I have no doubt that the individuals associated with Transparency International have a genuine interest in reducing bribery and corruption in the global marketplace.
Nevertheless, I have long had good-faith concerns (see prior posts here, here, here, here, here and here) about how TI goes about this task. The latest example is TI’s recent “shaming report” (that is my term, TI technically calls its report “Exporting Corruption – Progress Report 2020″).
The Executive Summary states:
In an annual non-event, last week Transparency International (TI) released its so-called Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) (see here). The CPI scores 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, according to experts and business people. 100 is very clean and 0 is highly corrupt.
According to TI, the CPI 2019 “reveals a staggering number of countries are showing little to no improvement in tackling corruption.”
The CPI generates a lot of media coverage and is a popular tool for business organizations in ranking risk (and thus prioritizing compliance). However, for the reasons highlighted in this post compliance professionals should take the CPI with a grain of salt.
About time, scrutiny updates, ripple, for the record, just saying, and for the reading and listening stack. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.
About Time
After dinging companies for nearly 40 years for internal controls and risk management failures, the SEC names its first chief risk officer.
As highlighted in this prior post, if the SEC were an issuer there would be many books and records and internal controls issues within the organization.
In an annual non-event, yesterday Transparency International (TI) released its so-called Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) (see here). As stated in the TI release, the “CPI measures public sector corruption in 180 countries and territories, drawing on 13 expert assessments and surveys of business executives to give each country a score from zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).”
The CPI generates a lot of media coverage and is a popular tool for business organizations in ranking risk (and thus prioritizing compliance). However, for the reasons highlighted in this post compliance professionals should take the CPI with a grain of salt.
I have no doubt that the individuals associated with Transparency International have a genuine interest in reducing bribery and corruption in the global marketplace.
Nevertheless, I have long had good-faith concerns (see prior posts here, here, here, here, here and here) about how TI goes about this task. The latest example is TI’s recent “shaming report” (that is my term, TI technically calls its report “Exporting Corruption – Progress Report 2018″).
