The Art of Antagonistic Cooperation: The Multi-Stakeholder Approach of Transparency International in 7 Steps
When I moved in 1988 to Nairobi as the director of the World Bank Regional Office for East Africa, a prominent Kenyan businessman and auditor became one of my best teachers about Africa: Joe Githongo, father of John Githongo, a true leader in the anti-corruption movement.
One day over lunch at Red Bull restaurant in downtown Nairobi, we lamented that systematic corruption was undermining all aspects of development throughout the region. Everything we wanted to achieve in reducing poverty and increasing economic growth stalled at the hands of corruption.
We quickly realised that to make any progress, we had to make some serious systematic changes, and we dreamt of developing a system to empower citizens across the continent to fight the ravages of corruption.
Step one: Create an original anti-bribery pledge
We felt that, in particular, the business community should have an interest in a corruption-free market. Businesses thrive in free and open competition, so why not start our anti-corruption efforts with them?
Our vision for engaging businesses was simple. Enable all suppliers and investors competing for projects to do so on a level playing field. If businesses would end bribery practices simultaneously, no one business would be vulnerable to being out-bribed by a competitor.
To turn this vision into reality, we spoke with business leaders and governments across the world, and proposed that they commit to no-bribery pledges in concrete competitive situations. To hold businesses accountable, we proposed setting up a monitoring system called “Business Practice Monitor” to track the implementation of their pledges.
Step two: Stand up to the establishment
While these ideas were initially well-received by many colleagues working across Africa, I subsequently received a disturbing message from both the legal department and senior leadership at the World Bank urging me to stop.
A memorandum from the legal team claimed my anti-corruption work was “forbidden by the Bank’s charter” and when I continued this work on my own time, the President of the World Bank reached out to express his disapproval. His citing my work as an embarrassment to the institution itself, left me in an untenable position. To continue to fight corruption, I had to leave the Bank.
Step three: Build an institution
In 1993, together with other leaders and activists in the anti-corruption movement, I officially launched a new organisation called Transparency International.
Based in Berlin, Germany, this new organisation would focus on anti-corruption issues and work closely with businesses and governments to garner support, while maintaining its independence.
A huge problem soon emerged: at the time, many governments, including most of the members of the World Bank, thought that foreign bribery was unavoidable — and therefore permitted. With that mindset heavily engrained in the global market, it’s no wonder that so many international operators — in Germany, France, the U.K. and Scandinavia alike — viewed bribes as a necessary cost of doing business. It was even tax deductible as a normal business expense.
Step four: Collaborate and brainstorm solutions
We realised a prisoner’s dilemma was at work. No one company or exporting country wanted to be first to stop paying bribes and risk being sidelined. This made it very difficult for an individual company or country to say, ‘We are not going to continue this deadly, disastrous habit of bribing large companies.’
That is where Transparency International came in. We became an intermediary, speaking with companies and governments to better understand the issues they face, and together, develop solutions that could accommodate their interests. As a result, we spoke with companies and trade associations, attended conferences and global fora, and organized meetings, to build a multi-stakeholder dialogue around anti-corruption.
One of the most striking examples of this approach was in Berlin, where we organized a series of meetings at the Aspen Institute, with business and government leaders about the need for joint anti-corruption activities. Following these meetings, business leaders sent an open letter to the German government, urging it to join efforts with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to stop bribery of foreign officials.
The letter, which drew on the success of our original anti-bribery pledge, aimed to convince political leaders that through collective action, corruption could be overcome. Thanks to our efforts, Germany joined the OECD convention in 1997.
Step five: Work with partners, even when it’s hard
Talking to other actors to build momentum and create consensus, remains one of the key principles of Transparency International. It is the reason why we’re able to play the role of global convener, whether through our work with international banks to fight money laundering, with electrical works companies, or with oil, gas and mining companies to improve governance and prevent corruption in their sectors.
Of course, working with multiple partners can also lead to problems and criticism. For example, when Siemens became a corporate partner, Transparency International was criticized for providing a fig leaf to them. Yet, I feel it was right at the time to engage with Siemens, which played an essential role in getting the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention on the books. Not all journeys are easy however, and a major bribery scandal in 2008 threatened to undo a lot of Siemens’ previous work. The company has since undergone a major transformation and has become one of the most important allies in fighting corruption.
Step six: Walk the line between watchdog and facilitator
In our early discussions about the role of Transparency International, we understood the strong tension between cooperating with business and governments, and investigating individuals for prosecution, while blaming and shaming those same individuals to achieve results.
When the organization launched 25 years ago, Ian Martin, former chair of Amnesty International, warned against the risks of investigating and accusing individuals. Those who call for investigations into corrupt individuals, including anti-corruption fighters and civil society organizations, are often harassed, and in some cases as we have seen recently, even murdered for speaking out and challenging powerful elites.
Amnesty International managed this risk by preventing its national chapters from investigating human rights violations in their own countries. In contrast, Transparency International counts on its chapters to investigate and address corruption in their respective countries.
Our campaign against impunity, which launched in 2014, brought this tension to the fore and highlighted a desire to pursue criminal sanctions rather than seeing them only as part of a holistic integrity system. Assuming the role of “global prosecutor” against corruption, at times, contradicted the institution building and holistic approach to systemic change that we emphasized so successfully in previous years.
Step seven: Promote a “Triangle of Good Governance”
In my view, the openness to cooperation, albeit at times antagonistic cooperation, with business and governments has served the anti-corruption movement well, and I hope that we continue to strike the ‘right balance’ as new challenges present themselves in the future.
In the meantime, our concept of cooperation as independent civil society actors with business and governance, the “triangle of good governance”, has become a guiding principle in a number of successful multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as the extractive industries transparency initiative, open governance and fisheries transparency initiatives.
The need for anti-corruption work will not end overnight, and in a dynamic global movement such as Transparency International, we have the ability to find the right balance between cooperation and confrontation for the challenges ahead.
