Maintaining effective disciplinary systems is essential for building a strong, values-based culture of public integrity in the national civil service. Appropriate disciplinary procedures help civil servants understand standards of conduct and ensure they continue to act with integrity. While most OECD Member and partner countries have clear regulations on disciplinary procedures for civil servants, they could be better supported through stronger fairness guarantees. In addition, improved training on disciplinary investigations and use of digital tools could strengthen implementation of disciplinary measures in practice.
Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026
Harnessing the Integrity Advantage
Abstract
Disciplinary systems are the necessary “teeth” of any country’s public integrity system and are among the principal means by which governments can ensure compliance and deter misconduct. If carried out in a fair, co-ordinated, transparent and timely manner, disciplinary mechanisms can promote confidence in the government’s public integrity system, strengthening its legitimacy over time and helping to instil integrity values in individuals, organisations and society (OECD, 2020[14]). The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity calls on countries to ensure that enforcement mechanisms, including disciplinary measures for civil servants, apply fairness, objectivity and timeliness in the enforcement of public integrity standards (including detecting, investigating, sanctioning and appeal). The Recommendation also calls on countries to encourage transparency within public sector organisations and to the public about the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms, including disciplinary processes and the outcomes of cases, in particular through developing relevant statistical data on cases, while respecting confidentiality and other relevant legal provisions (OECD, 2017[11]).
Maintaining effective disciplinary frameworks in countries’ national civil service contributes to enforcing public integrity rules and standards. While they could be supported by other mechanisms to prevent corruption and build cultures of integrity, as explored further in other chapters, disciplinary frameworks are essential for safeguarding integrity and the rule of law in the civil service.
This chapter explores how the integrity safeguards of OECD Member and partner countries’ disciplinary measures for civil servants are performing. It shows that:
While most OECD Member and partner countries have clear regulations on disciplinary procedures for civil servants, they could be better supported through stronger fairness guarantees,
Improved training on disciplinary investigations and use of digital tools could strengthen implementation of disciplinary measures in practice.
Across OECD Member countries, legislation commonly sets out the basic disciplinary system for civil servants. In most OECD Member countries (97%), the disciplinary procedure is established in law, and most (84%) countries’ regulations define a disciplinary offence. In 81% of OECD Members, regulations establish a range of disciplinary sanctions for each type of disciplinary offence. There is a statute of limitations in 68% of OECD Members and 87% of OECD partner countries ranging on average from a period of 1 month to 3 years, with some countries reaching up to 7 and 10 years, depending on the severity of the disciplinary offence and the complexity of the case (Table 7.1).
Note: The table presents data based on the following 31 OECD Member countries assessed in 2025: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United States. Data not provided for Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Data for OECD partner countries are calculated based on the following 15 countries assessed in 2025: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Moldova, Peru, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
In addition, the length of the statute of limitations for disciplinary cases can also be affected by the detection of a parallel criminal offence. In such cases, staff in charge of investigating cases are obliged to notify law enforcement if a disciplinary case involves suspected criminality in 74% of OECD Members and in 93% of OECD partner countries. Moreover, in 81% of OECD Members and 87% of OECD partner countries, regulations also establish the right to appeal a disciplinary decision before a judicial body.
In around half of OECD Member and partner countries, disciplinary procedures lack procedural fairness and objectivity safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to access and contest evidence against the defendant, the right to a hearing prior to any resolution or decision, and the right to legal counsel (Figure 7.1). While some of these safeguards are considered core “criminal due process guarantees”, their application in the disciplinary system guarantee that sanctions are imposed fairly and lawfully. Given that in disciplinary procedures sanctioning decisions are reached by administrative bodies that are not always of judicial nature, procedural fairness guarantees protect both individuals and the integrity of the institution. Where countries do not currently have such guarantees in place, they could consider improving the fairness of civil service disciplinary systems by introducing them.
Note: The figure presents data based on the following 31 OECD Member countries assessed in 2025: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United States. Data not provided for Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Data for OECD partner countries are calculated based on the following 15 countries assessed in 2025: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Moldova, Peru, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine.
How to read: 55% of OECD Members and 53% of OECD partner countries fulfil the criterion “6. Regulations on disciplinary procedure include provisions on (a) the presumption of innocence, (b) the right to access and contest evidence against the defendant, (c) the right to a hearing, prior to any resolution or decision issued, and (d) the right to legal counsel”.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026)
In practice, the quality and integrity of disciplinary systems also depend on adequate investigative resources and skilled staff. Building the professionalism of officials handling disciplinary investigations through training ensures consistent implementation of disciplinary rules across government entities. Indeed, the lack of standardisation is particularly challenging in disciplinary procedures, which are mainly conducted in-house. Currently, 37% of OECD Members and 27% of OECD partner countries offer a relevant training programme to all staff conducting disciplinary investigations.
Digital tools, such as electronic case management systems, can further support procedural standardisation. Beyond operational efficiency, these tools provide the necessary technical infrastructure needed to systematically extract, aggregate and analyse data for statistical, transparency and prevention purposes. However, uptake remains limited. Currently, only 9 countries globally are using electronic case management systems at the central government level to manage disciplinary cases and proceedings. In practice, the lack of electronic systems hampers the proactive disclosure of data on the effectiveness of disciplinary enforcement, such as data on the number of initiated, concluded, or appealed disciplinary procedures against civil servants. Indeed, only 2 countries across OECD Members and partner countries publish this information.
Improving the use of digital technologies in disciplinary systems could help countries demonstrate their commitment to transparency within public sector organisations and to the public about the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms and the outcomes of cases (OECD, 2017[11]). In addition, countries could leverage this data to identify key risk areas and feed indicators for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the broader integrity enforcement regime and communicate outcomes to the public – contributing to greater accountability and trust in judicial institutions (OECD, 2020[14]). The introduction of digital tools as part of a broader strategic approach, including adequate capacity building and process adaptation, could enhance effectiveness and ensure the consistent and efficient use of these tools.