Whole-of-Society

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity calls on adherents to “promote a whole-of-society culture of public integrity partnering with the private sector, civil society, and individuals, in particular through:

a) Recognising in the public integrity system the role of the private sector, civil society and individuals in respecting public integrity values in their interactions with the public sector, in particular by encouraging the private sector, civil society and individuals to uphold those values as a shared responsibility;

b) Engaging relevant stakeholders in the development, regular update and implementation of the public integrity system;

c) Raising awareness in society of the benefits of public integrity and reducing tolerance of violations of public integrity standards and carrying out, where appropriate, campaigns to promote civic education on public integrity, among individuals and particularly in schools;

d) Engaging the private sector and civil society on the complementary benefits to public integrity that arise from upholding integrity in business and in non-profit activities, sharing and building on, lessons learned from good practices.”

Questions for self-assessment:

1. Are public integrity standards established in the legislative framework and implemented in companies?

Public integrity standards for companies are not established in the legislative framework. Companies do not have any voluntary compliance or due diligence programmes.
Bribery of domestic and foreign public officials are criminal offences, but the legislative framework includes limited, if any, provisions on responsible influence and responsible business conduct. Sanctions and incentives are rarely if ever, used to promote compliance. The legislative framework does not require domestic companies to develop corresponding measures to comply with legislation. Multinational companies operating in the country have compliance programmes in place.
In addition to criminalising bribery, the legislative framework includes provisions to promote responsible influence and responsible business conduct. The legislative framework requires companies to establish anti-corruption compliance programmes and due diligence measures, but the government does not provide guidance to support coherency amongst the programmes. Some sanctions and incentives are used to promote compliance. In compliance with the legislative framework, companies view compliance and due diligence programmes as “check the box” exercises, and limited efforts are made to mainstream public integrity values into core business activities.
In addition to established public integrity standards in the legislative framework, guidance from government supports companies in implementing a coherent and comprehensive approach to managing public integrity within their organisations. The government regularly uses the appropriate sanctions and incentives to promote compliance with the legislative framework. Compliance programmes within companies are mainstreamed into broader practices, and the organisation’s culture reflects public integrity commitments.

2. Are public integrity standards established in the legislative framework and implemented in civil society organisations?

Public integrity standards for civil society organisations are not established in the legislative framework . The internal regulations of the CSO do not define integrity standards.
The legislative framework includes anti-bribery provisions, but does not require CSOs to implement other public integrity standards. CSOs are not required to implement effective governance structures. The internal regulations of the CSO define anti-bribery standards, but do not define other integrity standards.
The legislative framework includes anti-bribery provisions and public integrity standards. The internal regulations of the CSO define anti-bribery and public integrity standards, but there is limited guidance available to support implementation.
The legislative framework includes anti-bribery provisions and public integrity standards. The internal regulations of the CSO define anti-bribery and public integrity standards, and there is clear guidance available to support implementation. Management within CSOs view public integrity principles as essential to achieving their core missions and support implementation across the organisation.

3. Are awareness-raising campaigns on public integrity in place to support individuals in upholding public integrity?

Awareness-raising campaigns for public integrity are not used.
Occasionally, awareness-raising campaigns for public integrity take place, but focus on harmful impacts and sensationalise the issue. The core challenges faced in society do not inform the campaign’s content. Only one method of awareness-raising is used.
Regular awareness-raising campaigns take place. Key messages are tailored to the general public, and focus on information about the issue, with limited emphasis on encouraging individual and community responsibility for change. Awareness-raising campaigns remain limited to one or two methods.
Regular awareness-raising campaigns take place, and are sustained over time. They are tailored to different audiences and key messages are used to generate community responsibility, increase a feeling of empowerment, and encourage individuals to take action. A range of methods, which are tailored to the audience, are used and focus on a broad range of public integrity issues.

4. Are civic education programmes for primary and secondary students in place to support dissemination of public integrity values?

Civic education programmes on public integrity for primary and secondary students are not in place to support dissemination of public integrity values.
Civic education programmes on public integrity for primary and secondary students are offered by an external body, such as a CSO or anti-corruption agency. The programme is optional and extracurricular. The programmes are limited to sharing knowledge about corruption, its forms and impact on society. There are no opportunities for students to engage in “skills building” activities. Assessment only looks at student’s perceptions of training.
Civic education programmes on public integrity for primary and secondary students are part of a broader civics or ethics course in the school curriculum, or delivered by an anti-corruption agency as a module in the civics or ethics course. The programme is either optional or mandatory. “Skills building” opportunities are part of the programme, and students can participate in “real life” cases to build knowledge and skills, on a voluntary basis. Knowledge and skills are assessed with in-class exams.
Public integrity concepts are incorporated into the curriculum, as part of the broader core curriculum (e.g. students learn about public integrity values in language, math, science, history and other courses). Within these courses, “skills building” opportunities focus on real life cases and engage students in applying their knowledge and skills. Knowledge, skills and behaviours are assessed, with evaluation systems designed to measure student behaviour, knowledge and skills on public integrity.

5. Do educators receive training on how to teach public integrity concepts in the classroom?

Civic education programmes on public integrity for primary and secondary students are not in place to support dissemination of public integrity values. There are no pre-service or in-service training opportunities for educators.
School educators are not engaged, as external trainers carry out the programme. “Train-the-trainer” initiatives are not in place.
School educators receive formal in-service training if they are required to teach the courses. “Train-the-trainer” initiatives exist if the external anti-corruption body carries out the course.
School educators receive formal training prior to and during their professional duties. Training includes building skills and capacity to handle complex issues in the classroom.

Loading...