v. reports on enforcement in oecd convention countries - Begroting

III. MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
& RECOMMENDATIONS
MAJOR FINDINGS
Active Enforcement: Seven countries: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom and
United States
Moderate Enforcement: Nine countries: Argentina, Belgium, Finland, France, Japan, Korea (South), Netherlands,
Spain and Sweden
Little or No Enforcement: 21 countries: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, South Africa and Turkey
The data on which these fi ndings are based are shown in Tables A and B on pages 8 and 9. The basis for the
individual country classifi cations is shown at the beginning of each country report in Section V.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
No overall progress in last year: There has been no progress since TI’s 2010 progress report in the number of
countries with active enforcement, which remains at seven; or those with moderate enforcement, which remains
at nine. There is little or no enforcement in twenty-one countries. All of the countries have remained in the same
category as reported in 2010. When compared with the record of improving enforcement recorded in TI’s six
prior <strong>reports</strong>, the lack of progress in 2010 is disappointing and raises concern that the Convention may be losing
momentum. It is particularly disturbing that there are still twenty-one countries with little or no enforcement a
decade after the Convention entered into force.
Risk of loss of momentum: The Convention has not yet reached the point at which the prohibition of foreign
bribery is consistently enforced. With little or no enforcement by half of the signatory governments, backsliding
by enforcing governments is a serious threat. This concern is aggravated in a troubled global economy in which
companies are scrambling for business. Business organisations have increasingly criticised anti-bribery enforcement
as a competitive obstacle. The present position of the Convention is unstable, and unless forward momentum is
recovered, the progress made in the past decade could unravel.
Lack of political commitment: Reviews conducted by TI experts indicate that the principal cause of lagging
enforcement is lack of political commitment by government leaders. In countries where there is committed political
leadership, the OECD’s rigorous monitoring programme has helped improve laws and enforcement programmes.
However, in the absence of political will, even repeated OECD reviews have little effect.
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
High-level political action is necessary to strengthen enforcement: Overcoming the lack of political commitment
requires action at a higher political level than can be reached by the Working Group <strong>reports</strong>. This will require the
active involvement of the OECD Ministerial Council, the Secretary-General, and government leaders as well as CEOs
from countries committed to enforcement.
Twelve-month action programme: The OECD Ministerial on 25-26 May 2011 should launch a programme to
strengthen enforcement of the Convention by laggard governments consisting of the following steps:
• Governments with lagging enforcement should promptly prepare plans for strengthening enforcement and a
timetable for such action.
• The Secretary-General and the Chairman of the Working Group on Bribery should meet with top leaders of
governments with lagging enforcement to review plans and timetable for strengthening enforcement.
• A full review of the status of foreign bribery enforcement should take place at the May 2012 Ministerial.
• The Working Group on Bribery should publish a list of governments with lagging enforcement. This would make
clear that a higher level of due diligence is needed to do business with companies based in these countries.
Progress Report 2011: Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
5