Construction And The Demand For Business Transpare

According to the Bribe Payers Index, the most flagrant corruption is seen in public works, construction and in the arms trade, industrial sectors plagued by endemic bribery.

Transparency International has published its latest report on Global Corruption which contains numbers of lurid stories about pay-offs on a monumental scale - for example the Minister in the French Government whose mistress passed on to him some of the dubious benefits of having extracted 65 million francs from an unnamed source to induce him to change government policy to allow the sale of frigates to Taiwan.

The document contains a table showing that heads of ten governments - not necessarily the most corrupt - between them succeeded in embezzling from their national economies more than $30 billion over a period of some 20 years.

There are also stories of great courage in resisting the tide of corruption - the brave stand for instance taken by Dora Akunyili, Director-General of Nigeria's National Agency for Food and Drug Administration.

Last year Dora was winner of a TI Integrity Award.

The citation says that she earned nation-wide respect for her persistence in prosecuting illegal drug traders and imposing strict standards on multinational companies.

In the United Kingdom, Transparency International is currently working on an initiative directed to the elimination of corruption in the domestic as well as the international construction and engineering industries.

Public works and construction does not have a good reputation for probity on the international scene.

According to the Bribe Payers Index for 2002, the most flagrant corruption is seen in public works, construction and in the arms trade, industrial sectors plagued by endemic bribery.

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention of 1997 outlaws bribery of foreign public officials and a number of bribe-paying countries are signatories of that convention.

Conventions are however no guarantee that bribery will be curbed, let alone eliminated.

As the latest Transparency International report says, the OECD Convention was widely hailed as a most promising development in the fight against international corruption, raising the hope that the supply side of international bribery would be sharply reduced.

All 35 signatories have passed laws making foreign bribery a crime, but there has been little enforcement of the new laws by national governments, other than by the United States.

There have been a number of opportunities recently for governments and international funding organisations to take action against firms proved to have been involved in corruption over the award and administration of major construction contracts.

The restraining factor here is that punishment on top of that already inflicted by the courts threatens further damage to groups of talented constructors and engineers whose misfortune has been to be caught up in foolish attempts to defend the indefensible.

Much better when found out to own up and pay up, as one or two firms in the international construction business have done recently.

This kind of response to allegations of corruption has proved much cheaper than a long fight against an honest judge and attracts much less damaging publicity.

As Transparency's U.K.

campaign points out, it is now a crime for a U.K.

corporation or national to pay or receive a bribe, even if the offence takes place entirely outside the UK.

Similar laws now apply in other OECD countries.

But events show that these powers are rarely used by governments who are wary of taking actions against their own nationals which may weaken the home country's industrial and export potential.

Policy issues for the professional institutions.

What should be the attitude and policy of the professional institutions over these difficult questions? Asked for his views, Chris Blythe, CIOB's Chief Executive, said as one might expect that CIOB does not condone corrupt practice and would welcome the prosecution of anyone suspected of corruption.

But Mr Blythe said that Transparency International is extending the term corruption into areas which for many are the normal set of business activities, where issues are typically resolved through the adversarial approach to doing business.

"The problem comes when we go into the grey areas where negotiations take place.

For example, it has been known in litigation for each side to engage expert witnesses to support their view, knowing full well that other 'experts' do not support their view.

The definition of corruption by Neill Stansbury [compiler of the Transparency UK anti-corruption initiative] extends to this behaviour.

"It would come as a shock to a lot of people to discover that what they are doing is essentially supporting corrupt behaviour as opposed to winning a dispute.

You only have to read the analyses of cases by Tony Bingham and others to conclude that it's more often cock-up rather than conspiracy.

My experience tends to favour that view of things.

"Our rules of professional competence and conduct make it very clear that members found guilty of a criminal offence such as a conviction for bribery would lose their membership of the Institute.

If it was the Institute that suspected corruption, then it would be our duty to report it to the authorities.

"But it is not the job of professional bodies to usurp the authority of the courts.

If people become aware of corrupt practice then it should be reported to the authorities first and foremost." This is why initiatives that arise within the industry itself, such as the declaration that emerged from the World Economic Forum in January, are more appropriate for endorsement by the professional institutions.

CIOB gave its immediate support to the Davos statement which commits a growing number of international construction companies to a 'zero tolerance' policy on bribery and the development of an effective programme of internal systems and controls for implementing that policy.

This has come about because business leaders in the construction and engineering industries are now much more aware of the damage that corruption inflicts on economic progress and national development.

In efforts to combat it they are working in close association with Transparency International.

But changing the adversarial culture of the industry is a different issue, and again the initiatives and policies to bring about the desired change have arisen within the industry itself.

This is the only way that real progress will be made towards reforming a construction culture hallowed by custom and practice.

Back to top