Beyond Compliance: Why Integrity Systems Deserve Donor Attention

In an era marked by increasing political volatility, shrinking civic space and rapid technological disruption, donors are confronted with a hard truth: Traditional compliance-based approaches to combating corruption are no longer sufficient. The current model that relies on audits, safeguard policies and risk mitigation tools has proven essential but inadequate.

Corruption is not simply a procedural violation; it is a strategic force that shapes institutions, captures public agendas and undermines democratic governance. There is therefore an urgent need for a fundamental shift in how donors understand and support the integrity systems that comprise the institutional, political and social infrastructure necessary for accountability.

These systems cannot be built solely through compliance. They require trust, collaboration, shared responsibility and the courage to challenge the incentives that allow corruption to thrive.

One week after absorbing the energy, insights and thought-provoking discussions at the Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum in Paris — where institutional donors, the private sector, multilateral organizations, public institutions, academics and civil society all gathered — I’ve taken a moment to reflect. The conversations were bold, the alliances surprising and the ideas refreshingly innovative. Below are a few thoughts that stayed with me.

Building trust through dialogue and data

One of the most overlooked challenges in public-private cooperation is a lack of absolute trust. In environments filled with red tape, suspicion often becomes the norm and collaboration is rare. However, when oversight is minimal, unchecked power and manipulation can flourish. A rebalancing is necessary, with clear and consistent standards that are enforced, understood and co-owned.

Donors can facilitate this shift by creating environments where governments, businesses and civil society can engage on equal terms. Trust does not come from audits; it develops when rules are transparent, data is shared, and people perceive systems as fair and decisions as legitimate. Genuine integrity begins with meaningful, institutionalized dialogue and a willingness to use information not only for monitoring but also for reform.

AI & technology: A double-edged sword

Digital tools and artificial intelligence have revolutionized the fight against corruption, providing innovative ways to analyze data, detect fraud and dismantle illicit networks. While this potential for technology to promote good governance is promising, we must remain vigilant, as corrupt actors are also exploiting these same tools to manipulate procurement processes, disseminate misinformation and evade accountability at scale.

The challenge is no longer whether to utilize technology but how to govern it responsibly. Donors can facilitate integrity systems to incorporate ethical technology governance, foster local capacity to engage with AI, and promote cross-border collaboration in digital regulation. We must not fail to act, otherwise we risk allowing digital accountability tools to become instruments of control in the hands of corrupt actors.

The cost of de-risking and the risk of exclusion

In recent years, donor-aligned financial compliance regimes—especially concerning Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism — have led to a phenomenon known as de-risking, where financial institutions withdraw from "high risk" countries or sectors. This has resulted in a quiet crisis of financial exclusion, denying legitimate civil society actors and local institutions access to the global financial system.

This trend represents not just a technical failure but a developmental one. When small and medium enterprises, semi-private community organizations, civil society and reform-minded actors are cut off from financial services, it undermines the very systems we aim to strengthen. It is time for donors to reconsider how compliance frameworks can be adjusted to support both financial integrity and democratic participation.

From data to disruption: Using what we measure

Over the past decade, donors and institutions have invested heavily in corruption measurement tools—including the Corruption Perceptions Index, Worldwide Governance Indicators, Crime Index, Corruption Risk Forecast, Public Integrity Indicators, Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability, Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys and the Open Budget Survey. While these tools are valuable, they only yield benefits if they inform action. Too often, the data collected serves internal reporting needs rather than promoting real policy reform.

Integrity systems require more than just measurement; they require momentum. Donor institutions can create that momentum by aligning funding to use indicators in policymaking, supporting independent civic actors in their data advocacy, and ensuring that integrity tools reflect local realities. Measurement should be a means to disruption, not an end in itself.

Strategic corruption as a national security threat

Today, the most dangerous corruption is not petty theft; it is strategic in nature. This form of corruption is calculated, cross-border and deeply political. It infiltrates democratic institutions, influences public policy and undermines national sovereignty. Yet it is often treated as a secondary development concern rather than the systemic threat it truly represents.

If corruption is wielded as a weapon, it must be addressed systemically. Donor responses should move beyond compliance checklists toward long-term support for reform coalitions, investigative journalism, protected civic spaces and international legal frameworks that hold enablers accountable. This is more than a matter of governance; it's a matter of stability and, ultimately, security.

What lies ahead

What became clear in Paris — and what continues to resonate — is that anti-corruption is not just about managing risk. It’s about confronting the political dynamics that sustain corruption, the technological shifts that accelerate it, and the systems-level inertia that allows it to persist.

For donors, this means shifting from a predominantly technocratic lens to a more political, strategic and context-aware approach. It means asking: Are we enabling genuine systemic change or just funding compliance paperwork? Are we building lasting public integrity or merely reducing reputational exposure?

The global conversation is moving. There’s growing recognition that integrity cannot be imported or enforced from the outside—it must be co-created, politically negotiated and locally anchored. This requires patient capital, long-term engagement and greater trust in civic actors as co-drivers of change. It also demands donor coordination that goes beyond harmonizing tools and templates and towards aligning political leverage to support bold, collective action.

The forum revealed just how fluid boundaries can become when shared purpose takes precedence. The alliances that emerged were unexpected—bridging sectors that don’t often share the same table. Reform-minded civil servants sat alongside private tech innovators and grassroots civic leaders. These weren’t just symbolic gestures; they sparked real discussions and commitments that cut across entrenched silos. For once, actors who rarely find themselves on the same side of the conversation were aligned—not just around problems, but around concrete possibilities to tackle corruption — showing us what a future of collective action could look like.