Integrity at Risk: Uncovering the Drivers of Corruption in Climate Finance and Action

Who is accountable when the future of our planet is at risk? In the context of the Paris Agreement, both international and domestic climate finance involve vast flows of funds that are being rapidly allocated. It is therefore essential to mitigate the risk of corruption in the distribution of such climate finance and actions, especially as the 2030 deadline for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is approaching. Corruption can arise not only at the recipient end of funds intended to support climate action but across all levels of the complex network of global and local actors and structures. In many cases, the issue boils down to integrity: public officials managing climate initiatives have the power to influence success, but unethical behavior can tip the scale toward failure. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the key question: “What factors contribute to the loss of integrity and corrupt behavior among public officials during the implementation of climate measures?” To address this research question, this paper aims to provide a systematic investigation of the various factors leading to compromised integrity and corrupt behavior among public officials involved in climate finance and action. Additionally, it will suggest future research directions to inform anti-corruption interventions. This paper includes a brief discussion of existing literature on the relationship between corruption, integrity loss, and climate action, and refers to the analytical framework by Dose & Fiala (2024), titled “The Governance of Corruption”. This framework serves as the foundation for exploring the underlying causes of corrupt behavior. Case selection follows the diverse case method (Seawright & Gerring, 2008) to achieve maximum variation across relevant dimensions. All 30 analyzed cases are real-life examples and provide a comprehensive understanding of the various reasons public officials compromise their integrity in managing climate initiatives, ultimately leading to corruption. The analysis is conducted in two phases: First, a qualitative in-depth analysis of each case is conducted, based on Yin’s case-study method (Yin, 2018). The second phase uses the results from the qualitative analysis to perform a fuzzy-set QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis), providing a comprehensive answer to the paper’s central research question. This paper emphasizes micro-level cases and individuals, in contrast to the macro-level focus often favored in corruption research. The author argues that corruption research benefits from examining causation rather than mere correlation, and from considering the interaction of multiple factors rather than the linear relationship between isolated variables and corruption. A well-grounded theoretical approach and in-depth case knowledge allow the author to reliably account for the direction of causality. References Dose, N. & Fiala, L. (2024): The Governance of Corruption: Causes of Corruption in a Comparative Perspective. Institute of Political Science, University of Duisburg-Essen. Currently under review. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political research quarterly, 61(2), 294-308. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20299733 Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications : Design and Methods. Sixth edition. Los Angeles ; London ; New Delhi ; Singapore ; Washington DC ; Melbourne: SAGE, 2018. Print.