Corruption Risk Scoring System

Each political decision is evaluated across six core dimensions. Points are assigned based on the severity and documentation of each risk factor. The aggregate score determines the overall corruption risk level.

Risk Level Classification

0–15 points: Low Risk – Normal political decision-making with adequate oversight
16–30 points: Moderate Risk – Some concerns identified, further monitoring recommended
31–50 points: Elevated Risk – Significant integrity concerns, investigation recommended
51–75 points: High Risk – Strong indicators of corruption or gross negligence
76–100 points: Critical Risk – Systemic corruption patterns requiring immediate action

Factor 1: Financial Conflicts of Interest (0–20 points)

Indicator	Points	Description
Decision-maker holds stocks in affected company	15–20	Direct financial interest in companies subject to the political decision
Holds stocks in related/competitor companies	8–14	Indirect financial benefit through related industry holdings
Previous financial ties (divested within 2 years)	5–10	Recent divestment suggesting awareness of conflict
No documented conflicts	0	Clean financial disclosure on record

Factor 2: Relatives’ Financial Interests (0–15 points)

Indicator	Points	Description
Spouse/partner holds direct shares	12–15	Immediate family member with direct financial stake
Children or parents hold shares	8–11	Close family with financial interest
Extended family holds board positions	5–7	Family governance roles in affected companies
No relative holdings identified	0	No family financial conflicts documented

Factor 3: Political Relationships & Networks (0–20 points)

Indicator	Points	Description
Direct personal/professional relationship with company leadership	15–20	Close ties to founders, CEOs, or board members
Shared party affiliation with key company figures	8–14	Same political party or donor network
Common advisory board membership	4–7	Overlapping professional circles
No documented political relationship	0	No identifiable connections

Factor 4: Political Agenda vs. Public Interest (0–20 points)

Indicator	Points	Description
Decision contradicts expert/agency recommendations	15–20	Overriding professional advice for political reasons
Decision primarily serves party/ideological goals	10–14	Ideological motivation over evidence-based policy
Emotional/narrative-driven rather than data-driven	5–9	Public statements suggest feelings over facts
Aligned with expert consensus and public welfare	0	Evidence-based decision-making

Factor 5: Public Fund Management (0–15 points)

Indicator	Points	Description
Funds channeled through structures to bypass legal restrictions	13–15	Deliberate circumvention of investment rules
Inadequate due diligence on large public investments	8–12	Failure to properly assess risk before committing funds
Disproportionate allocation relative to project viability	4–7	Over-investment given known risk factors
Proper oversight and due diligence documented	0	Standard investment governance observed

Factor 6: Accountability & Transparency (0–10 points)

Indicator	Points	Description
Active avoidance of responsibility or obstruction	8–10	Refusal to testify, document destruction, or deflection
Reluctance to accept accountability for outcomes	4–7	Minimizing personal responsibility for failures
Full transparency and willingness to be scrutinized	0	Open cooperation with oversight bodies

Applied Scores Summary