To prepare for a dialogue and organise is necessary especially when working with soft issues
Below is the governance‑adapted version of the Integrity Framework, written specifically for boards, governing councils, trustees, and senior oversight bodies. It reframes integrity from individual leadership behaviour to collective governance responsibility, assurance, and stewardship.
Integrity in Governance – One‑Page Framework
Purpose
To ensure that governance decisions, oversight, and stewardship are exercised with integrity, transparency, and accountability, safeguarding trust, legitimacy, and long‑term public value.
In governance, integrity means alignment between purpose, decisions, oversight, and accountability, particularly in high‑risk or high‑impact matters.
What Integrity in Governance Means
A governing body acting with integrity:
Acts consistently with its mandate, values, and public responsibilities
Exercises independent judgement, not undue influence
Is transparent about trade‑offs, risks, and consequences
Holds leadership to account fairly and consistently
Prioritises long‑term trust over short‑term advantage
Four Core Governance Integrity Commitments
1. Stewardship
The governing body protects purpose, values, and long‑term interests.
Decisions are guided by mission, public value, and human dignity
Long‑term consequences outweigh short‑term pressures
Governance test:
Does this decision protect the organisation’s purpose and legitimacy over time?
2. Accountability
Oversight is active, independent, and consistent.
Clear separation between governance and management roles
Leadership is held accountable for outcomes and conduct
Failures are examined openly, not deflected
Governance test:
Are we exercising real oversight, or simply endorsing decisions?
3. Transparency
Decisions and reasoning are visible and explainable.
Rationale, risks, and dissent are properly recorded
Stakeholders can understand why decisions were made
Governance test:
Could we explain this decision clearly and honestly to those affected?
4. Moral Courage
The governing body upholds integrity when it is difficult.
Willingness to challenge leadership or peers
Resistance to political, reputational, or financial pressure
Readiness to pause or reconsider when values are at risk
Governance test:
What would integrity require if this decision attracted criticism or cost?
Expected Governance Behaviours
Governing bodies are expected to:
Ask difficult questions and invite dissent
Declare and manage conflicts of interest rigorously
Ensure ethical risks receive the same attention as financial risks
Support leaders who act with integrity under pressure
Intervene early when integrity or trust is threatened
Governance System Enablers
To support integrity, governance structures should include:
Clear integrity and ethics mandate within terms of reference
Integrity or ethics committee (or explicit board responsibility)
Regular ethical risk reviews alongside financial and strategic risk
Protected escalation routes for ethical concerns
Independent assurance (audit, ethics, or integrity function)
Indicators of Integrity in Governance
Quality and depth of board challenge and discussion
Transparency and completeness of decision records
Confidence of leadership and staff to raise concerns
Stakeholder trust and reputational resilience
Timely handling of ethical breaches or governance failures
Governance Integrity Checklist (Quick Use)
Before approving a major decision, the governing body should confirm:
Is this consistent with our mandate, values, and public responsibilities?
Have risks, trade‑offs, and dissent been fully explored?
Are conflicts of interest disclosed and managed?
Would we defend this decision publicly and confidently?
If any answer is no, the decision should be deferred or revisited.
Role of the Governing Body
Integrity in governance is collective and non‑delegable. Culture and conduct across the organisation will mirror what the governing body questions, prioritises, and tolerates.
Examples
Below is the public‑sector–specific adaptation of the Integrity Framework, designed for ministries, agencies, municipalities, regulators, and publicly funded bodies. It reflects public accountability, legality, political neutrality, and service to citizens.
You can include this as a one‑page annex to a public‑sector strategy, governance code, or integrity policy.
Integrity in Public‑Sector Governance – One‑Page Framework
Purpose
To ensure that public‑sector governance is exercised with integrity, legality, impartiality, and accountability, maintaining public trust, democratic legitimacy, and responsible stewardship of public resources.
In the public sector, integrity means consistent alignment between law, public values, decisions, and conduct, especially under political, fiscal, or media pressure.
What Integrity in Public‑Sector Governance Means
A public‑sector governing body acts with integrity when it:
Serves the public interest above personal, political, or organisational advantage
Complies fully with law, regulation, and constitutional principles
Acts impartially, transparently, and fairly
Uses public resources responsibly
Is accountable to citizens, parliament, and oversight bodies
Four Core Public‑Sector Integrity Commitments
1. Public Stewardship
Safeguarding the public interest and democratic mandate.
Decisions prioritise public value, equity, and long‑term societal outcomes
Stewardship of public funds, authority, and trust is explicit
Public‑sector test:
Does this decision clearly serve the public interest and uphold democratic responsibility?
2. Legality and Accountability
Integrity begins with the rule of law and clear accountability.
