Transparency International’s (TI) 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) will be published on February 10^th, 2026. Tracking countries’ CPI trends provides early-warning signals of systemic governance strengths or weaknesses, helping governments, donors, and civil society anticipate and mitigate risks, including in public infrastructure projects.

The CPI is Tl’s global index that ranks countries based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be, using assessments from experts, businesspeople, and independent institutions. It does not measure corruption directly, but it remains a widely used proxy for the strength of a country’s integrity system.

Persistent low or declining CPI scores often indicate weaker governance systems, reduced checks and balances, and greater political influence over spending decisions.

In infrastructure, this matters most during project selection. When CPI scores point to systemic integrity challenges, early-stage decisions — project prioritisation, feasibility assessments, business case development and appraisal — become more vulnerable to political interference, undisclosed vested interests, and opaque justification.

Even in high-CPI environments, projects like those planned in Australia for the Brisbane 2032 Olympics show that fast-tracking, political influence, and insufficient transparency can create substantial integrity risks — demonstrating why such contexts still require strong safeguards.

A look at the Pacific region through Tl Australia’s “Building Integrity” report, covering eight Pacific countries reveals recurring challenges at the front end of infrastructure decision-making:

 

1. Gaps between policy and practice — including inconsistent implementation and weak technical assessments, such as environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs);
2. Limited transparency and locally led decision-making – including heavy reliance on donor-driven processes and inconsistent use of tools such as cost-benefit analyses or public-private partnership assessments;
3. Misaligned prioritisation frameworks – not sufficiently matched with countries’ financial and institutional capacity, leading to poorly sequenced or unrealistic project pipelines.

These early weaknesses become more pronounced in countries with low or declining CPI scores, where political influence over spending is stronger and independent oversight weaker.

Below are steps governments, donors, and civil society can take to translate CPI trends into stronger integrity during project selection:

1. Use CPI trends to trigger transparency commitments at the planning stage
   Where CPI deterioration suggests systemic governance concerns, governments should publish problem definitions, options analyses, and business cases for all major projects.
2. Require independent review before project approval
   Independent technical, financial, and integrity reviews should be completed and disclosed before Cabinet or ministerial approval — a safeguard vital in both low- and high-CPI environments.
3. Mandate clear, evidence-based project justification
   All major projects should publicly justify need, expected benefits, and alignment with strategic plans. Political announcements should follow, not precede, analysis.
4. Strengthen civic participation upstream
   Invite civil society, affected communities, and sector experts into early consultation processes. Where CPI indicates weak accountability institutions, inclusive planning becomes even more critical.
5. Integrate corruption-risk screening into early appraisal
   Utilising tools such as ICRAT, governments and donors should conduct corruption risk assessments tailored to the project-selection stage, identifying red flags such as unexplained scope changes, unrealistic costs, or bypassed appraisal processes.

And for infrastructure companies, major global procurement and governance institutions — including the World Bank and the OECD — already require disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners, full transparency of corporate structure, and open, competitive tendering even for unsolicited infrastructure proposals. By aligning with these norms at the project-selection phase (via early disclosure of ownership, transparent pre-feasibility proposals, and fair competition), infrastructure companies can help lock in integrity from the start.

The CPI’s 2025 findings will offer more than a national scoring: they provide crucial context for understanding integrity risks in how governments choose and prioritise infrastructure projects. By focusing on the project selection phase, governments can turn CPI insights into actionable safeguards: transparent business cases, independent scrutiny, clear public justification, and meaningful civic participation.

Recognising that large public-investment programmes — even in high-CPI countries — can carry serious governance risks underscores why these measures must be consistently applied in all countries. They help ensure infrastructure pipelines are shaped by public interest, not political influence, delivering better long-term value for communities.