The complexity of procurement processes and transactions, the sums involved, the close interactions between the public and private sectors, and the global and fragmented nature of procurement supply chains increase the risk of corruption. OECD Members generally have legal provisions in place for upholding integrity in public procurements. However, efforts to promote integrity beyond the public sector to suppliers, including enhancing supply chain transparency or integrity certifications, could be advanced. Developing a risk-based approach to integrity in public procurement can increase the efficiency and impact of interventions and reduce the burden of implementing integrity regulations on public entities. And digital technologies, particularly better data governance and interoperability, could be better used to manage integrity risks.
Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026
Abstract
Public procurement is a core government function through which governments and state-owned enterprises buy goods, services and works to deliver public services such as health, transport, education, and defence. In OECD Member countries, public procurement accounts for approximately 13% of GDP (OECD, 2025[12]). Sound public procurement is essential to ensure that public funds are spent efficiently, transparently and in the interest of the public. This chapter finds that in OECD Member and partner countries:
Provisions and mechanisms to ensure the integrity of the public procurement system are well established in the related regulatory frameworks
Efforts to promote integrity among suppliers could be advanced
Developing targeted tools to address risks would contribute to strengthening integrity in public procurement
Harnessing digital technologies for proactive integrity risk management in public procurement offers considerable potential, but adoption remains limited
Why is public procurement a high-risk area and what integrity breaches occur?
Public procurement involves many transactions, significant financial interests, complex procedures and promotes close interactions between the public and private sector. These features create exposure to different risks including integrity breaches like corruption, fraud, conflict of interest, mismanagement and collusion (OECD, 2025[78]).
Risks can materialise across different sectors and throughout the whole procurement cycle:
In the pre-tendering phase, risks include informal agreements on contracts, technical specification tailored to a favoured company or unjustified use of non-competitive procedures.
During the tendering phase, collusion among bidders and personal interests in the evaluation process are clear examples.
During the post-award phase, risks include sub-standard delivery, collusion with supervising officials, and providing invoices for goods and services not supplied (OECD, 2016[79]).
What is the economic impact of integrity breaches in public procurement?
Integrity breaches in public procurement impose both direct and indirect cost for governments and society. Direct costs include low-quality outputs, higher than market prices and delays. Although precise quantification is challenging, studies estimate that 8-25% of global public investment may be lost to mismanagement and corruption (Fazekas, Sberna and Vannucci, 2022[7]). Within the EU-27, the cumulative cost of corruption risk in public procurement between 2016 and 2021 has been estimated at around EUR 29.6bn (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2023[80]).
Indirect costs include reduced market competitiveness and innovation, barriers to market entry and hampered foreign investment. Integrity failures in critical sectors such as medical supplies and infrastructure can compromise public safety and even endanger lives. Waste of taxpayer money and poor performance erode citizens’ trust in government; however, this effect is hard to estimate as only 8% of OECD Member countries measure this impact (OECD, 2025[12]).
What is the integrity principle in the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement?
The OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement (2015), with its twelve principles, recognises the need to safeguard integrity across government and the public procurement system. It includes a dedicated integrity principle (OECD, 2015[81]). This principle aligns with the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity, which provides a whole-of-government framework for promoting a culture of integrity across the public sector and the whole-of-society.
In this principle, the OECD calls governments to:
i. Require high standards of integrity for all stakeholders in the procurement cycle. […]
ii. Implement general public sector integrity tools and tailor them to the specific risks of the procurement cycle as necessary. […]
iii. Develop integrity training programmes for the procurement workforce. […]
iv. Develop requirements for internal controls, compliance measures and anti-corruption programmes for suppliers, including appropriate monitoring. […]
Source: (OECD, 2015[81])
As the twelve principles of the Recommendation are intertwined, in addition to the “integrity principle” other principles – transparency, access, e-procurement, capacity, risk management, and accountability – also play a key role in safeguarding the integrity of the public procurement system and strengthen the delivery of effective and efficient public services.
What integrity red flags are currently used in public procurement?
A number of institutions are adopting public procurement indicators to flag potential integrity risks. These metrics typically track occurrences like single bidding, the use of non-competitive procedures such as the use of negotiated procedures without publication, or unjustified contract modifications. While these indicators can reflect a range of challenges, such as market structure or the capacity of the public procurement workforce, they can also signal integrity breaches. The relationship between these indicators and integrity breaches is therefore complex and oversimplification could lead to ineffective policy responses. These indicators should be viewed in light of the country context or sector and should prompt institutions to make further investigation to determine the root causes of the red flag and the appropriate policy response.
