Operational Risk:

High

Score:

48/100

Next Risk Category Right Arrow
Left Arrow Back to Netherlands Overview

Disregard of Corruption in-Country

Collapse
Q51 25/100

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

View Question
Military doctrine Score: 25 / 100
The Netherlands does not have a specific doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue for operations [1,2,3,4]. Indeed, despite extensively detailing the ways in…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as the country has no military doctrine that considers corruption a specific strategic issue for operations.
Explore
Q52 75/100

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: 75 / 100
Commanders at all levels receive integrity training upon appointment [1]. Preventative integrity training programmes are part of the education/promotion courses given to military personnel…
Explore
Q53 63/100

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: 50 / 100
There is evidence that the armed forces are aware of corruption as a strategic issue. This is exhibited by the inclusion of anti-corruption courses…
Explore
Application Score: 75 / 100
The presence of clear codes of conduct for all personnel, which apply in all operational settings, suggests that corruption is taken into account during…
Explore

Corruption within Mission

Expand
Q54 25/100

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

View Question
Corruption monitoring Score: 25 / 100
The deployment of trained personnel for the purpose of corruption monitoring depends on the specific mission. For example, during the Dutch involvement in Afghanistan,…
Explore
M&E policy Score: 50 / 100
Rules and policy, including the Rules of Engagement, are different for each mission and different guidelines apply to missions compared to general military service…
Explore
Transparency Score: 0 / 100
Reports that have been written on corruption monitoring (for example, those written by advisors in Afghanistan) have been classified [1].
Explore

Contracting

Expand
Q55 50/100

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

View Question
Comprehensiveness Score: 50 / 100
Different guidelines apply to missions compared to general military service at home, but they do not address corruption in contracting specifically [1]. Very general…
Explore
Training Score: 50 / 100
Aside from commanders and those who may engage local actors for procurement, deployed personnel are not trained specifically on corruption risks in contracting [1,2].…
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 assigned a score in the GDI. The use of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) is legal in the Netherlands, but there…
Explore
Scrutiny Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. The KMAR manages PMCs and the authority over the KMAR lies with various ministries,…
Explore
Enforcement Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. Policy on PMCs is opaque and therefore adherence is unclear. According to the COID,…
Explore