Full compliance with legal, regulatory, and ethical standards
Clear lines of responsibility between ministers, officials, and governing bodies
Willingness to account openly for outcomes and failures
Public‑sector test:
Is this decision lawful, and are accountabilities unambiguous?
3. Transparency and Openness
Citizens have a right to understand public decisions.
Decisions, rationale, risks, and trade‑offs are properly documented
Information is shared openly unless there is a lawful and justified reason not to
Public‑sector test:
Could this decision be explained clearly to citizens, parliament, or auditors?
4. Integrity under Pressure
Public‑sector integrity is most tested under political, fiscal, or media pressure.
Independence of judgement is maintained
Political direction is respected while resisting improper influence
Leaders are willing to pause, escalate, or refuse actions that compromise integrity
Public‑sector test:
Would we make the same decision if scrutiny were higher or circumstances less urgent?
Expected Behaviours in Public‑Sector Governance
Public‑sector governing bodies and senior officials are expected to:
Declare and actively manage conflicts of interest
Challenge proposals that risk illegality, unfairness, or reputational harm
Protect officials who raise concerns in good faith
Treat ethical and reputational risks with the same seriousness as financial risks
Uphold impartiality and political neutrality of the public service
System Enablers (Public‑Sector Specific)
To sustain integrity, public bodies should ensure:
Clear codes of conduct for board members and officials
Regular integrity, ethics, and compliance reviews
Protected whistleblowing and speak‑up mechanisms
Independent oversight (audit, ethics, ombuds, inspectorates)
Training on integrity, conflicts of interest, and public‑sector ethics
Indicators of Integrity in the Public Sector
Levels of public trust and confidence
Quality of parliamentary, audit, or inspectorate findings
Willingness of staff to raise concerns without fear
Timeliness and transparency of responses to failures or complaints
Consistency between stated public values and actual decisions
Public‑Sector Integrity Checklist (Quick Use)
Before approving or endorsing a major decision, confirm:
Is this lawful and compliant with public‑sector standards?
Does it clearly serve the public interest and treat people fairly?
Are conflicts of interest declared and managed?
Would we defend this decision openly to citizens and oversight bodies?
If any answer is no, the decision must be reviewed or deferred.
Role of Public‑Sector Leaders and Governing Bodies
Integrity in the public sector is a democratic obligation, not a discretionary value. Public trust is shaped by what leaders authorise, question, explain, and correct.
More Examples
You asked to include examples of successful integrity programmes within the public‑sector integrity framework. I’ve done this by adding credible, real‑world public‑sector examples and showing what makes them successful, so they strengthen (rather than distract from) the framework.
Below is a clean, insert‑ready section you can add after the Public‑Sector Integrity Framework.
Examples of Successful Public‑Sector Integrity Programmes
The following programmes are widely recognised for strengthening integrity, accountability, and public trust through systemic—not symbolic—approaches.
1. OECD Public Integrity Framework and Indicators (Multi‑country)
What worked:
Integrity treated as a whole‑of‑government system, not only anti‑corruption enforcement
Clear alignment between values, risk management, accountability, and leadership behaviour
Measurement of both rules (de jure) and practice (de facto)
Key elements adopted by governments:
Integrity risk mapping alongside financial risk
Independent oversight bodies (audit, ombuds, ethics offices)
Evidence‑based integrity indicators linked to policy reform
Relevance to this framework:
Supports Public Stewardship, Accountability, and Transparency pillars by embedding integrity into governance systems rather than relying on individual ethics alone 12.
2. Finland’s Public Sector Integrity System
What worked:
Strong emphasis on trust, legality, and ethical leadership, rather than heavy compliance
High transparency in decision‑making and public access to information
Clear separation of political direction and administrative impartiality
Key elements:
Strong civil service code and ethical leadership norms
High levels of openness and public scrutiny
Low tolerance for conflicts of interest
Impact:
Consistently high public trust and low corruption levels across international benchmarks, demonstrating that integrity cultures outperform rule‑heavy systems 3.
3. United Kingdom – Cross‑Government Integrity and Anti‑Corruption Framework
What worked:
Clear national integrity strategy linked to enforcement, prevention, and leadership standards
Strengthened ethics oversight and independent enforcement capacity
Focus on both domestic public integrity and international illicit finance
Key elements:
Ethics and Integrity Commission
Strong whistleblowing and investigative mechanisms
Accountability through Parliament and audit institutions
Relevance:
Demonstrates how integrity can be embedded at system, leadership, and operational levels simultaneously 4.
4. New Zealand – Public Service Integrity and Stewardship Model
What worked:
Integrity framed as stewardship of public trust, not compliance
Clear expectations for chief executives to act as system leaders
Strong emphasis on transparency and open government
Key elements:
Public Service Act embedding integrity and political neutrality
Regular integrity and conduct reviews
Strong protection for public servants raising concerns
Impact:
High trust in public institutions and resilient governance during crises, showing the value of integrity under pressure 5.
