Measure, understand, act: How international organisations can strengthen integrity in higher education

A recent U4 analysis shows that these risks occur across countries and contexts, although the way that they manifest and underlying drivers vary. The challenge, therefore, is not simply to establish rules and standards, but to ensure that they work in practice. This implementation gap is not unique to higher education. 

The OECD’s Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026 finds that, across OECD countries, the average strength of integrity regulations* is 63%, while the strength of implementation is at 44%, i.e. a gap of 19 percentage points. Although these figures concern public-integrity systems rather than higher education, they illustrate a broader challenge relevant to universities: formal commitments do not necessarily translate into effective institutional practice. 

This raises an important question: how can international organisations help universities turn existing integrity commitments into effective institutional practice? Three interconnected functions are particularly important: measure, understand and act. 

Measure: Building the evidence base

A first challenge is an evidence gap. U4 analysis illustrates how corruption risks in higher education can remain undetected where institutional oversight and reporting mechanisms are weak. Reported cases therefore provide only a partial picture. This makes it difficult for institutions and policymakers to identify vulnerabilities to corruption, assess the scale of integrity problems and determine whether reforms are producing results. 

International organisations can help address this gap through indicators and diagnostic tools. The OECD’s Public Integrity Indicators demonstrate how comparable data can assess both the strength of integrity safeguards and their implementation. IIEP-UNESCO has actively supported the implementation of key methodological approaches for identifying corruption risks in education, including Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS), which trace the flow of public resources and help identify financial leakages. Its ETICO platform also supports the sharing of research, tools and country experiences on transparency, accountability and integrity. 

A concrete higher-education example is IIEP’s corruption-risk assessment of Georgia’s higher education sector. Conducted at the request of the Prime Minister’s Office, it combined documentary analysis with interviews with stakeholders from central government to individual universities, examining financing, academic staff management, and admissions and examinations. Measurement is therefore not simply about counting reported cases; it is about identifying vulnerabilities to corruption and generating evidence to inform action and assess progress.

Understand: Learning across contexts

Measurement can help identify where integrity risks arise, but understanding why integrity measures work in practice requires attention to the institutional conditions in which they operate. According to the OECD Public Integrity Handbook 2020, effective integrity strategies require a context-dependent, risk-based approach that goes beyond simply creating more rules. This includes attention to organisational culture, incentives, leadership, governance and accountability.

International organisations can support this process through peer learning, policy dialogue and the exchange of lessons across contexts. The purpose is not to transfer one country’s model to another, but to examine why an approach worked, under what conditions, and what would need to change for it to be relevant elsewhere. 

The 2018 study visit organised by IIEP and the Council of Europe provides a useful example. Officials from Montenegro’s Ministry of Education and the University of Montenegro visited Geneva to examine Swiss approaches to integrity in higher education, including governance, ethics, plagiarism procedures and training. Participants subsequently considered the relevance of the Geneva experience to Montenegro, identifying issues including the need for greater academic-integrity training and the limitations of plagiarism-detection software alone. 

The value of such exchanges therefore lies in context-specific learning: comparative experience can help explain why integrity measures work in some settings but not others, and which elements can be adapted to different institutional contexts.

Act: Turning evidence into institutional practice

Once vulnerabilities have been identified and their institutional context understood, international organisations can support action through practical guidance, capacity-building and technical assistance. The aim is to help universities translate evidence and contextual understanding into context-appropriate reforms.

IIEP’s work in Georgia illustrates this approach. Its assessment generated recommendations on staff recruitment, examination procedures, external audits, university accounts and public access to information. Rather than simply proposing new rules, the assessment identified practical ways to strengthen existing institutional systems. 

UNODC’s Education for Justice (E4J) initiative provides another example. Its Anti-Corruption University Modules offer teaching materials, exercises and assessment tools that academics can adapt across disciplines and contexts. Such resources help translate international anti-corruption knowledge into practical tools for higher education.

Beyond more rules

International organisations cannot create integrity cultures for universities. Rather than adding another layer of standards, their value lies in helping institutions turn existing commitments into practice: generating evidence on where vulnerabilities to corruption lie, supporting learning about what works in different contexts, and providing practical assistance to strengthen institutional responses.

Ultimately, responsibility for institutional integrity rests with universities themselves. But with better evidence, context-sensitive learning and targeted support, international organisations can help universities identify risks, strengthen their systems and learn from results. 

Read on the same topic: International organisations must act now on corruption

*The strength of integrity regulations is assessed based on the proportion of OECD Public Integrity Indicator criteria fulfilled by countries relating to laws, regulations, procedures and institutions.