Authors: Dr. Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Yıldız Özgökçen, Gamze Yalçın and Zeynep Kavuzoğlu of ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law

I. Overview

In 2025, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) released a new report titled “Governments’ assessments of corporate anti-corruption compliance” (“Report”) to help governments evaluate corporate anti-corruption compliance programs [1]. The backdrop for this report is a growing expectation that companies not only adopt compliance programs, but ensure those programs are effectively implemented by companies to prevent corruption. International anti-bribery standards, like the OECD Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions [2], have long emphasized the need to assess whether compliance measures actually work in practice. Yet, as of the report’s writing, few governments had developed comprehensive frameworks for how to define effective compliance or how to review companies’ programs.

The Report therefore aims to support public authorities by mapping existing practices and challenges and by highlighting areas where authorities can build on private-sector experience. It also forms part of a broader OECD project that includes a complementary report titled “Companies’ assessments of anti-corruption compliance [3]”, examining how companies themselves assess the effectiveness of their anti-corruption measures.

The Report starts by outlining the key criteria of an effective corporate anti-corruption compliance program, drawing on the established frameworks of several key jurisdictions, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It then examines the different methodologies and tools governments are currently using to conduct these assessments. Finally, the Report provides a perspective from the private sector, detailing companies' experiences with government assessments and their recommendations for improvement, particularly regarding the use of new technologies and data.

II. Anti-Corruption Compliance Assessment Criteria, Methodologies and Tools

(i) Criteria Set Fort in Previous OECD Guidelines and Comparative Frameworks

As emphasized, The Report begins by recalling the core elements of an effective corporate compliance program. These elements, as set out in the Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics, and Compliance [4], include risk assessments, strong commitment from senior management, clear corporate policies prohibiting corruption, oversight and accountability structures, preventive and detective measures, due diligence on third parties and mergers, documented training and communication, protected reporting mechanisms, and periodic reviews and evaluations. Building on these common elements, it then illustrates how jurisdictions like France, Brazil, the United States, and the United Kingdom have embedded them into their national frameworks.

(ii) Building Government Capacities and Expertise

Having outlined the criteria and comparative approaches, the Report then turns to how governments can strengthen their own capacity to assess compliance programs. According to the Report, authorities face resource and expertise gaps, particularly as compliance systems become more complex. To address this, governments are encouraged to recruit or train staff with corporate compliance backgrounds, develop specialized units, and make use of external expertise such as independent monitors or auditors where needed. The Report also highlights the growing role of digital tools, data analytics, and artificial intelligence in making assessments more efficient and consistent, while noting the importance of safeguards around privacy, data quality, and potential bias.

(iii) Education, Transparency and Feedback

The following section of the Report stresses the value of education, transparency, and feedback loops between governments and companies. Public authorities are advised to explain the rationale for their decisions and publish assessment criteria to foster trust and predictability. Likewise, providing specific feedback to individual companies after audits or investigations helps businesses strengthen their programs. The Report cites examples where agencies refine their official guidance based on lessons learned from past enforcement, consultations with the private sector, and international peer reviews. These practices underline that assessments are not only a control mechanism but also a means of mutual learning, with governments and companies each informing the other’s approach to anti-corruption compliance.

III. Corporate Input on Improving Government Assessments

The final part of the Report deals with companies’ experiences with government assessments. Businesses broadly agree that purely formalistic “tick-box” approaches are ineffective. However, views diverge: smaller companies would welcome more detailed and prescriptive guidance, while larger multinational companies prefer outcome-based frameworks that preserve flexibility. This divergence suggests that governments may need to tailor their guidance depending on company size and capacity.

Companies further suggest that governments should design incentives to encourage continuous improvement and recognize innovative practices in compliance assessments. They also stress the importance of leveraging data analytics and artificial intelligence in collaboration with the private sector, both to enhance the objectivity of assessments and to identify broader compliance patterns. They recommend closer collaboration between public authorities and businesses to build on these practices, ensuring that compliance assessments reflect both regulatory expectations and practical experience.

Companies also recommend that governments increase transparency by publishing the rationale behind decisions and providing specific feedback after audits or enforcement actions. Sharing lessons learned from past cases can help the private sector align its programs more closely with regulatory expectations. Finally, companies encourage greater use of international cooperation to harmonize criteria and methodologies, reducing uncertainty for firms operating across borders.

IV. Conclusion

Overall, the OECD’s 2025 Report provides comprehensive guidance on how governments approach the assessment of corporate anti-corruption compliance. It confirms a broad convergence on the fundamental criteria but also highlights significant differences in methodologies and enforcement approaches across jurisdictions. The Report further shows that technology, transparency, and structured engagement with the private sector are becoming essential components of effective oversight. By grounding oversight in both international standards and corporate experience, the OECD aims to foster a global environment where anti-corruption compliance is not merely a formality but an evolving, effective practice.

Footnotes

[1] Governments’ assessments of corporate anti-corruption compliance,

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/03/governments-assessments-of-corporate-anti-corruption-compliance_6100e758/e798903c-en.pdf (last visited Aug. 27, 2025).

[2] Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0378 (last visited Aug. 27, 2025).

[3] Companies’ assessments of anti-corruption compliance

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/03/companies-assessments-of-anti-corruption-compliance_363b6821/977ed5a8-en.pdf (last visited Aug. 27, 2025).

[4] Annex II of Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0378 (last visited Aug. 27, 2025).