- Home
- About Us
- Our Work
- Why It Matters
- Defence Corruption Risks Typology
- Diagnosing Corruption Risks
- Metrics & Surveys
- Self-Assessment Process
- research
- TI Defence Company Index
- Preliminary Results
- Northrop Grumman
- Babcock International
- Boeing
- DCNS
- EMBRAER
- Finmeccanica
- Fujitsu
- Lockheed Martin
- Rolls Royce
- Safran
- Thales
- BAE Systems
- Dyncorp
- General Electric
- Harris Corporation
- Hewlett Packard
- Raytheon
- Honeywell
- ITT Corporation
- KBR Inc
- Kongsberg
- L3 Communications
- Nec Corporation
- Rockwell Collins
- SAIC Company
- ST Engineering
- Meggit
- Thyssen Krupp
- Arsenal AD
- Cobham
- Curtiss Wright
- Day & Zimmermann
- General Dynamics
- Patria
- QinetiQ
- Rafael Advanced Defense Systems
- Cobham
- RUAG
- Russian Helicopters
- Saab
- Textron
- Ultra Electronics
- Serco
- EADS
- Dassault Aviation
- Fluor
- Diehl Stiftung
- CAE Inc
- MDBA Missile Systems
- Thyssen Krupp 2
- Finmeccanica 2
- Goodrich Corporation
- United Technologies
- Aselsan
- Agility
- Preliminary Results
- Government Index
- With Governments & Armed Forces
- With the Defence Industry
- Education & Training
- Tackling Defence Corruption Around the World
- Focus Areas
- Tools & Resources
- Publications
- FAQ
- Media Room
- News Archive
- Upcoming Events
- Blog
- Press Releases
- What we are Reading/Listening to
- Defence Corruption News Digest
- Our Programme in the Media
- Events Archive
- 'The Transparency of Defence Budgets' got high media attention in launch in Malaysia
- Recruitment
TI Defence Company Index
Transparency International's (TI) Defence Company Index aims to provide an external index of the extent and depth of the anti-corruption capabilities and programmes within major defence companies across the globe.
Transparency International's Defence and Security Programme (TI-DSP) believes that such an index will facilitate general improvement across the whole industry in anti-corruption processes and practices. Companies with comprehensive anti-corruption systems can use it to benchmark where they are seen to be better or worse than their peers, and where they can fine-tune their processes. Companies with less expertise will have a clear indication of what they could be concentrating on to improve their capability in anti-corruption.
The key principle underlying the Index and the accompanying banding is that of capability – does the company have the structures, policies and processes in place that enable it to address corruption risks as an integral part of company operations?
The project commenced in November 2011. We anticipate publishing the results in Fall 2012. We hope then to repeat the study eighteen months later, so as to review any problems that emerged in the first evolution of the Index, and to set up a design that is robust enough to evolve and develop as a useful tool thereafter.
Preliminary key project dates
Part A Questionnaire
| November 2011: | TI-DSP commences Part A review for major defence companies |
| January – March 2012: | Results sent to companies for comment |
| January – March 2012: | Company then has three weeks to respond to Part A results |
| April – May 2012: | TI-DSP assesses company comments |
| May – June 2012: | Independent peer review of the TI -DSP assessment |
| Summer 2012: | TI-DSP reviews Part A & B results and writes report |
| Fall 2012: | Report published |
Part B Questionnaire
| November 2011: | Company invited to complete Part B |
| By December 31, 2011: | Company commits to completing Part B |
| January – March 2012: | Company completes Part B and iterates with TI-DSP |
| April – June 2012: | TI-DSP assesses Part B results for companies |
| June – July 2012: | Independent peer review of the TI-DSP assessment |
| Summer 2012: | TI-DSP reviews Part A & B results and writes report |
| Fall 2012: | Report published |
TI Defence Company Index Typology
For this Index we have developed the questions under five main sub-headings, as it can be seen in the figure below.

Under each of these are a roughly equal number of questions, which reflects our belief that these five are equally important in the design of a good corporate system for promoting integrity and reducing corruption risk.
For more detailed information on the methodology, questions, and a list of the defence companies in the survey, download the document on the right sidebar, or below.
Please contact our project officer Tiffany Clarke for any doubts or questions.
Download the TI Defence Company Index Methodology document.
Download the TI Defence Company Index Questions.
Download the TI Defence Company Index Company List.
Read more on Our Work and Our Focus Areas.





