Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Norway
Table of contents
Norway has a decentralised system of public administration in which ministries and agencies have a high degree of managerial flexibility. While there is no national anti-corruption and integrity strategy, key regulations are in place and institutions are tasked with mitigating public integrity risks within their corresponding domains. The key legislative instruments that comprise the public integrity and anti-corruption system include the Public Administration Act, the Act relating to Government Employees (the Civil Servants Act), and the Basic Agreement LO-NHO (between The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises). To support ethical guidance across ministries, the Norwegian Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance has issued several guidance documents, including the Ethical Guidelines for the Public Service and Leadership in Norway’s Civil Service. The Office of the Prime Minister manages the Handbook for Political Leadership.
The Political Party Law Tribunal has the mandate to oversee the financing of political parties and election campaigns, and to check compliance with the rules on accounting, financing and reporting. Norway has no central body responsible for ensuring transparency and integrity in lobbying. The Freedom of Information Act regulates access to information, but there is no dedicated public body supervising access to public information. However, the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency gives advice to the public administration concerning the use of social media, universal design and, together with the Language Council of Norway, about plain language, with the aim of making public information more accessible.
The Constitution and the Courts Act provide the regulatory framework for judicial integrity in Norway, alongside the Appointment Board for Judges, which advises the King on judicial appointments. Prosecutors are governed by the Working Environment Act, the civil servants Act, and the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Director of Public Prosecution circular provides standards of conduct and ethical behaviour. The Civil Servants Act sets out the disciplinary procedures for civil servants
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Data on where Norway’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
On average, OECD countries fulfil 38% of criteria regarding the quality of strategic framework, and 32% for implementation. Since Norway does not have a national anti-corruption and integrity strategy, it does not meet any of the criteria in this area. Having a strategic framework based on evidence and outlining objectives and priorities is essential to mitigate corruption risks in the public sector.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Norway fulfils 20% of criteria on regulations and 11% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
Norway does not define “lobbying” or “lobbyist”, and there is no lobbying register. However, while cooling-off periods are not in place for lobbyists, public officials may be restricted from taking on a new job for a period of 6 to 12 months, as per the Quarantine Act.
A law on beneficial ownership, in place since November 2021, requires any legal entity and other organisation in Norway (including foreign enterprises in Norway) to register who the beneficial owner is and deliver it to authorities if asked. While a beneficial ownership register has been in place since 2024, it is not fully accessible to the public.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Norway fulfils 56% of regulatory safeguards, and has implemented 33% of safeguards in practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
Norway’s regulatory framework for conflict of interest and interest declarations includes the Courts of Justice Act, the Act on the registration of government members’ offices and financial interests, the Working Environment Act and various other regulations. Members of the Government, parliament and public employees in a high-risk position must submit an interest declaration. This obligation does not extend to members of the highest bodies of the judiciary, as the Courts of Justice Act only establishes an obligation to disclose side activities, investments representing ownership interests in companies and not all financial interests.
In practice, the submission rate for members of the Government, and of parliament, has been above 90% for the past six years. However, data was not available on the verification of these interest declarations by a responsible authority.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Norway fulfils 70% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 71% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
The Parties Act bans anonymous donations and contributions from foreign enterprises, foreign states, and publicly owned enterprises. All political parties and candidates are obliged to report their finances during electoral campaigns, and political parties must make their financial reports public. Sanctions for breaches of political finance and election campaign regulations are defined and proportionate to the severity of the offence. In practice, as an independent body, the Party Law Committee has the mandate to oversee the financing of political parties and election campaigns, has certified auditors in its payroll, and has published information on cases related to breaches of political finance regulations, investigations conducted, and sanctions issued.