For example, data suggests that single bidding rates, which measure the proportion of contracts awarded when the only response to a call for tender came from a single bidder, have increased in Europe for above threshold contracts in the last decade (European Commission, 2025[82]; European Court of Auditors, 2023[83]). Causes for this can include limited supplier pools, complex or restrictive tender design, geographic constraints, and insufficient supplier outreach. They can also, however, indicate potential breaches of competition rules, favouritism and fraudulent behaviour, particularly in cases where a market is competitive and should therefore be composed of multiple potential bidders.
Data on single bidding, the use of negotiated procedures without publication, or contract modifications is readily available in most procurement datasets, and when triangulated with other indicators can therefore be a useful tool for a wide range of stakeholders such as anti-corruption and integrity authorities, public procurement authorities and Supreme Audit Institutions to identify risks. An adequate policy response to the poor performance of different procurement indicators and to addressing the systematic drivers of limited competition requires understanding their causes. Based on the assessment, policy responses can therefore include enhanced integrity measures, along with better market analysis, simplified procedures, improved tender design, and proactive supplier engagement.
Binding integrity provisions and mechanisms embedded in the related legislations and regulatory frameworks establish common standards for suppliers and public buyers and reduce loopholes and discretionary interpretation. While these provisions alone cannot prevent integrity breaches, they create the conditions for systematic prevention and detection (OECD, 2020[14]).
The type of integrity provisions and mechanisms that are implemented in the public procurement regulatory framework can differ based on which type of integrity breaches it is aimed to address. In line with the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement, all stakeholders in the procurement cycle should adhere to high integrity standards. For this reason, provisions in legal framework that focus on specific stakeholders in the procurement cycle are very common. For instance, the 2024 OECD survey on the implementation of the Recommendation shows that pertaining individual public procurement officers working at public buyers, almost all countries (95% or 38 out of 40) have provisions in place that seek to prevent officials’ private interests from affecting public procurement decisions. More generally, most countries (85% or 34 out of 40) have established integrity principles for the public procurement workforce, for instance having integrity principles explained in the code of conduct. However, there can still be diversity to what extent such provisions are applied. A generic code of conduct for civil servants can leave ambiguities in its application to public procurement (OECD, 2025[84]). Therefore, some countries like Korea and Greece, use a dedicated procurement specific code of conduct (OECD, 2025[85]; OECD, 2025[12]).
Integrity standards for the private sector are also common, reflecting the high integrity risks at the public-private interface and the need for a whole-of-society approach. Within OECD Member and partner countries 95% (38 out of 40) provide for the exclusion (or debarment) of suppliers involved in corruption from public contracting as a sanction for breaches of integrity-related obligations. To promote fair treatment of suppliers and reduce bias or prejudice in public procurement 93% (37 out of 40) countries have provisions that ensure government does not explicitly or inadvertently discriminate against specific groups of suppliers, most often embedded directly in the public procurement legislation (OECD, 2025[12]).
Finally, integrating and clearly explaining the integrity principles in the relevant regulatory documents is a fundamental step towards ensuring integrity across public procurement activities as it lays the foundation of a common understanding of what is understood as unethical behaviour. While less common than provisions targeted at individual stakeholders, this is also widely adopted approach, with 83% (33 out of 40) of OECD Member and partner countries having established such provisions, with numerous countries having a dedicated section within their public procurement law that outlines the integrity principle (OECD, 2025[12]).
Figure 10.1 provides an overview of provisions and/or mechanisms to manage threats to integrity included in the public procurement regulatory framework in OECD Member and partner countries in 2024.
Percentage of countries
Note: Data is shown for 40 Respondents. “Other integrity provisions and/or mechanisms” include for instance mandatory confidentiality, asset declarations, observers involved in the public procurement procedures, conflict of interests assessments; bidder integrity programmes.
Source: (OECD, 2025[12]).
Suppliers are critical stakeholders in managing integrity risks throughout the public procurement cycle, which is why efforts to strengthen integrity in public procurement need to extend beyond public buyers to the entire supply chain. Ensuring that suppliers act responsibly and integrate integrity frameworks throughout supply chains into their practices adds a valuable approach to tackling integrity risks. The complex, global, and fragmented nature of public procurement supply chains makes them vulnerable to costly breaches, including human and labour rights violation and environmental risks. Strengthening (business) integrity measures helps reduce operational, financial, legal, and reputational risks and builds resilience. Moreover, integrity risks such as collusion, bid rigging, and bribery can be concealed by the supply chain.
