Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute has introduced an important tool that promotes transparency at the university: a corruption risk checklist.
💥
This document will help to avoid potential corruption risks in draft internal acts in a timely manner, prevent typical management mistakes, and ensure integrity and accountability in decision-making.
For reference: A checklist is a list of actions, conditions, or characteristics used to verify that something has been done, meets requirements, or that all key elements have been taken into account. Simply put, it is a “checklist” that helps you not to miss anything important.
CHECKLIST OF CORRUPTION-GENERATING FACTORS
This document contains a list of typical signs of corruption-generating factors that may be present in draft internal acts of Igor Sikorsky KPI. It helps to identify and prevent possible risks of corrupt or biased decisions at the stage of document preparation.
The corruption risk checklist is a tool for:
– timely identification of risks in documents;
– preventing errors that could create conditions for abuse;
– ensuring transparency in management decisions.
1. What is analyzed?
Acts related to core activities, administrative, economic, and personnel acts that determine: structure, powers, procedures, financing, personnel appointments, and other management processes.
2. Typical corruption-prone factors (the list is not exhaustive):
Unjustified discretion: Decisions are made without clear rules or by one person alone.
For example: decisions on the awarding of scholarships are made without criteria – at the discretion of the dean.
Blurred responsibilities: The responsible executor is not defined or their powers are unclear.
For example: the regulations do not specify who is specifically responsible for concluding the contract.
Artificial barriers to access: Complicated access to information, services, or employees without justification.
For example: the document does not provide for the possibility of submitting an application by email – only in person.
Unjustified privileges: Granting advantages to individuals without legal grounds or competition.
For example: one person receives permission to use university property without competition or signing a contract.
Subjective wording: Use of terms such as “may,” “if necessary,” “etc.” that allow for arbitrary interpretation.
For example: “if necessary” or “other requirements” — such words can be interpreted arbitrarily.
Conflict of interest: Decisions are made by a person who has an interest in the outcome (for themselves, relatives, partners).
For example: a manager decides to appoint a relative to a position without a competitive selection process.
Lack of transparency in audits: The absence of clear control procedures opens the door to abuse.
For example: there is no clear procedure for checking the use of resources or sending employees on business trips.
Vulnerable procurement: Uncertainty in roles and responsibilities during public procurement.
For example: responsibility for checking suppliers of goods is blurred between several departments.
3. How to avoid risks?
– Check the document for compliance with current legislation before approval.
– Avoid evaluative terms or vague wording.
– Analyze the possibility of a conflict of interest.
– Listen to the recommendations of the authorized person on the prevention and detection of corruption.
– Use transparent, clear formats for formulating norms.
4. Conclusions:
Regular use of this checklist helps prevent management errors, reduce corruption risks, and increase integrity in the internal decision-making process. It contributes to the formation of a transparent, responsible, and legal culture in the university environment.