The body has published key information relating to the number of cases of breaches of political finance regulations, the number of investigations conducted and the different types of sanctions issued. However, not all Norwegian parties have submitted annual accounts within the timelines defined by national legislation for the past 5 years.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Norway fulfils 44% of criteria on access to public information regulations, and has 58% of criteria on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
The transparency framework of Norway is primarily underpinned by the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act. While no single body is responsible for the enforcement of legislation related to public information, multiple government ministries and agencies share the responsibility of enforcing the legislative framework. The Ministry of Justice and Public Security is responsible for the preservation and development of basic guarantees of the rule of law, including the Freedom of Information Act. The Parliamentary Ombud for Scrutiny of the Public Administration is the highest national appeal body for questions about access to public sector information. The Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance, with the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency, act as supervisory bodies for compliance with the national open data policy.
In practice, the following key datasets are published online: consolidated versions of all primary laws, the state budget, the results of the last national elections, legislative proposals of the Government, ministers’ agendas, announced public tenders, the business registry, the land registry, salaries of individual senior civil servants, and interest declarations of the top-two tiers of public employees in the executive branch. However, agendas of Government sessions, aggregated data on lobbying, and aggregated data on the results of public tenders are not publicly available online.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Norway fulfils 44% of criteria for regulations on judicial integrity and 32% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
Norway enjoys high trust in the judicial system. The Courts Act of Norway establishes objective grounds for the dismissal of judges: judges under the age of 70 can only be removed from office by court judgement and cannot be transferred against their will. The law establishes standards of conduct and ethical behaviour applicable to all judges, which were developed by the Supervisory Committee for Judges as per section 236 of the Courts Act.
Merit-based, objective measures like interviews or exams are not established in the law as requirements for the selection and promotion of judges. Members of the Appointment Board for Judges are selected by the King.
Norway’s regulatory framework also defines conflict-of-interest situations for both judges and attorneys, in Chapters 11 and 6 of the Courts Act. However, there is no obligation for members of the highest bodies of the judiciary to submit declarations of interest, with judges only required to declare secondary employment.
Regulations establish internal reporting channels for whistleblowers within the judiciary and protection against retaliation is established in the Working Environment Act, which applies to public employees in the judiciary. There is no publicly available portal for information on whistleblowers’ rights, nor is there mandatory training on confidentiality for those handling such reports.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Norway fulfils 59% of criteria for regulations on prosecutorial integrity and 32% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
In Norway, the Working Environment Act and the Criminal Procedures Act define the conditions for the employment of prosecutors. According to both acts, the selection and promotion of prosecutors is merit-based and includes objective criteria, such as the possession of a degree in law or relevant experience. All prosecutorial vacancies are advertised publicly unless otherwise provided for legally, but it is not possible to appeal decisions made by the Council of State regarding the appointment of prosecutors. Objective grounds for dismissal are outlined in the Working Environment Act.
The Criminal Procedure Act defines the circumstances that can lead to conflict of interest, and the circumstances in which prosecutors should be recused or should recuse themselves. However, there are no sanctions for breaches of conflict-of-interest provisions. Additionally, there is no obligation for members of the highest prosecutorial authorities to submit interest declarations.
Regulations establish internal reporting channels for whistleblowers within the prosecution service and protection against retaliation is established in the Working Environment Act. There is no publicly available portal for information on whistleblowers’ rights, nor is there mandatory training on confidentiality for those handling such reports.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Norway fulfils 42% of criteria for regulations on the disciplinary system for civil servants and 17% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
The Working Environment Act sets out the disciplinary procedures for civil servants and defines a disciplinary offence as a “breach of duty or failure to perform duty or improper conduct in or outside the service that damages the respect or trust necessary for the position, service or office”. The act establishes the right to appeal disciplinary decisions in front of a judicial body and establishes an obligation for staff in charge of investigations to inform the judiciary in cases that involve criminal behaviour.
There is no training program offered to civil servants conducting disciplinary investigations to inform their decision-making. Additionally, there is no case management system for disciplinary cases and proceedings, nor is there a publicly available dataset outlining all cases of disciplinary proceedings and sanctions against civil servants.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.