In a new
report, anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International, revealed that
two-thirds of international defense companies are not doing enough to
counteract
under-the-table arms deals.
Deutsche Welle, 27 April 2015
![]() |
| Saudi Arabian tanks (Photo: /AFP/Getty Images) |
Corruption,
by definition, implies risk, but in the context of the arms sector, it has a
particularly dangerous undertone. Not only does it waste public funds and
threaten the reputation and financial wellbeing of individual companies, but it
can also harm, and indeed claim lives.
That,
however, does not prevent it from happening on a magnificent scale. According
to a new Transparency International (TI) report on the quality of corporate
anti-corruption programs, two-thirds of defense companies fell far short of the
mark.
Of the 163
arms manufacturers in 47 countries to volunteer information for the , 107
demonstrated little evidence of schemes designed to ensure good business
practice, and a further 37 failed to provide any at all.
Far from
being restricted to any particular region, these companies are based all over
the world, from France to Russia, Japan to Finland, Romania to Singapore, with
some countries represented at both ends of the index's six-band scale. The US,
by way of example, is a mixed picture.
"All
four companies in the top band are American," TI researcher Leah Wawro
said in reference to Bechtel, Fluor, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. "But
there are also seven US companies in the lowest band," she told DW.
On the
upside
Many others
US arms manufacturers feature throughout the index, painting a somewhat dubious
picture of overall national business practices in the sector.
![]() |
| Corruption pushes up the price of global military spending and often hits the taxpayer |
"The
lack of transparency among some big US companies," Wawro said "is
concerning."
But shady
arms deals are by no means confined to the far side of the Atlantic. Several
European companies, including four German ones - Diehl, Rheinmetall, MTU Aero
Engines, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann - performed poorly. A fifth, ThyssenKrupp, has
made improvements since the first such index was published in 2012, and now
ranks in the top end of the table.
It is one
of 33 percent of companies to have make strides in the right direction, which
Wawro says "shows that transparency in this sector is possible."
And that
transparency is crucial, because corruption in the defense sector can itself
prove to be a lethal weapon. An underhand procurement contract, for example,
can leave soldiers in the field without the equipment they need to defend
themselves and their country, and that in turn can compromise national
security.
Acutely
susceptible to corruption
That might
read like an incentive for manufacturers to ensure good practice, but as
Michael Littlewood, chief executive and co-founder of , which measures
corporate responsibility and business ethics, explained, the very nature of the
arms industry makes it vulnerable to corrupt players within it.
He cites
the use of sales agents as one of the biggest problems on the road to
transparency.
![]() |
| Several factors make the arms industry vulnerable |
"If a
company is selling all over the world but doesn't have offices in every
country, they have representatives who know the market and the customer,"
Littlewood said. "That makes them reliant on the ethics of the agent, who
might do a corrupt deal without the defense company knowing about it."
He says it
is up to manufacturers to make sure they are using decent representatives, and
that legislation such as the UK's 2011 Bribery Act is a useful tool in forcing
companies take responsibilities for their own choices and decisions.
The murky
waters of offsets
Unlike
previous TI surveys looking at anti-corruption programs in the arms sector,
this one asked companies to provide information on offsets, which Littlewood
describes as a "peculiarity of the defense industry."
The
practice - which requires companies bidding for national arms contracts to
agree to invest in other areas of the importing country's economy - lends
itself to below-board dealings.
"Their
bids are measured by what companies propose," the business ethics expert
said. As such, a contract might be awarded on the basis of a weapons
manufacturer agreeing to plough money into an unrelated sector in which the
buyer, however, has a vested interest. It is very difficult to track exactly
what money goes where and how aboveboard that is.
Getting
clean
Besides the
obvious responsibility that individual companies are expected to assume for
their arms deals, TI says national governments have a vital role to play in
ensuring defense becomes a corruption-free industry.
![]() |
| Corruption in the arms industry also puts soldiers' lives at risk |
"There
tend to be high levels of secrecy in the defense sector," Wawro said.
"Sometimes there are genuine national security concerns that require
secrecy, but too often 'national security' can be a veil for corrupt
activities."
Related Articles:
Global arms exports on rise: SIPRI
Sales of weapons to Gulf states up 70% over five years
Sweden ends Saudi military ties over human rights issues
Global weapons treaty goes into force, but US yet to ratify
Global arms treaty enters into force on Wednesday (26 Dec 2014)
Global arms exports on rise: SIPRI
Sales of weapons to Gulf states up 70% over five years
Sweden ends Saudi military ties over human rights issues
Global weapons treaty goes into force, but US yet to ratify
Global arms treaty enters into force on Wednesday (26 Dec 2014)



