5. Transparency International & U4 – Integrity Reform in High‑Risk Contexts
What worked:
Shift from “zero‑tolerance rhetoric” to context‑aware integrity reform
Focus on leadership change, social norms, and accountability ecosystems
Emphasis on building “pockets of integrity” that scale over time
Key elements:
Leadership integrity as a reform lever
Protection of reformers and whistleblowers
Gradual cultural change supported by enforcement
Relevance:
Shows that integrity programmes succeed when leadership behaviour, incentives, and protection mechanisms align 6.
Cross‑Cutting Lessons from Successful Programmes
Across these examples, successful integrity programmes share five characteristics:
Leadership integrity is explicit and enforceable
Integrity is embedded in governance systems, not isolated policies
Transparency and accountability are proactive, not reactive
Safe challenge and whistleblowing are protected and used
Integrity is measured, reviewed, and improved over time
How to Reference This in the Strategy
You can include a short line such as:
“This framework draws on international good practice, including OECD public integrity systems and national integrity models in Finland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.”
Below is an expanded Nordic‑focused section you can insert into the public‑sector Integrity Framework. It highlights concrete, well‑documented integrity practices from Nordic countries, explaining what they did and why it worked—so the examples strengthen credibility and are practically transferable.
Nordic Examples of Successful Public‑Sector Integrity Programmes
Nordic public administrations are widely recognised for high trust, low corruption, and strong integrity cultures. Their success is rooted less in heavy enforcement and more in systemic integrity, transparency, and leadership norms.
Finland – Integrity through Legality, Trust, and Ethical Leadership
What worked
Integrity anchored in rule of law, openness, and professional ethics, rather than anti‑corruption campaigns
Strong expectation of ethical leadership and personal responsibility across the civil service
High transparency in decision‑making and public access to information
Key integrity mechanisms
Clear civil service ethics codes embedded in daily practice
Strong administrative courts and ombudsman system
Low tolerance for conflicts of interest; rapid consequences when breaches occur
Why it matters Finland demonstrates that trust‑based systems with strong legal accountability outperform compliance‑heavy models. Integrity is cultural, institutional, and leadership‑driven.
Relevance to this framework Supports Public Stewardship, Legality and Accountability, and Integrity under Pressure.
Sweden – Radical Transparency and Public Accountability
What worked
World‑leading Freedom of Information (Offentlighetsprincipen) culture
Default assumption that public documents and decisions are open to scrutiny
Strong protection of administrative impartiality
Key integrity mechanisms
Open access to public records and correspondence
Independent oversight bodies (e.g. Parliamentary Ombudsman)
Clear separation between political direction and administrative execution
Why it matters Transparency acts as a preventive integrity mechanism, reducing opportunities for misconduct and increasing public trust.
Relevance to this framework Directly strengthens Transparency and Openness and Public Accountability.
Norway – Integrity through Oversight and Ethical Risk Management
What worked
Strong parliamentary oversight and audit culture
Integrity treated as a governance and risk issue, not only an ethical one
Clear accountability for misuse of public resources
Key integrity mechanisms
Office of the Auditor General with strong independence
Clear ethics guidelines for public officials and elected representatives
Increasing use of integrity and corruption risk assessments in public bodies
Why it matters Norway shows how integrity can be embedded into governance and financial oversight systems, strengthening legitimacy even in high‑resource sectors.
Relevance to this framework Supports Accountability, Public Stewardship, and Integrity under Pressure.
Denmark – Integrity through Administrative Simplicity and Trust
What worked
Low administrative complexity reduces opportunities for misconduct
Strong social norms around fairness, equality, and responsibility
High trust between citizens and public institutions
Key integrity mechanisms
Clear, simple procedures and decision rights
Strong municipal‑level accountability
Emphasis on ethical judgement rather than excessive rule‑making
Why it matters Denmark demonstrates that simplicity and clarity are integrity enablers, especially at local‑government level.
Relevance to this framework Supports Public Stewardship, Transparency, and Human‑centred governance.
Iceland – Integrity through Openness and Reform after Crisis
What worked
Post‑financial‑crisis reforms strengthened transparency and accountability
Increased public scrutiny and demand for ethical leadership
Strong role of media, audit, and public debate in integrity enforcement
Key integrity mechanisms
Strengthened financial and public‑sector oversight
Public investigations and accountability processes
Growing emphasis on ethics, governance, and leadership responsibility
Why it matters Iceland illustrates how integrity can be rebuilt through openness, accountability, and public engagement after systemic failure.
Relevance to this framework Supports Integrity under Pressure, Transparency, and Public Accountability.
