: 27%
No:
45%
Hungary
Greece
No: 73%
Yes:
55%
Implementing private Interest Disclosure:
accuracy matters
•  Asset and private interest
disclosure is an essential tool
to properly identify and
manage conflicts between
private interest and public
duties
•  Following the collection of
disclosure forms, 63% of
respondents verify receipt of
the forms
•  Only 32% carry out audit or
review the accuracy of the
information
Actions taken after collecting the private information for public
officials in the executive branch
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Verifying receipt of the
submitted
disclosure
form
●
○
●
●
●
○
○
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
○
●
●
▲
".."
●
○
○
○
○
○
○
●
●
●
●
●
Verifying that all required
information was included in the
submitted disclosure form
●
○
○
●
○
○
●
●
●
●
●
●
○
●
○
●
▲
".."
●
○
○
○
○
○
○
●
●
○
●
●
● For all those required to disclose private interest
▲ For some of those required to disclose private interest
○ Action is not taken
Auditing or reviewing the
accuracy of the information
submitted in the disclosure form
●
○
○
●
○
○
▲
○
●
▲
▲
●
○
○
○
●
●
▲
".."
●
○
○
○
○
○
○
●
●
○
●
○
Disclosure of private interests: legislators set
leadership example – judiciary falls much behind
•  The levels are determined by whether public officials are required to
disclose such private interests as their assets, liabilities, income
source and amount, paid and unpaid positions, gifts and previous
employment and make the disclosed information public
Disclosure in Executive: the higher the
position the more transparency is required
High level
100
90
80
70
Medium level
60
Head of t he Executive
50
40
30
Ministers or M embers of Cabinet
Political Advisors / Appointees
Senior Civil Servants
Civil Servants
Low
level
20
10
0
• 
On average, top decision-makers have higher disclosure and public availability level
of private interests.
Raising awareness: from passive
publication to proactive availability
•  81%: Initial
dissemination of CoI
policies upon taking
office and/or new
post
•  71%: Provide training
•  65%: policies
available online for
access by public
officials
Integrity Framework: mainstreaming
integrity measures in daily management
•  In addition to management of CoI, Integrity Framework
fosters a culture of integrity against corruption
Emerging concern: Revolving Door
Restrictions on private sector employees or lobbyists being
hired to fill a post in government
Yes:
35%
Norway
No:
65%
New Zealand
•  The main responsibility of
safeguarding public interests and
rejecting undue influence lies with
those who are lobbied
•  The revolving door phenomenon
continues to pose risks to the
integrity of public decision making
Estonia
•  About one third of OECD countries
have restrictions in place on private
sector employees or lobbyists being
hired to fill a post in government
Making an Integrity Framework effective
•  Training on integrity standards for raising awareness
and build capacity for taking the right decisions
Clear mechanisms to organise a training (e.g. how to train the
trainer, how to decide the topics of the training course, who needs
to attend, etc)
•  Timely advice - solving dilemmas
•  Internal control - identifying risk areas and effective
measures for mitigation
Internal auditing for compliance with integrity measures is crucial
Whistleblower Protection:
broadening the scope
Public sector
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech
Republic
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Slovak
Republic
Slovenia
Switzerland
Turkey
United
Kingdom
United States
OECD24
employees
consultants
suppliers
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
“..”
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
“”..”
●
●
●
●
●
●
Private Sector
temporary
employees
former
employees
●
●
●
●
●
●
employees
consultants
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Former
employees
Volunt
eers
●
●
●
●
●
●
Temporary
employees
●
●
●
●
●
●
suppliers
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
11
10
14
12
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
24
16
12
21
16
16
7
Addressing grey areas:
OECD integrity standards and tools
•  Lobbying
OECD Principles for transparency and integrity in
lobbying
•  Public procurement
Recommendation of the Council on Public
Procurement
•  Financing democracy/Political finance
Framework for supporting better public policies and
averting policy capture
OECD Integrity Review
Lobbying: an accelerated journey
•  In the past five years, the number of countries that have
regulated lobbying practices have almost doubled
Lobbying inside:
Advisory group membership
Public Procurement:
is e-Procurement a solution?
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD 31
Mandatory and
Provided ●
Not mandatory but
provided ◘
Not provided □
Publishing procurement
plans (about forecasted
government needs)
●
◘
●
◘
●
●
□
◘
□
◘
●
●
●
◘
◘
●
□
●
●
●
●
◘
●
□
◘
◘
◘
◘
◘
●
●
Announcing
tenders
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◘
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Provision
of tender
documents
●
●
●
◘
●
◘
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◘
◘
●
◘
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◘
●
●
●
●
●
Electronic
submission of bids
(excluding by emails)
◘
◘
●
□
●
◘
●
◘
●
◘
●
□
◘
●
◘
◘
◘
●
◘
◘
◘
□
●
◘
◘
◘
◘
□
◘
◘
●
15
30
25
12
4
1
0
6
0
Ordering
□
◘
◘
◘
●
◘
□
●
◘
◘
□
□
□
●
◘
◘
□
□
●
◘
◘
□
□
□
◘
◘
◘
●
◘
◘
●
Electronic submission
of invoices (excluding
by emails)
□
●
□
□
□
●
□
●
◘
◘
□
□
□
●
◘
◘
□
□
●
◘
◘
□
□
□
●
●
●
●
□
◘
●
Expost
contract
management
□
◘
□
□
□
◘
□
◘
□
◘
□
□
□
◘
◘
◘
□
□
□
◘
◘
□
□
□
□
□
◘
●
●
□
●
26
6
10
3
4
1
15
10
7
14
10
18
e-tendering
□
◘
●
●
●
◘
●
◘
◘
◘
●
□
●
●
◘
◘
□
●
◘
◘
◘
□
◘
◘
◘
◘
◘
●
◘
◘
●
eauctions (in
e-tendering)
□
□
□
□
□
◘
◘
◘
◘
◘
●
□
◘
◘
□
□
□
●
◘
◘
◘
□
◘
●
●
□
◘
◘
□
◘
●
Notification of
award
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◘
●
●
●
●
◘
◘
●
□
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
◘
●
9
10
5
18
4
17
4
14
12
Public procurement:
Main challenges identified by potential bidders
Low
knowledge/
ICT skills
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD 31
Low knowledge of
the economic
opportunities raised
by this tool
Difficulties to
understand or
apply the
procedure
Difficulties in the use
of functionalities (e.g.
catalogue
management)
Low
propensity to
innovation
Do not
know
No major challenges faced by potential bidders/suppliers
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
14
12
●
13
●
●
13
●
10
7
Financing democracy:
Increasing transparency and accountability
•  Disclosure requirement as a tool for accountability and
transparency in the decision making process
Financing democracy: connecting the
dots for scrutiny remains difficult
•  Identifying individual donors is necessary to track their
record of doing business with the state
OECD Integrity Review: what benefits?
•  Evidence based findings and tailored
recommendations
•  Inclusive processes build consensus and
ownership
•  help policy makers with options for
improving policies, adopt good practices and
implement established principles and
standards
•  OECD Integrity Review of Brazil and Italy
Thank you for your attention
For more information on OECD experience on managing conflict of interest
www.oecd.org/gov/ethics