In combatting these issues, integrity measures contribute to achieving best value for money over the entire life cycle, especially when considering environmental externalities (OECD, 2022[86]). Persistent challenges in achieving this include a siloed system where supply chain management is not being integrated with anti-corruption work; diverse and unclear standards and expectations leading to a lack of a level playing field, and a lack of high-quality data on corruption and other integrity breaches in supply chains, leading to knowledge gaps (Bozzay et al., 2025[87]). For suppliers, investing in integrity efforts enhances their attractiveness to public buyers, improves internal operational efficiency, and mitigates reputational risks. Accordingly, suppliers can view integrity initiatives not merely as compliance obligations, but as strategic tools that support market access, strengthen competitiveness and contribute to long-term business sustainability.
The integrity principle in the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement explicitly states how the high integrity standards applied to public-sector employees could be expanded to all stakeholders in the procurement cycle including private sector suppliers. To this end, 93% (37 out of 40) of OECD Member and partner countries report having some initiative and/or measure in place to promote supplier integrity. In particular, long supply chains can pose the risk of integrity breaches or unethical practices being performed on the supplier side that are not directly apparent to public buyers. To combat this, half of the countries (20 out of 40) have measures in place to ensure suppliers have appropriate supply chain transparency, such as due diligence requirements – so that public buyers can see how suppliers manage risks upstream (OECD, 2025[12]).
Other common measures in this area are “no corruption” warranties or specific integrity certifications. A “no corruption” warranty is a contractual clause or declaration which the supplier must sign stating that they have not engaged in corrupt practices and will comply with integrity standards. These types of warranties have not been widely implemented as only 37% (15 out of 40) of countries stated using them. Formal integrity and non-corruption certifications like the ISO certification are only used by 23% of OECD Member and partner countries. One of the few, Peru incorporates the ISO 37001 certification on the use of an Anti-bribery Management System, which is in place to prevent, detect and respond to possible integrity breaches related to bribery. Bidders with such a system receive an additional score in the evaluation. Moreover, seven countries have efforts in place to promote the suppliers adopting their own comprehensive business integrity programmes and four countries have included integrity training requirements for suppliers. 48% (19 out of 40) have stated to have other initiatives and/or measures in place to promote integrity among suppliers. Such a measure is for example article 29 of Law 9986 in Costa Rica, which establishes the obligation to submit a sworn statement with the bid, declaring exemption from the prohibition regime, under penalty of committing perjury (OECD, 2025[12]).
Percentage of countries
Note: Other initiatives and/or measures include for instance supplier codes of conduct and model anti‑bribery/conflict‑of‑interest clauses; mandatory integrity declarations, due‑diligence questionnaires; guidance by anti‑corruption/competition bodies, dedicated integrity/compliance offices and anonymous reporting portals.
Source: (OECD, 2025[12]).
Public procurement is exposed to interlinked digital, financial, reputational, social and environmental risks. Dedicated risk management strategies and tools can strengthen the resilience, the efficiency and the integrity of the procurement system. 30% of OECD Member and partner countries (12 out of 40) have developed a strategy specifically for managing public procurement risks. A few other countries have integrated public procurement into a broader public sector risk management strategy (28% or 11) (OECD, 2025[12]). Positively aware of its relevance, 13% of countries (or 5 out of 40) are in the process of developing a risk management strategy.
Different tools can be used to implement the risk management strategy in public procurement (see Figure 10.3). Most OECD Member and partner countries (70% or 28 out of 40) have developed at least one tool to manage risks in public procurement. Among the tools used, risk assessment checklists, which are useful to support the identification of risks are the most common (40% or 16 countries) followed by red flag systems (35% or 14 countries) which can help indicate when risks should be further investigated or escalated to decision makers. Red flags for integrity can include complaints from bidders, unusual bid patterns, repeated awards to the same contractor, etc. For example, Hungary’s Red Flags tool is an open-source tool designed to automatically screen tender notices and documents in the EU online Official Journal, Tenders Electronic Daily (TED). The tool flags potentially risky procedures using 40 indicators, including red flags for integrity, e.g., omission of the definition of compulsory grounds for exclusion, short time limit for tendering/participation, the duration of the evaluation, and a low number of tenders received (OECD, 2025[88]).
While not yet mainstream, more advanced tools are an emerging trend. Only 30% of OECD Member and partner countries (12 out of 40) use risk registers to maintain a shared understanding of risks between stakeholders, ensure the tracking and assessment of risks, record decisions of how risks will be treated, verify that responsibilities for risks have been assigned to the most appropriate risk owner, and provide a holistic view of risks that can be evaluated against the entity’s overall risk appetite and risk management thresholds (OECD, 2023[89]). Similarly, risk maps or risk dashboards and key indicators1 are only used by 20% (8) of OECD Member and partner countries each. They can provide a simple snapshot of major risks, the treatment actions, and the risk owners (OECD, 2023[89]). Early adopters illustrate the potential of such tools. For example, the Korea ON-line E-Procurement System (KONEPS) includes Korea’s Bid Rigging Indicator Analysis System (BRIAS), which analyses data elements including bidding price, the number of participants, and the procurement method, and applies an algorithm that generates a potential bid-rigging risk score. If the score exceeds a certain threshold, this signals the need to collect more information on the procurement (OECD, 2025[12]).