Shared Nordic Integrity Lessons
Across Nordic systems, successful integrity programmes share five traits:
Integrity is cultural and systemic, not only procedural
Transparency is proactive, not reactive
Leadership ethics are expected, visible, and enforced
Oversight institutions are independent and trusted
Public trust is treated as a core asset
How to Reference This in the Strategy
Suggested wording:
“This framework draws on Nordic public‑sector integrity practice, including transparency‑based governance in Sweden, trust‑ and legality‑based systems in Finland and Denmark, strong oversight models in Norway, and post‑crisis integrity reform in Iceland.”
Iceland‑specific integrity framework for public administration, grounded in Icelandic governance culture, institutions, and post‑crisis reform experience. It is written so it can be used by ministries, agencies, municipalities, and oversight bodies in Iceland.
Integrity in Icelandic Public Administration – Applied Framework
Purpose
To strengthen integrity in Icelandic public administration by embedding legality, transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership across governance, decision‑making, and public service delivery—thereby sustaining public trust and democratic legitimacy.
In the Icelandic context, integrity means acting lawfully, openly, and responsibly, with clear accountability to Alþingi and the public, particularly under political, fiscal, or media pressure.
Icelandic Context (Why Integrity Matters)
Iceland’s public administration operates in:
A high‑trust Nordic governance culture
A small administrative system where proximity increases both accountability and risk
A post‑financial‑crisis environment where public expectations of transparency and responsibility are high
Integrity is therefore not abstract: decisions are visible, personal accountability is real, and trust can be lost quickly if standards slip.
Core Integrity Commitments (Adapted for Iceland)
1. Public Stewardship and Democratic Responsibility
Serving the public interest and safeguarding democratic institutions.
In practice in Iceland:
Decisions explicitly reference public value, fairness, and long‑term societal impact
Clear respect for the roles of Alþingi, ministers, and independent institutions
Stewardship of public funds and authority treated as a core leadership duty
Iceland‑specific integrity test:
Would this decision withstand scrutiny by Alþingi, the National Audit Office, and the public?
2. Legality, Due Process, and Accountability
Integrity begins with strict adherence to law and clear responsibility.
In practice in Iceland:
Strong reliance on administrative law and due process
Clear documentation of decisions and legal reasoning
Willingness to acknowledge errors and correct course
Institutions reinforcing this:
Parliamentary Ombudsman
National Audit Office (Ríkisendurskoðun)
Administrative courts and review mechanisms
Integrity test:
Is this decision lawful, procedurally fair, and clearly accountable?
3. Transparency and Openness
Openness is a preventive integrity mechanism.
In practice in Iceland:
Broad public access to information and records
Expectation that decisions can be explained clearly and plainly
Strong role of media and civil society in scrutiny
Good practice examples:
Proactive publication of decisions and rationale
Clear communication of trade‑offs and constraints
Minimal reliance on confidentiality unless legally required
Integrity test:
Could we explain this decision openly to citizens without defensiveness?
4. Integrity Under Pressure
Integrity is most tested in small systems and crisis moments.
In practice in Iceland:
Resisting informal influence that can arise from proximity
Maintaining impartiality despite political or social pressure
Escalating concerns early rather than managing them quietly
Learning from Iceland’s experience: Post‑crisis reforms showed that delay, opacity, or avoidance of responsibility damages trust more than admitting mistakes early.
Integrity test:
Are we acting independently and responsibly, even if this is uncomfortable?
Expected Behaviours in Icelandic Public Administration
Senior officials and governing bodies are expected to:
Declare and manage conflicts of interest rigorously
Document decisions clearly and contemporaneously
Challenge proposals that risk illegality, unfairness, or reputational harm
Protect staff who raise concerns in good faith
Uphold political neutrality and professional independence
System Enablers (Iceland‑Specific)
To sustain integrity, public bodies should ensure:
Clear codes of conduct aligned with Icelandic administrative law
Regular integrity and ethics training for leaders and officials
Protected whistleblowing mechanisms, trusted in practice
Strong cooperation with oversight institutions
Leadership modelling of openness, humility, and accountability
Indicators of Integrity in Icelandic Public Administration
Public trust and confidence levels
Findings from Ríkisendurskoðun and the Ombudsman
Willingness of staff to raise concerns
Timeliness and transparency of responses to failures
Consistency between stated public values and decisions taken
Icelandic Integrity Checklist (Quick Use)
Before finalising a significant decision, confirm:
Is this fully lawful and procedurally sound under Icelandic law?
Does it clearly serve the public interest and democratic accountability?
Are conflicts of interest declared and managed?
Would we defend this decision openly before Alþingi and the public?
If any answer is no, the decision should be reviewed or paused.
Key Icelandic Integrity Insight
In a small, high‑trust society, integrity failures are rarely hidden and quickly erode confidence. Conversely, openness, early accountability, and ethical leadership restore trust faster than technical compliance alone.
7 H H 