Full IACC Monitor methodology can be checked here

For each country or organisation, the monitoring process involves three steps:

Step 1: Commitment filtering

The first step is to filter the commitments according to whether they can feasibly be monitored. Those which are not deemed feasible for monitoring will be excluded. The filtering of commitments will be based on the following:

  • Specificity: Does the commitment target a specific area for action?
  • Measurability: Does the commitment include actions that can be monitored or, at a minimum, include indicators of progress?

A review of the commitments reveals that they are all relevant in one way or another to the broader anti-corruption agenda, therefore the criterion of relevance is not included for filtering. At the same time, very few of the commitments are timebound, therefore this criterion is also not included.

General principles for filtering

In order to be considered feasible, a commitment must meet both criteria (specificity and measurability). The thresholds for meeting these criteria are intentionally low. If a commitment is considered borderline on one or both criteria it should be included in the assessment. Equally, if a commitment is considered to contain some degree of specificity or measurability, but not to be fully specific or measurable, it should also be included. If it is subsequently discovered through the assessment process that it is not feasible to monitor the commitment, it can be removed at that stage.

Once the filtering process has been completed, the results are shared with the relevant authorities in the respective countries or organisations for verification. At this stage, the authorities should be given the opportunity to provide further clarity on the commitment wording and related activities, especially (but not exclusively) for those commitments which are considered borderline or have been excluded due to lack of specificity or  measurability. If the authorities can provide further details on the wording of the commitments, this can be considered, as long as it is supported by written evidence. At this stage, the authorities should also be alerted to the fact that they will be contacted again to request evidence of progress on commitment implementation.

Where commitments make reference to existing mechanisms, policies or instruments (e.g. UNCAC reviews, the Addis Tax Initiative), but do not include details of what these initiatives entail in the commitment text, the researcher may refer to other sources of these details, as a basis for filtering. In such cases, it is recommended that researchers seek clarification from the relevant authorities on the exact contribution the commitment is expected to make to such mechanisms, policies or instruments.

Where a commitment makes reference to an initiative, policy or instrument which had already been established at the time of the commitment’s formulation, this may still be considered feasible for monitoring, as long as commitment implementation is ongoing at the time of monitoring.

Step 2: Context analysis

Once the commitments have been selected for assessment, the next step is to conduct a brief context analysis.

Country context

For countries, this would be in the form of a brief description (maximum two pages) of contextual factors which may support or hinder anti-corruption progress in the country generally. In particular, the analysis should aim to identify the extent to which the commitments are:

  • pertinent to the country context;
  • consistent with the country’s anti-corruption priorities;
  • sufficiently ambitious, given the governance context.
The country context analysis considers the following guiding questions:
    • What are the major corruption and governance challenges in the country?
    • How corrupt is the country considered to be?
    • Are there any economic sectors, social sectors or areas of government which are considered particularly vulnerable to corruption?
    • To what extent is there space for civil society and the media to operate freely (including freedom of expression, association and assembly)?
    • How well is the government considered to be performing in the fight against corruption overall?
    • Have there been other commitments to strengthen the legal framework, policies or institutions that are relevant to anti-corruption? Has the government allocated resources to these commitments?
    • Are commitments being undertaken in the context of a well-developed anti-corruption framework?
    • What are the major gaps in the anti-corruption laws, regulations and institutions in the country?
    • Has the country adopted a national anti-corruption plan or strategy?
    • Are the overall commitments relevant to the country governance context and existing anti-corruption agenda?
    • To what extent do the commitments align with the country’s anti-corruption plan, strategy or priorities?
    • Do the commitments cover a broad range of thematic areas or are they clustered under a small number of areas?
    • To what extent can the set of commitments as a whole be considered sufficiently ambitious, given the above?

Organisational context

For organisations, the context analysis should focus on the kind of work the organisation is mandated to do, the extent of its existing anti-corruption work and the focus of this work. As far as possible, the researcher should identify the level of resources allocated to anti-corruption work within the organisation. This should differentiate between internally focused anticorruption safeguarding work (such as risk assessments and due diligence) and external anti-corruption programming and activities.

Step 3: Monitoring progress on individual commitments

The third step is for the Transparency International Secretariat and national chapters to conduct an assessment of the individual commitments selected through the filtering stage. For each commitment, the analysis should aim to identify:

  • The level of progress in commitment implementation;
  • The challenges to commitment implementation (where a commitment has not yet been fulfilled or is ongoing);
  • The opportunities to accelerate commitment implementation.