Percentage of countries
Note: Data is shown for 40 Respondents.
Source: OECD (2024), Survey on Public Procurement.
Digital transformation of the public procurement function – particularly better data governance and interoperable systems – enables more proactive, evidence-based integrity management across the public procurement cycle (OECD, 2025[90]).
By systematically analysing patterns – such as unusual win rates by certain suppliers, persistently low competition in otherwise-competitive sectors or regions or a buyer’s preference for certain suppliers in contract allocation – digital technologies, such as data analytics and machine learning aid in identifying high-risk tenders and target oversight and investigative resources. Integrating procurement data with financial disclosures and beneficial ownership information can further strengthen detection (OECD, 2025[88]).
Across OECD Member and partner countries, only half of the countries use digital technologies such as data analytics, AI or blockchain to identify, analyse, and monitor integrity risks in public procurement. Among the digital technologies used, data analytics remains the most common (40% or 16 out of 40). AI can be used effectively to identify integrity risks. In public procurement, AI is also emerging, with 8% (3 out of 40) of the countries employing AI to identify, analyse, and monitor integrity risks. Beyond identifying anomalies in existing data, AI’s predictive capacities can flag potential risks and irregularities and optimise public procurement processes. For example, academic work using hyper-forests models (advanced machine learning models) on 1.54 million public contracts taken from the Mexican CompraNet (2013-2020) could with 88% accuracy identify corrupt contracts and with 94% could predict non-corrupt ones (Aldana, Falcón-Cortés and Larralde, 2022[91]).
Blockchain is rarely used for integrity risk management in public procurement, though it offers a robust and proactive solution (Ayeboafo, Anomah and Amofah, 2025[92]). It can store all public procurement data and ensure that bidders have access to the same information, thus enhancing transparency and management of fraudulent activities within the system. Only Peru reported an application using blockchain to register purchase orders from electronic catalogues to enhance transparency. Box 10.2 illustrates examples of how OECD Member and partner countries use digital technologies to manage integrity risks in public procurement.
Percentage of countries
Note: Data is shown for 40 Respondents. Other digital technologies include anonymous reporting portals, tools to screen public registers for conflict‑of‑interest, and automated due‑diligence tools.
Source: OECD (2024), Survey on Public Procurement.
Italy
The National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) is developing territorial level public procurement and context risk indicators to measure corruption risks and to promote transparency and integrity in public procurement. ANAC is integrating multiple data sources, designing methodologies for calculation and validation of indicators. The work is focusing on an open approach to risk analysis: open data, open software, and open knowledge.
Portugal
The Court of Auditors (Tribunal de Contas, TdC), the national Supreme Audit Institution in Portugal, is a key player in the public procurement system safeguarding it from different threats and ensuring its efficiency. To enhance TdC’s audit activities, OECD Member and partner countries at NOVA University of Lisbon supported the TdC in developing a data- and AI-driven risk assessment methodology for its audit selection for public procurement. At the core of this initiative was the need to map risks and data sources, examine the digital maturity of the TdC to conduct such work, and assess the quality of potential databases that could be used for building a new risk methodology.
Brazil
In Brazil, the Comptroller General's Office developed ALICE, a tool that uses AI and robotic process automation tool to detect fraud risks in real time. Alice has generated a significant positive impact in strengthening the practice of identifying integrity risks in Brazil and fighting corruption in public procurement. Between 2019 and 2022, its alerts led to the suspensions or cancellations of bids totalling around EUR 1.5 billion (equivalent) and shortened average audit times from 400 days to just eight days.
Peru
In 2019, Perú Compras, the Central Purchasing Body of Peru, began registering purchase orders from Electronic Catalogues on blockchain. Each purchase order and its respective bids are recorded on multiple servers (nodes), which ensures the availability and immutability of data. Each purchase order has a QR code that can be read with any smartphone, linking to the original PDF file to verify the authenticity of the document.
← 1. A risk map/matrix is a tool for classifying and visualising risks based on their likelihood and severity which supports strategic and operational decision making. Risk dashboards and key indicators can help continuously track risk indicators and procurement performance to detect emerging risks and ensure mitigation measures are effective.