Operational Risk:

Critical

Score:

10/100

Next Risk Category Right Arrow
Left Arrow Back to Finland Overview

Disregard of Corruption in-Country

Collapse
Q51 0/100

Do the armed forces have military doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue on operations?

View Question
Military doctrine Score: 0 / 100
Corruption is not considered a strategic issue for operations in the Defence Forces, as research did not identify this in any relevant documents, However,…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
There is no evidence that corruption is considered a strategic issue for operations; as such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’.
Explore
Q52 25/100

Is there training in corruption issues for commanders at all levels in order to ensure that these commanders are clear on the corruption issues they may face during deployment?

View Question
Score: 25 / 100
Some training takes place but not specifically focused on corruption issues. On behalf of the chief of general staff and prepared by the legal…
Explore
Q53 0/100

Is corruption as a strategic issue considered in the forward planning of operations? If so, is there evidence that commanders at all levels apply this knowledge in the field?

View Question
Forward planning Score: 0 / 100
Corruption is not considered a strategic issue for operations in the Defence Forces. However, when attending an international peace and/or conflict operation, the mandate…
Explore
Application Score: 0 / 100
Given the fact that corruption is not considered as a strategic issue in the forward planning of operations, it is unlikely that corruption-sensitive guidelines…
Explore

Corruption within Mission

Expand
Q54 0/100

Are trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field (whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions)?

View Question
Corruption monitoring Score: 0 / 100
There is no evidence that the country deploys trained personnel for corruption monitoring during operations. The Headquarters of the Defence Forces also did not…
Explore
M&E policy Score: 0 / 100
There is no evidence of any M&E guidance for military missions on how to monitor corruption risk. The Headquarters of the Defence Forces also…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as Finland does not deploy expert personnel for corruption monitoring.
Explore

Contracting

Expand
Q55 25/100

Are there guidelines, and staff training, on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions?

View Question
Comprehensiveness Score: 25 / 100
According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, corruption risks in contracting are touched upon in military crisis management…
Explore
Training Score: 25 / 100
According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, corruption risks in contracting are touched upon in military crisis management…
Explore

Private Security Companies

Expand
Q56 NS/100

Are private military contractors employed and if so, are they subject to a similar level of scrutiny as for the armed forces?

View Question
Policies Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigined a score in the GDI. Finland is a signatory to Montreaux Document [1]. Further, according to a written response…
Explore
Scrutiny Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigined a score in the GDI. According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the…
Explore
Enforcement Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigined a score in the GDI. According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the…
Explore