Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 (February 2025), ranks 180 countries based on public-sector perceived corruption, drawing on 13 independent data sources. Countries are scored on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating high corruption and 100 low corruption.
Human Level’s Take:
- The anti-corruption agenda has taken some hits lately (namely: the suspension of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the U.S.). But Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) underscores that anti-corruption is the linchpin of other global priorities like democracy, human rights and climate change.
- The central theme of the 2024 CPI is the connection between corruption and the climate crisis – one of today’s most pressing challenges. Corruption hinders progress in reducing emissions and adapting to the inevitable impacts of global warming. It misdirects resources, enables harmful practices, obstructs regulations and stalls overall progress. Inadequate transparency and accountability mechanisms increase the risk that climate funds are misused or embezzled.
- But anti-corruption is not just good for people and planet — it also creates a level playing field and operating environment in which business can thrive. So, what can companies learn from this report?
- First, companies can prioritise transparency and robust anti-corruption measures in climate policies and projects to ensure effective climate action and build trust in sustainability efforts. They can also refrain from lobbying for policies that enable corrupt practices or deter climate action
- Second, companies can support stronger accountability mechanisms to prevent financial losses and ensure resources reach those most affected by climate change, especially in vulnerable regions. For example, they can create and strengthen grievance mechanisms for local communities and effectively implement whistleblower protection and non-retaliation policies and processes for those who speak out.
- Third, companies can proactively assess and prevent exposure to corrupt practices, especially in high-risk sectors for corruption like energy and finance. And, they can prioritise compliance and ethical practices while supporting stronger regulatory enforcement.
Some key takeaways:
- Democracies, strong institutions and control of corruption: The CPI highlights a clear link between democracies and the fight against corruption. Full democracies score highest (73), flawed democracies lower (47), and authoritarian regimes lowest (33). More than two-thirds of countries score below the midpoint on the CPI. While some non-democratic countries may appear to manage certain forms of corruption, strong institutions and civic freedoms (expression, assembly and association) are crucial to combating corruption effectively. For the seventh consecutive year, Denmark ranks first with a score of 90, followed by Finland (88) and Singapore (84). New Zealand (83) drops out of the top three for the first time since 2012 but remains in the top 10 alongside Luxembourg (81), Norway (81), Switzerland (81), Sweden (80), the Netherlands (78), Australia (77), Iceland (77) and Ireland (77). At the bottom of the index are countries facing conflict, restricted freedoms and weak institutions, with South Sudan (8), Somalia (9) and Venezuela (10) scoring the lowest.
- Links between corruption and the climate crisis: The report emphasises the close connection between corruption and the climate crisis. Corruption weakens governance, diverts climate funds and compromises transparency, leading to environmental harm and unfair policies. While billions of people around the world face the daily consequences of climate change, resources for adaptation and mitigation remain woefully inadequate. Even in low-corruption nations, lobbying by corporate interests can hinder effective climate action. Corruption also worsens the marginalisation of vulnerable populations, making inclusive, transparent climate policies essential. Without strong national anti-corruption measures, global climate agreements like the Paris Agreement remain at risk. According to the report, corruption contributes to the climate crisis in several ways: (1) Undue influence on climate policies and decision-making: corruption undermines climate policies by enabling undue influence from powerful industries, especially fossil fuel and car manufacturers sectors, to weaken regulations and delay emissions reductions. (2) Embezzlement and misuse of funds: the lack of transparency in climate finance enables funds to be misappropriated, reducing their effectiveness. (3) Weak environmental protection: bribery and corruption undermine enforcement of environmental laws, enabling unsustainable resource exploitation and environmental crimes. (4) Threats to activists: in high-corruption countries, land and environmental defenders face violence and intimidation. In the last five years, more than 1,000 defenders have been killed, almost all of them in countries with CPI scores below 50.
- Recommendations for companies to address corruption and climate crisis challenges: The report outlines recommendations for all global actors, including governments, international organisations and business. First, actors should put integrity at the centre of climate impact, establishing safeguards to prevent theft, undue influence on policy and other abuses that can weaken countries’ response to the climate crisis. Second, achieving stronger access to justice, by enhancing investigations, sanctions and other corruption responses, could deter environmental crimes and impunity. In particular, grievance mechanisms should be made available to local communities, and defenders and whistleblowers need protection from retaliation by public and private actors. Third, there is a need for better guarding of climate policymaking processes against undue influence and corporate capture. This could be supported by bolstering transparency and inclusivity in climate policies and allocation of funds for climate responses. Strong mechanisms for public disclosures could deter conflicts of interest. Fourth, actors should strengthen citizen engagement in climate investments by making information on climate finance, projects and contracts public and easily accessible. Approaches like Just Energy Transition Partnerships can increase both inclusivity and oversight.
