Private Anti-Corruption Reporting

Institutional investors increasingly employ private dialogues to engage companies on anti-corruption, creating a form of accountability whose structure, effectiveness, and social and environmental implications remain underexplored. This paper advances the accounting literature by critically investigating the accountability arrangements embedded in private anti-corruption reporting (ACR). Drawing on an interpretative content analysis of private engagement reports and applying [Rached, 2016. The concept(s) of accountability: form in search of substance. Leiden Journal of International Law 29, no. 2: 317–42.] framework of accountability coordinates, the findings reveal a fundamentally constrained accountability mechanism. Operating in the shadow of formal legal processes, private ACR is reactive, unidirectional, and devoid of substantive sanctions, reinforcing corporate control over the narrative rather than establishing mutual constraint. Nevertheless, private ACR reflects significant social impacts of corruption, such as public distrust, social inequality, community exploitation and the erosion of employee conduct and environmental consequences, including habitat destruction and pollution. Ultimately, private ACR functions as a mechanism for transparency and answerability, requiring companies to explain their actions beyond legal compliance. It creates a crucial space for dialogue but lacks the procedural depth and coercive power for substantive change or sufficient checks on corporate misconduct. This highlights the indispensable role of robust state-led enforcement and the broader accountability ecosystem in preventing corruption’s social and environmental costs.